Oh, Lord. You're suggesting that people being taken to hospitals should be transported in trains? Brilliant. Yeah, and we should transport our mail that way too. And then the mailmen could drive it to our individual houses on their horses. That would be efficient. And do you really think that all the transportation of goods now being handled by trucks could suddenly be switched over to trains?Townsend said:Take the train...simple as that.
So cars are useless because we don't need them to survive. Actually, why do we need horses or public transportation? Why not just walk everywhere? That's all we need to survive, right? Hey, and now that we all have guns, why not just do away with laws entirely? We can fend for ourselves now.All we need are horses, and public transportation...nothing more.
Maybe. But what about the people who don't know you?You do realize that people you know are the most likely to steal from you than are complete strangers? These people who know me also know I have guns and that I will kill someone for breaking into my house illegally.
You said:Since when is a gun a nuclear weapon?
A nuclear weapon is a "dangerous toy that makes loud noises and blows crap to pieces." Because of this, by your logic, I have the right to own nuclear weapons, and so do North Korea, Iran, etc. And you have no reason to say why they should not, right?I like dangerous toys that make loud noises and blow crap to pieces...what is wrong with that? I have every right to wield a dangerous weapon that can kill in the blink of an eye and you have no reason to say I should not.
Well, let's see: a city provides a place for people to live near their jobs (saving time and money) and it centralizes the location of important businesses and such (saving more time and money). Guns kill or wound people, and can be used for sport. I think there's a big difference.I am not contending that cities have no bigger purpose...I don't care to what degree something is purposeful and I don't know....I suspect it is a hard question to really answer. What I am saying is that their purpose is ultimately no different than the purposes of having a gun.
I didn't say that cars make cities possible. I said that they facilitate modern society (and also economy). Whether or not we need them to continue growing as a society is debatable. But whether or not we need them to continue with our current society is not.Cities can and have existed without them and we don't need them to continue growing as a society.
Your life is better and worth living because of guns?The same is true for guns...but they are things that make life better and worth living...
I just got chills...
Guns were originally legal because they were a necessary part of a "well-regulated Militia," which, in turn, is "necessary to the security of a free State." The Second Amendment does not mention personal security.We have had guns since this country started and there purpose was in fact personal security.
That's because we have a police force protecting us. We don't, in general, have to use guns to defend ourselves, because the police find and apprehend most criminals.And yet, we did not live in anarchy, chaos and lawlessness....
You made a statement: "Banning guns will only make innocent people become criminals." Because you made the statement, you have to defend/prove it. You haven't shown any evidence for this statement other than your own personal beliefs. In fact, there is a major problem here: anyone who breaks the law is by definition guilty, therefore not innocent.Guns are the status quo....you're are the one who must prove the need for change.
Go right ahead.I just need to disprove whatever you say to maintain the status quo
Hi. You don't have to so excited to see me, you know.......HELLO!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's relevant to the discussion. We are talking about guns, the regulation of guns, and gun-related deaths. Thus, the number of accidental deaths of children due to guns is relevant. The number of deaths of children due to car accidents is not, unless you make an actual point with it.Then why bring it up? If you want to bring up the deaths of children then I will bring up the deaths of children....simple as that.
Well, if guns are illegal, fewer people will own them. Those that do own them regardless of the laws will be more likely to conceal or secure them in a place where police, much less children, won't be able to find them. If children can't find the guns, they can't kill themselves with the guns. Simple as that.That is completely false.....kids die for a lot of reasons and some of those reasons involve guns but there is no proof that outlawing guns would have saved those lives.
I've explained this already: I didn't mention any other sorts of machines because this is a debate about guns, not things that kill children. And lets compare the uses of two such dangerous machines:Because you're implying that because a machine that by it self cannot kill anything! Is responsible for the deaths of children.....you have not shown that to be true you simply implied it. So if you want to tell me that a machine can be used to kill then why are you limiting your discussion to just one machine? It is only a machine and requires an operator to do anything at all.
Guns-used to kill people, injure people, and for fun.
Cars-used for fun, to transport people and other things, and to facilitate the economy of the United States.
Car insurance prices are high for teenagers because they tend to have more accidents then drivers of other ages. The Insurance companies don't care whether this is because teenagers are irresponsible or whether it is because they are inexperienced. Now, what evidence do you have that suggests the former? Why don't you think car insurance companies would raise car insurance prices for 25-29 year-olds if the legal driving age was increased to 25?Car insurance prices....
How do you know?No you do not need to be driving!!!!!!!
Quite the contrary, actually. But again, how would you know?You are an more than likely an irresponsible kid who thinks they know how to drive and will take chances that will put other drivers at risk.
At my age, or with my experience?A much greater risk than I will ever put anyone no matter how many guns I own or how many rounds I fire off. You want to drive but you DON'T need to and it is a very risky thing.....at your age you're statistically more likely to drive too fast and have poor judgement in dangerous situations.
At a shooting range, if I was using a gun borrowed from the owner of the shooting range, then I would be safer. If this is an option, why do you need to own a gun for the purpose of sport at all?You, don't need to drive. You would be much safer at a shooting range punching holes in a target with someone who is competent and responsible there to teach you and guide you in the safe and enjoy sport of shooting.
Whether these things actually cause kids to be violent is debatable. The danger of guns is not. No, I am not in favor of banning violent video games, music, etc. But these things aren't capable of killing anyone, while guns are. They entertain people, and nothing more. The same can't be said of guns.Just out of curiosity, do you like the idea of people banning violent video games, music, and any of other things out there that you might enjoy? They are all potentially harmful so why should we keep them when they serve no purpose?
By the way, are you implying that everything I might enjoy is potentially harmful and purposeless?
Last edited by a moderator: