|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 5, 2005 20:09:59 GMT -5
Okay, before you two kill each other, I think I'll intervene. Sorry Azan, but Chica's right in saying animals are conscious beings. Just incredibly stupid ones. Now don't get me wrong, I am against gun control laws (let the people do what they want blah blah blah). But you're right for the wrong reason about the killing humans Azan. Killing humans is wrong not because we are conscious, but because we have a whole society to say that it's wrong. Animals do not. If we kill an animal, do they arrest us and have a trial? Nope, they're animals. Therein lies the difference. We do not kill humans because us humans know it's wrong. Animals don't.
Where would you all be without my words of wisdom, eh?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 6, 2005 21:20:34 GMT -5
actually I think I am gonna kill him after all! you know dolphins are really smart and what about the chimps and gorillas with only 2% difference in dna? do they count as nothing? because they are being hunted too!
and good luck with that plan I really don't people are gonna like not being able to have sex try it but you'll have a lot of people against you and then of course we'll resort to killing. but by then we might even be extinct if we have a nuclear war! not all animals are like dogs some are almost as smart as we are
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 7, 2005 9:28:11 GMT -5
and good luck with that plan I really don't people are gonna like not being able to have sex try it but you'll have a lot of people against you and then of course we'll resort to killing. but by then we might even be extinct if we have a nuclear war! I got no idea what you're talking about here. I guess you must've been talking to Azan.
But about all the other stuff you said, about smart animals. That's laughable. No animal is even close to being as smart as us. Dolphins are probably the next smartest after us. What can they do? Basic math? Humans do calculus, there's no contest. People only say dolphins are smart because they are, compared to all the other stupid animals.
|
|
|
Post by Vash on Jul 15, 2005 1:00:48 GMT -5
Another thing, chances are by the time humans actually get over populated, either the Apocalypse will happen or theres always the chance of accidents happening (earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, wars, etc.)
And I agree with Azan. Except with the "respecting animals by keeping their population down", that just doesn't seem right...theres also probably another different thing, but I'm not sure what it is right now...
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jul 15, 2005 17:04:09 GMT -5
Another thing, chances are by the time humans actually get over populated, either the Apocalypse will happen or theres always the chance of accidents happening (earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, wars, etc.) And I agree with Azan. Except with the "respecting animals by keeping their population down", that just doesn't seem right...theres also probably another different thing, but I'm not sure what it is right now... Yes the earth is far from overpopulated because humans can live in a society, animals cant they need space to hunt so animals are the only ones in danger and in response to your second part, it is our duty to keep their numbers down because we are the ones putting up their numbers, if we allowed them to overpopulate they would slowly starve which is much less humain than a bullet and good luck with that plan I really don't people are gonna like not being able to have sex try it but you'll have a lot of people against you and then of course we'll resort to killing. but by then we might even be extinct if we have a nuclear war! not all animals are like dogs some are almost as smart as we are if thats a reply to me then your mistaken on what I said, I didnt say people should stop having sex, just not having kids everywhere, its called protection and im talking about places like china (seriously there should be some sortof charity to send condoms there because in china if you have more than two kids they get shot, its best to prevent that sort of thing) and no the smartest animal next to humans is the dolphin and its nowhere near our intellect (and even then I dont see dolphin hunting)
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 18, 2005 17:32:58 GMT -5
respecting the animals by keeping the populations down... thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Thats like saying the animals depend on us to regulate their own populations, however animals have been here hundreds of millions of years before we came along, and thus far tey have regulated their own populations, and im pretty sure animals haven't gotten worse at regulating themselves since then.
as for gun control laws, the 2 sides are not as different as you may think. Except for extreamist views of letting people walk around with live assult rifles, and allow no one to have guns, they generally are the same. Military gets assult rifles, police gets their guns, then everyone else can have guns too, however, they must be 16 (with safety training), their are guns people can't have (bazooka's, Assult rifles, machine-guns...). where they differ is mainly a few points. A: Gun registration. this means that they basicly take one shot, record the marks the gun makes and put it in the police database (so if anyone gets killed, they can figure out who easier). B: Backround checks: basicly, if you buy a handgun (some say anygun, but majority say only handguns), they hold it for 3 days to do a thurough check (as opposed to a 15 second phone call) to make sure you arn't someone dangerous. C: Conceal and carry laws: If you are allowed to carry a concieled handgun around in public. this is the big one.
