DeathBug

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Marshmallow is a very good card which will, naturally, be compared to the Spirit Reaper in many ways. Basically, they're both stall cards. However, Marshmallow lacks the Reaper's weakness to targeting magicc ards. He doesn't have the discard-ability, either, but that's a small price to pay, IMO. The burner effect given by the Marshmallow is kind of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, kicking your opponent for 1000 LP is always good, particullarly in the late game. However, putting Marshmallow face-down makes it vulnerable in many ways. First, your opponent might simply choose to not attack it, or, even worse, attack with an effect-negating monster, and there goes your wall. It's also vulnerable to Nobleman of Crossout in this position, as well. On the other hand, summoning it face-up in attack mode obvioudly leaves you open for some damage. Think wisely when you play it. When used properly, however, Marshmallow is a super-annoyance to your opponents, and has a lot of support in the next english set. He's an Angel, and works well with the Sanctuary m onsters. He's also a light-elemental, which makes him Chaos-fodder. He's a good card all around. I give him a solid 4/5. By the way, there's also a Magic card called Marshmallow Glasses. while it's on the field, your opponent must attack your face-up Marshmallow. I really do'nt think M. Glasses is any good, though, since you can simply choose not to attack. The Marshmallow's strong enough without that card.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE][i][b]Homestar Runner and your Opponents[/b] I hate that freakin' Marshmallow....[/i][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]This isn't really an issue for debate. Some politicians are honest, hardworking people, some aren't. I mean, in the end, elected officials are people, too. You can't just generalize all of them as being one way or another. By the by, there's an easy way to tell the honest, hard-working politicos from the greedy, dishonest ones. The ones that agree with me are honest, and the ones who don't xcan't be trusted.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]First of all, your deck is too big to function smoothly. The odss of you drawing the right card at the right time are pretty slim. Also, it lacks focus. Earth, Water and Darkness are all solid deck themes, but using all three of them in one deck is going to get you nowhere fast. Since you have more Water monsters than anything else, why not make it a water deck, using a few dark-type monsters for support? Finally, your Magic/Trap/Monster ratios are off. You should have five to seven traps, fifteen to eighteen monsters, and the rest should be Magic. (Magics are the most powerful cards in most decks.) Now, let's take a look at what you've got. ^__^ Working with the idea that this will be a Water deck, which you've got most of the good cards for, we're going to remove most of the Earth and Dark Monsters. Below are the monsters I'd leave in. Cure Mermaid Sinister Serpent Penguin Soldier Aqua Madoor Serpentine Princess Island Turtle Great White 7 Colored Fish X2 Suijin The Legendary Fisherman Dark: (10) Sangan Witch of the Black Forest Cyber Jar Now, these are solid, but there are better Water monsters you might want to look or; some common, some more rare. Look for: Granadora (1900 attack), Aqua Spirit or Fenrir (Special Summons), Maiden of Aqua, MA Bakross (Not the exact name, but it's got 1500 attack points, and can attack directly while Umi is on the field.), Giga-Gagagigo, Mother Grizzly, King Salmon, and the Big Guy, Levia-Dragon Dadelous. Definatly get Tribe-Infecting Virus, as well; it's incredibly powerful, a water type, and will work wonders with the Sinister Serpent you already have. Your Magic cards are a mixed bag. Keep: A Legendary Ocean Change of Heart Dark Hole Graceful Charity Fissure Harpies Feather Duster Mystical Space Typhoon Monster Reborn Tribute to the Doomed Swords of Revealing Light Raigeki What you [i]definately[/i] want is two more Legenday Oceans, and a pair of Terraformings to get them on the field faster. You also want to search for: Pot of Greed, two more Space Typhoons, Nobleman of Crossout, Premature Burial, Salvage, and anything else that supports the Water theme. Now, your traps. Tornado Wall Trap Hole Magic Jammer Seven Tools of the Bandit I would add three Waboku. I personally don't like Tornado Wall, but use it if it works for you. Anyway, experiment with your deck, and have fun. ^__^ Now, onto my three (yes, three) new decks. Warrior/Chaos/Swarm, Thunder/Light, and Demon/Hand Destruction. Good times. ^_^ [u]DeathBug's Gettysburg, v....ah, I can't remember anymore....[/u] Tribute Monsters: Black Luster Soldier: Messenger of Creation Jinzo Monsters: Marauding Captain x2 Exiled Force Goblin Attack force Mataza the Zapper DD Warrior Lady x3 Breaker the Magical Warrior Shining Angel Sinister Serpant Magical Scientist Witch of the Black Forest Sangan Traps: Imperial Order Destruction Ring Call of the haunted Waboku x2 Magics: Monster Reborn Pot of greed Regeki Dark Hole Harpie's Feather Duster Graceful Charity Nobleman of Crossout Heavy Storm Premature Burial M Space Typhoon x3 Mirage of Nightmares Painful Choice Reinforcements of the army x2 The warrior Returning Alive United We stand Card destruction Scapegost Fusion deck: Standard Total cards: 41 Post-ban: After the ban, this deck looses five cards, none of which hurt the deck too terribly. The loss of Regeki, Delinquint Duo and Yat-Garatsu actually make things stronger on my end, as warriors tend to eat up your hand and get lots of monsters on the field at the same time. The biggest loss will b painful choice, as it speeds up the Soldier. Japanese cards that will help: Foolish Burial, Blade Knight and Command Knight. I plan to replace the Goblins with the Blade Knight, and replace one Maurauding Captain with the Command Knight. [u]DeathBug's H-E-Double Hockey Sticks[/u] Tributes: Dark Necrofear Jinzo Monsters: Slate Warrior Archfiend soldier Giant Orc Two-Headed Wolf Kuriboh Dark Jeroid Newdoria Yata-Garatsu Mystic Tomato Tribe-Infecting Virus Sinister sErpant Magical Scientist Witch of the Black Forest Sangan Traps: Time Seal x3 Imperial Order Destruction Ring Call of the Haunted Magic: Monster Reborn Regeki Dark Hole Pot of Greed Harpie's Feather Duster Graceful Charity Premature Burial Heavy Storm Nobleman of Crossout Card Destruction Painful Choice M Space Typhoon x3 Mirage of Nightmare Delinquint Duo Doniscation DD Designator Forceful Sentry Fusion: Standard Post-Ban: Well, this deck takes a hit by loosing two key hand-d cards and a card that speeds Necrofear. However, even without the Yata-lock ability, hand advantage is still hand advantage. Just means I'll have to beat my opponent the old-fashioned way: brutally... Japanese cards that would help: First off, End of Anubis [i]will[/i] take Jinzo's place. Two more cards I'm looking forward to are Devil's Sanctuary and the Deck Destruction Virsu/Crush Card Virus. This deck can totally abuse DDV. Finally, a less-competative deck, using two upcoming cards from Ancient Sanctuary. [u]DeathBug's Jolt[/u] Tribute Monsters: Thunder Dragon x3 Thunder Lord Monsters: Thunder Nyan Nyan x2 Evil King of the SWamp DD Warrior Lady x3 Shining Angel T-Virus Magical Scientist Sin. Serpant Witch Sangan Traps: Imperial Order Call of the haunted Destruction Ring Waboku x2 Magic: Monster Reborn Pot of Greed Dark Hole Regeki HFD Graceful Charity Heavy Storm Premature Burial MST x3 Miarge of Nightmares Painful Choice Polymerization x2 Defusion x2 Luminous spark x2 Terraforming Fusion: Standard + Twin-Headed Thunder Dragon x2 I wanted a kind of Ligh/Thunder deck, but there's only three decent thunder monsters I could think of. I luff the Thunder Dragons and Thunder Nyan Nyan, though. The Defusion combo can deal 6000 damage in one turn, not counting my normal summons for the turn. THTD is the fastest fusion in the game, so it's easier to pull off than with any other creature. Post-Ban: It's actually helped by the bannings, since most Fusion decks burn up their hand. Japanese cards that would help: No other Thunder types worth using exist to my knowledge, but I'd replace one Thunder Nyan Nyan with a Blade Knight when he was released. Id' also substitute one Defusion for one Reinforcements of the army in that instance. Anyway, your thoughts? BTW, if anyone wants a personal deck fix, send me a PM with your deck list. ^__^[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I'm a heterosexual male, and Brittney Spears is not attractive to me at all. I don't watch her performaces or listen to her music, so I have no standing to speak of her talent or lack of talent, as the case might be. However, from the image she has presented, I think she's kind of dishusting. I wouldn't want to touch her, for fear of having to spend the rest of my life in a huge vat of penicillen.