No_OnE

i would explain this but i'd just be repeating myself. i don't think there's anything new that can be brought to this topic. it's been beaten to death, and nobody's going to change anyone's opinion. Yeah, I agree. I've repeated things too many times which is why I've decided to leave this topic unless a new idea is brought in.

With this logic the goverment should also start selling drugs. Second, your link proves nothing. Please get some real statistic how the gun ban would increase homicides, murders and so on. I already gave statistic of countries with a lot stricter gun laws, now it's your turn. Hmm. Did I ever say my link proved a point. All I said was that the link expressed my views accurately. Also, why should the government sell drugs? All I was saying is that dealers who deal drugs are less lethal than dealers who deal guns. I'd rather do a drug bust than a gun bust.

Yeah. It would definitely make a great book but it wouldn't make a good movie unless it had good actors and budget and everything. Otherwise it would just be some movie that goes straight to DVD that no one would watch.

Yeah, and dealing guns is a lot worse than dealing drugs. Drug dealers aren't usually armed with firearms whereas the gun dealer always will.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1 This article that was on the ABC news page today explains my views almost perfectly.

I finished reading them all too. It's definitely worth reading. It's all so hilarious but he even manages to have sadness in his life as a street sweeper. Such a great collection of stories.

I think I could give you a run for your money. I put 10 minute oral presentations for biology off until the night before they're due. It all works out because I have a decent memory and am able to memorize the info quickly.

I haven't had any menial jobs particularly because I haven't had any jobs at all yet. Anyway, I've read some of the stories on that guy's thread and whether they're real or fake, I don't care. They're good stories to read. Something to keep me occupied.

I often have the same problem in my classes but I actually don't mind. If I'm stuck with a bunch of people who don't know what they're doing, I'm fine with it. I can do my own work and get a good grade while I can have them do the easy stuff like writing things down or coloring/drawing things that need it. We all get good grades and everyone is happy.

We can live without gravity. The astronauts on the ISS prove that.

Essentially every organism requires food for energy, thus, the food they eat contains energy. This can basically all be traced back to the energy plants get from the sun. I've always thought that chemotrophs don't get engergy from the sun at all considering that they get their engergy from the bacteria that thrives at the openings in the ocean that release chemicals from the Earth. There isn't any sunlight down there.

Isn't it possible that other people had just thought of Altune after you did instead of stealing it? Anyway, my name isn't original. I've always known that.

You'd probably be best off to just wait it out. If it doesn't go away, see a doctor.

Charlie the Unicorn and a Starburst commercial. What more could you need?

I just reread your opening post. It sounds like you might like the Lord of the Rings books if you haven't already read them. I just started reading the books after seeing the movies so many times.

One of my favorites. I definitely recommend this book. I also recommend the Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow series. Those two are the best of the series but the entire series is pretty good. The books are sci-fi and based around war against the Buggers, an alien race similar to that of Zerg off of Starcraft if you've played that.

You're definitely wrong about that. Sueng-Hui Cho had been planning this attack for months and he'd probably been thinking about it for years. I would go so far as to say it's been a fantasy of his for a long time. He did not go and grab the first two guns he saw and successfully kill 32 people. He planned the events of that day so much that he had the confidence to kill, go mail a package to NBC which he had already put together before hand, and go kill some more two hours later. I doubt it would have been possible for him to have successfully killed so many people and evade capture without having planned ever step he would take before hand.

Though people don't generally use explosives to kill. Guns, on the other hand, are probably the most widely used weapon in murder so the illegal demand for them would be a lot higher than that of explosives. This would make criminals like still have an easy time at getting a gun. So, in my opinion, the only thing this ban would do is take away guns for the law abiding citizens because the criminals would do what they do best to get the guns, break the law.

I agree with Dalcyte, putting an immediate ban on guns would only make things worse. Demand would skyrocket, people would still have them, and people would use them more. Personally, I believe the only way to lower gun crimes is to actually change the opinion of the general public. Right now the general thought in America is: "I need a gun for protection." This thought needs to be reversed. If nobody wants guns, then demand would decrease, and eventually so would gun crime. Only then could gun laws could be passed without causing problems. Eventually the country would become a safer place, and there would be significantly less shootings. I don't really understand the whole idea of "guns for protection." Anyone care to explain that? I think you pretty much explained the correct idea of the "guns for protection" theory. It's a general opinion of people. It's not really needed since I rarely ever here of someone who actually saved lives because they had a gun. I did here of one event where a gunman went out on the street with a shotgun and a guy stopped him with his gun which he got from his home. I just don't see how banning guns would stop shootings. I've said it 2 or 3 times before on this thread, and so have other people. Sick minded criminals like Seung-Hui Cho are not going to let a gun ban stop them from going on a rampage. Sure, the gun ban may stop people from committing small homicides with a gun, but they can just use knives or their own hands. To sum my ideas up, the people who are going to kill one person at a time (serial killers, etc.) can use knives or other objects while the people who want to kill a group of people can use guns which would probably be easy to find if you look.

My friend and I were in chemistry at the back of the room. I had an unopened coke with me and my friend was jokingly stabbing at it with a pencil. On his first swipe, he accidentally knocked it off of the desk and on his second swipe, he punctured it. This caused a couple of the kids in front of us to get sprayed while we didn't get a drop on us. The teacher found out and she told us to clean it up. That's about the worst thing I've done. I don't really make too much trouble.

3/10 - I won't tell you what to change, but I will say what to improve for next time. Your animations are too jumpy. There isn't enough transition between frames. It may seem hard to put so many frames in for smooth playing but thats what comes with graphics. You won't get good results without tons of effort.

I have to agree with WB. I've never really liked pop-out sigs. Anyway, the render should at least be blended some and the background doesn't reall look good. Text is also a big issue here. Something I noticed was that in the background, there's a spot where the sig goes from red and blue to this greenish looking color and blue. There's no gradient or anything, it just instantly changes color scheme. I don't like it, but I know how hard it can be to attempt a sig after so long. I've made one successful sig since I've tried starting again. Good try.

Which is why our border control is embarrassingly bad.

Please answer to my question: Why has it worked and is currently working in other countries? I've already named countries like that in this thread few times and even posted some official rates. edit: And why don't criminals get better guns in other countries? Are your boarders leaking more than Windows Vista? Shadow answered your question for me. I do think that the number of murders with guns would drop immensely but I don't think the number of murders would drop. I would think that a murderer would just use a bat, a knife, or his own hands to do the killing. As for shootings like the one at Virginia Tech, they're the people who will use the underground market to get the guns. Oh, and like Shadow said, border control sucks. Horribly.

Yes, they would go for the blackmarket. However that's a lot less dangerous than them being an every-man-right to have. It has worked well in other countries like in Finland, Sweden, Iceland and the Netherlands. And Viktorum, there's a certain difference: that kind of a bomb can't be used the same way as firearms, it might also be dangerous for the creator itself and no normal human has a reason to make a bomb. It's not like alcohol which can be slowly created without any special knowledge (hell I knew how at the age of 13 and without internet), it can't harm anyone else and isn't any more dangerous than the alcohol bought from a store. I bet the amount of homemade bombs wouldn't dramatically rise even if guns were forbitten. Btw I was never for total ban, I was just for putting them under a permission system. The point is that by banning guns, you're infringing the rights of those who would not use them in illegal ways whereas you don't really do anything for the criminals except force them to break more laws to do something that they're determined to do. In all honesty, it may make things worse. Criminals may have an easier time at getting deadlier guns on the underground market than they would getting a normal handgun in a store.