Gun Control: Hot or Not?

[Roy Karrde]

The difficulties relating to the purchase of guns if properly policed, if you've ever tried to buy a banned substance you'd know you can't just say "I'm going to buy some heroin" and then go out and do it in most cases.

You must not have been to many Southern American Cities. If I am going to go get a few grams of heroin all I have to do is go to South Dallas. Same goes with Pot and many other substances. It may cost alot, but many Police do not have the man power to patrol some of the more gang related areas. If there is a illigal market place for it, then it will be available to anyone that is willing to look.

The inability to perform a crime out of anger on the spot (takes all of 3 seconds to shoot someone, while it takes a LOT longer to choke someone to death) because you don't have a loaded gun in your home or workplace.

Yes becuase it took OJ Simpson so long to strangle two people to death. Oh wait he stabbed both of them. If people are going to kill some one out of anger they will find a way, either by guns, by knives, by nunchucks, anything.

The people you'd have to deal with in order to get a gun would put some people off too.

This holds really no weight, why? Becuase if you want to do something, if you really want something, if it is a gun, or drugs, or bombs. You will get it eventually. No matter how many hoops you jump over.

Police should not carry guns in civilian areas,

Okay Good friend, I am going to have to call Bull Shit on this. I have lived through one shooting in my life. It took place in a Public Area where just two hundred feet away two gangs opened fire on eachother. Shootings in Public Places do happen, and a Cop should have a weapon to not only protect himself but the civilians around him.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Also, forgot a few points:

1) You can build guns in your own home with not a ton of difficulty.
2) Most serial killers and mass murderers do not use guns- serial killers tend to favor strangulation, stabbing, and poisoning as their modus operandi, and most mass murderers favor explosives.
3) One of the most effective bombs is a standard 25 gallon propane tank- available at your local gas station for under $50.
4) Building bombs, making molotov cocktails, and mixing napalm are not difficult processes, and walkthrus are available online.
5) Death by strangulation or by beating may expend more effort, but are not terribly difficult all things considered. If you are angry enough to shoot someone and have that little control over yourself, you are angry enough to kill them in any way possible.
6) A good kitchen knife will slice through bone like hot butter.
7) Anything can be made into a weapon by someone with some ingenuity. ANYTHING.

[Roy Karrde]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

Hey, if we have to have a Nanny State, I want to come by it honestly. Besides, they'll never succeed in banning rocks and tree branches, so I better start making a supply of clubs while I can cut my trees.

[Dark-San]

Shush Mewtwo D2, if Leon and Dark found out about all of that, well we would have a ban on everything harmful wouldnt we? Cops would have to carry Time Out Cards becuase Butter Knives are too dangerous around Civilians.

For some reason, my stand on the gun ban is pretty neutral. Nothing much for me to argue about but for certain reason, my name appeared on Roy's post and now I had to answer this.

In Singapore we have a total gun ban. In fact, it is only the law enforcers that possess such weapons. However that does not mean that the entire population have no idea on using a gun.On the gun experience itself, in fact almost 95% of the male population had experience on the usage of the gun through national service. The weapon they trained in are usually the M16s.

Besides me being a civilised person, why would I need a weapon to kill someone for? My only target is Roy and he should be simple enough to be killed without any usage of weapons.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Besides me being a civilised person, why would I need a weapon to kill someone for? My only target is Roy and he should be simple enough to be killed without any usage of weapons.

I don't know what the stats are in Singapore, but in the States, 1 out of every 8 males is raped or sexually molested, while 1 out of every 4 females is. I would kill someone to prevent rape.

[Roy Karrde]

For some reason, my stand on the gun ban is pretty neutral. Nothing much for me to argue about but for certain reason, my name appeared on Roy's post and now I had to answer this.

I was talking about Dark Templar Zero. There are other darks on this board other than you...

[Leon-IH]

1) You can build guns in your own home with not a ton of difficulty.

I could use that argument to propose a removal of a ban on explosives, given it's possible to make some extremely easily in your own back yard.

2) Most serial killers and mass murderers do not use guns- serial killers tend to favor strangulation, stabbing, and poisoning as their modus operandi, and most mass murderers favor explosives.

Somehow though, I'd rather someone try to strangle or stab me, then be able to kill me in 3 seconds from 10 yards. I can at least have a vague opportunity to defend myself against someone with a knife or who is trying to choke me, and I'd like that chance.

3) One of the most effective bombs is a standard 25 gallon propane tank- available at your local gas station for under $50.

Indeed it is. But it's still far more difficult to do than walking down to your local hardware store, buying a gun and some bullets then shooting me.

4) Building bombs, making molotov cocktails, and mixing napalm are not difficult processes, and walkthrus are available online.

Theres walk throughs to making freaking personal hovercrafts like those on old sci-fi cartoons online. Also, it's actually slightly more difficult to make and use these effectively than it is to shoot someone.

5) Death by strangulation or by beating may expend more effort, but are not terribly difficult all things considered. If you are angry enough to shoot someone and have that little control over yourself, you are angry enough to kill them in any way possible.

It's a great deal more difficult to kill someone with your hands than with a gun, generally speaking people don't totally snap for long enough to choke someone to death (it's surprisingly difficult).

6) A good kitchen knife will slice through bone like hot butter.

I still rate my chances better at 2 feet than at 10.

7) Anything can be made into a weapon by someone with some ingenuity. ANYTHING.

Sure, I could probably choke someone to death with my computer mouse, I could also kill them with a chair leg if I wanted to. But, my point is, you can't spontaneously go berserk and kill someone with ingenuity, they just don't go together.

I'm not saying that banning guns works on premeditated attacks, because even if they can't get a gun, you can with enough planning kill someone with damn near anything, no disputing that. However, it does have something of a change on ones ability to just snap and shoot someone.


Got to admit Roy, I've not been to the states, I wouldn't go by choice, in part because Americans seem to be perfectly happy to put up with all sorts of things that we wouldn't have down here (e.g. your workplace laws, gun laws, choice of presidents). That said, I doubt it's as easy to get drugs as "go to bad area of town, purchase drugs" I suspect there's a little more to it than that (that said, maybe our drug dealers are a little more wary than yours).

[Roy Karrde]

Got to admit Roy, I've not been to the states, I wouldn't go by choice, in part because Americans seem to be perfectly happy to put up with all sorts of things that we wouldn't have down here (e.g. your workplace laws, gun laws, choice of presidents). That said, I doubt it's as easy to get drugs as "go to bad area of town, purchase drugs" I suspect there's a little more to it than that (that said, maybe our drug dealers are a little more wary than yours).

For one man that was a pretty cheap shot on Bush. Second if you have not been to the states then you probably do not know the Constitutional Reason for having guns. Think of it as a failsafe, the creators had just faced a overwhelming army and a tyranical Government who did not care about the people. Mind you I will preface that with that is their opinion so that we don't start any historical debates. Anyway think of the Second Amendment as their way of making sure that their creation does not go Frankenstein on them. That their creation doesn't turn against the people. Ala the Government should fear the people, the people shouldnt fear the Government.

Take away Guns, take away the Second Amendment, you don't just risk being over run by criminals, but you risk that one day the Government will become so overpowerful and controlling that the people will have no choice but to bend to it's will.

Also just to add, getting drugs is just that easy, infact easier as you can usually drive up to a street corner and they will come to your window. So if you are careful enough to venture in and not get shot, you can get almost any drug for the cost.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Blademaster: If I didn't think that lame ass banner in your sig was serious, I'd sig it for comedy, but I just feel bad for you

M2: No offense, but your points flat out suck. Go get laid before you argue with me jk jk, don't stalk me and kill me with your chosen modus operandi.
First of all, google how to build a gun. I defy you to find something that's not either a bad air gun or a cheesey high school physics experiment in magnetism. Bombs I admit are fairly straightforward, a gun requires a bit more precision, otherwise at best you have something that'll blow up in your face.
And really, I don't see how this topic of people liking to use weapons other than guns relates to gun control, if there are no guns then what's the effect on people who like to kill each other with half-eaten cereal bars let's say? The point is that it's just much more efficient to kill people with guns than with cereal bars. You try to go on a rampage with a knife, you won't get very far, with a handgun on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

[mr_pikachu]

You try to go on a rampage with a knife, you won't get very far, with a handgun on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

Bombs I admit are fairly straightforward

I shouldn't have to explain how these quotes relate to one another. But considering how you seem to like ignoring the logical arguments of others, maybe it's necessary.

Guns kill one person at a time in rapid succession. Bombs kill a lot of people simultaneously.

Numbers are fun!

[DarkTemplarZero]

True, numbers are fun. However, bombs are not, but I don't see how the issue of whether or not it should be easy to buy a gun relates to the fact that with a little bit of effort you can make something go boom. However simple it may be to cut apart batteries and do whatever else to make an explosion, it's still far easier to go to a store in Virginia and buy a gun.

And don't mistake disagreeing with ignoring "logical arguments", for lack of a better term.

[mr_pikachu]

If it's easy to make a bomb, then what difference does it make what method is used to kill people? One could argue that a bomb would be worse; some could easily take out 100 people in a close space. Take away guns, and the next-easiest method of mass murder does a heck of a lot more damage. As tragic as the Virginia Tech massacre was, it would pale in comparison to something like that.

And I wouldn't have a problem if you were simply disagreeing with the arguments of others. Ignoring them outright and resorting to slandering the people who are actually participating in the debate, however, makes your posts nothing but a waste of space.

[Mewtwo-D2]

on the other hand you can easily and effectively kill a large number of people without too much threat of retaliation unless they have a gun as well.

Thank you for proving my point. If I have a gun, I can stop a shooting spree, thus saving many innocent lives.


Also- building a gun isn't too difficult. My dad showed me how. Anyone who's been in the military can show you how.

[Magmar]

I can build a gun.......

Geez, if I can do it, anyone can do it!!

[Mewtwo-D2]

I could use that argument to propose a removal of a ban on explosives, given it's possible to make some extremely easily in your own back yard.

I was just pointing out that a ban on guns would not prevent criminals from getting them by any stretch of the imagination. They can buy them illegally, or they can build them themselves.

Somehow though, I'd rather someone try to strangle or stab me, then be able to kill me in 3 seconds from 10 yards. I can at least have a vague opportunity to defend myself against someone with a knife or who is trying to choke me, and I'd like that chance.

And since your argument was against people snapping suddenly in anger and shooting, why would they be 10 yards away from you? Again, if guns made people more prone to violence, then why are there never shootings at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges? Also- why were there no school shootings and a far lower crime rate when guns were in almost every home and were easily available everywhere?

Indeed it is. But it's still far more difficult to do than walking down to your local hardware store, buying a gun and some bullets then shooting me.

Actually, it's much easier.
1) Buy propane tank
2) Set it up where you want to commit mayhem
3) Pop the cap and light it

1) Go to hardware store and choose a model of gun
2) Fill out forms
3) Fill out forms
4) Fill out forms
5) Provide proof of competency
6) Submit to standard 3-day waiting period longer on some weapons
7) Buy bullets
8) Clean and test gun
9) Find person you want to kill
10) Shoot him

It's easier to buy and murder someone with a crossbow than it is a gun.

Theres walk throughs to making freaking personal hovercrafts like those on old sci-fi cartoons online. Also, it's actually slightly more difficult to make and use these effectively than it is to shoot someone.

No, it's really not.
-Bombs: too many to list, but not at all difficult to make.
-Molotov cocktails: kerosene, bottle, rag, lighter. That's all it is.
-Napalm: bezene and polystyrene mixed with gasoline. Not difficult at all.

With shooting, you have to aim. With those, you just throw and everyone dies.

It's a great deal more difficult to kill someone with your hands than with a gun, generally speaking people don't totally snap for long enough to choke someone to death (it's surprisingly difficult).

Generally people don't snap.

I still rate my chances better at 2 feet than at 10.

Perhaps, but it is easier to hit a moving target with a knife as opposed to a gun.

Sure, I could probably choke someone to death with my computer mouse, I could also kill them with a chair leg if I wanted to. But, my point is, you can't spontaneously go berserk and kill someone with ingenuity, they just don't go together.

Most non-psychotics don't spontaneously go berserk. And actually, most impromptu murders involve impromptu weapons.

I'm not saying that banning guns works on premeditated attacks, because even if they can't get a gun, you can with enough planning kill someone with damn near anything, no disputing that. However, it does have something of a change on ones ability to just snap and shoot someone.

But you're not answering how many people do that.

