Yea, so about that school shooting

[jdurand]

You seriously didn't understand that?

Just those words in the middle. The rest was Charlie Brown speak.

But hey, I'm just a sleeper-sheep (or an asleep sheep, if you prefer), so it's probably all above my head anyway.

I understand him completely but at the same time understand that you will one day have your awakening. When that day comes, you will understand perfectly what Erbal said, how he feels when you see it in others, and you will be free. It will be a great thing. Baby steps though.

That day will probably be the same as the one where the aliens tell me how they built those damned pyramids.

[Ms. Evil]

Just those words in the middle. The rest was Charlie Brown speak.

But hey, I'm just a sleeper-sheep (or an asleep sheep, if you prefer) , so it's probably all above my head anyway.

It's not above your head. It's right in front of you. You are just conditioned to protect the dream they gave you and refuse to open your eyes and see.

[StealthSigma]

where as the AR-15 is perfectly designed to kill people exclusively and as efficiently as possible.

Pending the type of bullet used. Given identical bullets, the AR-15 will be less dangerous than a 9mm.

--

Why not treat both? The greatest military minds in history have usually been defeated by attacks on 2 (or more) fronts.

Examples? Try to make sure the multiple fronts you are attributing to their defeat are fronts that were actually within their domain of control.

--

Why not treat the symptoms while we sort out the cure?

Liberty given up is rarely restored.

[Erbal]

Deep breaths!

And since you are the only other one I found here that shares my love for tin foil hats...

What's your take on the connection between Sandy Hook, the Batman shooting, and LIBOR? And yes I serious. This **** is fishier than beRRa's laundry.

I'll take your bait.

I haven't looked into the Sandy Hook thing at all yet but the Batman shooting is super fishy on every level.

My take is that I believe the mind control MKultra-type research never stopped, even after/if a breakthrough was made. It is absolutely ridiculous to think mankind's seemingly endless search for a working mind-control technique abruptly ended once and for all, circa 1970, when the MKultra experiments became public knowledge.

Big games, big stakes, big players... anything is possible and the truth is usually the craziest explanation of them all.

[Lurk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

[Luisss]

Pumpkin, try to follow. I don't care to find the quote right now, but I remember you saying that weed should be illegal because it doesn't cure anything.

Nevermind, I got them...





So, now that you have been proven wrong... you are claiming that weed should be illegal because it doesn't cure anything, it only helps the symptoms. Now in the gun thread, you are saying helping the symptoms of guns is enough of a cure.

But wait, you are going to throw in how the side effects of weed outweigh the benefits.



Let's discuss the loss of short term memory... wait I forget where I was going with this.

But seriously, slowing cancer is helping it and the side effects are minor. If you've never smoked you don't have any clue what it does to you.

Back to guns... you support treating the symptoms without worrying about the core issue. You are a hypocrite. I mean I may be an idiot at times but at least I'm honest about it.

Ms. Evil, thank you for finding quotes to support what you think is a contradiction. There are several things wrong with what you're saying, though:

1. I did not say that marijuana should be illegal simply because it doesn't cure anything. The context (yes, context makes a difference) of those quotes was lurk stating that it did cure something in response to my statement "Society can't afford the side effects of a drug that simply relieves symptoms and doesn't cure anything". Lurk said it did cure things, and that's where the first quote you found stems from - not from my overall argument of why legalization should not occur.

2. I don't support "treating the symptoms an ignoring the core issue". I've actually already posted in this thread (or it might have been the other one) that I agree with tackling the issue so long as we are also doing what we can in the meantime (I believe thy was Otter's statement I was agreeing with).

3. I don't have to smoke a blunt to know what it does to me. There's this wonderful place full of information from medical doctor's and clinical studies that support my statements - it's called the Internet. .

EDIT (For sapient):

First, thank you for taking the time to compile that post. I Gould be able to respon more at length when I get out of work, but I believe I can say these few things:

I would agree with a ban on tobacco.

I would also agree with using marijuana for industrial purposes (as long as there is no evidence of adverse affects on workers or machinery). What I am against is mainly human consumption because it is there that it has bad effects.

[Mighty Quinn]

Luiss, why can't you just acept other people have opinions diferant than you? It is ok, you don't need to defend every single post you make. Relax a little.

