The Dink Network

Seriously why does this happen ALL THE TIME all over of the US This is a prime example of why the US is corrupt to the extreme.

You don't say... ¬_¬

I think I'm missing something here.

School shootings means corrupt country? I'm not sure how the two are related.

School shootings have nothing to do with corruption. It has to do with multiple factors, such as the media focusing on the killer and not the victims and thus giving the killer a form of fame (or infamy, thereof) and kids being douchbags and tormenting mentally unstable classmates or mentally unstable classmates killing for the hell of it.

Pred, this is a very controversial topic to complain about, I suggest you do a lot of research before continuing with this.

I agree with leprochaun {midget!} on this in a way, how are the school and the country related other then being reliant on people.

And to keep my job lets make this off-topic, how would you rate taco-bell food?

Also the words, my and opinion should never be together on the internet.

I wish someone would shoot up Dack's school.

Well just with BB's.

Save the AK for Dack.

Ease up there, TruthGhost.

I wish someone would shoot up Dack's school.

Well just with BB's.

Save the AK for Dack.


AKs are for pussies. Personal tanks & F-5s are the true self-defense weapons of AMMEERREGHANS!!

if someone did shoot up belleville High just for me, I already now the #1 suspect, the gingerbread man [jk, truthghost] still that is the reason I say truthy be banned. I didn't do anything yet and he already starts, minus the little joke at the bottom, but the rest was honest.

AKs are for pussies. Personal tanks & F-5s are the true self-defense weapons of AMMEERREGHANS!!

Yes the true mentality of america right there.

You do know he's Finnish, don't you? I mean, he does as a Finnish flag on his thing, and when you mouse over it, it says 'Finland' on it. Not to mention that was a joke.

Wait, you don't have your own personal tank?

All I have is a celtic-style dirk that is short enough to be carried around legally (Though I don't need to).

My dad, on the other hand, has a hunting rifle and a revolver. One for hunting, one for protection on the off chance of burglary.

@Kris He doing a inpersonation an american and it was he was doing pretty good
You know how you yanks are obssesed about how has the biggest guns and the most guns ect.

Speaking of Finland Kris Finalnd bound to be 50x better then USA

And once more you make a sweeping generalization without truly understanding. It's like me saying you Australians sit around the barbie with your rellies comparing each others knoife, saying, 'You think that's a knoife, this is a knoife!' while killing creatures that would give Cthulhu nightmares.

You see what I'm getting at?

I apologize to any other Australians who may have been offended by those statements. I typically don't give a crap, but this time, I do.

Are you allowed to carry a tank with you in America?

only if its in your back pocket - if u have it in the front one u get fined apparently... go figure

Only if you're military, qualified to drive one, and are on a mission. Rarely are all three present, so no.

And once more you make a sweeping generalization without truly understanding. It's like me saying you Australians sit around the barbie with your rellies comparing each others knoife, saying, 'You think that's a knoife, this is a knoife!' while killing creatures that would give Cthulhu nightmares.

Oh really where did you find that out?

Everybody knows all Americans are just gun-crazy people, on one level or another. And that's not even generalizing it, but a solid fact. Even Americans know it's true, but they argue against it despite that.

Are you allowed to carry a tank with you in America?

We have these things called "Tank Days". And there's a whole bunch of activities to do, like tank bumper cars.

Skull, that's a stereotype that other countries tend think about us. It's mostly just Texas and most of the southern states No, not all of us are gun-crazy, wanting to carry a weapon with us everywhere we go. I'm pretty much the only person in my family with any interest in guns, and I don't even own one yet. There is a good amount of people who don't care for guns and want them to be as restricted as possible, especially with all these dang shootings in the past year or so. Even I think more strict control would be beneficial. But because of those who are actually gun nuts will never allow it.

My dad got our family into guns, I still prefer Bows.

and this is a knoife *whips out butter knife

You know how you yanks are obssesed about how has the biggest guns and the most guns ect.

Didn't you constantly make posts like these and these, and make nonstop threads comparing the US military to other militaries?

When were many Americans obsessed of who has the biggest guns, unless that means something else.

I can understand about the most guns.

Everybody knows all Americans are just gun-crazy people, on one level or another. And that's not even generalizing it, but a solid fact. Even Americans know it's true, but they argue against it despite that.

I must say that the people I met here (in the US) seem to agree with you, but then again they're only talking about other Americans, not about themselves. So I'm not so sure if it's actually true.

Then again, I'm living in a place that makes the middle of nowhere look like a metropolis, so I'm not claiming I have a representative view of the country.

American #A: "I'm kinda a fan of guns, but I don't support them all-out like American #B does."

American #B: "I don't really love guns like most Americans seem to. I kinda like them, but I'm not crazy about them like American #A, for example."

^
Typical conversation with Americans about them and their gun fetish.

Then there's occasionally the assface known as American #C, who's line of course goes: "Yeah, I love guns! Guns are freaking cool! Only fags and coward kids are against and afraid of guns! But not me cause I'm a man. I'm an AMMEERREGHAN!".

Guns are a fascinating object, but my life, nor does my family's life, revolve around them. The only guns we have are for hunting and for protection. The hunting because we like to have our own food and like to be self-reliant in case we're forced to cut back on foods that we need. The protection because we camp and there are bears and wolves out there.

If I took a look around where I live, I'd see a lot of gun-crazy people, people who are interested in guns, and people who don't like guns at all.

The only guns we have are for hunting and for protection.

America: The only place where people are so weak they need guns to protect themselves against nothing.

America: The only place where people are so weak they need guns to protect themselves against nothing.

Hey man, nothing can be pretty scary. I know just thinking about nothing has given me an existential crisis or two. I mean like, nothing can't exist- nothing is a paradox. Because everything is something so therefor nothing can't exist, but space is considered to be nothing. So the great majority of everything is nothing. And we live in this giant sea of nothing. But does this nothing filled universe have an end and nothing stops? Or does nothing extend out forever, and if it extends out forever, where are we? I am so confused and I can't do anything about it and nothing is scaring the hell out of me.

I'd rather just bare it up and tear the bears open with my bare hands. They'd barely get a chance to bare their fangs.

(I'm an Amerigun and I don't think guns are so cool, so there. A lot of people do, but all? Of course not.)

The protection because we camp and there are bears and wolves out there.

That's a whole lot of nothing right there, Skull. Almost as if you didn't even notice it.

'murica.

Then there's occasionally the assface known as American #C, who's line of course goes: "Yeah, I love guns! Guns are freaking cool! Only fags and coward kids are against and afraid of guns! But not me cause I'm a man. I'm an AMMEERREGHAN!".

HAHAHAHAH! Good one Skull you nailed it agian.

Do you think people in other places don't run into bears and wolves and other predator animals? Pretty much everyone over here has seen a bear and/or a wolf at least once in their life. I've run into a bear in the forest when I was a kid. My dad and uncle have been only a few meters away from a bear behind a bush (they thought it was a moose at first lol). Hell, a few years back we weren't allowed to shoot wolves here, even if we wanted to, so they started coming to the towns and cities and people's yards. One morning I was just on a casual walk and passed a wolf by around 100 meters (didn't even know about it until I read it in the newspaper). But despite this, do you see us carrying semi-automatic assault rifles around, putting them on our walls and jerking off to their "beauty"? Nope.

My dad uses them for protection against cats and as fun at the WWCCA, or he might have them as decoration at the office.

Now time to go get some more guns to protect against all that scary nothing, still not all Americans prefer guns like I said before I prefer bows. Dinkulum I'm not sure about his opinion on guns we should invite him to this alk nut tree party.

People who jerk off to guns need to get a life. I mean, nobody absolutely has to have a semi-automatic rifle, but if they want it, and they know how to keep it from accidentally killing someone, then they can waste their money buying and maintaining it.

All it really comes down to is that not everyone likes guns, not everyone wants a gun, some people buy a gun because they want that extra bit of insurance in case someone breaks in; other people collect them but keep them unloaded and only on display for various reasons. It's impossible to truly gauge the human mind concerning weaponry and whatnot, you cannot understand the whole by generalizing it through aspects of a fragment.

It's insane viewpoints like that which kill innocent human beings. Good job, Kris. We're all proud of you.

How is my viewpoint insane?! In what way does my viewpoint factor into the killing of innocents?
Here people are talking as though every single person in America is a crazy maniac who collects more guns than they need, while I'm trying to point out the practical uses for a gun.

I reiterate, guns can be used to protect one's self from danger, whether it be a wild animal that wants to kill you, or another person who wants to kill you.

Guns can help you attain food, such as if you were stuck in the wilderness and had to shoot an animal to gain it's life-saving meats. (This also doubles back to the first point.)

Guns are also a deterrent. If someone accosts you with a weapon of some sort, even if the gun has no bullets, the person will think twice about attacking you.

These three points are simple, they're the truth, and I will defend my position with all of the factual information that I can muster if you wish to dispute it.

How is my viewpoint insane?! In what way does my viewpoint factor into the killing of innocents?

Guns kill people. You supporting guns and American gun laws is just as bad as going to schools and shooting little kids yourself.

Here people are talking as though every single person in America is a crazy maniac who collects more guns than they need, while I'm trying to point out the practical uses for a gun.

Heheh, practical uses. Right. Just typical. Hiding behind the few practical uses of a gun to reason with how bad of an idea it is to have army-level guns allowed in your houses, and how much harm they can cause.

These three points are simple, they're the truth, and I will defend my position with all of the factual information that I can muster if you wish to dispute it.

You do that, American-boy. The fact that having guns in your house is a life-and-death argument to you, sure shows you are true to your nation.

Wait, why the heck am I even arguing about a subject with YOU?! Ugh...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inanimate object, it cannot, of it's own volition, kill another person. I could leave a pistol on my deck fully loaded and watch it. It will do nothing.
I, however, could pick up the gun and shoot someone. If my aim is true, then I can kill them. If not, I can wound them. I can also shoot the ground, or a target, and it will not kill someone.

There are background checks to make sure dangerous or disturbed people cannot obtain a gun, though that will not stop dangerous criminals from buying weapons from the black market. While I personally don't see the point of owning an army-grade weapon, beyond putting it up for display and never using it, the point of owning a firearm such as a pistol or hunting rifle is that it is potentially useful in defense and hunting. Respectively.

The fact that having guns in your house is a life-and-death argument to you, sure shows you are true to your nation.

IS this not a debate? I love debates, and I love having debates. Every time I enter this kind of debate, I pick a side, and I often love to argue both points.
When I debate, I try to use factual information and toss away all emotional attachment to the debate. (Key word being try.)
When someone gives me an argument that I cannot dispute or some up with a reasonable rebuttal, then that allows me the opportunity to look at my views and change them to match the facts.

While I do not reject the potential harm that guns can cause, I cannot ignore, as well, the potential harm that can come from other types of weaponry, such as knifes or bows and arrows.
I can look around a room and determine what can kill a person and how they can be killed by it. I could easily take a pen and stab someone in the throat with it, or take a textbook and bludgeon a person to death.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inanimate object, it cannot, of it's own volition, kill another person. I could leave a pistol on my deck fully loaded and watch it. It will do nothing.
I, however, could pick up the gun and shoot someone. If my aim is true, then I can kill them. If not, I can wound them. I can also shoot the ground, or a target, and it will not kill someone.

Meh... you know what I meant. It's the middle of the night. I'm not gonna write an entire mythology from the point of the gun being built in the factory, to the point its bullet enters an innocent human being.

While I personally don't see the point of owning an army-grade weapon, beyond putting it up for display and never using it, the point...

You did not just say that... Wow, just wow. I'm speechless. xD


IS this not a debate?

Nope. It's you supporting the death of innocent children, while others are talking about how American gun laws suck.

While I do not reject the potential harm that guns can cause, I cannot ignore, as well, the potential harm that can come from other types of weaponry, such as knifes or bows and arrows.
I can look around a room and determine what can kill a person and how they can be killed by it. I could easily take a pen and stab someone in the throat with it, or take a textbook and bludgeon a person to death.

Yes you can. Hence why killings happen. Humans are crazy dinks. But you're not gonna shoot an entire school of children with a knife or a pen. You'd get most likely caught before you managed to kill anyone. Such as the school stabbings in China. The attacker barely managed to only hurt as many children, as the American with the gun killed during that same day. Plus he hurt many more.

And no, I didn't bother to reply to all the crap in your post, because arguing with you about American gun laws, or anything, is like arguing with a nerd about sitting in front of the computer.

You're not going to debate with me? Even though I clearly stated that if you gave me a statement I cannot argue with in a coherent and factual manner, that I would change my views to fit the new factual information?

Regarding the 'guns kill people' argument, yes, I know exactly what you meant, and it's the most commonly used argument for gun control. It's also the easiest argument to break down. Yes, a gun is designed to kill, but it is the person who decides what it kills. Or if it kills at all. Currently, the guns in my house have yet to kill anything, and chances are with how safe this neighborhood is and how lazy my dad is, they likely will never be fired beyond a shooting range.

You did not just say that... Wow, just wow. I'm speechless. xD
I don't know how to respond to that. Either you're surprised that I'm stating that, or you're expressing something in a way that I can't understand over the internet.


Nope. It's you supporting the death of innocent children, while others are talking about how American gun laws suck.
I don't support the death of innocent people, I support the right to bear and own armaments. A man who goes through the legal channels to own a gun, who takes the time to learn how to keep it safely without it harming anyone innocent.
The people who want to harm the innocent are the people who should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind.

A person can just as easily create a bomb or start a fire.
If a person really wants to hurt people, they will try their hardest to achieve that goal, regardless of the weapon.

Regarding the 'guns kill people' argument, yes, I know exactly what you meant, and it's the most commonly used argument for gun control. It's also the easiest argument to break down. Yes, a gun is designed to kill, but it is the person who decides what it kills. Or if it kills at all. Currently, the guns in my house have yet to kill anything, and chances are with how safe this neighborhood is and how lazy my dad is, they likely will never be fired beyond a shooting range.

Wow... that is exactly what I did not mean. In my last post I was about to say even a retarded person would understand what I meant. Lucky for you, I didn't, cause that would have just been embarrassing for you. What I meant is that you're hanging into a sentence I said, which I could have detailed better but didn't bother to, and using it as an argument.

I don't know how to respond to that. Either you're surprised that I'm stating that, or you're expressing something in a way that I can't understand over the internet.

So you don't think people should not have a tank in their front yard, unless it's there just as an "ornament"? xD

I don't support the death of innocent people, I support the right to bear and own armaments. A man who goes through the legal channels to own a gun, who takes the time to learn how to keep it safely without it harming anyone innocent.
The people who want to harm the innocent are the people who should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind.

Why the hell do you need a gun?! It's already established it's not for protection from wildlife, because other places have the exact same predator animals, yet still have much better gun laws. It also can't be for protection from other people with guns, because if nobody had guns, why would you need one for protection against them. But that one goes without saying. Guns aren't paintings that people should have a right to buy if they feel like it, and even if they think they can be careful with them. They're dangerous machines designed to kill and destroy.

A person can just as easily create a bomb or start a fire.
If a person really wants to hurt people, they will try their hardest to achieve that goal, regardless of the weapon.

Yes, but do you suggest we take people's fists away too? They can be used to kill as well, y'know

Well, you made an argument that finished with conjecture. I ignored the conjecture of You supporting guns and American gun laws is just as bad as going to schools and shooting little kids yourself. because it is a bad argument. That statement is an expression of your passion against guns, which is not grounded in logic and fact.
Unless I've somehow missed some meaning that is obviously not stated in the whole statement, the argument that 'guns kill people' has been debated and the conjecture that followed is moot.

A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it. If they started to buy tank ammunition, then they'd get in trouble.
I personally don't see the point in buying and owning a tank, unless you own a military museum.

We need a gun for: A) Hunting, when my dad actually follows that dream to fruition. We like to eat free range and organic and like to be self-sufficient. Hunting is an extension of that. I could learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow, but that requires more strength and great accuracy. If I miss the right spot, the animal suffers and might run away to die elsewhere. I lose not only an arrow, but a meal. If I have a gun and I'm well versed in gun safety and how to aim and use it, then I can kill the animal and lessen its suffering.
B) Because if nobody owned a gun, then criminals who use guns would obtain them illegally.
C) And this is my only conjecture, but C), it is my constitutional right to own a firearm. While I'm not actively seeking out a bunch of guns to buy and hang on my wall, I want to own a gun for hunting and protection from whatever dangers there are out there. The hunting gun would be used only for hunting, the protection gun would only be used as a deterrent unless I was in absolute danger. (Example, if a rabid animal is attacking me, I can use the gun to end its suffering and to protect myself. If a non-rabid animal is attacking me, the sound of the gun firing could scare it off, and if that doesn't work, killing it to protect myself and any others.)

Yes, but do you suggest we take people's fists away too. They can be used to kill as well, y'know
That is exactly my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.

1. When skull said take people's fists away I thought of the river

2. I am on Kris's side, people have the right to own a gun to hunt and defend.

3. A gun might be able to kill on its own if it was a robot gun or it was alive somehow else.

4. Also I feel like quoting Mr.Mackey [south park] "Guns are bad, m,kay"

Skull, while I understand where you are getting at I think you are taking Kris's comments a bit extreme.

If we were to outlaw guns right now, I suspect a few things would happen:

1. People would get furious and some serious violence could occur where people "protect" their right to own a gun and could lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed.

2. Guns would turn into a MAJOR black market object, and gangs would have more power over normal people since they could have guns while normal people could not (and don't tell me police will take care of gangs because police tend to be shoot from my experience). Think of how things happened when alcohol was prohibited, and my guess is it will be something like that, except with dangerous weapons (in other words, not good at all).

3. This one is only a possibility, but if the government decided to increase it's power and authority or to start invading people's homes, we would have almost no protection against them (I don't want no V for Vendetta crap going on any time soon!).

I also agree with Kris that except in rare cases, guns don't kill people unless the person really wants to kill someone.

That all said, I know this isn't a perfect situation, and I can see how people from more strictly weapon-controlled countries may see this as a bad thing (it kind of is). I wish things could be more tightly controlled without making it impossible for people to own a weapon (so that crazy people can't get their hands on a weapon) but I doubt that will happen any time soon. So honestly, I don't really see a clean solution to this problem. The big thing is, we as a nation need to stop being so hateful towards each-other so that people won't have the desire to hurt others so often. As for how to do that, well, that's a big debate that I don't really want to dig into right now.

I just wanted to defend Kris a bit. Skull, it's not fair for you to say he's as bad as a person who goes and actually shoots children when you are taking his comments to the far extreme and assuming he thinks that guns should hardly even be controlled at all. In fact, by taking your comments to the extreme Skull, I could say you are no better than a gang member who shoots up some guys family who lost their gun because of gun control laws. I know this isn't true though. The truth is it's a very gray argument and (as far as I can see) no matter what choices we make there will be some pretty bad sacrifices. So there is no need to be so verbally violent towards Kris, okay?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
True but a gun makes it 500x more easier and efficent

For the first time im actually agreeing with Skull. (checks to see outside to see if the sky is red)

A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it. If they started to buy tank ammunition, then they'd get in trouble.
I personally don't see the point in buying and owning a tank, unless you own a military museum.

Tanks are the kinds of weapons that shouldn't be built in the first place. Let alone allow people to own them under any circumstance.

We need a gun for: A) Hunting, when my dad actually follows that dream to fruition. We like to eat free range and organic and like to be self-sufficient. Hunting is an extension of that. I could learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow, but that requires more strength and great accuracy. If I miss the right spot, the animal suffers and might run away to die elsewhere. I lose not only an arrow, but a meal. If I have a gun and I'm well versed in gun safety and how to aim and use it, then I can kill the animal and lessen its suffering.

You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.

B) Because if nobody owned a gun, then criminals who use guns would obtain them illegally.

Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.

C) And this is my only conjecture, but C), it is my constitutional right to own a firearm. While I'm not actively seeking out a bunch of guns to buy and hang on my wall, I want to own a gun for hunting and protection from whatever dangers there are out there. The hunting gun would be used only for hunting, the protection gun would only be used as a deterrent unless I was in absolute danger. (Example, if a rabid animal is attacking me, I can use the gun to end its suffering and to protect myself. If a non-rabid animal is attacking me, the sound of the gun firing could scare it off, and if that doesn't work, killing it to protect myself and any others.)

The problem is, you don't want to own a gun for those reasons. You want to own a gun because it's "cool". Whether you admit it or not, I'm not concerned with. It's the truth.

That is exactly my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.

Man, you sure are an absolute person, aren't you? "If people can't have guns, they shouldn't have fists either cause those can kill too". Gimme a break! Don't be ridiculous. You gotta draw the line somewhere. You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns. The practicality of guns and the American gun law is not worth the harm they cause.

You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.

I disagree with that cops should be not allowed to have guns atleast not the standard everyday cops i heard thats the case in the UK.

Tanks are vehicles that have weapons built in. Doesn't make the whole think a weapon, just part of a weapon.

You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.

In theory, that could work, but when it comes to just theory, I find that things never go the way they seem.
I cannot argue this just yet, as I've never seen nor heard of something like this happening. Any further discussion would be conjecture on both of our parts.
I must say, I'm impressed you came up with that idea.

Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.
Yes, I'm sure that there are no criminals out there with illegally attained weaponry because they get caught the moment they obtain it. I'm also sure that all of the drug peddlers and other criminals who sell illegal items are all rotting in prison the moment they switched whatever they sold for money.

The main reason the black market is still alive today is because people are willing to own an illegal object, or an object that they cannot legally get because of something they've done in the past. Now, if someone is trying to attain a gun illegally, chances are they're going to do more than just rob a store or break into someone's house. (Reasons why they wouldn't do it coming up.)
Chances are, they'd get it to do something bigger than that.

(Now, reasons why someone wouldn't need a gun for breaking into a person's home. Burglars typically go for targets that are empty of people, anyone who would break into a home while someone is there is either really stupid or really desperate. As with stores, stores here typically only have a small amount of cash on hand. Again, really stupid, or desperate.)

While I admit that certain guns are aesthetically thrilling, I don't want to own one because it's 'cool'. The only 'cool' weaponry that I want to but for the coolness factor are swords. Things like katanas and claymores. Swords that are not only made for decoration, but would either break upon use or would be too heavy/impractical for me to even use.

Regarding that last bit, you're putting words in my mouth, and I thought you were being sarcastic. I have to remember that other people typically don't read subtext, or even know what subtext is.
I'm not suggesting that you chop off a person's hands, I was reiterating that a person will kill if they really want to. You didn't even pay attention to But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.

Though, to mirror your words to me, 'You are an absolute person, aren't you? "If guns exist, then obviously innocent people are going to die because they exist".

I'm starting to think that you're not doing this for the enjoyment of a good debate, but rather are trying ineffectively to sway my viewpoint with emotional conjecture.
Though, I will still admit that hunter's license thing was a touch of brilliance that could be tested for effectiveness. But I will reiterate once more, I don't hold stock to theory alone, and if it were to fail due to some unforeseen consequence, I would not be surprised.

Tanks are vehicles that have weapons built in. Doesn't make the whole think a weapon, just part of a weapon.

Well without a gun its more or less a APC

Hey Kris

In theory, that could work, but when it comes to just theory, I find that things never go the way they seem.
I cannot argue this just yet, as I've never seen nor heard of something like this happening. Any further discussion would be conjecture on both of our parts.
I must say, I'm impressed you came up with that idea.

Why are you impressed?! That's a pretty simple idea if you ask me that should pop into anyone's head. Heck, some places even use this, as far as I know.

Yes, I'm sure that there are no criminals out there with illegally attained weaponry because they get caught the moment they obtain it. I'm also sure that all of the drug peddlers and other criminals who sell illegal items are all rotting in prison the moment they switched whatever they sold for money.

The main reason the black market is still alive today is because people are willing to own an illegal object, or an object that they cannot legally get because of something they've done in the past. Now, if someone is trying to attain a gun illegally, chances are they're going to do more than just rob a store or break into someone's house. (Reasons why they wouldn't do it coming up.)
Chances are, they'd get it to do something bigger than that.

The main reason black market is still alive and blooming there today, is because it's admired and, even to a certain point, allowed, because the US is corrupt as shoot.

(Now, reasons why someone wouldn't need a gun for breaking into a person's home. Burglars typically go for targets that are empty of people, anyone who would break into a home while someone is there is either really stupid or really desperate. As with stores, stores here typically only have a small amount of cash on hand. Again, really stupid, or desperate.)

You're talking against yourself there. If that is true, then there is absolutely no need to have a gun in your house. So far you've at least provided a fair argument about why there should be guns in your house: for protection. Of course, I realized that's false since the beginning, but by saying that you've just erased all that even yourself.

While I admit that certain guns are aesthetically thrilling, I don't want to own one because it's 'cool'. The only 'cool' weaponry that I want to but for the coolness factor are swords. Things like katanas and claymores. Swords that are not only made for decoration, but would either break upon use or would be too heavy/impractical for me to even use.

Like I said, I knew you would argue against, but I don't care. You think they're cool and that's that.

I'm not gonna reply to the rest, because it's just boring, typical crap, which can be expected from you. It doesn't even provide anything to respond to, because it's just so embarrassingly ridiculous.

And no, I didn't do this for debate at any point. I did it hoping you'd get it in your thick head, that giving up your guns is worth saving innocent lives. But I now see there's no hope in you. You rather watch children die than you'd ever give up your precious babies.

There's just one thing it could meaaaaaan....

(flame) War.

I don't know enough about the gun control debate to really get involved, and I have other projects right now. But I will say that the US is a deeply divided place. Skull, ThePunisher, whoever else, you surely don't think all 314 million people love guns. There are vocal advocates and vocal opponents of guns in this country, but my guess is most people fall in the middle and don't care either way, at least until a mass shooting happens. It's hard not to care at those times. I really don't know what the answer to gun violence is. But most people I know don't even talk about guns, so I don't know if they own one or not. I don't have one. I do think we should pay more attention to the human causes of gun violence (and violence in general), things like mental illness.

*feeling ignored*

Skull, read my previous post please, for why you could be considered just as much a murderer as Kris. I don't think it's fair to call either of you murder advocators, and Kris has avoided doing so to you, despite the fact that banning guns COULD actually get a lot of people over here killed (including innocents). So why do you accuse him of thinking murder is good when there is *clearly* drawbacks to either solution (banning or not banning guns)? Kris does not deserve your unfounded insults.

Just because another country has banned guns and seems to be doing better (especially if this has been the case for a very long time) does not mean it's the best solution for a completely different country. The same enforcement decisions can have *drastically* different results when done in a different culture.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, between banning and not banning guns. But you two have no real reason to be fighting like that... and especially you Skull should not be throwing around insult after insult after insult when Kris has not done the same to you.

