Zierro

No effect? When did I say that? Maybe you got 'small effect' mixed up with 'no effect'. You plan on decreasing homicides right? Well taking guns out of the problem would effect that - but not on a desirable level. You can argue that 999 deaths are better than 1000 but I honestly don't see that as a reason to act because there are many setbacks to your anti-gun plan. Exactly, but I like how you added a negative connotation to that. I don't care about the death toll. I don't see what you don't understand about that. I'll say it again. Statistics aren't relevant to the point I'm making. I'm talking about injustice here which is why I'm in favor of self-defense. Yeah, deaths are tragic but what does "trying to decrease them" accomplish in actuality? How much would society actually change? If you can change all of society, I implore you, please do so. But you see, you are only human. I'm not saying it's impossible - just highly unlikely and we shouldn't rely on "anyone's guesses" when it comes to issues such as this. I think you just don't seem to understand that there is a line between wanting to defend your own life (something pretty damn ensuring) and wanting to persuade people not to demand guns (anyone's guess). And instead of acknowledging the existence of that line, you continue to bring up the fact that instead of using guns there are alternative methods to self-defense... and I continue to bring up the fact that there are alternative ways to die... And the cycle continues... Yeah it would. Now good luck with that. Not everyone follows the rules. The Prohibition Act is a prime example of that. And I know you're thinking, "That's a law - I'm talking about culture." But like I said before, it's harder to change everyone's mind than just the minds of a select few. Plus in this context there really isn't that much of a difference between laws and folkways, because if people don't conform to them then they aren't fulfilling their purposes. Perfect, instead of saying guns in general you helped me out by saying it has to do with the attitude - good luck with changing that. Taking away drugs would result in less deaths - what a great revolution! No, as in purposely murdering. What a cherry picker. You say taking away guns will result in less deaths (they are lethal) but when talking about self-defense they suddenly lose their lethality and there are 'better alternatives'? This is another two-way street. If you bring up alternative self-defense, then I'll bring up alternative methods of dying. Okay, this is like the millionth time you took "intentional" into the wrong context. Allow me to enlighten you: intentional: done with intention or on purpose You see that? On purpose! How is a violent crime "not on purpose"? Not on purpose = accidental.

Exactly. If you honestly expect this thread to be just a huge wall of, "Aww that's sad," then maybe think again. That's forcing strangers to be sympathetic. There's a difference between discussing something, and having a huge, epic failure argument. They weren't discussing the original topic, as far as I could tell. They were only concerned over, "No, I said this" - "No... what I meant was this... not that..." - "See Paragraph 2, subsection A, line 34... you misquoted me, see." It was far beyond discussing the OT. And I certaintly don't expect anyone to feign sympathy. What I meant was, the bickering was slightly pointless when compared to the tragedy at hand. If you're going to discuss something, don't get crazy sidetracked. (And not to drag up old news... I just had forgotten that I had posted in this, and checked to see if anyone quoted me :? ) And you are doing the exact same thing as us by adding to it... #-o And when someone quotes you, misunderstands your point, and then proceeds in trying to slander you - it does get a little nerve-racking. That's just how it is. Like you said, it is tragic, which is why I don't want some random guy telling me that I'm having 'smart [wagon]' thoughts about it when I'm clearly not.

Exactly... there are two options. Take guns from only some of the crazies and all of the innocent, or take guns from no one. I don't get what you're saying though. Because my point only applies to specific cases that makes it invalid? The point I was making was that sometimes guns can be replaced with knives pretty easily. You're saying that people shouldn't want guns because they cause unintentional deaths - just like drugs and cars. Everything has their ups and downs. We can't have a world without death. That will take a loooong time though, based off the amount of guns we already have here. How long are we talking here? Oh and plus... 'Prohibition!!' Are you 100% sure that "guns are to blame"? There are usually much more than only one factor that plays a role in the statistics. The gun wasn't the only world-changing thing to happen to us.Times change and so do other things. Hmmm sounds familiar... "Criminals will have to seek alternative means of committing crimes." And you can say that "we're not only talking about criminals here" all you want, but you can't deny that a lot of this has a lot to do with a lot of them. If we're just talking about unintentional deaths, then what about all the other non-gun unintentional deaths that have been happening? A large amount of deaths were intentional murders - murders where self-defense is necessary, as a matter of fact.

I just want 75 Runecrafting at the moment.

I usually just wear Blue Wiz Hat, Fury, and Karamja Gloves when skilling, and some random armor.

I don't really know. I just add people when I have a good feeling they'd be someone I'd like talking to now.

I think a whole status report about how you spend your time would be better. Like: Average Xp Gain/Hour, Most Xp Gained in an Hour, Total Time Played, Total Clicks (stuff like that)

There's logic to Woodcutting? Wow, that was the only skill where I didn't think at all while I was training it.

No, sometimes I laugh at myself though.

Unless it was an accident, yes they do. It was either done intentionally or not. And why are you using that as an example? I can do that too. "If this were the case (they had no intention of killing), then criminals simply wouldn't load their guns in the first place." Your example still doesn't take away the fact that guns are obviously instruments of murder. If the criminal does kill the victims after robbing them, then that would have been intentional murder. If he doesn't kill them, then it is irrelevant because it wouldn't be murder. You are trying to say that their main intent was to kill - but I am just saying the reason behind wanting a gun is because of it's better ability to kill - and it's obvious to the person buying the gun and loading it, so I don't see anything accidental or unintentional about it. No, but like you said, a bullet is more lethal than a knife wound. Criminals know knives require more energy to be as effective as a gun, so they would most likely exert more energy. It only implies to 1st Degree Murders? How so? Even if the murder wasn't premeditated, it could still be done intentionally. But you're talking about the other way around. Proposing anti-violent ideas to society works by lowering the demand. I don't see how this makes guns suddenly vanish physically though. You got really lucky there that we happened to be talking about hunger and America. :lol: Allow me to explain. We can theorize about making the world a better place all the time. The thing is, it's a lot easier said than done. There are numerous factors you have to take into account, and even more steps you must take to make it effective rather than counterproductive. Like, would criminals actually be swayed by this or not? Will self-defense seekers have no reason for having self-defense anymore? And I don't see why you think trying to take guns out of the equation will make that much difference anyways. Criminals always have the black market and other weapons to rely on. People have been dying forever so I don't see why you think guns are the root of this.

No, but they do have the idea in their mind, "Hmm... I just bought a weapon that kills and loaded it." They might not have the intent to kill at the time it was bought and loaded, but it's silly to say "they have no clue what they're getting into". Just because it wasn't their original intent, it doesn't mean that their new intent doesn't count. If it is not by accident, then it was done intentionally. I don't see what you are trying to say unless you're arguing that they cause lots and lots of lethal accidents. In that case, I agree... but so do cars and knives. Wait, I thought your plan was to stop the demand? You're speaking of stopping the supply now by bringing up their availability here. Yeah, and hopefully world hunger will end. Hopefully.

You mean society is a drag on poor people.

I took Spanish 1 and 2, getting very high grades in both of them. However, I pretty much forgot everything since only about 1% of what I learn at school sticks with me. :lol: As for languages I want to learn, none. I don't plan on communicating with people of a different ethnicity because I don't really plan on traveling outside of the US. Maybe Greek if I'm feeling ambitious just for fun.

Now imagine what they look like when they pose for pictures.

11024

Homework teaches us that we have to do crap in life that we really don't wanna do.

And my argument is that there is a difference between intimidating and killing. I'm not arguing that criminals don't pick guns more. I'm arguing that the reason they pick guns (and load them) is because they are going to have an intention to kill: You're comparing his main intention to an obvious subsequence and saying they are two different stories. No. If the robber didn't have the intention of killing, why would he buy and load the gun? I think pulling out a knife on a banker would have pretty much the same effect. And of course they don't *only* have the intention to kill but it's silly to ignore the rest of the equation. What rule says you can't have more than one intention? Maybe you're using the wrong definition of intent. Intent means something that is intended. If you are saying the killing wasn't an intent, then you are saying it is an accident. I don't see how that's possible when they purposely bought and loaded a gun and pulled it out in public. Now you are saying that ownership of a gun - no matter what the reason - can turn into a disaster if something accidentally goes wrong. Now, I'd like you to think for a moment about how things would be like if cops weren't allowed to have guns. I mean, they are dangerous and accidents do happen, so 'commonsense' says that because they are more lethal, the world would be better if they were taken out of the equation. That is absolutely correct. One catch though... criminals will always get guns! So instead we assume that people buy guns and load guns and still think to themselves, "I'm not going to kill anyone!"? You missed my point. I'm talking about how murder happens a lot. How we hear about it has nothing to do with it. How is that any different than saying, "We can have world peace if everyone agrees."? Nice idea, but this is reality we're talking about - not a fantasy land. And you keep missing something here. The reason people want guns for self-defense is because of the crazies who get guns illegally and use them. Do you honestly think that crazies are going to suddenly stop their criminal ways? No, there will always be bad people around *points to past*. Criminals won't listen, so that means people still have a reason to want self-defense.

And what about in the meantime before the cops get there? Also, I don't have an attic. Attics are very very very rare here in Florida, but guns, probably not so much. My point is not to bring up something as hypothetical as that because then it just leads to big hypothetical trains such as this one.

Music is probably the only interest shared by everyone.

Metallica - Ride the Lightning

11026

Exactly... it's an opinion. The way he said it didn't sound like an opinion, so that's why I used that fallacy. He said that, "because it is more lethal it is also more intimidating". Some people disagree with that. Bringing up the fact that more people agree with him might not technically be AAP but it's still illogical to make an argument out of that. What would his point for saying it be? That those on his side are more right? That doesn't sound like an opinion at all. Imagine if someone were to say something like, "More people think gay is wrong than people think it's okay." How much weight does that hold? Even for something subjective, the population has nothing to do with the other party's opinions being unjustified. I for one would be more afraid of someone with a big axe than a gun, and less afraid of someone with a bazooka than a handgun. When it comes down to that, I think it's because people don't think about the chance of death as much as the idea of how grotesque or primal their death would sound. There are more factors to intimidation than lethality. I'm more intimidated by spiders than dogs but which are more capable of harming you? It's psychology - that's all there is to it. That's hypothetical. What about a situation where the criminal doesn't have a gun? What about a situation where the criminal doesn't even know you are in the house he just broke into yet? What about a situation where the criminal is going to do much worse than just asking for your money?

Alright, Hannah Montana has a harder job than teachers do? I really don't see a direct correlation between difficulty and wage - like Snow said, a lot of it has to do with opportunity, not necessarily skill.

Alright, you listed alternatives for self-defense. Fair enough, but now it's my turn to do the same for hunting: traps. Plus getting rid of handguns would just make people move on to rifles. Hypothetically speaking, you can wait in an alley and stab an infinite amount of people without ever having to load it or worry about attracting attention like what gunshots do. They each got their pros and cons. My point is if you think guns are the source of our problems then just take a look at what things were like even without guns. Murder might be a little worse, but the invention of guns wasn't the only thing that changed since then - we now have drugs, violent media, the gangster culture, banks, etc. So just basing the trend on guns alone doesn't sound right to me.

But I thought we were talking about who is doing "far more" and who is doing "far less"?