quote:

---

Originally posted by Princess Ruth:

I love my life, I'm a responsible, kind, generous person and never intentionally upset anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contains Hydrogenated Coconut Oil:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mangophobia:
...I can't exactly justify full-blown Atheism, because I figure something had to have started the Big Bang.

---

Hmm... Probably just an anomaly in space-time. I expect that in the future somebody makes a time-machine and goes back to watch the Big Bang, only to find that it was actually their time-machine which caused it. It's almost ironic enough to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by el presidente:

And I know, Bob. The problem is, Roger Waters is the only particular musician I enjoy and felt like naming, and the only case wherein most of the musical vision could be accredited to / blamed on one man.

---

quote:

---

even some Christians partially believe in evolution (i.e. "God created the creatures on earth first, then they 'evolved'").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by X:
Can you say "play with yourselves" on SW boards? I'll be using it a lot in future, if so. ;)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by [Sarachim]:
Most economic theories dictate that the money supply does little to contribute to overall growth (Friedman and the monetarists are a big exception), and it definitely takes more than just more money to stimulate economic growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by [Sarachim]:
Well, that's partly true, but as long as the growth in the money supply stays even with economic growth, inflation should be zero. In practice, inflation still exists because the government still increases the money supply faster than the economy grows, but not nearly so severely as in the hyperinflation cases of the past century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireDrakeofIce and Necromancy:

B. If weapons where baned all over the world. That's asuming the world as a whole agrees with this idea. And i'm infering that you mean ban the public use and ownership of weapons. If such does happen, smuggling is going to get worse.
How will smuggling get worse if there are no guns in the public domain to smuggle in the first place? There may still be guns floating around because they already are legal (note - they would not be there if guns were illegalised in the first place), so obviously the banning would have to be preceded by a gun amnesty (one of which was in the UK recently, and it went very well). The main problem of course is to get all countries to sign up.


If you mean the baning of weapons all over the world as a whole, gov't included (which is never going to happen, unfortunatly) any terrorist organisation will have much easier time to put it's actions and plans into effect.

That would be a case of what I like to call an ideal situation. Perfect once it happens, but unfortunately impossible to get to. But if this situation did occur, then there would be no guns even for the terrorists to have.

Exiting the US's mentality of weapons, there are countries where weapons in the public are not abused and are almost a necesity. Example: in Isreal most citizens, those that have been to the Isreally army, are allowed to have personal weaponry becouse the idea of militia is not a dead idea, at least there.

I don't know exactly why Israelis all need guns. Maybe its so they can shoot Palestinians. More likely however, the reason I don't know is because I'm ignorant. I'd be happy to be enlightened on the situation more precisely (and why they all need guns)

I'm not saying that uzies sould in anyway be legalized, just that stricter laws should be put of weaponry storage and containmet. As well as better background inquries. In the US, the constitution will always be used as a reason for personal ownership of a gun, I say make getting the gun harder, and more complicated. Most of the school shootings were comited becouse a student got a hold of a gun (perent's fault for letting them have a way to get them) and used that gun to "express" a feeling toward the school. I think that in those cases, where an underage student got a hold of the gun, the parents should be put on trial as the killers as well as the student/kid responsible. If such a thing whould happen, parents would be more careful with their guns and such, and more alert to their childern's mood, friends, ect.

guns are only the meathod, the true problem is much deaper...
It's also one that cannot be solved, so why not put effort into eradicating the method. (and I agree with you on the points about locking up guns etc. - more regulation is better than nothing, or more deregulation)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OmegaMan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by el presidente
Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle.

---

Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing.

Maybe you do. Others however do not. And when you say you know what you are doing, what exactly does this mean? You know how to shoot somebody well?

quote:

---

Do you stand against licensing of firearms, then, and tougher control of guns? It's my personal opinion that only those who know how to responsibly use firearms should be allowed to do so. That way those who can responsibly use firearms are able to, and those who cannot are not.

---

I do not support tougher control of guns I support stricter penalties for crimes involving a gun, and as for licensing of firearmes. What will that do? Criminals will hardly be affected by licenses, they get them illegal anyway. If properly enforced the gun laws that we have on the books now would be very effective.

You appear to have used two opposite logics here. Firstly, you say that better enforcement/tougher sentances etc. of gun control will not affect criminals, as they don't pay attention to the law anyway. Then you say that tougher sentances/ more enforcement for gun related crime should be increased, and that this would affect these crimes. Surely by the logic of your first arguement, this would have no effect, as criminals would not pay attention to these anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afkpuz:
Well, we give up our countries after wrecking them. At least that's what they tell us. (I was for the war, though, just because of saddam. Another sane dictator wouldn't have been as bad.)

Also, a superpower with nukes and bad government and morals is a BAD thing? look at Rome! they kicked the Heinie of the WORLD!!!

---