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]You knoww hat? It's weird, but I've actually become pretty open about my odd, immature hobbies. I used to hide it, but over the past few years, I realized I don't care what other people think of me. So, yeah, I have several Transformers, a huge-arse box of comic books, a Beanie Baby scorpion on top of my computer, a handsome Yu-Gi-Oh deck, and the full collection of Shaman King graphic novels. And I watch lots and lots of cartoons. I'm a mature guy with immature tastes. Wanna' make somethi'n of it? :)[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I'm very much looking forward to The Village, and I'm also trying to guess; what's it really about? Unbreakable was really a super-hero film, Signs was really a religious film...I'm thinking The Village might be a modernized fairy tale. Critters living in the woods? Anyway, I can't wait.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE] I think it has no purpose in the way we live life today and I think we would be a much better people without such useless words. [/QUOTE] Then you are living with your head in the sand. Again, America has been lucky not to be in a situation where we, as a whole, were oppressed by our government. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen. [QUOTE]Yes, because people like me, who want a better life, try to change the way this country is run for the better.[/QUOTE] Yes; loss of basic rights is much better. [QUOTE]But people don't want change and then turmoil and unrest is created. It's actually the people who want to keep things the same that causes turmoil and unrest, not the ones who want to change it.[/QUOTE] That has little bearing on the current conversation, but I'll just mention thatt he point of most refiorms is to increase the amount of rights availible to people, noit take them away. [QUOTE]Thats 30,000 to many. Ok smarty pants, whats your plan to save the 30,000 people that die each year from your precious weapons?[/QUOTE] Increase knowledge of gun safety and responsible weapon usage. It's not hard to do. [QUOTE]Like I said before about banning bullers, this would allow to keep your gun, which I have no problem with, but you couldn't use it.[/QUOTE] Banning ammunition would completely negate the purpose of banning a gun, and only produce the same results. It would actually produce worse results, because it's easier to illegaly procure something small, like bullets, than something larger, like a handgun. As data has shown us, banning guns will only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave average citizens in danger of being preyed upon. [QUOTE]But I don't want to be walking down a street next to some lunatic with a gun in his pocket. [/QUOTE] You already allow 'lunatics' to propel two-ton pieces of metal and glass at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour. you already allow 'lunatics' access to posionous chemicals, flamable materials, blunt objects, and serrated shards of metal. [QUOTE]We're not talking about "gun crimes," we're talking about "gun deaths."[/QUOTE] I'm talking about both. [QUOTE]Why the hell isn't it? Cause it's dated? Takes 20 minutes to reload? Doesn't have the greatest accuracy? Can't shoot 200 bullets a second? Which one of these is the reason? [/QUOTE] Because it cannot be concealed, and cannot be used as effectively as weapons currently in the hands of the unscrupulous members of society. [QUOTE]Part of me wants to say absolutely, but the other part says no because they don't deserve it period. You don't have to be smart to use a gun, I would hope smart people would figure out they SHOULDN'T use guns. [/QUOTE] If a person is smart, their ownership of a gun will not be a problem. Again, only .015% of guns in the US are involved in any sort of deaths, and that includes crimes. [QUOTE]Well yeah, I'm in favor of strict gun control, therefor I need some basis for my argument and I certainly can't find it here. [/QUOTE] Except there are areas in the country that enforce strict gun control. Once again, Washington, DC, implimented it. tHeir violent crime rate increased by 300%. Texas implimented concealed-carry laws, and their violent crime rate dropped sixty percent, during the same time period that the national average increased by twelve percent. England implimented bans on guns, and their crime rate has risen 35%. Evidence for the banning of handguns doesn't really exist here, but there's a lot of evidence against it. [QUOTE]Yeah I've heard of that saying, but where in American history were we as a people ever disarmed? What history in America shows that certain things will happen when you disarm us?[/QUOTE] When slavery was legal in America, it was a potential death-penalty offense to give slaves weapons. When the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were lead into internment camps, they had their own weapoms siezed. Oppression by the government doesn't happen often in the US, but when it does, the weapons are siezed. Wonder why. [QUOTE]They rose up because Americans felt that they were being mistreated through tax regulations and certain other limits put upon them, disarmorment was not one of them. (or certainly we would not have had the weapons to fight them to begin with)[/QUOTE] You're right; they would not have had the means to defend themselves from an oppessive government had they allowed their weapons to be confiscated. If all Muslim-Americans were forced into internment camps, would they want the means to defend themselves? [QUOTE]I will never envoke the second amendment onto myself, therefor I have no problem trading it away for what i see as more security. [/QUOTE] That's your right to make that descision for yoyrself, but you have no right to make that descision for me. [QUOTE]I don't think this comment was geared towards me but I would like to ask exactly what is the responsible way to use a gun?[/QUOTE] As a means of defense, obviously.

[QUOTE]It's necessary to remember that the constitution was written before there was a regulated militiary. (As far as I know) The government thought it necessary for the population to defend themselves against any invaders. [/QUOTE] I'm afraid you misunderstand the Bill of Rights, Chibi. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the individuals from the government, not the government from outside forces. The government thought it necessary to allow the citizens to protect themselves from from their government. [QUOTE]Also taken into consiseration is that some members of the fledgling nation were moving out into the fronteirs where they felt they needed protection from the Native Americans and wild animals. This is why the government in 1789 decided that the right to bear arms was 2nd only to the freedom of speech. [/QUOTE] Again, that was not the reason. [QUOTE] You get yourself a gun for protection, okay fine. But then say you hear a noise in the house and you take your gun to investigate...and as you walk down the stairs you begin to get nervous. Your nervousness increases as you approach the origin of the noise. You hear the noise again then you panick and shoot the gun. Worst case scenerio, you've just shot your kid in the chest.[/QUOTE] Not likely. It happens, yes, and it's a tradgedy when it does, but, once again, only .015% of guns in America are involved in gun-related deaths. That includes crimes and accidents. And, you know what? The car analogy still stands, because the odds of a person being hit by a car while not even in a car are literall hundreds of times higher than the odds of a person being shot by a gun. [QUOTE]Do you still think that having a gun is as important as freedom of religion or in this case-an affordable health care plan? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I think having my rights stripped away in a misguided attempt to prevent an incredibly small number of deaths is a very important matter. As Godel pointed out a leniant gun law doesn't just affect the country it's hurting, it affects countries boardering on the country it's based in. Actions in one area don't just affect that area, they affect the areas around it.[/QUOTE] Again, you're focusing on the wrong problem. Border control should be increased, if this is creating a difficulty. [QUOTE] So Texas has guns. So do New Yorkers, so do Pennsylvanians. Maybe because the Texans are less responsible with their guns is the reason why so many people remember them?[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to argue about Texas, Im' arguing about the example they set concerning gun laws. Again, they allowed conceled-carry permits in Texas, and violent crimes went down 60% in five years. During that same time, the average national violent crime rate rose by 12%. Compare that to Washington, DC, in a different time period. They banned personal ownership of handguns, and their violent crime rate increased by [b]300%[/b].

