A gun is very much like a tool, in that it is very precisely tuned to perform a specific function. In this case, a gun's purpose is to end human life. Guns don't save lives, they end them. That's their very reason for existing.
A gun is very much like a tool, in that it is very precisely tuned to perform a specific function. In this case, a gun's purpose is to end human life. Guns don't save lives, they end them. That's their very reason for existing.
Yes, this is true and I agree wholeheartedly. Guns are tools designed to end lives. By the way, did you know that each year hundreds of law abiding citizens defend themselves and take violent criminals off the streets with legally owned firearms? Just thought I'd share. You see, while human life is a precious thing; you can't count on your moral niceties to save you from a deranged attacker.
In addition, you will note that when I referred to guns saving lives, I noted that they save innocent lives, when used properly. I'd rather have someone defend themselves with lethal force than have a criminal deprive an innocent person of their life. I'm sure most people would agree, given this choice.
Now i've nothing against anyone who likes to go to the shooting range, it seems an admirable and enjoyable past-time. But I don't see how putting guns in peoples hands for protection makes them safer. Just more liable to blow someones head off by accident or when they're drunk
People have guns because they're scared. Stop being scared, there's nothing to be afraid of
Now i've nothing against anyone who likes to go to the shooting range, it seems an admirable and enjoyable past-time. But I don't see how putting guns in peoples hands for protection makes them safer. Just more liable to blow someones head off by accident or when they're drunk
People have guns because they're scared. Stop being scared, there's nothing to be afraid of
That might be true, but I'd much rather be in a position to defend myself and not need to than needing to defend myself and not having the ability. Furthermore, there is violent crime. That's something to be afraid of, and it's not an entirely unheard of occurrence.
That's not the choice you're given though, that's a false dichotomy. You're looking at allowing killing tools to be widely available utilizing easy, legal means. A legal means of purchasing guns provides an illegal ones. Those who can legally buy guns can purchase them for those who can't legally purchase guns. Addicts are known to sell guns to their dealers. A wider legal availability of guns fuels and strengthens the illegal market. Gun ownership is also a risk, and can easily lead to self-injury by the owner or the owner's family. Suicide attempts with a gun are more likely to succeed than by any other method. This is also saying nothing about vigilante justice, that killing another man without trial is to deprive them of due process, something that is a basic right for all citizens, regardless of guilt. Means of self-protection without lethal force would be ideal, I don't think self-protection requires lethal stopping power.
That's not the choice you're given though, that's a false dichotomy. You're looking at allowing killing tools to be widely available utilizing easy, legal means. A legal means of purchasing guns provides an illegal ones. Those who can legally buy guns can purchase them for those who can't legally purchase guns. Addicts are known to sell guns to their dealers. A wider legal availability of guns fuels and strengthens the illegal market. Gun ownership is also a risk, and can easily lead to self-injury by the owner or the owner's family. Suicide attempts with a gun are more likely to succeed than by any other method. This is also saying nothing about vigilante justice, that killing another man without trial is to deprive them of due process, something that is a basic right for all citizens, regardless of guilt. Means of self-protection without lethal force would be ideal, I don't think self-protection requires lethal stopping power.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you 'do' make guns next to impossible for the average man to get. I would wager that it still accomplishes nothing. Why? Well, for starter's we a well organised illicit trade network already set up for drug running. Drugs are illegal, but still widely available, no? Would it be such a stretch for drug runners to start selling guns, too? Now only the criminals have guns. Nice lawmaking, bucko! You're a regular hero!
Second, the risk of injury to the gunowner or his family is a lot less, I would imagine, than the risks associated with improperly operating an automobile. At least a gun can only cause harm in one direction.
Third, suicide may be more effective with guns than knives, true - but I imagine that someone determined enough can still find a capital way of ending his life without firearms. Oh, wait! That's right! They have knives! One of the oldest and simplest tools known to man. Are you going to outlaw knives, too?
I mean, hell, we can even rope vigilantism in with that one. You don't need weapons to be a vigilante - just numbers. In a country as aggressive and polarized as the US, I would imagine that our inalienable gun rights are quite contributory to actually lowering the crime rate, due to a potential criminal's fears of getting shot. This, however; is just conjecture on my part.
I still fail to see how any of the classic anti-gun movement's tired arguments can hold any water.
I still fail to see how any of the classic anti-gun movement's tired arguments can hold any water.
