(December 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 7:34 pm)BreadGod Wrote: "Where does the drug use end, if not in banning drugs or ensuring stricter drug laws?"

See what I did there?

Not really. Drugs are just as bad as guns. Are you advocating for drugs as much as you are for guns?

I'm not pro-drug, I'm anti-drug law. When will you figure out that banning something does not make it go away? All you're doing is forcing it underground. Also, get this. Portugal decriminalized drugs back in 2001. Ten years later, drug use was cut in half.

Banning guns will not make guns go away. Instead, you'll just make criminals' lives easier.

(December 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)BreadGod Wrote: When will you figure out that banning something does not make it go away?

Something has to make it go away. Guns are a problem, plain and simple. Denying that is erring on the side of ignorance.

Stating that people need guns to defend themselves from criminals who have guns merely perpetuates the problem, because it ensures guns remain within society.

To completely remove guns from everyone, properly doing it so that no guns go underground to be illegally sold, is the only logical course at this point.

(December 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: To completely remove guns from everyone, properly doing it so that no guns go underground to be illegally sold, is the only logical course at this point.

As long as the stone in my hand is bigger than the stone in the hands of a thug we're all set. Mankind will destroy itself one way or another. Given a choice between the two, I'd rather be shot than bludgeoned with stones.

(December 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: As long as the stone in my hand is bigger than the stone in the hands of a thug we're all set.

It would probably be a knife.

Of course, violence is going to persist, but it does not have to persist in the form of guns.

Stating that guns are needed just because the other guy illegally has one is not a valid reason for guns to remain, as far as I am concerned.

Criminals tend to choose guns because it is much easier to kill people with guns than with knives or stones. It also makes the kill impersonal. If there were no guns, I speculate that not many criminals will be too happy about having to use knives or stones to continue killing. In fact, they probably will not even go that route.

(December 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)BreadGod Wrote: When will you figure out that banning something does not make it go away?

Something has to make it go away. Guns are a problem, plain and simple. Denying that is erring on the side of ignorance.

Stating that people need guns to defend themselves from criminals who have guns merely perpetuates the problem, because it ensures guns remain within society.

To completely remove guns from everyone, properly doing it so that no guns go underground to be illegally sold, is the only logical course at this point.

Okay, how are you going to remove guns from everyone? Are you going to have the government send in men with guns to remove guns from everyone? Do you really think that when the government removes guns from everyone, they'll get rid of their own guns? How naive are you?

Mao Tse Tung once said that political power grows out the barrel of a gun. He killed 80 million of his own people because he was the only one who had the guns. If you disarm the populace, then nothing will hold back tyranny.

(December 5, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Criminals tend to choose guns because it is much easier to kill people with guns than with knives or stones. It also makes the kill impersonal. If there were no guns, I speculate that not many criminals will be too happy about having to use knives or stones to continue killing. In fact, they probably will not even go that route.

England disproves that notion. Their government took the guns away 20 years ago which lead to a tripling of their violent crime rate. And because guns have been banned, there have been many more awful situations like this one.

Considering most mass shootings were done with legally obtained guns, I'd say banning guns from the law abiding would do more than the NRA would care to admit.

(December 5, 2013 at 8:04 pm)BreadGod Wrote: Do you really think that when the government removes guns from everyone, they'll get rid of their own guns? How naive are you?

I do not expect the government to get rid of their guns. I may not trust the government concerning many things, but I see no reason why the government cannot have guns. Only nutters think the government will go on a killing spree, killing civilians left and right.

(December 5, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: As long as the stone in my hand is bigger than the stone in the hands of a thug we're all set.

It would probably be a knife.

I like you Kit, even though you don't care what other people think about you

I agree with you that fighting fire with fire is no solution, but in lieu of a better alternative the best we can hope for is for a balance somewhere. My bomb is bigger than your bomb is THE bomb that is ticking on the clock of humanity. The bang that started our existence will ultimately implode on our species via our own devices.

I also have knives

(December 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Not really. Drugs are just as bad as guns. Are you advocating for drugs as much as you are for guns?

Really? Drugs are just as bad as guns? When was the last time someone went into a school building, loaded up with cocain or marijuana, and killed a couple dozen people?

(December 5, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Considering most mass shootings were done with legally obtained guns, I'd say banning guns from the law abiding would do more than the NRA would care to admit.

Answer me this: where did all of those mass shootings occur?