[QUOTE]Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part, which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it.[/QUOTE] If you're not going to bother to understand the positions already taken in an argument, don't expect anyone else in the argument to take your position seriously. [QUOTE]Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment. [/QUOTE] Are you so arrogant to believe that we are immune to history? America and most of Europe have been very fortunate with stable government systems for the past half-century. Are we to assume that we will always be? Yes, and I'm sure chopping up the Bill of Rights is a great way to ensure that happens. More unrest and turmoil is caused by the expression of free ideas than anything else in the country. Why not just do away with the First Amendment while we're at it? It would sure save a lot of trouble. [QUOTE]Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous.[/QUOTE] 86 million people in the US own a combined 200 million guns, yet only 30,000 guns are involved in deaths each year. That's .015%. Seems like a lot more people use them responsibly than not. A whole lot more people. [QUOTE]Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes.[/QUOTE] In 2002, gun crimes in England and whales increased by 35%, despite the fact that the citizens cannot own firearms. Apparently, no one told the criminals. [QUOTE]Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave.[/QUOTE] I didn't say you had to; I assumed you would. I sure wouldn't stay in a country where I disagreed with a fundamental right granted to its citizenry. [QUOTE]Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else.[/QUOTE] I wasn't being a smart-arse, he of the belly-button lint remark. The Constitution was envisioned as a living document that could adapt to the changing times. THe use of the word 'arms' was specifically used to keep the Amendment valid despite changes in technology. [QUOTE]Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with)[/QUOTE] An 18th-century musket is no longer a reliable means of self-defense. you figure out why. [QUOTE]No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon.[/QUOTE] So, people shouldn't have what has been a basic right for over two-hundred years because you don't think they're smart enough to deserve it? [QUOTE]I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here. [/QUOTE] We are talking about here, but you are the one who mentions Canadia and England? Ever hear the saying, 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'? The basic principles that held true in the 1700's regarding peoples and their governments still hold true today. As I explained to Godelsensi, the first step to oppressing a society is to disarm them. This is ture in the world right now, just as true as it was during the Second World War, the American Revolution and the Roman Empire. So, we can either keep our heads in the sand, or we can learn from what history repeatedly shows us. Right now, the political scene is incredibly polarized. These are the types of situations that can, if not monitored properly, can lead to governments taking more power than they are warrented. Another thing history teaches us is that it's just a slippery slope downhill from that point. Just because America has been very fortunate regarding such things doesn't mean it will always be so. [QUOTE]It's a shame I am too.[/QUOTE] It's a shame that this issue is so devisive, really. I don't want people to be shot with guns any more than you do, but the difference is that you're willing to trade one of your basic rights to achieve a minimal measure of safety. you know what they say about those willing to trade freedom for liberty, don't you? [QUOTE]It is unbelievably easy to get between Canada and the US without having to go through customs. This is because of linked water-ways. [/QUOTE] Isn't that a problem with the boarder patrol, and not the actual guns? Drugs of the non-medicinal kind can be getting through the boarders as well, or stolen property. you're focussing on the symptom of the problem, instead of the cause. And, again, you're only keeping guns out of the hands of people who'd use them responsibly, and not the criminals you should be worried about. [QUOTE]Teenagers who don't want to live any more, who know that their dad keeps his gun in the suck drawer, next to the condoms, would probably be better off without such a brutal option, no? [/QUOTE] The thing is, though, that teen suicide rates raise pretty steadily regardless of gun-control laws. Canadia has stricter gun laws than America, yet teen suicide is still the number-one cause of death. This data suggests that kids are killing themselves with or without guns. Again, you're focussing on the symptoms, instead of the cause. [QUOTE]If, idealy, police numbers could be increased and used more efficiently, criminals dealt with more effectively for gun-related crime and all those other ends were to be tied up, it would not hurt to keep guns out of sock drawers. [/QUOTE] If, ideally, governments and their agents were completely and totally trustworthy, and would never, ever become oppressive or corrupt, I might not mind. Sadly, this isn't an ideal world. If men were angels, government wouldn't need to exist at all, as Thomas Jefferson said. [QUOTE]However, the per cent of gun-related crime has increased--about ten people were shot extremely near to where I live last year.[/QUOTE] So, even though Canadia has stricter gun-control laws, criminals still use them to commit crimes? If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns, I'm afraid. [QUOTE]And then there's always the issue of Joe here, who doesn't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of, or how to put on the safety...*[/QUOTE] Joe can get free materials from the NRA instructing him how to safely use a guns features. He would also be instructed to never store the gun loaded, never in a common area, etcetera. If more people had guns, general knowledge of gun safety-techniques and practices would increase, and maybe poor Joe won't accidebntly remove himself from the gene pool. Never mind the tests he has to pass to get a liscence to own a gun, of course... [QUOTE]Tu doit pardonez mon francais? Pour-quoi?^^ I mean, come on--it's a free country or whatever.^_~[/QUOTE] [i]Es una pais libre, pero no hablo o comprndo fraces. Hablo espanol, porque vivo in Floridia, y no necesito hablo frances. ^__^ [/i] Damn...English language keyboard with no accent marks...

