Oblarg

Doesn't mean one individual can't benefit in a way that harms the rest. This is irrelevant, though, as owning a gun has no real benefit anyway. What a totally ignorant thing to say. What are you, 5 years old? Try telling that to people who are alive today because they had a handgun. Why don't you go do some 'real' research on the subject instead of being the perfect media-puppet, happily applauding everything they tell you. Try telling that to the family of a person who was shot with a legally owned gun. I have yet to hear one convincing reason why a person should be able to legally own a handgun. Every bit of data I've ever seen points towards it being an innefective method of self-defense, and there certainly is no practical use. Once again, you don't have the right to harm people. Why should you have the right to own a device designed to harm people?

:lol: I place myself higher than I do society, Oblarg. You see, the only person that I have to live with is myself. I don't care about society and given my experiences in my life society doesn't give a rat's ass about me. I don't care what is best for society. I care what is best for me. No one else. This. Why do I give a rat's ass about you people, especially in cases like this one, where owning a gun can obviously save my life, but has no real connection to the quality of your lives, especially considering I'm not a crazy? I suppose you'd love to live without things provided by the collective. No roads, no schools, no communication. Enjoy.

You're ridiculous. There are no such "two groups," and I highly doubt you actually believe that. There are selfish people who would do whatever they want with no regard for the society which allows them to do so. You are one of those people.

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

Doesn't mean one individual can't benefit in a way that harms the rest. This is irrelevant, though, as owning a gun has no real benefit anyway.

i missed that one. prove it. you're right, and a state that has absolute control over an unarmed populace is clearly good for society as has been so frequently demonstrated. oh, wait, it actually worked the other way historically. you're right, and as a result we look past it to the point of protecting the people from the state. still self defense, but in a much larger context. perhaps in your world, but then again, arguing morals with a someone making such claims is an exercise in circular... wait, you mention it here: yet i get the impression you don't understand what logic means. if you satisfy the needs of the individual first, it will necessarily lead to the betterment of society. history disproves your assertion Always. taks Are you actually naive enough to think that the populace owning guns is why we don't have a dictatorship? I'm not going to bother searching out the statistics myself. I've seen them before, and if you want to disagree, you can go look up something to the contrary. And your last statement is pure stupidity. Do you actually believe that anything that benefits the individual also benefits society? What world do you live in?

I'm sure glad you live in my country!

Better than you having a gun and shooting him instead, because there's a much better chance if you own a gun of you shooting someone in a situation which is not self-defense. Simple statistics. Murders involving guns *will* happen, the best we can do is design policies to minimize the number of them. As for how I know a gun is intended to do harm, that's what they are designed for. The gun is a weapon. Weapons harm people. There is nothing more to it. Target shooting is a paltry excuse. Hunting is a legitimate reason to own a rifle, I will not deny that, but there's no reason for anyone to own a handgun other than ego-boosting. Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself. It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society. Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted. Morals have nothing to do with it, it's simple logic - the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always. If you can demonstrate that the internet is dangerous and a detriment to society, you would have basis for that argument. Alas, such a claim is laughable.

Well, this is good news.

Begs the question, why own it?

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool. Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people? To give some perspective of things, while i was serving in the military, we were always instructed on "incapacitating" the enemy when training with our assault rifles and machine guns. Not once did any superior officer say that we should kill, murder or slaughter the enemy. To put it more frankly, our objectives as soldiers were to render the enemy incapable to do more fighting. If we happen to kill the enemy soldier in battle, then we do. The same could be achieved by shooting his arms, legs or him simply giving up. Let me generalize it further: Why should you have the right to own something which is intended to harm other people when you don't have the right to harm other people?

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has. Faith moves men. End of. That could help justify its usefulness but not its correctness. If Faith can give a man the courage to face death unflinchingly, as it has done on numerous occasions then that makes it pretty damn powerful. I accept that may make it useful, but I do not think it can be discounted, is all I am trying to say. It is real in as much as all our thoughts, dreams, and aspirations become reality through our actions. I suspect that the urge to eliminate the spiritual aspect is as unhealthy as the alternative urge to eliminate the sexual which predated it. Man is more than the big head or the little head, the heart, or the hand. So, if you kill people in the name of god, god is real? I'm not buying that. Sorry.

Kind of obvious isn't it? Under the premise of course that the resources required to replicate are too scarce to support an entire generation. Only then can you get a selection, be it natural or not. Very obvious. When you think about it, there's really no way evolution can't happen in a self-replicating system subject to random mutation and external pressures.

I have some sort of toe fungus. It hurts. This sucks.

If you have such little faith in humanity that you think the only way of inspiring people to do good things is faith, then I suppose you could view it that way. Personally, I'd rather not.

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has. Faith moves men. End of. Purely psychological results are unimpressive, and irrelevant to the actual faith - the result you claim comes from the act of believing, not from the divine entity itself.

Really? Prove it. Logic. Define knowledge.

The obvious solution would be to move to the west coast. Then you'd be going to sleep at midnight and waking up at 9/10am. Problem solved! Funny, because that's exactly what I did leading up to a recent trip to Italy. Was sleeping from from 3PM-1AM, it put me right on schedule with the jetlag.

Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. You can't "know" anything if you're unable to demonstrate it to someone else.

The correct phrase is actually "correlation doesn't always equal causation", because it often actually does equal it. Still wrong. The correct phrase is "correlation does not imply causation."

I have to wake up at 6:30 in the morning, so for me at least, sleeping 8 hours is nearly impossible. On a good night, I get to sleep at 11:30 and get 7 hours, and I still feel like crap and sleep through my first class in the morning.

No, he didn't. Claiming I didn't read his post is not a valid rebuttal. I did read his post, and found absolutely no compelling reason to "opening my mind to faith." What exactly am I missing out on by being "close-minded?" How is it stifling? Even more important, why should I make an exception to the way I view the world for faith? What is so special about "faith" that separates it from any other unfounded belief? I simply stripped away the fluff. The context of the quote was irrelevant - there's no context in which it would ever be valid. Instead of actually attempting to refute my claim, however, he simply brushed me off as being "close-minded" and not having read his post. That's not arguing.

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has. Yeah, you're really not reading carefully and just quoting out of context, so this discussion is over. You did illustrate my point on close-mindedness, so thanks for that. Nice rebuttal. Maybe next time instead of a fancily worded "you're wrong" you could actually back your opinion.

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has.

I never offered any proof. I simply said I know God exists. You can believe me or not believe me. Knowing and believing that God exists does not equal worshiping the damn bastard. Your "knowing" sounds a lot like "believing" to me.