Here's a nice one for the gun advocates

[DrewKaree]

Danny, I give you exhibit A.  We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation!  You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel!  OFF with your cupholders!  

I'm a terrible example. Please don't hold me up to public scrutiny again. Ta.  

*holds boss up for public scrutiny yet again*

And see, when the rubber meets the road, he turns tail and heads for the mountains!  

What a FINE EXAMPLE I found!

 

[Harry Potter]

Danny, I give you exhibit A.  We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation!  You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel!  OFF with your cupholders!  

I'm a terrible example. Please don't hold me up to public scrutiny again. Ta.  

*holds boss up for public scrutiny yet again*

And see, when the rubber meets the road, he turns tail and heads for the mountains!  

What a FINE EXAMPLE I found!

 

You forgot the third 's' in my nick (not to mention the '7') and once again, don't hold me up up as an example. I'm shy.  

Cheers

[saint]

Someone will have to let me know what my hit list is - first I've heard of it

PS:You're on Saint's hit list? How many is that now?  

[shmokes]

Gimme a break Saint.  Like we don't all know that you've lured us all here under the pretense of building arcade cabinets so you can kill us.  Using the name Saint for your avatar is an insultingly sophemoric ruse which you think will throw us off your murderous activities.

I think it's hilarious when people suggest that those in other countries have no business putting their nose in American politics simply because they get no vote.  That's ridiculous.  It's like suggesting that American felons shouldn't be concerned about American politics simply because they've been disenfranchised.  Or, for that matter, that I shouldn't care about American politics simply because I effectively get no vote.

The ironic thing is that those who think that our Canadian and Aussi friends in these threads are out of their element seem to usually be the same ones who are most nationalistic in the way they view America.  They certainly believe that America is the most powerful, and most important country in the world.  They believe that what America does affects every country in the world in a significant way.  They believe that the state of America's economy affects the world economy more than any other country's.  And they are probably right on all of those points.

But, how in hell can you believe all those things, while simultaneously believing that other people, who are clearly affected by American politics, should not be discussing and debating them?  It's absurd.

[Dartful Dodger]

I agree with shmokes, people from countries outside of the US who complain about US politics should be treated like American felons.

[saint]

That's it, you're on the list!

Gimme a break Saint.  Like we don't all know that you've lured us all here under the pretense of building arcade cabinets so you can kill us.  Using the name Saint for your avatar is an insultingly sophemoric ruse which you think will throw us off your murderous activities.

[saint]

Shmokes is dead on. We live in a global community, a global economy. We use our economic and military might to influence events and direction in other countries. Note, I'm not saying that's bad (in fact, be it ever so much a cliche, I think with great power comes great responsibliity and we should be active in the international scene. How/when then become the points of debate...).

As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy, and even to attempt to influence our actions through above-board public means, such as this forum (it obviously doesn't mean anything ludicrious like allowing a foreign party to buy a politician, lest anyone twist what I'm saying into meaning that). What they don't have is a right to vote and make the final decisions in our country. This isn't any different than how we view and treat other countries.  I think it's a good thing.

--- saint

I think it's hilarious when people suggest that those in other countries have no business putting their nose in American politics simply because they get no vote.  That's ridiculous.  It's like suggesting that American felons shouldn't be concerned about American politics simply because they've been disenfranchised.  Or, for that matter, that I shouldn't care about American politics simply because I effectively get no vote.

The ironic thing is that those who think that our Canadian and Aussi friends in these threads are out of their element seem to usually be the same ones who are most nationalistic in the way they view America.  They certainly believe that America is the most powerful, and most important country in the world.  They believe that what America does affects every country in the world in a significant way.  They believe that the state of America's economy affects the world economy more than any other country's.  And they are probably right on all of those points.

But, how in hell can you believe all those things, while simultaneously believing that other people, who are clearly affected by American politics, should not be discussing and debating them?  It's absurd.

[TA Pilot]

As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy

Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.

This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.

This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.

[Grasshopper]

Lol, I love these gun discussion threads. They're almost as amusing as the Ipac vs Keywiz threads! But of course TA Pilot will have no idea what I'm talking about because he has no interest whatsoever in arcade controls!

My main reason for posting is to back up hunky_artist. I was originally going to post in the "Clinton Gun Ban" thread but it's been locked. Why? It was just beginning to liven up!

I also live in Britain and I can confirm that in normal life you simply never ever come across guns. No amount of dubious statistics obtained from the internet is going to change this fact.

The only guns you can obtain in Britain without a licence are low powered air rifles and they are generally pretty pathetic. Probably the only way you could kill someone with one would be to shoot directly into someone's eye at close range.