[Luisss]

I respect their opinions, I simply defend mine because I was told I was being inconsistent and I wanted to know why.

[Mighty Quinn]

No you didn't, you wanted to be right.

[Erbal]

Luisss: I cannot respect your anti-marijuana opinions when you make no serious mention of pharmaceuticals. Your views will stop sounding like a total joke when you stop ignoring the elephant in the room (pharmaceuticals).

Pills are the #1 used and abused drug, BY FAR.
Pills are the #1 gateway drug (pills are incredibly accessible to every single kid who lives in a modern society because so many parents have and use pills).
Pills are the #1 cause in drug related OD's and deaths.
Also, pills can often have pretty serious side effects that significantly dwarf the negatives of marijuana.

[Luisss]

I am right, the sooner you realize the easier it will be.

Even Erbal says so in my signature.

(I argue my position like everyone else, not a big deal )

[Lurk]

Luiss, why can't you just acept other people have opinions diferant than you?

Because (as he explained to me in a PM once) he assumes that everyone that sees the world differently is either a homosexual or a Mexican-hater, and he doesn't tolerate any of those things under any circumstances. If he had a family member that was either he'd summarily disown them.

[Mighty Quinn]

Luiss, I am not trying to be jag here. You argue every post not every point nor opinion.

[Erbal]

Since when does anyone care about what I say, Luisss? The only time you are right, Luisss, is when you parrot someone's opinion who is right.

Stop being such a failure and step your game up. The only reason people argue with you is because it's entertaining to hear your idiotic and disconnected replies, and to watch your ridiculous intellectual acrobats to defend your worthless positions.

So how about you stop messing around and give the people what they want by spewing out as much idiocy as you can? Save the serious posts for a setting with people who at least have a minimum respect for your views.

[StealthSigma]

Because (as he explained to me in a PM once) he assumes that everyone that sees the world differently is either a homosexual or a Mexican-hater, and he doesn't tolerate any of those things under any circumstances. If he had a family member that was either he'd summarily disown them.

So what if he has a mexican-hating homosexual family member?

[Lurk]

So what if he has a mexican-hating homosexual family member?

I think he'd explode so hard with machisimo-rage that he might start actually caring about his heritage instead of acting like a trained monkey that's been tamed into confining his poo-flinging to 10 feet outside of the cage.

Either that or he'd explode so hard with the aforementioned rage that the city he explodes in would have a lime and Crisco surplus for decades to come.

[Ms. Evil]

That day will probably be the same as the one where the aliens tell me how they built those damned pyramids.

You edited! I was joking about the aliens. I'm serious about this one.

I'm double posting because people need to read this. http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza's mother. I am Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris's mother. I am Jason Holmes's mother. I am Jared Loughner's mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho's mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness.

[Nichts]

I was wondering why the quote suddenly sounded bigoted, then I realized you slipped on that slope and biased all over it.

I support two peoples right to marriage, despite sexual orientation. I support a persons right to arms, should they be up to the standards required in gun ownership. These two do not need to be put on opposing ends. Why do you choose to make it an either-or? It makes me question your comprehension.

Hold on a second. I didn't make it an either-or. I simply put up one of many, many interpretations of the quote you posted. I could have inserted poverty, or slavery, or any other idea, and it would be just as valid.

The point here being that this ideology that you support doesn't necessarily have to be used just for causes you support - it can very well be used against causes you support all the same. It's a double edged sword. The people who most vehemently support gun rights (Republicans) are also the ones who most vehemently support corporatist societies and most vehemently detest things like gay marriage, racial equality, women's rights, etc. This is their ideal of what their society should look like; this is their ideal of what government should protect, and this is their ideal of what guns should be used to support should government fail to do so. When they threaten to use weapons, when they want the ability to use weapons enshrined in a constitution, what do you think their protecting? The things that they despise the most?

Step outside of your fairytale world, please.

Now, because it was you who brought up gay marriage, let me familiarize everyone with your views on the matter.



Given your beliefs, who are you in your analogy? The man behind the gun owner rubbing his shoulders, and whispering in his ear? I'm actually quite curious now as to whether you would want the armed man to shoot or not. Which do you appose more Nichts, guns or gays?

I hate to pull a jumper here, but I don't understand the question.

You're asking me if I'm:

a) a homophobe voting to allow gay rights, or,
b) a person who believes guns aren't the solution using a gun as a solution

I haven't seen a more messed up question in a while.

But to answer your question, I'm going to throw your own question right back at you: Why do you choose to make it an either-or?

[Luisss]

Since when does anyone care about what I say, Luisss?

Good point.

[Erbal]

Good point.

And you were wrong, which is just about the only thing you are consistent about.

[RobinLocks]

Hold on a second. I didn't make it an either-or. I simply put up one of many, many interpretations of the quote you posted. I could have inserted poverty, or slavery, or any other idea, and it would be just as valid.

You chose to ignore the remainder of the post, take a quote, change the wording, and make it seem as though these guns are being used for the purpose of taking away the rights of homosexuals. You turned guns into something a "Republican" would use against a "Dem" to force his viewpoint. Do you see how this contorts the argument?

The point here being that this ideology that you support doesn't necessarily have to be used just for causes you support - it can very well be used against causes you support all the same. It's a double edged sword. The people who most vehemently support gun rights (Republicans) are also the ones who most vehemently support corporatist societies and most vehemently detest things like gay marriage, racial equality, women's rights, etc.

Did you just state that approximately 40% of Americans are the ones who are bigots?
Let's talk more about these "Republicans" you speak of. They all are the ones who want to bring down the gay, the (insert race), and the woman? Really...the whole Republican party?

You may not support guns, but you sure shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you?

This is their ideal of what their society should look like; this is their ideal of what government should protect, and this is their ideal of what guns should be used to support should government fail to do so. When they threaten to use weapons, when they want the ability to use weapons enshrined in a constitution, what do you think their protecting? The things that they despise the most?

You seem to be able to tell me exactly, without a doubt, what it is exactly that "they" (the Republicans) all stand for. In your book, does every Democrat hug trees, save whales, abort fetuses, and vote for black presidents? I'm just using the same uninformed schematics that you seem to have used in your description of every single Republican.

Step outside of your fairytale world, please.

I'm not the one claiming a political party that I don't support is made up of, as a whole, a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobes. I would never declare such a large group of people to all be duplicates in opinion, and all agree completely on being about hate and inequality. This would weaken my argument and cause the opposition to not take me seriously.

I hate to pull a jumper here, but I don't understand the question.

You're asking me if I'm:

a) a homophobe voting to allow gay rights, or,
b) a person who believes guns aren't the solution using a gun as a solution

I haven't seen a more messed up question in a while.

You made a note about bringing the argument to being one of where guns are used to force out gay marriage. I simply asked, because you happen to be opposed to both, how exactly would you feel about your own analogy? You were the one who mentioned a gun being used by a Republican to shut down a Democrat from supporting gay marriage...in your own analogy, can you tell me, would you want said republican to shoot? If he does, the gay marriage does not pass, if he does not, it's gun restriction/control.

I agree completely that it is a 'messed up' question...but it's the kind of question that boggles the mind after someone edits a quote, adds in something that wasn't pertaining to the topic, then gets offended when they are questioned about their beliefs if two things they oppose are to go head to head.

But to answer your question, I'm going to throw your own question right back at you: Why do you choose to make it an either-or?

To "throw" a question "back at you" isn't an answer. It's an omission.

I won't cope out...I have no problem answering your question. I viewed it as an either-or in the situation pertaining not to me, but you, knowing your viewpoints on both gay marriage and gun ownership (You pretty much oppose both). You see, the way you edited the quote made it appear as though an individual was using a gun to shut down gay marriage. Do you see how, by doing this, you made it an either-or? He either shoots (guns win, gays lose) or he doesn't shoot (guns lose, gays win).

[Erbal]

Look at this mod trying too hard to troll, good grief.

[jdurand]

You edited! I was joking about the aliens. I'm serious about this one.

My whole response to Erbal was intended to be a joke...ribbing on his tendency to see a conspiracy around every corner (and persistant use of the phrase "false flag operation").

You thought I was being serious?

[5m4llP0X]

Hold on a second. I didn't make it an either-or. I simply put up one of many, many interpretations of the quote you posted. I could have inserted poverty, or slavery, or any other idea, and it would be just as valid.