[QUOTE]With the tightening of gun-regulation laws, there would also need to be the tightening of other laws. I figured this would be obvious. [/QUOTE] No, it's not. You said 'gun control' laws. If you think that most/all laws are too lax, you should have said so. [i]Ceteris paribus[/i]. And, quite frankly, if my country were banning one of my constitutional rights while simultaneously tighting laws all across the board, I'd be very, very scared. [QUOTE]Cars were not designed to kill people, though they still do.[/QUOTE] I cannot stress enough just [i]how many[/i] people cars kill. It is a totally valid comparison. [QUOTE]Using a gun "properly" would mean you would be shooting people with it, n'est pas? [/QUOTE] I'll have to pardon your French. ^_^ Anyway, as I have said before, the mentality of responsible gun ownership is that you buy one and hope to never need to use it. Airplanes have emergency equipment for water landings. Obviously, to jump into a huge pool of water onto an oddly-colored plastic raft with a bunch of people with little to no survival experience is a bad idea. Why keep them? Because someday you might need them. [QUOTE]It's regulated guns that six year olds bring into class to shoot their classmates in the head with. They find them on the top shelf of their parents' closets one day, and all Hell breaks loose.[/QUOTE] You're thinking with your heart and not with your head. That is a a tradgedy, but the fact is, those situations aren't that common. In fact, they hardly happen at all. There are 86 million privately-wned firearms in the US today, and only 30,000 or so are involved in deaths. tHat's about .015%. Oh, and it's an unregulated gun the criminal uses to kill a man and take his walet. He'll keep using that unregulated gun with or without more gun control laws (Over 200,000 on record). The only difference is, his victem might have once had a chance to defend himself. Once. Maybe the situation isn't banning handguns, or adding more laws, but actually enforcing the laws that exist? Hmmm... [QUOTE]Countries with tighter gun-control laws have very little gun-related crime.[/QUOTE] Tha'ts not really impressive. What's impressive is only .015% of guns in a country with 86 million privatly-owned firearms being involved in deaths. (Not just crimes, mind you; deaths, period.) [QUOTE]Is it not better to have a gunless populace than one in which every one carries a weapon, if the effects are almost even. [/QUOTE] Based on what I just said, the US is actually sahead of the game compared to other countries that don't allow private firarm ownership. So, the answer is 'no'. [QUOTE]It's unfair to bring Hitler into this: wouldn't a leader banning guns today do it in order to protect the populace, not kill half of it? [/QUOTE] Not only is it fair to bring Hitler into this, it's necessary. Hitler was exactly the kind of man the Fathers were thinking of when they penned the Second Amendment. Remember, you have to consider things from the Fathers' perspective. tHey had no idea this government would survive. They were afraid it woud degrade into the type of government they just deposed. So, they created the Bill of Rights [i]as a way to protect citizens from their government[/i]. Each of the first ten amendments takes powers from the government and places it into thew hands of the people. Why the Second Amendment? Because they knew history. Hitler is a more modern example, but consider slavery. In just about every society that had slaves, the slaves were not allowed private ownership of weapons. (In normal circumstances.) Why? Because a people with no defense are easy to opress. Hitler rose to power through legal means, disarmed the country and began to systimatically oppress select members of the population in some of, if not the worst, ways in history. The Fathers feltt hat something similar to that might happen in America, hence the Second Amendment. [QUOTE]Ignoring what the constittuion does or does not say, why do you think you shoudl be allowed to carry around a firearm?[/QUOTE] 'Ignoring what the Constitution says'? So, you're asking me to ignore the basic document of a country with 200+ years of history that I've studied most of my life? To ignore some of my most basic beliefs about government, and the results of a highly sucessive government that shared these beliefs? Is that what you're asking? Then, I'd think people should be allowed to carry firearms for all the reasons I have previously stated. I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. You can scroll for it if you're interested. [QUOTE]Enough of this "It was laid down by our forefathers" stuff--the times, they a' changing. Have changed.[/QUOTE] If you ever study history, you will learn that the recurring themes of history never change. The reason the United States has been a successful government for so long is because it was laid down by a group of men who understood history.

[QUOTE]Owning a firearm is one of your most important constitutional rights? lol.... I'm sorry, i thought you were being serious there for a second...[/QUOTE] Good gravy, did you read anything I said? The right to bear arms is the [b]second[/b] Amendment on the Bill of Rights. It's second only to free speech. The original Ten Amendments were listed in order of importance. Freedom of expression was first, followed by the right to keep and bear arms. so, yes, it [i]is[/i] one our most important constitutional rights. [QUOTE]Guns are a huge killer in American society, so why would anyone want to keep them? I mean it's like "hey, there's a big plague going around thats killing everyone, let's just keep it and not try to get rid of it." It's silly. Why would anyone want to keep something that has a possibility of killing themselves, their family, or their friends? I could never understand that.[/QUOTE] Again, I explained all of this. Several times. Apparently, I need to once again. Pay attention. Guns are not dangerous if used respoinsibly. Everything is dangerous if used irresponsibly. Again, I will use the example of automobiles, the most deadly product availible to consumers. when used properly, there is little risk. When used improperly, they are weapons of minor destruction. And, if you ban guns, you will only take them from citizens responible enough to actually obey the law, leaving them in the hands of those who don't heed the law. [QUOTE]But then I remembered what country I live in and the people I deal with on a daily basis, and it all seems to make sense. Stupidity runs rampid in this country and it's seen in every aspect of life, even gun control.[/QUOTE] So, when will you be leaving, then? [QUOTE]If you want to read and interpret the constitution as it was, and I'll say this again, I'll gladly support you're right to own an 18th century musket.[/QUOTE] But the Constitution doesn't say musket. It says 'arms'. [QUOTE]However, the founding fathers never would have foreseen automatics and semi-automatics in American society or else theyw ould have never put that amendmet in. [/QUOTE] I do not support ownership of semi-automatic weapons, as they are really not necessary to fulfill the tasks intended by the fathers. And, had the Fathers known the types of ordinence availible today, they [i]still[/i] would have put that Amendment in, because history taught them, as it should teach us, that unarmed populances will be opressed by their governments. Do I have to list my examples again? For someone with such a negative view of the current administration, I would think you'd understand what the fathers had in mind when they spoke of 'oppressive governements'. [QUOTE]Therefor I don't believe anyone has the right to carry any other weapon. It's a danger to society and it's a danger to yourself[/QUOTE] You can not believe it, but you would still be wrong. [QUOTE]If it wasn't so easy to get ahold of guns, there would be nowhere near as much crime involving them. It's a "No, DUH." kind of thing. Like, ya know?[/QUOTE] You would think that, but, as I've repeatedly said, the data proves otherwise. again, think of Texas. Large percentage of gun ownership, low percentage of violent crime. [QUOTE]If every one carries a gun on their person, what good are police officers? The idea is that there are a number of people, who, ideally, work to protect the populous, and they alone are allowed to carry firearms.[/QUOTE] The Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of a country where only the agents of the government had acess to weapons. Remember, one of Hitler's first acts as Chancellor was the disarmnmewnt of the populance. [QUOTE]With all the school shootings (even in grade one classes!!), you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their "God-given right to bear arms." [/QUOTE] With all the deaths caused by automobiles, you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their 'right to drive'. With all the deaths caused by STD's, you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their 'right to procreate'. With all the turmoil initiated by exchanging conflicting ideas, you'd think some people would be a little less up tight about their 'right to free speech'. [QUOTE]And how the hell does allowing every Tom, Dick and Harriette to tote a pistol increase security?! O_o o_O""[/QUOTE] Read my posts about the deterrance factors again; I'm too tired to type it all out. and think of Texas.

