Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Story



Did anyone else even know this was going on?

I'm honestly surprised they ruled in favor of citizens having guns but a 5-4 vote is pretty close.

Good ruling, I'd say.

Good.

Whoever holds a past criminal record gets no gun permits. I'll go with that...

Yeah, DC was pretty much asking for trouble when it enacted such strict gun laws.

I don't know why it's so important for people to carry guns around in DC though. Or anywhere for that matter.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't know why it's so important for people to carry guns around in DC though. Or anywhere for that matter.

It's for bustin' caps, yo!

Originally posted by Strangelove

I don't know why it's so important for people to carry guns around in DC though.

You've never been to DC, have you?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You've never been to DC, have you? 3 times, actually.

Places with loose gun control laws make me feel less safe, not more safe.

The only people who should have guns are cops and soldiers.

Originally posted by chithappens
Story



Did anyone else even know this was going on?

I'm honestly surprised they ruled in favor of citizens having guns but a 5-4 vote is pretty close.

What good are guns, as a defense against a Coup, a dictatorship, when the military's got nukes, multimillion dollar airplanes, etc?

Originally posted by Strangelove
3 times, actually.

Places with loose gun control laws make me feel less safe, not more safe.


Me too, that's why I prefer bullet proof cars, with solid-anti ballistic metallic coated plates instead of windows, and the ability to fire... as well as emp device firing ability(fries computers as well as cellphones and other communication devices, IIRC).

Though I don't have such cars... yet.

The thing is the carrying of guns is BS, it might in theory make a criminal think twice about robbing some place(not some person, as a gun to the back means he has the advantage, any sudden moves he shoots), it does nothing for the angry suicidal man that wants to take out as many as he can before shooting himself in the head.

A great scientist and writer once said that not having a gun was the only thing that kept him from killing himself.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X


The thing is the carrying of guns is BS, it might in theory make a criminal think twice about robbing some place(not some person, as a gun to the back means he has the advantage, any sudden moves he shoots), it does nothing for the angry suicidal man that wants to take out as many as he can before shooting himself in the head.

A great scientist and writer once said that not having a gun was the only thing that kept him from killing himself.

Trust me, just like narcotics, if someone wants to get to something bad enough, they will find it.

And what's the scientist saying that got to do with anything? He could have gotten his penis bit off by a dog after seeing his wife in an orgy with his preacher. You don't need a gun to commit suicide. Water can kill you: fill up the bath tub and go for it! He's just a pussy. He didn't want to die; just wanted some sap like you to think it was some deep shit to say.

Originally posted by chithappens
Trust me, just like narcotics, if someone wants to get to something bad enough, they will find it.

And what's the scientist saying that got to do with anything? He could have gotten his penis bit off by a dog after seeing his wife in an orgy with his preacher. You don't need a gun to commit suicide. Water can kill you: fill up the bath tub and go for it! He's just a pussy. He didn't want to die; just wanted some sap like you to think it was some deep shit to say.

The rich will always be able to hire guns to kill and kill you if you mess with them... the gun is but an illusion of safety. Most paid assassins die within a few months in their line of work, and there is no way to link them to you with a cash transaction... the dead don't speak.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Most paid assassins die within a few months in their line of work, and there is no way to link them to you with a cash transaction... the dead don't speak.

there is no way you could know that to be true

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
The rich will always be able to hire guns to kill and kill you if you mess with them... the gun is but an illusion of safety. Most paid assassins die within a few months in their line of work, and there is no way to link them to you with a cash transaction... the dead don't speak.

We are talking about the average person, not some guy with secrets to destroy the world.

Drugs got into the African American community in the mid 20th century and suddenly were getting sold in mass even in cities nowhere near a coast... yeah, I mean there's no way if it were illegal it could EVER reach us normal people.

Originally posted by chithappens
And what's the scientist saying that got to do with anything? He could have gotten his penis bit off by a dog after seeing his wife in an orgy with his preacher. You don't need a gun to commit suicide. Water can kill you: fill up the bath tub and go for it! He's just a pussy. He didn't want to die; just wanted some sap like you to think it was some deep shit to say.



I love you.



Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Most paid assassins die within a few months in their line of work, and there is no way to link them to you with a cash transaction... the dead don't speak.

That is absolutely and utterly false. Suicide bombers certainly don't last long. Assasins highered to work for organized crime? Dude, they last a very long time.

Damn that George Bush for appointing a conservative Justice to the court and helping uphold the Constitution...DAMN HIM TO HELL!

Originally posted by dadudemon


I love you.



It's mutual

Originally posted by chithappens
Drugs got into the African American community in the mid 20th century and suddenly were getting sold in mass even in cities nowhere near a coast... yeah, I mean there's no way if it were illegal it could EVER reach us normal people.

you know, because it is harder for me to buy pot than it is to buy liquor

Originally posted by inimalist
there is no way you could know that to be true

That's what journalists|reporters have said in the news around here.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I love you.





That is absolutely and utterly false. Suicide bombers certainly don't last long. Assasins highered to work for organized crime? Dude, they last a very long time.

Not according to interviewed police officers, only the higher ups in the mob have security and prosperity, at least for a slightly longer period of time than the small fries.


The highered guns go after drug lords and their spots and are always in risk of betrayal or death due to vengeance|retribution. They do take cash for other unrelated jobs though, you just need the cash and a target.

Originally posted by inimalist
you know, because it is harder for me to buy pot than it is to buy liquor

If you have lived in the broken neighborhoods, everyone knows where the dope house is. It's the same as going to a liquor store.

You should see the suburban kids come to "the hood." They'll buy a dime bag for $50 +. It's funny

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
That's what journalists|reporters have said in the news around here.



Not according to interviewed police officers, only the higher ups in the mob have security and prosperity, at least for a slightly longer period of time than the small fries.


The highered guns go after drug lords and their spots and are always in risk of betrayal or death due to vengeance|retribution. They do take cash for other unrelated jobs though, you just need the cash and a target.

It's easier to hire a mole than do it that way.

Originally posted by Strangelove
3 times, actually.

Places with loose gun control laws make me feel less safe, not more safe.

Then you know that DC is a pretty hard place. I wouldn't feel safe in certain areas if I wasn't strapped.

Anti-gun people seem to think that making them illegal will also make them magically disappear. But the only thing it will accomplish will be making them illegal. Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was.

Which is why I'm wondering why people use the "I feel less safe" argument. Assassins are not the only ones who can get guns. It will be smuggled regardless and just make them more of a hot commodity.

If you are worried about the sucidial gunman then we need to discuss society and what makes an individual get to that point. Anyone with decent self-esteem, decent home, and concerned community is very unlikely to reach that point. It's not music or videogames that start those thoughts nor can you blame porn for rapists. It is way deeper than that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then you know that DC is a pretty hard place. I wouldn't feel safe in certain areas if I wasn't strapped.

Anti-gun people seem to think that making them illegal will also make them magically disappear. But the only thing it will accomplish will be making them illegal. Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was. I fail to see how more people having guns makes anyone safer. Especially in states like Florida, where they practically encourage vigilanteism. Being a pacifist, I don't anticipate using a gun in the near future. I'd be scared to death walking down a street in Florida.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'd be scared to death walking down a street in Florida.

So get a gun yourself.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Being a pacifist, I don't anticipate using a gun in the near future. Missed that, did you?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So get a gun yourself. Its sad that sometmes that is a necessity. I have a winchester defender for home protection, because of the part of Houston I live in.

I don't have a gun. I don't see a need for one yet. I'm still on the fence with the whole gun possession.


"My grandfather had calluses on his hands a quarter of an inch thick from holding the guns in Vietnam."

-My little sister

The US is such a quirky country.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So get a gun yourself.

Get body guards and bullet proof vehicle. It's best when you can shoot and be untouched. I don't like the mutually assured destruction possibility. It is best that I can kill with impunity, especially if one day I get presidential aid and thus have the luxury of presidential pardons.

The ability to kill for whatever reason with no possibility of retribution legal or otherwise, now that tastes good.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The US is such a quirky country. and I LIVE here.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
I don't like the mutually assured destruction possibility.

Fred Thompson said that the VA. Tech massacre wouldn't have happened if every student had been allowed to have a gun. How does that logic not apply to the notion that every country has it's own nuclear weapons? Which he and his party were against. It really comes down to bargaining chips. Don't f*** with me and I won't f*** with you. This logic has little substantive basis when confronted by the idea that one of the two is willing to "pull the trigger". But it certainly has a place in the idea that substantive dialouge can be acheived. And I certainly believe it can be acheived.

As I have long said, the cold war was marketed as a war of words with no groud conflict; but it absolutely had a ground conflict, and it took place in the middle east. For almost 70 years it has been the battle ground for the world powers, and it seems to me they are tired of it and a little bit pissed off over that fact. As unAmerican as it might sound, I think they're justified in being tired that they're pawns of the rest of the world. And why shouldn't they be the pawns when the world powers think they're more evolved and that those nations are the 3rd world? Look at Egypt, as an example. They're fast developing a modern nation with all the trappings of a 1st world infrastructure and media, but they are no less an islamic nation. And the reality of "western" morals and ideas are pervasive there. Their on-camera women are not covered by barbaric garb and their male hosts are open to speak about sexuality. I think the modern American christian right needs to come to grips with the fact that they have way more in common with the supposed "enemy", the islamo-fascists, than they do with the majority of their own country.

The idea that we are righteous and moral because many in this country believe in their religion to the utmost and others who feel the same some how divides us is ricockuous! It's the average person, who sees past the JesusIsAlive level of hypocrisy, that defines us. It's not the fantatics in both camps. But they're certainly marketed as such, and it's the people who fall for it that are plastered all over the media. Well, as supposedly-christian as this nation is advertised, not many people fall in -line with the christian agenda. This is why the democrats could have chosen a plumber from Iowa to be their candidate and will win. Because this country is tired of being told what it believes. As it is, we have a well-read, capable and modern candidate that fulfills all the ideas of what a modern leader should be. and if anyone is wondering, its not John McCain.

It's pride weekend; so slap on your leather pants and inject saline into your nutsack, it's time for a change.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Get body guards and bullet proof vehicle.

You have to pay body guards, and they're expensive. Bullet proof cars are ridiculously expensive, and require the same upkeep and have all the same problems as other cars. Not to mention, the insurance on those things is unreal.

You can get a good handgun at any gun-store for about 700 bucks, and even cheaper if you have connections. They're also concealable, where as a team of bodyguards and armored car are like wearing neon signs.

Originally posted by Devil King
Fred Thompson said that the VA. Tech massacre wouldn't have happened if every student had been allowed to have a gun. How does that logic not apply to the notion that every country has it's own nuclear weapons?

I'll tell you: shooting some whacko with a gun who's shooting at you to save your own skin isn't going to wipe out 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. Allowing an elderly man to carry a concealed handgun for his own protection isn't the same as allowing nutcase world-leaders to have nukes. Not even close.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'll tell you: shooting some whacko with a gun who's shooting at you to save your own skin isn't going to wipe out 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. Allowing an elderly man to carry a concealed handgun for his own protection isn't the same as allowing nutcase world-leaders to have nukes. Not even close.

But the difference is in the logic. Not only would a huge majority of those kids not carry guns, but he was illustrating that he had no place on the world scene. I can totally see the elderly man with a concealed gun, pulling out his weapon as fast as a nutcase world leader. I've passed old men on the street that would gun me down for holding my boyfriend's hand as fast as I'm sure he would have you for being a job-stealing mexican, no matter what actual hispanic nationality you are.

either everyone has the bomb and are willing to use it, o no one is. There's always the very real notion of mutually assured destruction. Well, if the psycho has the bomb, as does the do-gooders, then the idea that we all need the bomb becomes the danger. But, what if no one has the bomb? And how unrealistic is that? So there's really only one option to be considered.

I actually own 9 guns. I still don't think I'm comparable to Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

Originally posted by Devil King
But the difference is in the logic. Not only would a huge majority of those kids not carry guns, but he was illustrating that he had no place on the world scene. I can totally see the elderly man with a concealed gun, pulling out his weapon as fast as a nutcase world leader. I've passed old men on the street that would gun me down for holding my boyfriend's hand as fast as I'm sure he would have you for being a job-stealing mexican, no matter what actual hispanic nationality you are.

either everyone has the bomb and are willing to use it, o no one is. There's always the very real notion of mutually assured destruction. Well, if the psycho has the bomb, as does the do-gooders, then the idea that we all need the bomb becomes the danger. But, what if no one has the bomb? And how unrealistic is that? So there's really only one option to be considered.

That sums it up pretty well. Obviously everyone should not have a gun (and the ruling certainly supports this).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns? Some people collect comics, some collect bottle caps, some collect guns.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

Also, it is fun for some to got target shooting. Some people (just about everyone) tell me that it is a nice stress reliever to go target shooting. Each type of gun brings a different feel and element to the shooting range. It is quite reasonable to go a couple of rounds with one hand gun and then switch to another and get a very different experience. (Aiming, kickback, weight of the pistol loaded/unloaded, etc.)

I like medium range target shooting. Something that's far out but not too far that it requires a scope. I could see myself, if I owned any guns, using several rifles and then just for fun, trying hand guns at that range.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I actually own 9 guns. I still don't think I'm comparable to Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

Well, I'm not comparing you to those men; I'm comparing the logic displayed in everyone owning a gun to the logic of one nation deserves to have nukes while most others don't.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

So you don't have to reload while you're repelling the invading force?

Originally posted by Robtard
So you don't have to reload while you're repelling the invading force?

Don't forget about the zombies!!!!

Now this is funny:

Half of Gun Deaths are suicides

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I actually own 9 guns. I still don't think I'm comparable to Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

Kim has nukes, he has yet to attack anyone with them. Despite what the conservo-religious rabble will tell you that Mahmoud wants nukes to bring about the Muslim Armageddon, I doubt he (or the Ayatollahs) would use them either, that whole "mutual destruction" bit, it kept the Soviets in check back in the day.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't forget about the zombies!!!!

The Zombie Survival Guide does not recommend weapons that rely on ammo or fuel, best things are simple handheld bludgeoning or hacking devices when repelling a zombie horde.

Originally posted by chithappens
Story



Did anyone else even know this was going on?

I'm honestly surprised they ruled in favor of citizens having guns but a 5-4 vote is pretty close.

When will you learn?




not "you" the OP by the way..

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The only people who should have guns are cops and soldiers.

Blind belief in authority is your trademark, isn't it?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The only people who should have guns are cops and soldiers. Yep, that way the only people who get shot are black or arabic.

... I don't get it

Only black people commit crime, and only Arabs are religious fundamentalists? I think it was an attempt at "funny."

Edit: Robtard's interpretation is more likely.

Originally posted by chithappens
... I don't get it

Meaning cops are evil mother****ers who needlessly shoot black people and soldiers are evil mother****ers who needlessly shoot Arabs. American cops and soldiers of course, is what he meant.

Edit: OR what Xmarky said, but going off his previous post, I think he meant the "bad Americans" thing.

Hey RJ,

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Not sure how that would have been possible or would be possible in the future if private citizens are not allowed firearms.

Originally posted by Devil King
But, what if no one has the bomb? And how unrealistic is that?

Extremely.

I would consider the right to not getting shot more important and inalienable... but that's just me. The US is such a quirky country.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would consider the right to not getting shot more important and inalienable... but that's just me. The US is such a quirky country.

I believe the argument is that having more guns in circulation will lead to fewer people being shot. I can only assume that some of the bullets will bump into one another and prevent people from being shot.

Originally posted by Strangelove
As of October 1, 2005, Florida became a "Stand-your-ground" state. The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

1) It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

2) In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

3) In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

4) If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense. we da best

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can only assume that some of the bullets will bump into one another and prevent people from being shot.

I have to admit that was pretty funny.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe the argument is that having more guns in circulation will lead to fewer people being shot. I can only assume that some of the bullets will bump into one another and prevent people from being shot.

America has plenty of guns, Mota has nine I believe. Yet people aren't being murdered or randomly shot on a massive scale. There are probably more deaths from car accidents or work related.I also believe someone posted a link showing that 50% of gun deaths are suicides.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would consider the right to not getting shot more important and inalienable... but that's just me. The US is such a quirky country.