How's this. People are morons. YOU ARE GIVING GUNS TO MORONS!!!
I've been in a few tight spots in my short but sometimes colourful life, I don't see how me adding a gun to those situations would work out better for either party.
True, you're giving guns to morons. This is undeniable and I appreciate and reciprocate your misanthropy. However, if the other morons already have guns shouldn't the morons who want to defend themselves be equal? I'm sure if someone came at you with a knife, you would at least appreciate being able to one up him with a pistol instead of waiting for the police to arrive with nothing but your phone in your hands.
Besides, I am loathe to have the government be the only people legally able to own firearms. The US government is, essentially, the largest organised crime group in the world. You've seen how we treat other countries and, hell, even our own citizens!
Always fun to argue policy with someone from another country with another point of view - especially with you JedEx.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you 'do' make guns next to impossible for the average man to get. I would wager that it still accomplishes nothing. Why? Well, for starter's we a well organised illicit trade network already set up for drug running. Drugs are illegal, but still widely available, no? Would it be such a stretch for drug runners to start selling guns, too? Now only the criminals have guns. Nice lawmaking, bucko! You're a regular hero!
Recreational drugs are actually probably a lot less worth prohibiting than guns, actually. Their sole purpose isn't to end the lives of other human beings.
The core concept is that a tool whose sole purpose is to end life should not be something people should own or feel the need to own. Owning a gun in the interest of self-defense is to own a gun with the intent to kill another human being. This is different from owning a knife or a car or even a taser. More than that, criminals don't care about any sort of gun laws, so should private citizens have access to modern military-grade weaponry? If not, why not? Why does this logic then not work for conventional handguns?
Criminals don't care about any laws, why enact any of them, am I right? Criminals don't care if you drive on the correct side of the road, so why bother with traffic regulations? Criminals don't care about murder, so why not just allow it? Criminals don't care about taxes, why tax anyone? You're not saying that criminals have guns, so citizens should have them to out of some sense of fairness. You're saying that citizens should have the right to kill other human beings and overstep the right of due process and a trial by a jury of peers under certain circumstances.
Second, the risk of injury to the gunowner or his family is a lot less, I would imagine, than the risks associated with improperly operating an automobile. At least a gun can only cause harm in one direction.
And an automobile has other, far more common uses, like getting people from home to the McDonald's two blocks away.
Third, suicide may be more effective with guns than knives, true - but I imagine that someone determined enough can still find a capital way of ending his life without firearms.
And they would be less likely to succeed, due to their ownership of tools that are not expressly designed for the purposes of ending another life.
Oh, wait! That's right! They have knives! One of the oldest and simplest tools known to man. Are you going to outlaw knives, too?
Certainly not. While dangerous, knives have other uses besides ending live. People need to cut things that aren't human flesh all the time, and I've certainly used knives for a variety of intended uses without harming another human being. The idea isn't to remove things which can be used to harm, just to remove those things whose sole intended use is to kill, with lethal stopping power.
I mean, hell, we can even rope vigilantism in with that one. You don't need weapons to be a vigilante - just numbers. In a country as aggressive and polarized as the US, I would imagine that our inalienable gun rights are quite contributory to actually lowering the crime rate, due to a potential criminal's fears of getting shot. This, however; is just conjecture on my part.
While you don't need guns to be a vigilante, it certainly makes the killing part a great deal easier.
Besides, I am loathe to have the government be the only people legally able to own firearms. The US government is, essentially, the largest organised crime group in the world. You've seen how we treat other countries and, hell, even our own citizens!
So you're suggesting overthrowing the US government with the use of legally-purchased firearms.
I know I'm going to kick myself for opening this particular can of worms, but what do you guys have to say about hunting rifles, i.e. guns not intended solely to end human life?
I know I'm going to kick myself for opening this particular can of worms, but what do you guys have to say about hunting rifles, i.e. guns not intended solely to end human life?
That's different, for that very reason. While the intended use of a typical handgun is to kill(or at the very least maim) another human being, its proliferation can only lead to more efficient killing(and/or maiming) of other human beings. A hunting rifle, due to its secondary use in terms of a legally-sanctioned recreational sport, is far more acceptable to own.
shouldn't the solution be to be preventing poverty by promoting better education and teaching common decency? not making guns more available? that way there'll be less people who's only means of survival is through the harm of others and less people needing guns to kill people?
many of my friends live in fairly bad parts of various cities around the world and they don't have guns. they do just fine. it's not like everyone's out to get you. my biggest issue with pro gun is that they paint this picture of fear as if everything is out to get you.
chill
no one's out to get you. it's honestly not that bad. people are generally good intentioned, but when you get people afraid, they do drastic things. countries with the strictest gun laws have significantly lower murder rates than the us. and though this, by no means, means that guns are the cause of murder at all, it also means that guns aren't exactly necessary to keep people defended.