A. I dont really see whats the problem with this one, how much privacy does them knowing who has what gun really take away.
B. I agree with this one, if a few people have to wait 3 days to buy a gun, and it saves a few lives, then its necissarry (and honestly, when are you going to need a gun within 3 days of asking for one, if you were really that urgent to shoot, a gun shoudln't be teh thing you are buying).
C. I dont like the idea of people walking around with handguns for "protection". Generally, the average person, if they had to quickly shoot at a person with no prior training, they would probably miss and hit someone else and just make the situation worse. And how often do you hear about some guy just randomly shooting another person on the street, almost never because it rarely ever happens. You hear about muggings, you hear about gang killings, but more often than not, the death was caused by the other person trying to shoot back. The best way to improve this would 1. Keep muggers to a minimum by making it hard for them to get handguns and 2. let the cops take care of it, thats what they are paid for, and they do a good job at it.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 18, 2005 19:03:26 GMT -5
As for the first part of your post about the animals, you're right that animals have been getting along well before us, but because of us we do have to hunt them to keep their populations down in order to help them. This is because until recently any large predator was considered bad and hunted and killed for no reason. Thus there aren't enough predators in the wild to naturally keep herbavore populations down, so we have to do it. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any lions or bears around here. . .
Gamerman, you are definitely right about A and B. With C I think people should be allowed to conceal and carry handguns, but what if we had even stricter background checks and maybe even some kind of interview with the gun owner in order for them to get a conceal and carry license? That's my idea.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 18, 2005 22:42:02 GMT -5
i would go along with your idea for C.
and populations would be kept down without us as the population would just expand past resources, resources would go down, they would drop below resources and begin to expand again until they reached resources, then they would stay at that level.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 18, 2005 22:56:50 GMT -5
That wouldn't be as good as if we shoot them. Let's use deer as an example.
Deer would eat almost any vegetation. If we stop hunting, the deer population would explode thanks to a lack of predators (our fault, we know better now). The deer eat and eat until there is nothing left to eat and then they starve. More deer would probably die of starvation than would be hunted, but they probably wouldn't go extinct. There are tons of side effects though. Other animals may eat the same food as the deer and starve as well. The trees and plants the deer eat would also suffer (though trees are usually fine, small plants would get eaten). Plus diseases thrive when populations increase. The last thing we need is some kind of mad deer disease.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jul 19, 2005 0:39:22 GMT -5
respecting the animals by keeping the populations down... thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Thats like saying the animals depend on us to regulate their own populations, however animals have been here hundreds of millions of years before we came along, and thus far tey have regulated their own populations, and im pretty sure animals haven't gotten worse at regulating themselves since then. Acualy Animals Could servive on their own, however they have become altered by humans, now we have screwed up theyre lives and its up to us to not screw it up anymore. and its showing it self more and more, for instance coogor attacks would never have happened but we have minimized their hunting grounds so they become highly aggresive and now children have been attacked, we cant just say the animals will fix themselves and theyll figure it out, we need to do something and anyways this is gun control, overpopulation is a real problem in many areas and you have to keep their numbers down otherwise they will starve
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 19, 2005 21:57:17 GMT -5
im not saying we should stop hunting deer, or that us keeping their populations down is hurting them (im a deer hunter by the way), im just saying that they dont need us to.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 19, 2005 22:26:28 GMT -5
Okay, then we're agreed (I think). At least until one of the girls posts here again.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Jul 20, 2005 11:08:29 GMT -5
A and B I agree with easily, I see no reason not to. C is more debatable, but I think that you should have to get a gun license, and then a conceal and carry license, as separate entities.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 20, 2005 11:12:25 GMT -5
Uh-huh. . . That's pretty much what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Jul 20, 2005 18:15:54 GMT -5
and i'm agreeing with it
|
|