EVE Search - US gun laws in EVE

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

US gun laws in EVE

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
MechaViridis Amarr The Program Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:08:00 - [1] In the US there is a constant battle between 2nd Amendment defenders and those who wish to ban all guns. The typical argument is this: Pro-2nd amendment --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals --In a life threatening situation, seconds matter, when police are minutes away --Gun education and proper training is the answer, not restriction. Anti-2nd amendment --People are not responsible enough to handle guns --More guns = more death --protecting children from guns Now it's hard to theorize what would happen in the extreme cases of each side-where guns are freely avaliable, and guns are completely banned. But imagine this: What if the laws of high-sec banned guns on ships, and anyone with guns on their ships was given GCC. Also, to balance this, CONCORD responses would be delayed slightly longer. How do you guys picture high-sec if these changes were made? Better? Worse? Epic-lulzy? Xfire -- Seph31
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:23:00 - [2] epic luls from mission runners And did you know that this is in fact Surfin's Plunderbunny's forum alt? It's official!
Shadowfox986 Caldari Galactic Rangers	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:27:00 - [3] i wld be fine =) b/c i use missles not gunz!! lol yay for missles \o/ ---------------------------------------------- What Ever Dosnt Kill Me Better Warp Damm Fast!
LA RUCA Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:49:00 - [4] Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they ban guns whats next? Knives? and then mehbe OH NO BUTTAH NEEF OF DEF!
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:59:00 - [5] Rest assured I would petition to have the GM's allow me to attach big ****ing knives or blunt objects of some kind to my ship to ram you with. Sure it will be harder to suicide gank you but it will still be possible and while regular gun attacks would go down the whinage of bladed/blunt attacks would go up ten fold. Later the carebear society would deem our cutlery too dangerous to have due to me equipping my ship like a battle hamster.
Seroquel	Posted - 2009.07.13 20:39:00 - [6] A long time ago you could buy explosives and lawn darts at the hardware store. The government banned those and your guns are next!!1 I want to go back to the days of fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, M-80s and lawndarts. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.13 20:41:00 - [7] I'd just train Fedos to eat other people's ships and drop them in clouds from an Industrial at my enemies. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Leviathan9 Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.	Posted - 2009.07.13 20:58:00 - [8] Edited by: Leviathan9 on 13/07/2009 20:59:30 Originally by: MechaViridis --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals Thats the biggest bull i've ever heard.. If a criminal breaks into your house, fists would do, baseball/circket bats do the job nicely. Even threaten them with kitchen knifes... Gun isn't the only way of protecing yourself.. Edit: But the idea of banning guns in high-sec would be lols, on another hand be annoying sometimes its easier to fit the guns rather to carry them in the hold. ---------------------------
Vaden Khale Amarr Ghost Festival	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:00:00 - [9] Originally by: Leviathan9 Edited by: Leviathan9 on 13/07/2009 20:59:30 Originally by: MechaViridis --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals Thats the biggest bull i've ever heard.. If a criminal breaks into your house, fists would do, baseball/circket bats do the job nicely. Even threaten them with kitchen knifes... Gun isn't the only way of protecing yourself.. Edit: But the idea of banning guns in high-sec would be lols, on another hand be annoying sometimes its easier to fit the guns rather to carry them in the hold. Except, oh **, he has a gun too. Guess you're **ed. Enjoy your gun bans in hell.
xOm3gAx Caldari Stain of Mind	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Leviathan9 Edited by: Leviathan9 on 13/07/2009 20:59:30 Originally by: MechaViridis --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals Thats the biggest bull i've ever heard.. If a criminal breaks into your house, fists would do, baseball/circket bats do the job nicely. Even threaten them with kitchen knifes... Gun isn't the only way of protecing yourself.. Edit: But the idea of banning guns in high-sec would be lols, on another hand be annoying sometimes its easier to fit the guns rather to carry them in the hold. Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. Originally by: CCP Abraxas Her boyfriend's way hot, too; tall and tanned. And I say this as a very hetero male who doesn't ever dream of the man on cold, dark nights.

Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:13:00 - [11] Originally by: xOm3gAx Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. This issue only exists due to the high proliferation of guns. If there were no guns to begin with, not even the criminals would have them. At least not your everyday burglar with a drug habit. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:16:00 - [12] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: xOm3gAx Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. This issue only exists due to the high proliferation of guns. If there were no guns to begin with, not even the criminals would have them. At least not your everyday burglar with a drug habit. I enjoy fantasy land every now n then too.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: xOm3gAx Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. This issue only exists due to the high proliferation of guns. If there were no guns to begin with, not even the criminals would have them. At least not your everyday burglar with a drug habit. I enjoy fantasy land every now n then too. Just pointing out that guns are a self-proliferating issue. As there are guns, you need guns to defend yourself from guns, so you get a gun (or two or three) and then there are more guns which increases the need of the unarmed to arm themselves, etc. That's why the weapons industry is so profitably, the more guns you sell, the more guns will be needed, the more guns you can sell, etc. Best example for this was the nuclear arms race. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:45:00 - [14] I don't have a problem with that. Originally by: Yuri Orlov There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?
BeaconBeacon	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: xOm3gAx Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. This issue only exists due to the high proliferation of guns. If there were no guns to begin with, not even the criminals would have them. At least not your everyday burglar with a drug habit. I enjoy fantasy land every now n then too. Just pointing out that guns are a self-proliferating issue. As there are guns, you need guns to defend yourself from guns, so you get a gun (or two or three) and then there are more guns which increases the need of the unarmed to arm themselves, etc. That's why the weapons industry is so profitably, the more guns you sell, the more guns will be needed, the more guns you can sell, etc. Best example for this was the nuclear arms race. Really? Really? REALLY? Are you stupid on purpose, like a joke, or do you actually belive that? I'm pretty sure you have lived in the suburbs your whole life and with your parents. The train of thought for a criminal isn't "Hmm...I wonder what the proper amount of force I need to bring with me to properly break into this house is." Then select a knife because, hey, the owner doesn't have a gun, therefore he shouldn't. He just get's what is the most deadly (A gun currently, until they invent personal laser pistols). Then goes and breaks into your house.
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:50:00 - [16] When they institue a realistic approach to ramming ships into one another then they cna take all the guns away, until then it would just be epic lulz as everyone moves to low sec inorder to play the most basic elements of the game. Unless mining lazer turrets arn't guns (I think the asteriods would have a hard time beliving that). Either way I like this idea and support it one hundred percent, carbear tears make are always worthwhile. Gun bans are always full of lulz. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Slade Trillgon Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:00:00 - [17] Originally by: xOm3gAx So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. The idiot that breaks into my house, first, with the end of a baseball bat, after I hot drop him from around a corner that he did not know I was behind Here in Va, we do not have the castle doctrine so it is possible to be charged for the death of a criminal if they enter your house. Originally by: Intense Thinker epic luls from mission runners Epic first post. Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! =v=
Toshiro GreyHawk	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:23:00 - [18] Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 13/07/2009 22:27:54 A few odd facts. There are towns that have made it illegal to NOT own a gun. They have a Zero crime rate. The vast majority of gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals usually over drugs. Much of which occurs in states with heavy gun laws. Except for gun deaths caused by criminals killing each other, auto mobile deaths dwarf not merely gun deaths - but deaths in war. Automobiles are safer than they were but resistance to auto safety was because the safe guards would add to the cost. When the USA had a 55 MPH speed limit. Automobile deaths dropped by 5,000 per year. When they reinstated the 65MPH speed limits - they jumped right back up. The cars were safer but there were more of them. ******* is rightly considered a gateway drug by law enforcement - however - what they don't get - is that what it is a gateway to - is crime. As drugs go - ***** is relatively innocuous. It isn't good for you but compared to cigarettes, ** or *** it isn't that bad. By legalizing ***** and taxing it - you could eliminate it's primary negative influence - which is getting people involved with criminals and make some money for the government. All of this came out in "The Presidents Report On *****" which was prepared for Richard