How about the right to not being stabbed or hit by a car?

Guns are not illegal in NZ, right? Yet there are 7 times fewer guns deaths there than in the U.S. Seems it has more to do than just the right to own or not own a gun.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would consider the right to not getting shot more important and inalienable... but that's just me. The US is such a quirky country.

You have the right not to get shot though. It justshouldn't be followed by more oppressions and taking away of freedoms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have the right not to get shot though. It justshouldn't be followed by more oppressions and taking away of freedoms.
As long as those restrictions are in place to protect the first right, why not?

Originally posted by Robtard
How about the right to not being stabbed or hit by a car?

Guns are not illegal in NZ, right? Yet there are 7 times fewer guns deaths there than in the U.S. Seems it has more to do than just the right to own or not own a gun. I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.

I don't consider gun ownership an inalienable "right" of the same level as freedom of speech, religion or association, civil rights, human rights, due process; nor the view that it needs to be enshrined in the same way. It's something that you can acquire if you meet certain requirements, like a knife or a car or a toaster or porn.

If you're not mentally retarded or imbalanced, are of a reasonable age and don't have homicidal tendencies, and you're not going to leave them lying around for the children, and have money to burn then sure buy as many guns as you like.

But I don't get the strange view that it needs to be protected as an individual right, there isn't an individual right to machetes or cars so I don't see the comparison. And the interpretation by the Supreme Court really isn't an accurate literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment imo.

Originally posted by backdoorman
As long as those restrictions are in place to protect the first right, why not? Because you should not deny those able to defend themselves the right and chance to do so, and you certainly shouldn't monopolize protection to a big bully that already oppresses you beyond belief.


But if you are looking for the nihilist answer, here it is: "Meh".

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.


I was going to mention Switzerland. afaik, it is mandatory for all homes to have a gun with ammo, in case they need to be called to arms. I think, along these lines, military service is also mandatory for all Swiss citizens, which, as authoritarian of an idea as it may be, probably is very important in preventing gun violence.

Also, talking about the pecuiliarity of Americans and guns, I was in America a couple of months ago, and in the airport on the way home Lou Dobbs was on going ape shit crazy about a special ops guy who had just gotten in trouble for lending his automatic weapon to a guy who brought it to a range. Not that I even disagree with the right to own the guns, but just how intense it was, as if God himself were distributing the firearms to people and the satanic government was preventing military grade assault weapons from being used in public spaces.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because you should not deny those able to defend themselves the right and chance to do so, and you certainly shouldn't monopolize protection to a big bully that already oppresses you beyond belief.


But if you are looking for the nihilist answer, here it is: "Meh".
So, to what extent should the government then act to protect the right to not get shot?
The government infringes people's freedoms to protect certain ideals such as the right to not get shot, in doing so they are liable to 'monopolize' certain industries (for lack of a better word). Unless you support the dismantling of most (if not all) government institutions, I don't see how you can reasonably be against restrictions being imposed in gun sales and ownership.

We should have houses made of stone and bullet-proof glass as windows. We should have guards in proximity to at least see people before they can pull out the gun.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
We should have houses made of stone and bullet-proof glass as windows.

Plate glass can stop a few shots from a handgun and frankly anyone determined to break into your house and kill you will have a way of getting past physical defenses. Which brings up another point, putting more guns in common circulation would almost certainly start to create an insane arms race in high crime areas.

Personally I agree with Chris Rock, bullets should be enormously expensive to the point that random killings aren't economically feasible. It's terribly unrealistic, sure, but would be much more effective at preventing deaths than the "You can't have guns." or "Here, go shoot people that break in." solutions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Plate glass can stop a few shots from a handgun and frankly anyone determined to break into your house and kill you will have a way of getting past physical defenses. Which brings up another point, putting more guns in common circulation would almost certainly start to create an insane arms race in high crime areas.

Personally I agree with Chris Rock, bullets should be enormously expensive to the point that random killings aren't economically feasible. It's terribly unrealistic, sure, but would be much more effective at preventing deaths than the "You can't have guns." or "Here, go shoot people that break in." solutions. There's not really a set-back in having bullet-proof windows. The problem you address is that people don't live that way.

Everyone knows that the gun rules are for the reason you can get killed in public. Not everyone knows you can have bullet-proof glass.

The stone houses is for the storms, I guess, hurricanes, though. It's just an option for the upper crust.

Originally posted by backdoorman
So, to what extent should the government then act to protect the right to not get shot?

Hello, anarchist.

If you want a minarchist perspective, I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)...which is what should be illegal. Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.

Originally posted by backdoorman
The government infringes people's freedoms to protect certain ideals such as the right to not get shot, in doing so they are liable to 'monopolize' certain industries (for lack of a better word).

So? If you go this far why not also infringe on those freedoms, why not go further. Statistics show that blind people without hands commit the least gun crimes, why not poke everyone's eyes out and chop their hands off? Afterall you have the right not to be shot. Why is your line after buying a gun for whatever reason ever (guns do have more purposes than to premeditately kill people)?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Unless you support the dismantling of most (if not all) government institutions, I don't see how you can reasonably be against restrictions being imposed in gun sales and ownership.

I'd still say it is a step up from many other institutions, which should go later in the process to create an anarchis utopia.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)

Why would it have to be provable? Guns can misfire, hit the wrong target or any number of things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.

The law does not have a responsibility to let people walk around with lethal weapons. If man walks into a crowded room with a P-90 any law enforcement officers should protect the interests of the rest of the other people rather than waiting for the man to start shooting simply because it would be nice if he were allowed to carry that weapon.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So? If you go this far why not also infringe on those freedoms, why not go further. Statistics show that blind people without hands commit the least gun crimes, why not poke everyone's eyes out and chop their hands off? Afterall you have the right not to be shot. Why is your line after buying a gun for whatever reason ever (guns do have more purposes than to premeditately kill people)?

Guns are mainly used to kill people. Sniper rifles, handguns and assault weapons are only used to kill people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd still say it is a step up from many other institutions, which should go later in the process to create an anarchis utopia.

Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that.

Can we draw a distinction between the owning of guns and the possession of guns in a public place?

Does the right to own a gun mean that you can just carry it anywhere?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that.

people are going to commit murder no matter what means they have.

Canada and switzerland have tonnes of guns, but few gun murders. In Canada, we have more stabbing or other type murders than america.

If we are talking about rational anarchist societies, it isn't about making things perfect, but about a functional society, people can't have perfection. Clearly individual differences and chance will cause people to go crazy or be homicidal, but this happens in all societies regardless of guns or government.

An anarchist society would require rational gun ownership and mutual respect for other people. But, this isn't impossible. The law and the government aren't what prevent you from murdering other people, but the fact you are a good person. If one removes many of the social structures that lead to gun violence, there is no reason to believe that more guns would make a country more dangerous. Lol, sorry for the tangent, I haven't had a anarchist rant in a while.

Originally posted by inimalist
people are going to commit murder no matter what means they have.


You could have stopped there but the rest was cool 2

Originally posted by chithappens
You could have stopped there but the rest was cool 2

indeed, I've been feeling a bit like a tool recently, with all that social rhetoric, I needed to re-assert my status as a radical

but ya, thank you

Ha, well it had been missing of late.

I was beginning to feel like an ass being the only one to say more "unpopular" things on a consistent basis.

lol, awwww, people care!

no, its good, keep sticking it to the man, fight the authority of ideas!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would it have to be provable? Guns can misfire, hit the wrong target or any number of things.

...he was asking what I thought. And I find provability a pretty important part of any law, really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The law does not have a responsibility to let people walk around with lethal weapons.

That certainly depends on the law, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If man walks into a crowded room with a P-90 any law enforcement officers should protect the interests of the rest of the other people rather than waiting for the man to start shooting simply because it would be nice if he were allowed to carry that weapon.

You think someone should be shot by an officer for carrying a gun? Even if it was legal to carry a gun?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guns are mainly used to kill people. Sniper rifles, handguns and assault weapons are only used to kill people.

So Should read what I said again, mate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where people magically stop committing murder? Good luck with that. Look, ignorance and stupidity on your part doesn't make an idea any more or less reasonable. I get you people equate anarchism with chaos and constant murder, but that is just ****ing stupid...so, yeah.

