Some more innovative jewelry

Unless the unarmed ones have Bruce Lee among them.

 

DE: Yes, that's who I was referring to. And that was a lovely little point you posted, Jarinor has the right of it from where I'm sitting.

 

Agreed DE, I can see why they'd outlaw guns although I'd still rather not be told what I can/can't bloody do, thanks.

 

Are people supporting gun freedom right?
Yes, because everyone should have a possibility to defend himself against criminals, who are already armed via unlegal sources.

Are people supporting gun restriction right?
Yes, because no matter what, criminals will always be armed better, and the situation only gets worse when greater arms are involved.

There will never be a single solution which will be fully proper and satisfy both sides. Hell, there will never even be a solution which will satisfy one side, since the only possibility is some kind of a golden mean will always only pisses both parties off.

 

There is a solution: Get your police force to work properly so guns don't get smuggled around.

 

Then self-taught gunsmiths will produce their very own home-made guns in their basements. Guns aren't nuclear reactors after all. And let's remember we're talking about the human race here. Humanity will always find a way, especially when restrictions and prohibitions are involved.

 

You cannot compare a home-made rifle with the quality of a standard hunting rifle to a factory-made, possibly military grade weapon.

And letting people do it easier just because "they'll find a way anyway" is never a good idea. It's like legalizing heroine because those who want to try it will try it anyways, and sellers still make money.

 

Right, because we really need the government making more money and monopolising everything.

Circa Nineteen Eighty-Four, here we come.

 

In Arizona you are allowed to have a gun on your persons and take it almost anywhere. I'm alright with that, but I found it absurd that when I took my kids to a pizza parlor *Chuck E. Cheese* some guy had a holster and pistol. Was he expecting some shit to go down? I bet he also takes it to church just in case the nuns are actually ninja's in disguise.

 

I'm not comparing. I'm saying that when it gets to a psycho shooting people in a school, he doesn't need the newest model of a minigun, a home-made rifle can be deadly enough to do the job.

In terms of heroine, I'd say everyone has the right to decide for their own life. If you would ask me, a man has the right to poison his body with whatever he wishes and the right to slowly die in pain if he decides to do so. The main problem with legalising drugs is that it would much easier appear in th hands of children and teenagers, which are not aware enough to know what can happen if they start taking that shit and therefore shouldn't have a chance to do so. When they grow up enough to be considered thinking units, they have my blessing on poisoning themselves if that is their choice. Humanity will only benefit from their genes disappearance from the species' pool.

 

Also find it funny how everyone here is so anti-drugs. It's not up to you to decide who is or who isn't a decent person, some people get addicted. Some people can't ask for help. Some people don't want to.

Saying that all drug users are "bad bad people" is both pathetic and single minded, in my opinion.

 

It's not judging people upon the fact that they do drugs. It's judging them upon what they do because of the drugs. If a man does drugs and no other people suffer because of his choice, he is free to do so and has my blessing. Thing is, drugs are highly addictive. So addictive that free often ceases to exist and the addict becomes nothing more than an animated corpse, a slave of the chemical coumpound of his choice. Most junkies end up ruining the lives of their families and commiting crime in order to get money for their drugs. And yes, I do call them bad bad people, because that is what they are, considering I can still gratify them with calling them people.

The addiction is not a matter of strong will, it's not addictive lin the way the Internet is, it isn't just a habit, it's how chemically a hard drug works. But even in theory, if we will have a man who does drugs and doesn't get addicted - and more importantly - doesn't commit any crimes or ruin anyone's life because of it, I will not call him a bad bad man, for I have no reason to do so. I will however call him a stupid stupid idiot for even trying the shit while knowing what it can, and most propably will, end up with.

"Too long; didn't read" section:
all drug users are bad bad people - no
all drug users doing bad things are bad bad people - yes
all drug users are stupid stupid idiots - yes

Therefore it is their choice and their right to slowly decay. We're all grownups and pay the consequences of our decisions.

 

You're missing my point, though - people start doing drugs for a variety of reasons and saying they're -all- idiots for doing so is nothing more than applying a stereotype. Often a destroyed family is a cause for their use and not a symptom.
The 'animated corpse' is a load of horseshit in all but the most severe cases anyway - although I don't do it myself, I do know several people that do do drugs (and have been for quite a while) yet they can still function perfectly fine in society. And I'm not talking about 'soft' drugs like pot and/or shrooms either.

Everyone has a reason, saying they're all idiots for letting it get to them doesn't show much empathy. The reasons aren't really any different to why people drink or smoke, yet you're not calling them out either.

That's not to say the experimental idiots aren't out there, but applying a blanket label on drug users is no different to calling social drinkers addicted alcoholics. But, sheesh, the "bad bad people" was just a play on your previous post.

 

You answered your own question. By legalizing guns, you make it easier to have, and more easily accessible to everyone - including people who might not think throughly the consequences of what they're doing. If those kids didn't have guns accessible (in those school shootouts), I seriously doubt they'd have the technical provess to make one, or go through the bother. They'd just have a brawl or something.

