Posts made by Darrigaaz

while i think fighters are great, they do have major drawbacks:

AA guns… these things are viscious…

Uncap… Airplanes cannot conquer territories on their own…

lol same hear……

he gets enough bulls**t from everyone else, i dont need to pile it on…

America had over 11 000 gun homicides last year.

This figure was actually brought up by super liberal Kevin today during my George Bush Rant. It DOES include those caused by accidents. Of those that were crimes, as either you or F_alk so aptly put it, 96% were performed by illegally owned firearms. Your first priority should be to find a way to remove illegally owned firearms from our country, or my country i should say. (your from canada, right?) This, which would be VERY difficult, but surely someone as smart as you could figure out a solution. I think since we have been over the banning guns philosophy on both sides, this would be a great way to branch off but stay on topic.

This number is nearly 70 times that of Canada (with 1/10th the population - again, not including the wounded).

off topic: i went to Canada last year, and despite all the jokes people may make, Canada does have a few really good things going for it. As i drove through Ottawa, i noticed that the city is insanely clean! and really easy to navigate. While on another road trip, i got lost in the bronx for three friggin hours because the roads were all screwed up, and a past the same damned blue bridge 16 times! Also Canada’s crime rate is like Nil. On the news up there, they were talking about a massive crime wave, and the numbers they spoke of were so miniscule i almost laughed. My trip there was really fun and pleasant though; with only two things going wrong. Some guy in an army surplus store lied to me when i bought a helemt there. i knew he was lying, but still bought it. He told me it was British WWII era, but it looks nothing like any of their helmet models.

The second thing was that while driving home through Quebec, i got bit by an elk (also known as the Wapiti). It didn’t break the skin, but it was still traumatizing.

Should all hunters suffer the loss of a firearm if it would prevent 1 death? I suppose the dear, moose, fox, etc. wouldn’t mind so much . . . .

That was really well written, and you must have put a great deal of thought into it. But let me just say that hunting is a lot more humane than any of the ways fast food joints ETC kill their animals. Damn Macdonalds and its ‘making a bad name for the United States’-ness.

I know our education system sucks, but i’m in high school (sophmore) and i can answer these…… wow.

I still think we’re the greatest country in the world, lead by the greatest man in the world.

(this is a bit of a joke on how much i like G.W. compared to say, every other human alive. I spent all of today’s lunch discussing how G.W. Bush invented the universe… its truly funny to see me do these things. :) )

lol this is more humourous than the whole gun control thread.

I’m more pro choice on abortion. In fact, with the exception of anti-war, im about the exact opposite of you.

CC, that last one seemed pretty Anti-American, but you already said your not… explain please…

And no ive read this before… it, technology wise was about the equivelent of a tomahawk with a shortened range…

Correct, i don’t read your posts not properly.

Thats a double negative… i mens yes i do read your posts properly.

You can get trigger locks very cheap or even for free from the sensible gun-controlists.
You cant really standardize a lock/safe, seeing as the governmnet cant walk into your house to inspect. Thats not a bad idea. All newly made firearms have a safety mechanism.

@CC:

Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices?

Ok you got me on this one…. i guess i just read it as a rhetorical question. Even reading it over now… i still get the impression that thats what it was…
@CC:

A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities… trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Nope…. a statement regarding the topic, not asking the question. And i gave my reasoning/opinion.
@me:

The costs … how much is a human live worth? You seem to know the answer, and it doesn’t seem to be that much.
I agree totally with CC here, and whoever takes his own “rights” as more important than other peoples lives

I answered this one. But the date is incorrect and i cant find the post anymore.
@CC:

evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter

That was more of angry remark, and while its on the subject, it doesnt ask the question.

Sorry that i didn’t ask that question explicitly before. If i overestimated your capabilites of to abstract, then i am sorry for that and will try not to let it happen again.

Thats like like we’re having a conversation on penguin conservation and you expect me to magically know when to talk about how their breeding affects survival. ok…. that was an absolutely terrible analogy, but basically you can’t expect me to say absolutely everything you want to hear when you want to hear it any more than i can you.

