@NordlichReiter So why not keep the anti-gun lobby happy and just go ahead and ban guns, since there are so many other equally effective weapons available? Hunters could go after mooses with ball point pens. The police could be armed with hammers. THe Iraq war could be fought with Minis.

@DrPawn : Ehhh... there is nothing in the video that indicates the cameras are supposed to be hidden. There's even a shot of the camera man holding a large camera on his shoulder and walking towards one of the Klan.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

Winston, your arguments are shaky for a number of reasons:

Care to discuss the huge surge in KNIFE killings the UK is experiencing? Ban the guns and the UK turns into a nation of Jack-the-Rippers. Problem is not guns. Problem is stupid people.

The crux of the anti-gun argument relies on the exact same premise but with a more intelligent solution: People are stupid. Therefore, don't give them guns (or knives for that matter).


The context of the argument has also change from that of policeman carrying guns, to that of the general public, which, given the context, invalidates your argument (as it is not the police who are responsible for any surge in knife killings in the UK). But to continue....

You have arbitrarily chosen the UK to gather your statistics, whereas counter statistics can quite easily be found elsewhere in the world. For an example, take a look at the recent history of mass shootings and gun death (or lack thereof) in Australia.


A gun is a tool, like any other.

On the contrary, a gun is a tool that is significantly different from most other tools in that it is intended for killing and killing alone. Compare a gun to say a car, a hairbrush or a computer and you will see that the gun is in fact not at all like these tools.

A tool can make a bad/stupid person better at what they are trying to do badly/stupidly, but take the tool away and they will still do bad/stupid things.

... yes, but less effectively.

Your central posit is that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die of violent causes. Bollocks.

I'm quite sure that you have exaggerated his central posit, which is this: if guns didn't exist, fewer people would die of violent causes.

Furthermore, you say:
Pht - don't turn this into an anti-gun thing. That debate is a dead horse.
... yet then promptly spark up a debate. In fact the anti-gun "thing" is not a dead horse in many of the world's states and reducing access to guns has proven very successful in some countries.

Marijuana grown indoors is a huge burden on the environment too (due to the enormous energy cost of replicating outdoor conditions), especially when it could quite easily be grown outdoors.

The laws that make marijuana illegal are a crime against the world.

Haha, whilst this is a bit of fun, its also painfully stupid.

>> Colin Powell stated... there would be an event either January 21 or 22.

It's called "the Inauguration" dumass.


>> Joe Biden stated... "January 21, or 22 there will be an orchastrated event that will test Obama"

Well, no he didn't actually (did I miss something, or did Joe Biden never mention a date in the 'gaffe' in question).

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

>> Shoddy asian engineering , glad they didn't have that for the Olympics.
>> Reminds me of the crash test for that truck from China.

I don't think the Philippines have ever had the Olympics...

yeah yeah I know Philippines, Japan, China, it's all the same difference.

^ I think he may be referring to the atomic bombings of Nagaski and Hiroshima.

Yeah I have to agree, this type of stuff was influential when I was young, just like that other great student of his, Bill Hicks, but once you get older you kind of understand these guys were not prophets (and to treat them so is kind of ironic, given their message) and were wrong about a lot of things a lot of the time. They were contradictory, and sometimes hypocritical, on so many issues - this routine being an excellent example. Some of the time I guess they were just out to make sure they shocked everyone, even the seen-it-all gen-x kids, other times they were just following where the comedy took them.
These guys didn't teach us how to think for ourselves - anyone who "got" them was already well on the path to having a free mind.
What they did show us, George Carlin probably more than either Hicks or Lenny Bruce, was to think and say what we needed to say, and relish in it.

Good find - fk me dead if that's not the definition of ironic.

Recently Metallica seem to be trying to be making amends and apologising for being such aholes about the whole Napster thing, which is good to see. Now we can get back to criticising their music (and haircuts).

Yeah we've got some of these lying around the house. They're terrible. Don't buy them. Regular, non-rechargable energizers are terrible too.

I don't think I've ever heard Dawkins claim that religion is the main source of humanity problems. Dawkins is passionate and has the expertise to argue against religion. He does not have a whole lot of expertise, and he may not be particularly interested, in the fields of renewable energy, consumerism, capitalism, beef production, oil addiction, rainforest destruction etc.

A man might tune pianos for a living, and spend a lot of time complaining about poorly tuned pianos, but that doesn't imply that he thinks climate change is a less of a danger than untuned instruments. He's just doing what he's good at and trying to do his small part to make the world a more harmonious place.