You can only obtain a licence for a more powerful gun by convincing the authorities that you have a legitimate reason for owning one e.g. you're a farmer, belong to a gun club etc.

Oh, and incidentally the desire to strut around like John Wayne would not be regarded as a legitimate reason....

The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious. Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings. All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.

I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line. Does he for instance think it is ok for citizens to own their own private nuclear weapons? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people!! I'm deliberately choosing an extreme example to illustrate how dubious this line of reasoning is.

There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for the invading army to subjugate an armed civilian population. A good example of this scenario is the current situation in Iraq.

But for me the price is too high, and in any case I don't think it's likely that the USA (or indeed any other western country) is going to be invaded any time soon.

The US constitution was written in an age when there was very little organised law enforcement. The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more. And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.

Of course it is for Americans to decide how they wish to run their society. But I sincerely hope that we in Britain continue to heavily regulate gun ownership.

Incidentally, and slightly off topic, I also believe that most drugs (both prescription and recreational) should be legalised. Does this contradict my stance on gun control? I don't think so.

My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them. However guns (again broadly speaking) tend to harm other people.

[TA Pilot]

The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious.

Why?


Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings.

This is exactly why we have a right to own and use them.  Therefore, this argument doesnt do anything to de-legitimatize these guns.



All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.

And oddly enough, hunting has nothing to do with our right to own a use guns.



I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line.

Thats easy - any weapon that qualifies as an "arm" under the context of the 2nd Amendment.  The test for this qualification is found in US v Miller (1939)



There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns.

Not that this means anything...


The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more.

Yes - there is no longer a need for people to have the means to kill other people in the exercise of the right to self-defense.  After all, there's no one that would ever cause harm to seomeone else.


And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.

Which is completely irrelevant.  The constitution is technology blind.  Arguing that the bill of rights protects only what existed in 1791 means that the 1st amendment doesnt protect CNN amd the 4th doesnt protect your telephone.



My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

And so I should not have the right to own an M-60, because...?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The only gun that matters....

[Dartful Dodger]

My main reason for posting is to back up hunky_artist. I was originally going to post in the "Clinton Gun Ban" thread but it's been locked. Why? It was just beginning to liven up!

(282 Replies) - (10 replies by me) = 272 Legit Replies on a topic I started.

That's a personal high score.

[shmokes]

As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy

Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.

This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.

This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.

Are you nuts, TA?  This is a discussion forum.  Nobody in here, whether American or otherwise, can force a given set of rights on you.  We're discussing the way things are and the way things should be.  Naturally there are varying ideas about both.  

The right to be listened to?  You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to?  What the hell?  The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born.  Certainly where a person is born will inform his socialization and how he views given situations, but to suggest that because a person is born in another country automatically invalidates their opinion about American politics ignores the obvious fact that Danny knows a helluva lot more than the average American about American history and government (past and present).  Not only that, be he is affected by American politics and so would be foolish not to be concerned about them.

Something tells me that you don't mind when Americans concern themselves with the politics in other countries that might affect us.  Afgahnistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, (the former) Yugoslavia, Cuba and Iraq spring immediately to mind.

If I incorrectly state that I, as an indigent American, have the right to appointed counsel in all cases where I am a defendant, I am wrong even though I am an American.  If a Brit or Aussi or anybody else corrects me, pointing out that I do not have a right to counsel in civil cases or in front of the Supreme Court, they are right even though they are foreigners.

[saint]

Sure - you have a right not to listen to someone's opinion (I would present to you however that to simply not listen to someone's opinion is somewhat narrow minded - choosing not to agree with someone is everyone's perogative, but choosing simply not to even listen means deliberately deciding not to see all sides of an issue before making up your mind. I would hope that everyone who is prepared to make an important decision, such as voting, would want to hear all sides of an issue before making up their minds, or at least be willing to consider another point of view that might change your mind. If your opinion is right for you, then listening to someone else's won't change your mind. If your opinion *can* be changed then it means you are not as devoted to your original opinion as you thought and really should be listening to alternative positions to discover what your opinion truly is).

What I have heard repeated several times on these forums recently however, and I am not directing this at you as frankly I don't recall specifically who has said it, is that someone who isn't an American has no right to even speak up on American issues. That's a far different stance than agreeing they have the right to express their opinion whether you agree with it or not.

I fail to see how listening to someone else's perspective can ever hurt. Agree with them and you've enlightened yourself to a new position. Disagree and you've lost nothing but time. Choose not to listen at all and you've decided deliberately to choose ignorance. Ignorance, by the way, is not a put down although it's a sad condition to be in. Ignorance is "The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it." Add to that: "I may not agree with what you say, but it's in my best self-interest to hear what you have to say."