As I pointed out before, I enjoy debates, I enjoy conversing with another because discourse is healthy for the intelligent, logical mind. In a debate, a person will take a side and defend it until their points have been utterly defeated by cold, hard logic.

If that is true, then there is absolutely no need to have a gun in your house.
Houses at night can seem empty, and thus burglars enter without knowing someone's inside. and again, some people can be desperate.

Now, we're going to take a small break from this, both so you can calm down, remove any emotional attachment to the discussion, and argue with logic rather than the hatred and animosity that you are so obviously building up against me (which ruins a good debate, as these two things make me lose interest and takes the fun out of the debate itself.)

When you're ready, show me some good arguments to my previously stated arguments. If not, then I can't enjoy the debate.

@thenewguy: I appreciate what you brought into the debate.

I think this is an interesting discussion. I hope you don't lose your motivation for it, Kris. I admire your perseverance despite the abuse you get from Skull.

At the same time, as you might have guessed, I disagree with your viewpoint. But as you write, there's nothing wrong with that; it makes for a good discussion.

When you're ready, show me some good arguments to my previously stated arguments.

Here's some

@thenewguy: I appreciate what you brought into the debate.

Indeed. Especially this:

So there is no need to be so verbally violent towards Kris, okay?

I also welcome the points you bring to the discussion. I have some comments about them:

People would get furious and some serious violence could occur where people "protect" their right to own a gun and could lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed.
Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).

I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.

Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.

So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.

Guns would turn into a MAJOR black market object and police tend to be shoot from my experience
This is a reason to increase taxes, pay the police a proper salary, and make them better. While there may be some corrupt cops, you can be sure that most of them are doing the job because they want to help society. If they would get enough support from the government (both in salary to show that they are valued and in material), you can be sure they will do an excellent job. But that costs money, and taxes are needed to pay it. I think the anti-tax sentiment in this country may be related to "I need to own a gun because the police doesn't protect me".

And yes, of course they would be a major black market object. And yes, in other countries big criminals have guns, too. But not burglars, who you may run into in your house. So working at a bank, and especially working with the police, may get you killed, but you don't have much to fear in your home. (Which isn't really that different from the current situation; the gun that is most likely to kill you in your home is your own.)

So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.

if the government decided to increase it's power and authority or to start invading people's homes
If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.

Just because another country has banned guns and seems to be doing better does not mean it's the best solution for a completely different country.
Strictly speaking you are right. But this sentence from the article above sure suggests that there might well be a correlation:
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.

I remembered Skull posting a map of mass shootings in the world, and searched the web for it. At first, I was unable to find anything about mass shootings, other than "mass shootings in the US". However, I eventually found a map and It shows why all talks are only about the US: it's pretty much a US-only problem.

There may be differences between countries, but such a huge difference between the US on one side and the rest of the world on the other can only be explained by the only thing that all those other countries have in common: gun control. But I welcome any alternative explanation you may have.

Kris writes:
guns can be used to protect one's self from danger, whether it be a wild animal that wants to kill you, or another person who wants to kill you.

There may be some regions of wilderness where wild animals that are seriously dangerous exist and guns may be a reasonable weapon against them. On the other hand, most people should not need to go there. The few that do can take a gun with them IMO. But if people want to go there for pleasure, but can't go there safely because they have no gun, then they can't go there safely and shouldn't go there. That is no reason to give those people a gun.

The wild west isn't so wild anymore. You can live a good life without encountering dangerous wild animals. If you want to go out of your way to meet them then that's up to you, but I don't see why a country would need to make its citizens less safe (by allowing almost everyone a gun) to support it.

For other persons that want to kill you: unless they are really intent on doing so, you are actually safer without a gun than with one, as the article I linked to shows. And with strict laws, the potential killer is less likely to own a gun, meaning that you are less likely to actually get killed.

Guns can help you attain food, such as if you were stuck in the wilderness and had to shoot an animal to gain it's life-saving meats. (This also doubles back to the first point.)

There are supermarkets where you can buy food that has already been killed for you. If you really want to kill your own meat, you can buy a farm and cows. Same as with the first point, this is not a reason to start allowing everybody to own a gun. If you go into the wilderness unprepared and find that you are starving, then I think you deserve to be nominated for a Darwin Award.

Guns are also a deterrent. If someone accosts you with a weapon of some sort, even if the gun has no bullets, the person will think twice about attacking you.

See the article above. Citing: The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage

Having a gun in the house is dangerous for anyone near it. I read elsewhere that if you have a gun in your house, the burglar is more likely to shoot if they stumble upon you. So even a gun with no bullets makes you more likely to get killed, especially in a country where even simple burglars are likely to have guns.

You have written several times that banning guns does not help, because people who really want to kill someone will do it anyway. While the latter is true, the former is not a logical conclusion: most gun deaths are accidents and escalated quarrels or disputes. Those would most of the time not have been deadly if there wasn't a gun at hand.

A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it.
An armored vehicle, such as a tank, but also a bulldozer, is a weapon, even without a cannon mounted on it. (In the Netherlands not everybody can just buy a bulldozer; a quick search on the net doesn't lead me to believe that the US has a similar restriction.) You can drive through the wall of a building, or over cars and/or people. I think Skull considered it obvious that allowing people to have a tank, as long as they claim it's only for watching, is undesirable. I fully agree with him on that. I'm surprised you don't find it as ridiculous.

it is my constitutional right to own a firearm
Exactly this right is being disputed. The fact that it currently is in the constitution is evident; the question is if it should be. I'm arguing it shouldn't.

Skull writes:
You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns.
Very well spoken. I'd like to hear replies to that one.

ThePunisher writes:
True but a gun makes it 500x more easier and efficent

You seem to suddenly participate in discussions instead of just shouting an opinion. That's a very welcome change!

The abuse is no problem, hence why I remove all emotional attachment while I'm debating. That way, personal attacks don't bother me and it serves to make the other person look like they have no idea what they're talking about. Plus, it makes the debate all the more meaningful and fun. (the detachment, not the abuse.)

Sadly, debates can be quite taxing over time. If there's a specific thing I wrote that you want to debate, quote it, note it was typed by me, (That way I don't have to look through the entire thread to find what exactly I wrote) and we can discuss it.

Sadly, debates can be quite taxing over time.

Yes, they can. Please take a break if you need to. The reason I'm writing such a long post is that I didn't read if for two days and suddenly there were many pages of messages, much of which I wanted to reply to. I don't need an answer instantly.

If there's a specific thing I wrote that you want to debate, quote it, note it was typed by me, (That way I don't have to look through the entire thread to find what exactly I wrote) and we can discuss it.

I did that: below "Kris writes" are five quotes from you, followed by what I think is wrong with them.

I'm particularly interested in your opinion about the first three.

Also I would like to know what you think about the sentence I quoted from Skull at the end of my post.

But take your time.

And if you feel like writing again, I'm still very interested in your opinion about this as well. I had hoped that that thread would turn into a discussion like this one (apart from the abuse), but unfortunately even TheRainmaker himself didn't share his opinion.

Ah, I hadn't realized that. The way it was spaced, it seemed like you were quoting multiple people.

You raise some very logical, valid, and coherent points, I'll have to think about these.

Though, regarding the camping thing, a person who would rush into the wilderness without any forethought would likely die from whatever dangers would be present, but those who went in well-prepared, but got lost and was separated from any help would have to attain food somehow. While things such as edible plants would be helpful, a person would not be able to survive long on plants alone.

The biggest problem having a gun is that you can shoot someone accidentally. That's what happens in my country often. Some fool takes father's gun, wave it around loaded and boom.

That's why I stick with retro methods when I'm killing. Maiming with a sword is a lot funnier anyway. I wouldn't play Dink, if it's the other way around.

Though, regarding the camping thing, a person who would rush into the wilderness without any forethought would likely die from whatever dangers would be present, but those who went in well-prepared, but got lost and was separated from any help would have to attain food somehow. While things such as edible plants would be helpful, a person would not be able to survive long on plants alone.

Dude, where do you live? The ducking medieval times?! No wait, that can't be possible because back in the medieval times, they survived in the wilderness without guns.

And still the biggest problem here is that Kris thinks guns are cool. Just like every American thinks to a certain extent.

And no, I'm not gaining hate on anyone, trying to offend anyone. I'm just stating facts. Harshly maybe, but sometimes that's the only way. If anyone does actually get offended by that, then I'm sorry, but I'm also surprised how you've managed to live so long if you get so easily offended by harsh truths.

Also, I'm putting sentences into simpler forms. Instead of saying "guns are built in factories. Then they go to stores where people can buy them from, and then depending on the fact of whether that gun ends up in a mentally unstable person's hand, it can cause harm or kill someone. But no, that's not it completely, it can also cause harm and death accidentally". See? That's just stupid. So instead I say "guns kill people". While that's not entirely accurate of a sentence, my meaning behind it doesn't change.

And yet, Skull rejects the simple fact that I'm ambivalent to guns.

I'm on the American side here, they seem know their country the best.

Skull, you can't stab the internet you know.

Of course he can. Bleed you dang internet!

those who went in well-prepared, but got lost and was separated from any help would have to attain food somehow.

Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.

From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).

If you're a law maker and you have to choose between saving 10 people per century, or 30 per day, the choice really shouldn't be hard.

Skull writes:
Dude, where do you live? The ducking medieval times?!
As you can read in the text above, I agree with your opinion, but can you please calm down and keep it civil? Nobody is changing their opinion based on posts like these, except perhaps their opinion of you. When I first got here, I was confused by you; you talked like a total troll, but you were active and made useful contributions; a rare combination. You have moved to talk normally as well, which was a welcome change. But this looks a lot like your old style. I urge you to stop that.

And still the biggest problem here is that Kris thinks guns are cool. Just like every American thinks to a certain extent. [...] I'm just stating facts.
No, you're not. You decided that this is a fact; don't give any evidence for it, and explicitly ignore anything people say to the contrary.

About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.

1. After this statement came a statement along the lines of "unbelievable!" from you, but Kris did not even understand what you thought was unbelievable; I was surprised by that.

On the other hand, I know people in the Netherlands who do think guns are cool. One of those actually has a permit to own them for reenactment purposes, and he has a collection. However, he also knows that if anybody gets killed by a reenactment weapon anywhere in the country, his permit is likely to be revoked. That makes all reenacters extremely sensitive to safety issues.

The fact that it takes more than a minute of uninterrupted work to get such a gun loaded means they cannot be used in a rage. Also, they don't use bullets for reenactment, only powder. Such a gun loaded with powder is still very dangerous, but only at short range.

Quiztis writes:
I'm on the American side here, they seem know their country the best.
That is a very good point. IMO the people who live in the US should be the ones to decide on what they do. They do not have to obligation to explain themselves. I don't want Americans telling us we can't legalize abortion, and likewise I don't want to tell them that they can't legalize weapons. But I can have a discussion about it with them, if they are willing to have it as well.

But you are right; in the end, the Americans get to decide what happens to America, and that is a good thing.

Thank you Shevek, you are providing a meaningful debate that doesn't revolve around name calling to get it's point across.

Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).

I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.

Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.

Yes, that is the key, to wait long enough. In the meantime though there will be drawbacks (I will list these at the end of this post). Still, a very good point and it means our country should try to improve gun laws at the very least, even if not banning them.

So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.

Agreed.

So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.

It depends. Our hope would be that the criminals fight amongst themselves too much to worry about normal people. But if they were to work together, it could be catastrophic. With enough criminals working together I don't think the police would be good enough, we would need to call in the army or something... Still that risk could be a price to pay for the better good.

If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.

They have bigger and more guns, but we have numbers. And if we could get the army on the side of the people instead of the government, that would help a lot. But yeah, hopefully this never happens. Still, I feel like this country is turning more authoritarian every week. And they are smart, making it gradual so we don't riot.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.

I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but if that sentence is true that is definitely a big deal. Though it's definitely worth noting that there are bigger causes of death in the US than guns: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/03/01/top_10_causes_of_death_in_the_us_106473.html. Gun violence isn't even in the top 10. Suicide and car crashes are, along with many diseases (and even though suicide is #10 it is more than twice as common as gun violence deaths). And if we improve our schools and such to take down suicide rates, it's a fair guess that gun violence (and accidents) would go down too. We are bitter and not educated well enough, that's what needs to be fixed the most, not just our control laws. We need to fix the root, not bury it and hope that the problem goes away, because it won't. One thing worth noting is gun accidents, but from what I've read it sounds like around 600 die from them per year, which while bad and in need of addressing, it still leaves guns somewhat low on the list. It's also worth noting that it's easier to commit suicide when you have a gun, which could skew the "true" deaths caused by guns.

Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.

From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).

While I think that more people die in ways like this than is reported (A human corpse in a jungle is not going to last very long), you still make a good point and it's almost certain that more people die by guns each day than by jungle affairs. Just remember that jungle affairs aren't the only possible way a person could die from guns being outlawed.

About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.

Ah, printing guns, that would become very popular if guns were banned. I hadn't even thought of that.

Ok, some things to note about banning guns that need to be addressed:

1. Banning guns would damage the economy. Think about how big of a business gun sale and manufacture in the US is. I don't see a way that the government could reimburse that much damage to businesses, which means that a lot of people would lose their job and get no reimbursement, and a ton of factories and gun stores would be left to rot. For a bit of an idea, the gun industry employs more than twice as many americans as GM: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/nr-draft-how-important-are-guns-to-the-u-s-economy-for-starters-the-firearms-industry-employs-twice-as-many-americans-as-bailed-out-gm/

2. I don't see how the government could reimburse people for guns that are taken from them, especially gun collectors will lose their life collection of guns, and it will be catastrophic to them.

3. People who organize hunting, targets, or own organizations related to those things will be out of business, further damaging the economy.

4. How could this be enforced? Will police go to every single persons house and search them unwarranted to find these guns (and thus find everyone's pot collections and arrest them in the process)? I think treating gun laws the same as drug laws would absolutely not work (where they could only search if there is reasonable suspicion you have a gun). The only thing it would do is make people hide their guns better. But police invading EVERY person's home in the country would create an outrage, as well as costing the police force/government massive money. So my question is, how could this be done cleanly?

5. How would a gradual gun law work? I know the strictness of gun control could be improved and that would be a great start and the most logical current solution. But as for true banning of guns, I foresee many many problems with that. I can't think of any gradual solution that bans guns that would not have grave drawbacks.

Here is what I have come up with from all the information in this topic:

American gun laws need to be improved: BUT, the banning of guns is probably not the best option at this point in time. The best thing I can think of is to implement features into guns that make them less easy for a child to use, along with educating children not to touch them and parents not to leave them where a child can get them (in other words, lock those guns up folks!). There could be public announcements on the news and TV that tell parents to lock up there guns and explain the consequences of not doing so, and people could be reported by other people for leaving guns in places that are unsafe, thus prompting police action to confiscate their gun and ban the owner from getting another one, or something. I'm not sure how background checks work here, but those could probably be made stricter as well. Guns could be illegal to sell without a license (so that people don't privately sell them as much) and guns that are stolen may be required by law to be reported. Buying gun ammo should require you to show the gun and receipt and proof of identity so that people can't 3d print guns and then buy ammo for them unregulated. With these kind of changes, I think a vast reduction in gun-related deaths would occur, without the major drawbacks of completely banning them, and without the economy being seriously damaged or the black market being seriously empowered. In addition this would make suicides less common (as the gun is harder to reach), and people would be less likely to be shot by a break-in because they might not have as easy a time getting to the gun to make the other person scared enough to shoot them. And teens would be less likely to go rob some place if the gun was locked up and all they could get to threaten with is a stick or a knife. (well except for the more resourceful ones, who could come up with some interesting things)

Our hope would be that the criminals fight amongst themselves too much to worry about normal people.

That, or simply that they consider the risk of raiding houses too great. And it should be. Breaking into a house with people in it, even if you don't expect them to have guns, is a dangerous affair. Especially if this starts to be "common" and people are expecting you. In my house, I can walk around pretty well in the dark; they most likely cannot. And it shouldn't be too hard to hit someone on the head with a frying pan, stab him with a knife, or touch him with a bare electrical cable that is plugged into the wall socket. After that, you can take his gun and shoot him and his partners, if any. Obviously such an attack is risky, and it is likely that some people will die. But on average, many more gang members will die real soon. And they will stop entering houses because they don't want that.

But if they were to work together, it could be catastrophic. With enough criminals working together I don't think the police would be good enough, we would need to call in the army or something...

If that is the case, then that must indeed be done. As I explained above, smart criminals won't let it come so far, though. And you may expect those gangs to be led by smart people.

However, from what I hear your description is close to the situation in Mexico, so perhaps I am too optimistic.

there are bigger causes of death in the US than guns

I would certainly hope so. If the main causes of death are anything not related to natural causes (disease and old age), your country is probably involved in an extremely brutal war involving genocide.

In the end everyone must die and that is not a sad thing. What should be avoided is premature deaths. Almost every gun death falls in that category (arguably suicide can in some cases be considered auto-euthanasia), as do many other things, such as car accidents. The interesting comparison is all non-disease-related deaths. I'm having a hard time finding nice tables about this, but it seems clear that those are much higher in the US than elsewhere, and the difference is only due to gun deaths.

if we improve our schools and such to take down suicide rates, it's a fair guess that gun violence (and accidents) would go down too.
Yes, that seems reasonable.

We need to fix the root, not bury it and hope that the problem goes away, because it won't.
True, but allowing anyone to have a gun has many drawbacks and no real advantages. The most claimed advantage is increased safety, and in fact it has the opposite effect.

So while the education system should be improved if it's bad (I don't really know, but I'll take your word that it is), that is no reason to allow guns; these are unrelated and there is no reason to fix only one of them.

it's easier to commit suicide when you have a gun
Certainly, this is in fact one of the reasons that having a gun is dangerous for you: there is a higher probability of "completed suicide" in a situation where you have the same probability of "attempted suicide". Interesting to note is this (no need to sign in; you only need the first answer): people who attempt suicide as an act of passion are less likely to try again if they fail, and more likely to choose a very deadly method; an unfortunate combination. Anyway, taking guns away from them will likely lead to more of them failing, and many will not try again. From that I conclude that it is good that they fail. (For those who do try again, it is at least debatable whether they should fail; if they will want to die until they do, it is perhaps best if that is soon.)