By giving everyone guns, you also make them more prone to crime. Guns are supposed to be marginal, so people don't normalize them and regularly use them (Wild West scenario). Only law should have guns, and they should properly restrict their transportation/flow.

Also, how is this different from drugs: Drugs kills oneself (Pot, mushrooms and other light stuff are still less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes though). Guns kill other people. Nobody has the right to infringe upon another person's life. If guns normalize this in people's minds, then they shouldn't be freely owned.

 

My comment on fully automatic weapons wasn't in support of arming people. In fact, my stance on weapons is to allow such things as long as they are firmly locked up (none of this glass case bullshit either. More like a nice steel safe). I'm hardly a redneck NRA member. What I was getting at is that a crossbow is a deadly, unnecessary weapon. Being upset about not being able to buy a crossbow at the sporting goods store is the same as being upset because the government won't let you put a silencer on your pistol, or a purchase a street-sweeping shotgun from Wal-Mart. Just because it isn't gunpowder doesn't mean it won't hurt somebody.


I should note that some kids are born addicted to drugs, Vorak. They are called crack babies. Their only crime was having a drug addicted mom who decided to use while pregnant. Charonte is right, though, the ones who are killing themselves are often the victims of some form of tragedy. It's impossible to judge, though. More education is needed.

Legalizing drugs doesn't make them easier to get to children, by the way. Kids seem to have a knack for getting marijuana that surpasses their ability to get a cigarette. It is true that they get their hands on alcohol quite easily (I know I certainly did), but that may be more a symptom of alcohol being widely accepted by Western culture. The fact that most of us have stories of trying to achieve alcohol while under-age proves this. It is on the same level as kids smoking marijuana.

Incidentally, I'm Canadian, so while I'm very well aware of the USA's track record of violent crime, it does not really factor into my value system. As such, telling me about American failings isn't an effective debate strategy for me.

 

@Charonte

The reason behind starting changes nothing. No reason is good enough to start doing drugs. I do have more understanding for suicides, because they do what they do because they don't want to live, while druggies obviously want to live (their will is strong enough to not kill themselves), but instead of doing anything with their lives they decide to fuck it up completely. If a person sees doing drugs as the only "solution" for his problems, no matter their nature, he is an idiot. If he does drugs because he is curious how it's like, he is an idiot, because a reasonable person would not risk becoming the said animated corpse, knowing how high the risk is.

Sorry, but I don't buy this whole "there are people doing hard drugs and not being addicted" talk. They may say that they aren't addicted, they can even believe it or try to believe it, try to delude themselves, say that they could stop it if they only wanted to. But they would be so very suprised if, for example, their financial situation forced to do so. Negation is part of their addiction. They are not the first and not the last of people thinking they have everything under control until life shows how wrong they are.

Not yet I'm not calling, but give me time.

People who start smoking nowadays are idiots, because even though it's been proven that smoking is the main reason behind premature demise, they decide to start anyway. I have more understanding for older people who started to smoke before it was known how deadly smoking is.

I won't call smokers bad people, because as long as they don't force other people to be passive smokers, their smoking causes practically no crimes or death of unrelated people. I will call a bad person anyone who, for example, drives under the influence of either alcohol, pot or any strong drug, because even though not intentionally evil, he is stupid enough to risk the lives of innocent people.

Also, for nicotine/alcohol/marijuana, the difference from hard drugs is that they don't cause instant addiction, while instant or nearly instand addiction is one of the very factors of defining hard drugs. It's how they work.

Not true, as said above. One can drink alcohol once in a blue moon and have no urge to drink between those situations. However if a person does hard drugs, his body will demand doses no matter how hard he tries to ignore it. The chemical effect of a hard drugs makes a person starting to do hard drugs a junky before he knows it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Masteut

Of course I did. I didn't say I'm for or against legalising guns, I just have shown some argument of both sides. Some of your arguments are correct, but some of the opposite are correct as well. I'm just saying to keep in mind both, without ignoring one of the sides.

Yes, they should, but remember that if a person wants to get a gun and doesn't care for it being legal, he will succeed. If there would be no way for a criminal to get a gun I would fully support full gun restriction, but sadly guns being only in the hands of law enforcers is an unreachable utopia.

Drugs do kill other people, because some junkies kill other people to get money for drugs. People under the influence of pot or happy mushrooms driving a car are as deadly as drunk ones as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Grakelin

Crack babies should helped for they had no choice. Anyone who choses to do drugs had the choice and screwed it. It's not impossible to judge. We live in the era of the Internet, if one can afford to do drugs, he also has enough money to check on the webs what can be the consequences of his choice. If he either choses not to do so or checks it out but starts doing drugs anyway, everyone has the right to judge them.

No.

1. "Hey kid, want some candy? You know, I have an easy job walking here and offering candy to you because if the cops find me walking around with a lot of dr-, err, candy "for personal use", they can't arrest me because it's completely legal."

2. The rat race is a fact. When drugs are legal, dealers have a much easier way to be in schools. This and the fact that "after all, drugs are legal, so it can't be that bad" causes the risk of kids trying amphetamine (known for it's learning-helping properties) to rise.