Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 137

Thread: Guns Kill

  1. #41
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    If it is the case that guns kill people (when other people pull the triggers and point the barrel at someone)...then it is the case that asphalt kills people (when people push others out of a 10 story window). We need to ban asphalt.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. Likes Someguy liked this post
  3. #42
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    If it is the case that guns kill people (when other people pull the triggers and point the barrel at someone)...then it is the case that asphalt kills people (when people push others out of a 10 story window). We need to ban asphalt.
    Asphalt is not designed to kill people, whereas hand guns are. A machine designed to push people out of that 10 story building should be banned. A gun is more comparable to the "pushing machine" rather than the asphalt.

  4. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Asphalt is not designed to kill people, whereas hand guns are. A machine designed to push people out of that 10 story building should be banned. A gun is more comparable to the "pushing machine" rather than the asphalt.
    Guns are designed to shoot bullets. How do you know that guns are designed "to kill people"?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #44
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Guns are designed to shoot bullets. How do you know that guns are designed "to kill people"?
    The purpose of shooting a bullet is to hurt someone.
    The purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets
    Therefore, the purpose of a gun is to hurt someone.

    If we keep simplifying with the logic you used, we reach many meaningless conclusions.
    The terrorist designed the bomb simply to explode, not to hurt anybody.
    Nuclear bombs are designed to give fireworks in outer space, not to hurt anybody.
    Biological weapons are designed to spread viruses, not to hurt anybody.


    You may argue that they are not necessarily designed to kill people, but hand guns are certainly used to hurt people.

    Furthermore, if you insist that the purpose of carrying your gun is not to hurt anybody, then your argument still fails to defend the actions of those who do carry hand guns to hurt people (self defense by shooting)

  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Asphalt is not designed to kill people, whereas hand guns are.
    Which makes them great tools for self-defense. Don't you think people have the right to defend their own lives?

  7. #46
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which makes them great tools for self-defense. Don't you think people have the right to defend their own lives?
    Yes, I agree that people have the right to defend their lives.

    However,

    1. Owning guns is not the only way to exercise that right.
    2. Guns often escalate violence rather than reduce.
    3. Guns increase chances of rash suicide, thus not only failing to defend lives but increasing chances of taking lives.
    4. Grenades, fire arms, and tanks also kill, but having a community with tanks and mines on the streets makes citizens feel less safe.

  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    1. Owning guns is not the only way to exercise that right.
    But it's often the most effective way. So do you think I have the right to effectively defend my life or should the right to defend my life by restricted?

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    2. Guns often escalate violence rather than reduce.
    When defending your life from a violent attack, I should hope violence escalates, like you kill the guy who's trying to kill you.

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    3. Guns increase chances of rash suicide, thus not only failing to defend lives but increasing chances of taking lives.
    So are you for outlawing all of the things people can use to effectively commit suicide?

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    4. Grenades, fire arms, and tanks also kill, but having a community with tanks and mines on the streets makes citizens feel less safe.
    But we are talking about guns.


    And you agree that a person has the right to defend his life. I don't deny that there are downsides to a person having the means to effectively defend his life just as I don't deny that the right to free speech doesn't sometimes result is speech that most would rather not hear. But the benefits of freedom outweigh the downside of freedom.

  9. #48
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So are you for outlawing all of the things people can use to effectively commit suicide?
    Variations of the above argument are used repeatedly.

    1. It is wrong to ban all things solely based on the fact that they have the potential to kill people
    2. Guns have the potential to kill people
    3. It is wrong to ban guns.

    A closer analysis reveals that the argument is fallacious.

    There are several reasons that guns differ from ordinary objects, I will list three:

    1. They kill quickly.
    - Guns dramatically increase the chances of impulsive suicides, a risk that is minimal in other objects. (This point was misunderstood the first time it was "refuted") http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
    More than half of gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicides.
    http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When defending your life from a violent attack, I should hope violence escalates, like you kill the guy who's trying to kill you.
    2. They encourage killing.
    This assumes that the guy is trying to kill you. And this is an assumption that people are more likely to jump to when they are holding a gun. Thieves or intruders may not be armed with a gun, and even a robber who threatens with a weapon will not necessarily shoot. By shooting the thief, intruder, or robber, one will escalate the violence.

    3. They were designed to hurt people.

    Can it be proved that statistically more harm will be prevented from gun ownership than harm caused through impulsive suicides and escalated violence?

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by THINKER
    This assumes that the guy is trying to kill you. And this is an assumption that people are more likely to jump to when they are holding a gun.
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support or retract.

    My experience is that people who actually open carry, or conceal carry are not likely to jump to irrational conclusions.
    I say this only to give the reason for my challenge. It doesn't appear to be the case, so you should support it before carrying on as though it is true.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Variations of the above argument are used repeatedly.

    1. It is wrong to ban all things solely based on the fact that they have the potential to kill people
    2. Guns have the potential to kill people
    3. It is wrong to ban guns.

    A closer analysis reveals that the argument is fallacious.

    There are several reasons that guns differ from ordinary objects, I will list three:

    1. They kill quickly.
    - Guns dramatically increase the chances of impulsive suicides, a risk that is minimal in other objects. (This point was misunderstood the first time it was "refuted") http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
    More than half of gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicides.
    http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf


    2. They encourage killing.
    This assumes that the guy is trying to kill you. And this is an assumption that people are more likely to jump to when they are holding a gun. Thieves or intruders may not be armed with a gun, and even a robber who threatens with a weapon will not necessarily shoot. By shooting the thief, intruder, or robber, one will escalate the violence.

    3. They were designed to hurt people.

    Can it be proved that statistically more harm will be prevented from gun ownership than harm caused through impulsive suicides and escalated violence?
    Well, I agree that guns are different than other weapons but even accepting the reasons you listed (and I think some of your arguments are fallacious but I don't need to show how to make my point so I'll not challenge them right now), it does not show that my argument is wrong.

    Pointing out differences does not mean that those differences justify interfering with one's right to defend his life using the most effective instrument of defense that he can.

    My initial argument is that one has the right to defend himself and part of that right is clearly allowing one the ability to defend himself and therefore interfering with the ability to defend is interfering with the right to defend. Now, I don't hold that there can never ever be an exception to that. I'm for free speech as well but I agree with some of the limits that have been put on it, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. But for exceptions to be made to the right to defend one's life there needs to be a counter-principle that justifies that exception.

    You mention that guns are effective for suicide. I don't doubt that. But if we are using that as justification for banning guns, what's the principle for that? Is it "things that can be used to kill oneself should be banned?" Clearly that doesn't work. "Things that are more effective at killing oneself than other methods shall be banned?" Well, if we ban guns then another instrument would be the "most effective", so that doesn't work. So don't just point out differences and say those automatically justify banning guns. The differences have to apply to a principle that justifies an exception to our rights. So what principle are you forwarding?
    Last edited by mican333; August 30th, 2012 at 04:27 PM.

  12. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker
    2. They encourage killing.
    This assumes that the guy is trying to kill you. And this is an assumption that people are more likely to jump to when they are holding a gun.
    Please support--I strongly disagree...
    I carry a concealed weapon almost EVERY DAY and have never injured or killed anyone....
    In fact, in 2 instances my handgun prevented me from being assaulted, and I never had to fire a shot....
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  13. #52
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Supporting the point on violence escalation:

    "Guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't." You can read the full article from newscientist here
    "Guns in the home are associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children." According to a study from University of Louisville School of Medicine.

    I'm very glad that Scarlett44 and MindTrap028 use guns responsibly, and I agree that if all gun users could act as you describe, then guns will have a net benefit to society.
    Unfortunately, while guns are used responsibly by some gun owners, they harm other gun owners who feel inclined to escalate violence when they have a gun.


    On debating principle:

    People have a right to life.
    A. Things that help people effectively defend their lives should not be banned
    B1. Things that dramatically increase danger of impulsive suicide should be banned
    B2. Things that "cause carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourage them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn't" should be banned

    If we consider the right to life as the ultimate principle, then when the As and Bs are placed on a scale, the heavier side should prevail.
    Where there is no evidence presented proving that the harm prevented from guns outweighs the harm caused, I find it hard to completely agree with your stance.

  14. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    "Things that dramatically increase danger of impulsive suicide should be banned " This is, by far, the most absurd argument for anti-guns have I ever heard in my life. Which is pretty damn impressive considering I have debated anti-gun nuts for years.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  15. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    People have a right to life.
    A. Things that help people effectively defend their lives should not be banned
    B1. Things that dramatically increase danger of impulsive suicide should be banned
    Well, then it seems we should ban everything that people commonly use to commit suicide (guns, ropes, poison, tall structures, etc.) since having access to them will increase the chance of them successfully killing themselves if they have an impulse to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    B2. Things that "cause carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourage them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn't" should be banned
    Based on what principle? My best guess it's "Things that increase the chances of someone making an error that might lead to the death of themselves or someone else should be banned". And if that principle is consistently applied, you can create an argument for banning almost everything. You are certainly more likely to get yourself or someone else killed when you get in a car compared to not getting in a car (no cars - no car-related deaths).

