So Japan just built 18. Seriously.

[rereboy]

Well that's a relief. I thought it was a commonplace thing throughout Japan. The guy who mentioned it never said where in Japan he was, just that he was in Japan. I hope you're right. And to the other guy who mentioned India... Japan treats sex and prepubescent girls in much creepier forms than India would. Despite marrying a tree or something I think I would prefer them over Japan's sex culture.

Not comparable. India has frequent gangrapes followed by murder of women on the street, not to mention the whole culture of arranged and forced marriages and a more serious and violent repression of women.

[Pokewhiz7]

There are plenty of other forms of violence which are equally as lethal.

No, there aren't. No weapon is more effective at killing people than guns, except bombs and bigger guns. Knifes aren't nearly as effective at killing nor does its violence result in deaths as easily.

I was simply getting the impression that you singled out gun violence over other forms, such as knife violence, which is a huge issue in e.g. the UK, because you hated guns or something and wanted to throw that in there.

I'm just saying that guns are simply the deadliest weapons there are (except bombs), which is a fact, and makes it worthy of standing out. The UK might have a problem with knifes, which is a terrible and serious issue, but just how many more people would have died in the UK if every single case of knife violence had been a case of gun violence instead?

Not to mention that knives are much more than weapons, they are common and essential tools, so a society can't hardly be blamed for allowing the use and existence of a great number of knifes, just like it couldn't be blamed for allowing the existence of plenty of crowbars or large pieces of wood which can be used as very effective weapons. But one that allows the existence of plenty of guns...? Well, that's another issue altogether since guns only serve to kill and are the most effective thing that exists at killing.

Compared to these issues of violence, something like what the japanese choose to do for entertainment or regarding social and sexual interactions, which (almost always) doesn't harm anyone, is hardly relevant. That's what "screwed up" is, hurting and killing people, not what the japanese do for entertainment or regarding social and sexual interactions.

I would wager the differences in death toll would be extremely negligible. Yes, guns exist to defend, and if you shoot, you shoot to kill. Why do you think the Second Amendment exists? I'll give you a hint: much like the First Amendment has nothing to do with talking about the weather, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. A society which doesn't allow plenty of guns isn't a society. It's a plantation.

And the intention hardly seems to matter to me either way. If there is an issue with car violence, it's an issue, whether people need cars or not.

[rereboy]

I would wager the differences in death toll would be extremely negligible. Yes, guns exist to defend, and if you shoot, you shoot to kill. Why do you think the Second Amendment exists? I'll give you a hint: much like the First Amendment has nothing to do with talking about the weather, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. A society which doesn't allow plenty of guns isn't a society. It's a plantation.

And the intention hardly seems to matter to me either way. If there is an issue with car violence, it's an issue, whether people need cars or not.

I'm sorry, but believing that the difference in death toll is negligible when comparing knifes and guns just doesn't make sense. If a person attacks someone with a gun the likelihood of them killing the victim is naturally much higher then with a knife given how much more effective a gun is at killing. That doesn't mean, however, that in a given country, in a given year, there will be a greater number homicides by guns than by knives, since knives are much easier to get and more common. But there is no denying how much deadlier they are than knives, and thus much more dangerous, and I see no logical point in trying to argue that they aren't.

As for the american second amendment, I'll be blunt: as far as I know, almost no one thinks that the "right to bear arms" makes sense except americans. People in other countries also can legally get guns for hunting and self-defense, you know, but given the seriousness of such a weapon, the situation is treated accordingly, no one ever thinking that anyone has a right to have a gun except under the right conditions, which, obviously, are pretty strict. Only in America is there such an emphasis on guns and the need to have them, and, somehow that doesn't stop the USA from having one of the worst, if not the worst, crime and gun violence from any first world country.

[Pokewhiz7]

I would wager the differences in death toll would be extremely negligible. Yes, guns exist to defend, and if you shoot, you shoot to kill. Why do you think the Second Amendment exists? I'll give you a hint: much like the First Amendment has nothing to do with talking about the weather, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. A society which doesn't allow plenty of guns isn't a society. It's a plantation.

And the intention hardly seems to matter to me either way. If there is an issue with car violence, it's an issue, whether people need cars or not.