Just remember that jungle affairs aren't the only possible way a person could die from guns being outlawed.
So far, the causes that have been brought to the table are:
- Being lost or encountering a dangerous animal in the wilderness -> this should be no concern.
- People breaking into your house -> you're actually safer without a gun if that happens.
- Riots over banning guns -> this may be a serious problem, but it's temporary and no reason to avoid a ban altogether; at best it's a reason for doing it slowly and carefully. More discussion below.
Did I miss any?

Ah, printing guns, that would become very popular if guns were banned. I hadn't even thought of that.
There's a lot of press around it. When people tell someone they work with 3-D printers, they often get a response which has to do with printing guns.

But it's really a non-issue. You can make a better, cheaper and safer (although not safe) gun than you can print, using some steel and regular tools like drills and files.

But one of those guys that Skull hates so much thought it would be a neat idea to print a gun, and he made the news big time. While there are so many nice things you can do with those printers...

1. Banning guns would damage the economy.
Sure. If you want such a major change, lots of people lose their job. But that's not a bad thing in itself; those are qualified people and new companies can offer them a job to do things for which at the moment no people can be found. I don't see why shutting down the weapons industry would need to be compensated at all, and why those people would need to remain unemployed. In fact, I would be interested to see what they would do; such a big group of people starting something new could lead to very interesting things.

Obviously the industry will complain, and they will say half the country will starve. But in reality, people will move on and get a new job.

2. I don't see how the government could reimburse people for guns that are taken from them, especially gun collectors will lose their life collection of guns, and it will be catastrophic to them.
They don't have to, as I'll explain. For collections, it is usually acceptable to make the weapons unusable. For antique weapons, you can in many countries get a permit to have them as an ornament. Note that this is about weapons which aren't "grab-and-shoot" anyway, and they aren't allowed to have bullets.

3. People who organize hunting, targets, or own organizations related to those things will be out of business, further damaging the economy.
See 1.

4. How could this be enforced? Will police go to every single persons house and search them unwarranted to find these guns (and thus find everyone's pot collections and arrest them in the process)?
No, certainly not. You should start by forbidding to sell guns (unless the buyer has a permit, which should be very hard to get) and forbidding to carry them in any public place. You should probably wait at least a generation before forbidding to have a gun in your house and even then the police must not be allowed to search the house unless they have reason to suspect you of a crime.

I think treating gun laws the same as drug laws would absolutely not work (where they could only search if there is reasonable suspicion you have a gun).
That's how it works in the Netherlands, and it works real well, AFAIK. Especially if it isn't actually illegal to have a gun in your house for one, maybe two generations, I think it can work in the US as well. If selling new guns is outlawed, it works even better, because then the weapons industry then doesn't have an incentive to tell people how much they need guns.

The only thing it would do is make people hide their guns better. But police invading EVERY person's home in the country would create an outrage,
And rightfully so; being the master of your house is very important for people. Only in very exceptional situations may the police violate this right.

5. How would a gradual gun law work? I know the strictness of gun control could be improved and that would be a great start and the most logical current solution.
A good start would be to disallow people to carry a gun in any public place, including outdoors. That way, many real innocent gun deaths can be avoided (where I define people being shot related to them having a gun as not real innocent). It would be a great incentive for many people to not want a gun, especially if the statistics about this ("owning a gun is a health risk") are widely publicized.

Forbidding people to have guns in their home can probably not be done within 20 years or so. But if anyone who has a gun in their car or in the street can be arrested, it would probably be quite a bit safer, especially for people who don't own guns.

implement features into guns that make them less easy for a child to use
You mean like those "safety caps" on bottles, for which you need to get a child, because they're the only ones who can figure out how to open them?

lock those guns up folks!
The article I linked before actually mentions that locking them up doesn't really reduce the risk of accidents. I'm guessing this is because either the kids know where the keys are, or the guns are taken from their safe place by the parent. The only thing you may prevent with it is children killing their parents, but that probably doesn't happen a lot anyway.

I'm not sure how background checks work here, but those could probably be made stricter as well.
In the Netherlands, that is actually a major problem: the police is supposed to check people with a permit, but they are underpaid (and thus understaffed) and other things are always more urgent. So these checks aren't done well, if at all. I expect the same problem in the US. For us, the good thing is that there aren't so many people with a permit so even without good checks, we're still quite safe. Almost nobody can start shooting in a rage, because they simply don't have access to a gun.

Guns could be illegal to sell without a license
I think in most countries they are "registered goods", meaning you have to tell the government about any sale, so they can record it in the registry they have. Obviously nobody is allowed to sell a gun to someone who doesn't have a permit.

Buying gun ammo should require you to show the gun and receipt and proof of identity
Or just identity, and gun sellers have a link to the registry to check that you have a permit. In fact, the registry should be updated before they hand you the gun, and the update will fail if the buyer doesn't have a permit.

the black market being seriously empowered
That may happen if enforcement of "no guns in the street" is lacking. In the Netherlands, the police cannot search you unless they suspect you of a crime. But in some places, notably in shopping centers, you are not allowed to carry knives and they may do preemptive searches. I think this method works well. Obviously, when they find a gun, the person is arrested (having a gun with you is a felony). They don't go look for them unless they have a reason to believe there is one.

If the enforcement works, then people will likely want fewer, not more guns, because they have fewer places to use them. So I wouldn't worry about the black market.

this would make suicides less common (as the gun is harder to reach)
I doubt that. If your gun is locked up and you have the key, that doesn't really count as "hard to reach" in my book.

people would be less likely to be shot by a break-in because they might not have as easy a time getting to the gun to make the other person scared enough to shoot them.
People who want a gun in their house to protect themselves will make sure that they keep it in a place where they can get to it if there is a break-in. So I don't think this will be any different either.

teens would be less likely to go rob some place if the gun was locked up
Possibly, but I don't think so either. Teens are very inventive and I expect them to know better than their parents how to open that lock.

well except for the more resourceful ones, who could come up with some interesting things
If you mean intelligence as resource, I would agree; I don't think they need much money in most cases.

In my house, I can walk around pretty well in the dark; they most likely cannot. And it shouldn't be too hard to hit someone on the head with a frying pan, stab him with a knife, or touch him with a bare electrical cable that is plugged into the wall socket. After that, you can take his gun and shoot him and his partners, if any.

NOW I know why you don't like guns; it's because you've already thought up at least half a dozen MacGyver-esque contraptions to brutally murder intruders without the need for any.

More seriously, I don't think the single most important reason to allow people to own guns has even been mentioned yet: Freedom.

A lot of things are potentially dangerous, and society would be safer without them. Guns, knives, cars, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, whateverthehell.

It rather pisses me off when my basic freedom to buy and own things is limited drastically, though. Especially when the thing is something of great reasonable use. (Like guns for hunting, hobby, feeling safe/independent)

I'm not necessarily against relatively strict gun laws, but plans such as gradually strictening gun laws with the goal of eventually being able to ban them totally sound horrifying to me.

Golden middle road, man.

you've already thought up at least half a dozen MacGyver-esque contraptions

MacGyver is a n00b; I out-geek him any day.

More seriously, I don't think the single most important reason to allow people to own guns has even been mentioned yet: Freedom.

Good point. But there are limits to freedom; that's the "price" of living in a society. This price on my freedoms is a benefit for others. For example, others benefit from the fact that my freedom to beat them up is taken from me.

So the question is, which freedoms do we, as society, want to take away from our citizens, to make the place better for all?

The freedom to own objects which have no use other than destruction would be one of the first things I would take away; long before the freedom to walk naked in the street, for example (which I suppose is illegal in the US).

In the Netherlands, you are allowed to use guns as a member of a shooting club. But you normally don't get to take the guns home; they are not to leave the club. And there's a background check before you can even be a member there (although as I wrote, I don't think that works too well, but the clubs themselves want to prevent accidents, so they are pretty careful).

In exceptional cases hunting is allowed by people who have a license; they may also have a gun for the purpose. But they may not take that gun into the city; they can only take it to and from the place where they hunt.

These exceptions to the ban on guns sometimes lead to shooting accidents (mostly by hunters, and mostly suicides, AFAIK), but that is rare. From that I conclude that they are acceptable exceptions.

the thing is something of great reasonable use. (Like guns for hunting, hobby, feeling safe/independent)
I disagree. I don't think hunting should be allowed at all, but as I wrote above it may be acceptable to give people some fun. But I would make it very hard to get a hunter's license; allowing guns in an informal place like people's houses is asking for trouble.

Hobby...? You mean collecting? Is there a reason those guns need to be functional? Or that there must be bullets anywhere near them? If neither of those is the case, I don't have a big problem with it, as long as they don't move around too much. If you're talking about shooting at a club, then I can accept this, but I would not allow those guns to leave the building. Also, I would require each club to hire a psychiatrist, because I can't see how people who find so much pleasure in destroying things can be entirely sane. But that may be just me...

Feeling safe: you should do something about that. That shouldn't be too hard; research proves that owning a gun makes you less safe. If that message is made clear, and the weapons industry doesn't confuse things (because they can't sell guns to normal people anyway, they have no incentive), people should stop owning guns for safety in no time.

Feeling independent: You want the sort of independence that they have in movies like mad max or terminator? Even if it comes with the societies that those movies present with it? That's not really society at all; it's anarchy.

All the things you mention as dangerous are indeed restricted in pretty much all countries. But all the other things (except for cigarettes) have valid uses which are not bad for anyone. Guns don't really; at the very least those reasonable uses are insignificant compared to the harm they cause. In the US, guns are for some reason less restricted than far less dangerous things like alcohol or cigarettes.

Golden middle road, man.
That's what I was doing; the problem is that the US is currently so far beside the road, that going to the middle is a pretty extreme operation.

Now if I was to be extreme, I would go for ancient Japan: nobody is allowed weapons, not even the police. The police will have to be trained in martial arts to be able to win fights against criminals.

But don't worry, I'm not proposing that. The police and the army can have guns. And I even accept that some others may have guns. But not (nearly) everybody.

As you can read in the text above, I agree with your opinion, but can you please calm down and keep it civil? Nobody is changing their opinion based on posts like these, except perhaps their opinion of you. When I first got here, I was confused by you; you talked like a total troll, but you were active and made useful contributions; a rare combination. You have moved to talk normally as well, which was a welcome change. But this looks a lot like your old style. I urge you to stop that.

As I said, I state harsh facts. Don't like them, go cry in the corner. I haven't changed at any point. People have just lacked their usual stupidity around here, in the recent times, so there hasn't been need for any harsh facts.

No, you're not. You decided that this is a fact; don't give any evidence for it, and explicitly ignore anything people say to the contrary.

You make it sound like as if what I or you say changes facts. Nope. Facts just are there. Whether you admit them or not, like them or not, or what you say about them. I could very well say every American does not think guns are cool, to a certain extent. But that doesn't change the fact that they do.

It's like arguing about movies. You can like a bad movie all you want, but that doesn't change the *fact* that it's bad. And the other way around, obviously.

KrisKnox, you keep saying you don't think guns are cool. Yes, you do. Anyone who defends guns even to the slightest extent, does think they are cool, even if it is the most minimum of cool possible. Such is the case with everything, of course. Not just guns.

Here's a harsh fact for you, Skull.
I. Don't. Care.
I am utterly ambivalent to guns and gun control. I entered this debate simply for the experience of debating with people I cannot see in front of me. So far, you're too fixated on the emotional aspect rather than the logical. You keep spouting your opinion that I think guns are cool, rather than taking the fact that I don't even like guns and am ambivalent to them and dropping that stupid argument.

I mean, seriously, do you even know me?! Where have we met that you suddenly have intimate knowledge of who I am and what I like? Where is your basis of logic for believing, without any prior evidence beyond me debating with you, that I think guns are cool?

Anyone who defends guns even to the slightest extent, does think they are cool, even if it is the most minimum of cool possible. Such is the case with everything, of course. Not just guns.

I have to say that that is the most flawed statement, in my opinion. As I iterated many times, and reiterated many more times, I chose my side of the debate for the fun of the debate, I chose it because in every debate, there has to be an equal and opposite side to further the debate.
I've learned a hell of a lot just by arguing with you, I learned your opinions, I also learned to ignore your conjectures and further the debate based on what I knew and the logic that follows in a debate.

What have you learned?

See im not the only one who hates USA.

Here's a harsh fact for you, Skull.
I. Don't. Care.

That's not a harsh fact. That is a statement you're trying to make sound harsh, which you posted because you feel mentally obligated to yourself, to have some sort of an impact on me. This shows I got into your mind, and became a small, quick-passing obsession to you, which again shows that you, in fact, cared very much during the moment of typing that.

I mean, seriously, do you even know me?!

Yes. I know everyone I anyhow interact with, and a lot who I don't interact with at all. You do too, but you just don't pay enough attention to realize that.

I have to say that that is the most flawed statement, in my opinion. As I iterated many times, and reiterated many more times, I chose my side of the debate for the fun of the debate, I chose it because in every debate, there has to be an equal and opposite side to further the debate.

I fail to see your logic in this. There is no point to debate at all when you're on the side that's wrong, so I do not understand why you went into this "debate" in the first place.

I've learned a hell of a lot just by arguing with you, I learned your opinions, I also learned to ignore your conjectures and further the debate based on what I knew and the logic that follows in a debate.

Furthermore, I find it strange you still think this was a debate at all, even though I've already clearly stated it never was. What kind of logic and learning is that?

What have you learned?

At no point was it possible for me to learn anything from this, because I already know everything concerning both the subject of Americans & guns, and the subject of this.

Let's rename the site. How about "The Debate Network". Because seriously.

I would rather die to call it the banana net then the debate network, since we get not much work done and we like bananas.

Speaking as an American, in my experience most people here aren't "obsessed" with guns (which is saying something because I live in the Midwest). People treat it like any other sport or interest and it tends to be harmless for the vast majority of people.

What people on here (my apologies for the blanket statement, just an observation) tend to be ignorant of is that violent crime, including gun homicides, have plummeted in the last 20 years. However, the media propagates racial conflict, gun violence and "bullying" because it makes for higher viewership. Thus many people have been misled to believe all sorts of negative things about our country, citizens and foreigners alike.

So let's bring out the statistics.

As reported to a 2011 report by the Center for Diesese Control, there were an estimated 32,000 people killed by fatal gunshots. Of these 32,000 fatalities, there were 20,000 suicides. Alright, so that leave's 11,000 people who harmed someone other than themselves.

We have a basis, 11,000 people murdered someone else with a gun.

Now, as stated by the U.S Department of Justice, the rate of violent crime has declined since 1993 by 72% from 80 victims to 22.5 victims per 1,000 persons agreed 12 and older.

So violent crime is plummeting (thus far by almost 3/4 of what is was only 20 years ago), but what about mah gunz?

A 2013 report released by the U.S Bureau of Justice states that fatal gun homicides have decreased 39% and not fatal gunshot wounds have decreased 69%, again since 1993. In that year we had 18,253 homicides, this year we've had an estimated 11,101. That's a 7,000 drop in gun homicides over only 20 years. Although the rate won't be known until the next report is released, this means that the homicide rate is STILL dropping unless some massive change in violence has happened in the last few months that no one knows about.

Let's review
In the past 20 years violent crime and gun homicides in the Murica have dropped massively and will continue dropping unless there is sudden massive social unrest.

Just to put into perspective how small the number of gun fatalities are in relation to other preventable types of death, here are some statistics from the Harvard School of Public Health.

*Smoking kills an average of 467,000 thousand people a year(a rate 14.5x higher than guns)
*High Blood Pressure kills an average of 400,0000 people a year(12.5x)
*Obesity(lol) kills an average of 216,000 people a year(6.75)

Where as there were an estimated 11,000 homicides with guns.
*Suicides not included because have mental health practitioners have stated long ago that people who are serious about taking their own life won't stop if their preferred method isn't available. ex. Japan, China, Russia.

If you want to discuss the poor health of our country, our questionable foreign policies or our social issues, I would love to indulge you. I would also be happy to to bring light to the perceived "race war" a brewin in our country.

However, if you wish to be condescending (cough, skull) about your perceived flaws with our ability and right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, just like we did with the English, please be courteous and know the facts before you pass judgement on the same nation that bailed out your European homeland during the reign of your own tyrannical dictator.

Murica out.

Sources:
Center for Disease Control
U.S Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice
Harvard School of Public Health.

Feel free to look all of these stats up from unbiased government reports.
In fact, please do.

So, this entire time I was debating with you, you were trying to force me to see your opinions as the one and only truth? I mean, you obviously think your know everything, and that's a dangerous and stupid mode of thinking, because if you think you know everything, you're not open to new ideas and thus are more likely to ignore a truth and believe a pre-determined falsehood.
For instance, your lack of wanting to debate to share ideas is comparable to Pred's lack of wanting to listen to others opinions.
You both ignore what other people say and continue to spew your emotion-ridden rants despite any evidence given to support the other person's arguments and any evidence used to disprove your claims.

This is a debate, skull, whether you like it or not. It's not a place for you to preach and turn people against each other. If you want to do that, then go ahead, I can't stop you, but it means that everybody, including yourself, is robbed of a good, clean debate.
If you want to debate, then everybody, including yourself, will benefit from the mutual sharing of beliefs and opinions.

Though, it is my opinion that you don't want to change your beliefs and opinions because you fear what that change would bring; you cling to the thoughts in your mind because it is one of the stable foundations in your life.

I hope you are willing to debate, but if not, if you continue on this tangent you set up for yourself, then I will not partake of it, as it will only end in a flame war that A) makes this topic locked, B) ends with you even more bitter at me for not changing my stance, however fabricated it is, and me bitter at you for robbing me of a wonderful and enjoyable debate.

