Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[-Skeptic-]

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
That us why millions of deer are clubbed to death each year, right ?
You are a moron.

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. You haven't made any counter arguments to my point my dear.

[-Skeptic-]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>
Too bad the facts are not in your corner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/sci...
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
And blaming insanity is ignorant.

Your opnion doesn't matter, creationist, you don't have any valid counter points to the fact that a gun is designed to kill.

There's no good excuse for carrying guns in society. Here in the UK, we have very few gun crimes and part of the reason is because the stupid ignorant people don't get access to guns as easily as they would in your society.

You guys love guns, because youre inherently wusses that don't know how to grow a backbone.

Do us a favour and either ban guns, or stop dirtying the international press with your high school shooting stories every f*cking month.

[Aura Mytha]

My gun is for fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Lil Ticked]

I believe that it was Aura Mythra that posted the link of the guy that used a 3d printer to make his own semi-auto rifle at home which effectively renders a ban on assault rifles useless.

[NightSerf]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
This whole debate started because of the shooting in Connecticut. You can't possess a handgun in Connecticut until you're 21. The shooter was 20. The law is clear. The law was not enforced. I don't understand why some people think that new laws will be enforced when the existing ones aren't.
It comes down to this for me. Stop voting for the same ineffective dumasses that have been in congress since before my parents were born. The next time I see Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, John McClain, et. al, it better be by a big retirement cake. I really don't want people who were born in 1930 or 1940 telling me what to do in 2013.

I can't agree. Barring debilitating health problems, people don't get stupid as they age, they get smarter, more competent. While some politicians may lose touch and get stuck in the past, most keep up to date on matters that require government action or attention. In addition, living through decades of changing times makes for a greater degree of perspective than is found even among younger students of history. Older pols who are mired in the past need to go, but some who served to their last breath have been driving forces with their eyes on a future that even their younger colleagues see with less clarity. Edward Kennedy and Tip O'Neil come to mind and I should imagine they had Republican counterparts.

Beware of the temptation to get rid of leaders for inconsequential reasons as their replacements are likely to be inconsequential as well.

[TheBlackSheep]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
I know where you are coming from, here after (I think about 12 months don't quote me on that) there is a work for the dole scheme. Either you work where they send you (within reason) or you don't get paid. Does the system work, well yer most of the time. Is it perfect, show me any system which 100% efficient. At the end of the day it must be realized that some people are just unemployable. Is it their fault, who knows? But do you let people go cold and hungry? Surly one of the measures of a civilized society is how we treat the less fortunate?
BTW our scheme is federal on state run.
As I said at the out set I am an outsider looking in, so my views are both valid and invalid at the same time. Valid in that what I see is not tainted by local issues, invalid because I don't know the history and I use that as a precursor to what I am about to say.
Back in the early 1990s I was on a business to the US and was in L.A., San Fransisco, Las Gatos and St Paul. I had a great time, loved the people I worked with and the country. But the one thing that horrified me was not the crime or the drugs but the beggars on the streets. I am in no way saying that we don't have them here we do, but not in the numbers I saw in San Fransisco. You could put that down to the difference in population size of OZ verses the US. But I live in Sydney population 4.6 million it is not a small country town and we see no where near the numbers here.

When I was a kid in school, I was taught that America was built by taking the best ideas from the rest of the world. Other than some very big mistakes, like slavery and segregation, I believed that.

Nowadays, we are sometimes too prideful to say that another country has a better idea than us and sometimes I think we are smart not going down the same path as others. Unfortunately, we mostly rely on our news programs and they are quite unreliable! Every month or so, someone on one of the news programs gets busted for lying, skewing the data, or ignoring an issue that makes their party look bad. People complain that news organizations should not be in bed with a political party, but that falls on deaf ears.

Travel is the best way to broaden your mind! I have been to Sydney several times and loved it each time. I even stayed at Kings Cross!

I have been to Perth and I loved it! Beer cost a lot more but I loved the people and the weather! Most of the people that I hung out with, were also travelers and knew that Americans were not what they saw on TV.