--- saint

As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy

Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.

This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.

This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.

[TA Pilot]

Nobody in here, whether American or otherwise, can force a given set of rights on you.

Funny.   I dont remember saying they were going to or were trying to.



The right to be listened to?  You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to?  What the hell?

I'm sorry.   I dont recall saying that you or any other American has that right.

 

The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born.

Nope.  It hinges on how well they can supprt their argument.



Something tells me that you don't mind when Americans concern themselves with the politics in other countries that might affect us.  Afgahnistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, (the former) Yugoslavia, Cuba and Iraq spring immediately to mind.

Thats right.  Our government does this, because we gave it the job to protect us.   If part of that protection is derived from 'concering itself with the politics' of another nation, thats fine by me.  What do you think foreign policy is?



If I incorrectly state that I, as an indigent American, have the right to appointed counsel in all cases where I am a defendant, I am wrong even though I am an American.

Thats right.   Very good.



If a Brit or Aussi or anybody else corrects me, pointing out that I do not have a right to counsel in civil cases or in front of the Supreme Court, they are right even though they are foreigners.

Thats right.   Very good.

Whats your point?

[shmokes]

TA, I know you aren't dumb.  Don't respond to my post pretending that it exists in a vacuum.  Why don't you try putting it into context and apply it to your post that I was responding to.  Will it help if I separate it all out for you, point-by-excruciating-point?

You said:

Like everyone else, the[y] have the right to free speech.

This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.  (note: by they, you were referring to non-Americans)

To which I responded:

The right to be listened to?  You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to?  What the hell?  The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born.

And then you said:

I'm sorry.  I dont recall saying that you or any other American has that right.

I'm sorry.  Perhaps now you recall deliberately implying it.  If, afterall, you are using the fact that they don't have a right to be listened to as an argument for why foreigners should abstain from entering American politics arguments, it kinda has to mean that Americans do have a right to be listened to, doesn't it?

Then, after that, you said:

This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.

To which I responded by giving an example of how it can be perfectly valid when a foreigner tries to tell us what rights we have, such as when I mistakenly state that I have a right to appointed counsel in all court cases.  Am I helping you to tie these things together?

I further went on to criticize your statement about it being inappropriate for other countries trying to tell us Americans what rights we have and don't have by pointing out the hypocricy of making such a statement while supporting the very same behavior of America toward other countries.  This seems to be lost on you.  If a foreigner posts in a discussion forum about what we should and shouldn't do you seem to think that they are acting inappropriately, but if we send our military into a sovereign nation to impose by force on that nation what we think they should and shouldn't do, that's just foreign policy.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should never send our military in, I'm commenting on the irony and absurdity of your above statement.


I'm not going to go any further, quoting each and every thing you said in your last post.  I find it an obnoxious way to have an argument, and I seriously shouldn't have to hold your hand.  It's also a disingenuous way to have an argument -- you use it, like you did with your first statement in your last post, to take a single line out of the context of, say, the rest of the paragraph it belongs in.  You're a big boy.  The things that I've said here apply to every point you raised in your last post.  I think if you try really hard you can figure out where everything fits.

[TA Pilot]

I'm sorry.  Perhaps now you recall deliberately implying it.  

No.  This is you inferrence.  NO one has the right to be heard, including Americans talking about American politics.

Now, I'd argue that Americans have greater standing in any such discussion, but thats doesnt equate to a right to be heard.


To which I responded by giving an example of how it can be perfectly valid when a foreigner tries to tell us what rights we have, such as when I mistakenly state that I have a right to appointed counsel in all court cases.  Am I helping you to tie these things together?

This is a little different than the context of the conversation that had been had previous.   An argument had been made that because the right to arms doesnt exist over yonder, that because its 'not needed' over there, that its obsolete here.  While they have the right to make that statement, they dont have the standing to judge whats 'needed' here, especially when their frame of reference is their life, over yonder.


If a foreigner posts in a discussion forum about what we should and shouldn't do you seem to think that they are acting inappropriately

Again, it depends entirely on context.  Note that I continue to argue that any such person has a right to state any opinion - the real questions are why does their opinion count, and on what grounds do they state it?

So, while an Englishman may very well be able to correctly state that you do not have a right to an attorney in every instance, he cannot correctly state that you do not have a right to arms - because that right is 'not needed' over in the UK and is therefore obsolete.

Now that your erroneous inferrence is out of the way - is there anything else you'd like to say?



but if we send our military into a sovereign nation to impose by force on that nation what we think they should and shouldn't do, that's just foreign policy.