Yeah, equating anarchism with chaos is silly. Should equate it to gay sex and cock worship, much more accurate. The only reason Bardock likes it.

You can kill people with piano wire, sperm (choke them with enough of it), cut them in the eye with a toenail severing an important vein, gravity, oxygen...

People like me just get creative so you are just wasting time. That argument is like assuming mass wars didn't not happen before guns existed. If anything, those wars were worse. I couldn't be one of the dudes in the front running full speed with just a damn sword.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah, equating anarchism with chaos is silly. Should equate it to gay sex and cock worship, much more accurate. The only reason Bardock likes it. Exactly.

Originally posted by chithappens
You can kill people with piano wire, sperm (choke them with enough of it), cut them in the eye with a toenail severing an important vein, gravity, oxygen...

People like me just get creative so you are just wasting time. That argument is like assuming mass wars didn't not happen before guns existed. If anything, those wars were worse. I couldn't be one of the dudes in the front running full speed with just a damn sword. Also, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Exactly.

Also, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.

There was an episode of Family Guy where Peter takes all the pipes for the irrigation system in a new town (after a nuclear holocaust) to build guns. Peter was the mayor and the town throws him out after the pipe stunt because he was a lousy mayor. After they throw the guns into the fire a guy says, "Pfft, what would we ever need guns for?"

And then a bunch of mutant octopus Stewies kill the whole town.

Originally posted by Bardock42
he was asking what I thought. And I find provability a pretty important part of any law, really.

Not what I mean. Why does the system suddenly make simple and perfectly accurate judgments possible? Where does this omniscient fiat law come from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think someone should be shot by an officer for carrying a gun? Even if it was legal to carry a gun?

I'm afraid I never said anything to that effect. The man certainly doesn't need to be shot but he shouldn't be allowed to bring an assault weapon into a crowded room simply due to the danger presented.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, ignorance and stupidity on your part doesn't make an idea any more or less reasonable. I get you people equate anarchism with chaos and constant murder, but that is just ****ing stupid...so, yeah.

That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by you own sense of persecution you'd probably see that.

You seem to be under the impression that somehow removing government would stop people from killing one another, which is completely idiotic. I merely criticized that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, the whole fact about them criminals being criminals and probably not caring too much about gun laws...that's a big one, imo.

I'm sure most people that want to kill folks would love having the right to walk around with powerful weapons. Makes everything so much easier and there's nothing anyone can do until people get killed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not what I mean. Why does the system suddenly make simple and perfectly accurate judgments possible? Where does this omniscient fiat law come from?

I have no idea what you are saying. I said something which is pretty common in law anyways, and you somehow took it to mean something scientific or more...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm afraid I never said anything to that effect. The man certainly doesn't need to be shot but he shouldn't be allowed to bring an assault weapon into a crowded room simply due to the danger presented.

Meh, if it is a government owned place, fair enough.
Private I'd say it is up to the owner. Also, as inimalist pointed out, being allowed to have guns and openly taking them into a public place are two different shoes.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by you own sense of persecution you'd probably see that.

Actually, you do seem to hold my ideology (anarchism) to a much higher standard than the one we have now. Obviously anarchy wouldn't make all people stop killing themselves....why should it? The current system doesn't do that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to be under the impression that somehow removing government would stop people from killing one another, which is completely idiotic. I merely criticized that.

That's not what I said and if you weren't blinded by ... well, I have no idea why you are blinded, but you are ... you'd probably see that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure most people that want to kill folks would love having the right to walk around with powerful weapons. Makes everything so much easier and there's nothing anyone can do until people get killed.

Not sure, they might also want folks not to have guns to protect themselves in case they do decide to go kill people...makes everything much easier.

But that's not really my line of argument, just saying.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hello, anarchist.

If you want a minarchist perspective, I'd say to the extend that someone actually has the intention to kill someone else (which should obviously be provable)...which is what should be illegal. Taking away another, at most slightly related, freedom crosses the line in my opinion. This way you actually just stop the offender and don't infringe on everyone's freedoms even though they are totally unrelated.
So you wouldn't support any regulations on gun sale? Never mind people who have criminal records, people mentally unstable or children. For indeed, why take away their freedom?


Yeah, it's the same thing. Because people are born with those things, people need them to perform many of the simplest manual labors essential to our society, etc.



I sometimes think you have a pyramid chart issued by the the Ayn Rand Institute or something, that depicts from worst to least evil the wicked ways in which the government takes away our freedoms. But then you probably don't, and the vigor with which you oppose each manifestation of the bad, bad socialist government is entirely random.


I do love you though.

Originally posted by backdoorman
So you wouldn't support any regulations on gun sale? Never mind people who have criminal records, people mentally unstable or children. For indeed, why take away their freedom?

Still anarchist.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah, it's the same thing. Because people are born with those things, people need them to perform many of the simplest manual labors essential to our society, etc.

It's the same reason anyways, just that you figure that those have redeeming qualities so you personally think it is different...

Originally posted by backdoorman
I sometimes think you have a pyramid chart issued by the the Ayn Rand Institute or something, that depicts from worst to least evil the wicked ways in which the government takes away our freedoms. But then you probably don't, and the vigor with which you oppose each manifestation of the bad, bad socialist government is entirely random.

B-because it wasn't random if the Ayn Rand institute issued it?

Originally posted by backdoorman
I do love you though.

My back door's closed, mate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, if it is a government owned place, fair enough.
Private I'd say it is up to the owner. Also, as inimalist pointed out, being allowed to have guns and openly taking them into a public place are two different shoes.

I can agree to that much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, you do seem to hold my ideology (anarchism) to a much higher standard than the one we have now. Obviously anarchy wouldn't make all people stop killing themselves....why should it? The current system doesn't do that.

I don't really expect any system to prevent all killing. However your system seems to assume that people will be less destructive if left entirely to their own devices, which seems ridiculous to me. The whole idea of anarchist utopias flies in the face of what has been proven to be basic human nature through out all of history. However this is getting completely off topic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure, they might also want folks not to have guns to protect themselves in case they do decide to go kill people...makes everything much easier.

But that's not really my line of argument, just saying.

More guns would simply raise death tolls further. But I'll drop the line of argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can agree to that much.

Good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't really expect any system to prevent all killing. However your system seems to assume that people will be less destructive if left entirely to their own devices, which seems ridiculous to me. The whole idea of anarchist utopias flies in the face of what has been proven to be basic human nature through out all of history. However this is getting completely off topic.

Not really, my system assumes that people will be less destructive if their is more initiative in the community to stop crime. If people keep each other in order much more, less would happen. That's the assumption. The problem anarchists face in our society is more the ignporance of the people and the propaganda they have been fed by a huge, powerful government. The fact that we basically live in an anarchist society if you see the government as nothing but a bunch of big bullies that use guns and brainwashing to keep the masses down also plays a big role in understanding how more obvious anarchy could work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More guns would simply raise death tolls further. But I'll drop the line of argument.

That's obviously not true. But probably smart of you to drop the argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Still anarchist.
That's pretty much the end of the argument then.



They do factually have redeeming (much more so than guns) qualities though.



That Rand part was mostly for comical purposes, but at least if you did consult their hypothetical chart, the strength with which you oppose stuff would not be a result of strange personal whims.



That makes me sad.

Originally posted by backdoorman
They do factually have redeeming (much more so than guns) qualities though.

In your opinion. You draw the line randomly.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That Rand part was mostly for comical purposes, but at least if you did consult their hypothetical chart, the strength with which you oppose stuff would not be a result of strange personal whims.

Ironic.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That makes me sad.

I'm sorry, maybe I just need some time.

civilians should NOT have guns, PERIOD! if you really wanna plea self defence, get an air taser, its far more effective than handguns. also, just what percentage of the population victimised by robbers/theives/terrorist etc have actually been recorded to use their guns to succesfully protect themselves from such threats?!??! it has NO affect on crime rates. they are all just bs rationalisations by gun owners, wannbe cowboys and people who generally like to show off their guns or are involved in shady activities or like to ENFORCE the borders or private property rights by KILLING tresspassers. gun accidents and domestic disturbances etc etc ect have killed more peopl in america alone than both the world wars combined. screw the right of people to bear arms. stupid ammendment, which was only appropriate at the time of america's foundation and when lawlessness was rampant and the authorities unavailable. civilians shud not own GUNS!!!!!

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.



Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.




Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.



Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

OMGZ!!

responsible and community driven gun ownership can lead to almost no gun violence!!!!

^guns dont kill, people kill people, ofcourse, guns HELP a LOT. basically, people more often than not, can not be expected to be responsible. also, WHAT is the big deal anyway, its not like people would die without the pleasure of having a gun with them. why dont we try out all these arguments in legalising drugs then?!

Im 100% for the legalization of all drugs and responible community controls

for instance, my friend has mental problems when he takes acid, the only way to control that is through community responsibility. Neither government controls or free access will solve that situation.

Sure, guns might help kill people, and switzerland has a rate of gun suicide comparable to the US, but the government has no right to take the right to defend oneself (including against the government) away from citizens. Nobody wants a bunch of crazy idiots running around shooting people, but that is not justification for a government to start limiting freedoms, especially in such a way that it removes the ability of citizens to resist its power.

Its social structure of a society that leads to gun or any other violence. Rather than ranting about gun control why not rally against two tiered society?

^^ The market isn't fit for drugs being that more people drink for no reason.

EDIT: Ask a psychiatrist. Pay for one. The medication has a similar affect. Go to a mental hospital. It's quite cozy. Some people stay more than one month. Usually, one week.

the social problems associated with alcohol were multiplied exponentially when it was prohibited.

I just don't want anyone to tell me I should dope myself.

lol

what are you talking about?

choice, lol

That's all that's on my friends' minds, and the media targets dopes like the people I managed to make friends with.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
I just don't want anyone to tell me I should dope myself.

What does that have to do with the legalization of drugs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In your opinion. You draw the line randomly.
What in the hell... People in general hold their eyes and hands in a much higher regard than their material possessions such as their watches and sunglasses and guns. Of course I cannot cite some research study for this but I doubt you think it untrue.


How so?

Originally posted by backdoorman
What in the hell... People in general hold their eyes and hands in a much higher regard than their material possessions such as their watches and sunglasses and guns. Of course I cannot cite some research study for this but I doubt you think it untrue.


"From my cold, dead, hands"

?

Originally posted by backdoorman
What in the hell... People in general hold their eyes and hands in a much higher regard than their material possessions such as their watches and sunglasses and guns. Of course I cannot cite some research study for this but I doubt you think it untrue.

What does it matter? Is what people general view your standard for judgement? Random.

Originally posted by backdoorman

How so?

C-cause you do what you accuse me of.

Originally posted by inimalist
"From my cold, dead, hands"

?
That's quite silly. I would hardly consider the NRA having adopted an incendiary slogan to be proof of their members being willing to have their hands chopped off and their eyes taken out before having the government force them to surrender their weapons (which is incidentally not something I would support).

Originally posted by backdoorman
That's quite silly. I would hardly consider the NRA having adopted an incendiary slogan to be proof of their members being willing to have their hands chopped off and their eyes taken out before having the government force them to surrender their weapons (which is incidentally not something I would support). What exactly is your point then?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does it matter? Is what people general view your standard for judgement? Random.



C-cause you do what you accuse me of.
No. What people's general views are (within some parameters) is however the standard for judgment for the government.


How so?

Originally posted by backdoorman
That's quite silly. I would hardly consider the NRA having adopted an incendiary slogan to be proof of their members being willing to have their hands chopped off and their eyes taken out before having the government force them to surrender their weapons (which is incidentally not something I would support).

lol

Wayco then

or Ruby Ridge

EDIT: You are going to be really hard pressed to argue that there aren't people in the states who are so driven by the second ammendment that they would die rather than give up their guns. Christian seperatists live in gun communities, much like Wayco, where they would answer with force to police. Elohim city is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by backdoorman
No. What people's general views are (within some parameters) is however the standard for judgment for the government.

For a democratic government, yes. So?

Originally posted by backdoorman
How so?

That "the strength with which you oppose stuff would not be a result of strange personal whims."

In this case, apparently, as you said, your personal whim to argue a socialist view (social democrats are socialist, STFU).

Originally posted by Bardock42
What exactly is your point then?
That the government always takes away some freedoms of its people to govern them. That these "surrenderable" freedoms have to be nonessential to the development of a human being (some exceptions being acceptable to this point). Regulations being imposed on gun sale is one of these freedoms. Sure, the government should try to give its people as much freedom as possible but it should balance that thought with a lot of other considerations one of them being public safety.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That the government always takes away some freedoms of its people to govern them.

True.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That these "surrenderable" freedoms have to be nonessential to the development of a human being (some exceptions being acceptable to this point).

Personal whim.


Originally posted by backdoorman
Regulations being imposed on gun sale is one of these freedoms.

Random

Originally posted by backdoorman
Sure, the government should try to give its people as much freedom as possible but it should balance that thought with a lot of other considerations one of them being public safety.

True. That's what I'm doing, isn't it? We just (possibly) disagree on the exact weighing.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Regulations being imposed on gun sale is one of these freedoms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

to make that point you have to argue against why the Swiss are able to have very loose gun control very successfully

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

Wayco then

or Ruby Ridge

EDIT: You are going to be really hard pressed to argue that there aren't people in the states who are so driven by the second ammendment that they would die rather than give up their guns. Christian seperatists live in gun communities, much like Wayco, where they would answer with force to police. Elohim city is a good example of what I'm talking about.
You did, you know, read my original comment, right? "People in general hold their..."
The US is a big country, yeah there's a minute minority that would rather die than give up its guns, they are hardly the mainstream though.


That's what I am arguing in favor of.


My arguments are rationally (at least I think so...) formed, based on the premise that a democratic government is a desirable thing.
Which is yes, a personal whim.


Yeah, it is.


Can't really say as I have no idea what the situation is like in Switzerland. If you have some information you'd like to share that says guns have nothing to do with the Americans' high crime rate, I'd be happy to take a look.

Originally posted by backdoorman
You did, you know, read my original comment, right? "People in general hold their..."
The US is a big country, yeah there's a minute minority that would rather die than give up its guns, they are hardly the mainstream though.

fair enough

but the fact that most people would disarm themselves because the state tells them too isn't an argument pro-gun control. If anything, it shows how the state's monopoly on the use of force makes people more willing to give up their rights.


The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans--even Tibetans--could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three--ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon--or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting--not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.


http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html

and just as an aside, yes, George Orwell predicted asymmetrical warfare and terrorism.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Can't really say as I have no idea what the situation is like in Switzerland. If you have some information you'd like to share that says guns have nothing to do with the Americans' high crime rate, I'd be happy to take a look.

I actually can't prove a negative

However, going from Canadian statistics, registered and legally owned guns are rarely if ever used by their owner for violence.

The violence is a problem stemming from social isolation and zero upward mobility. It is compounded by a lack of real role models and broken homes for kids, mixed with exposure to a culture of violence and respect where a kid from a poor family can be a somebody and be respected.

Does it really not make more sense that violence is caused by problems in people's lives than by the availability of weapons?

Originally posted by backdoorman
That's what I am arguing in favor of.

Well, then we should argue about whether our system is better than the other (for what reasons ever), because if your apply your axioms to my arguments or I apply my axioms to yours we are bound to hit some trouble.


Originally posted by backdoorman
My arguments are rationally (at least I think so...) formed, based on the premise that a democratic government is a desirable thing.
Which is yes, a personal whim.

Well, so do I. Just that mine are not based on a democratic government but a libertarian one based on the non aggression principle.
Which, also, is a personal whim.


Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah, it is.

I enjoy that we are in agreement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, then we should argue about whether our system is better than the other (for what reasons ever), because if your apply your axioms to my arguments or I apply my axioms to yours we are bound to hit some trouble.




Well, so do I. Just that mine are not based on a democratic government but a libertarian one based on the non aggression principle.
Which, also, is a personal whim.




I enjoy that we are in agreement.
Yeah. I thought you were going to defend a sort of libertarian position you sometimes argue in favor of.


Never used it as such. I used it as a pro-people prefer their hands over their guns argument.


