I am absolutely sure it's because you make a completely incoherent or illogical point, pat yourself on the back about it, thinking you're awesome, and convince yourself that you have made a perfect, indefensible argument, while the rest of us are either trying to figure out what the heel your talking about, or are frantically trying to point out your logic errors, which you refuse to recognize. I mean, you absolutely *insist* that correlation = causation, that law breakers follow laws, etc.

I wish you'd stop saying that the Illuminati are devil worshipers. They're atheists.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

Received e-mail from Primate Education Network:


Suggestions for what I should ask about? The only concern is hat their domain is fairly new (2012)

Nah, I'm in US, so whatever you can buy in CA I can buy in MD. Thanks though!

His might actually have been a prudent decision. For shooting through the door, he got ten years in prison. What do you think he would have gotten had he waited for the SWAT team to break down his door and see him with a gun pointed at them?

Not exactly. If the tax rate was 75%, high enough to pay for these wars directly, you can be sure that people would be royally pissed. But they are stealing a pretty small percent of people's income, something like 15% to 22% in a directly visible way, and less than that for many more people. Instead they are just borrowing the money from war from China and from people they are promising to pay back much later. Oftentimes without people even realizing they are being borrowed from. No so one sees the theft, or cares about it. Part of the reason Bitcoin may improve things: governments will have to actually work for your money, and you will actually have to see and care what the money taken from you is paying for.

And no, I don't think guns protect me from government. They do protect me from criminals. Money protects me from government.

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Bring some hákarl with you. I'll give you some bitcoins for it.

So is Maryland.

I can't believe it's been 2 years already...

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Actually not too surprising, considering CIA's toys include U2 Spy Planes, SR-71 Blackbird, and currently drones.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Sorry, but in case you haven't understood this after so much time arguing with me, arguments from authority don't impress me, and, most importantly, I am a very logical person, so arguments involving feelings sound like self-serving bullshit to me. If you want to convince me, you'll have to rely on actually, you know, explaining HOW guns increase violence.

Links about how scary guns are, about how gun ownership is correlated to gun crime, or about how guns are dangerous and could lead to accidents (no shit, they're designed to kill) isn't going to get anywhere. Then again, if you are a very touchy-feely type person, then you may not understand how to debate or convince me, either. So, basically:

Your intent is to force people to have fewer guns.
Your purpose is to reduce the amount of guns in private hands.
Your premise is that an increase in guns is directly responsible and/or is the cause of increase of violence.

Our argument is that your premise is wrong, and thus your purpose and intent are misguided. You can demonstrate why it is not wrong by giving a direct, explicit, and precise causal link that leads from gun to violence. Correlation statistics are not a link, they are nothing more than circumstantial evidence. You need o start with "Guns cause violence, because..." and not continue with "guns cause violence." If you can not do that, then you can not convince us.

Dafuck?! This is the credo I live by: http://areidcuriosity.blogspot.com/

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.


Yes, I am not suicidal. Also, I know that trying to shoot back at them is the worst of the possible options in stopping this from happening. There are much better options.


He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity.


Hey, can you remind me, which country was it where a pair of nutcases hacked up a soldier, in the middle of the city, during the day, as bystanders just stood and watched them do it, and then didn't even bother trying to run away? Or in which country did a nutcase with a machinegun go to an island that had a camp for kids, and proceeded to just shoot all the kids who couldn't get away because they were on an island? It wasn't US, was it?

Car thefts increase with ice cream sales. It has also been stated, and is actually a fact. I could also say that it's obvious. So, would you agree to me preventing you from being able to buy ice cream on this fact alone? I won't want my car stolen, so the obvious thing is to reduce ice cream sales.