[QUOTE]Anyway hopefully that'll clear up the knives being more dangerous thing. [/QUOTE] Yet, at the same time, the FBI study I linked to clearly showed that knives are used just as often as guns to violently attack law enforcment individuals. Combining that death toll with all the advantages knives have oiver guns, and I still consider them to be just as, if not more dangerous. [QUOTE]In his paper concerning the survey he claims that guns are used defensively in 1,000,000 cases per year. That number seems absolutely ridiculous, seeing as his sample sizes were nowhere near that.[/QUOTE] Unless he took surveys of various smaller samples, and applied the results proportionatly to the rest of the country. That's a common thing to do while studying sampels of this size. [QUOTE]it wasn't exactly a well-done study.[/QUOTE] Why not? And if it isn't, which study is? [QUOTE]Also, since Lott is unbelievably biased, I wouldn't consider him too reliable. [/QUOTE] In case you haven't noticed, everyone is biased. I do'nt see why him being biased invalidates his study. If he was really so biased, and the results of the study pointed against the reaction that he wanted, he simply wouldn't have published it. [QUOTE]Alright, anyway, I'm done here. You all know where I stand, and I know where you stand. I know there won't be any convincing of anyone.[/QUOTE] You seem to stand on the side that wants to errode one of my most important constitutional rights, on the possibility of increased security. [QUOTE][b]Originally said by Ben Franklin[/b] He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves niether freedom nor security.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1]This incident has pissed me off like you wouldn't believe. As a military brat, I've been around the army all my life, and I tend to take the very rare occurances similar to this a little personally. But this just makes me want to break things. We trusted them to do their duty, and what do they do? They abuse their own prisoners. That's disgusting and unforgivable. I want to see all those involved discharged, tried in a military tribunal, and stored in the same cells with the people they abused, while their guards turn a blind eye. I can't even articulate myself well on thiss ubject; I'm just so pissed...[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] Gun ownership should not be considered a right it should be considered a privledge for a person to own a gun. Yes, it was mentioned in the constitution after the freedom of speech, but just as rights of speech are limited so are rights of gun ownership.[/color][/QUOTE] There are limits, as there should be. That is not, nor has that ever, been the question. The question is whether the right to own a gun should exist in the first place. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] Besides we should look at when the constitution was written 1789-most people needed guns to get food. Back then it was considered a right actually, more of a necessity. Now most of the populace lives in large cities or in the vicinity of a large city so they have access to a mode of transportation and a grocery store. Aside from going hunting for sport or because Wegmans doesn't carry rabbit, modern society isn't in [i]need[/i'] of guns except in law enforcement.[/color][/quote] If the use of guns was only important to the Founders in the sense of gathering food, then they wouldn't have bothered to list that as a right at all. To understand why guns were considered important, you have to recall the point of the Bill of Rights in the first place. The point of the Bill was to give citizens [i]rights to protect themselves from their governments.[/i] Foir obvious reasons, the Founders feared oppressive governments. And, historically, opressive governments have always made certain that their citizens had no means of defensive. The British tried to do it to the colonists, Hitler did it to Germany, Castro did it to Cuba, the roman Empire did it to any conquered province, and any society that kept slaves made darn sure that they couldn't arm themselves. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Handguns really don't serve much of a purpose except to shoot at someone. Honestly, would you take a handgun with you during deer season? I think the deer would most likely die from laughing its head off at your gun.[/color][/quote] I don't hunt for sport so I have niether knowledge nor interest in the mechanics of it. That's why I haven't mentioned that topic. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I don't quite understand how just having a gun is a deterant, all you do is apply for the gun, buy the gun andkeep the gun in your dresser. You don't go around waving this gun and being all, 'I have a gun don't mess with me' If you did, you'd get arrested and put in jail for public endangerment.[/color][/quote] I'm afraid you misunderstand the idea. It's not that a single person having a gun is a deterrant, it's the idea that if the general populance makes use of their second amendment rights, criminals will be much more hesitant to commit crimes. Want an example of this? Look at Texas. They're hardly what I would call the perfect state, but they have a very low crime rate compared to the surrounding area. As they saind in Miss. Congeniality, "It's Texas; everyone has a gun. My florist has a gun!". [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I stand by what I've said before, Guns aren't a right, they're a privledge.[/color][/quote] They are a [i]right[/i], hence their inclusion in the [u]Bill of Rights[/u]. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Well, There goes some more of my opinion take it as you will. [/color][/quote] Always a pleasure. ^__^

So much toi say, so little time. [QUOTE]People are trying to argue that gun ownership is a right given by the 2nd Ammendment in the constitution of the United States. Uh, no, it's a priveledge which is repeatedly abused by people who have no business owning such a weapon.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid you're wrong; it [i]is[/i] a right, same as voting, speeking freely and not being searched or seiezed illegally. It is in the constitution, and was considered important second only to the right to freely express yourself. Like most rights, there are limitations on it, and you can disqualify yourself of the right. However, it is still a right. If you want to say that it shouldn't be one, that's another thing, but you cannot deny that the average, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm, as outlined by the Constitution. [QUOTE]I really loved this arguement in the post about banning motorized vehicles as well as guns because people die in motor vehicle accidents as well. Does a gun help you get around to work or to the grocery store? Does the gun come with a place to put your CDs? Do you put gas in a gun? No.[/QUOTE] Getting somewhere faster is a matter of convienience. Stopping a violent assault is a matter of life and death. And you put bullets into a gun, not gasoline. [QUOTE]Guns are somewhat necessary to society because if we completely banned guns the only ones availble would be illegal weapons which law abiding citizens don't have access to and we'd have another prohibition case going on.[/QUOTE] Agreed; if guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns. [QUOTE]Consider this: if you are an adult with an unlocked gun and easily accessable amunition and a child in your house gets into that amunition and loads your gun and then accidentally shoots and kills his friend who was visting your house you can be charged with child abuse by criminal negligence. [/QUOTE] As well the hypothetical person should be, for being irresponsible. However, and I'll say this again: [i]Every product is dangerous if used irresponsibly[/b]. [QUOTE]This country needs to get out of the mind set that we aren't responsible for our actions even if our actions are not in direct connection with the action.[/QUOTE] Also agreed. A supporter of this line of thought might even be lead to believe that guns aren't responsible for killing people, but irresponsible and foolish people using them are. [QUOTE]If you leave your car unlocked in your driveway and someone comes and yanks your stereo from the car in the middle of the night, aren't you responsible for that action by the simple fact that you left your dorrs unlocked and didn't take the faceplate off your stereo?[/QUOTE] Legally, you're not responsible, you're just a moron. [QUOTE]As for the whiney liberals, consider this, it's the whiney liberals who end up having to think up the laws to protect people since the hard headed conservatives are probably to concerned with getting money from the NRA. But enough about my last familiy reunion[/QUOTE] I'd rather not turn this into (another) 'liberals v conseratives' thing. And I refuse to respond to the point of someone who resorts to name calling in a debate, which is why Soapy is not getting a response from me. I will say, however, that all political parties have a political blind-spot to the organizations that give them money. The NRA, PETA, China...That's how political parties survive. I don't agree with everything the NRA stands for, but they produced millions of dollars worth of literature, programs and videos dedicated to the subject of gun safety. They, as an organization, are more responsible with guns than the average citizen. Given the choice, I'd rather an NRA member carried a firearm that one who is not, because they will most likely be more responsible with it. [QUOTE]I'm just gonna tackle all of that at once. I don't know why you keep bringing up the accidental deaths of children to support your argument. Yes, guns are nowhere near the leading cause of accidental death among children. But I don't see guns doing much more to kids other than shooting them. [/QUOTE] Gee, how about protecting them? Again, 80,000 crimes an average year prevented by responsible use or display of a firearm. [QUOTE]The car thing is not worth talking about, because like I said cars serve a beneficial purpose for a good deal more of the population a lot more of the time than do guns. [/QUOTE] Cars are convieniences that kill over a thousand people each year. Guns are life-saving products that protect thousands each year. They're really not comprable, but not in the way you're suggesting. [QUOTE]The amount of shootings in self-defense doesn't even come close to how many people get to work every day because of cars. [/QUOTE] Convienience, and nothing more. There are other ways to get to work. [QUOTE]How about we ban fire trucks and ambulances along with cars while we're at it.