Election predictions

[Gandron]

You don't kill the man who surrenders to you.

I conceded this argument, and you insulted me. An attitude such as that is not conducive to people giving a high opinion of you.

Oh yes, I forgot about this: A bit of a joke really. Nothing serious, so don't take it that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSZsh...eature=related

1:00-2:00 is the most pertinent part.

[Savath]

Originally Posted by Gandron

You don't kill the man who surrenders to you.

Actually, plenty of people do. But I have a feeling that's not the point you were trying to make.

Originally Posted by Gandron

I conceded this argument, and you insulted me. An attitude such as that is not conducive to people giving a high opinion of you.

I didn't insult you.

I made it a point to correct the fallacies of your argument, and confirm the part where you said you had no idea what you were talking about.

Originally Posted by Gandron

Oh yes, I forgot about this: A bit of a joke really. Nothing serious, so don't take it that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSZsh...eature=related

1:00-2:00 is the most pertinent part.

I laughed, and he makes an interesting point.

Except for the fact that people who want to kill people don't try to get a gun, and then if they're unable (which, whether guns are legal or not, you can get them - criminals don't care so much about obeying laws.... oddly enough) stop.

They use a knife instead, which as we've already discussed can be a far more lethal wound.

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by Trocisp

My guns were designed for sport, not killing. You're showing your ignorance on this particular subject.

Okay, now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Gun wounds and knife wounds aren't comparable, but if you're insistent on comparing them, Knife wounds are typically worse.

Ok, I am a gun owner and supporter of the right to own firearms, but you have gone completely off the deep end here.

Guns are designed to kill. Period. And knife wounds are most certainly NOT worse the gunshot wounds. Have you ever SEEN a gunshot wound? I've seen several, and there is absolutely no comparison.

Ignoring those facts does nothing but discredit your argument. You can argue gun rights without ignoring basic logic.

Sheesh.

[Savath]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Ok, I am a gun owner and supporter of the right to own firearms, but you have gone completely off the deep end here.

Guns are designed to kill. Period. And knife wounds are most certainly NOT worse the gunshot wounds. Have you ever SEEN a gunshot wound? I've seen several, and there is absolutely no comparison.

I did specify;

Originally Posted by Trocisp, that's me!

Gun wounds and knife wounds aren't comparable, but if you're insistent on comparing them, Knife wounds can be far worse. (not always)

Why? Because knives rip and tear through flesh, they slice and butcher.

Bullets penetrate, and unless the bullet hits a vital organ (and often times, even if it does hit a vital organ) it passes straight through and doesn't rip apart. if the bullet fragments, it can be more dangerous, but that would depend on the specific type of bullet and caliber. However, since most knives have serrated edges and are often 6 inches long and an inch deep, that's more than enough to cause consider damage, plus the damage that it causes on the way out of the body.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Ignoring those facts does nothing but discredit your argument. You can argue gun rights without ignoring basic logic.

Sheesh.

I didn't ignore basic logic, I specified that the wounds aren't comparable, however for nonfragmenting, full metal jacket bullets, the wounds are not typically as bad as a knife. They look worse, but aren't always.

The reason for this is, like I said, the bullets typically puncture directly through, whereas knives tend to rip and tear flesh into pieces.

[Ciaran]

I am telling you, flat out, you are wrong.

Guns are designed to kill.

Gunshot wounds are worse than knife wounds. Period. End of story.

[Savath]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

I am telling you, flat out, you are wrong.

I've seen the studies conducted, and the last study conducted had a group of 425, and showed an 11% mortality rate of abdominal knife wounds and 15% mortality rate of abdominal gunshot wounds. Barring the fact that the study was too small to get an accurate totality of mortality rates.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Guns are designed to kill.

That's somewhat irrelevant, and not entirely correct.

There are many guns designed for sporting purposes. Unless you can think of a hunting or home defense situation in which you would use an 8.5 inch barrel .17 hornet?

Or, a 9mm CZ75B Sport with a Red dot. Not all guns were designed to kill.

Guns, as an archetype, are weapons of destruction.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Gunshot wounds are worse than knife wounds. Period. End of story.

No, not Period. Not End of Story.

It depends on the specifics of the wound. I've read case-studies examining people shot in the neck who walked themselves into the ER. And I've read case studies of people stabbed in the neck who died within minutes of the stabbing.

There's a lot more to the story than "This worse than this."


I went back and changed the wording, I didn't mean to use "are typically," I should've said "can be," slip of the proverbial tongue.

[Ciaran]

You are playing with semantics now, after berating someone with statements like "Okay, now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.". You slammed that poster as ignorant, then proceeded to make several false claims.

Yes, a .22 though my hand is not as bad as a knife through my neck. But your original statement is false. Knife wounds are not typically worse, making it a pretty thin argument for gun ownership. It's nice that you reworded it.

And arguing that guns were not designed to kill because there are variations now that are not specifically designed to kill an enemy as fast as possible is like arguing that the bow and arrow wasn't designed to kill because I can buy a bow that shoots arrows with suction cups on them.

I have no desire to keep arguing semantics with you. I just didn't think your assault was appropriate.

[Savath]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

You are playing with semantics now, after berating someone with statements like "Okay, now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.". You slammed that poster as ignorant, then proceeded to make several false claims.

I made an incorrect claim. Which was a mistake of wording. I didn't make several anything.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Yes, a .22 though my hand is not as bad as a knife through my neck. But your original statement is false. Knife wounds are not typically worse, making it a pretty thin argument for gun ownership. It's nice that you reworded it.

My original statement was a mistake of wording, and I wasn't comparing a .22 through the hand to a knife through the neck.

I was literally saying that a knife through the chest and a 9mm through the chest can have drastically difference results despite the seemingly obviously 'more dangerous' gun.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

And arguing that guns were not designed to kill because there are variations now that are not specifically designed to kill an enemy as fast as possible is like arguing that the bow and arrow wasn't designed to kill because I can buy a bow that shoots arrows with suction cups on them.

Actually, my point was that not all guns are designed with home defense or hunting in mind.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

I have no desire to keep arguing semantics with you. I just didn't think your assault was appropriate.

I didn't assault anyone. Nor was I attempting to argue semantics.


I was simply stating that there are sporting weapons, and there are home defense weapons, and there are hunting weapons. They are all designed with different purposes in mind.

[Tarasdad]

Let me correct both of you. A firearm has one design purpose, and one only: the safe and controlled discharge of a round of ammunition during which initial guidance is provided to the projectile; subsequent extraction, feeding and chambering of additional rounds are separate from that design purpose, not part of it. Subsequent "purposes" are applied via anthropomorphism, literally the imposition of human characteristics (or motives) to non-human or inanimate objects. "Guns are designed to kill" is antrhopomorphism at its worst. Saying "my guns are only designed for sport" is nearly as bad. All uses of a firearm are by the intent and design of the individual/individuals using them.

As for Barack Obama's intent to basically ignore the Second Amendment? Take a look at what he has already proposed:

"Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

""Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

""Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

""Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

""Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million."

In case you don't believe the above, the following is taken directly from www.change.gov, BO's (aka Stinker's) own transition website:

"As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

So many misrepresentations in so few words it's almost unbelievable (or literally is for some of us). First off, the Tiarht Amendment in no way restricts the ability of local law enforcement to get trace info, it simply restricts that information to LEAs only. Nobody else has any need to know on such information. The "tools" he speaks of are ever more restrictive and repressive gun laws, laws which are only applicable to law abiding citizens since criminals by their very nature would ignore them - as they already ignore the more than 22,000 gun laws already in existence in the US. Those "commonsense measures" they so casually mention include, among other things, a near-total ban on the most commonly used hunting ammunition. The "gun show loophole" they talk about doesn't exist, period. And the oh-so-holy Assault Weapons Ban has been deemed totally ineffective by none other than the FBI, yet somehow making it permanent is supposed to make it work more effectively than it hasn't in the past.

Barack Obama has some other disturbing history, as well. As a member of the Illinois Senate he consistently voted in favor of allowing municipalities to bring criminal charges against home owners who used a firearm in self defense. He has consistently voted in favor of every piece of gun control legislation he's seen, no matter how poorly worded or how ineffective such laws would be. Before the Supreme Court made its decision in the Heller Case US Senator Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights; yet after the Court made its decision he issued a statement that said "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms" - quite the opposite of his viewpoint every other time the issue arose prior to the Heller decision. Maybe most disturbing of all, Barack Obama may very well be the best friend the United Nations could have wished for; I can hear the printers going already as the UN prints out the resolution that will call on the US to disarm its populace in the name of "world peace" - and the instructions from the White House to the US Ambassador to agree to it rather than veto it as the US has done every other time it has been introduced in the Security Council.

Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama and his associates' true end is nothing more or less than a total ban on all firearms possession. Basically a total negation of the Second Amendment. Why should we fear that? Because the Second Amendment is, by design of the authors of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, the guarantee of all other rights in those documents. As goes the Second, so will go the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, and all other rights that are inconvenient to a totalitarian government.

[Kral]

Originally Posted by Tarasdad

Subsequent "purposes" are applied via anthropomorphism

"Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit."

Oh hai, it's you. Let's see what you've served up for us today just for fun although this is seriously cutting into my Fallout 3 time so I'm going to skim. Deceit, eh? So out of the blue he changed his positions, deceiving the public right after they elected him! How terrible! Let's see what you lead off with on your charge of deceit, it's surely going to be an amazing piece of evidence that will change my entire reality!

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent."

Oh no, deceit! He now says he'll try and do.. what he's been saying he'll try and do! What an about-face! I don't think it should be made permanent, but it's hardly deceit to do what you said you'd do.

Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s.

People don't go outside as much anymore due to being fat and having video games and internet. It's hard to shoot someone you don't come in contact with. I'd expect the "kids hit by cars" statistic has also dropped due to kids not playing outside anymore.

Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic,

Actually, he says:

Originally Posted by Obama's website

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets

However, in the original source for that, the "sportsman factsheet" (which has been edited several times), it might have had a facepalm moment and said "fully automatic" in an earlier version (I distrust the source for this, but it's the only place I could find it).

Was this some sneaky attempt at deceit to cast a bill as banning a more objectionable type of firearm? I really doubt it seeing as the people the sportsman factsheet was aimed at know the difference and would have pointed and laughed. That's probably why it's been, you know, corrected - it would have been an embarrassing mistake.

""Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation.

Why should the government be providing a privileged shelter from the legal system to a private industry? That's not their job. If there's a real legal issue to be settled here, let it be dealt with like all other issues instead of passing bills with language like "all such data shall be immune from legal process" (PDF).

In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure [background checks by non-dealers], holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

[citation needed]

""Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems.

Or we could take a deep breath and realize the most likely implementation is to copy California's requirement that you either have a firearms safety device or a gun safe. This is considered to meet the requirements for 'childproof'. California's been selling guns this way for years, and it didn't put an end to the sale of firearms or require us to buy crazy biometric devices. If you're a responsible gun owner you already own a gun safe so this will be of no concern to you.

The "gun show loophole" they talk about doesn't exist, period.

It's so cute when you complain about politicized terminology when you so recently dumped your rendition of the politicized term 'partial birth abortion' on us. I guess it's different when it's your 'side'? Still, politicized terms are BS and I guess half-blind is better than blind. Work on improving your vision in your right eye.

Maybe most disturbing of all, Barack Obama may very well be the best friend the United Nations could have wished for; I can hear the printers going already as the UN prints out the resolution that will call on the US to disarm its populace in the name of "world peace" - and the instructions from the White House to the US Ambassador to agree to it rather than veto it as the US has done every other time it has been introduced in the Security Council.

Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama and his associates' true end is nothing more or less than a total ban on all firearms possession. Basically a total negation of the Second Amendment. Why should we fear that?

Why /do/ you fear that? He can't just negate the Second Amendment on a whim. If it wasn't clear enough, he even said, "Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress".

Obama's definitely a 'less guns' kinda guy, but we already knew this when we voted for him. Have to take the bad with the good.

[starbuck1771]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

I am telling you, flat out, you are wrong.

Guns are designed to kill.

Gunshot wounds are worse than knife wounds. Period. End of story.

Not entirly true. A knife can do a good amount of damage as well. Get a boot knife or a survival knife stab something and then twist the knife.A knife is just as deadly as a gun. The actualy deadly thing is the person useing the weapon.

[SogPig]

I believe knife wounds and gun shot wounds can be equally devastating for the most part. One other area that a knife will trump a bullet is with the cause of infection. A knife blade is not sterile which a bullet will be. I knife blade will have all kinds of nasty stuff on it that will get injected into your body.

Another, is a knife's ability to slice causing wounds that will cause damage to larger surface areas than a bullet.

Don't get me wrong, bullets are more efficient in killing. But, that isn't because of the bullet itself it is from the transfer of energy that happens inside the body.

[starbuck1771]

Originally Posted by Kral

[IMG tags automatically removed, click here for image]



Oh hai, it's you. Let's see what you've served up for us today just for fun although this is seriously cutting into my Fallout 3 time so I'm going to skim. Deceit, eh? So out of the blue he changed his positions, deceiving the public right after they elected him! How terrible! Let's see what you lead off with on your charge of deceit, it's surely going to be an amazing piece of evidence that will change my entire reality!