What to do about the homeless? If I had the answer for that, I would be king of the world! First, I think you have to find out why they are homeless and deal with it from there. If a person wants to be homeless, can I take that freedom away from him? If they are mentally challenged, then surely they should be put in a home and cared for. If they are just down on their luck, then they should be helped! I don't understand why we don't push education in the country!

It would be nice if you could know which people to help and which are too lazy to worry about.

[NightSerf]

UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:

<quoted text>Hey , why don't you tell others, they started with subject and had gone astray of this tread purpose, why am i'm the only one single out. Topix is free forum, and anyone can come in ... take you own BS and shove it! BWHHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA

There's a difference. Threads meander as they age and as the participants react to one another. You, on the other hand, entered this thread with no intention of joining in. Instead, you began by spouting off on your obsession with Cuba. Why not read other posts and join the larger conversation, whatever it may be? Too single-minded and obsessive?

[Lil Ticked]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Your opnion doesn't matter, creationist, you don't have any valid counter points to the fact that a gun is designed to kill.
There's no good excuse for carrying guns in society. Here in the UK, we have very few gun crimes and part of the reason is because the stupid ignorant people don't get access to guns as easily as they would in your society.
You guys love guns, because youre inherently wusses that don't know how to grow a backbone.
Do us a favour and either ban guns, or stop dirtying the international press with your high school shooting stories every f*cking month.

Criminals do not care about bans. Prohibition = backmarket. U.K. population vs. U.S. population.
Violence per capita in the U.K is higher than that of America.
That is not opinion. That is fact.
Yes, guns are designed to kill. So are plenty of other things. What is your point?
http://gunssavelives.net/

[Lil Ticked]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
But not everything is designed to be a weapon.

No, but weapons are not hard to make at home.

[Adam]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Here in the UK, we have very few gun crimes and part of the reason is because the stupid ignorant people don't get access to guns as easily as they would in your society.

Here in the UK I think we have the balance right.

You can legally own a gun, single shot rifles of any calibre, with certificate.

What is not allowed is the military style assult weapons loved by gun nuts. But dont worry, we will never convince anyone here of this, cause views are too entrenched, and in the US guns are such a big part of their culture.

[UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
There's a difference. Threads meander as they age and as the participants react to one another. You, on the other hand, entered this thread with no intention of joining in. Instead, you began by spouting off on your obsession with Cuba. Why not read other posts and join the larger conversation, whatever it may be? Too single-minded and obsessive?

Topic is about wars... so i took one example... what you don't understand? I only use Cuba once as example and have not gone beyond that ...U have a problem! I see you not having a good day, did you mom yell at you? Who said i did not join in, have you not seen my postings, go and look for it, you disingenous idiot! WBHAHAHAHAAAAAa

You want any more, know know you got me going, my bites and barking will be you own doing! So, what it be? WBHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA

over 179 nations support /collobarated with Cuba to be free from the warring obnoxious US sanctions on Cuba, what you don't like about this? You own fault for support US neocons' warring policy ofc MAnifest Destiny! So uopu believer in American Exceptionalism?

[TheBlackSheep]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't agree. Barring debilitating health problems, people don't get stupid as they age, they get smarter, more competent. While some politicians may lose touch and get stuck in the past, most keep up to date on matters that require government action or attention. In addition, living through decades of changing times makes for a greater degree of perspective than is found even among younger students of history. Older pols who are mired in the past need to go, but some who served to their last breath have been driving forces with their eyes on a future that even their younger colleagues see with less clarity. Edward Kennedy and Tip O'Neil come to mind and I should imagine they had Republican counterparts.
Beware of the temptation to get rid of leaders for inconsequential reasons as their replacements are likely to be inconsequential as well.

While that is true, I do believe that most politicians get too comfortable in their positions and their lobbyist know just what price they require to vote a certain way.

My problem is, I have tried to read a bill or two and it is damn near impossible for a layman to understand what they are talking about. If you have ever looked into who actually signed out a bill to read it? How many in congress don't even do that? They just vote along party lines or by what they hear.

[UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE]

If you don't know what is 'oupu' that is " O You, Pee You" BWHAHHAHHAHHAAAAA

[Aerobatty]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>They banned here, I think owning one jail time no questions asked.

Exactly.

