Zierro

Isn't it against the law to buy a gun and skip the mandatory regulation part? I don't know how that is abiding the law. Okay, I see what you mean by that now. The problem is that I don't think it matters when it comes to the manufacturing. I've read somewhere (The book: Freakonomics in case you're wondering) that there is enough guns here in the US to be distributed to every citizen and there would still be a surplus. The only immediate effect cutting the supply in the primary market would do is keep the innocent people unarmed until the criminal's market 'catches up' and their supply is cut short too. Like I said above, the only immediate effect (I'm talking decades too) would be that the innocent won't have guns for a while but the criminals will. Wait, so you're agreeing that there is indeed more to the picture than lethality? Okay don't think about the elderly for a minute. Think in broad and general terms now. There are more cases of guns being used effectively for self-defense than there are cases of the defenders being disarmed. Like I said, if it's the criminal's intentions to kill you with a gun - that would translate to the criminal's intentions to kill you with a knife. The only difference is they'd have to exert more effort to ensure your death. I guess the innocent could have knives for self-defense but you have said yourself that guns are more lethal. That means the criminals have something more lethal available to them than law abiding citizens. Hmm so you're just talking about cops then aren't you? :lol: I know. You're proposing a ban on a beneficial use for the guns instead - self-defense. That's worse than getting rid of the whole entire thing because the only people who are immediately effected are ironically the ones who want guns to protect themselves against crazies in the first place. Alright, then that means he doesn't have the intent to kill. He wouldn't if he had a knife either. If anything, it's just indifference to the well-being of others. That isn't the type of crime I'm talking about though. ? Mind quoting me? Maybe you misread or I made a typo. My point was that gun murders can be replaced with knife murders because if the intent is the same, then the outcome can just as easily be the same too. If he doesn't succeed and he shoots again then that clearly shows that he does have the intent to kill. Either that or he's just purposely wasting bullets for no reason. But again, I don't see how it's an "accident" to consciously obtain, load, and shoot a gun at a person. If you have the intent to do something, you're doing it on purpose.

There is a reason behind everything we do. Sometimes we just don't realize it. Not sure I follow. You can say that some people eat for the sake of eating, but there is still another reason behind it. Yes, that's a reason to help someone but I don't think that's exactly 'selfless'. In that instance of someone deserving recompense, you are just making sure justice is served because you want to. Of course it stems down into your subconscious but you're still making the decision to help someone. Even if it doesn't feel like you are controlling yourself, you actually are - things are just happening too fast that you don't realize it though. To establish universal peace, love, and order? That seems like a pretty good reason to me. Even if your instincts make you inclined to do good deeds that doesn't mean you are doing them for no reason. I don't know how that can be considered selfless because you are doing something to establish a better world - something that you technically want. I think even sacrificing your own life for someone can count as not being selfless. For example, say you are stranded on an island and you and your brother are running out of food. You can make two choices. 1.) Give him your food and save his life. 2.) Keep your food and save your life. Of course you will see option 1 as the more selfless thing to do, but hear me out... Now the reasons behind picking option 1 could be because you want your brother to live his life, you want to die nobly, or because you want to do the right thing. No matter what, all of those reasons are reasons why you want to pick option 1. Remember, your brother can make the same choices. If he wants to pick his own option 1 and you don't let him, then technically that's putting your own wants in front of his. It's a lose-lose (or should I say win-win) situation. It's really just a weird twist to the word selfless - like the word "nothing". (If nothing is something then how can it be nothing? :mrgreen: ) There's no such thing as selfless because we only do what we want to do or else we wouldn't do it.

Item: Yellow Party Hat - To look like a king. Level: 99 Prayer - Useful for long trips that I need Prayer for and nice cape. Quest: While Guthix Sleeps - So I can have all quests completed.

Hell no. I wanted 99 Fishing and I'm not even halfway there. I got a bit sidetracked with total level and real life though.

Runescape reminds me of the good old days when the only thing I had to worry about in life was a random event killing me. It might just be retrospect speaking, but those were some fun times.

I have much better things to spend 60M on... like 99 Prayer. :D

99 Hunter and 99 Thieving plus a whole bunch of total level gains.

Good point although mistreated is a harsh word to use here. I think there just isn't a solution to this since we already have bandages and giving free runes would give Mages too much free Xp (Castle Wars is multi - FOG isn't). Just something we have to deal with.

What is their reason for helping people though if it isn't to make themselves feel better or "because it's the right thing to do"?

Well you're still saying that you think that all humans do charitable acts for 'selfish' reasons, aren't you? I don't understand how you - or the other people in this thread - can assume that all humans are like that. Then... they do good deeds for no reason?