Oh no, deceit! He now says he'll try and do.. what he's been saying he'll try and do! What an about-face! I don't think it should be made permanent, but it's hardly deceit to do what you said you'd do.



People don't go outside as much anymore due to being fat and having video games and internet. It's hard to shoot someone you don't come in contact with. I'd expect the "kids hit by cars" statistic has also dropped due to kids not playing outside anymore.



Actually, he says:



However, in the original source for that, the "sportsman factsheet" (which has been edited several times), it might have had a facepalm moment and said "fully automatic" in an earlier version (I distrust the source for this, but it's the only place I could find it).

Was this some sneaky attempt at deceit to cast a bill as banning a more objectionable type of firearm? I really doubt it seeing as the people the sportsman factsheet was aimed at know the difference and would have pointed and laughed. That's probably why it's been, you know, corrected - it would have been an embarrassing mistake.



Why should the government be providing a privileged shelter from the legal system to a private industry? That's not their job. If there's a real legal issue to be settled here, let it be dealt with like all other issues instead of passing bills with language like "all such data shall be immune from legal process" (PDF).



[citation needed]



Or we could take a deep breath and realize the most likely implementation is to copy California's requirement that you either have a firearms safety device or a gun safe. This is considered to meet the requirements for 'childproof'. California's been selling guns this way for years, and it didn't put an end to the sale of firearms or require us to buy crazy biometric devices. If you're a responsible gun owner you already own a gun safe so this will be of no concern to you.



It's so cute when you complain about politicized terminology when you so recently dumped your rendition of the politicized term 'partial birth abortion' on us. I guess it's different when it's your 'side'? Still, politicized terms are BS and I guess half-blind is better than blind. Work on improving your vision in your right eye.



[IMG tags automatically removed, click here for image]



Why /do/ you fear that? He can't just negate the Second Amendment on a whim. If it wasn't clear enough, he even said, "Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress".

Obama's definitely a 'less guns' kinda guy, but we already knew this when we voted for him. Have to take the bad with the good.

We did not vote for him you did please speak for yourself. Secondly I wouldn't trust a single statement he makes on the subject because he has a history of flip flopping.

[Savath]

Originally Posted by starbuck1771

We did not vote for him you did please speak for yourself. Secondly I wouldn't trust a single statement he makes on the subject because he has a history of flip flopping.

Right, and every other politician doesn't?


I oppose the "Assault Weapons" Ban, because it's an ineffective, unrealistic ban that does nothing to actually make this country safer. It's a 'feel good' law, and the government simply doesn't have the right to restricts the citizens rights for 'feel good' purposes.


Assault Rifles are fully automatic / Selective fire weapons, however the Antigun lobby has done much the same that the Antiabortion lobby has in labeling guns. "Partial Birth," and "Assault Weapon," oh, you see, we didn't say assault rifle, but we implied it!

In reality, these "Assault Weapons" would never see battlefield usage, they're semiautomatic repeating rifles with box loading magazines. They're not fully automatic, and they're not machine guns.

It's a scare tactic, by using the term "Assault" they fear it.

Here's an excerpt from the failed 2007 Assault Weapons ban.

"... semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

That means any firearm used by the Federal Government can't be used by me? I own a semiautomatic 12 gauge that is exactly like the ones used by the Federal Government.

And it's a **** of a lot better at Skeet than Pump Action. I don't have to pump it between shots, so I can do 4 at a time rather than 1.

Tucker Carlson interviewed one of the Bills sponsors, He asked her a very simple, reasonable question.

"Why do we need to regulate Barrel Shrouds?"

After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up"

Yes, lets ban things we have no idea what the **** they are! That's the way government should work!


Its not an issue of making 'the streets safer,' it's an issue of making people feel warm and fuzzy. It's stupid, and it's against the spirit of the constitution.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Trocisp

Right, and every other politician doesn't?

Not John McCain. His people called his history of flip-flopping "evolution." Which must've really PO'd his supporters on the religious right.

[Kral]

Originally Posted by starbuck1771

We did not vote for him you did please speak for yourself.

We, the people, did. That's why he's now the president elect.

Secondly I wouldn't trust a single statement he makes on the subject because he has a history of flip flopping.

Yeah, he does. So does McCain. They're both lie when politically expedient, so the choice was who you thought was the lesser evil. We picked Obama.

[Kral]

Originally Posted by Trocisp

Tucker Carlson interviewed one of the Bills sponsors, He asked her a very simple, reasonable question.