That's different, for that very reason. While the intended use of a typical handgun is to kill(or at the very least maim) another human being, its proliferation can only lead to more efficient killing(and/or maiming) of other human beings. A hunting rifle, due to its secondary use in terms of a legally-sanctioned recreational sport, is far more acceptable to own.
You see this is where everything gets grey. I own a hunting rifle, I decide to shoot a person with it, other people buy huntig rifles to protect themselves from me. We're back at square one. Sure we only have one variant of a gun, but it's a gun and it's legal.
And I don't think i'd stop people from having hunting rifles.... we're in a quandry
Recreational drugs are actually probably a lot less worth prohibiting than guns, actually. Their sole purpose isn't to end the lives of other human beings.
That was an example intended to illustrate that making something illegal doesn't make it unavailable.
The core concept is that a tool whose sole purpose is to end life should not be something people should own or feel the need to own. Owning a gun in the interest of self-defense is to own a gun with the intent to kill another human being. This is different from owning a knife or a car or even a taser. More than that, criminals don't care about any sort of gun laws, so should private citizens have access to modern military-grade weaponry? If not, why not? Why does this logic then not work for conventional handguns?
I would think that ending a life in lawful defence is different from ending a life in malice. Surely you can see this. Furthermore, what really separates a military weapon from a common hunting rifle beyond rapid fire and a larger magazine? Ballistics aren't that different and plenty of criminals can get machine guns and larger clips, so what's the point?
Criminals don't care about any laws, why enact any of them, am I right? Criminals don't care if you drive on the correct side of the road, so why bother with traffic regulations? Criminals don't care about murder, so why not just allow it? Criminals don't care about taxes, why tax anyone? You're not saying that criminals have guns, so citizens should have them to out of some sense of fairness. You're saying that citizens should have the right to kill other human beings and overstep the right of due process and a trial by a jury of peers under certain circumstances.
You know, Dash, due process really doesn't mean a lot when you're defending yourself. Just think about that. Besides, common laws such as taxation are completely separate from self defence. Man has been defending himself from his enemy since time immemorial, wheras taxes are a relatively recent burden.
And an automobile has other, far more common uses, like getting people from home to the McDonald's two blocks away.
That really doesn't make it any less deadly for the sake of that argument. Accidental discharge is less deadly than an auto collision. A firearm accident probably won't even hit anyone under most circumstances.
Certainly not. While dangerous, knives have other uses besides ending live. People need to cut things that aren't human flesh all the time, and I've certainly used knives for a variety of intended uses without harming another human being. The idea isn't to remove things which can be used to harm, just to remove those things whose sole intended use is to kill, with lethal stopping power.
I don't know, Dash. It still sounds rather nanny state to me.
While you don't need guns to be a vigilante, it certainly makes the killing part a great deal easier.
Sure, I'll grant that. But why keep guns away from everyone on account of a few vigilantes - a small segment of the population. I think self defence would trump this concern. It does to me, at least.
So you're suggesting overthrowing the US government with the use of legally-purchased firearms.
The South shall rise again indeed.
Please. I'm merely stating that a government that fears its people has more incentive to do its job right. Besides, you don't just overthrow the US government. It's a beast in terms of scale. It's impossible.
Furthermore, I find your attempts to tie me to Neo-Confederate types to be insulting.
I know I'm going to kick myself for opening this particular can of worms, but what do you guys have to say about hunting rifles?
Would you believe that I, a man who talks about lethal self defence, can't bring myself to go hunting? In any case, I think it's obvious where I am on hunting rifles.
That's different, for that very reason. While the intended use of a typical handgun is to kill(or at the very least maim) another human being, its proliferation can only lead to more efficient killing(and/or maiming) of other human beings. A hunting rifle, due to its secondary use in terms of a legally-sanctioned recreational sport, is far more acceptable to own.
Secondary use? How is hunting the secondary use of a hunting rifle? That's like saying the secondary use of a cheese grater is grating cheese.
By the way, the last time I fired a gun, something died. Just so you guys know.
You see this is where everything gets grey. I own a hunting rifle, I decide to shoot a person with it, other people buy huntig rifles to protect themselves from me. We're back at square one. Sure we only have one variant of a gun, but it's a gun and it's legal.
And I don't think i'd stop people from having hunting rifles.... we're in a quandry
It's where it gets grey if you don't consider every other precedent for objects which have the POTENTIAL to harm other human beings, but not that express PURPOSE. Things like knives, automocars, grand pianos and anvils all have some use other than the most efficient possible death of another human being. I don't think it gets particularly grey. Maybe a tinge, but I think we can handle some fuzzy greyness around the edges.
Besides, I'm only on this side of the argument to make my friend's blood vessels pop.
shouldn't the solution be to be preventing poverty by promoting better education and teaching common decency? not making guns more available? that way there'll be less people who's only means of survival is through the harm of others and less people needing guns to kill people?
many of my friends live in fairly bad parts of various cities around the world and they don't have guns. they do just fine. it's not like everyone's out to get you. my biggest issue with pro gun is that they paint this picture of fear as if everything is out to get you.
chill
no one's out to get you. it's honestly not that bad. people are generally good intentioned, but when you get people afraid, they do drastic things. countries with the strictest gun laws have significantly lower murder rates than the us. and though this, by no means, means that guns are the cause of murder at all, it also means that guns aren't exactly necessary to keep people defended.
Buckin' high-five! If you're gonna be in a risky situation like a bad hood at night then jus' travel in numbers and use common sense or don't put yourself in those situations. No need to be riddling the scum from the gutter with bullets
It's where it gets grey if you don't consider every other precedent for objects which have the POTENTIAL to harm other human beings, but not that express PURPOSE. Things like knives, automocars, grand pianos and anvils all have some use other than the most efficient possible death of another human being. I don't think it gets particularly grey. Maybe a tinge, but I think we can handle some fuzzy greyness around the edges.
Besides, I'm only on this side of the argument to make my friend's blood vessels pop.
Yeah, but just because it's called a hunting rifle doesn't not make it a gun (...i'm pretty sure that makes sense) it's still a gun.
I'm bored of this debate now, it may be a classic but it's played-out, we're scheduled to go around in circles anytime now.
By the way, in terms of time travel, I wouldn't change the second amendment. Changing something as basic as gun ownership in the US throughout history would, for net gain or ill, change far too much far too drastically. Just because I have a time machine doesn't make me God, I couldn't go back and change history to such an incredible degree in ways that are so incredibly unpredictable that who knows what the country would be like when I got back? Why do I have the right to do that? My thoughts are to generally let things be, and benefit from time travel without fucking around with the time stream, especially in ways that have unpredictable, far-reaching consequences.
This, by the way, was the argument I was trying to make my good friend make, but he simply wouldn't, the thick stubborn bastard.
I'd go back and solve several unsolved mysteries. Find out where the lost colony of Roanoke went, snap some shots of the grassy knoll, maybe find out for sure what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, D.B. Cooper, Charles Lindburgh Jr., and Glen Miller.
Three words: evil baby orphanage. Kidnap all the evil minds of the past and raise them in a Tibetan monastery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtATGzpTOFk (Original-ish source)
Oh, and figure out if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, all those debates in English get on my nerves.
If the person who wants to steal my wallet has a gun, I'd rather not have one. If I have no gun, they steal my wallet. If I have a gun, they freak out and kill me. Easy choice to make.
If I could go back in time to relive my own life (in my own body at the time) I would stop myself from doing or saying all these stupid things that haunt you all your life but everyone else forgets about right away. You know the kind.
EDIT: I've just realised, owning a gun or not is a case of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Best case scenario, neither of you has one. Worst case to a lot of people would be, the other person has one and you don't (to me that's the middle case). Middle case for most people, you both have one (to me it's the worst case. It gives the other person incentive to use theirs, and it can result in BOTH people getting killed rather than just one or none).
So Pants is deciding that it's safer to bring a gun because he doesn't trust other people not to. Of course the fact that he gets one increases the risks of other people getting one as well, and so on.
If I could go back in time to relive my own life (in my own body at the time) I would stop myself from doing or saying all these stupid things that haunt you all your life but everyone else forgets about right away. You know the kind.
If I could go back in time to relive my own life (in my own body at the time) I would stop myself from doing or saying all these stupid things that haunt you all your life but everyone else forgets about right away. You know the kind.
Comments
Yes, this is true and I agree wholeheartedly. Guns are tools designed to end lives. By the way, did you know that each year hundreds of law abiding citizens defend themselves and take violent criminals off the streets with legally owned firearms? Just thought I'd share. You see, while human life is a precious thing; you can't count on your moral niceties to save you from a deranged attacker.
In addition, you will note that when I referred to guns saving lives, I noted that they save innocent lives, when used properly. I'd rather have someone defend themselves with lethal force than have a criminal deprive an innocent person of their life. I'm sure most people would agree, given this choice.
People have guns because they're scared. Stop being scared, there's nothing to be afraid of
That might be true, but I'd much rather be in a position to defend myself and not need to than needing to defend myself and not having the ability. Furthermore, there is violent crime. That's something to be afraid of, and it's not an entirely unheard of occurrence.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you 'do' make guns next to impossible for the average man to get. I would wager that it still accomplishes nothing. Why? Well, for starter's we a well organised illicit trade network already set up for drug running. Drugs are illegal, but still widely available, no? Would it be such a stretch for drug runners to start selling guns, too? Now only the criminals have guns. Nice lawmaking, bucko! You're a regular hero!
Second, the risk of injury to the gunowner or his family is a lot less, I would imagine, than the risks associated with improperly operating an automobile. At least a gun can only cause harm in one direction.
Third, suicide may be more effective with guns than knives, true - but I imagine that someone determined enough can still find a capital way of ending his life without firearms. Oh, wait! That's right! They have knives! One of the oldest and simplest tools known to man. Are you going to outlaw knives, too?
I mean, hell, we can even rope vigilantism in with that one. You don't need weapons to be a vigilante - just numbers. In a country as aggressive and polarized as the US, I would imagine that our inalienable gun rights are quite contributory to actually lowering the crime rate, due to a potential criminal's fears of getting shot. This, however; is just conjecture on my part.
I still fail to see how any of the classic anti-gun movement's tired arguments can hold any water.
How's this. People are morons. YOU ARE GIVING GUNS TO MORONS!!!
I've been in a few tight spots in my short but sometimes colourful life, I don't see how me adding a gun to those situations would work out better for either party.
PS. Criminals have guns here as well
xoxo
JedEx
Besides, I am loathe to have the government be the only people legally able to own firearms. The US government is, essentially, the largest organised crime group in the world. You've seen how we treat other countries and, hell, even our own citizens!
Always fun to argue policy with someone from another country with another point of view - especially with you JedEx.
The core concept is that a tool whose sole purpose is to end life should not be something people should own or feel the need to own. Owning a gun in the interest of self-defense is to own a gun with the intent to kill another human being. This is different from owning a knife or a car or even a taser. More than that, criminals don't care about any sort of gun laws, so should private citizens have access to modern military-grade weaponry? If not, why not? Why does this logic then not work for conventional handguns?
Criminals don't care about any laws, why enact any of them, am I right? Criminals don't care if you drive on the correct side of the road, so why bother with traffic regulations? Criminals don't care about murder, so why not just allow it? Criminals don't care about taxes, why tax anyone? You're not saying that criminals have guns, so citizens should have them to out of some sense of fairness. You're saying that citizens should have the right to kill other human beings and overstep the right of due process and a trial by a jury of peers under certain circumstances.
And an automobile has other, far more common uses, like getting people from home to the McDonald's two blocks away.
And they would be less likely to succeed, due to their ownership of tools that are not expressly designed for the purposes of ending another life.
Certainly not. While dangerous, knives have other uses besides ending live. People need to cut things that aren't human flesh all the time, and I've certainly used knives for a variety of intended uses without harming another human being. The idea isn't to remove things which can be used to harm, just to remove those things whose sole intended use is to kill, with lethal stopping power.
While you don't need guns to be a vigilante, it certainly makes the killing part a great deal easier.
So you're suggesting overthrowing the US government with the use of legally-purchased firearms.
The South shall rise again indeed.
many of my friends live in fairly bad parts of various cities around the world and they don't have guns. they do just fine. it's not like everyone's out to get you. my biggest issue with pro gun is that they paint this picture of fear as if everything is out to get you.
chill
no one's out to get you. it's honestly not that bad. people are generally good intentioned, but when you get people afraid, they do drastic things. countries with the strictest gun laws have significantly lower murder rates than the us. and though this, by no means, means that guns are the cause of murder at all, it also means that guns aren't exactly necessary to keep people defended.
I try to keep it lively
You see this is where everything gets grey. I own a hunting rifle, I decide to shoot a person with it, other people buy huntig rifles to protect themselves from me. We're back at square one. Sure we only have one variant of a gun, but it's a gun and it's legal.
And I don't think i'd stop people from having hunting rifles.... we're in a quandry
That was an example intended to illustrate that making something illegal doesn't make it unavailable.
I would think that ending a life in lawful defence is different from ending a life in malice. Surely you can see this. Furthermore, what really separates a military weapon from a common hunting rifle beyond rapid fire and a larger magazine? Ballistics aren't that different and plenty of criminals can get machine guns and larger clips, so what's the point?
You know, Dash, due process really doesn't mean a lot when you're defending yourself. Just think about that. Besides, common laws such as taxation are completely separate from self defence. Man has been defending himself from his enemy since time immemorial, wheras taxes are a relatively recent burden.
That really doesn't make it any less deadly for the sake of that argument. Accidental discharge is less deadly than an auto collision. A firearm accident probably won't even hit anyone under most circumstances.
Fair enough, but why punish everyone for the sake of a few people? I think more innocent lives would be saved with guns than would be lost to suicide.
I don't know, Dash. It still sounds rather nanny state to me. Sure, I'll grant that. But why keep guns away from everyone on account of a few vigilantes - a small segment of the population. I think self defence would trump this concern. It does to me, at least.
Please. I'm merely stating that a government that fears its people has more incentive to do its job right. Besides, you don't just overthrow the US government. It's a beast in terms of scale. It's impossible.
Furthermore, I find your attempts to tie me to Neo-Confederate types to be insulting.
Would you believe that I, a man who talks about lethal self defence, can't bring myself to go hunting? In any case, I think it's obvious where I am on hunting rifles.
Secondary use? How is hunting the secondary use of a hunting rifle? That's like saying the secondary use of a cheese grater is grating cheese.
By the way, the last time I fired a gun, something died. Just so you guys know.
It's where it gets grey if you don't consider every other precedent for objects which have the POTENTIAL to harm other human beings, but not that express PURPOSE. Things like knives, automocars, grand pianos and anvils all have some use other than the most efficient possible death of another human being. I don't think it gets particularly grey. Maybe a tinge, but I think we can handle some fuzzy greyness around the edges.
Besides, I'm only on this side of the argument to make my friend's blood vessels pop.
Buckin' high-five! If you're gonna be in a risky situation like a bad hood at night then jus' travel in numbers and use common sense or don't put yourself in those situations. No need to be riddling the scum from the gutter with bullets
The Telltale forums is clearly a composium of some of the deepest thinkers in society today
Yeah, but just because it's called a hunting rifle doesn't not make it a gun (...i'm pretty sure that makes sense) it's still a gun.
I'm bored of this debate now, it may be a classic but it's played-out, we're scheduled to go around in circles anytime now.
This, by the way, was the argument I was trying to make my good friend make, but he simply wouldn't, the thick stubborn bastard.
That's like if I asked you what you would eat if you could choose any vegetable, and said "I'd like a steak assuming I could eat meat too."
Fine.
My future self is living in 1936. I kill him and take his place.
And they call me trollish. That's just infuriating from a logical standpoint.
Right. Obviously. I mean, the great thinkers obviously aren't in the UN or there'd be no poverty and also world peace by now. PROVE ME WRONG.
I guess he marketed it better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtATGzpTOFk (Original-ish source)
Oh, and figure out if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, all those debates in English get on my nerves.
If I could go back in time to relive my own life (in my own body at the time) I would stop myself from doing or saying all these stupid things that haunt you all your life but everyone else forgets about right away. You know the kind.
EDIT: I've just realised, owning a gun or not is a case of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Best case scenario, neither of you has one. Worst case to a lot of people would be, the other person has one and you don't (to me that's the middle case). Middle case for most people, you both have one (to me it's the worst case. It gives the other person incentive to use theirs, and it can result in BOTH people getting killed rather than just one or none).
So Pants is deciding that it's safer to bring a gun because he doesn't trust other people not to. Of course the fact that he gets one increases the risks of other people getting one as well, and so on.
Oh god...
Nice to know I'm not the only one that does this.
Yet here I am.
But what if you got there and it turned out that we really did come from monkeys?
Who says he meant the biblical Adam and Eve.