Why no outcry about that from gun nuts?

Because even the staunchest gun owner knows that the silencer is designed to make it easier to get away with killing people.

But these same people can't admit that the assault weapon is designed to kill people.

[Lil Ticked]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
While that is true, I do believe that most politicians get too comfortable in their positions and their lobbyist know just what price they require to vote a certain way.
My problem is, I have tried to read a bill or two and it is damn near impossible for a layman to understand what they are talking about. If you have ever looked into who actually signed out a bill to read it? How many in congress don't even do that? They just vote along party lines or by what they hear.

"Got to pass the bill to find out what is in it."
Now who said that?

[River Tam]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't agree. Barring debilitating health problems, people don't get stupid as they age, they get smarter, more competent. While some politicians may lose touch and get stuck in the past, most keep up to date on matters that require government action or attention. In addition, living through decades of changing times makes for a greater degree of perspective than is found even among younger students of history. Older pols who are mired in the past need to go, but some who served to their last breath have been driving forces with their eyes on a future that even their younger colleagues see with less clarity. Edward Kennedy and Tip O'Neil come to mind and I should imagine they had Republican counterparts.
Beware of the temptation to get rid of leaders for inconsequential reasons as their replacements are likely to be inconsequential as well.

I'm 19. I know the difference between income and expenditures. Edward Kennedy killed a young girl. Nuff said.

This is simple economics. We are taught this at an early age. How do the older politicians forget these lessons?

I think Strom Thurmond was elected to the United States Senate when he was 98 years old. I could be wrong about that because I'm rarely wrong. Let's talk about Robert Byrd. Shall we?

[UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
While that is true, I do believe that most politicians get too comfortable in their positions and their lobbyist know just what price they require to vote a certain way.
My problem is, I have tried to read a bill or two and it is damn near impossible for a layman to understand what they are talking about. If you have ever looked into who actually signed out a bill to read it? How many in congress don't even do that? They just vote along party lines or by what they hear.

Congress is corrupted, as most of Congress spend 99% OF TIME WOOING Corporations ... and little people are kicked aside!

[NightSerf]

Quibbling over design specifications is pointless. The reason to own and bear arms is for hunting and protection. Unlike knives, which are primarily for use in the kitchen and some workplaces, or cars, which are for getting around, guns function only as weapons. If they were tools, as some claim, they would be stored along with screwdrivers and hammers. When we plunk away at targets, we are preparing to kill if necessary. And sometimes--rarely--it is.

But mostly it is not. A review of U.S. homicide statistics shows that very few are justifiable under the law. Most of the time that guns are used against people, they are used illegally even when the guns themselves are legal. At the same time, most guns are never used against people at all because most gun owners are careful and responsible about them.

It's also true that in the vast majority of gun fatalities, there is only one victim. The mass shootings that so alarm us happen rarely, but the single victim shootings that take the vast majority of homicide victims happen daily. To be so alarmed at the one and not at the other makes no sense at all.

Is it possible to identify demographic groups or individual people who are most likely to use firearms illegally? I don't know. I doubt that predictions can be accurate enough to justify denying a right that is available to all other citizens.

What does make sense to me is to designate a legal purpose for each class of weapons, designating some for general use and others for police or military use only. Private citizens have no legitimate need for rocket launchers, but they do for hunting rifles. Somewhere in between, a line needs to be drawn, but where? It's a question that only the legislature and the Court can answer.

[UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm 19. I know the difference between income and expenditures. Edward Kennedy killed a young girl. Nuff said.
This is simple economics. We are taught this at an early age. How do the older politicians forget these lessons?
I think Strom Thurmond was elected to the United States Senate when he was 98 years old. I could be wrong about that because I'm rarely wrong. Let's talk about Robert Byrd. Shall we?

Hey we youngster have stick together . You are smart!

[G_O_D]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
...Because even the staunchest gun owner knows that the silencer is designed to make it easier to get away with killing people.
....

Yet they , like full auto weapons, arelegal to own in most of the USA.

When was the last time you heard of a full auto or silenced weapon used in a crime ? Please provide proof <court transcripts>

All the anti-gun nuts are clueless and usually liars.