@iMurk: "no recreational or self defense use"

I'm sure I could argue that there would be a fun recreational use for a rocket launcher. Just as you might "recreationally" take your gun to the rifle range and enjoy some target shooting, why couldn't I set up a 'rocket launcher range' to have some fun target shooting with my RPG? I'm sure that would be fun. However, rocket launchers are just too dangerous.

And in my view, so are guns.

@ Orathaic: "Free speech to insist on (say) Sharai law can result in people being stoned to death."

No. The actual speaking does not cause any deaths. You have the right to speak in public in favour of Sharia law. That doesn't automatically mean Sharia law will be brought into effect by our democratic government. The deaths in your example are not caused by free speech.

"I'm sure I could argue that there would be a fun recreational use for a rocket launcher."

Rocket Jumping

@jamiet- i was referring to hunting. people hunt with hunting rifles, not guns designed to kill other people. people dont hunt with rocket launchers, nuclear weapons or flamethrowers.

@ iMurk "I was referring to hunting. People hunt with hunting rifles"

So you agree that owning pistols should be illegal?

@Jamiet: who said anything about a democratic government, I'm talking about mob justice here.

Play a game of werewolf if you don't know the effect of a lack of information can have on a group where a definite threat is precieved ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)#History great game by the way, and getting a mob to follow your direction is a skill in talking)

I agree free speech doesn't directly cause the deaths in my example; However freedom to own guns does not directly result in people shooting at each other. In many cases it doesn't result in them killing each other, in many cases fre speech doesn't result in people being killed but that doesn't mean it can't, especially in an illiterate god fearing community.

@iMurk: does that mean hunting rifles can't be used to shoot at people? or are the bullets specially designed to only pass through animal flesh and bone?

iMurk What exactly is the difference between a gun designed for hunting and a gun designed for killing people.? I'm just interested.

@abgemacht - I wish Jeeps and rocket launchers were cheaper and more readily available. I'd love to stand on the hood of a Jeep and have a buddy send a rocket under it to launch me airborne (think Halo: Combat Evolved)! He y'all, watch this! (just kidding of course, my buddy would be the guinea pig).

@ Orthaic: Yes but the crucial difference between free speech and guns is that guns were invented for killing and injuring, and that is their main purpose.

their main purpose isnt it their only purpose?

@Jamie - want to provide proof of that claim? Guns were invented for hunting just as dynamite was invented for mining (ask Nobel's descendents). They got subverted along the way and gun science developed through the use of guns as weapons of war, but the first use of gunpowder and guns by the western world was for hunting.

@ trim "isn't it their only purpose?"

Practially yes. I think in the case of some people, it also gives them a false sense of security and somehow makes their dick feel bigger.

which is what Draugnar killing?which i think you will find is what jamiet99uk said

@Jamie and Trim - Clearly you two have conveniently forgot about the hunter aka the sportsman. I hunt duck, quail, and wild turkey. You can't do that with a bow and arrow.

OK, I misread. I thought I saw maiming and killing implying people.

@Draugnar: "Guns were invented for hunting"

Historically the gun was developed from the cannon. Both words come from the French and their early use is interchangable. The cannon was developed by the Chinese as a siege weapon, not for hunting. I would also agree with orathaic's observation that most urban US gun owners do NOT own them for sporting purposes.

@draugnar how did people use to hunt duck and quails and turkeys without guns?and how sure are you that guns were developed for hunting im pretty sure they were developed to enable the common soldier to take down a fully armoured knight

interesting points; generall speech or guns can be used to resolve a conflict.

of course I am assuming that if you shoot someone enough there will be no more conflict.
There is always some conflict in society; whether it is your neighbours dog shitting on your lawn or your government insisting that all people who can afford to pay for the medical a national medical service which can be used by all.

You can choose your weapon of choice to resolve conflict, and as stated I prefer to live in one where the servants of the government do not need to carry guns to enforce the law. (they are equiped with wodden truncheons, and soon may even get pepper spray.) So i am happy to not live in America, with my medical cards, and my lack of gun wounds. The fact that very few international terorist groups want to destroy my country because of decades of flawed foreign policy... I even know some americans who prefer living here; but you are free to live where and how you choose.

.ie on you rhome page - that's Ireland, right? Thanks, I prefer a nation where bombers don't run around blowing up subways on a monthly basis.

no just fund them!and you never answered how people hunted duck etc before guns

yeah, ireland. The republic of; i think i mentioned it above. Not sure where you think it is, as we don't have a subway in dublin, and i think Northern Ireland (a different state) has none in belfast (their capital).

and let's not talk about the irish in america who spent much of the 80's and 90's funding terrorism in ireland against Brittish rule, back when terrorism was much more popular; because there at least the Clinton administration did do it's best to help resolve the internal conflict; which is now almost a thing of the past.

I'm amused that Acosmist is still logged on yet doesn't seem to want to answer my points from 2:16 pm.

Damn! Had this huge answer about not knowing how they hunted wild fowl and it didn't post. Well, gist of it is I don't know. I can admit I don't know. I would guess more pack-like with slings and stones as the bow would not have been as accurate then, but I don't know.

So not subways, but trains or bombing eating/drinking establishments where the oppositionhangs out. We haven't had that kind of thing in the states since prohibition wa slifted.

i should actually apologise if i sound overly hateful of america. It is actually much harder to run a country wiht 300 million people and especially with a democratic system.

Things don't always scale simply, and the fact that democracy becomes a popularity contest doesn't help, communicating a message to a large population especially a political message is more difficult when you are forced to use tv or radio than if you are able to do it in person. I doubt any american president has talked personally with a majority of his supporter nevermind his opposition...

So a small group of people (Irish population hardly equates to an overwhelming controlling group any more than the Italian or German or any other nationality in our melting pot) somehow equates to the US backing it? Is that you implication?

Accepted, and for what it's worth, I want to visit Ireland at some point in my life. Of course, I also want to visit Scotland, Wales, England, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, and maybe even make it farther north as well. I've been to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland so far.