The point here being that this ideology that you support doesn't necessarily have to be used just for causes you support - it can very well be used against causes you support all the same. It's a double edged sword. The people who most vehemently support gun rights (Republicans) are also the ones who most vehemently support corporatist societies and most vehemently detest things like gay marriage, racial equality, women's rights, etc. This is their ideal of what their society should look like; this is their ideal of what government should protect, and this is their ideal of what guns should be used to support should government fail to do so. When they threaten to use weapons, when they want the ability to use weapons enshrined in a constitution, what do you think their protecting? The things that they despise the most?

That's even been changing in the last 10 or so years. As more and more people realize that banning guns, and even many forms of gun control, are entirely asinine you're seeing more and more leftists actually learning proper gun safety and even purchasing firearms. Yes, hippies with guns.

[jdurand]

That's even been changing in the last 10 or so years. As more and more people realize that banning guns, and even many forms of gun control, are entirely asinine you're seeing more and more leftists actually learning proper gun safety and even purchasing firearms. Yes, hippies with guns.

However...

I think this event, more so than any of the others, is causing many people who were casually on the anti-control side to rethink their positions. But I don't think the reverse it true (that this event is going to cause many people, who were already leaning in favor of stricter controls, to sway over to the opposite side).

[Luisss]

However...

I think this event, more so than any of the others, is causing many people who were casually on the anti-control side to rethink their positions. But I don't think the reverse it true (that this event is going to cause many people, who were already leaning in favor of stricter controls, to sway over to the opposite side).

Even the NRA, today, announced they were "Willing to do whatever it takes so that this never happens again."

[Lurk]

You know, I'm surprised that the indie/hipster subculture we allegedly have here in America isn't attending Catholic churches, arming themselves with guns, dressing like adults even though they're largely unemployed/work at businesses catering to perpetual pubescence, and listening to nice music.

Wouldn't that actually be the very pinnacle of the irony that they seek?

I guess being hipster goes only as deep as dressing like an ironic clown.

[Erbal]

Jdurand, you write like English is not your first language and you struggle with the nuances of the language. Also, you come across as intellectually lazy and uninspired, like you know you shouldn't even bother but you still post some half-*** garbage anyways.

Once you put a conscious effort into correcting both of the above mentioned aspects, your ability to make funny and worthwhile troll posts will finally become unlocked. Be persistent though, I know you have to work really hard just to reach average so hang in there and don't give up.

[jdurand]

Jdurand, you write like English is not your first language and you struggle with the nuances of the language. Also, you come across as intellectually lazy and uninspired, like you know you shouldn't even bother but you still post some half-*** garbage anyways.

Once you put a conscious effort into correcting both of the above mentioned aspects, your ability to make funny and worthwhile troll posts will finally become unlocked. Be persistent though, I know you have to work really hard just to reach average so hang in there and don't give up.

Gerbil, that was almost as funny as your "the government did it" 9/11 claim and your "OBL isn't really dead" claim or your "Obama wasn't born here" claim or any of the other moronic, attention-grabbing nonsense you peddle here.

[Erbal]

I had no intentions of being funny, just honest and factually correct. I am sorry you are upset I truly believe you are a cancer to society. I suspect a part of you knows I am right and that's why it hurts you so much.

PS: I never made any of those claims. And Gerbil is not an insult in the English language regardless of what it means in your language of origin.

[Sapient]

If your motivations are so altruistic and unbiased, then how about these alternate ways to benefit society as a whole?



Tobacco causes a huge negative effect on society...so, illegal.

Alcohol use is another, so that should be illegal.

Car related accidents is another large one, though, to fix this is a little complicated. As it is, we have spent approximately $14.5 billion on the War on Drugs this year. That same amount of money could go to researching autonomous technologies and save over 30,000 lives a year, altruistically, i don't see how you could say no.

The #1 most used weapon in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Since life outweighs sport (as seen in your methodology towards gun control), we need serious restrictions on baseball bat ownership, yes?

Unintentional poisoning, we need to put serious restrictions and regulations on chemicals caps and buying (like how we do with Sudafed).

Medical Errors, we need to invest in robotic surgical doctors (which already exist), and can cut down on doctor errors.

And finally, unintentional injuries. I think we need to stop constructing buildings over three stories with windows that open, or access to roofs, or and cliff like access. All construction needs to be on a maximum or a 3% gradient, and all individuals need to wear protective gear. Since people shouldn't have the choice to do with their own body as they see fit. It's up to us to make sure we have their best interest in mind, amirite?