Skimmed through the article and I don't really see how it relates to our discussion.


Why can't you prove a negative? I can prove there isn't a two-hundred pound baby whale sitting on top of my head.

I agree that probably the main reason gun-related crimes occur is because of social circumstances in the offender's life, however, I also believe making guns freely available to all who are willing to pay for them will worsen the situation and make gun-related crimes' rate go up.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Never used it as such. I used it as a pro-people prefer their hands over their guns argument.

understood

Originally posted by backdoorman
Why can't you prove a negative? I can prove there isn't a two-hundred pound baby whale sitting on top of my head.

no, what you can actually say is that given all available evidence you must conclude that there is not a 200 pound baby whale on top of your head.

However, there is always the chance that new and better evidence may be found which actually confirms such.

There is something to be said for probability, but in actuality, one cannot prove a negative.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I agree that probably the main reason gun-related crimes occur is because of social circumstances in the offender's life, however, I also believe making guns freely available to all who are willing to pay for them will worsen the situation and make gun-related crimes' rate go up.

well yes, if situations exist which increase crime, gun crime will go up. So will crime using thousands of other means. Computer related crime is on the rise, should the owning of a computer be controlled for society's protection?

The facts remain that gun availability in a society is not related to violent crime in society.

I think the only thing that might support your argument is something called the "mere exposure effect". Some research shows that, in completely simulated environments, people will act in what is deemed an aggressive manner moreso in the presence of a fire arm than in the presence of sporting equipment. It is a controversial finding, but maybe if you argued something like "access to guns causes people who were going to be violent to do so with an object that potentially could harm more people" or "because people might own a gun, there is potential that they might behave more aggressively when it is around" it would be more solid. But I will point out specifically, the presence of a gun in the mere exposure effect does not increase "gun violence", just a lab measure of aggression. There is no mechanism by which simulated aggression can be linked to gun violence, meaning that even if people are more aggressive around guns, it is not proof that they will use them for a violent manner. In this interpretation, at very local levels, gun ownership migh raise domstic violence or non-gun related violence.

By his standard, I guess we should ban teaching martial arts also

Originally posted by inimalist
no, what you can actually say is that given all available evidence you must conclude that there is not a 200 pound baby whale on top of your head.

However, there is always the chance that new and better evidence may be found which actually confirms such.

There is something to be said for probability, but in actuality, one cannot prove a negative.


Well, mathematically one certainly can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, mathematically one certainly can.

no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.

There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.

There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.

Haha, it seems no one knows this. Intervals in Calculus make this clear.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.

There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.

Well...what exactly do you define as a negative?

The explaination for X is not Y

Edit: Maybe this is a better way to say it: There is no way to reduce the chance that some variable might contribute to an event to zero. There is always a unknown probability that in the future, new evidence will be found that confirms the variable does indeed contribute to the event, even though there is no evidence at all currently.

Originally posted by inimalist
The explaination for X is not Y Well, mathematically I can prove (100%, by the rules of logic) that a shitload of those apply. One of a first semester in Maths comes to mind...also this "negative", is really, really ill defined.

be my guest

Originally posted by inimalist
be my guest
Well I can prove to you that the square root of 2 is not a rational number if you'd like.

I can also prove that you can't create a Heptagon with ruler and compass.

I can also prove that 4/7th is not a Natural Number.


And when I say "I can" I mean "I can google the proof".

Or are those not acceptable negatives?

the first and third are more statements of axioms within the logical system

the second is accurate, though are your truly arguing that it is and will forever be impossible to do such, or just very difficult and inefficent.

Originally posted by inimalist
the first and third are more statements of axioms within the logical system

the second is accurate, though are your truly arguing that it is and will forever be impossible to do such, or just very difficult and inefficent.

I am arguing that it will ever be so as it is mathematically proven. Of course the sceptic in me will always say (about negative as well as positive proof) "or maybe not".

As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible. For one, if you can prove that something CAN NOT exist then you have done the job. The problem is when you have to say "it could exist"...then you need another approach.

But the "you can't prove a negative" is a cop out and just not true. And I am pretty sure I know where it comes from too.

Originally posted by Bardock42


As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible.


Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.

For the sake of argument, it should also be mentioned that if something does not exist one can not prove it does not exist.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.

We might actually know how everything that happens. Depending on how those rules are, it's also possible, as you say, that we couldn't prove many things, but I don't really know why I should assume one scenario over the other.

Originally posted by chithappens
For the sake of argument, it should also be mentioned that if something does not exist one can not prove it does not exist.

No, as I said, that can in many cases actually be sufficiently proven. The limitations we have in this universe apply to negative as well as positive proof...no idea why people like to focus on the only when something is phrased negatively.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We might actually know how everything that happens. Depending on how those rules are, it's also possible, as you say, that we couldn't prove many things, but I don't really know why I should assume one scenario over the other.



E = mc(squared) is currently being challenged. Not sure what the argument is but "laws" of science change every so often.

Originally posted by Bardock42


No, as I said, that can in many cases actually be sufficiently proven. The limitations we have in this universe apply to negative as well as positive proof...no idea why people like to focus on the only when something is phrased negatively.

I wasn't focusing one idea or the other; I just happened to coin it that way. I'm simply saying that something like God could not be detected because God would not let himself be seen (according to some...).

Originally posted by chithappens
E = mc(squared) is currently being challenged. Not sure what the argument is but "laws" of science change every so often.

That's odd. Are you unfamiliar with the difference between something that is proven and something that is a theory?

I wasn't focusing one idea or the other; I just happened to coin it that way. I'm simply saying that something like God could not be detected because God would not let himself be seen (according to some...).

Yes, something that is by definition unprovable can probably not be proven. But we were talking about something that does not exist not something that is so powerful it can hide from us.

There's two different things being discussed here, I am talking about logic in general in which something negative as you call it can be proven or disproven...you always go back to the general limitations of the human condition that we can never know anything for sure. Yes, if you want to play it that way, I can't even prove I exist myself...if you are interested to discuss the next step though, I am willing to do that, too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am arguing that it will ever be so as it is mathematically proven. Of course the sceptic in me will always say (about negative as well as positive proof) "or maybe not".

As for the statements of axioms, that's always that way, just that in mathematics we know exactly what axioms we are dealing with. Personally I am of the opinion that if we did know the rules of this universe we could make absolute statements about it, but we don't and I believe we never can. So, it is not impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist, it's just pretty hard so that it seems impossible. For one, if you can prove that something CAN NOT exist then you have done the job. The problem is when you have to say "it could exist"...then you need another approach.

But the "you can't prove a negative" is a cop out and just not true. And I am pretty sure I know where it comes from too.

yes, if we knew everything about everything, we could make statements of what cannot exist, that is essentially what I am saying, qualified by the fact that the human mind is not capable of such knowledge nor is it capable of designing something that removes the subjective nature of our reality in its interpretation.

If we know every event that will ever happen in the future, then sure, one could proove a negative.

It certainly isn't a cop out. At the very least it makes people ask proper questions. The fact that God lovers have a single argument that actually is supported by science is not a reason to say it is BS. (in actuality, the statement comes from the philosophy of science and was probably picked up by religious people)

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, if we knew everything about everything, we could make statements of what cannot exist, that is essentially what I am saying, qualified by the fact that the human mind is not capable of such knowledge nor is it capable of designing something that removes the subjective nature of our reality in its interpretation.

Indeed, we are in agreement that that is what is being said partly-

Originally posted by inimalist
If we know every event that will ever happen in the future, then sure, one could proove a negative.

And a positive. But yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
It certainly isn't a cop out. At the very least it makes people ask proper questions. The fact that God lovers have a single argument that actually is supported by science is not a reason to say it is BS. (in actuality, the statement comes from the philosophy of science and was probably picked up by religious people)

Actually, it's not an argument that God Lovers use, it's one that atheists use. And it is a cop out. You can just block every negative phrased question with it without giving it a thought. That's how it is used nowadays.

The fact that you can actually prove a negative to the extent that you can prove a positive is also disregarded. It's just a way not to deal with an argument in a reasonable fashion (I don't mean that you do that, I am just saying that that's how it is used usually).

In conclusion, you can certainly mathematically prove a negative. You can prove a negative, just as you can prove a positive in our world, just that it is never 100%, because nothing here is.

I will admit I know nothing of the scientific aspect of this discussion but doesn't the "new and better evidence" argument work both ways? Can't there be some facts discovered that alter the veracity of an assertion made by an individual in the past, based on the evidence he had then?


No, it shouldn't.


Facts? You mean the Switzerland thing? Because it's just not.


If X comes home one night drunk and finds his sister's boyfriend beating her up, he is more likely to shoot the boyfriend if he has a gun on the table next to him than if he didn't. Having no gun to shoot him with he would likely resort to either an attempted stabbing or beating him up, both of which I don't doubt have a mortality rate much lower than guns'.
Yeah it's a stupid scenario which could have innumerable variables but I think similar cases could easily take place.

inimalist, the way you are talking, seems like you dont even have a problem with drug smugglers and distributers who are MERELY providing guns to armies etc in africa which are usually used for genocide and waging wars. after all, the argument they often cite is, "we dont force any1 to pull the trigger". but providing the MEANS to do such things is just as bad, and that is what guns ARE. the silent spectator who stands on the side, having the power to do sumthing while another man is killed is hardly any better to the man who has pulled the trigger.

scandanavian countries/canada, are countries with exceptionally different laws/values/social structures {the ones u have cited i think} and a much more idealised form of society{due to the more anarchical, as a WHOLE, way in which these socities function in all aspects and how well the money is handled by the country and how it is used almost sorely for services and almost never on stupid things like armed forces and waging wars or propaganda or neo colonialism etc etc etc} than the wrest of the world. perhaps if all societies and the american society was like that, maybe there wud be an argument for civilian arms ownership, but as things stand, those socities ARE what they are and that is a fact proven over and over again in school shootings, gang warfare, robbery, domestic violence, border control, the actions of civilians security firms as well as the american military in illegal wars and occupations and accidental fires and ENFORCING private property rights etc etc. currently there is NO reasonable argument for civilian arms ownership. it is stupid. people's tyrranic and violent impulses are too much to have HOPE for in the greater part of the world and further means to kill other shudnt be given to them.

think bout it, if sumday, sum device is invented which cud kill another human being without fail just by THINKING about them, wud you ALSO be for the public's right to own such a thing. or how about if a device is invented which can destroy the universe{or lets just take a simpler example considering mass produced nuclear warheads which are at some time, cheap enough for an average individual to own} would you also be for the publics right to OWN those arms??!?!?!?! please, its the same philosophy and not a huge ste from guns to anti tank rifles to rockets to nukes. civilians shudnt own arms, period. if self defence is really the argument people wanna use, then as i said, buy an air taser or the loads of other non lethal weapons which are PROVEN to be far more effective at stopping power{all that you need for self DEFENCE} than most 9mm or 45. handguns.
{point im making, you shud realise that most people who want such arms want them for MORE than just defence and hence arent SATISFIED with non lethal weapons}

Originally posted by Bardock42
In conclusion, you can certainly mathematically prove a negative. You can prove a negative, just as you can prove a positive in our world, just that it is never 100%, because nothing here is.

fair enough

although, I'd phrse "mathematically" as "within a complete system of logic" and qualify that there currently exists no system of logic that is an accurate representation of reality

but ya, can't ever prove something 100% either

Originally posted by backdoorman
I will admit I know nothing of the scientific aspect of this discussion but doesn't the "new and better evidence" argument work both ways? Can't there be some facts discovered that alter the veracity of an assertion made by an individual in the past, based on the evidence he had then?

it has to do with the concept of positive evidence. Basically, I can only ever provide evidence to say one theory is correct, and that evidence can't say that another theory is incorrect.

Its more a recognition that we can never say we know something with 100% certainty, it is also about the idea that evidence that supports one theory could always be made to fit another theory.

Its much less relevant here, I iirc, I addressed the negative anyway as if it were a positive.

Originally posted by backdoorman
No, it shouldn't.

well argued.

so, you said guns should be banned because as crime rises so will the instance of gun related crime. Its not my fault you made a dumb argument

by that line of logic, anything thats use in crime increases as crime rates increase is viable to be banned. I didn't say this, you did. and it is as silly as I made it sound.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Facts? You mean the Switzerland thing? Because it's just not.

I don't get what you are saying.

are you saying there aren't a lot of guns in switzerland or that there is a lot of violence there?

Originally posted by backdoorman
If X comes home one night drunk and finds his sister's boyfriend beating her up, he is more likely to shoot the boyfriend if he has a gun on the table next to him than if he didn't. Having no gun to shoot him with he would likely resort to either an attempted stabbing or beating him up, both of which I don't doubt have a mortality rate much lower than guns'.

LOL

omg, is your argument really that violence is ok, but gun violence, thats just terrible.

ha! its just too damned effective!

Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah it's a stupid scenario which could have innumerable variables but I think similar cases could easily take place.

do you really think the problem in that situation is the gun?

Do you think things like that don't happen in switzerland? nobody beats their wife of cheats on their spouses?

There are 3 guns for every 10 people in Canada (9 for 10 in america). Legally registered guns that people own responsibly are almost NEVER used for murder in this way.

I get it, you don't like guns. boo hoo

Originally posted by leonheartmm
inimalist, the way you are talking, seems like you dont even have a problem with drug smugglers and distributers who are MERELY providing guns to armies etc in africa which are usually used for genocide and waging wars.

this seems like 2 points and I will answer them speratly, hopefully that is ok.

1) No, I have no problems with dealers, smugglers, and distributers of drugs. One can do all of these things without being violent, and the violence regarding the trade of drugs is almost 100% the fault of prohibition. Molson doesn't murder people who sell Budweiser, Barley growers don't cut their product because Sleeman's will take them to court over it.

2) Yes, people who break the law are almost by definition violent people, especially when getting into international arms dealing. I don't see where I have ever said that I support the black market of arms selling, and I would argue it exists only because of very poor governmental situations in those parts of the world. This is of course qualified by the fact that many western nations are up to their eyeballs in guns, yet have nowhere near as big a gun problem as the Americans do.

The similarity between America and unstable parts of the world are that there is a society wich values the irresponsible use of guns (let alone that a country at war is not comparable at all to america.

I guess also, I don't necessarily agree with the actions of African armies, but I always agree with the rights of a people to defend themselves. I can't just blanket say that supplying guns to armies is a bad thing.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
after all, the argument they often cite is, "we dont force any1 to pull the trigger". but providing the MEANS to do such things is just as bad, and that is what guns ARE.

thats proposterous. Even psychological studies find that the moral weights of inaction causing harm are less than action causing harm. The most repsonsible person is the one pulling the trigger.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the silent spectator who stands on the side, having the power to do sumthing while another man is killed is hardly any better to the man who has pulled the trigger.

maybe not morally better, certainly less personally responsible

Originally posted by leonheartmm
scandanavian countries/canada, are countries with exceptionally different laws/values/social structures {the ones u have cited i think} and a much more idealised form of society{due to the more anarchical, as a WHOLE, way in which these socities function in all aspects and how well the money is handled by the country and how it is used almost sorely for services and almost never on stupid things like armed forces and waging wars or propaganda or neo colonialism etc etc etc} than the wrest of the world. perhaps if all societies and the american society was like that, maybe there wud be an argument for civilian arms ownership,

thats actually the argument I'm making. Instead of attacking guns, attack the policies and social conditions that lead to violence and let people keep their freedoms.

There is a middle ground to this one, people can both have guns and not be shot, thats what I'm saying.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but as things stand, those socities ARE what they are and that is a fact proven over and over again in school shootings, gang warfare, robbery, domestic violence,

all of which are problems stemming from poor social conditions which will not be addressed with the prohibition of guns.

Even if these people couldn't get guns (there is no evidence that people who want to commit a crime can't get a gun, as the school shooting recently in Finland shows) they are still under the same social conditions that will cause them to be violent. Attacking guns does nothing to actually stop the problems that lead citizens to make these actions in the first place.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
border control, the actions of civilians security firms as well as the american military in illegal wars and occupations and accidental fires

these are state matters, ones which many americans would agree with. Gun control will have no effect on the way the state uses the guns it is allowed to have (or how security companies use the guns the state lets them have).