How is that even slightly true? I'd say the exact opposite. The primary market is for those who want self-defense because they obtain the weapons legally. Cut the supply short and now those who still want guns for self-defense would have to get the guns from the secondary market. The secondary (black) market would realize the increase in demand for their particular market so they would compromise by trying to increase their supply to meet equilibrium. That deals with stricter regulation which I have said numerous times I am in favor of. I said I want the good people to be armed, not the bad ones, remember? A stricter regulation would stop most of the criminals from using the legal market, but that doesn't mean all of them are going to stop that easily. A criminal is going to want a gun - legal or illegal. After all, it's criminals we're talking about here. Like I said, good luck with changing the attitude. It's like you're skipping a step and proceeding. It doesn't work that way. You are saying the problem lies in wanting the right to have guns for self-defense. Why is self-defense wanted? Because the black market thrives and criminals can always get their hands on dangerous weapons. Take away the legal guns, and that doesn't make self-defense any less desirable. It will just force the good people into using the black market. You are saying that there is a substantial correlation between lethality and intimidation. It may be partially true because people aren't afraid of pens, but then again if it's completely true then why don't people have a phobia of trucks? There is more to it than just lethality alone like I've stated before. Guess I shouldn't have added the word "self" in front then. I didn't mean I want armed children but a gun in an old widow's safe at home to protect herself from burglars seems like a good idea to me. Hey, guns can fire from a long range can't they? Plus there have been many more cases of guns being used effectively in self-defense than there have been cases of guns being disarmed from victims and used against themselves. You can't argue on the basis that "something might go wrong." Something can always go wrong, but that doesn't mean you should sacrifice a much needed and effective method of self-defense because usually things work out in favor of the person holding the gun. Criminal intent. Get rid of legal guns and the innocent will suffer. Stuff like that. It's stretch to say they don't equate. In fact, the full prohibition is even a better idea than just targeting the legal guns and making the innocent self-defense seekers suffer. I don't see them banning cars, drugs, and knives as whole items though because if they are used correctly they have positive outcomes. Just like self-defense. Refer back to Danger's link about gun self-defense actually being beneficial. :o But the point is that they did kill the victim and on purpose too. That's mighty convenient because normally people don't miss with knives as often as they miss with guns. That's not even my point though because it's not a case of murder which is what I'm talking about. (People who want to murder with guns will just try harder to murder if they have a less lethal weapon.) True. I'm talking about murder though and that isn't a case of it. Shooting a loaded weapon and succeeding you mean. If you are aware that a gun is one of the most lethal weapons, you consciously obtain and load it, and pull the trigger at someone - I don't know how that is not having the intent of killing someone.

I don't understand how people can make a claim like "All humans are naturally selfish" or "Everything [humans] do is to satisfy [them]selves." How can you make a claim like that and apply it to everyone in the world? How can you assume that all humans are the same, selfish creatures who aim to satisfy themselves? That's not my point. I was saying that our actions reflect our desires - even if the action is donating to the poor and the desire is to "know you made a positive difference". It's not necessarily a bad thing, but for the most part humans act based on their best interests.

Shin, are you saying that you don't think pedophilia relationships result in worse consequences than homosexual ones?

Shouldn't worry about it. Most of them don't actually listen to metal; they're just trying to be hardcore. How does bashing kiddie-bashers make you any different?

Yahweh. Allah. Dios. Vashni. Thor. Zeus. Jupiter. There are too many hands waving. AUGH I thought Zeus was the Greek version of Jupiter.

Is that a challenge? :P For some reason people have it in their minds selfishness is an inherently bad thing. But we are social creatures and value having others around us. We selfishly build communities and help others to gain respect. I guess it somewhat plays semantics with the word selfish, but I think there is a valid cynical point in there somewhere. Well, I didn't mean to add a negative connotation to that so I'm sorry if I did. I just meant that it's in our biologic structure (I guess?) to aim for living a good life - which might have the side effect of helping other people out so it's all good. :D PS: I suck at tennis.

10817

Agreed. It would probably be a level 60-70 staff with a high magic bonus or a nice special.

The nicest thing I've done was letting my temporarily homeless friend live with me for a while. [Fight it out in PM, not on the forums] Also, I agree that selflessness is almost nonexistent. It is. Everything we do is to satisfy ourselves - whether our definition of being satisfied is "knowing I made a good difference" or "knowing I'm the best at tennis".

^^ While those threads may have discussions about communism in them, they are not for the sole purpose of discussing communism like this thread is.

This was started by someone asking for proof that being homosexual isn't a choice. Some of us came to the conclusion that we do not "decide" what orientation we are - it just comes down to personal preferences which is on a subconscious level I am pretty sure. Now, where is your proof that we're wrong? They are different - that's the whole point of my response. Your age =/= your gender. We don't have bathrooms based on age. The reason pedophilia relationships aren't allowed are because it is an endangerment to the well-being of the children. What types of moral reasons are there for why homosexuality isn't allowed? So we're just assuming that they are lying about not being able to control themselves? A thief makes the conscious decision to take what is not his. A homosexual is more turned on by the same sex. You can control what you take from others but you can't control what turns you on. Analogically speaking, can you make yourself like eating cardboard? Besides, we're not going by bologna testimony here.

When I think in terms of "fair" I see families being happy because everyone is healthy and has a full belly (the universal right to live) - not a mechanic earning approximately 50% less than a builder even though they both make more than enough (the universal "right" to leisurely excess).

Yeah, they said some jib jab about getting a 'life' or something now but I never even heard of that word before.

I feel kind of bad. They have all the little children in the world adore them, but on the other hand the whole teenage population loathes them. Guess you can't always have the best of both worlds. 8-)

I would say right now but then I would never be able to drink legally. I guess 21 wouldn't be that bad though. :D