Thats right.
Foreign policy actions arent a statement of opinion.   They are an action taken to achieve a pilitical goal.  The "right" to take this ac tion derives from oursovereignty; the right to oppose any such action comes from the opposing sovereignty.

This is something different than a statement of opinion during the course of free speech.  People have the right to speak and to ignore those speaking.  Countries have the right to act and oppose actions from other countries.

The difference is, of course, when you force a foreign policy position on another country, you -force- them to 'listen'.

See, internationally, "rights" of a state exist  only insofar as they can be enforced by a state.  Any state can claim they have the "right" to something - the question is, can they enforce it.  Iraq claimed to have a "right" to Kuwait - and they werent able to enforce that right.

So, internationally, countries have the right to speak, and -can- force others to listen... and therefore, trying to make a free speech point with foreign policy doesnt really work.

[Setabs]

Sorry I am a lazy American, so can someone find the statistics on the gun related deaths by texas citizens with a conciled handgun liscence.  I live in East Texas and never have heard anything about this group of people starting trouble w/ the law.  I know for sure not everyone of those citizens can be totally law abiding.  And there has to be some drunk redneecks in the bunch to.

[shmokes]

Oh my god!  Then why did you even say anything?  Do you even have any friends?  Why do you feel the need to compulsively argue with absolutely everything a liberal says, even if he doesn't say something you disagree with.  Consider for a second a summary of our argument:

1- I read one of Drew's posts in which he said derisively, "...who thinks his nose is best placed squarely into American politics," while speaking of an aussie.

2- I wrote a post suggesting that it makes perfect sense for people in other countries to discuss the pros and cons of U.S. policy because it significantly affects them.

3- You posted, in response, saying (this is a paraphrase, but I'm pretty sure I get the gist right) that they do have freedom of speech so technically can participate in American political discussions, but that freedom of speech doesn't automatically make their opinions valid or translate into a requirement that they be listened to.

IS THAT IT??  Jesus, TA, if all you had to say is that a person's opinion isn't automatically god's own truth just because they're not american ease up on the trigg...er, mouse finger.  Who the hell would ever think that?  When has that ever been suggested?

To put it in a format that you're familiar with:

This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.

Funny.  I don't remember saying that their opinion is automatically valid or that they have a right to be listened to.

[DrewKaree]

In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes   ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time    

[patrickl]

I thought answering to TA's flame bait was useless, but when I see the way shmokes takes him apart, I have to admit it's highly entertaining.

[TA Pilot]

Why do you feel the need to compulsively argue with absolutely everything a liberal says, even if he doesn't say something you disagree with.  

You know, its strange.

I say everyone has the right to free speech, and you get all spastic.

Relax.   You'll live longer.

[patrickl]

Too bad TAP himself doesn't see he has just been "owned". Ah well.

[Witchboard]

Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them.

I know this is a gun control thread, but you've obviously never known anyone with a substance abuse problems.

[GGKoul]

The only gun that matters....

I have 2 of them at home!  

[patrickl]

The only gun that matters....

I have 2 of them at home!  

Were they modified to keep them from being banned?  

[GGKoul]

You can pop off the back of the gun to add the scope and to make them fully automatic.  Doing this will make them illegal.  Thats why they no longer make them.  

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I have 2 of them at home!  

Same here...and if I had children, they'd sure as hell know how to shoot 'em. Light Gun safety is paramount in my home.

I think CHILLER is the perfect learning tool for children, helps greatly with hand-eye coordination.

mrC

[fredster]

Well Said MrC.  

Lightguns have been know to have killed many digital aliens.

[danny_galaga]

In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes   ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time    

drew, there's a typo in your title thingy. shouldn't it say vote for KAREE?

[DrewKaree]

In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes   ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time    

drew, there's a typo in your title thingy. shouldn't it say vote for KAREE?

Ya know, I had no clue as to what the heck you were talking about, as I don't usually look at it, but all of a sudden, I saw it....that's just M-er F-ing Rong!  (yes, that's how wrong it is, it's gotta be spelled with a darn "R"!  

It's almost as if they gave MrC mod status for a day, and he's perpetrating opinion fraud too!

Ya know what's gonna be funny?  All the people who read my posts and then say to themselves "well why the heck does he have Vote For Kerry under his name?  

Just lump me in with the great unwashed....I'm an "undecided"    

[DrewKaree]

I gotta admit, after posting that and looking at it again, I couldn't help but laughing so friggen hard!  Whichever of you mods did it, you got me, you got me GOOD!  Kudos!  

[danny_galaga]

rofl (again)!! thats funny. it made me double-check mine...

[Tailgunner]

Lol, I love these gun discussion threads. They're almost as amusing as the Ipac vs Keywiz threads! But of course TA Pilot will have no idea what I'm talking about because he has no interest whatsoever in arcade controls!

I like gun threads too, and I own both an Ipac and a Keywiz. Can I play?

I also live in Britain and I can confirm that in normal life you simply never ever come across guns. No amount of dubious statistics obtained from the internet is going to change this fact.

The only guns you can obtain in Britain without a licence are low powered air rifles and they are generally pretty pathetic. Probably the only way you could kill someone with one would be to shoot directly into someone's eye at close range.

You can only obtain a licence for a more powerful gun by convincing the authorities that you have a legitimate reason for owning one e.g. you're a farmer, belong to a gun club etc.

Unless you're irish.

Oh, and incidentally the desire to strut around like John Wayne would not be regarded as a legitimate reason....

The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious. Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings. All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.

Traditionally, americans are self-reliant. We support ourselves, take care of ourselves, and defend ourselves. Guns are simply an effective means to defend ourselves. Guns are regulated here as well. But due to the way our founding fathers framed our right to bear arms, they're not nearly as regulated as they are over there. The governments you've endured there has been restricting your right of arms for how many centuries? Ours found it overly oppressive and took a different path. As I recall, it was a british decision to confiscate arms that prompted our ancestors to revolt in the first place.

I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line. Does he for instance think it is ok for citizens to own their own private nuclear weapons? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people!! I'm deliberately choosing an extreme example to illustrate how dubious this line of reasoning is.

Ideally, free access to machine guns and distructive devices would be ideal. No nukes, biologicals, or chemical weapons. We can already own tanks and combat aircraft, allowing destructive devices would cover re-arming them.

There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for the invading army to subjugate an armed civilian population. A good example of this scenario is the current situation in Iraq.

But for me the price is too high, and in any case I don't think it's likely that the USA (or indeed any other western country) is going to be invaded any time soon.

It works quite well for the Swiss, and they've all got machineguns. Lucky ---daisies---.

The US constitution was written in an age when there was very little organised law enforcement. The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more.

Like I said, we're a self-sufficent lot. Times have changed, but there's still as much need for self-defense today as there was back then. I have family members alive today because they were armed when they needed to be. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that there's no good reason to carry a gun.

And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.

I disagree. Guns of that era were quite lethal concidering the state of medical science.

Of course it is for Americans to decide how they wish to run their society. But I sincerely hope that we in Britain continue to heavily regulate gun ownership.

As long as we're armed, it will completely be within our power to decide how we wish to run our society. I've no reason to doubt that your right of arms will not be restored in the forseeable future. If that works for you, fine. It won't work here, ever.

Incidentally, and slightly off topic, I also believe that most drugs (both prescription and recreational) should be legalised. Does this contradict my stance on gun control? I don't think so.

My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them. However guns (again broadly speaking) tend to harm other people.

No arguement here. What consenting adults do in their private lives should be their business alone. As long as you're personally responsible for whatever you do while your high or drunk, go for it. That said, I've no problem restricting access of such things to children, or adults that act like children when they've a buzz going. Guns on the other hand do have beneficial qualities that drugs generally lack.

Apologies for the format, I hate doing the quote/reply thing but yours is a big post and I wanted to address the points individually.

[danny_galaga]

It works quite well for the Swiss, and they've all got machineguns. Lucky ---daisies---.

that's cos they aint got no army...

[Floyd10]

This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete.  Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.

see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...

[GGKoul]

This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete.  Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.

see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...

Bullets kill people.. not guns.. .:p

[patrickl]

This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete.  Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.

see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...

Bullets kill people.. not guns.. .:p

Bullets shot FROM a gun BY people kill people , neither bullets, guns or people alone kill people

It's probably not that easy to kill someone with a bullet (without a gun)

[DrewKaree]

Bullets shot FROM a gun BY people kill people , neither bullets, guns or people alone kill people

It's probably not that easy to kill someone with a bullet (without a gun)

*Throws a bullet REALLY hard @ GG to demonstrate*

*now throws a gun REALLY hard @ GG for step 2*

*picks up patrickl and throws him REALLY hard @ GG for step 3*

That last step, with a large enough person, COULD disprove your theory, and a well placed throw in step 2 could also scrap the whole deal, but step 1 clearly demonstrates flawed logic in the "bullets kill people, not guns or people" theory  

[TA Pilot]

Well, you know...

The impact energy of a well-swung ball bat is greater than that from a .45ACP - the .445ACP is just across a smaller area and in less time.  


Guns cause crime like forks cause obesity.