******* Dark Knight

Jericho_Black wrote:But blades are weapons that have been used to cause widespread destruction...Once again though, the weapon did not choose to kill, the person did. They would have chosen whether it were a gun, a blade, a fist, or anything else. It's just them. =/

Thing is, one guy with a sword is not gonna do more damage than a guy with an assault rifle or a handgun. They're on completely different levels in terms of damage potential. One guy can't cause widespread destruction with a sword, a shield and a bow, but you can with an assault rifle and some explosives. Modern tech is just more powerful, it's just a fact.

In terms of legal weaponry, I really don't see why your government lets you guys. Only place in the world that becomes safer with guns is switzerland because the men get given guns on their 21st birthday, they have one of lowest crimerates in europe (dunno why they do it, just heard it on QI, tradition probably) Anywhere else it makes things worse really, and it's a complete undermining and lack of trust in the police force of your country. Then again there's a lot of reasons why your public services are pretty mal nourished.

There is no reason for assault rifles to be legal. I can see some reasoning for huntign rifles or handguns but nothing else should be legal, there is absolutely no reason to own anything else.

I can see hunting rifles maybe, but stuff which is just used for "Self defence" is just gonna be abused by people. Only way to stop this abuse is a flat out ban on any guns you don't have a proper use for.

While I was reading that story I half expected batman to show up and kick that dudes ***. Too bad that didn't happen.

WhatDoesThePendantDo? wrote:

Jericho_Black wrote:but if wasn't a gun then it would have been something else used. Get mad at the guy not the gun =/

Yes, he would've done the same amount of damage with a slingshot as he did with an Assault Rifle.

^ I love you.

You still don't get it, do you?

A gun does not kill, the man uses it to kill... Man had looked to obtain a gun to kill and inflict harm. If guns were gone, they would resort to other means of bodily harm, either reaching towards the past weapons or finding new ways to kill... Guns are not necessary for man to kill, they cab find other means.

Even more so, if guns bring violence we should remove everything that gives violence as well to people such as books, games, media, social connection and disconnection, rebellious and open views, the removal of emotion and logic, the removal of chemicals and household wares, the removal of structure in general. You want to remove violence from man? Good luck; their are so many factors of violence to conquer, and such things are pushers and pullers at different times for different people with certain minds. You want to remove violence? You are going to have to remove everything we built, everything we created, and destroy the mind of man to an intelligence and ignorance of a deer.

I say good luck to you, but removing and banning guns will not remove violence; such people seek violence for different reasons, and will find a way. Man has done this in the past even before guns, where they have killed others for different reason even when no war was there... It is as it is.

Personally, comparing a gun to other tools, I would prefer quick and snappy than weapons that make you bleed or were meantvto bring as much pain as possible before death. Guns have their better qualities, you must recognize that.

And I argue because someone has to argue this; total agreement is not fun at all.

In case you are (also) talking to me Mr Cook, this is one of the millions of(f) topics I'm just always completely undecided about. I'm never the one who can easily position oneself on one side (english?). It all has arguments for and against it. And I can always find/make up new ones for and against it infinitetetetetely it seems, it's so complex, there are so many factors that play a role in this, and I would also really have a hard time breaking it all up using english, very often even just one sentence takes me 2 minutes of thinking how I should put it in words and structure it and such. It just does not flow that easiliy as it would in my mother language, besides that I'm not really good with her either... uuuh yeah just making my standpoint clear: I'm undecided. But... fact is that a gun is a tool solely made for killing. And giving that, in my country at least, you are not allowed to kill a person, even if that bastard unallowedeedelyticly stepped inside your front yard, carrying a tool made solely for killing can't really be justified. Though on the other hand I wish I had an AK for certain situations, e.g. sitting in the subway at night and a group of drunk skinheads with baseball bats steps in... Though probably rather than baseballl bats they would carry guns too... haha, great.

It's for those fighting to I've the tools in general, not just you darkson... I miss your vagrant.

I don't understand your first sentence.... but anyway you miss my vagrant? That's nice of you to mention, but yeah I didn't like it anymore. Now I have an edited covenant symbol again like you

I don't see this sort of thing happening in Japan...

And the "law-abiding citizens need a legitimate avenue to acquire guns or else gangs/criminals will be the only ones to have access to guns" argument just doesn't wash.

Japan has its underworld element too, the Yakuza being the most prominent, yet the criminals of that land still do not go around indiscriminately gunning the citizenry. The reason for that is, gangs/criminals as awful as they are, business. It wouldn't be in their interest to kill off potential clients. They may be evil but they aren't stupid, which is why, OVERWHELMINGLY, criminals use guns against other criminals. Very rarely do they just prey on the innocents for no reason whatsoever. The reason is simple, there is nothing to be gained.

And the other argument about how guns are our only defense against having the government completely strip us of our rights and the only line of defense keeping them from controlling our every move.

I'll just say, if you believe that I have a wonderful selection of tin-foil hats for you to buy. It's on sale too.

On a completely different note. Some people I know pointed out that I have a spooky resemblance to the aurora as we both have dark blonde medium length hair, a bit of fuzzy facial hair, looks to be in our early 20s, and is somewhat tall. This sucks so much. I wanted to see the new Batman but now I'm having second thoughts as I'm afraid that if the police see me they might mistake me for the shooter.

Well, James Holmes is in a Colorado jail right now waiting for his arraignment, so, unless you're dealing with totally paranoid people or people who've been paying NO attention to the news (in which case, they might not even know about the massacre) I think you're safe.

I will say this, if you have your hair dyed red I think it'd be a good idea to change your hairstyle. Always better to be safe than sorry.

You all have seen "Lord of War"? Very very very awesome movie about that whole topic if you perhaps actually missed it, about guns/weapons/war machinery (unfortunately) being a big and important part of our world.

I meant to say that it was directed towards all against the tool in general, Darkson... My iPod is a birch at correcting things when it does not need correction, and I sometimes miss such errors. It's annoying.

You know a lot more people die in car crashes.

Maybe we should ban cars too.

Without cars a lot of people couldn't get to work on time. Yes, cars can be destructive as well but it's not their primary design.

Without guns..., well, without guns more people wouldn't die. All guns do is injure and kill, that's all they are designed to do.

Red herring. Next!

Darkson wrote:You all have seen "Lord of War"? Very very very awesome movie about that whole topic if you perhaps actually missed it, about guns/weapons/war machinery (unfortunately) being a big and important part of our world.

Excellent movie, I wholeheartedly recommend it.

There was this "specialist" that appeared on the news saying something akin to "Our (American) society isn't violent, this is just an excerpt of third world problems; this kind of thing happens regularly in South America."

I think we've only got one school shooting in the past twenty five years. Not so sure about Brasil, since drug dealers and the police are pretty much at war (like in Mexico.)

My argument is that criminals do not care wheather guns are legal or not - we would only be taking them from good people.

Guns are illegal in Mexico and more are killed with guns over there. I should know, I live 15 minutes away from Mexico.

Also history repeats itself. Most Dictators start by taking guns away. Hitler and Kim Jong Il are two prime examples.

Third point. Second amendment was made for us to take arms against the government if they get out of control. We can't do that right now so our laws are already too restricting.

I already addressed all your points in a previous post.

In the Netherlands (where gun laws are very restrictive) there are 3.9 guns for every 100 people. Total number of gun-related deaths in '09=93, rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population=0.57.

In the US there are 88.8 guns for every 100 people. Number of gun-related deaths in '08=9,484, rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population=3.12.

Taking guns away DOES save lives. Or are you saying the Dutch are more civilized than we Americans?

Not in Mexico Pendant. When the guns were taken away the crime rate went up. Living as close As I do, I would be fearing my death if they took guns away.

The U.S isn't bordering the Netherlands.

No, I don't live in a border state so I don't know how life is down there though I can imagine. However, I still think a reality without guns would be a lot better for BOTH the United States and Mexico.

How about chemical weapons? Gauss weaponry? Laser technology?

No? How about the sword and the shield? The flamethrower and the cannon? Bows and crossbows?

Still no? How about mobile weaponry such as tanks? Radioactive material such as nuclear weaponry? Biological warfare?

The difference between all these and a gun? It dies not take an expert to use one. It is the sole reason why infantry had become the sole power of things, replacing elite groups such as knights in terms of the impact they had in warfare.

Trust is an acceptance that usually ties with ignorance; Appeal to Athority is also a logical fallacy as is a Red Herring Pendant. Seeing history as it were documented in the past, I think having a tool where anyone can use and obtain is better than some tools of destruction that are less accessible, require more training, and are held by people of Superior Holdings.

without guns people would just use blades or come up with something else. People will always devise practical ways to kill each other. We can't undo dangerous inventions. We have to live with what we have. And like I said a criminal doesn't care wheather something is illegal. A Person honestly trying to have a form of protection would.

If you had a family member that got shot by a random dude under influence then you would view things a little different maybe.

I know I'm heading towards an opinion now...

But with that point of view you have, it wouldn't matter if e.g. hard drugs were legal too I guess. Everything that applies to the gun topic should apply here too. And to anything else that is (still) illegal actually. No? :|

A death by shot is better ring a family member die from 3 different cancers (bone, lung, and brain tumor) for 4 years after smoking constantly. Death by others is better than killing thenself without much in control due to addiction.

Death is Death, it doesn't matter. A gun can be worse and a better cause of death than other things.