Zierro

No, you either mean they are more effective for intimidation (not killing) or they are more effective for homicide (killing). It's in black and white. It doesn't? Why would they go to far measures if they didn't care about killing? You seem to be missing something here. If someone buys a gun, I think they know fully well that they are probably going to be using it to kill someone. If they just meant it as intimidation, why would it even be loaded? Crimes or homicides. You seem to be picky with that so you can use either one - whatever suits you better. But anyways, yes that is exactly the point I'm making. Murder is/was/and always will be common, guns or not. Because America isn't like every other country...? Different ideals, different people, different systems. It sounds like banning alcohol would mean there would be less of it, right? It's commonsense and I agree with that. But that's not how it is. Banning alcohol didn't stop the black market from thriving - in fact it made it even worse. I meant the second part of that sentence: "but that's the problem". You know, how America isn't Norway. Getting rid of the black market is one thing, getting rid of the high demand is another. Like I said, exterminating the high demand sounds like a nice idea but it also sounds like an infeasible one. It almost sounds like something out of a John Lennon song. Edit: Things have been getting a bit tedious so I'll bring up a new point. One of the biggest reasons of why I am pro gun is because I'd rather live in a world where self-defense is possible than one where it isn't. I don't know about you guys, but to me it is more devastating to hear about incidents where if the victim had means of self-defense then they would have survived than incidents where someone is murdered but they wouldn't even get the chance to fight back even if they did have defense. It's the principality behind it which I don't think you're looking at. I think the idea of self-defense is what motivates me to argue the most.

Which goes back to my point... Guns are more effective because they can kill people easier. Point: they do have an intent to kill. Oh and before you say, "No I meant they are more effective at intimidation," you are the one who keeps bringing up the fact that we're talking about homicide rates (killing) - not just crime rates. I like how you throw that argument to the side. You can say criminals don't try harder if they have less lethal weapons (meaning less success of homicide) all you want, but examples of past say otherwise. Exact-a-mundo. Changing the gun culture would (hypothetical once again) fix the problem... but we're talking about a fantasy world. This contradicts what you just said above. I bring this up again since you haven't addressed it, besides just saying this is only in America: "The black market exists. If someone wants a gun, and they have money and connections, they will get a gun. Selling them legally just makes it less of a hassle - but then again when it comes to criminals (people who go to far measures to get something done, like killing when they don't have the intent to kill as you yourself said above) do you really think they'll give up that easily? Are criminals really going to follow the law? :roll: I think it's silly to say that a criminal who wants to commit a crime will go as far as killing, even though that wasn't their original plan in the first place, but if they can't get a gun legally, even though they can get one illegally, that they will stop in their tracks and not try to commit it."

What is the pro gun argument? Guns save potential victim's lives. What is the anti gun argument? Guns cause victim's deaths. You're saying both if you are saying guns are pretty effective at self-defense, so who's side are you on? Hopefully we're both talking about the United States. What works elsewhere doesn't always work in the US. I do agree that changing the gun culture can prevent lots of deaths - the thing is, how are we supposed to do that here? The first step would be to eliminate all drugs since a lot of homicides occur just out of that problem alone... that's a little too idealistic if you ask me though. In the perfect world, it would work, but it's not relevant since we're not in a perfect world. That is my reason for wanting the opportunity for self-defense. Plus, the black market is very effective. Want an example pertaining to the US specifically? Prohibition.

Wow, Family Guy violated like all of those rules.

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.