Not to mention there is no one wrong opinion, only the one that has the most evidence gathered. There is no winning or losing in a debate, only learning.

I just now thought of this at Joad, but what is the rate of archery deaths compared to gun deaths.

You make it sound like as if what I or you say changes facts. Nope. Facts just are there. Whether you admit them or not, like them or not, or what you say about them.

Hahaha! Here's a lesson for you: when you talk to people, pretend to be in their position, and imagine what effect your words have on them.

I agree that facts are just facts, and what we say about them doesn't change them. However, we have to look around us and find out for ourselves which statements are facts, and which are not. In a discussion, you can explain your reasons for believing that something is true, and so can other people. You listen to each other, point out flaws in the reasoning, and possibly change your reasoning. In some cases, that may result in a different outcome, which means that you no longer believe something, or you started believing it.

So you believe that all Americans love guns. I suppose you have your reasons for believing that. But as long as you don't make them known, nobody is going to start or stop believing anything. Which means you might as well not say it at all. Stating a fact without evidence is only possible if the evidence is trivial and everybody can see it (like "this house is red"). As soon as there is discussion about a supposed fact, you need arguments (evidence) to support your claim.

Anyone who defends guns even to the slightest extent, does think they are cool, even if it is the most minimum of cool possible.
Now you're being silly. I never defended guns, and I don't think I ever will (or wait, I said the police can have them; does that count?), but I do think they are cool. I like machines. I like machines that make things (like 3-D printers) a lot more than machines that destroy things (like guns); but there is certainly some cool mechanics in a gun (not that much though, but it passes the "minimum of cool possible" test). If all Americans would be like me in that respect, then you claim they all think guns are really cool, while in fact they would immediately ban them.

It's like arguing about movies. You can like a bad movie all you want, but that doesn't change the *fact* that it's bad.
I was still in doubt, but you have just convinced me that you are only trolling. How can you possibly take such a subjective thing as an example of an objective fact?

So yeah, I thought I'd be man enough and admit I've been rather assholish in this thread. I apologize. I've had some nasty things happen to me in the past week and my mind's been in a rather dark place. A mood which you should not enter Internet discussions with, as I am known to make the mistake of always doing. Please continue this discussion without me, if you wish. I don't wanna ruin it, but I would be very interested in seeing you two discuss it out, Shevek & Kris.

Again, sorry.

what happened, skull, letting it out might possibly help?

Rainmaker.

You do realise how ludicrous it is to compare deaths caused by guns to those caused by obesity, smoking, or high blood pressure? Seriously.

If you have an interest in discussing US foreign policy, I would be interested to hear your views on "'Murica's" implementation of drones in Pakistan and the horrific levels of civilian casualties they have caused. And the attempt of your government to hide this by dunking the figures in murky water to mask the levels of damage caused. By, for example, classifying any adult killed in the combat zone as militant.

Is Obama a war criminal? He's certainly the least deserving winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace that I'm aware of.

Also just LOL at not being able to make judgements about a nation because they happened to do something long before you were born.

Don't be so absurd.

EDIT: Not trying to be antagonistic, but let's not be silly.

I agree with Sabre regarding drones. They should not be used or even allowed.
And regarding Obama, he should not have been re-elected, much less got a danged Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't think drones are intrinsically bad, but their implementation - particularly by the US - is extremely worrying and sets a dangerous precedent.

Obama got a peace prize, well you learn something new everyday! Also who ran against Obama in the second term/election?

Some rich donkey who would have ducked our country over even worse. It's better that he wasn't elected, believe me. Obama is way doing better than Bush ever did.

Edit: dat swear filter

Wasn't it Mitt Romney?

I really only feel that the job of the president is to sit back and be the poster boy of the country. Anything good or bad that happens can be attributed and/or blamed on the president. I feel as though the amount of power the president actually has tends to be exaggerated. Basically the president is just supposed to be there so people can have a disconnect with their country when something they don't like happens, while at a different time they can pat themselves on the back for having a president that does something good for the country. It's very wishy-wash opinionated Bonca-Scheiße.

The President does have a good amount of power. He signs bills into law, or vetoes them, and propose bills to be voted on in Congress, who will do everything they can to not pass it. He can send us into a war that increases our national debt by trillions *cough* Bush *cough*. The President does do quite a lot, but yeah, probably not as much as we're lead to believe. For the most part, Congress has all the power to do whatever they want.

I hate politics so much. Our country is basically going to go to shoot one day and there won't be anything we can do to stop it, short of a revolution.

My friend, the revolution is already forming, you can hear the whispers in the wind (As well as the internet).
What really matters is, what will come about from this inevitable change?

Anarchy, World War 3, and probably a shoottier form of government than we already have.

I thought Mitt R. ran against Obama in the first election?

If the government does keep trying what it hopes to accomplish then their will be revolution, if they try to bring out Sopa again the computer people{us} might go do something, not outside, but something.

Romney ran against Obama for the second term. The first term it was McCain.

yah the name sounds familiar

Kris, I'm curious about your response to these arguments. He basically says the conditions aren't right for a revolution in the US. Here's his summary of his own post:

In short Revolution requires the following things:

Actual problems
A united cause with clear objectives and solutions
A Leader or group of leaders
A trained population to commit themselves to either violence or non violence

would hippies count under that revolition or not, and wouldn't said leaders be ring-leaders?

Well USA is arrogant and stupid have seen South Park and Family Guy im so shows are crap (The early episodes of Family Guy are ok the newer ones are crap)
And not only that they steal oil from the Middle East
My sisters watches the Kardashians and its a piece of rubbish show
Another reasons would be the WBC which all of their crap and also saying God hates Australia

Even though ive only seen a little of have you seen Jarhead it proves that USA is full of Dumb Rednecks(Dont get me wrong a couple in Australia more commonly known as Bogan down here but its somewhat small part of the population)

Sabretrout

From facilitating the deterioration of our rights via spying on our people, aiding in the invasion of Libya and the fatalities on civilians by drone attacks, Obama is absolutely not a hero of peace.

From facilitating the deterioration of our rights via spying on our people, aiding in the invasion of Libya and the fatalities on civilians by drone attacks, Obama is absolutely not a hero of peace.

USA dos stupid crap all the time i mean just look the amount of drugs ther i saw a program called Vice and ther are like 14 year old carrying guns to school.

Ill show a hero of peace

Info right here

Pun, that is a TV show that may only show some of the country, If we all go off of what we saw on TV or have been told, then all you Australians are wilderness men, all people from Iran and Iraq are terrorists, anyone Irish is a drunk, and so on, you think all of that is true just because it is said on TV.

Dude, it's TV.

Rain, hes to think headed to understand other people, and I wonder how Pred would even be a hero of PEACE, he is the reason for many flame wars here.

Pred, get over yourself. You're not a hero of peace, blind person with Downs syndrome could see that.
Not to mention basing your entire viewpoint on Television, which is by default full of horse shoot nowadays, makes you out to be a hateful ignoramus who wouldn't know common sense if it hit you in the face with a big pink... well, toy used by women.

Kris, women could use tons of big pink colored toys, you could ask the staff if you could say the word.

It's called tact, Dack, a trait that I rarely show because I'm not well versed in it.

eh fine, you should probably show it more.

Its a documentry.

A link to your profile page is a documentary? WOW! I HAD NO IDEA.

No the show Vice is a documentry

C'mon, everyone knows that show's full of shoot. It's something to watch when you have nothing else to watch, your computer is broken, your friends are unable to come over, you can't leave the house, and you can't fall asleep due to being too awake.
I mean, seriously, I've heard full on debates regarding the shoottiness of the show at school.

It's like Cops. Or Reno 911.

Punisher, the link you posted leads to your profile.

I know of another cartoon that's full or shoot and lies, TalPorn.com , It sure isn't the best porn on the web.

There are also documentaries about major world leaders that are actually reptilian-aliens trying to conquer the world via manipulation.

Yu dumb m8?

There are also documentaries about major world leaders that are actually reptilian-aliens trying to conquer the world via manipulation.

Wait, you mean the Doctor isn't real?

Political discussion on dinknetwork used to make me laugh.

Nowadays, it's a overused joke to me.

You want more proof that USA is corrupt and stupid?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Link number two leads to the DN.

A couple things about those links:

Fox News is the most unreliable piece of shoot to come out of news reporting. Their heads are so far up their asses that it's no wonder everything that comes out of their mouths is nothing but shoot.

Retarded people love talking out their ass when they don't know all the facts. (Referring to that PS fanboy vid)

Religious fanatics like that Pat Robertson need to shut the duck up and stop being so close-minded. They are what's wrong with this world, and why I hate religion.

None of those videos shows how our country is corrupt in any way. However they are good examples of just how stupid close-minded people can be. And unfortunately there's tons of those. These are dark times indeed...

Now who is putting words into whose mouth? I never said I didn't think our country is corrupt. Because it is. It's horrible. What I said is that those video links do not prove corruption in our country in any way. Learn to ducking read.

Yah the videos don't really show the whole country bring corrupt, also why is one link to the DN?

Because TDN is the primary source of all corruption in the world

So everyone that uses the Dn is corrupting their country/island?