Also, on a side note, since you're playing up the altruistic approach of having only society's well-being in mind (which i might add is the philosopy and moralistic approach of most atheists (secular humanism), where to decide if something should be legal or illegal, you weigh the effects on society, both positively and adversely. If something is neutral, it should be legal, since it doesn't harm society).

Using your enlightened position of secular humanism on these points of interest, extend it to gay marriage, where there are no negative repercussions and many positive. You can't use moralistic approaches as they suit you. Or as better said, you can't take a preconceived stance and opinion and find the relativistic moral approach to support your bias without being a total and complete hypocrite. So if you wish to extend this moral philosophy to these issues, shouldn't you extend them to all issues, regardless of their significance in your religious dogma?

EDIT: On a side note, cannabis has thousands of notable industrial uses that are absolutely beneficial to society like strengthening concrete (so that it withstands natural disasters and saves lives), ropes (which don't fray and snap, killing workers), textiles (which are more durable and cut down the cost of living), nutritious oils (that help give beneficial nutrients to the body), bioplastics (that are stronger than oil-based, and are good for the environment, and are renewable), biofuels (obviously good), paper (which cuts down on the harmful chemicals that are used for wood pulp paper), water filtration (cheap, efficient ways to purify and filter water and remove bio-chemical and excrement waste)...

EDIT (For sapient):

First, thank you for taking the time to compile that post. I Gould be able to respon more at length when I get out of work, but I believe I can say these few things:

I would agree with a ban on tobacco.

I would also agree with using marijuana for industrial purposes (as long as there is no evidence of adverse affects on workers or machinery). What I am against is mainly human consumption because it is there that it has bad effects.

Yes, i would like a more thorough response.

[Luisss]

If your motivations are so altruistic and unbiased, then how about these alternate ways to benefit society as a whole?



Tobacco causes a huge negative effect on society...so, illegal.

Agreeable to me.

Alcohol use is another, so that should be illegal.

Eh, I'm a little iffy on the science (benefits and drawbacks) of alcohol, not too sure about this one.

Car related accidents is another large one, though, to fix this is a little complicated. As it is, we have spent approximately $14.5 billion on the War on Drugs this year. That same amount of money could go to researching autonomous technologies and save over 30,000 lives a year, altruistically, i don't see how you could say no.

Where are you getting this number from? Also, what is the number of lives that the war on drugs is saving by keeping people who would otherwise be on these drugs from society? The world may never know.

The #1 most used weapon in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Since life outweighs sport (as seen in your methodology towards gun control), we need serious restrictions on baseball bat ownership, yes?

Where are you getting that number from?

Medical Errors, we need to invest in robotic surgical doctors (which already exist), and can cut down on doctor errors.

Agreed.

And finally, unintentional injuries. I think we need to stop constructing buildings over three stories with windows that open, or access to roofs, or and cliff like access. All construction needs to be on a maximum or a 3% gradient, and all individuals need to wear protective gear. Since people shouldn't have the choice to do with their own body as they see fit. It's up to us to make sure we have their best interest in mind, amirite?

Now you're just being stupid.

Also, on a side note, since you're playing up the altruistic approach of having only society's well-being in mind (which i might add is the philosopy and moralistic approach of most atheists (secular humanism), where to decide if something should be legal or illegal, you weigh the effects on society, both positively and adversely. If something is neutral, it should be legal, since it doesn't harm society).

Using your enlightened position of secular humanism on these points of interest, extend it to gay marriage, where there are no negative repercussions and many positive. You can't use moralistic approaches as they suit you. Or as better said, you can't take a preconceived stance and opinion and find the relativistic moral approach to support your bias without being a total and complete hypocrite. So if you wish to extend this moral philosophy to these issues, shouldn't you extend them to all issues, regardless of their significance in your religious dogma?

I understand that you're butthurt about me disagreeing with homosexuality, but I've already said I would vote in favor of gay marriage if the alternative I mentioned was unattainable.

EDIT:

Also, can we do away this stupid notion that you can't have different reasons for different things? It is neither hypocritical nor illogical to use different standards of reasoning for different things. Judges do it for restricting freedoms all the time based on the idea that different speech warrants different protections. Different social topics pose different questions that can't be answered using the same principles.

