Zierro

This. I don't see why anything would need to be proven to a god. And free will is pretty much an obsolete term when referring to God, because he has already dictated what your genetics and environment will be at your initial creation, and thus is the greatest, scratch that - the only, deciding factor of your choices. Essentially, he would just be trying to prove something to himself. I don't think the fact that a god would decide to act and do something renders him imperfect. His definition of "imperfect" could very well be "laziness" for all we know. We are mortal beings guessing an immortal being's intentions, so we must always bare our ignorance in mind when rambling about theology.

Sold most of my old PS2 and GBA games and purchased Halo: Reach. I've really been enjoying owning on LIVE with my team. I also started the campaign on Legendary - alone. Only 3/9 missions done so far. But I still gotta admit, it's definitely a huge improvement from Halo 3 and ODST. It reminds me Halo 2's campaign - nice environments, challenging parts here and there, minimal grinding, keeps you interested, etc. My only complaint is that I can't play the Firefights since my new 360 doesn't have a HD and isn't compatible with my old one that I spent $100 on. But this is only to be expected from the sickening organisms behind Microsoft. One day... One day....

Confession: I hate/love you guys. <3: :angry:

I agree - I find it beneficial to learn about current events, even if I don't take part in the discussion or it doesn't personally concern me. Also, we never know if it could be the start of something bigger. Maybe that's the point. Attack the strongest you can find to inflict as much terror as possible.

Sure, it might force criminals to go through a couple more loops, but I think it's commonsense that a lot of them inevitably *will* obtain guns some way or another (smuggling). A ban on guns would be a catalyst to a flourishing smuggling scene, which is a huge problem within itself. So maybe guns would require extra steps to obtain, but this would also mean that there will be more crime circumventing the situation because those extra steps would cause whole new problems. Did I mention that these underground smuggling crooks would be fully armed? Yes, in Canada I do routinely find myself beset by gangs of gun runners. Just the other day they broke into my house toting surface to air missiles, drank all my beer, and crapped in my sink. You are aware that my arguments are directed towards what would happen in the US, the place where citizens (Average Joe's and John Doe's alike) believe guns to be their God-given right and possess the innate tendency to revolt (as demonstrated through precedent), as I've pointed out to you specifically, yet you keep thinking your hometown is a great universal example of what would happen anywhere else in the world if the same laws were applied. All I have to say is you're jumping the gun.

On the flaws of atheism, lenient sex may or may not be a direct result of an increasing atheist population, but that doesn't really make atheism flawed. There's also the fact that sometimes people act morally specifically because they fear their god, and there are atheists who act immorally because they have nothing to fear. But again, this doesn't make atheism a flawed line of reasoning and religion a positive one. The problem is how the people let the beliefs/disbeliefs get to them, not the actual non-religious stance itself. That's like saying going outside is bad because you can fall off a cliff. You are completely capable of taking a walk outside without going near any cliffs, just like you can be an atheist and have a strict opinion on sex. The problem is not inherent for what atheism is. This is just like the "Video games produce murderers" argument. I've also been noticing a lot of people claiming that atheism is not a belief system. If someone came up to me and claimed I had three eyes, I wouldn't believe them because I consciously and logically decided that it is more probable that the conditions are that I do not have three eyes, and I instead have two, based on the mountains of evidence I've collected by looking in a mirror everyday. This is a counter belief, but still a belief nonetheless. I just don't understand how you can ascribe a status to yourself, based on your own opinion on the matter, and claim that it is not your belief. And before weak atheism is brought up in order to attempt to claim conscious thought is not required to be an atheist, I will first point out what should be obvious - people are not born with the idea of "God doesn't exist" in their minds - their opinions on the existence of a god is that of a rock's: neutral, not applicable, indifferent, irrelevant, nothing. Atheism by definition implies "without god", a stance that hardly fits under "nothing" or "neutral". So my opinion is that you cannot even be an "atheist" until you've at least heard of the concept of god. Until then, your religious stance is "not applicable", just like a rock's stance on communism vs capitalism.

Although true, that's not a good basis for being an atheist because it comes down to simply believing things based on your emotion.

Sure, it might force criminals to go through a couple more loops, but I think it's commonsense that a lot of them inevitably *will* obtain guns some way or another (smuggling). A ban on guns would be a catalyst to a flourishing smuggling scene, which is a huge problem within itself. So maybe guns would require extra steps to obtain, but this would also mean that there will be more crime circumventing the situation because those extra steps would cause whole new problems. Did I mention that these underground smuggling crooks would be fully armed?

Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country. What? How are we on the same page? I said your statistics aren't relevant to the discussion because they are outdated... If you've been reading my posts, you would know that my point all along is that it becomes a stalemate for both sides when statistics and credibility are brought up. This has been stated several times in several of my posts. People constantly cling to statistics and ignore any criticism against them - so I returned the favor and showed conflicting statistics to get the point across that statistics shouldn't be the end-all means to predicting what would happen if guns were banned. There are several other logical factors to take into account - such as the fact that the US takes bans quite differently than your average country.

I have been arguing the first thing - not the second. You can use all the statistics you want. As long as people don't ignore the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, things should run much more smoothly. Laziness? Lol, it's purely founded on precedent. Have a couple of laws stopped drugs? Nope. It made things worse. Now I admit, drugs are one thing - guns are another, so let's take guns into account. Americans will always feel entitled to guns, as it's been a right given to them at birth and they have been taught and raised that way. At the same time, there will always be a means of obtaining them, such as the ability to smuggle, the ability to make, the ability to hide, etc. There is supply, paired with very high demand. Can anyone guess what happens when we mix the two? What about the statistics showing that the years after a gun ban resulted in more murders, and the years after a right-to-carry law resulted in less? I would think this is another implication that the US is pretty different in this sense. Guns are the most effective means of self-defense. Sure there are alternatives, but the vast majority of people are more intimidated by guns. You can explore the question if you want, since you brought it up and all. What methods are more effective for self-defense than guns? Kind of hard to argue about a logical deduction you made derived purely from statistics without bringing up statistics. Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country. Good point. :thumbup:

I support this statement. F u censorship!

BUT DISAGREEING WITH STATISTICS ARE NOT ALLOWED. I've actually been pointing out the flaws of statistics several times throughout the thread, and since any scrutiny and criticism against statistics seems to be completely disregarded, what better way to get the point across than using supporting statistics of my own. Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying the 30-year-old statistics should be rendered useless because things surely must have changed? I agree that things are pretty much bound to change over the years, just as things are pretty much bound to change from country to country.

I would think this should be obvious now. To protect innocent lives and virginities from other people who will inevitably commit crimes and will inevitably obtain guns and other lethal weapons. * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] Conversely, a gun could not be fired and instead utilized for intimidation, resulting in no deaths and possibly resulting in many potential lives being saved. * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] This logic has actually been debunked. There are way more successful usages of homeowner gun defense than there are gun related accidents. * In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states: First, consider the facts as the legislature saw them when it adopted the District statute. As stated by the local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive goal of the District's handgun restriction is "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia." ... ... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home."[128] * This committee report cites no source or evidence for this statistic.[129] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130] * According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133] Good thinking. But how do you suggest we combat the problem? I personally don't know. Firstly, if every country had the same exact gun laws, do you truly think every country would have the same exact murder rate? You can't just pick one country with the ban that has a lower rate and then compare it to one country without the ban that has a higher rate. There are many countries that both have the same set of laws, yet have a significant difference in the rates. This alone indicates that there is more to the murder rates than one single law. Secondly, you've only listed three trivial similarities to US and UK and then assert that there isn't much of a difference. There are tons and tons of factors to account for. And thirdly, since you are still relentlessly clinging to statistics, can you explain why bans have been shown to have a counterproductive effect in the US, as I've exhibited to you with the statistics from my last post? Can you explain why, after the right-to-carry law was implemented in some states, the murder rate has actually had a significant decrease? Sorry to be pompous, but I think my statistics are a much more relevant and accurate means of finding out what happens when we ban guns in the US. They shouldn't. Wait, how is having a gun for the incentive (or "incentive" *wink wink*) of hunting any better than having one for self-defense? I do agree that there should be training and education for those who want to own a gun though.

Sup Sumpta, how's life? Y'all bringing back memories with these names. Sumpta, warri0r, Zierro, Goddess, Ginger_Warrior, Satenza, magekillr... he still around? Loved that liberal loony. Ah, my old Arch Nemesis. Good times. :cool: And yes, he's still around but I think he toned things down after a couple complaints about the fascist liberalism.