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ENFORCING private property rights etc etc.

If a criminal comes onto my property and is threatening my family, I can blow him away.

There is no reason why people should not be able to kill those who are immediatly threatening them.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
currently there is NO reasonable argument for civilian arms ownership.

first, that is incorrect. You may disagree with the logic, but being able to defend oneself, instead of delegation the monopolization of defense to a corrupt and bloated power hungery institution, is pretty reasonable.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is stupid. people's tyrranic and violent impulses are too much to have HOPE for in the greater part of the world and further means to kill other shudnt be given to them.

aside from the fact that America stands alone among gun owning nations with their ridiculous stats?

aside from the fact that many nations have incorporated their militiristic and cultural love of guns into a responsible and peaceful gun filled society?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
think bout it, if sumday, sum device is invented which cud kill another human being without fail just by THINKING about them, wud you ALSO be for the public's right to own such a thing.

well, at least you aren't jumping to ridiculous conclusions

the best answer I can give you is that I do not support the governments monopolization on any form of self-defense. I can personally hope that researchers aren't wasting their time on something like that (and the fact that non-lethal warfare is getting a lot of funding at the moment somewhat comforts me) but I can't justify it being only in the hands of government.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
or how about if a device is invented which can destroy the universe{or lets just take a simpler example considering mass produced nuclear warheads which are at some time, cheap enough for an average individual to own} would you also be for the publics right to OWN those arms??!?!?!?!

same as above. I'm not excited people might own them, but I don't support the monopolization of them by government (or, in the modern world, monopolization of the technology by rich superpowers in order to set local policy of governments around the world)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
please, its the same philosophy and not a huge ste from guns to anti tank rifles to rockets to nukes.

sure it is, at the very least it is a difference of potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

But ya, if you are arguing that civilian ownership of a handgun or rifle for self defense is comparable to owning nuclear warheads (and I'm assuming you mean also owning the proper equipment to use them) the best I can say is we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
civilians shudnt own arms, period. if self defence is really the argument people wanna use, then as i said, buy an air taser or the loads of other non lethal weapons which are PROVEN to be far more effective at stopping power{all that you need for self DEFENCE} than most 9mm or 45. handguns.

can I see your source on this?

but ya, I agree. If it wasn't that they would only send them to police stations (to ensure only police officers buy them) I'd own and carry a combat baton at all times.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{point im making, you shud realise that most people who want such arms want them for MORE than just defence and hence arent SATISFIED with non lethal weapons}

you aren't arguing with said person, nor do I think a non-lethal weapon will be sufficent if an armed suspect enters my home.

At the confusion of this poorly constructed post, I will limit my response to this: Whether you can or cannot prove a negative, you can certainly find facts that clearly suggest a negative assertion to be legitimate.


Yeah, Bardock went for the same silly argument. If I say taking an aspirin relieves headache, I am by no means saying taking a whole box of aspirin is even more effective.
A government has to evaluate each thing with many considerations kept in mind. Guns were created for the purpose of shooting (and that is for the most part what they are used for); computers being implemented for criminal purposes is an unfortunate consequence but by no means something that was purposefully devised by the people that invented computers, furthermore, the percentage of people that use computers for serious crimes is, most likely, ridiculously lower than that of guns'. In a more practical approach as well, from a public safety point of view, gun violence is more serious than computer crime.



I am saying that not because loose gun regulations works for Switzerland does it mean it works for every other country.


My argument is that to decide whether regulations should be imposed on gun sale, one has to consider the effectiveness in killing of guns.



I don't think the main problem is guns, and I don't believe we should outlaw guns. I do think some regulations should be imposed on the sale of guns however, as I do not think people with a history of violence or crime record or some types of mental illness should so easily as that just be able to buy an effective instrument used for killing.

Originally posted by backdoorman
At the confusion of this poorly constructed post, I will limit my response to this: Whether you can or cannot prove a negative, you can certainly find facts that clearly suggest a negative assertion to be legitimate.



geez, last time I try philosophy of science in a debate

Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't think the main problem is guns, and I don't believe we should outlaw guns. I do think some regulations should be imposed on the sale of guns however, as I do not think people with a history of violence or crime record or some types of mental illness should so easily as that just be able to buy an effective instrument used for killing.

alright, as long as it isn't necessarily government making those restrictions, I probably agree

Probably a good idea.

Originally posted by inimalist


geez, last time I try philosophy of science in a debate


I stopped posting in this topic for a reason

Originally posted by chithappens
I stopped posting in this topic for a reason I figure cause I proved you wrong,. Was that it?

Originally posted by backdoorman
At the confusion of this poorly constructed post, I will limit my response to this: Whether you can or cannot prove a negative, you can certainly find facts that clearly suggest a negative assertion to be legitimate.

It looked fine to me....?


Originally posted by backdoorman
If I say taking an aspirin relieves headache, I am by no means saying taking a whole box of aspirin is even more effective.

many many drug's effectiveness are dose dependent up to a certain point... If you're missing it, I'm also applying that as a metaphor for the topic...

Originally posted by dadudemon
many many drug's effectiveness are dose dependent up to a certain point...

lol, that point being death

Originally posted by Bardock42
I figure cause I proved you wrong,. Was that it?

Far from it.

You are just not willing to bend even once you concede someone else has a point so I just dropped it

Originally posted by chithappens
Far from it.

You are just not willing to bend even once you concede someone else has a point so I just dropped it

Because you can actually counter my point on the factual possibility of proving a "negative"? I'm blown away...show me.

I never said you can't prove a negative. You just went on this random rant as if I said I was opposed to it in the first place.

Nothing you said negates this:

Originally posted by chithappens
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.



Before I started my current path to becoming an English teacher, I was a mechanical engineering major. I'm not just talking out my ass. It doesn't even take any mathematical or scientific understanding - just a breakdown in simple logic.

Besides, whenever someone does not completely agree with you outright, your tone becomes aggressive and you think it means you are right. I don't care to continue discussing anything with anyone in that manner.

Originally posted by chithappens
I never said you can't prove a negative.

Originally posted by chithappens

Originally posted by inimalist
no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.

There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.

Haha, it seems no one knows this. Intervals in Calculus make this clear.

Originally posted by chithappens
You just went on this random rant as if I said I was opposed to it in the first place.

Actually, I went on this "random rant", because inimalist clearly stated it and continued to state it...that you agreed (which you did) was not the reason.


Originally posted by chithappens
Nothing you said negates this:

Originally posted by chithappens
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.

I didn't argue that at all though, did I? In fact, I agreed with it, though adding another possibility.


Originally posted by chithappens
Before I started my current path to becoming an English teacher, I was a mechanical engineering major. I'm not just talking out my ass. It doesn't even take any mathematical or scientific understanding - just a breakdown in simple logic.

Are you talking about proving a negative? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about proving that something doesn't exist? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about us in this universe being unable to prove that something doesn't exist (just like we really are unable to prove that something exists)? Because...that is true, I'd not deny it either


Originally posted by chithappens
Besides, whenever someone does not completely agree with you outright, your tone becomes aggressive and you think it means you are right. I don't care to continue discussing anything with anyone in that manner.

Meh, you can whine about my tone, I am sure it's not sugar coated, maybe even mean or needlessly rude, but it doesn't change the facts I have on my side. I also have shown you that you did at least once agree that we can't prove a negative and you did once say that we can't prove that something doesn't exist. So, if you want to change the topic afterwards, go ahead, but don't pretend that it wasn't the topic to begin with and don't pretend it wasn't a topic you discussed.


Also, I like you, just imagine how people must feel about my tone and manner if I hate them.

.
I don't think America should have that right, it's a stupid country and everyone in it is scared and shoots everything. Watch Columbine.

Originally posted by lord xyz
.
I don't think America should have that right, it's a stupid country and everyone in it is scared and shoots everything. Watch Columbine.

Making Michael Moore the spokesperson of your brain is, in general, not a good idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
//Are you talking about proving a negative? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about proving that something doesn't exist? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about us in this universe being unable to prove that something doesn't exist (just like we really are unable to prove that something exists)? Because...that is true, I'd not deny it either


lol

**** language