And calm down on the snide remarks, there’s no need for you to get angry. I’m glad that your passionate about the subject, but acting like that really does nothing but make you look petty.

That is what i asked you…… finally, you come to it.

While severe gun controlists like yourself seem to want to do anything and everything to save a life without thinking of those you hurt. Then you (well, CC actually) say that “Well who cares about what millions of honest americans will think about this, we saved a life, and that makes it alright” (Paraphrased) Sure its great that you saved a life, but you made millions of lives a bit worse. The whole issue, including which side you stand on, boils down to your opinions on morality. People will always die. In most cases, there would have been a way for us to have saved them. But if society were to do everything it could to save these people, we would have nothing. Moderation is the key. YOU are not a hunter/gun owner. YOU have no experience with them. Name something thats dear to you. ok, lets not use you, lets use the millions of people worldwide who use tobacco products. Tobacco is dangerous not only to those who use it, but to those near those who use it. I have no experience with tobacco, so in my mind i would gladly wish it banned to save the thousands who die from it every year. But what about all those smokers out there? I’m sure they dissagree with me.

And for me, it is no right, thus any single live is enough.

Well in that case, owning a chainsaw, to me, is no right. Does that mean that it makes sense to ban all chainsaws to protect people from death and injury?

“The same principle of law should apply to gun owners that applies to all other citizens you break the law and cause harm to others; you get punished and you lose your freedom and rights . You dont get punished just because some fanatical group of people with an opposing view says you should be.” Quote from my friend’s father, also a hunter.

If you look up what Sherman28 said in a different thread:

In an American Court conspiracy to commit X, typically carries the same weight as committing X.

good quote, but average gun owners do not conspire to go out and murder people in their sleep.

Doesn’t fit, because of the word “fanatical”. Soone fanatical has not only opposite views, but also acts according to his views, which would make him a criminal or at least conspiring. Anyway, that’s just a minor point. Fell free to anwer, i won’t carry it further after your reply.

So when i make a small point, you can turn it into a rhinocerous, but i cant’? ha!
P.S. fits fine…

I am close to call you names for that. First you ask, and then you totally ignore the answers. Why did you ask us then in the first place?

I didn’t ask you if you thought it was a good idea, just if you had a problem with it. Get over yourself.

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

Well, whoever looks for the stick in the others eye should look for the log in his own… or something like that. That’s another good quote to pull out…

i like my quote better :P

“Neighbor”…… i like the way that was phrased…

Well i recently started a PBEM against Hurkyl and he as russians play Russia Restricted moved 16 infantry, 2 fighters, and 3 tanks to karelia; leaving caucasus empty and only two infantry on Russia. If i took Russia, my front lines would have been weak enough for him to take germany quickly, so i attacked Karelia instead and lost all but a bomber and five infantry of the german army.

That was just an interesting thing for you to think about….

Generally, the axis need to play visciously and try to inflict heavy losses to the allies early on while taking land.

As germany, aviod ending up in a stalemate with Russia. Most strategies say to either go after africa with all your might or do something crazy like attack america.

As Japan, try to aviod engaging The pacific fleet directly. Capture alaska and take as much land in Asia as you can to get more IPC’s per turn. Simply Dueling in the Pacific, Japan will fall to America’s Economic Power.

Most american strategies say to either take Africa or concentrate on The pacific front. Use you economic power to build a massive and overwhelming army.

The Uk needs to own the high seas to keep Germany from doing anything crazy, I.E. invading great britain or the US. It’s also a popular idea to build a Industrial complex in either South Africa or India. Of the two, i recommend south africa, because japan could possibly take india on turn 1.

Russia should try to keep a bit of pressure on Japan to keep it from getting too much land in Asia, while having a slow moving curtain of death slowly strangle Germany.

Ok… While i’m sorta new at this, these are the general idea’s i’ve heard from everyone… i hope they helped.

Ok, now whats your position on this article? someone please have a good first post to start this up.

http://special.reserve.co.uk/news/story.php?id=2664

@F_alk:

Thus, once you have someone as a suspect for being a member of organized crime, you search him.
If you find a gun, you have evidence!

