what if your taking a dump?

Then i make the same decision-making process. If i see theres enough time to get the hell out, then we will. Shitty ass, or no.

The point of government (as people seem to misunderstand me) is to be a political institute, like a king/dictator/oligarchy/democracy that controls the area allowing social stability through passing of laws and of stuff. Failure to protect citizens from any disaster, man-made or otherwise, makes people lose faith in that government and destroys the political rule thereby destroying social stability. If the US government cannot prevent this, does this destroy the credibilty of it since the image of the American nation being the best (which is an image that many get of America) when they require help? Does it then show the incompetence of Bush adminstration and the problems of the Iraq war?

Yes, plainly and obviously.

i really should visit more

personally, i'm leaning more towards being allowed guns at the moment. anti-social behaviour is becoming a serious problem here now, asbo's are a joke (anti-social behaviourial order to the non-brits) and not worth the paper they are printed on. almost every week you pick up the paper to read about another father being beaten to death by hoody wearing yobs, etc. if it carries on like this then in 20 years we wont be that far away from having americas crime problems. you CANNOT rely on the uk police. they can take weeks to respond to calls, let alone hours. in 11b's scenario i'd like a gun thank you very much.anyone threatens my wife and child, they better be ready to die.

at the very least they should change our bullshit laws regarding defending yourself in your home. imo if some fucker comes into your home uninvited then they deserve every thing they get. at the moment its likely that if you smacked an intruder with a baseball bat then it would be unreasonable force and you would end up in court. work that one out

rant over.

Oh yeah and let's abandon the total justice system too. If we all have guns we can settle disputes ourselves right? I'm sorry but I don't want my head blasted off by my neighbour because I made too much noise (wich happened in Belgium some time ago I believe).

Lets all buy weapons because we're afraid of the guy in the train with a darker skin. Not considering that we're far more likely to get killed by bird flu in a few years. Or that if he has a bomb, your gun isn't going to stop the blast anyway.

Wait, I thought those things didnt happen in Europe because noone carries guns?

I think hes talking about rarities. Like myself. I didnt mean to say they DIDNT happen. They just happen at a negligible chance.

Yeah I agree with some of the things you say BJ. Our services do not work well (frequent complaint in politics is too much paperwork for police to be out on the beat) and when people try and take the law into their hands they are put in jail (that Farmer, Martin someone who shot a burgular). However, I disagree with the guns.

as a wise man once said, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

Gun ownership is like anything else potentially dangerous...the person with the gun has to be responsible and restrained. Not much different from cars. How many fucktards have you read about that lost their shit while driving and ran someone over or hit another car? Or are just morons and get in a stupid accident. Happens regularly. Alot more people die each year by traffic accidents.

Thats true. Whats even more of a deadly weapon is penis's and vagina's. Think of all the deaths caused by AID's. Given the number of deaths, are we going to classify that as a deadly weapon? Something people dont need to have because of the potential of deaths that will occur from using it?

I mean whats more likely, 10 guys coming into your house to raid your place or you getting AIDS?

So I dont see the problem with owning a gun when people themselves with their sexual appetite are far more dangerous.

that's it, I'm turned my wang in to the police. Stop the wanglence!

I understand your position on firearm ownership Satis, 11b and BJ. But let me point out to you that i seem to be making a more political decision.

Put it this way:

If there arent any nukes, will there be a nuclear war? No. We will be forces to stick with puny guns.

If there arent any bioweapons, will there be a bio-war? No.

If there arent any firearms, will there be firearm homocides? No.

I doubt the Belgian guy I described would have killed his neighbours if he didn't have a gun in his house.

on the belgian guy: maybe not. He also probably wouldn't have killed his neighbors if he wasn't mentally disturbed. And who's to say he wouldn't have gotten in a car and ran over some family on the sidewalk? I think the problem there is societal, in that someone with mental issues was put in a position where he could kill other people. Probably an unavoidable situation, to be honest, but blaming the guns, imo, is short sighted.

Insofar as, if noone had guns, noone had nukes, etc.... I strongly disagree with that statement. It's pandora's box, especially talking about the WMDs. You can't just forget you ever made them, because someone, somewhere will conveniently remember in an attempt to become all-powerful.

Let's pretend that the US, Russia, England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and whoever else has nukes all decide to play nice and destroy their nuclear stockpiles. Do you really think that'll dissuade North Korea, Iran, Libya, South Africa, and whoever else from trying to develop a nuclear arsenal? Hell no. And if they do, what happens to South Korea, Iraq, Egypt, etc? Who will willingly sacrifice tens of thousands of troops against nuclear weapons to stand up against these people? Either we let them own the world, or we whip out some nukes and blow the snot out of em.

Anyway, we may just have to agree to disagree, I don't think we're convincing one another of anything.