Also, for the drugs, I once lived in Reston, VA. Beautiful area, the first planned community in America, very, VERY upscale. We had a drug dealer who parked on top of our hill every Friday night, to sell cocaine to the rich kids.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Wow, Magmar can build a gun and Mewtwo can build a bomb? God DAMN I'm scared, we're all gonna die. I need a 12 guage to defend myself!

Mewtwo, if the process for getting a gun were that troublesome in Virginia then 33 people would still be alive today. I could only wish that that backwater extremist fourth world trash heap would be that civilized. In Virginia it's basically walk in, show you don't have a criminal record, buy a gun, go kill somebody. And guess what, it is always easy to build a bomb, and yet you see bombings are relatively rare compared to shootings. Guns are so much simpler and legal, bombs are messy, there's always a chance you'll blow your face off and you won't have anybody to sue but yourself, and face it, most people are idiots and don't want to end up in the next Darwin Awards because they blew their balls off with a poorly made Molotov.

People don't snap? Funny, you seem to be right on the brink, and you definitely have the anger, the knowledge, and certainly the motive to go on a rampage. Honestly, you scare me. But I'm curious, tell me, just how do you build a gun that won't blow your face off?

[Mewtwo-D2]

Wow, Magmar can build a gun and Mewtwo can build a bomb? God DAMN I'm scared, we're all gonna die. I need a 12 guage to defend myself!

Mewtwo, if the process for getting a gun were that troublesome in Virginia then 33 people would still be alive today. I could only wish that that backwater extremist fourth world trash heap would be that civilized. In Virginia it's basically walk in, show you don't have a criminal record, buy a gun, go kill somebody. And guess what, it is always easy to build a bomb, and yet you see bombings are relatively rare compared to shootings. Guns are so much simpler and legal, bombs are messy, there's always a chance you'll blow your face off and you won't have anybody to sue but yourself, and face it, most people are idiots and don't want to end up in the next Darwin Awards because they blew their balls off with a poorly made Molotov.

People don't snap? Funny, you seem to be right on the brink, and you definitely have the anger, the knowledge, and certainly the motive to go on a rampage. Honestly, you scare me. But I'm curious, tell me, just how do you build a gun that won't blow your face off?

Kid, the guy got his guns illegally. I'm not an angry person- I'm a realistic one. I have no motive to go on a rampage. The only people I would willingly kill would be rapists or people threatening my family. If I came across a woman (or a man) being raped in some backalley in D.C., you can bet I would shoot their attacker. But it's not like I'm going to go out walking with a gun hunting rapists. If I found out some scumbag had raped my sister and I had him in my crosshairs, damn right I would shoot him. But I would not go looking for him.
If someone is willing to commit mass murder and is unable to get a gun, they will probably go with a bomb.

But to sum up everything for you, DTZ:
You are a child. Your mind has obviously not progressed beyond insults and feel-good platitudes. You are unwilling to look past your prejudices, you are completely unwilling to consider anyone else's point of view, and you immediately leap to conclusions on subjects that you have no understanding of. This is not meant as an insult, but only a statement of fact. I sincerely hope you are able to stay in your plastic bubble, as the real world would probably kill you.

Sure it would be nice if the world was a happy, peaceful place, but California ranks quite high in the crime rate. It's 9th on the list for the violent crime rate, while Virginia comes in at 37th. Meanwhile, Washington D.C.- paragon of gun control, has one of the highest murder rates in the country. These are statistics taken by unbiased sources. It's simple mathematics. Now, are you going to continue arguing how much worse Virginia is compared to California?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[firepokemon]

So we have the two right wingers that spouted crap about how Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists. Did that happen? I don't think so.

They're the ones who will spout off about how criminals will get guns anyhow. Thats true. But such open door policy of guns is not an issue in a western country. Roy Karrde would tell you, "What about Mexico". Mexico isn't a western country. A western country is any country in western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the US. The fact is US has a problem with murders as result of guns unlike any other western country. This could well be attributed to the fact the US has more crime than any other western country and has more criminals in prison than any other country. These republican, likely conservative and most definately Iraq war supporters can debate with what they think to be intelligent debate. But they would also tell you, the US is winning the Iraq war. They're the same ones in 2003 who were convinced weapons would be found and the US would win and Iraq would be a better place to be. Iraq isn't any better than it was, there was no weapons of mass destruction found and Saddam wasn't even close to nuclear technology. The fact is we're talking about guns. They're tell you they have a right to bear arms. They're also tell you criminals will find other ways to get guns. Yes thats true New Zealand has a problem of unlicensed rifles. But we have no problems with crimes as result of handguns or the less. Its also true that the US has a culture of guns, and that any ban would be completely different than other western countries. A change in Gun Control I will admit won't do much difference because all types of gun weaponary is available in the US that just isn't available elsewhere. A ban would only see all those gun weaponary go underground, that I can agree with. But the fact that most people can buy a gun in less than 10 minutes in the US and that no one necessarily needs a license for those guns says something. Also the fact people can get hold of guns that go way beyond self defence says something I would have thought. America has problems, one of them is guns.

You two can spout off all the bullshit you want. You are the same two that think Iraq is going so well. Just lie back you two, watch the moronic Fox News and just believe what you choose to believe.

I and others on the otherhand will be open-minded and will actually think well theres a reason america has problems and one of them is your open-door gun policy.

[Roy Karrde]

So we have the two right wingers that spouted crap about how Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists. Did that happen? I don't think so.

Umm no one said that getting rid of Saddam would get rid of terrorists, it was a step in the right direction as it was a step to make sure that we wouldnt have another 9/11 just a year and a half after the event, and that Saddam would stop funding terrorism.

They're the ones who will spout off about how criminals will get guns anyhow. Thats true. But such open door policy of guns is not an issue in a western country. Roy Karrde would tell you, "What about Mexico". Mexico isn't a western country.

So the line for Western Countries zig zags around Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western...ciety_in_Focus

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are (directly derived from) European cultures, i.e. Europe, Israel, the Americas (North and Latin America), Australia and New Zealand (and sometimes South Africa and the Philippines). Together these countries constitute "Western society"

A western country is any country in western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the US.

Says you, but only becuase you are trying to prove your point.

These republican, likely conservative and most definately Iraq war supporters can debate with what they think to be intelligent debate.

Blanket Statements are always the first sign of a idiot.

But they would also tell you, the US is winning the Iraq war. They're the same ones in 2003 who were convinced weapons would be found and the US would win and Iraq would be a better place to be. Iraq isn't any better than it was, there was no weapons of mass destruction found and Saddam wasn't even close to nuclear technology. The fact is we're talking about guns.

Yet you spend a paragraph of misdirection on Iraq, what a Sad person you are.

They're tell you they have a right to bear arms.

Which we do.

They're also tell you criminals will find other ways to get guns.

Just like Drugs.

But the fact that most people can buy a gun in less than 10 minutes in the US and that no one necessarily needs a license for those guns says something. Also the fact people can get hold of guns that go way beyond self defence says something I would have thought. America has problems, one of them is guns.

America has a problem with Guns that I agree with, America also has a problem with Drugs and Illigal Immigration, all three can quickly become connected. Also I wonder have you bought a gun in the United States? Gone through the Procedure to buy one? Timed it?

You two can spout off all the bullshit you want.

I am not the dumbass going around making Blanket Statements and bringing in things that have nothing to do with the argument.

You are the same two that think Iraq is going so well. Just lie back you two, watch the moronic Fox News and just believe what you choose to believe.

Again Blanket Statements, although if you want to get into a debate on Iraq, make a topic, stop going off topic.

I and others on the otherhand will be open-minded and will actually think well theres a reason america has problems and one of them is your open-door gun policy.

And Driving Guns underground will only worsen the problem.

[firepokemon]

I'm not a big fan of take a quote from what I say and then rebut it.

The exact scope of the Western World is of somewhat subjective nature, depending on whether cultural, economic or political criteria are used. In general however these definitions always include the following countries: the countries of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

From Wikipedia. That is what I referred to. I will not include Mexico or latin america because they are not western in nature. Western refers to economically developed countries not developing countries, therefore I took this piece from that Wikipedia source. Its all well using sociological explanations but as far as I and most people reference to the western world are first world countries from Western Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and sometimes South Africa. Why the Phillipines would be included is beyond me, may as well include Singapore, japan then.

I'm sorry if you don't grasp what conception of western world I am referring to, but it doesn't include Mexico. A country where many of its citizens live in horrific poverty, thats the reason they have crime. Thus why I choose not to attribute it.

I'm really glad you're able to use copy and paste and also quote what I have say, but I'm not fond of such things, they're always rather boring.

I'm well aware the United States having had a gun culture for so long and then banning them thus forcing the undergrounding (is that even a word) of guns wouldn';t exactly work. I'm also not calling for a ban of guns. I think the US needs and all states should adopt such laws (as its easy to say put restrictions but some states have different laws so it is difficult) proper licensing system, no criminal or anyone thought to be dangerous should get be able to get a license. That means a licensing process where a person must get two independent sources saying this person is a good person because of blah blah blah. Perhaps even a psychiatric report. And once that they can get a license. Remove blatant gun weaponary that is not for recreational use (ie. hunting, sport) or self defense. The US or its citizens just do not need them. Gun shop owners and worklers should enquire as to why they want such gun weaponary. And mental patients or people thought to be dangerous should not be able to get a license. This license should be made nation-wide and could be used in all states. Perhaps there needs to be an adoption of gun laws like states have done with Jessica Laws. I wouldn't expect things to change immediate but such a process whereby gun owners must be licensed would mean that fewer people who ought to gain guns would not be able to obtain them. Yes this would also create an underground market, but then surely there is already an underground market.

[Roy Karrde]

I will not include Mexico or latin america because they are not western in nature. Western refers to economically developed countries not developing countries, therefore I took this piece from that Wikipedia source.

Western Countries are based on a multitude of criteria, some on economy which Mexico would not be considered, others on Social and Political Norms, which Mexico WOULD be a part of. Now if we were discussing Economic Transactions in the modern world your point would be valid, but no we are talking about Guns in Western Countries, that would be considered Social, and Mexico is considered a Social Economic Country.

Its all well using sociological explanations but as far as I and most people reference to the western world are first world countries from Western Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and sometimes South Africa. Why the Phillipines would be included is beyond me, may as well include Singapore, japan then.

That is only becuase those few fit all three, but we are not talking about Western Economies, again we are talking about Social Western Countries, which would fit a much broader list.

I'm sorry if you don't grasp what conception of western world I am referring to, but it doesn't include Mexico. A country where many of its citizens live in horrific poverty, thats the reason they have crime. Thus why I choose not to attribute it.

So Poverty automatically means you will comit a crime? You are just trying to throw what ever you have up against the wall when I have already proven that there are many ways to consider a Western Country.

I'm well aware the United States having had a gun culture for so long and then banning them thus forcing the undergrounding (is that even a word) of guns wouldn';t exactly work.

Good we agree on something, keep Iraq out of it and we can have a actual civilized debate.

I'm also not calling for a ban of guns. I think the US needs and all states should adopt such laws (as its easy to say put restrictions but some states have different laws so it is difficult) proper licensing system, no criminal or anyone thought to be dangerous should get be able to get a license. That means a licensing process where a person must get two independent sources saying this person is a good person because of blah blah blah. Perhaps even a psychiatric report. And once that they can get a license. Remove blatant gun weaponary that is not for recreational use (ie. hunting, sport) or self defense. The US or its citizens just do not need them.

All well and good, but that is going to stop inner city crime how? This would stop Cho how? You really need to do some research on Gun Laws, what each state has for a law as well as Federal Laws.

Gun shop owners and worklers should enquire as to why they want such gun weaponary.

Yes becuase people dont Lie.

And mental patients or people thought to be dangerous should not be able to get a license.

That already happens, the problem with Cho is that he said he didnt want to be in the hospital and left, he then lied on his Gun Application.

This license should be made nation-wide and could be used in all states. Perhaps there needs to be an adoption of gun laws like states have done with Jessica Laws. I wouldn't expect things to change immediate but such a process whereby gun owners must be licensed would mean that fewer people who ought to gain guns would not be able to obtain them. Yes this would also create an underground market, but then surely there is already an underground market.

There is already an underground market the only difference is that you will be limiting even more the families that live in the inner cities and such that want to play by the rules and protect their home. The Gangs and Criminals know where to get the guns, and if they do not they will find the way.

Anyway you made a whole post with out making a Politically Bigotted Statement on Republicans, going off topic on Iraq, or making a Blanket Statement, you get a Gold Star!