Like I asked before, what's up with saying guns are ineffective as means for self-defense but that they are the most lethal offense? Well, there is the black market. People buy guns from other people illegally all the time. Are you saying there's no correlation between having guns as self-defense and succeeding in saving potential victims? Ahem *Castle Law*. Yeah, and in some places lots of things turned out for the better but that doesn't mean every place on earth has the ability to copycat their systems effectively. It's like ignoring the fact that people live different lives in different areas. So they go as far as obtaining a gun and taking innocent lives... for no reason? That doesn't make sense. If they "didn't care about killing their victims" then why would they go that far - doesn't it make more sense to obtain an easier weapon to get like a knife? Okay, replace "higher homicide rate" with "violent crime". My point is still the same. You can't argue about killing sprees (which equates to homicide) as being unrealistic and then turning around and saying that guns make them happen. In a lot of cases it is. I'll say it again: the best defense is a good offense. The black market exists. If someone wants a gun, and they have money and connections, they will get a gun. Selling them legally just makes it less of a hassle - but then again when it comes to criminals (people who go to far measures to get something done, like killing when they don't have the intent to kill as you yourself said above) do you really think they'll give up that easily? Are criminals really going to follow the law? :roll: I think it's silly to say that a criminal who wants to commit a crime will go as far as killing, even though that wasn't their original plan in the first place, but if they can't get a gun legally, even though they can get one illegally, that they will stop in their tracks and not try to commit it. And my point is that even if guns were completely illegal, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" because criminals will get them anyways.

America isn't Norway though. Who's to say what works there will definitely work here? For lack of a better term, I see that as a strawman. Once again, so have you. You're assuming that having weapons that aren't as lethal means the criminals are going to fail to commit the crimes. Let me ask you something. How peaceful were things a few hundred years ago before guns existed? If you have a gun, it only takes one shot to get the job done - that's what is meant by it being more lethal. Knives take a little more effort but are we going to assume that the criminal isn't going to try harder? I mean that's pretty much commonsense to me. If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of. Wait a sec... I thought guns were supposed to be the most lethal weapon out there? Now you're saying that there are more effective things than guns? Oh and please don't just say you only meant running away by that. :lol: And your point is...? Lemme guess - the ones seeking self-defense are ironically responsible for an increase of guns in the first place. No. Two words: black market. The self-defense seekers have little to do with it, if that is indeed what you are saying. One factor you forgot is criminal intent. Whoa, so you're allowed to say you would probably miss because you probably wouldn't have training (although you have a gun as means for self-defense which is kinda contradictory) and you would probably get shot - but I can't say anything about killing sprees? And wait just a minute... If you're saying killing sprees are unrealistic scenarios then your whole argument about guns causing more violent crime falls flat too. We need to go over this two-way street thing again.

Metallica's Call of the Ktulu and Orion are both great. Sometimes I get lost in them. 8-)

People who always go by the book instead of thinking for themselves, no matter what. I don't understand why so much faith is put into what society has established as "true" instead of putting your mind to the test by using a little creativity and forming your own opinions and rationales. It makes things much less tedious - especially these forums. (I know it sounds this way but I'm not referring to the bible. I'm talking in general.)

Yes, we all know that. How is this relevant? My point was that if potential victims had the opportunity to defend themselves then you wouldn't have to worry about the killing sprees against the innocent that guns "cause". I know it's a two-way street. When did I say it wasn't? It doesn't help anyone's argument. Well, since forever ago we have been trying to fix problems like world hunger, stealing, violence in general, etc. etc. So far, no good. How is gun control any different from these? Are you sure it increases homicide rates? You're suggesting that: Having guns --> Wanting to commit a crime Instead of: Wanting to commit a crime --> Getting guns Is this not anyone's guess? What makes you so sure that it is the first one that's true? What you're saying is along the lines of, "People look for a reason to use their guns." I think it's the other way around. (People look for guns to commit a crime.) I can just bring up the fact that crime has been around for as long as humanity has existed. People have always wanted to and have succeeded in committing crimes. Think of guns as par - they are the best weapon that anyone can get so that's why they are used the most. Guns aren't the reason of murder - bad intentions of human nature is the reason, and nothing will change that unless humanity as a whole makes a lot of morale progress. Also, you say self-defense is necessary but guns aren't. What alternatives do we have for gun self-defense?