[Erbal]

Well said, Luisss. You have effectively refuted every point made by Sapient, and you did it with grace. I am impressed, seriously.

Good effort Sapient, but tough luck on bumping into Luisss the night he unveiled his excellent A-game we thought didn't exist.
I'm as stunned by your defeat to Luisss as you are.

[Sapient]

Eh, I'm a little iffy on the science (benefits and drawbacks) of alcohol, not too sure about this one.

Alcohol has little to no physical benefits beyond being mixed with gasoline to give the oil companies a larger profit margin. Psychologically it has a benefit, but you discounted the same for marijuana, so i'll let that pass. Alcohol leads to altercations, impaired motor skills, and so many other side effects that it leads to tens of thousands of annual deaths. The body itself treats alcohol like a poison. Alcohol inhibits the intake of oxygen into the bloodstream (hypoxic), starving your brain, and almost killing you (unless you have alcohol poisoning, in which case it does).

You agree with the cigarettes because of secondary or indirect affliction to your health. Alcohol has direct implications that harm your health, and you're iffy. Because of society's attitude towards alcohol is accepted, while marijuana isn't. And don't compare cigarettes, because that has no psychological affect, unlike the other two.

Where are you getting this number from? Also, what is the number of lives that the war on drugs is saving by keeping people who would otherwise be on these drugs from society? The world may never know.

I'm not in the mood to comb the FBI/CDC website.

The vast majority of substance abuse related violence or incidents are with alcohol. It permeates that category and makes other substances look like jokes. Especially when the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18, alcohol related driving incidents skyrocketed.

Where are you getting that number from?

If you would click on the site, it would show you the specific sources. Now, again, i'm too tired to comb the PDF for the exact reference, but on page 5, table 3 of the CATO source, it shows the federal expenditures due to drug enforcement, it comes out to $25.6 billion

Agreed.

Which would further raise medical costs for everyone?

Think about it like this. You're buy a car and can only afford a nice $25,000 Ford Focus. You realize that if you had a fully electric car, you would get a longer, more dependable future, but it costs $50,000 and you can't afford that. You decide you can settle for both and get a decent $18000 Prius and invest the rest. Or you have a family and opt for the better equipped, spacious $25,000 Ford Focus. But lets say the government steps in and decides you need to get the $50,000 EV, because it's in your best interest, gives you no way to afford it, and foots you the bill. That seems to be your political view.

Now you're just being stupid.

Am I? Your altruistic view is on the effect of society and people it helps. If we bubble-wrapped buildings and people without their consent, because we're looking above them and think it's within their best interest, then that would save tens of thousands of lives, albiet in sacrifice of hundreds of millions of other's rights, but that's the price to pay for a safer world, amirite?

I understand that you're butthurt about me disagreeing with homosexuality, but I've already said I would vote in favor of gay marriage if the alternative I mentioned was unattainable.

And what's the alternative? As SCOTUS stated in the cases on segregation (albiet not verbatim), "separate but equal does not espouse equality, but inequality, for nothing can be equal if it is separate, and through separatism a second class arises, furthering the divide."

And frankly, Luisss, i don't give two ***** about your issues. The only issue i have with you is that you would take your personal, religious views and push them on others to be bound to regardless of their views or that you would disown your children if they decide to tell you their innermost secret of the way they were born, craving acceptance, fearing the alternative, and you would crush them and throw them to the streets.

[Luisss]

Alcohol has little to no physical benefits beyond being mixed with gasoline to give the oil companies a larger profit margin.

I've seen studies suggesting the opposite. Don't act as if I have not done any research on this topic - I said I was iffy for a reason.

You agree with the cigarettes because of secondary or indirect affliction to your health.

Incorrect - do not make assumptions about why I believe something.

The vast majority of substance abuse related violence or incidents are with alcohol. It permeates that category and makes other substances look like jokes. Especially when the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18, alcohol related driving incidents skyrocketed.

If you would click on the site, it would show you the specific sources. Now, again, i'm too tired to comb the PDF for the exact reference, but on page 5, table 3 of the CATO source, it shows the federal expenditures due to drug enforcement, it comes out to $25.6 billion

Do you even know what number I was asking for? I was asking for where a baseball bat is the #1 weapon used in crimes or whatever it is you said.

Which would further raise medical costs for everyone?

Think about it like this. You're buy a car and can only afford a nice $25,000 Ford Focus. You realize that if you had a fully electric car, you would get a longer, more dependable future, but it costs $50,000 and you can't afford that. You decide you can settle for both and get a decent $18000 Prius and invest the rest. Or you have a family and opt for the better equipped, spacious $25,000 Ford Focus. But lets say the government steps in and decides you need to get the $50,000 EV, because it's in your best interest, gives you no way to afford it, and foots you the bill. That seems to be your political view.

You gave me an ultimatum - robot surgeries good or bad. Now you're attempting to say that I want people to die if they are unable to afford it? One thing at a time, Sapient.

Am I?

Yes. Tall buildings pose a much greater benefit to society than the minuscule risks that come with it.

And what's the alternative?.

I've explained this over a dozen times on this forum now, and twice to you in private.

I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights and protections under the Constitution as heterosexual couples. I believe that due to the religious entanglement associated with the term "marriage", "marriage" should simply become a religious practice that churches practice that has no legal significance and that all legal rights and benefits associated with "marriage" be given to civil unions (which homosexuals can get).

It's like you want me to hate you.

[Sirveri]

The #1 most used weapon in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Since life outweighs sport (as seen in your methodology towards gun control), we need serious restrictions on baseball bat ownership, yes?

Funny story, I actually know a guy who is legally barred from owning a baseball bat in the state of New Jersey.

Did you just state that approximately 40% of Americans are the ones who are bigots?
Let's talk more about these "Republicans" you speak of. They all are the ones who want to bring down the gay, the (insert race), and the woman? Really...the whole Republican party?

Maybe not 30 years ago, but now that they've almost totally purged the moderates from their ranks, that's probably pretty damned close to accurate. You shall know them by their acts.

[Woden]

You don't crack and go on that sort of rampage while spending 3 days/ weeks/ months building the bomb or whatever. People that crack like in the case of school shooters rarely, if ever, plan these things.

Kurtz, where the hell are you getting this from? Every mass shooting that I am aware of had quite a lot of planning involved. Even this most recent example involved planning on Adam Lanza's part.

And honestly.... given that the US has the highest murder rate of any western country, a little more control cannot be a bad thing.

Assuming, of course, that the restriction in gun ownership doesn't open up more people to be defenseless victims of crime. Whether or not it has a net positive or negative effect is up for debate, but I've noticed that you never even seem to seriously address the issue of defensive uses of guns... on those rare occasions when you even acknowledge the topic, it is only to insult people and insist that they are just overreacting.

as well as some minor bits and bobs to secure the weapons so that people can't steal or use them unless you give them permission.

Do you think this is actually a widespread problem? According to people in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, that is actually one of the less common ways in which criminals get their weapons... it's usually guns that have been diverted into the black market from stolen shipments, crooked gun stores selling them illegally, and people buying them with the intention of selling them on the black market.

Plenty of stats (not going Googling now, but if you do want citations I can get them) show that people that have firearms in their houses are more likely to get shot than if they don't.

I don't see how that could possibly be a justified result of a study, since gun ownership isn't random... if people think they are in danger, they are going to be far more likely to buy a gun, which would massively skew the results.

In fact, if you are talking about the same study I think you are, looking at the raw data also showed that the people getting shot were much more likely to either have personally been, or lived in the same household as people who were, previously arrested, involved in domestic violence (as the abuser or as the abused), or using hard drugs, among other examples.

Then people are stupid. But then I knew that already I suppose.

Either way, I do think that most people in their right minds and not fixated on the bravado of being able to have a gun and protect their (e.g.) CD collection would stay out of the burglar's way.

You seriously need to drop the condescending bull**** if you want anyone to take you seriously. For example, read that article Robin linked to; you clearly didn't, as the description of what that guy was doing does NOT sound at all like burglary was his intention... he was banging on her door, then when he broke in, he was trying to get into the closet where she was hiding? That certainly sounds like he was planning something other than just swiping a few valuables and making a getaway.

You yanks are obviously not going to learn how to read. So I'm not going to go into this further. Please read my previous posts. I've already covered this SEVERAL times. I refuse to repeat myself again. I already did so for Roin.

Actually, no, you haven't described how you think the government should go about barring crazy people from getting guns. You made some vague reference to psychological tests (as if there are any that are even remotely reliable which do not require a trained psychologist), and you didn't address at all the fact that it would be a violation of our health care privacy laws.

