ForeverCadino (2015-03-29 17:40:46)

---

^

---

carlos11 (2015-03-29 18:36:59)

---

Imbeciles.

---

carlos11 (2015-03-29 20:06:35)

---

While we're at it, why don't we provide every nation in the world with the technology necessary to build weapons of mass destruction in order to ensure their safety?
Because that's just retarded. We don't hand out weapons or want people/nations to have weapons because we don't want them to be used at all. If weapon ownership is not regulated, then it is exponentially more likely that a weapon would fall into the wrong hands. And bear in mind that there are no "right" hands. That is, you shouldn't have a weapon, period, so if you do have one, it's already in the wrong hands. I don't give a damn how responsible you are, it's still a liability. Nothing good will ever come from it, but the possibility that someone will get shot is always there. Don't be an imbecile.

I tried to keep this as short and as clear as possible. If you still think you're not wrong, go shoot yourself.

---

AntiChrist (2015-03-29 21:56:38)

---

If nobody has guns to defend themselves, many people will be killed because of not being able to defend themselves.

If everyone has a gun, many people will be killed because of irresponsible or morally corrupt gun owners.

Common sense is accepting that there is not right or wrong answer. No opinion in this tgread is stupid unless you are saying that having a certain opinion makes you stupid.

---

YouMeAtSix (2015-03-29 22:12:36)

---

Like I said (or was trying to say): It depends on the person using the gun they can be used as 'defense' but they can also be used as a way of violence if there wasn't guns people would still commit murder and those 'defending' themselves would/could use other means of defending themselves

---

carlos11 (2015-03-29 22:14:15)

---

More imbeciles.

---

YouMeAtSix (2015-03-29 22:20:18)

---

Calling people 'imbecile's for not having the same opinion as you, that's kinda ridiculous.

Please find the difference between OPINIONS and FACTS then get back to me

---

YouMeAtSix (2015-03-29 22:26:06)

---

@FluxerCry You'd rather be stabbed in the chest than shot in the foot? It depends what type of gun/knife it is and where it penetrates.

---

YouMeAtSix (2015-03-29 22:46:03)

---

David you're an imbecile 'They shoot eachother' (also each other is two separate words ), I very much doubt that criminals only kill criminals so you're saying no innocents are hurt whatsoever? That BS.

And id like to know where your quote came from:
"GUNS PREVENTS VIOLENCE"-THE COUNTRY PLAGUED BY GUN VIOLENCE
So David, where is your source? cause clearly you know

---

carlos11 (2015-03-29 22:54:55)

---

>"Calling people 'imbecile's for not having the same opinion as you, that's kinda ridiculous."
>"David you're an imbecile"

Ok. The golden rule in regards to calling people imbeciles is that if you're going to do it, you need to be on the winning side of an argument. You're on the losing side.

---

YouMeAtSix (2015-03-29 23:24:43)

---

I was calling him an imbecile for saying that criminals only shoot each other and that's a fact not an opinion

---

spadeguy (2015-03-30 00:45:54)

---

Both safer and less safe. Instead of having an inverse relationship, it could be argued that the two variables (safety and danger) have a direct relationship and that the invention of guns allowed people to protect themselves and harm others. This means that by making yourself safe you are making a dangerous world for others. At the end of the day, it is people who decide how guns are used, so it could be either.

Nah, def more dangerous

---

carlos11 (2015-03-30 00:54:14)

---

Sorta kinda yeah, except you're completely wrong. You were close, though.

Also, I know you don't care, but from a mathematical standpoint, your statement doesn't make sense. What you were trying to describe was the relationship between two variables. It is indeed direct, not inverse. From there, you could further describe the relationship by defining the two variables' association as either negative or positive. That is, as one rises, does the one increase or decrease? You don't know what inverse means.
Just saying.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2015-03-30 00:59:16

---

spadeguy (2015-03-30 01:19:14)

---

See, Carlos, I completely understand. The thing is, none of that was actually supposed to be correct. The paragraph of text was only supposed to sound smart. I planned on having it oppose my the next statement, that would be crossed out because it humorously goes against the the more, seemingly, well thought out paragraph. I now realize, this is a super serious thread for super serious people, and any attempts at humor will be met with responses like yours. Internet.

---

Perfect_Chaos (2015-03-30 01:19:32)

---

It makes them more violent IMO.

---