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    If we consider the right to life as the ultimate principle, then when the As and Bs are placed on a scale, the heavier side should prevail.
    Where there is no evidence presented proving that the harm prevented from guns outweighs the harm caused, I find it hard to completely agree with your stance.
    But when there's likewise no evidence that guns cause more death than prevent it, you go against the principle of the right to self-defense? I see no reason to compromise one's rights when all the reasoning for doing so based on the mere suggestion that it might be the better thing to do.

    And what you have apparently not put on the scale is "tyranny". An armed populace is protection against tyranny (which is the very reason the 2nd amendment exists) and removing that right increases the likelihood of tyranny taking hold in this country and given the historical examples of certain tyrants (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot - millions of people were murdered), I'd say the balance weighs very heavily toward the right to self-defense, both for the protection of an individual and the protection of a society's liberty.

    And the goal is not "whatever it takes to prevent death is the ideal". If that were the case, then people should be implanted with bio-feedback devices that detect when their aggression increase and then give them a dose of sedative to decrease their aggression, whether they want to have such a device or not. People should be forced to engage in healthier lifestyles whether they want to or not. People should be monitored every moment of their lives to decrease their ability to plot a murder without the authorities knowing about it. Personal sovereignty should be removed entirely for our "own good". But it's not just quantity of life but quality of life and I'll accept certain risks if it keeps me free. And I claim my own right to life and therefore the right to self-defense. If someone is going to say "No, you can't defend yourself", then either they have to assume responsibility for my safety (and no one is doing that - not even the state) or they are interfering with my right to live and I see no reason to recognize any authority that does not recognize my right to live.
    Last edited by mican333; September 2nd, 2012 at 09:48 AM.

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Where there is no evidence presented proving that the harm prevented from guns outweighs the harm caused, I find it hard to completely agree with your stance.
    I have located some evidence that guns do prevent more harm than they cause.

    Here are some excerpts from an interesting article actually written by a physician...He says that physicians, like guns, do cause some deaths, but physicians prevent many more deaths than they cause, which is also true of guns.
    He also cites the source for this information:

    "....they are used to prevent about 75 crimes for each death. Firearms, like physicians, prevent far more deaths than they cause. (Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," Hawthorne, N.Y., Aldine de Gruyter Publisher, 1991)

    Consider the implications of the fact that firearms save many more lives than they take. That means decreasing the number of firearms would actually cause an increase in violent crime and deaths from firearms..."


    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...3/225251.shtml


    Gary Kleck, the author of the book cited in the article, is a criminologist at Florida State University:

    ”Kleck has done numerous studies of the effects of guns on death and injury in crimes, on suicides, and gun accidents, the impact of gun control laws on rates of violence, the frequency and effectiveness of defensive gun use by crime victims, patterns of gun ownership, why people support gun control, and the myth of big-time gun trafficking.

    Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents in which victims used guns for self-protection, compared to about four hundred thousand crimes committed by offenders with guns…”
    .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck#cite_note-10
    Last edited by Scarlett44; September 1st, 2012 at 06:49 PM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  18. Thanks Squatch347, Manic, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  19. #56
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Clicky View Post
    I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the debate whether guns kill or people kill. I believe guns kill and here are my reasons:

    - In 2005, 78.9 of all murders involved guns.
    - In Japan, guns are regulated to only policemen, and there is hardly any crime their.
    - Guns were MADE for killing.
    - The Virginia Tech Massacre. Period.

    I could think of more reasons, but that's just off the top of my head.
    I'll see you these and raise you a few statistics.

    Guns stop more crimes "likely to result in death" than they cause.

    In 2008 there were 10,886 gun related murders. In that same year the FBI estimated that there were 162,000 incidents in which someone would have "likely or certainly been killed" without the presence of the firearm. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

    34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

    40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

    69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
    IBID


    Virginia Tech is a terrible example for your side since that is a place where guns are prohibited. Come to think of it, most mass shootings happen in places guns are forbidden. Hmm...


    Here is a list of 8 potentially mass shootings that were stopped by someone who was awesome and had a gun. http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-hor...al-gun-owners/


    Guns stop 2.5M crimes each year. http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

    You can compare a variety of factors to the number of deaths in a shooting incident. None of them show a high explanatory power except one. The number of deaths is directly related to the amount of time it takes for another gun to arrive on the scene. The longer it takes, the more people die.


