>>there are no facts about how crimes would be in the US without guns.<<

You are right. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the same thing would happen in the US that happens everywhere else.\

>>The "facts" back schniepel, USA has third world murder rates.<<

The "facts" do not show any evidence of guns being the cause. There are nations with more guns and lower murder rates than the US, suggesting the reasons are cultural.

>>The difference between US murder rates and Civilised countries murder rates, is US gun murders.<<

Obviously in a country with a higher availability of guns murders committed with them will be higher in a country with less availability, but considering the lack of an impact on murders and the increase in crime suffered by nations enacting gun control, you don't have a point.

You kids couldn't pass a basic statistics course, but you're experts who're gonna post and vote anyway! Hurray willful ignorance!

Frenzy: I have a serious question. Is that a penis llama your bananna is riding in your avatar?  Because it's not a normal llama and I'm a little scared that a part of my damaged memory tells me I may have seen that phalic thing somewhere online many years ago.

>>No, it is you who fail to understand it.  <<

Good explanation.

>>You assume that the idea of there being a social consciousness is some sort of communist conspiracy <<

I didn't use the word communist nor parallel your position to communist-like positions nor imply any sort of conspiracy or mal-intent. Good job not replying to my point AT ALL but engaging in virtual masturbation because you like to type instead.

>> who, by your account, are all brainwashed leftists.<<

I explained the problem with their values. Did you engage the topic? No. Random references not touching the point.

>>When you consider a male security guard at, let's say, a museum, wandering through the halls on his nightly rounds, or a female factory worker on the assembly-line of a sweatshop factory, you automatically assume those individuals are functioning at their full level of potential, for otherwise they would have already have done more with their lives, right?<<

I never claimed that or implied anything of the sort. But thank you for making up a random straw-man which I'm sure you will proceed to attack as if it has anything to do with what I said. I would be more specific in what's wrong with what you said, but since it was a response to nothing that anyone said I'm not going to waste anyone's time attacking it.

>>That is, if they were capable of doing more, they would have already arranged done so.  I, however, see a waste of human potential, with people being manipulated into roles above and beyond which everyone is more capable, because of this state of retardation of our social consciousness.<<

The free market with social welfare and education subsidies manipulates people into roles beyond which they are capable? That's funny, because it's systems like those which you advocate with massive oversight and control over people's lives that historically rape freedom, oppress people not in power, and manipulate people into living lives beneath which that which they are capable.

>>Where you believe everyone gets his or her lot in life<<

Onec AGAIN (is this ALL you do?) you make up things to respond to which I never said. Life isn't fair. It's better to be good than lucky. I'm not championing this as something awesome about the random world we live in. But I DO believe that people ought not to get in other people's ways pursuing their happiness. I believe that you are morally disgusting to get in people's way. You advocate systems which make people's lots in life worse. You advocate systems which make difficult and very often prevent people from improving their lots in life.

>>However, we both know (or at least I do) that neither of us will win this argument, because it will be future historians who will judge this.<<

They already have. One system has resulted in the most prosperity humanity has ever known. The other has resulted in corrupt governments repressing people for generations, people who die fleeing their oppressive governments nearly as often as their oppressive governments condemn them for voicing views which they hope will improve their peoples' impoverished lives.

>>Nevertheless, why don't we continue this argument, first by admitting our global society is 'retarded'.<<

What argument? You respond to NONE of the points, reasoning, or historical references I make. Ever. I'm torn between whether you ignore ALL of the substance of my posts because you know you have no response to it or whether you're just that dense that my simple and clear posts are beyond your comprehension.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>> I mean we went from covered wagons to moon landings in less than 100 years for Christ sake<<

No. Our people did that. Xeno's people are still largely in the same state they were when our people were travelling west in covered wagons and committing terrible crimes against the natives of this land. And this fact is ammunition for Xeno's dictator leaders to fill him with envy. They find it advantageous to keep Xeno and his countryment ignorant and jealous of other nations' success. This takes away attention from their own failures in governmening (and they do a lot more than govern) and focusses it on hating outsiders who have better systems and enjoy unimaginably higher standards of living. To Xeno, it's people living well's fault that his people shit in holes and can't figure out how not to get HIV.

You're so corageous to call someone a moron for joining his military, Random Hero. God forbid people give the ultimate service risking the ultimate sacrifice for their family, friends, and countrymen. I'm sure you've never enjoyed the fruits that better people than you fought and died for. You're offensive to mankind.

When insulting someone's intelligence, it is helpful to use the right words. YOU'RE a bright one. YOUR intellect is admirable.

I agree with Lizon. We should congratulate thugs who steal nations while their people die fleeing, choosing to die with their freedom than live in opression.

Kill 'em all.

once sat on a post

When potheads represent a threat to your safety, property, and rights, you've got some serious issues that aren't the potheads' problem.

Your argument is that you need someone to take care of you.

Most have "true issues"? What is the source of this statistic among the tens of millions who smoke/have smoked dope?

>>When the majority of those doing a drug will end up because of the drug interfering with my rights, it goes beyond a personal right, it goes to become a personal wrong to use those drugs. The end result will be interfering with others rights, therefore it is not, and should never be, allowed.  <<

You failed to tell me how my friends and I smoking a little while we catch up a few times a year infringe upon your rights. The fact is, 99.9%+ of people who smoke pot don't bother anyone. Ever. You're pretending that because unhealthy/stupid people do unhealthy/stupid things when high on pot, just as they do while sober, that pot is to blame and clearly it must be banned from 100% of people because <.01% do stupid shit while high.

The end result of people smoking dope is NOT interfering with your rights. YOU are interfering with their rights to make whatever you can up to infringe upon their rights.

lol. they're too embarassing to respond to.