"Why do we need to regulate Barrel Shrouds?"

After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up"

Video, because it was one of the few pieces of awesome Tucker has ever been responsible for.

[starbuck1771]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaiAFfNceyo
Your Daughter? Enough said!

[Kral]

Originally Posted by starbuck1771

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaiAFfNceyo
Your Daughter? Enough said!

Less-lethal would have worked as well, or would mentioning that spoil your 'Think of the Children' attempt? And if the worst happens anyway, you'll at least have options.

[Arkwright]

It isn't dangerous if the individual is responsible enough to use safety precautions and is used only as a means of self-defense.

There are numerous ways to defend oneself and ones home/property other than using a firearm against the aggressor. The most logical though being physically hitting the person - using the weapons god gave you.

Only if the aggressor has a gun does it seem right to me that he/she should be met with a gun. Also, if banning guns lets criminals keep them while nicey nice civilians go unarmed, then how criminals get their guns is a completely seperate issue. One that should not be used as an excuse for everyone else having guns - thats just ignoring the issue at hand.

Its really quite simple to keep guns from criminals, indeed its a lot simpler to solve most problems around the world than people make out, but fear of state control, red tape and the extensive rights people have nowadays get in the way.

[SogPig]

Originally Posted by Arkwright

There are numerous ways to defend oneself and ones home/property other than using a firearm against the aggressor. The most logical though being physically hitting the person - using the weapons god gave you.

Hands? Seriously? How effective are your hands going to be if the person in you home is armed? I'm not just talking guns here. What about knives, crowbars, baseball bats, etc, etc?

The most important weapon "god gives you" is your mind. People who make statements like this have no idea what it takes to make life or death decisions in the amount of time it takes to make them.

Only if the aggressor has a gun does it seem right to me that he/she should be met with a gun.

If a person allows the situation to get to the point of knowing you assailant has a firearm then that person fails as the protector of their castle. You will be dead before you can jump out of bed and judo chop him in the neck.

Also, if banning guns lets criminals keep them while nicey nice civilians go unarmed, then how criminals get their guns is a completely seperate issue. One that should not be used as an excuse for everyone else having guns - thats just ignoring the issue at hand.

You are right, it is a separate issue. How are you going to take away guns from the baddies that already have them?

Its really quite simple to keep guns from criminals, indeed its a lot simpler to solve most problems around the world than people make out, but fear of state control, red tape and the extensive rights people have nowadays get in the way.

If it is so simple then lets hear your proposition to solving the world's problems.

[Arkwright]

If it is so simple then lets hear your proposition to solving the world's problems.

Lol.

I couldn't possibly write all i think in a post, it relates to so many areas and the specific laws/legislation that would have to be implemented i.e customs regulations, the removal of certain rights from those individuals who have already stepped outside the law and no longer deserve its protection, business regulation and sentencing guidelines.

Not to mention the fact that one approach applied in one nation would not be effective in another. For example, here in the UK the majority of guns arrive through imports or siphoned from manafacturing processes. Tightening these would likely cut the number of guns available greatly. In the US there is alreadly a much larger number of guns in the system as a whole, in shops and homes. A process there would require these be somehow removed from the system - a monumental task - before the influx could even be considered.

As for other world problems - civil wars in Africa - take out the leaders and their supporters. We British ****ed up many African nations during the colonization - we should take it upon ourselves to put it right, with US at our side. We have the capability but are still concerned with the 'there's nothing in it for us' mindset. Climate Change - firstly ACCEPT that its happening and invest in renewable power - screw people who don't want their view spoiled by wind turbines or solar panels - there won't be an Earth as we know it for our children if we don't act.

Its time we started doing whats right and not whats best serves our immediate needs. But ideals never get anyone anywhere i suppose, although going back the actual topic - hopefully Obama might be able to change just a few things.

[Aszrayel]

The SAS approach is better. No prisoners, put them down, double tap, job done

[Savath]

Originally Posted by Arkwright

As for other world problems - civil wars in Africa - take out the leaders and their supporters. We British ****ed up many African nations during the colonization - we should take it upon ourselves to put it right, with US at our side.

WHAT THE ****?!

How the **** am I getting wrangled in to help you clean up **** you ****ed up 300 years ago!?

[Kral]

Originally Posted by Trocisp

WHAT THE ****?!

How the **** am I getting wrangled in to help you clean up **** you ****ed up 300 years ago!?

As repayment for us ****ing up Iraq and dragging the British in to clean it up afterwards.