If citizens can protect themselves then why would you be worried about this increase in homicide rate? The ones who would be the victims are the ones who try murdering innocent citizens as opposed to the innocent being the victims. But is it reasonable to assume that you will have a gun in your house (for the purpose of self-defense!) and not know how to use it? No, it's just another convenient scenario. Sorry, I thought you meant that "killing criminal = higher homicide rate" not "effect of having guns for defense = higher rate". (which I still disagree with but that's a different argument) Theoretically, it sounds nice. But realistically, that's very unlikely. And please don't say something like, "That's only because of people like you." That would really hurt. :( PS: Oh and about your point about how I shouldn't worry about criminals coming after me and my dog... It can happen to anyone, so I don't quite understand why you're saying I shouldn't be worried but at the same time criminals are killing people.

I love how that hypothetical scenario works out perfectly in your favor. Now let me try: you hear someone breaking into your house and then you go get your gun prepared right away before he even knows you're there. We can do this all day. And yet you say this eye for an eye thing is unrelated. :roll: You fail to see the point behind pro gun. We don't care about people who are going to try to kill us!! Including their deaths as part of your homicidal statistic argument doesn't work against us. I'm in favor of saving innocent people's lives, not saving murderer's lives like you are. So you're assuming that you would miss and the other person wouldn't? That's pretty convenient.

I addressed everything you said too. Stop making excuses as to why you're not making direct responses to my arguments. That's a really lame way of avoiding an actual argument. Instead of answering all the questions I put forth, you repeat yourself and label your own logic as the "right" one even though I can do the exact same thing. That's a cop-out of a true debate. If you want to rip on my debating skills then that's completely fine - it doesn't hurt that much when it's coming from someone like you. ;) You lied twice by saying you wont' respond to me cause I disagree with you, and how you said you didn't learn anything. How about a little more intelligent rationale and a little less conceited flamage? All you are doing is the noobish: "I did everything perfectly and everything you did was flawed!" Are you honestly going to sit there and deny the existence of PTSD??? You told me to enlighten you about it, I did, and you are saying you haven't learned anything and that I'm the one not addressing the topic...? Whoa buddy, that backfired on you big time.

And it would. Crime has always been on our planet... guns have not. People want to murder to end the lives of other people - not just to have an excuse to use their guns. I most certainly would. There are several cases where it is justifiable to kill out of self defense. Ever heard of the Castle Law? What? This isn't on topic but why is the knife user presumably not experienced in that field but the martial arts user is? I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts. Don't you need a clear mind for that type of thing? I don't see how that could happen when you have a gun pointing at you. If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded. If he doesn't care about my welfare I sure as hell won't care about his. I am a person aren't I...? Yeah and it still works for both of our arguments. If you're saying, even though it's, rare then we still should worry about homicide, why shouldn't we worry about defense? How is that unrelated? I don't care about the statistics for homicidal rates - I care about innocent people being able to have the right to take any measure possible to protect their own lives, and in some cases that means shooting the killer. My opinion is that you shouldn't put the murderer's life on the same level as the victim's. How will this happen?

The tomorrow is never promised - the only thing you have for sure is the present. That's why I wing everything in life, but not to the point where I'll complete a self-fulfilling prophecy by killing myself by overindulging.

Don't forget the Barnyard Jewels. \ On Topic: I'd never go on a reality tv show. I have too much pride for that.

I didn't mean pures, I meant people who have a hard time killing monsters as fast as us high levels. Plus pures are almost extinct nowadays and for those who do exist, most prefer PVP over Skilling.

It's really anyone's guess though. In my eyes I don't see that happening because based on the past I think that the banning of guns wouldn't change the homicide rate all that much. Back then, all weapons were less lethal yet people have always been murdering each other left and right. The best defense is a good offense. Why are you being so lenient on psychos who have the intent to murder innocent people? There's only so much running away and karate chopping can do to someone with the intent to kill. Saying that homicide isn't that common looks good for both of our arguments. For you, it means we don't have a need for defense. For me, it means we shouldn't be worried about guns causing so many killing sprees in the first place (what anti gun people are afraid of). But that's just based on what you said about the crazies. Well I happen to believe in eye for an eye and you don't. That's all it comes down to. How on earth are we going to extinguish the demand?

Or, how much easier do guns make it for psycho's to go on the rampage and take the innocent lives in the first place. Psychos will always find ways to get guns... we're talking about the innocent people being allowed to carry the guns.

I was talking about homicide as opposed to suicide though. That's not always a bad thing especially from a pro gunner's point of view. The main argument for pro gun is for self defense. What better method of self defense than an ensuring death upon some crazy person who is attempting to take innocent lives?

It's funny cause I can say the same exact things about you. That's why arguments about the people instead of the topic never work. But yeah, you're the one who misinterpreted my first post and took it into your own context just to make yourself look like a hero and a "smug smartass" out of me. You're saying I am proud of acting like a smug smartass in concerns to suicide. What else is that supposed to mean? Okay. You're allowed to say what I implied but I'm not allowed to do the same to you? That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Quote me where I said the action is "stupid". I just said it was unjustifiable. So you say it is a cry for attention but it's wrong to label it as a cry for attention... yep, makes loads of sense. :lol: You're the one who gave it the negative context in which you speak of - not me. It is reinforcement to the first thing I said in this thread, which you strayed completely away from. Just thought I'd bring it up again. Sounds pretty fishy to me. If he really wanted help there are better alternatives. Now I guess I should accuse you of not reading anything I said since I've already mentioned that before, but that's a really stupid thing to say. ;) Wow, you're agreeing with my first post which you attacked... That makes you look good. :lol: How much attention can someone have when they kill their self immediately? It's commonsense why he didn't do it right away. There you go again with the attention thing. Why the hell would you call me a smug smart [wagon] when you're saying the same exact thing? And anyways not helping doesn't necessarily mean you don't care. Look up the Genovese murder case. I'm sure 30+ people didn't all want her to die. Maybe you should be using empathy before you tell others to. I've went through severe depression and I know people very very close to me that went through and still are going through the same exact thing. I think I know exactly what I'm talking about, excluding the genetic factor though. "How dare you say it was for attention!" Why should I have to explain the fact that I disagree with you when it comes to the scale thing? How about you explain that to me. I know that there are different levels of depression and emotional scars. That was my point in the first place. I didn't say emotional damage is always worse - just that in some cases it can be worse than depression. Look up Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. You'll find everything you need with just that example alone. Biggest double standard ever. Is suicide not a personal decision? Is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder not a mental disability? Is it not possible to cope with suicidal thoughts? Here is another double standard. Cancer =/= Bipolar. Bipolarity is a mental disorder not a physical disease. He was talking about pinpointing psychology which is impossible at the present. Contradictory? No you completely misunderstand. My argument was used as a way of showing you how it's a double standard. I said that it's not right to always put the blame on other factors because then we could just say any bad action is justifiable as long as something caused you to do it - and I used bullying as an example. You didn't learn anything? How open-minded of you. We should debate more often. :) PS: What's up with not wanting to read my posts anymore? You're making it sound like you're scared.

I think they are just doing other things. Personally I didn't really "start" training Slayer until around 90 Combat. The higher your combat skills are, the easier Slayer Xp will be to acquire so I think people are overall just too impatient to do Slayer with restricted combat abilities.

The reason people use guns for that is because they are currently the most lethal thing they can get their hands on. What would happen if knives become the most lethal weapons instead? Guns aren't the only origin of the problem... people have been using different ways for killing each other for many many many years.

The general status of the Runescape community - as a whole - will always be progressing. Eventually it won't be too uncommon to see maxed out players anymore. But of course, there is a counter to this. High leveled players quit all the time.

The real party doesn't start til after midnight. :P