For or against?

I like guns. I've had exposure and access to guns since I can remember. I got my first one when I was 8 (a good old 4-10 shotgun) and got my first pistol at 13. I've yet to kill anybody with my guns and nobody's killed me with them yet. I do like to go shooting on occasion, but i'm not a freak about it. I'd carry a pistol with me on long road trips and stuff just to be safe, but I've never driven around town playing Wyatt Earp.

I think gun control has really become a scapegoat for bigger problems. People have been killing each other since the dawn of man. People are going to kill people, with guns, knives, and their hands. Saying that guns are the issue here is pretty silly. People are violent creatures, hell, all animals are. The world is not a pretty place all the time. So get over it and quit all the senseless gun bashing.

Guns are pretty remarkable from an artistic and engineering standpoint. The efficiency of a .22 long bullet is pretty amazing. It's actually able to harness near 20 some % of the energy of the explosive inside. It's also amazingly accurate to some distance.

Wait a minute, who started this goddamn thread? Don't you realize that you'll never win over these people? Does anybody recall a time where there was a debate here in the PP over something like this where somebody said:
"Well shit, that was an amazing arguement. I'm just going to have to change the way I think about that one. Thanks for the enlightenment!"?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Skexis

But how sure are you that your childhood is a representative sample of children everywhere?

I wasn't trying to imply that it was. My childhood was far from average in that respect. In addition to guns, I've also had firsthand exposure to scientific research involving high explosives as well as commercial blasting, which isn't something that the other kids in first grade did on the weekends with their dads.

"What'd you do over the weekend."

"I helped my dad blow up a beaver dam, and next weekend we're going to turn some marshy area into a duck pond for the park rangers."

Originally Posted by Wesker

The idea that the police are regularly outgunned is a myth.

no kidding, although the police will claim that they're "outgunned" all the time. they claimed they were "outgunned" during the Columbine shootings.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I think it's because it's illegal.

Imagine Dick Cheney and John W. Snow in a pistol duel.

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

I was just suggesting a modern version of the Hamilton vs Burr duel.

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

Originally Posted by lordjames

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms.

and then they'll argue, "oh but that was way back then when you had militias and blah blah blah... people were so uncivilized. the founding fathers really didn't know what they were doing anyways; we should re-write the constitution from the supreme court bench... and fuck john locke, adam smith, and thomas jefferson, we love karl marx and joe stalin!"

somebody just close this. nobody has changed their opinions on anything and they never will.

How ya doing, buddy?

lordjames, i completely agree with you. the 2nd amendment is the most important right in my book cause it's the only one that allows you protect yourself and your freedoms on an individual level. you're preaching to the choir with me, but the thing is.... this is the gff pp. nobody changes their minds or really listens to anything anybody says! they just keep rambling on and on, trying to be "right." nobody in here will change their opinion on the subject despite how many different angles are shown.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

oh no, of course not. I don't mean the political palace as a whole. i just meant this thread. this could go on for like 14 pages of posts of nothing but the same old rehash arguments that people have been regurgitating for forever.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
"if we didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot."
"you wanna get capped sucka?!"

now if somebody wants to come in and blow my mind with something new then go for it.

FELIPE NO

oh yeah, "controlling" guns is a new argument. gimme a break. "controlling" guns in the way you suggest is basically registering them with the federal gov't. the only people that this keeps in check are law abiding citizens.

here's a figure for you. as of 1986, there were 150,000 fully automatic firearms legally civillian owned in the US. How many of them were used in crimes? "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins.

It's debatable as to whether or not Giuliani's policies in NYC really had much to do with the reduced crime rates. Before his election there was a reduction in crime already taking place on a national level. It was a bit of smooth politicking to take credit for that. After he received credit for reduction in crime in NYC, other cities around the country attempted similar methods but with very mixed results.

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