I'm sorry, but believing that the difference in death toll is negligible when comparing knifes and guns just doesn't make sense. If a person attacks someone with a gun the likelihood of them killing the victim is naturally much higher then with a knife given how much more effective a gun is at killing. That doesn't mean, however, that in a given country, in a given year, there will be a greater number homicides by guns than by knives, since knives are much easier to get and more common. But there is no denying how much deadlier they are than knives, and thus much more dangerous, and I see no logical point in trying to argue that they aren't.

As for the american second amendment, I'll be blunt: as far as I know, almost no one thinks that the "right to bear arms" makes sense except americans. People in other countries also can legally get guns for hunting and self-defense, you know, but given the seriousness of such a weapon, the situation is treated accordingly, no one ever thinking that anyone has a right to have a gun except under the right conditions, which, obviously, are pretty strict. Only in America is there such an emphasis on guns and the need to have them, and, somehow that doesn't stop the USA from having one of the worst, if not the worst, crime and gun violence from any first world country.

You can stab somebody multiple times with a knife. They aren't single-use items.

And as for your next point, so what? I really hate whenever somebody feels the need to point out that only Americans do X, Y, or Z. If that is the case, and you are able to speak on behalf of the rest of the world, then the rest of the world is wrong. Popularity doesn't determine what is right. The rest of the world could say that free speech isn't important (though I would argue the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is more important), as they do whenever they suggest we criminalize "hate speech", but they would still be wrong. People in other countries can only get guns if their masters tell them they are able to. In other words, you have no right to self defense, and are thus reduced to an animal, or a slave. Firearms (and weaponry in general) are extremely important to prevent the rise of tyranny (and don't tell me this "the government has drones, nukes, etc." BS, because that doesn't mean anything in the face of guerrilla warfare), and as such it's illogical to allow the flow of defense to be controlled by the ones you are trying to control. If you want to watch a movie where the government controls all distribution of weaponry, watch Schindler's List.

I can give you data if you want to showing that we are becoming less violent and elsewhere more violent, but even if that weren't the case...would you support ending the right to privacy if it was shown factually and objectively to prevent terrorism?

[Kamiccolo9]

As fascinating as all this is, what does it have to do with a life-sized model of Android 18?

[rereboy]

You can stab somebody multiple times with a knife. They aren't single-use items.

You can also grab a large stick and beat someone with it until the person dies. Does that make the stick as dangerous and as effective at killing as a gun? No, it does not. Neither does a knife. I continue to not see the point in you trying to argue this logical point.

And as for your next point, so what? I really hate whenever somebody feels the need to point out that only Americans do X, Y, or Z. If that is the case, and you are able to speak on behalf of the rest of the world, then the rest of the world is wrong. Popularity doesn't determine what is right. The rest of the world could say that free speech isn't important (though I would argue the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is more important), as they do whenever they suggest we criminalize "hate speech", but they would still be wrong. People in other countries can only get guns if their masters tell them they are able to. In other words, you have no right to self defense, and are thus reduced to an animal, or a slave. Firearms (and weaponry in general) are extremely important to prevent the rise of tyranny (and don't tell me this "the government has drones, nukes, etc." BS, because that doesn't mean anything in the face of guerrilla warfare), and as such it's illogical to allow the flow of defense to be controlled by the ones you are trying to control. If you want to watch a movie where the government controls all distribution of weaponry, watch Schindler's List.

I can give you data if you want to showing that we are becoming less violent and elsewhere more violent, but even if that weren't the case...would you support ending the right to privacy if it was shown factually and objectively to prevent terrorism?

You were the one who wanted to talk about the american 2nd amendment. I merely pointed out how such a principle is far from being globally relevant, how other countries also allow people to have guns for self-defense and hunting without going to the lengths that the USA seems to (it's so easy to get automatic guns in the USA that mexican drug cartels get them in the USA to smuggle them back to mexico, for example), and that, despite this emphasis in guns for defense, crime and gun violence in the USA seems to have been worse (at least in the last decades) than in the rest of the first world countries. The rest of your post seems to be, frankly, logically incoherent, which, in hindsight, makes me be not surprised at how you singled out my example of gun violence in this topic.

[VegettoEX]

This conversation is waaaaaaaay off-topic and out of line, and it's now over.