[firepokemon]

I continue to maintain that thoughts on the western world have remained the same and while their may be an academic debate taking place on what constitutes the western world I for one am not going to believe it.

Why would I be limiting inner-city families who want to live by the world? They can obtain a licence I see nothing that I have said that will limit american families from obtaining a gun for self defence. All I have said, is use a licensing system and get rid of weaponary that someone wouldn't be using for self defence or that is not needed for self defence.

Roy Karrde, also your american but I would think not even you know all state gun laws. I realise some have stricter conditions for gun use than others, but wouldn't some type of universal law be more helpful and surely you as a gun advocate realise there needs to be at least some gun restrictions. That does not mean limit recreational or self defense use. But surely for self defense you don't need a rifle or surely for self defense you don't need a powerful pistol. Wouldn't a normal easy pistol be just as good? Alsi I'm aware criminals will always find a way, but if you can make it at least more difficult that may mean just one more death as result of guns.

[Roy Karrde]

I continue to maintain that thoughts on the western world have remained the same and while their may be an academic debate taking place on what constitutes the western world I for one am not going to believe it.

That is fine, but you cannot deny that many countries these days would now constitute a "Western Country", based on one or two of the factors. back in the 70s you could sit a set of terms down and say "These are what constitute a Western Country" now days these terms have expanded. Saying that a Country isnt considered a Western Country in a debate on a Country on a Social means just becuase that country does not live up to the Economic mark for a Western Country is wrong.

Why would I be limiting inner-city families who want to live by the world? They can obtain a licence I see nothing that I have said that will limit american families from obtaining a gun for self defence. All I have said, is use a licensing system and get rid of weaponary that someone wouldn't be using for self defence or that is not needed for self defence.

Becuase making many people jump through a extrodinary amount of loop holes while the bad guys just go pick them up from a Chevy in the back of a 7-11 will put alot of families off. Besides I really think it should be the states or even the city that decides the gun laws. Someone buying a Gun in say a Rural Town in Utah shouldnt have to go through the same rules as some one buying a gun in Mid Town Los Angelas.

Roy Karrde, also your american but I would think not even you know all state gun laws. I realise some have stricter conditions for gun use than others, but wouldn't some type of universal law be more helpful and surely you as a gun advocate realise there needs to be at least some gun restrictions. That does not mean limit recreational or self defense use. But surely for self defense you don't need a rifle or surely for self defense you don't need a powerful pistol. Wouldn't a normal easy pistol be just as good? Alsi I'm aware criminals will always find a way, but if you can make it at least more difficult that may mean just one more death as result of guns.

My point with the state laws is that many of your ideas are already laws for some states, but many of them do not require laws like that. Placing down blanket laws can be good sometimes, but bad the other, in the end laws like these should more go on a city by city basis or a state by state basis than nation wide. A person in Los Angelas wouldnt need a Rifle or a High Powered Pistol, but a Farmer in Kansas who has to keep a look out for Foxes or Wolves may need one.

[firepokemon]

Well things should be adaptable city to city or state to state I would think that would be fine. I do think state power rather than city would be even better, otherwise I could not see how a licensing system could work.

[Last Exile]

The 2nd Amendment was written during the bloody Civil War when the whole damn US was scared all the time and arms were required. It's nearly 200 years down the track now. Who the bloody hell do people need to bear arms against now? The conditioning that has gone into making that many people believe guns are necessary is just sad. They're not necessary. This is the 21st century. Change the damn law and outlaw guns. Every other major country that did this had their critics and said it would never work and that it wouldn't reduce gun-related crime. Yet it did. Don't hide behind the excuse of the US being a unique situation or that it's the bullet or the person firing the gun that kills people that removes guns from having responsibility. Guns provide the easiest way to kill someone. Why allow them to circulate so freely?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Umm Roy, if I was living in Los Angeles I would need a rifle. Preferably a minigun or something similar that's capable of several thousand rounds a minute. Just in case some African-American youth who's a member of a gang decides I'm a buster fool and a playerhater and that he wants to pop a cap or whatever it is they say. Little does he know that I'm a trap star and that I'll put 200 warning shots right in his face Hahah jk jk.

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...0OWNERSHIP.pdf
^ An interesting study. Apparently homicide rates are much lower in countries that have very strict gun laws, i.e. the UK, etc. Woo.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay how did I get dragged into this again? Anyway I may actually be picking up a gun soon. Mind you I have never even seen a gun before in my life before. But my Apartment has had alot of frequent break ins, and yesterday I had a run in with a very very angry man who had a bad case of road rage, who lives just down the road. So I am starting to consider one for protection.

[Mewtwo-D2]

The 2nd Amendment was written during the bloody Civil War when the whole damn US was scared all the time and arms were required. It's nearly 200 years down the track now. Who the bloody hell do people need to bear arms against now? The conditioning that has gone into making that many people believe guns are necessary is just sad. They're not necessary. This is the 21st century. Change the damn law and outlaw guns. Every other major country that did this had their critics and said it would never work and that it wouldn't reduce gun-related crime. Yet it did. Don't hide behind the excuse of the US being a unique situation or that it's the bullet or the person firing the gun that kills people that removes guns from having responsibility. Guns provide the easiest way to kill someone. Why allow them to circulate so freely?

There are just so many things wrong with your post, I hardly know where to begin... I guess at the beginning.

1) Revolutionary War. The Constitution was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791- the Civil War was fought between 1860-1865. Clear? Okay.
2) Needed guns because we were "scared"? How about "Needed guns because most of the continent was a fucking wilderness, and people needed guns to provide food for their families and protect themselves from criminals where there was no one to enforce the law."
3) Who do we need to bear arms against? Let's start with the most common one- CRIMINALS. Like all countries, America has crime. Unlike many countries, people in America have the right to defend themselves against criminals. There's also the reason the 2nd Amendment was written- to defend against tyrannical governments. What has every dictator in history done first? De-arm the populace. You can't rule an armed population through fear and terror.
4) It's the 21st century? Oh, goody! I guess all violent crimes will stop now that you have made that astute observation. Hey, criminals! It's the 21st century! Rape, murder, and armed robbery are now primitive as well as bad, so you'd better stop it.
5) No, it really didn't reduce crimes. Fewer people were shot, but more people were stabbed or bludgeoned to death, and rape and robbery statistics skyrocketed. Criminals, like everyone else, prefer to operate in the simplest way possible- they are very unlikely to attempt an assault on an individual they believe is armed. Don't believe me? Read interviews with mafioso's and other gangsters. They're happy when their potential victims are disarmed.
6) It's the price of avoiding tyranny. I have the right to live free, and I have the right to prevent anyone from infringing on my rights. I have the rights to my life and property, and therefore, logically, I have the right to protect both.