Andrew Gower's handsomeness. Headaches that prevent you from sleeping. Everything about Modern Warfare 2 except for the Spec Ops.

Inglorious Basterds. Wow, what an ending.

Pretty much, unfortunately. Also, that bans have shown to be counterproductive in the US. *CULTURE COUGH* I'm sure welfare might be a contributing factor, but I'm not the one blaming it on one sole factor if that's what you're trying to insinuate. In fact, I'm doing quite the opposite. My point is that the law isn't the only difference, and to blame it solely on that is neglecting every other cultural aspect between countries. Why does Madagascar have a higher population than Sweden? It must be because Sweden has so much heavy metal because that is one single difference that I can point out. And no this is not a bad example - this is what happens when every single other aspect and factor of the country is being ignored but one. Simply put, it's fallacious deductive reasoning caused by people disregarding the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. I'll even use a more fitting example: * During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law. * Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower. * Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I hate statistics, or rather how your average person handles them. Anything can 'prove' anything, and according to the logic I've been seeing, I have just 'proven' that banning guns in the US would have a counterproductive effect. :thumbup: I apologize for the tangent though, as this wasn't even really directed towards you. Just the people who think a few statistics constitute as undeniable proof of a broad universal fact of sociology. I personally believe they should be harder to obtain in some cases, such as making mandatory education in order to have a permit and other steps along those lines. I'm only against a complete ban, as it would make the criminals' jobs much easier - not in the sense of obtaining them obviously - but in the sense of nothing holding them back after they did obtain them. I get the feeling that a criminal would be more intimidated by a gun than a law. The black market is not just available to the most hardcore of criminals. There will also be Average Joes who believe in the freedom to bare arms that would use the black market to get that freedom. NO MAKE ME

There are differing histories, cultures, and people from country to country. To blame the outcome solely on the difference of laws and nothing else is a bit shallow. You TIFers and your attempts at using statistics in order to assert broad universal statements. :shame: Lives have been lost because proper self-defense was not available, and lives have been saved because proper self-defense was available. I am aware that self-defense being available has also caused accidental deaths and gave "self-defense" nuts the power of killing someone over trivial reasons. But as I said, it's a trade off either way.

Actually, throughout my high school career, I remember people constantly having to find new dealers, or stock up when they did find someone precisely because there were very few reliable sources. Sorry, I didn't mean America - I meant the United States. Common mistake of ethnocentricity. :shades: Absolutely, but it also makes sense that some still would. Another difference being that law-abiding citizens wouldn't have the capability of defending themselves effectively, making the criminals' jobs easier in that sense, even though they might have had to go through a tougher process to obtain the guns. It's really a matter of some problems being fixed and some being added. Whether you're pro-ban or anti-ban is just a question of what effect seems more believable and what seems more worth it to you.

When society gets too used to gun ownership, trying to take them away will only lead to a black market for guns. Black markets are never good Exactly my point. Like drugs... making them illegal doesn't exactly help. I find that quite hard to believe. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them impossible to obtain; but it does curb their usage, significantly so. Go to any American high school and tell me how much pot you see floating around. If I remember correctly, there has actually been significantly less marijuana usage when it was legal. If there is a demand, there will be a supply (legal or not) and banning an item is hardly an effective measure to combating demand. Many unapparent problems have arisen from bans too - underhanded drug dealers, smugglers, organized crime, etc. have all fluctuated as a result of forcing people to go through barbed wire to get what they want.

Basically my belief too. I'm all for a world without guns. But realistically speaking, the underground market is pretty much invincible. People [criminals] will always have the ability to hide, hoard, smuggle, and create guns. Not to mention every other type of weapon. As far as I can tell, strict gun laws would do the following: It would alleviate accidents caused by guns, but it would hinder self-defense by giving an upper hand to the people who don't obey the law. Also, I don't believe there's conclusive enough evidence to say that America's gun crime is a pure result of our gun laws, as opposed to a combination of several other cultural influences. Just look how Americans handled the the banning of alcohol.

Domino's has been impressing me lately. We ordered a pizza with marinara sauce, pepperoni, and LIGHT mushrooms. One of my new favorites now.

You can't be serious... Do I really need to debunk this argument?

I remember being made fun of a lot for my Strength level, by people with half my total level. I don't have a problem with pures, but people who think Strength is the most important aspect of Runescape are laughable.

Donkey Kong. Celebrities.