For or against?

Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

[QUOTE=lordjames]Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?[quote]

Well, sir, if you can't provide conclusive proof that my use of allcaps is harming anyone, I am compelled to continue. After all, asking someone to stop doing something just because it's stupid and pointless is a completely unreasonable way to behave.

Quote:

people that ignore the law are criminals.

Really? You're new to this critical-thinking thing, aren't you. See, to me, this is the awesome thing, the sticking point. To me, a criminal is somehow who commits a crime. I've committed crimes in my life; I am therefore by definition a criminal. Whereas for the gun-club crowd, a "criminal" is a separate class entirely, one which necessarily excludes them. Criminals are something vile, which lurks on the periphery of one's vision, stalking your every footstep. It's difficult for me to comprehend a worldview where criminality is viewed not as a behavior but as a racial trait, but there it is. The fun part comes along when your teenage kid steals the gun in order to mug somebody for drug money. Hey-ho, preventin' the criiiiiiimes.

I mean, are you nuts? Nearly everyone is a criminal of some kind. Police departments wouldn't be able to get their funding without the guarantee that most people will try to bypass the speed limit. All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand regarding which forms of criminality are more icky than others.

Quote:

Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there (bullshit examples snipped)

Cars have an intended nondangerous purpose. And do strings, and knives, and red balloons, and cuckoo clocks. The only nondangerous functions of a gun are "sport shooting" (AKA killing things you probably don't intend to eat, you know, for kicks) and target shooting, which is hard to fathom as anything beyond a kind of frustrated practice for the "real thing". I mean, if you guys really think it's so hot to make holes in things, I have this awesome new invention to show you! It's called the electric drill, and—

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are more likely to commit a crime, or to even use it. Just as purchasing a hammer doesn't make you more likely to become a carpenter.

What

Yeah, people are always buying hammers without any intent of engaging in carpentry. Why would anyone do that? Why would you buy a hammer unless you wanted to pound some nails? Why would you buy a piece of hardware unless you intended to work with it?

People own tools because they are operating under a reasonable expectation that they might be called upon to use such tools. I don't know anyone who owns a hammer but is morally opposed to hammering things.

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

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

ou don't buy a gun unless you feel there may come a time in which you will need to use it. But you don't become more inclined to become a criminal because you bought a gun.

Well, no, guns aren't magical, Charlie, they don't have a curse cast on them which transforms you into an evil man. (And, again, this issue pops up again — the idea of "criminals" as some kind of nebulous OTHER)

No, what is gun is, indeed, is a "limited use tool", where all of its intended uses are basically blowing ragged holes through things. Mostly living things. Whether or not it's CRIMINAL to blow off your teenage son's head when he sneaks in late (because you thought he might be a criminal!) is kind of beside the point.

But GAWRSH, Mickey, I'm not a CRIME-INAL, a CRIMINAL, and that has made all the difference.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

Go back to my earlier post and read-up on my proposal for manditory firearm safety education prior to purchasing any firearm.

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

Quote:

You know, it's rather like sex ed: One side believes teaching children about sex, thereby informing them of both the dangers and the protections, will reduce teenage pregnancy...while another side believes teaching children to just say no to sex completely will stop teenage pregnancy.

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Oh, Gumby. Poor, retarded Gumby. Tell us, Gumby: what is the function of the military?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ok, so what's in the interest of a country? I think the first interest of a country is continuing to exist, am I right?

FELIPE NO

Precisely. You're still paying for your safety. Now, if anyone WANTS to remove themselves from the social safety net, I support their right to do that. No police protection, no fire protection, no social security, no driver's license, no postal service... I can go on and on like this. Hey, fine by me. And in return, no taxes! All you have to do is renounce your citizenship. You can keep LIVING here, but we'll pretend you don't exist! I think that sounds like a fair compromise.


Gumby: As a part of the military, who employs you? Think on this one as long as it takes.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yes, the military employs soldiers. The military is in turn commissioned by the government, which is composed of (mostly) elected officials who are selected by— YES! The citizenry! The same citizenry that the military, in securing the interests of the nation, is protecting! It's all so beautiful!

See, to me, the phrase "anti-gun" is misleading. I'm not "anti-gun". When someone's "anti-abortion" that usually means they think abortions are wrong and should never be allowed. But I don't feel that way about guns! I can think of a lot of good reasons a person should have a gun. They could be a soldier, a policeman, a secret agent... or maybe they're just a rustic, living off the land. That's not a problem! What I (and probably most "anti-gun" people) object to is the notion that every single citizen of the nation has a "right" to handheld cannons just because.

I don't depend on the police for my safety, either. I live in a rural area; the police would be highly unlikely to arrive in time to save anybody. But no one has ever broken into my house (with or without a gun of their own), nor do I have any reason to fear that anyone would want to. No, the most significant danger I have from criminals is the fear that one of the yahoo hunters tramping around the woods near my home will reflexively shoot me or my family or one of my pets. And indeed, this happens to someone in the general neighborhood every year or two, some asshole in the hospital and some other asshole in the pokey because of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to shoot at the deer (and miss).

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Right, exactly, my gun was "stolen" from my "locked gun case" which "only I had the key to" and then it was used to "rob and kill and old lady" "completely without my knowledge".

Honestly!

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by David4516

I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue to do so...

I enjoy fishing with dynamite, and see no reason why...

I enjoy leaping nude out of airplanes, and see no reason why...

I enjoy playing loud rap music in the middle of suburban neighborhoods at 4 AM, and see no reason why...

Most amazing jew boots

Well, see, the FREEDOM necessarily includes the FREEDOM of corporations to operate without any meaningful regulation.

But what does that have to do with anything, Dr. Polemic McYellowfever?

I was speaking idiomatically.