I understand that you're butthurt about me disagreeing with homosexuality,

If Sapient is butthurt, something about your stance on homosexuality tells me you're not the guy causing it.

[MokMonster]

First --can a mod maybe separate this thread into the gun control crap it was originally meant to be and put the Luisss-trolling/marijuana crap in another thread?

Oh save me, save me from the guns! Take away everyone's guns so I can feel safe!

You have a significantly higher chance of being struck by lightning than you do of ever being shot by a gun. You pathetic ***** .....

Wow, way to completely lose any chance of being taken remotely serious on any argument you ever make.
There is a 1 in 84k chance of death by lightning. Chance of death by a gun? 1 in 325.
To paraphrase the rest of your rage and hate-fueled emo-rant: you are a pathetic asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk.

http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

Alcohol has little to no physical benefits beyond being mixed with gasoline to give the oil companies a larger profit margin.

You mean, other than a reduction in the risk for heart disease, dementia and diabetes along with increased levels of HDL (good cholesterol)?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/3968.php

The vast majority of substance abuse related violence or incidents are with alcohol. It permeates that category and makes other substances look like jokes.

That's b/c there are far more people who drink than there are people using drugs... perhaps b/c drugs are illegal and the govt spends all that money to try to keep people from using them...?

[Ms. Evil]

Gerbil, that was almost as funny as your "the government did it" 9/11 claim and your "OBL isn't really dead" claim or your "Obama wasn't born here" claim or any of the other moronic, attention-grabbing nonsense you peddle here.

1. 9/11 was done by our government. It's not that you can't believe it- the evidence is there. You just don't want to.
2. Bin Laden is dead, but he died years prior. Our government hid his body until it was politically optimal to release the information. He died of cancer.
3. I don't care where Obama was born.
4. There is a conspiracy around every corner.
5. Wake up.

[jdurand]

I had no intentions of being funny...

Which makes it...oh, I don't know...even more funny.

PS: I never made any of those claims. And Gerbil is not an insult in the English language regardless of what it means in your language of origin.

Sure, man. Whatever you say.

Tobacco causes a huge negative effect on society...so, illegal.

Not sure how this applies to the gun-control debate, but...

While not quite illegal, there have been a HUGE number of restrictions placed on tobacco. The result of which is that is far less likely to harm someone with second-hand smoke than it was prior.

So, really, the vast majority of people being harmed by tobacco are the people who choose to smoke tobacco.

Alcohol use is another, so that should be illegal.

Again, similar to cigarettes, there have been a large number of restrictions placed on alcohol. Admittedly, the effectiveness of which has been far less than that of tobacco restrictions.

Car related accidents is another large one, though, to fix this is a little complicated.

Car accidents are just that, accidents. By definition, the intent was not to harm people. Same usually can't be said for gun-related deaths. Comparing cars to guns in this context makes for a terrible analogy.

As it is, we have spent approximately $14.5 billion on the War on Drugs this year. That same amount of money could go to researching autonomous technologies and save over 30,000 lives a year, altruistically, i don't see how you could say no.

Effective or not, drugs are illegal and there are definite restrictions placed on prescription drugs.

The #1 most used weapon in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Since life outweighs sport (as seen in your methodology towards gun control), we need serious restrictions on baseball bat ownership, yes?

First, I'm going to have to call BS on this. For the sake of discussion however...

How often do you think mass baseball battings occur that result in the deaths of 12, 26, 30-someodd people? What is the primary use of a baseball bat? What is the primary use of a gun (if you say anything other than killing, you're not ready for an honest discussion)

Unintentional poisoning, we need to put serious restrictions and regulations on chemicals caps and buying (like how we do with Sudafed).

Again, accident...though there are restrictions placed on the dumping of hazardous waste (not here to argue the effectiveness of those restrictions...they exist is all that is important to this conversation).

Medical Errors, we need to invest in robotic surgical doctors (which already exist), and can cut down on doctor errors.

Accident/non-intentional. No comparison.

And finally, unintentional injuries. I think we need to stop constructing buildings over three stories with windows that open, or access to roofs, or and cliff like access. All construction needs to be on a maximum or a 3% gradient, and all individuals need to wear protective gear.

Once again, accident/non-intentional. No comparison.