[/QUOTE] Nope, the state and government agencies would retain the use of automobiles no matter what, just as they will retain the ability to use firearms no matter what. [QUOTE]And knives. I'm tired of cutting my food with kitchen utensils. I'm gonna use my CD's to do it from now on. Oh, and pencils too. I can kill someone with a sharpened pencil if I felt like it. And, just for kicks, I'd like to inform you that one is more likely to drown than accidentally die from a gun, so let's just ban water altogether.[/QUOTE] What's funny is that you're actually right, despite your sarcasm. We [i]could[/i] ban knives, pencils and standing water, and the amount of people who die from incidences relating to them would sharply decrease. However, the cons outweigh the pros in these situations, just as they do with guns. Again, [b]anything is dangerous if used irresponsibly[/b]. [QUOTE](Pardon the sarcasm, I went a bit overboard. And of course I'm making the same point you were trying to, but the thing is that banning what you facetiously suggested is unreasonable, ridiculous and not doable; such is not the case with handguns). [/QUOTE] Unless you own a handgun, feel secure because of it, or have ever had your life or property protected because of one. then is is [i]not[/i] doable. You are fortunate to have apparently never been in a situation where this is an issue, but more people than not aren't so lucky. [QUOTE]The point is that guns (and again I stress we're not talking about hunting rifles, just so you don't bring them up in regards to this) are much more often used in homicides/suicides/accidents than they are used in self-defense (which probably happens to be self-defense against a gun sometimes). [/QUOTE] I believe I provided several recent statistics that point in the exact opposite direction. Ignoring them will not make them go away, nor change the conclusion that they lead to. [QUOTE]The fraction of deaths resulting from self-defense are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths that it's almost ridiculous to consider that a worthwhile function of firearms. [/QUOTE] When someone has a gun, is being threatened, and displays their ownage of and ability to use the gun, a funny thing happens: the hostile party uisually leaves, and no one dies. So, of course deaths as a result of self-defense won't usually ocurr. That's the entire point of owning the gun. Again, it's only ridiculous to you. [QUOTE]Bottom line is this: of the guns purchased every year (acquired legally), far more are used to kill someone unlawfully than to kill someone in self-defense. Far more.[/QUOTE] You're completely ignoring the facts again. Only .015% of all guns owned in America todays are involved in deaths. The facts completely disprove your claim. [QUOTE]The deterrent philosophy works when you're talking about nuclear weapons, but so far it hasn't really worked with guns. First of all, something works as a deterrent if people know you have it (as is the case with nuclear weapons; we're not afraid of Chile taking retaliation after a nuclear strike). If you buy a gun and store it properly, unless you drive around town announcing your ownership of a gun, I can't say it works any more as a deterrent than if you didn't have a gun. Does that make sense?[/QUOTE] Yes, perfectly. Which is whyt he more people own and properly handle guns, the more the deterrant philosophy will work. In Washington, DC, there ids no deterrance whatsoever, because the average criminal knows that civilians aren't armed. In Texas, the crime rate is so much lower because the average person [i]does[/i] have a gun. So, the more people that responsible own guns, the more they are a deterrant. [QUOTE]That's not entirely true. It's not like people who own guns are more suicidal than people who don't. Often it's an impulse thing, and the easier it is to do it (and it's pretty easy with a gun), the more likely it is to happen[/QUOTE] Then why are teen suicide rates steady, independent of whether guns are availible or not? [QUOTE]And although I can't tell you how many families are threatened with their lives in any given year (it's gotta be a pretty small number), I'm sure that precious few of those threats are properly settled because the family has a gun in the house. [/QUOTE] Again, that's your belief; there are no facts to back that up. [QUOTE]Well, first of all, the "populace" is defenseless enough as it is. Just try to find some meaningful statistics on just how much a deterrent household firearms are to thugs, criminals, gangs, etc.[/QUOTE] Texas. [QUOTE]And about finding other ways to kill people, like I've said before, those other ways will not be as deadly as guns[/QUOTE] If you define 'deadly' as the amount of people killed, then there are salrwady more deadly products. If you define 'deadly' as to ease of use, that's subjective. [QUOTE]Answer me this: what is the cause for a death more often? Knives or guns? [/QUOTE] [url=http://www.folders-r-us.org/statistics.htm]Knives[/url] [QUOTE]What appears to be the weapon of choice?[/QUOTE] For career criminals? Guns. For those with no prior convictions? Knives. [QUOTE]You're right about all those "advantages" of knives, but they have one serious disadvantage: they don't kill like guns do.[/QUOTE] What does 'like guns do' even mean? That knives can't kill by expelling a piece of lead at high speeds? If it refers to the statistics of knife-deaths to gun-deaths, then you're simply wrong, and the statistics generally agree with me. [QUOTE]I don't know why you said something like that. [/QUOTE] Why not? It used the same logic that's used for the banning of firearms. [QUOTE]But cars are used responsibly far more often than not, and they serve a pretty important economic/social purpose. Guns, when used responsibly, are not used. [/QUOTE] Most guns aren't used. .015%, remember? [QUOTE]Now, the only thing that would change about guns not being used should they be banned, is that "deterrent" you refer to would be gone (but along with some guns on the "criminal" side.) Also, if bullets for handguns stop being readily available, the criminal element will have much more difficulty getting them, especially the thugs and punks you mentioned.[/QUOTE] But criminals [i]would still get them[/i]. tHe only difference is that any possible deterrant would be entirely gone. Crime rates would skyrocket, just like they have when hanguns are banned in any area. [QUOTE]Please give me a source for this statistic, because right now I'm suspicious that they might be taking police action into account. Which would distort the data tremendously.[/QUOTE] The source is John R. Lott. While it is not specified whether or not that does include police activity, it more than likey does not, due to the nature of Lott's reasearch. However, if we want to bring coruppted data into account, ask yourself this: What constitues a 'child'? If the term is sused indiscriminatly, the data it gives is highly innaccurate. Legally, a 'child' can be as old as nineteen, thus including the most violent section of the American population (teenage males) into 'child gun-death' statistics. [QUOTE]Based on the numbers, if more people owned guns, more people would die from guns. You stress the deterrent function of guns, but I say that unless you're talking about concealed carry, that deterrent doesn't exist in the least.[/QUOTE} [i]You[/i] say that, but the evidence seems to be saying something else. [QUOTE]Supposing I'm just somewhere out in public, and everyone (or many people) are armed with loaded guns. Why should I feel safer? On the contrary, if someone hostile were indeed to pull a gun on the public, I'd say there's a better chance of me being shot if everyone has a gun than otherwise. Is that unreasonable? [/QUOTE] You're ignorring the factt hat if more people have concealed weapons, the odds of someone suddenly pulling a gun in public will decrease substantially. And, again, most of us have no problem with letting people propel tons of steel at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour. [QUOTE]Soapy Shoes, I take offense to being referred to as a "liberal douche." I think you should maybe act more civil here.[/QUOTE] While I agree his behavior is completely inappropriate, perhaps he's merely upset because you're trying to strip away one of his fundamental rights. [QUOTE]First of all, alcohol doesn't exist just to kill people (while handguns do), [/QUOTE] No, handguns exist to deterr other people from trying to kill you. Get it right. [QUOTE]alcohol was impossible to outlaw. It increased crime because alcohol became illegal.[/QUOTE] So, what you're saying is, the people who wanted alcohol still used alcohol, even though the knew it was illegal? Kind of like how the people who wanted to use guns for crimes would still use guns for crimes? [QUOTE]There's no way that you're trying to say that if handguns are outlawed we'll have a rise in crime.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid he is, and, even worse, I'm afraid the evidence supports that assertion. [QUOTE]In fact, prohibition can only be used in defense of gun control,[/QUOTE} O.O; So, after just admitting that prohibition lead to a rise in crime, and knowing the violence that result from it....you still use it to support your claim? Okay.... [QUOTE]because it shows a case where a right was taken from people but no other rights were taken along with them [/QUOTE] No, it doesn't, because there is no right to alcohol. Prohibition was still an abomination, though, because it restricted individual rights in the document that was supoposed to protect individual freedoms. How could you possibly use it to support your claims, knowing what a disaster it was? It disproves your claims in almost every way.