Bottom line, you fail American history, you fail elementary psychology, and you fail on world history.

[Last Exile]

1. You didn't have a big army then, granted. You have the biggest army in the world now, you have numerous armed police forces. They are your protection. I don't recall being vigilante as being a factor for the greater good. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for the general public. It was written for STATE MILITAS! NOT for the general public. The 2nd Amendment was taken out of context from Day 1 and still is. That's American History. You are not in a war, you are not under attack. Stop living in fear!

2. You have just admitted you live in constant fear! Fear of being overrun, fear of being defenseless, fear or not being able to stick it to someone who sticks it to you?! If you're meant to be the greatest democracy on Earth, what the bloody hell do you have to fear?! You've got the bombs, you've got the armies, the power but you're still afraid. Because the world no longer lives in awe of the US. And we shouldn't. Is that not the definition of a tyranny? Why on earth should 6 billion other people live the way that a country that has only 270 odd million decides is fit for the rest of the world? This isn't colonial times, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Gulf War. Wars in the Middle East are fought far, far away from your comfy home where you can sleep at night without the worry of a shell blowing you to smithereens or militia running into your home. What the bloody hell do you have to fear? Criminals. Okay. You make guns and ammo so easily obtainable that anyone with the moolah could access them even if they're the biggest dickbrain alive. So make them unaccessible. I repeat - every other bloody country that ever outlawed guns had their critics, but you know what? We're much safer for having done so!

3. Tyranny? TYRANNY?! You call disarming the general population tyrannical?! Well excuse me! Australia wanted them banned after we had, and what still is, the biggest gun massacre in modern history. Yes, we did. Martin Bryant, a very mentally sick person, bought a gun via normal means and randomly killed 35 people, for which he is imprisoned for life and will never see the light of day. That's more than Virgina, than Columbine, than all of them. How did we feel? Bloody mortified. We didn't want anyone to do this again! So we banned those bloody guns. But we do allow the odd but of game hunting, we do allow recreational use of guns under appropriate conditions. Even professional shooters/gun-users in Australia don't have problems with it. They think this is just fine and that it is for the greater good. Australia, England, virtually all of the western block of Europe, India - guns are illegal and the population wanted that to be so! Even countries with larger populations with yours have far less gun-related deaths than yours. And here's the strange part - the other forms of crime DON'T go up to compensate! That is a complete load of crap. There is a difference between perception and truth. If you honestly believe everything a gangster or crook says, you are a prisoner of fear. If you believe everything the media says, you are a prisoner of fear for they are the biggest circulators of it. You are a prisoner of their tyrrany. There is truth in the media, but only when it is profitable. If fear and lies are profitable, they will do whatever it takes to make you believe that. You are a prisoner of fear and they have won the battle versus people like you.

4. So shoot them before they shoot you? That's really responsible. You've just admitted once again, you live in fear and terror of what MIGHT happen! Yes, what MIGHT happen! There is a dark side to humanity, bad things happen because ultimately there is the capability for anyone to be evil. OF COURSE VIOLENT CRIME IS GOING TO HAPPEN! Did I ever bloody say it didn't?! Don't put words into my mouth or twist what I said. Crimes happen because of people. THAT'S WHY THE POLICE EXIST! Police may not be perfect but for the greater part they do their bloody job. We may not approve of all their means but they get the job done and they make the world a safer place. YOU ARE NOT THE LAW! So you think having a weapon and having the right to kill someone, just because it's in self defense, makes you any better than a criminal?! Killing someone is killing someone, murder is murder. Unless it is in war, on the battlefield, IT'S MURDER. It's vigilante warfare. Yeah, that's living free - not. No thanks, I don't want to live like that.

5. You are deluded if you think all tyrannical governments disarm the population. Iran, Iraq before Saddam's fall, Yemen, North Korea, the African states under tyrannical rule. They were all given the right to bear arms. And look what happened to them. Look what happened to them once they decided to arm themselves once their loonie took over. Living in constant fear, believing in the right to bear arms against the POTENTIAL of being attacked. This line of thinking, of fear of the unknown - this is what breeds paranoia and being a prisoner of fear. This ISN'T freedom. It's the exact opposite.

Your argument falls flat. Your claims are as ill-founded as any I have ever seen. You contradict yourself every few sentences. You are a prisoner of the fear and tyranny that you claims to be against and free of. You fail at aruging, at history, but most of all, as being a free person. You are the opposite. You have done everything criminals and terrorists wanted people like you to do. You are a prisoner of fear. You are a prisoner of self-inflicted tyranny. You are the ultimate failure.

You are the ultimate failure.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Mewtwo you fail at life, but that's beside the point. Just kidding, I love you You're my favorite crazy murderous maniac, outside of perhaps Tommy Vercetti, but he's not real.

1) LE said all there has to be said.
2) Lucky now most of the continent is rather safe and there are people to enforce the law, eh?
3) Wrong, the first thing every dictator did was wipe out the opposition and declare it illegal to stand against him. But yeah, it's well known that reality has a liberal bias, we'll discredit that >.<
4) Yes they are primitive and bad, so you'd better stop it. I don't understand why Christian people seem to love killing each other so much, what do you not understand about "thou shalt not kill"?
5) That's a load of crap and you know it. There is incredibly strict gun control in Tokyo, and there is an average of 200 homicides per year for a population of ~ 12 million and a relatively small police force. Los Angeles ranges from about 600-1000 per year, with a population of only 4 million and a massive police department.
6) Oh please, take your head out of the gutter for one second and realize that life is not entirely a nuclear bomb that a dog just took a diarrhea shit all over.

Hahah Last Exile that quote was classic. "You are the ultimate failure" AHAHAHAHAH I'm laughing hysterically here, so straightforward, so blunt, I love it.

[Last Exile]

Japan's problems stem from their strict, interdependent culture and high living costs and high expectations. Failure isn't tolerated in Japan so when you fail, you either kill someone else or yourself. I wouldn't claim to know the reasons in the US, I haven't look into that section enough,

[anonymous]

I know that whatever i post will get me flamed, so I'll just let a picture do the talking instead.

