Major Theory Discussion

[The Crack Fox]

If a tree falls, but theres none around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[The_Alpha_Dog]

yes...

[The Crack Fox]

Explain.

[Faustie]

Because particles vibrate and pass along kinetic energy, proximity to someone does not effect this.

[The Crack Fox]

Another question:

Do you think gun's should be fully banned in the US? Explain you're answer!

[Joey Skylynx]

Another question:

Do you think gun's should be fully banned in the US? Explain you're answer!

My short answer would be no.

My in depth answer:

The gun has played a critical role in history. An invention which has been praised and denounced... served hero and villain alike.. and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun, is to better understand history. - Tales of the Gun

By denying ownership of firearms to any human being is to deny them the right to make morale choices, deny them the right of being able to stand tall when they are small, and denies them the very right to be human through the matters of technological curiosity.
If you honestly want to know what I think... I think we should have elective courses in middle school/highschool to teach kids how to maintain, use, and even make firearms.
It may sound sick and twisting, but people are to comforted to fear things. Stop fearing, stop being ignorant, and accept it's very existence.

[Faustie]

I don't fear firearms. They're just another tool, such as the hammer, or chisle, or scythe, or club, or rock..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6OIlreneA

However, a critical difference is that the sole purpose of a firearm is to kill. Whereas everything else I mentioned has many other uses, a firearms sole purpose is to end a life. Whether this be in the course of protecting many others is a moot point as for its final purpose.

Yes, I could just as easily use a rock to murder, but there are many rocks around and there are far less 'rock crimes', but more 'gun crimes'. This is inevitably down to the guns purpose and image.

You can't really know what the effect of banning guns in a gun-crazy country such as the US would be without actually trying it. Let's ignore the fact that it's logistically impossible for a second, and just think about what the aftermath would be.. Obviously as guns are now illegal, it would be much harder to trace them if they are used in crimes, and because of this, it now means that only criminals are likely to own and use weapons.. Before law abiding citizens were also able to use them.. However, there would too be much less guns in circulation, and of course, it's a simple matter of maths that it would mean gun deaths are reduced.. Whether this is due to more less possibilities of self defence or simply less murders, we don't know.

Gun ownership needs careful control and consideration.. At the end of the day, while it is a tool for killing, the owners intent is what really matters.


Also watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. Best film I have ever seen.

[Dylan]

Because particles vibrate and pass along kinetic energy, proximity to someone does not effect this.

That cannot be proven, in anyway. Bear in mind, any observation of the tree falling would be breaking the rule.

But.. If nothing is witnessing it, did it even happen?
Is the tree even alive?
Perhaps the tree is dead and alive at the same time, and the interference of anything decides whether the tree lives or dies?
Maybe, everytime you witness a tree falling, in a quantum leap, it didnt.

---

By denying ownership of firearms to any human being is to deny them the right to make morale choices, deny them the right of being able to stand tall when they are small, and denies them the very right to be human through the matters of technological curiosity.

You seriously want people to experience "technical curiousity" through firearms?
Curiousity through firearms?
Because.. THAT will not end badly at all, right? High school kids exploring their "technical curiousities" with firearms.

Also the rest of your argument is fallacious, depriving someone of a firearm is not depriving them of making morale choices, at all. Abortion is a matter of morale, taking a lousy parent's child away is a matter of morale, taking a murderweapon from a person to prevent death is not a matter of morale, and certainly does not deprive the owner of making morale decision (in fact, the fact that when you own a gun, you have to make morale decision about it, signifies how many times straight up murder would be unnecessary).

"Deny them the right to stand tall when they are small"..
That sounds sick, no offence. I don't wanna offend you, but that seems like some stereotypical American bravado-Texan speaking there. A gun makes you tall? Seriously? You are quite literally stating that firepower is might, and might is important. How about a society where standing tall or small wouldn't be a matter of possession? But rather a matter of political views and wording them? Using words instead of guns seems like a much more sensible choice, quite objectively. That is so sickly republican that I want to puke.

And the technical curiosity? Guns have existed for hundreds of years, I think we are WELL beyond the time of exploring firearms in your backyard. And if you are doing so, you deserve to shoot yourself accidentally, for being a moron.

[The_Alpha_Dog]

Explain.

Explain it? Things still make sounds even if you can't hear it.

[Dylan]

Explain.

Explain it? Things still make sounds even if you can't hear it.

That can't be proven. It's a philosophical question. Approaching it with a physical mindset will ruin it.