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Ok, well, to say that cars kill people in relation to the gun debate is a pretty empty statement, and anyone who says it is either disingenuous or not thinking clearly. Cars are, if you will, a necessary evil. You simply cannot ban cars and expect society to continue functioning how it currently is. [/QUOTE] For the sake of the argument, I'll ask why not? Isn't inconvinience a small price to pay for all the lives saved? [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Cars serve a purpose slightly more meaningful than sitting in your garage until it's time to kill someone with them. The same is hardly true of guns (especially those that aren't used for hunting). [/quote] You assume thatt he purpose of owning a gun is to use it. I plan to purchase a gun when I live on my own and have taken proper measures to ensure that I will handle it safely. I believe that the vast majority of people who own guns (approx. 86 million in the US) would tell you that they never want to have to use them. It is the deterrant philosophy. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The same can be said for the water bucket argument. Well, actually, that water bucket argument is wrong statistically (36 kids under 5 drowned in water buckets vs. 53 kids under 10 dying in accidental shootings, as stated by the study that researched this), but not by much so that's not the point. Again, even water buckets serve a purpose a bit more meaningful and productive than drowning people. [/quote] If someone is threatening me or my family, I can think of no task more meaningfulo r productive than having the ability to stop them. And, again, there are a lot of things that kill far more children than guns, yet we don't talk of banning them. In 1999, 1260 children under ten perished in auto accidents. Nintey-six drowned in bathtubs. Four hundred and eighty died as a result of residential fires caused by electric appliances. However, cars, buckets, eletric appliances, etc. are not dangerous when used responsibly. Niether are firearms. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Accidental deaths are not the majority of gun-related deaths, anyway, as I've already stated. Suicides and homicides are. And screening people to make sure they never get suicidal is, well, not possible. Teaching them responsibility and education when it comes to owning a firearm is all well and good, but it can't keep them from killing themselves. They won't do it accidentally; they'll do it on purpose. [/quote] Have you ever heard this statement: "Man, life sucks. I really wanna' kill myself. Too bad I don't have a gun." To blame suicides on firearms is completely foolish. If I wanted to kill myself, lack of a weapon isn't going to stop me. Heck, in this room alone I could hang myself with a LAN cable, slit my wrists with my razor, slice my jugular with my Swiss-Army Knife, create a tasty cocktail from the cleaners under my bathroom sink...if I leave this room and enter the kitchen, or, God forbid, the garage, the possibilities are endless. Bottom line: suicidal people are going to kill themselves with whatever they have availible. Homicide isn't that different either. Funny thing about gang members, thugs or violent criminals: they don't mind breaking the law. Adding a gun law violation to their record really isn't that big a deal. And, again, they will either a) get guns anyway, but will then have the ability to prey on an defenseless populance, or b) simply find other ways to kill people. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The Lott study was bound to be mentioned, and I guess it's time to address it. Well, first of all, it has been criticized by enough credible individuals that it cannot necessarily be taken as 100% accurate (I've read stuff on it; while his statistics aren't technically wrong, there are certain problems, such as the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality, that no cultural factors were taken into account, etc. It was a very strict "by the numbers" study, and that's not a good study when it comes to guns. I can list off a good number of countries with a ban on private ownership on firearms which have a significantly lower gun-crime rate, as well as countries with a large amount of guns and still a low gun-crime rate. These sorts of statistics are very dangerous to generalize with. And Lott's study might not be applicable over a larger-scaled population than what he tested; certainly there are no suggestions that it is.)[/quote] The critisisms of the Lott study are the same that can be applicable to the vast majority of social studies. For each protractor and critic it has, it also has advocates. Saying, 'Some people disagree with i't does not make the study wrong, just debatable. And, as I said, most studies are debatable. I do not claim the study to be perfectly accurate or unflawed, only that the direction it points to supports my original assertions. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The thing about "gun crime" as opposed to "knife crime," etc. Well, that one is a pretty easy one to answer. Why do people differentiate between gun-crimes and other crimes? Because you can't enact "rope control" laws or "knife control" laws or "car control" laws, etc. It's not going to come up as an issue ever, so the terms never need to be used. Blame the person, not the tool. Yes, that's a decent philosophy, except I'd much rather that person has a knife than a gun if he's worthy of blame.[/quote] Why won't it ever become an issue? Knives are more readily availible than guns, and have almost no control laws. Considering that a cut to the jugular artery can cause death in (I believe) under two minutes, the ability to abuse them is much greater than with guns. They can be concealed more easily than guns, they require no ammunition, and are easier to dispose of than guns. Why not enact knife control laws? And cars, as I've already mentioned before, are the deadliest products produced for mass consumption in the history of mankind. They kill more people than guns, ciggarettes, knives or fatty foods. They pollutue the enviornment, consume billions of dollars annually in mainenance, and trillions of dollars for countries to regulate them and roads for them. The mere existance of automobiles creates a host of crimes revolving around or involving them. Banning the use of automobiles would save hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet we do'nt do it, nor would I ever support the idea. The answer is obvious: when used responsibly, cars help more than hurt. As do guns. To answer your rehtorical situation, I would prefer that the criminal has a knife and I have a gun. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']In general, all this defense of guns using the "look at how few guns actually kill people!" and comparing gun-related deaths to other causes, is not very strong because guns serve no other purpose than to kill (the guns we're discussing, anyway; not hunting rifles). Average citizens buy guns to shoot people, not to drive themselves around or carry water or do whatever else. (Obviously it's not so they don't have to shoot people, because the best way to assure that is to not own a gun.)[/quote] Again, you misundserstand the reason for ggun ownership. It's completely analegous to nations owning nuclear arms. Most nations don't want to use them, because doing so would be dangerous, and create so much more trouble than they could ever be worth. Why have them? They have them because they are a deturrent. They never want to use them, but knowing thatt he option is availible gives them a measure of security against potentially hostile powers. Same reason for owning a gun. As I said, I plan to own a gun. I hope to God I never once have to be in the situation where I need to even consider using the gun, but it is there as a potential defense, not as an offense. Guns prevent an average of 80,000 assaults, robberies and burglaries each year, almost double the average amount of gun-related deaths. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The issue of concealed weapons being deterrents for criminals is a bit unnerving. Sure, it makes sense that it would be a deterrent.[/quote] Not only does it make sense, the evidence points to that being true. Right to carry laws enacted in Texas in 1996 resulted in a 60% decrease in the state murder rate within five years. When similar laws were passed in Florida in 1987, the murder rate dropped by 23% in five years; however, at that same time, the national average murder rate rose by 9%. However, this next statement: [quote name='ScirosDarkblade'](It also makes sense that the more guns are carried, the more guns will be fired.) [/quote] That doesn't make any sense if the guns exist as a deterrant. Deterrants lead to less of a behavior, not more. If more people owned guns, the average person's knowledge of proper gun use and safety behaviors will increase. That's not concerte or proven logic, but it's just as reliable as 'more guns equal more gunshots', when one doesn't buy a gun hoping to use it. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Anyway, constant anxiety because you're afraid random people passing you by all have loaded guns (possibly forcing you to buy a gun yourself so you can be even [i]more[/i'] nervous) is a large price to pay to *possibly* lower the violent crime rate [/quote] Maybe you would react in such a manner, but you can't expect the rest of a community to. Why should the knowledge that I are educated in methods that could save my life make me nervous, when I have the means to do so? As for other people, we constantly trust them with the means to kill us, whether we want to oir not. tHe knowledge that the average citizen has a firarm won't bother me, especially since I expect the average criminal to. Even if I were to become as hyper-paranoid as you suggest (which I doubt any reasonable person will), I think it would be an agreeable trade-off. I am not willing to trade freedom for safety, but I am willing to trade blissful ignorance for it. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade'](actually, once enough people start to carry concealed weapons, violent crime might rise; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise when you're talking about large populations. And non-violent crime, such as auto theft, will rise almost certainly). [/quote] Not to be offensive, but that's just your worst-case hypothosis. tHere's nothing to back anything you said there. If there's no evidence to suggest against it, there is most likely not evidence to suggest for it, either.

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Then, among the confusion, a lone voice cried out, to cause even more confusion. First, the Second Ammendment clearly defines the rights for [b]individuals[/b] to own firearms. Not the emphasis on 'individuals'. Some will argue that the Amendment referred to the right of the government to create a militia but that makes no sense, because the Bill of Rights are all rights of people, not any governments, federal or state. Also, notice where the Amendment was placed: directly below freedom of expression, which is clearly the most imporetant and fundamental right. The Fathers ordered the Bill of Rights in order of importance, so they felt gun ownership was vital to the new nation. And why shouldn't they? History teaches us that unarmed citizens are basically sitting ducks for oppressive governments. When Paul Reviere rode to alert the colonists of the British approach, why was he so afraid? The British weren't coming to kill the colonists; they were coming to sieze their guns. One of Hitler's first acts as Chancellor of Germany was to confiscate all private firearms. Okay, so the average American citizen has the right to own a firearm, as outlined by the Constitution. The next question would be, what type of firearm? If I get a little fuzzy here, forgive me; I'm not well aquainted with guns, and their makes or models. I think that not allowing people to carry heavy ordinance is not an infringement of SEcond Amendment rights. A pistol, fine; a sub-machine gun, not really. THere is no need for military-level firepower in the hands of the average citizen. Some will say that all guns should be banned from private ownership, simply because they are involved in deadly accidents. You wanna' know what kills people? Cars. Cars kill more people in America that any other product manufactured in our history availible to consumers. Cars are infinatly more deadly than guns, as well, considering the amount of damage that they can, and many times do, cause. Should we ban private ownership of cars, or should we work to make car owners more responsible? "Guns are used for crimes" is another flimsy bit of rehetoric. Everything can be used for a crime. Knives, rope, chains, tools, cars, airplanes....yet we don't have 'car crimes', or 'knife crimes', just 'gun crimes'. Maybe we should focus on the person comitting the crime, instead of the tool? The old saying "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" is true, as well. Consider this: Washington, DC, banned handguns in 1976. By 1991, the average homicide rate in the US had risen by twelve percent. (Still a bad number.) Washington's homicide rate increased by three hundred percent. In a study conducted by Mr. John Lott, done by studying every county in the country, he discovered that "when conceled handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell (an average) 8.5 percent, rapes 5 percent, and aggrevated assaults seven percent". More current data: there are over 200 million privatly owned guns in the US. Only 30,000 of these are involved in deaths each year; .015 percent of all guns in America. As for children, consider this: more children [i]under five[/i] drown in water buckets that children [i]under ten[/i] die in gun accidents. Shall we roll out water-bucket control laws? Guns, like most things in life, should be treated with caution, respect and knowledge. Banning or adding another gun-control law to the 20/000 already on the books is not the answer. Encouraging education and responsibility is.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I don't know what I am. I doubt I'm popular, and could really care less. Popularity is fleeting and shallow, and won't matter soon anyway. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]It is as bbad to say that one hates all anime as it is to say that one hates all American cartoons. The reason being, the art forms cover so many genrres and so many possible styles that to dismiss all of them based on a steretype is fallicy.[/color][/font][/size]

[QUOTE][color=darkviolet]I can actually agree with you for once on this part *checks news for reports of the sky falling* [/color][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Well, by all accounts, the sky is still up, but it seems that a cesspool in the middle east got a whole lot colder. ^__^[/color][/font][/size]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Zantoff, Gendou and HotPage, please do my a favor: never speak in favor of anything I support, never support anything I believe in, and never take my side in an argument. Your ignorance and rudeness embarasss me, and, in this case, any Chroistian with at least two brain cells to rub together. Nomad: I applaud your attitude regarding the situation. Shinji: I believe what Cloricus i referring to is the fact that Hell has its origins in a large cesspool that used to exist in the middle east. Corpses were commonly tossed into it, and it had a nasty habit of lighting on fire. Nasty stuff. ChibiHorsewoman: I'll answer your rhetoric quiote with one of my own: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Arasoi: Actually, the statistic given at the start of this thread, though given by an idiot, is still fairly accurate. About 80-85% of Americans claim to beluieve in a higher diety, with about 60% (Total, not of the 85%), considering themselves Christian. Look, the Supreme Court has stated, many different S Courts on many different occassions, that what must be avoided, according to the Constitution, is the "unneccesary entaglement of church and state". It has been ruled, several times, that the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge, and 'In God We Trust' on the money are are not unconstitutionl as such. And, on the practical side, it would wreck the entire economy to rework all the money. Think, people; it took over a decade for the EU to switch to the Euro. What I do'nt understand is why this must be an 'all or none' situation. Here's an idea, why not compromise on such an insignifican tissue? Non-Christians: Yoiu are not required to recite the pledge of alligence at all, so if you do'nt like 'Under God', then just don't say it. (Fact: Although a teacher cannot make you say the pledge, they can make you stand for it.) Christians: Stop shoving our beliefs down other people's throats. No one likes that. Can we stop the maddness now?[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='PiroMunkie][size=1'] There are some things that just do not mix; religion and science being one of them.[/size][/quote] [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Don't tell the Christian Scientists. ^__^ Anyway, I liked Signs. 'Aliens invade the Earth' has been done many, many differenr ways, but I thought the focus on a single man in a single small town was a good choice, because, if aliens did invade, most of us would be, in fact, just watching from the sidelines. Intertwining faith into the film was not a bad thing, in my opinion; it made the film unique. I don't see how someone has a religious reawakening during a trying, stressful and historic time is that unbelievable. When an event like that ocurrs, the average person focuses inward, rather than outward, and sees the events at how they affect their own lives. Some of the conversations the townspeople have during the invasion reminded my bvaguely of conversatons I had with a few people on/around 9/11. That was creepy. As for the ending, I enjoyed it. [spoiler]The fact that all the seemingly odd, out of place details of the movie came together for a single purpose was a great touch; I enjoy movies where 'it all ties into the end'. As for the last scene, with Mel Gibson getting up and putting on his pristly attire, that was perfect, in my eyes. Not only did it provide a nice sense of completion, considering how it resembled the opening scene, but, when you consider what happened, that scene was really all you needed. In a single scene, you got the entire point of the movie, and it fit perfectly with with the transition of Gibson's character.[/spoiler] The movie also had some hilarious bits sprinkled in, particularly the scene with the girl at the drugstore, and just about any scene with Mel Gibson's brother.[/color][/font][/size]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]How did I learn about sex? Well, thats' a very interesting story. See, one day when I was twelve, my dad explained sex to me. ..... Huh. Guess it wasn't really that interesting. Damn. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Bearing in mind that I have'nt seen this preview, just read the book: I'm interested. Granted, I, Robot was an anthology, so i don't think they'll directly adapt it, and Will Smith sci-fi movies tend to have a feel that isn't exactly what I'd picture for a work by Asimov, but it could work, I suppose. I hope the film is successful enough to warrent the big-screen adaptation of "Foundation". that would be sooo awesome...[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]To answer the spammy question, there is no way to get Dark Master-Zorc on the field more quickly than the ritual summons process. Maju of the Ten Thousand Hands and witch of the Black Forest are very good for speed pruposes, though.[/color][/size][/font]