[DarkTemplarZero]

I really don't understand the correllation between 9/11 and gun control. You want people to be allowed to carry guns on planes? That is the most outrageously stupid idea I have ever heard. One accidental discharge and everybody on that plane is dead. Other than that incomprehensibly stupid idea, I am unfortunately not retarded enough to think of any more possible corellations. You're clearly an idiot, care to enlighten us? And you're right, if you tried to argue something that stupid, you would be flamed. You might as well argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

[anonymous]

and thats the kind of reason why i didnt really bother with a huge response. no matter what anyone posts here, mostly what ive seen in this thread is less of a debate, and more of a blatant argument, with much flaming, regardless of what someone says. and i didnt mean "allow guns on a plane", because that would be retarded for obvious reasons. maybe i shouldve cropped that part out, but i just got lazy at this point. bet ill get flamed for posting this stuff too, even though theres no real point here either. thanks for proving my point.

[Blademaster]

Zero, MUST you insult everybody on TPM who disagrees with you?

anonymous, I apologize for him, Roy Karrde, and whoever else has given you the wrong idea here - most of the smarter folks in TPM don't reply to these kinds of threads, for obvious reasons - if they did, we'd have threads just like this... only they'd be 800 posts long.

Anyway, welcome to TPM and all that jazz; if you avoid the Mods and the peanut gallery here, it's really a nice place.

See ya around the forums!

[Roy Karrde]

Ooookay how do I keep getting dragged into this, really DTZ you need to calm down, alot. Anyway welcome to the forums Anonymous, really alot of people in these debates are just playing around for fun and never mean what they say. Anyway welcome to the forums! Check out RPG! * Waves * Umm... Okay I am leaving this topic, I dont wanna be dragged back in * Runs away crying *

[Master Rudy]

Ooookay how do I keep getting dragged into this, really DTZ you need to calm down, alot. Anyway welcome to the forums Anonymous, really alot of people in these debates are just playing around for fun and never mean what they say. Anyway welcome to the forums! Check out RPG! * Waves * Umm... Okay I am leaving this topic, I dont wanna be dragged back in * Runs away crying *

Sure ya do Roy! Because there's nothing more amusing that watching Zero make a total fool of himself time and time again! Oops! Sorry Z! You know I love you and your foolishness.

Ok now that I'm done sinking to DTZ's level and showing how dumb he sounds when he pulls crap like that it's time to hit the real debate. As it stands most of what needs to be said has been posted already. And it really does boil down to the fact that when you outlaw firearms then only the outlaws will have them. Look at other good cases in history. Prohibition? Didn't take much to find a speakeasy and get drunk. War on drugs? Not hard to find it if you truely know where to look and who to ask. Hell if I really wanted to I know at least 10 people I could get weed from right now. Guns would be the same case. Yeah I'm sure it's worked in some places but you can't base how the rest of the world will react on one country. Plus it's absurd to say it's bullshit that some of us are wrong to say other types of violent crime go up when guns are out of the mix. Admittedly I can't remember what magazine it was in (might have been American Rifleman)but they published a story showing why the right to bear arms works. An armed bystander watched as a criminal fleeing from the cops shot and killed a policeman after wrecking his car and then proceeded to turn on the witness. The witness was quick to get out his own weapon and drop the scumbag. Now in DTZ's world what do we have? A dead cop and an unarmed civvie at the total mercy of the crook.

Personally like Roy I don't know why I got into this myself. Pro Gun Control vs. Right to Bear Arms is like so many debates in the US. Both sides believe they are right and will show evidence to back it up. One side will not tip to the other and say you win.

/sigh
NOW I WANT MY 10 MINUTES THAT I SPENT TYPING THIS BACK!!!!

*goes back to listening to LP and playing WoW*

[Mewtwo-D2]

[QUOTE=Last Exile;328098]1. You didn't have a big army then, granted. You have the biggest army in the world now, you have numerous armed police forces. They are your protection. I don't recall being vigilante as being a factor for the greater good. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for the general public. It was written for STATE MILITAS! NOT for the general public. The 2nd Amendment was taken out of context from Day 1 and still is. That's American History. You are not in a war, you are not under attack. Stop living in fear![\quote]

Wrong- Supreme Court says the military and the police are not here to protect individuals, but to uphold the law. If someone is getting robbed and calls the police, they don't have to do shit. Your property is not their concern. As for State Militias- EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES IS IN THE MILITIA! The militia applies to every able-bodied citizen. I can go get a friend of mine who set up the Pittsburgh Militia, and I can go find the laws on it, but every able-bodied citizen is part of the militia by default.

2. You have just admitted you live in constant fear! Fear of being overrun, fear of being defenseless, fear or not being able to stick it to someone who sticks it to you?! If you're meant to be the greatest democracy on Earth, what the bloody hell do you have to fear?!

How about rape and armed robbery?

You've got the bombs, you've got the armies, the power but you're still afraid. Because the world no longer lives in awe of the US.

What in the blue fuck does the world community have to do whether private citizens of the United States attempt to assault other private citizens of the United States? Is the World Community going to protect my property?

And we shouldn't. Is that not the definition of a tyranny? Why on earth should 6 billion other people live the way that a country that has only 270 odd million decides is fit for the rest of the world? This isn't colonial times, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Gulf War.

Who ever said you had to live the way the US does? Not me. I said I am not letting some bureaucrat comfy in his soft chair deprive me of my rights.

Wars in the Middle East are fought far, far away from your comfy home where you can sleep at night without the worry of a shell blowing you to smithereens or militia running into your home. What the bloody hell do you have to fear? Criminals. Okay. You make guns and ammo so easily obtainable that anyone with the moolah could access them even if they're the biggest dickbrain alive. So make them unaccessible. I repeat - every other bloody country that ever outlawed guns had their critics, but you know what? We're much safer for having done so!

Safer, unless you're a woman. Actually, male rape is a pretty big problem too- I know at least five women who were raped, molested, or sexually assaulted. Two of them had mace. You are giving criminals carte blanche to do whatever they want.

3. Tyranny? TYRANNY?! You call disarming the general population tyrannical?! Well excuse me! Australia wanted them banned after we had, and what still is, the biggest gun massacre in modern history. Yes, we did. Martin Bryant, a very mentally sick person, bought a gun via normal means and randomly killed 35 people, for which he is imprisoned for life and will never see the light of day. That's more than Virgina, than Columbine, than all of them. How did we feel? Bloody mortified. We didn't want anyone to do this again! So we banned those bloody guns. But we do allow the odd but of game hunting, we do allow recreational use of guns under appropriate conditions. Even professional shooters/gun-users in Australia don't have problems with it. They think this is just fine and that it is for the greater good. Australia, England, virtually all of the western block of Europe, India - guns are illegal and the population wanted that to be so! Even countries with larger populations with yours have far less gun-related deaths than yours. And here's the strange part - the other forms of crime DON'T go up to compensate! That is a complete load of crap. There is a difference between perception and truth. If you honestly believe everything a gangster or crook says, you are a prisoner of fear. If you believe everything the media says, you are a prisoner of fear for they are the biggest circulators of it. You are a prisoner of their tyrrany. There is truth in the media, but only when it is profitable. If fear and lies are profitable, they will do whatever it takes to make you believe that. You are a prisoner of fear and they have won the battle versus people like you.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's SS leader.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn’t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
Joseph Stalin

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
Joseph Stalin

http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

Congratulations- you guys have a lot in common.

4. So shoot them before they shoot you? That's really responsible. You've just admitted once again, you live in fear and terror of what MIGHT happen! Yes, what MIGHT happen!

So, you'd have sex without a condom because it's living in fear to assume the girl MIGHT get pregnant, or you MIGHT get an STD?

There is a dark side to humanity, bad things happen because ultimately there is the capability for anyone to be evil. OF COURSE VIOLENT CRIME IS GOING TO HAPPEN! Did I ever bloody say it didn't?! Don't put words into my mouth or twist what I said. Crimes happen because of people. THAT'S WHY THE POLICE EXIST! Police may not be perfect but for the greater part they do their bloody job.

So, if I am getting raped, I can get to the phone and call them! And they'll materialize at my side and pull the dickweed off of me?

We may not approve of all their means but they get the job done and they make the world a safer place. YOU ARE NOT THE LAW! So you think having a weapon and having the right to kill someone, just because it's in self defense, makes you any better than a criminal?! Killing someone is killing someone, murder is murder. Unless it is in war, on the battlefield, IT'S MURDER. It's vigilante warfare. Yeah, that's living free - not. No thanks, I don't want to live like that.

Murder is murder. Yeah- people still die on the battlefeild. If it's kill or be killed, I am not a criminal. If someone tries to kill me, I will kill them first to preserve my rights. I'm not saying that it happens often, but if it has to come down to my life versus the person who is trying to rape or kill me, they are going to be killed by me.

5. You are deluded if you think all tyrannical governments disarm the population. Iran, Iraq before Saddam's fall, Yemen, North Korea, the African states under tyrannical rule. They were all given the right to bear arms. And look what happened to them. Look what happened to them once they decided to arm themselves once their loonie took over. Living in constant fear, believing in the right to bear arms against the POTENTIAL of being attacked. This line of thinking, of fear of the unknown - this is what breeds paranoia and being a prisoner of fear. This ISN'T freedom. It's the exact opposite.

So sex without condoms, drive with no seat belt, non-perishable food and savings accounts be damned! Accepting that the worst CAN happen is simple common sense. You refuse to accept that the worst can happen, you invite it. If I never get assaulted or raped, good! I never want to get assaulted! But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I arm myself against the possibility that one day someone is going to assault me.

Your argument falls flat. Your claims are as ill-founded as any I have ever seen. You contradict yourself every few sentences. You are a prisoner of the fear and tyranny that you claims to be against and free of. You fail at aruging, at history, but most of all, as being a free person. You are the opposite. You have done everything criminals and terrorists wanted people like you to do. You are a prisoner of fear. You are a prisoner of self-inflicted tyranny. You are the ultimate failure.

You are the ultimate failure.

You are a naive little child. You think that the world always works out just the way you plan? And you think preparing for the possibility of bad things happening is being a prisoner of fear?

I drive a car- I need to buy gas, get tune-ups, and carry a spare tire. Most of the time, my car will run fine- last year I had two flat tires, a burst coolant hose, and a broken horn. My spare tire helped get me off the side of the road and home, my emergency kit helped me fix the coolant hose, and my spare fuses helped me fix the horn. I bought all of them when the car was working fine.

I live in a house- I need to keep a battery-powered radio, have candles/gas lamps, and have a reliable phoneline when the power goes out. Last year the power went out 6 times- four times at night. Snowstorms and thunderstorms knocked the power out. Once it was out for 12 hours. Luckily, I was able to keep in contact with the power company, and was able to not fall down my stairs and hurt myself, thanks to my flashlight.


I am a female- I can get pregnant. If I choose to have sex, I would choose to use birth control, because I don't want to have children right now. If I was having sex with someone I didn't know was clean, I'd use a condom to make sure I wouldn't get an STD. As a woman, I'm also more at risk to get raped than men. I am less strong than the average man, so I am less likely to successfully fend off an attack without a weapon.

I have a body- it gets sick sometimes. I go to the dentist to keep my teeth from falling out and to the doctor to keep my body healthy. My mother died of breast cancer at an early age, so once I hit 25, I will get yearly mammograms. Apparently that's being a prisoner of fear.


I am realistic. I hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. I'd like to know how you all get along with your cars that never break down, your houses that never run out of power, your supernatural protection from all forms of crime, your sex partners who never get pregnant and are always clean, your always perfect teeth, and your always perfect health. If you could pass the secret on to me, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Blademaster]

Can we all just CHILL OUT now? None of you are accomplishing anything except frustrating each other. You all are at opposite ends of the subject, so as perfect as you all think your arguments are, NOBODY ELSE DOES. You all sound like bickering children using big-people words and topics. Cut it out already - I've been listening to a whole lot of you saying the same things over and over, and I STILL don't agree with you. Do any of you honestly feel any different - that your life's viewpoint has suddenly been changed because some stranger you barely know has ruffled your feathers and told you their opinion? Does that make ANY sense to ANY of you stubborn people?

Quit this pointless arguing and immature name-calling NOW and lighten up already - as screwed up as your life may or may not be, it's not worth wasting any of it by getting upset over this crap.

Oh, and a cookie goes to the first person to deduce the paradox of what I just said.