For or against?

The following two paragraphs came first and second in the "worst analogy of all time" contest I've been running.

Originally Posted by David4516

Guns are no more dangerous than anything else in these modern times. Cars are a great example. They're big and dangerous, yet everyone has them and 99% of the people who drive them manage not to kill anyone. It's the same with firearms, yes bad things can happen if you're stupid with them, but 99% of gun owners are very safe, responsible people.

As far as necessity, well the odds of someone ever having to use their gun are pretty small (maybe 1 in 500?). However, you don't know if you'll be that one guy that needs it untill the shit hits the fan. Therefore I argue it's better to have one, just to be prepared. It's like having airbags in your car... you'll probably never need them, but if you ever do you'll be glad they are there...

Cars are built with a primary purpose: moveing you around. They have been adapted for other uses like ram raiding bottlestores and running over your ex girlfriend.
Gun are also built for a primary purpose: killing humans! Other uses since discrovered include: oh wait none, guns are only good at destroying life.

Owning a gun is not at all like airbags in you car.
Airbags are there so that in the case of an accident they will cushion you and save you life.
People carry guns just incase they have to KILL SOMEONE.

But the classic stupidity came from Night Pheonix

Originally Posted by Night Pheonix

Your argument falls because of this:

Me owning a firearm does not in any way, shape, or form infringe upon your rights or freedoms. Unless I use that firearm against you, it likely never will.

Wait wait wait let's have a look here. Eleos argument fails because GUNS don't infringe on other people freedoms except when they're shooting bullets at you.

Eleo complained that you couldn't get high and fuck in public. Who's freedoms do those impose on?

I'm sick of this protecting my house and family line too. News: unarmed people don't get shot at. So people come invade your home, big deal. they take your stuff, you call the cops, the cops catch them and insurance replaces all your valubles. Drama over. Would you prefer to have a leathal gun battle in your own home? Fuck your pride.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

There was never really a true "People's Rebellion" until the advent of the gun. There have never been free societies before the gun. The gun, as they say, is the Great Equalizer, and the base threat of force it provides is what, I feel, makes the right to bear arms so important. It forces law to remain legitimate, it forces governments into serving their people.

This news just in: Ancient Greeks had guns!

Originally Posted by David121312412

And Gumby, you CAN hunt with a sword. I think I read someplace that in the old days africans would hunt lions with swords as a "right of passage". Basicly, if you can kill a big ass lion with a sword, then you're badass enough to be called a "man", LOL...

LOL! Oh wait no.

Originally Posted by Gumby

A sword was designed explicitly for fighting with other humans. Firearms however can be designed for hunting as well as weapons of war. So please do not twist my words.

Look here's the difference between swords and guns. If someone came at you with a sword not only could you fight back but the fight would be noble and fair in a sense.
I say noble because only noble men were armed and when they did challenge and dual to the death it was a fair contest.
With a gun bang you're fucking dead. If you're regular home invader comes in guns blazing. If he even sees you reach for a gun he'll shoot you dead before you even get it from your bedside drawer, or your blazer pocket. You're a gonna.

At least if you're unarmed you can surrender. But hey home invasions everyday.

Also lol guys the guy that robs your home with a gun isn't a hardend criminal from the underworld with all the secret links to get the latest in illegal weaponry. They're normally young men who had a shit upbringing, dropped out of school and can't even organise opening a bank account.

The gangs, the mafia are the ones with the links, the ones who'll illegally obtain weapons and here's the thing, they don't come after you, they go after rival gangs. If you're shot by the mafia you're most likely a crook yourself and deseved it. I can assure you, since Australia banned guns semi automatic and consealable guns the vast majority of people shot are bikies and underworld figures.

Originally Posted by CetteHamsterLa

I was just clarifying the meaning of that statement to david not making a comment that all guns are used for murder. It's simply easier and takes less commitment to kill someone with a gun is all. Which could potentially make someone already inclined to kill more likely to. In say a home defense situation even if you were needing to fend them off with a bat while it is an inferior weapon you have to admit that you can generally stop a person without killling them while there's less of a guarantee of that with a gun.

Pretty much spot on.
In a country where lethal weapons are unavailible, if you really wanted to kill someone who have to goto pretty extrodinary lengths, lengths most people aren't prpared to goto. If you live in the states, you just gotta buy the gun buy the bullet and bang. Piss easy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Dueling pistols is pretty cool actually but people arn't up for it today.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

That's what I found to be so hilarious in "Bowling For Columbine", you Canadians being armed to the teeth as well but with far less gun related crime. It has to come down to an attitude problem on the (US) Amercians' part, doesen't it?

Yeah I like the way the pro gun lobby automatically assumed Bowling for Columbine is some pro gun controls movie when the Canadian example goes on to prove that it's not. But then again rarely are gun owners smart enough to have deductive reasoning.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well you are signifgantly behind the rest of the industrialised world in these regards, often seen as progress. You should try it sometime.

If America was more like Australia you'd have less murders, more equal distribution of income, a more open electoral system, a higher life expectancy, a more educated population and better beer.
Think about it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Don't even try to change the subject. America might be developed economically but it's highly regressive compared to the rest of the developed world in many other social aspects. Gun control not withstanding.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?