You can’t have a cop randomly walk up to people and ask them to empty their pockets any more than you can search someone’s house without a warrant.

To Daarigaaz:
My sidenote is quite some time ago, and displays how you don’t read the postings of me (and CC in another case) not properly. It has nothing to do with the rest of the argument, that’s why i repeatedly made clear that it is a side note. You didn’t seem to care where it was from, or re-read the postings that lead to that sidenote.
Which just adds to that sidenote btw ….

Correct, i don’t read your posts not properly.

i still have not heard any reason for you, why we should keep up drug control, as it (from you view) obviously doesn’t work.

I didn’t reply because it had nothing to do with the topic, and i only inserted it as an example of how smuggling guns would work.

That is how it started. You stated something, i followed that logic, you said i misunderstood you, and only restated your line…

Not true, i merely emphasized my ‘line’ and tried to explain it better.

…without going into the implications i gave.

Most times, i did go into the implications you gave, if i did not address one it is because i had either addressed it before, addressed it in relations to another point of yours of CC’s, or i simply thought i did a good of addressing it and apparently you didn’t.

All you said is “i am law abiding, so i would lose my gun, only criminals would keep their guns”. Following CCs lines, you would admit that this gives the police another handle against criminals, that you don’t seem to want. Follwoing your own lines, having guns “for self defense” seems just be a minor reason to own them, your main reason seems to be hunting.
Thus, why do you mind that criminals keep their guns? You invalidated/weakened your conter-argument yourself.

No i didn’t. My counter arguement is that by taking guns from EVERYONE, which i might add is gun control but gun removal, you screw over the non-criminals. I did not say that owning a gun for protection was a minor reason for guns, but that in MY mind it is. It doesn’t seem practical to me. When you say another handle against criminals, do you mean a way to bust them? It’s not that i want to protect the criminals, but i want keep firearms around for recreational purposes. My counter arguement against gun “removal” is that criminals would still be able to access guns, that banning firearms would screw hunters, and mainly that guns are not simply evil things, they actually have some recreational purpose. Also, while i don’t agree with it, who knows how owning a gun may comfort some people.

Summing up your reasons against gun control:
So, a reason not to ban weapons is that we haven’t banned cars/alcohol, which in combination are illegal. Another reason not to ban weapons is that shooting people is illegal. Another reason is that criminals would retain their then illegal weapons anyway. Drugs control doesn’t work, and that is a reason not to ban weapons.

You sure know how to pull out the strangest points i’ve made. My car/gun comparison was to show how rediculous it is to simply ban something outright like that and more importantly how one person can turn a good thing into a bad thing. You actually made sense with criminals will retain guns anyway thing, as i feel that that would happen, but i don’t even know that what that drug control thing was about. You somehow managed to turn my explaination of how easy it is to smuggle things into the country into a reason that guns should not be banned.

You also have not yet answered which effort has been done by society and/or weapon manufacturers to reduce the number of “gun deaths.”

Trigger locks and {those things that are metal tubes/links inserted into the chamber} do a fairly good job of saving five year olds and deterring school shootings. Those gun safes that look like bank vaults could stand up to an explosion by the looks of them, so they’d work great if they weren’t so expensive.

You haven’t answered why “owning a gun” is more important than a single human live.

because it hasn’t been asked yet. Here is my answer:

The point is that our country was founded on a belief of individual freedoms and that responsible use of these freedoms is something to be cherished and protected at all costs. Hundreds of thousand of americans have died in defense of this basic american ideal. You say that taking away all guns would be worth it to save one life, where do you draw the line?
There are 5 million members of the NRA, thats AT LEAST 5 million people who’s rights would be tossed away if all guns were banned.

“The same principle of law should apply to gun owners that applies to all other citizens you break the law and cause harm to others; you get punished and you lose your freedom and rights . You dont get punished just because some fanatical group of people with an opposing view says you should be.” Quote from my friend’s father, also a hunter.

(that took alot of thought…. how was it? i think that got my point across well)

So, i have not taken a lot from here, and i don’t think i want you to use this in your debate class. You should not want it yourself, as you have been nicely ignoring several lines by CC and me, which would not make you look good.

Actually i did use it, and with exception to the spelling errors, lack of locations for our sources, and the frequency that we got off topic, (hehe… oops) it was well recieved as a good debate.

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

Another thing; “laughing at a valid point is the defense of those who have no valid response”. keep that in mind. its a good quote to pull out in unofficial debates over the internet.

Ok, now how was that for my reasoning? i think i answered all the stray questions… now i’m having a PBEM with Hurkyl in the games section, so i seriously will have to cut back on my debating time. Check out my New article for discussion… Cruise Missiles.

@cystic:

@Darrigaaz:

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

I prefer to call them “school shootings” rather than ‘Columbines’. And no, not to my knowledge, we have not had one in a while.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco.

I’m glad to here it m8; to me tobacco is a plague on humanity.

As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

Well the other activities you mentioned simply add to the detriment of society. I know this may be difficult to grasp, seeing as you most likely have no experience in the matter, but hunting is an amazing thing. There’s nothing like being out in the woods, one with nature, trying to outsmart the animal on its turf; its an experience like no other. Just from debating with you on this topic, i get the impression that if you tried it, you’d enjoy it.

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

Handguns can be used to hunt certain kinds of game. And there’s also the defense factor. While i don’t actually think owning a gun will help out defensively, theres no way of measuring how assuring it may be to someone to know that its there.

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

No, i wasn’t implying that losing our right to own guns is taking away all our rights or any nonsense like that, i merely wanted you to reflect on how life would be if it did happen.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to…

My comment was on whether or not anyones trying to promote gun safety, not if it works everytime. Let me point out that this is the great minority of cases that these happen in

F_alk,
“Even then you won’t as you continue to ignore the minor side point i was making.” Was that some kind of attack on my character? If i do find out if i was wrong, i would admit it. Thats just the kind of person i am.
And what makes you so sure that the only reason to own a gun is for self protection? F_alk, although you had many good points and ways of expressing them, you often tried to change words to your own use, as you did on my car/gun comparison. I specifically stated that drunk driving was ilegal, and owning a gun was legal. PERHAPS i should have worded the “being an a** and shooting someone is illegal” line as “Being reckless and dangerous with a gun is illegal”. I have shown that post to a few friends including the super liberal kevin, and while he staunchly opposed my view, he said my “point was clear”, then went on for the rest of my lunch period about how and why guns are a threat to the average american. Safe to say, my lunch period today sucked. I’m sorry, but i think that post of mine was fairly clear in its meaning and not majorly faulted. That aside, its been great debating with you.

Since i have already said this, this brings me to my final point.

This debate has run its course. Any arguement that could be used for either side has been said. Unless someone comes up with something WAY original, it would have already been said at least once. Had this been an actual debate, the moderator of the debate would have declared it dead in the water a while ago and switched to a new topic.

I shall post very little else on this topic, but i had a great time debating with you guys, CC in particular. Your a tough opponent who stands their ground. Congratulations, and i hope you all took something away from this discussion.

@cystic:

@Darrigaaz:

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

I prefer to call them “school shootings” rather than ‘Columbines’. And no, not to my knowledge, we have not had one in a while.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco.

I’m glad to here it m8; to me tobacco is a plague on humanity.

As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

Well the other activities you mentioned simply add to the detriment of society. I know this may be difficult to grasp, seeing as you most likely have no experience in the matter, but hunting is an amazing thing. There’s nothing like being out in the woods, one with nature, trying to outsmart the animal on its turf; its an experience like no other. Just from debating with you on this topic, i get the impression that if you tried it, you’d enjoy it.

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

Handguns can be used to hunt certain kinds of game. And there’s also the defense factor. While i don’t actually think owning a gun will help out defensively, theres no way of measuring how assuring it may be to someone to know that its there.

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

No, i wasn’t implying that losing our right to own guns is taking away all our rights or any nonsense like that, i merely wanted you to reflect on how life would be if it did happen.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to…

My comment was on whether or not anyones trying to promote gun safety, not if it works everytime. Let me point out that this is the great minority of cases that these happen in. Since i have already said this, this brings me to my final point.

This debate has run its course. Any arguement that could be used for either side has been said. Unless someone comes up with something WAY original, it would have already been said at least once. Had this been an actual debate, the moderator of the debate would have declared it dead in the water a while ago and switched to a new topic.

I shall post very little else on this topic, but i had a great time debating with you guys, CC in particular. Your a tough opponent who stands their ground. Congratulations, and i hope you all took something away from this discussion.

One of my friends has a brother serving their right now, and he says the situation there isnt as bad as we think. Most places have power and water back, including places that didnt have power before. He also says that most iraqis are glad the americans are there, but want to get back to normal life ASAP. I’ll talk to Ray tomorrow for some more info.

I got a friend who’s whole family hunts whitetails; they make deer burgers and ‘sloppy does’. (sloppy joes…. get it?)

Venisons good though.

MMMMmmmm…… deer heart rules!

um, my grandfather, father and uncles are taking their annual trip to maine to go hunting the week before thanksgiving.

I may be going hunting either late this season or next season once i get a rifle.

:sigh:

No CC, I’m Not british, my ancestors were british/Irish, but I was born and raised in MA.

F_alk, i may have misheard my source, as i was getting that info from an article at my grandfathers house, and while i admit 20 million seems more logical, until i can contact my grandfather again i will not recant my statements. (he’s in the hospital now)

Drunk Driving is Illegal. Being an ass and shooting someone is illegal.
Owning a gun is NOT illegal. Owning a car is NOT illegal.
Being a dumb@$$ is NOT illegal.
^ that is the fatal factor in either situation.

Please clarify this, i cant really understand your point:
Remember what you said yourself why you don’t “allow” thinking further your “drugs and weapons” thread: “if a law like this was ever passed, i’d be very pissed at the democrats but i would kindly oblige; then i would work to get it repealed.”

Weapons to be used with crimes are most likely to be illegal. You said it. That proves that the average good guy with a gun will not commit a crime with it. That point we can both agree on.

And yes, a gun license is a good idea.

Collectors removing the bolt could be done, but i dont see the need for it.
To CC’s arguement

The average citizen wouldnt be the one getting the “hot” gun (good adjective!). It would be the one who would use if for evil who would get the "hot gun. (:))

Quote:
You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

hahaha, i get it. You’re being funny again!!
Quote:
Quote:
But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

Quote:
this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

//\//////\right. evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter.

Um…. what does that have to do with my above statement? Anyway, i’ll adress it.
Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

LoL if hunting rifles and shotguns were banned, Maine, Vermont and Michigan would cecede (Spelling?) from the union!

P.S. From what I’ve heard, Holland allows hunting rifles to be owned, but nothing else. Even that bothers me a bit.

Let me just run this by you on an unrelated issue; do you realize how much life would suck if ALL our rights were taken away?

Back to f_alks last post. Finally your being sensible in your debating. Traffic Education is here as well. When applying for a gun licence, i believe there is some form of testing in most areas. And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

All your “Save the children from the evil guns!” nonsense and you condone juggling babies? shame on you!

@cystic:

i’d suggest that you would have a different result without any effort directed at drug-control.

I predict that pehaps drug use in the country would increase about 3% of its current total TOPS.

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? As i said, cars kill people, so to save more people lets revert back to using horses. wait sometimes people get crushed by horses, so lets only walk. You ban weapons and you screw people out of something useful to them. I mean really - think about it.

You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Once again, back to the smuggling/prohibition arguement.

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

I could easily take this butter knife and put it On an arrow and shoot it across the street. True, i would need some practice to adjust my aim, but its possible.

And why do you think someone needs to stand still? I could easily sneek into my friends house with a butter knife and get close enough so that someone could kill him. Then my sean would probably kick my ass for breaking into his house, but i could easily prove you wrong.

Of course, i’m a bit too lazy to do so right now and seans off at college.

@Guerrilla:

it’s stupid that we have to put liscence on guns nowadays!

hey, it keeps the anti gun nuts happy, and it doesnt bother me all that much, so i dont care.

Well i’ve been taking spanish since 7th grade, and with a dictionary i can make out what your saying, but i wouldnt be of much help. sorry