Zierro

So you are saying Hannah Montana is more important than a paramedic or teacher?

For someone who loves using logical fallacies in an argument you sure do break a lot. Argumentum ad populum. Now I foresee you somehow saying, "Nuh uh, I'm not breaking that one!" You said, "Guns are more intimidating for the reason that they are more lethal." I can say, "Knives are more intimidating for reason 1, 2, and 3 (which I went over before)." What's the difference? We're both giving our opinions. Or is it because it is a two-way street that you cannot understand this? Did you forget what context we were using "kill" in or something? Let me bring it back up: Or are you saying it was an accident that they bought the gun and loaded it? I understand that there are accidental deaths, but that's something different. Accidental deaths occur all the time. Should we get rid of cars too? I thought we were arguing about crime anyways - something intentionally bad. You are still ignoring several factors. 1. If someone has a less lethal weapon, they will try harder to make it into a more lethal one. People want guns right? Why? Because it's more lethal. Well, what happens when people don't have guns? They are stuck with something less lethal. What do they do now? They try to make it a more lethal weapon, like a gun, by exerting more effort. Point: a weapon is a weapon. 2. You hear about murder all the time in a world of guns. Our ancestors heard about murder all the time in a world of swords. Point: a weapon is a weapon. Then what in the world is it? Okay once again... PS: You still didn't answer my question. How? And in the context of self-defense for the innocent, how is that a worse reason than hunting animals? See my response to Venomai above.

The way I see it, it makes no sense for someone to need more money than someone else. :|

RHCP - This is the Place

Nice twist on the word 'innocent' you used there. *Points to past again when guns didn't exist yet crime/murder was just as prevalent* Wait, you think guns for hunting are okay?

That's like the reason why our country exists dude. Plus a ban wouldn't stop people from worshiping - all it would do is cause lots of hostility.

Exactly, that's why it's fair for innocent people to have them.

On the other hand, I would think people would be less likely to do something 'stupid' if they know other people around them probably have guns in their possession.

You're right - we got a lot of benefits out of corporations, but sometimes businesses can become corrupt and that is where I think the line should be drawn. I like to look at the big picture: after you die, all that matters is what you left behind. I don't see where putting money before people comes into play there. Oh and it's not just young people of today, by the way. It's the writer of A Christmas Carol too.

I don't know. Kind of the neighborly thing to do. Usually, I don't care about people at all but when it comes to necessities I think at least something should be done.

Yes I am. Intimidation is related to psychology. Something that isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. I don't know why you're arguing otherwise. And those are nice reasons for why you think guns are more intimidating but remember that's your opinion. It was just a matter of time until you brought up accidental (by definition) homicides. :roll: Like I said numerous times, even without something as lethal as guns, murders will still be very widespread. This is a very simple concept. Who is using semantics now? By "policy" I meant "whatever you propose about the gun culture". Then you're saying you have nothing of use to propose.

No... that isn't all there is to it. You can't just ignore the fact that there are starving people out there while you're sitting on your marble fountain. Well, technically you can, but you can't say that's all there is to it.

But who is to say they deserve leisure more than the destitute deserve necessity?

We're talking about psychology here though. Let me show you what I mean. 1.) Someone with a gun only has to pull their finger back. Someone with a knife has to use their whole arm. The idea of someone working harder to kill can be more frightening to some. It is a more grotesque and primal thought. I don't know about you but the hairs on my neck would probably stand up if I saw someone running at me with a battle axe. Extreme, I know, but I hope it clarified my point. Chopping someone limb from limb sounds worse than getting shot in the head, but yet which one is more lethal? 2.) Blades don't jam or run out of ammunition like a gun does. You may say blades have a shorter reach, but guns aren't always that accurate from afar anyways. And most confrontations are done within a short distance. 3.) Guns are the most traditional weapon so stepping outside of this norm can show that you are more 'deranged' than your average criminal for lack of a better term. "They really mean business." We could argue about this all day, but I'd just like to say my only point is that you're stating your opinion not an objective "fact". So people kill other people even though they don't want to? Say what?? I know it was a good opportunity for a comeback but it doesn't help your argument much. What is your reason for thinking people kill other people without an intent? We're talking about the worst sin possible - there has to be a good reason. Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this? I meant that it's harder to convince everyone than just a select few. And this is a bit off topic, but what about marijuana? People have been wanting that legalized for ages but the government still disagrees. Wow, that went over your head. We're not talking about gays - we're talking about a need for self-defense. If some (criminals) don't listen to the gun policy you propose - which they most likely won't (hello, "criminals") - then there is still a need for self-defense. Also I like how you didn't answer my question so here it is again. How? You too.

Sublime - Ball and Chain PS: I noticed Tool is very popular here on TIF. That's awesome. 8-)

Successful single men? Isn't that an oxymoron? JK GUYS!! :D

I think it's funny when someone bashes a skill that never even came out yet based on it's name (with the exception of something like Underwater Basket Weaving). All it takes is a little creativity to think of good ideas for a skill.

They usually come out with skills if it has a lot of hype around it (Construction) or if it is useful and complementary to other skills (Runecrafting). Based off those, my guess would be Sailing or Archeology of course.

I do think everyone is entitled to a life of necessities... but then I also think those who are able to earn extra cash should be entitled to living life beyond that. I'm torn.

I took Biology and even Chemistry but we learned nothing about how this law applies to biological growth. Not in our class at least unless I missed school that day or something.

It's only "more lethal" if it's used though. Some say they are more intimidated by knives (which are less lethal) than guns. I don't think you understand that this is only your opinion. Sorry, but I'm a strong believer that people won't kill someone unless they want to or else they wouldn't do it - they would bring an unloaded gun. The only form of killing without the intent to is negligent manslaughter and we're not talking about that. How does that debunk the fact that murder (yes I thought it was plain and clear that that's what I meant - not non-homicidal crime) will always be around? You were the one who kept saying we were talking about homicide instead of crime in general so how does that not 'weaken your argument'? Fair enough. But don't forget, changing the mind of the government is a lot different than changing the mind of society as a whole. I was more in favor of the legalization - while there is a need for self-defense. Honestly, I have nothing wrong with wanting to influence society to be anti-gun, but until it works completely (everyone agrees) then it is useless. So if you have an idea to stop murder and influence our whole planet (including criminals [hehe]) to make a huge morale advancement, I'd love that. One question though. How? Violent crime is very much possible without owning a firearm.

How does this apply to a growing flower? Does the sunlight act as 'matter' or something? I remember hearing someone propose that light is really a form of matter but I'm not too sure about that. Sorry, I'm not into science much and this just really bugs me. :-#

Mister. That way everyone would think that people are just calling him Mr. [last name].

You're right but taking either one of those out of the equation still sounds very unrealistic, especially in America.