    Guns do kill...the kill bad people.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. Thanks Scarlett44 thanked for this post
    Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  21. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Good post Squatch... and it brings up an interesting idea I think about the limits for gun control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You can compare a variety of factors to the number of deaths in a shooting incident. None of them show a high explanatory power except one. The number of deaths is directly related to the amount of time it takes for another gun to arrive on the scene. The longer it takes, the more people die.
    So the idea here is that Citizens benefit from access to weapons that enable them to meet the threat of criminals. The objective is personal security.

    If criminals have access to a weapon that is significantly stronger than what a typical citizen can have, then that would be a problem.
    -Any restriction on an easily obtained weapon that isn't highly effective can create that situation.
    -Also any available but sufficiently expensive or rare weapon would likewise create that situation.

    So reasonable legislation would be place on weapons that are not highly common, not especially cheap, and which are significantly better than weapons that are common and cheap. Rare and expensive items are both much easier to control and of much less interest and utility to the public as a defense tool. Legislation on cheap, common items (such as handguns) are likely to be less effective and a detriment to the public.

    I think there is an exception for cultures that have a strong tradition of peaceful social interaction. Japan for instance does very well with their strict gun laws. The need to defend yourself is low enough that the risk/cost of owning a gun could well be greater than the security benefit derived from it.

    I'd further add that any weapon which when used for defense must not pose as great a danger to bystanders than to the person you are defending yourself against.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #58
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Interesting take Sig. A few questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So reasonable legislation would be place on weapons that are not highly common, not especially cheap, and which are significantly better than weapons that are common and cheap. Rare and expensive items are both much easier to control and of much less interest and utility to the public as a defense tool.
    Are you assuming that the regulation would limit illegal access to these kind of arms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    I'd further add that any weapon which when used for defense must not pose as great a danger to bystanders than to the person you are defending yourself against.
    The other legal tradition we have in this circumstance is absolute liability. For example, building demolitions. Legally we recognize that this action is so dangerous that any collateral damage is the result of those who engage in it, regardless of precautions.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interesting take Sig. A few questions.
    Thanks, your post helped me click into the idea.

    Are you assuming that the regulation would limit illegal access to these kind of arms?
    Not sure what you meant (which kinds of arms).

    I'm saying that you should not have regulation that effectively restricts access to commonly available arms that are effective for self defense.
    I am saying that regulation to restrict more exotic weapons that represent a significant advantage in a fight is reasonable.

    I'll make an extreme example to illustrate.
    A 38 special is dirt cheap and effective at scaring off criminals or shooting them if need be. Restricting it would impose a limit to the self defense of the average member of society. Even if you did restrict it, criminals could still get them but law abiding citizens would not creating a disparity.

    Imagine a gun that you could guide with your eyes and kill people as fast as you could look at them with infinite ammo and which cost 1 billion dollars. Restricting it would not lessen the defenses of the average citizen since most could never own such a weapon. And since it is an uncommon weapon any criminal who had one would have a huge advantage and need fear no normal means of defense. AKA the time it takes someone to arrive on the scene who could stop them is very long indeed. Restricting this weapon is more likely to stop a criminal advantage than to create one.

    You might say that its equal restriction in the second case. This is where commonality matters. Criminals pick the time and place of their crime. If one criminal gets access to this weapon and 10 citizens do, its easy for the criminal to pick a time and place that minimizes the chance of an effective defense. Just as a criminal might pick a gun free zone for their attack but with much wider latitude. The rarity is more a danger to the general public because defense must happen everywhere and offence can happen anywhere.

    The other legal tradition we have in this circumstance is absolute liability. For example, building demolitions. Legally we recognize that this action is so dangerous that any collateral damage is the result of those who engage in it, regardless of precautions.
    Sure, but when it comes to killing people, we recognize its hard to actually find reasonable liability. So we create laws that preclude the event from occurring in as much as we can. We set a threshold of risk that no informed and reasonable person would wish to cross if they cared about such liability. So long as we are not practically denying someone the opportunity to defend themselves, I see no reason not to accept such precautions other than a sense of entitlement to do anything you like regardless of the danger it poses to others.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    So should we wait until the thief pulls the trigger, or gives us explicit warning that he/she is about to pull the trigger, before we take action to defend?

 

 
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe guns kill people?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 12:51 PM
  2. Moral Dilemma: To Kill Him or not to Kill him
    By Idunno in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
  3. Guns and Voters
    By Slater in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Zombies With Guns...Can They Or Can't They
    By zombiewithguns in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM
  5. How many guns do you own?
    By Atticus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •