k thx

Hi.

In keeping with the current trend on TSM, I have rendered this thread in MS Paint.

I take it The Darkness have made it in the US then?

All the Republicans in CE. It'd be fucking funny!

I think a swift banning is in order if we wish to stop this sort of behaviour. I do believ that's exactly what Banky was banned for...

SJ: I really have no idea what the hell that last post was about. Anyway, my point of view is that you cannot predict the trend of a change in law through an economic equation. That's somethong we're not gonna agree on, no matter how much we argue. However, I believe that the reasons I've given for my claim are strong enough to show that there will not be a major change, and that that change will diminish over time. Reliance on an economic equation requires as much faith as my arguement based on what I believe to be logic. Secondly, my arguement was that if guns are outlawed then the black market will be made up of previosly legal guns, not military arms like you suggested.

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~! Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view. They mean nothing? Nothing? You mean well-respected scientific thought published in journals means nothing. Fuck man, that's ignorant That was a joke man. Sorry. And as for your previous post (because no way in hell am I gonna quote THAT), I'll admit you know more than me about statistics et al, but I still maintain that the effect will diminish quickly over time. ANd as for the government get guns so anyone else can? That's a poor arguement. The government have some of the best guns in the world made for them, and they still don't end up on the streets. The black market would, if guns were outlawed, be made up of previously legal guns, not government issue.

Since when have I been intelligent? And I was just saying about one thing you did, not your actions in the rest of the thread. Anyway, I've made my point, and I'd be a hypocrite if I kept on about it. Damn hypocracy laws...

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~! Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view.

Chave has been posting in this thread; it wasn't really a revelation. "Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns" Just pointing out the fact that not everyone WANTS that freedom Hell yeah. I'd rather live in a country where I don't need a gun to protect myself than one where I do.

When it's posted completely out of context with the thread in order to poke fun at annother race, then yes. Especially when it's against the rules, and especially when it's fucking annoying.

I'm not going to censor myself just because I have a blue flashing title beneath my screen name. I happen to like this board and my fellow staff members, and when I see them being unfairly shat upon, I'm going to jump into the fire and start shooting back. And I don't really care who likes it and who doesn't. I meant that this thread is going nowhere, and I'd have thought that someone of your experience would have the presence of mind to realise and stear this thread away from stupidity. But I guess I was wrong.

I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun. Hell, if someone has a gun, they should be able to kill someone without retalliation anyways, whether their victim has a gun or not. The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself. Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance. In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society.

If it was any other nation or religion or race in their place, it would be considered prejudiced. IMHO, thats racism. Heh heh heh. In my defence, that post was a direct response to a point that Americas spirit is in part defined by gun control, and my response was relevant to that. More than that, many pepole would argue that America is arrogant. I wouldn't, but many people consider the gun culture of America is endemic of everything they dislike about the country. But that's a discussion best kept in CE. On the other hand, the post quoted in my first post had no apparent reason other than to take annother cheap dig at a (untrue) stereotype of the French.

SFA Jack: I meant that the Black market trade would become even less available to the general public, to the point that it was run by gangs as opposed to just criminals. That was my point. You may be disarming the innocents (on the whole) but someone still can't be sure that their victim is an innoccent. The deteral offered by the possibility of a victim owning a gun would still be there, so the amount of gun crimes shouldn't go dramatically up. Touche. But I still don't see how the possession of guns is an integral part of American spirit. And if it is, that's not neccessarily a good thing. I have no idea what you were trying to say with that last one.

How do the French bring it on themselves? And conspiricy theories and the anti-Christian stuff isn't brought up with glee at every possible opportunity.

Not closed, but I've seen first hand that a society can thrive without guns and as a result I'm admittedly biased, as I'm sure we all are. However, if you crack down on posession and production of guns, as well as ammunition, then the black market trade will be forced way underground. Yes, guns will still be available, but they will be used far less, because they'll be more valuable. As for an increase in crime, I'm not so sure. There will be no more impetus to carry out gun crimes if guns are outlawed, because criminals still can't be sure that their victim hasn't got a gun. And I still don't see how Americas spirit would die. Maybe the arrogance would decrease, but some would argue thet's not a bad thing. Also, as I said before, I agree that it's too late for America to give up guns, but I don't think the effects would be that far reaching.

If it was any other nation or religion or race in their place, it would be considered prejudiced. IMHO, thats racism. Like I say, I've got no major problem with stereotyping, but the anti-French sentiment has got out of hand.

Did you miss something in the pages of this discussion? Please go back and check. Hey, that's my point of view.

And that's my point. The bad guys have all the guns they want, right now. Gun control laws don't stop them at all. The flow of illegal weapons through America is simply too vast to be contained. And until such a containment could be effected, any other debate is pointless. Yeah, but I think the arguement has changed from "should guns be outlawed" to "is it right that guns should be outlawed".

What would happen if all guns were taken away from everyone tomorrow? My answer was perfectly straightforward and direct. They won't be. Which part do you not understand? It was a stupid question based on an inane hypothetical and my reply was more than sufficient. I might as well ask you "What if tomorrow we invented technology that could raise people from the dead? Then we could correct any possible errors we might make in executing people; would you be in favour of the death penalty in that case?" You want to give me a straight answer to that one? What's the point? I like to keep debates grounded in, y'know, reality. I dunno, maybe that's just an American thing. No, it's a relevant question. You are arguing that guns shouldn't be banned, and giving reasons why they shouldn't. I asked what you thought would happen if they were banned. Not purely taken away, but outlawed. It's something that has happened in many other countries, and something that many are clamoring for in the States. It may be extremely unlikely to happen, but it's still a minute possibility.

The most evil people will have access to guns. However, this isn't a case of just good and evil. There are many shades of grey. How many times have you seen someone get violently mad. Maybe they were drunk. Maybe they were just dicks. Whatever, if that person had a gun handy at that point, they may have used it in the heat of the moment. If nothing else, it would have been an option. However, if they don't have that option, they wont use it. How many people on this board have guns? How many times have they had to use them? If someone is gonna shoot you for no reason, they're just as likely to stab you for no reason. I live in the UK, in a fairly big city. I have never seen or heard of people using guns here. As a result, the city is a lot safer. Yes, there's violence but very few deaths. Believe me, when you live in a city like that, you wonder why the hell Americans think everybody needs to have guns. One thing I will say, however, is that America cannot outlaw guns now. It's too late. The "good" people would hand them over, while the people who would actually use them for bad means would keep them. And that's damn fucked up.

They won't be. And on that note, I see that there is no point in debating this with you.

Oh yeah, it's just that I personally like Bill Murray's charachter and the way he plays him more. Also, He had many chances to kiss her earlier in the film, and he only cracked at the last second when he newif he didn't, he'd regret it. Also, Bob Harris tells his wife he loves her. Charlotte, on the other hand, just bugs me. She's the type of person I'd slap in real life. Plus, her character annoyed me before she met Harris, whereas Harris was sweet until he met her. Hell, you could even argue that she used him and corrupted him to make herself feel better. However, it's ultimately just personnal preference and not logic that makes me dislike her character.

Kotz, you ignorant slut. It's ^ V ^ V < > < > B A Start. I'm going with Tom on this one. You moron.