Fuck guns, I have a flat full of swords waiting for me in September.

I´d like to see those nigger commies try to get me this time.

Why? Have you been practicing your cringing and crying?

Whatever. Maybe it's different because you have something to hold onto so dearly, but I still see it as ridiculous. But what the fuck do I know. I'm typically not one to give a shit if someone endangers his own life, such as with drugs. I've seen it the same way with gun control, but I've never really cared either way.

Also, I'm not endangering your child's life. I don't vote.

I don't care if people endanger their own lives, either. Have at it, I say. I do object when they endanger my life and the lives of those I love, however. The existence of a general population armed with machines that propel pieces of metal at speeds that are faster than sound travels is in my opinion a threat.

I'm a little taken aback that you would say that it's ridiculous. In 2007 there were over 400,000 violent crimes committed with firearms in the U.S. People are intimidated, raped, and murdered at gun point every fucking day, but you are confused as to why we would want to take away guns? Are you fucking serious?

I really don't see why guns should be restricted.

I think they should be controlled but allowed to a certain extent. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be permitted to carry one down the street, but as for home defence/ shooting pests to protect your farm animals. As long as the person has proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are responsable enough to own a firearm ... i'm ok with them owning one.

I am glad I live in a country where guns aren't in every other person's arsenal. As for those who carry them, it's difficult to see them as anything but cowardly.

This of course does not extend to our armed forces.

Alcar...

What kind of a retarded statement is that?

Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Did you read his post? He was implying my beliefs were endangering his child's life. They aren't. I just sit and complain to myself. I don't "perform" any actions to further any goals.

Okay, you've given a good example of someone who has a reason for owning and carrying a gun. How on earth do you justify the milllions of other people who bought one just because they wanted to, or in case the world ends tomorrow and they want to be prepared?

You couldn't get rid of them in this generation but the hardware deteriorates over time. If you were to ban the sale of guns to anyone who didn't strictly need them, then the numbers would slowly dwindle and in 50 years they'd be approaching a similar level to rest of the world.

I still don't see why they should be restricted. Cars can be dangerous too. Should we ban them?

Cars are necessary for the general population; guns aren't.

Cars are dangerous when used incorrectly. Guns are dangerous when used correctly. Also, the gun's only purpose is to kill. In the case of the handgun, it's only purpose is to kill people. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Sorry, rite rite, I forgot that several tons of metal moving at high speeds are completely safe.

Nothing is completely safe, but there are more of those several-ton weighing pieces of metal moving around than those bullets moving faster than the speed of sound and I think the likelyhood of one gtting killed is lower if one goes for a stroll down a cty street rather than through a shooting range.

Wanna bet on that?

Only if any deaths are the result from cars. ;)

Ah, so you are being intentionally obtuse. Thank you for clarifying that.

In Canada, you can buy pellet guns at dollar stores.

We are so fucked if someone invades us it's not even funny.

Even in the hands of trained professionals, accidents still happen. The only difference is that a car is a hell of a lot bigger than a bullet, and thus has a better chance of hitting someone.


I'm not saying that cars are a bigger threat than guns. I just don't see why guns get special treatment.

Because guns are intended for killing. Cars are not.

What do you have a better chance of avoiding: a speeding bullet going so fast and so small you would have been dead before you even heard the discharge, and needless to say, saw it coming; or a large, noisy chunk of metal stampeding down an open space with its headlights turned on possibly?

Oh that makes it all different then. It doesn't matter how dangerous something is, all that matters is what it was made for.

What has a better chance of hitting me? You can't really accurately answer this. You can take into effect how accurate the gun is, how fast the car is going, whether or not I'm facing the incoming object, if it's on a busy street, if there's anything to warn me about the bullet, what coverage there is, etc. etc.

Just in general, what has a better chance of knocking you out before you even saw it coming? Anything can do anything under x conditions. However, there's some inherent factors in cars and firing guns that make one more leathal over the other.

They both can. If you want to ask me what can do that better, the answer is obviously the bullet.

No-one said it doesn't matter how dangerous something is. However, you need to be able to justify the existence of dangerous objects in our society. Cars may be dangerous but they're vital to the functioning of our society. Guns are dangerous and they're only needed by a very small number of people.

Guns aren't allowed in the UK. People get stabbed instead.
I hope everyone uses tazers in the future.

Tazers are fun! Except when you die like an overfed goldfish.

You are arguing guns are better than cars?

Do you live in the deep south?

If so; pick ups are cars too.

No, he isn't really arguing that. He's just grasping at whatever he can to make his stance make sense to him. Whether he believes it or not. Similar to the good doctor in the other thread.

Nemo: Don't take offense to that. It happens to be true. However, everyone does that from time to time. Whenever people have a belief that they can't really explain, they do this. I have been guilty of it, as well.

In a blunt comparison we have:

1. A car capable of reaching a speed of 300 km/h in 30 seconds (for arguments sake).

2. A 9mm handgun with a 9mm bullet.

We put the two at the exact same point, 500 meters from the target; a person standing still. Assuming for a moment that the shooter of the gun has outstanding aim.

When we give the go, the car will start driving to the target at full speed and at the same time the gun will be fired. Now, by the time the bullet reaches the target the car won't even have driven 50 meters. So in terms of survivability I'd say your odds are a lot worse with a bullet.

This was Mythbusters with your favorite host; Havoc. See you next time!

Sooooooooo, is anyone on nemo's side?

I am, kinda. I don't agree with banning them, but I don't agree with handing them out like candy either. I lean towards the ban side though, slightly.

Yeah. I see it as the lesser of two evils. I don't like the idea of a privilege (no matter how mundane) being taken away, but when it could indirectly end up killing innocents, I see the importance of it.

The question is, did video kill the radio star with a gun or a car?

What?

Ugh.

That reminds me:

Why hate guns?

Guns make holes in your body
Through which you can't potty
Just your blood and guts spill out

I frown upon the use of 'potty' as a verb.
In seriousness, murder and violence are too frequent as it is. I don't want the relaxing of gun laws making it worse. (UK-based opinion)