Nixon in 1970. ******* was legal until the '30's when after the repeal of prohibition the alcohol industry lobbied for it's criminalization to remove it as competition for their re-emerging products - which by the way - create their own set of problems - which is why prohibition was able to be passed in the first place. So ... If you arm law abiding citizens to the teeth - you don't have a problem. If you try and stop criminals from getting guns - they will get them anyway and use them to kill each other. People don't care so much about the number of deaths involved in anything - as they do about their money, convenience and impatience. Despite a course of action that would eliminate much of our drug problems and keep billions of dollars out of the hands of criminals - people would prefer to cling to their prejudices than solve the problem. Mostly people believe what they want to believe - regardless of the facts. Whether it's gun control, automobile safety, drugs or the possibility of that cute girl over there going out with them ... logic's primary use is in rationalizing whatever it is we already want to do. Look at the morons wanting to ban land mines. Land mines are easily manufactured - so there is no way for anyone to prevent anyone who wants them from getting them ... or just making their own. The major powers with organized armies - map the mine fields they place and clear them later. They have in fact got mines that will deactivate after a certain period of time. All the problems with mine fields are from poorly organized militia's, rebels, insurgents ... whatever you want to call them - who scatter their mines about indiscriminately and never clean them up. So - the only people who would obey any ban on land mines - are the ones who clean them up anyway - whereas the ones responsible for the problem - wouldn't obey any such ban and couldn't clean them up if they wanted - since they don't remember where they put them in the first place. So - all you have is people exercising their emotions "Oh! Look at all the children with no legs!" with no rational informed thought behind them. That is what human beings do. Indulge their emotions and use what intellect they have to rationalize it. That is what human beings have always done. Orbiting vs. Kiting Faction Schools
Vinsurith Morteth Minmatar Hauptman Cartel	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:33:00 - [19] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: xOm3gAx Only problem is guns are extremely easy to get illegally without going to a store or needing some form of lic. for them. So in that scenario the criminal still has a gun and you have a bat.... i wonder who's gonna get hit first. This issue only exists due to the high proliferation of guns. If there were no guns to begin with, not even the criminals would have them. At least not your everyday burglar with a drug habit. I enjoy fantasy land every now n then too. Just pointing out that guns are a self-proliferating issue. As there are guns, you need guns to defend yourself from guns, so you get a gun (or two or three) and then there are more guns which increases the need of the unarmed to arm themselves, etc. That's why the weapons industry is so profitably, the more guns you sell, the more guns will be needed, the more guns you can sell, etc. Best example for this was the nuclear arms race. Everything lethal came from something non lethal or a non lethal idea. The nuclear weapon came from ideas of new energy, explosive powder had a different use at first, sticks to hunt and survive became weapons to attack with. It's not guns...it's stupid people. The responsible people with weapons of anykind keep the irresponsible in some balance.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Leviathan9 Edited by: Leviathan9 on 13/07/2009 20:59:30 Originally by: MechaViridis --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals Thats the biggest bull i've ever heard.. If a criminal breaks into your house, fists would do, baseball/circket bats do the job nicely. Even threaten them with kitchen knifes... Gun isn't the only way of protecing yourself.. Edit: But the idea of banning guns in high-sec would be lols, on another hand be annoying sometimes its easier to fit the guns rather to carry them in the hold. Range of a knife: about 3 feet Range of a gun: hell of a lot more than 3 feet If a criminal has a gun and you have a knife, who do you think is going to get hurt first? On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!

Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:45:00 - [21] Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 13/07/2009 22:27:54 A few odd facts. There are towns that have made it illegal to NOT own a gun. They have a Zero crime rate. The vast majority of gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals usually over drugs. Much of which occurs in states with heavy gun laws. Except for gun deaths caused by criminals killing each other, auto mobile deaths dwarf not merely gun deaths - but deaths in war. Automobiles are safer than they were but resistance to auto safety was because the safe guards would add to the cost. When the USA had a 55 MPH speed limit. Automobile deaths dropped by 5,000 per year. When they reinstated the 65MPH speed limits - they jumped right back up. The cars were safer but there were more of them. ******* is rightly considered a gateway drug by law enforcement - however - what they don't get - is that what it is a gateway to - is crime. As drugs go - ***** is relatively innocuous. It isn't good for you but compared to cigarettes, ** or *** it isn't that bad. By legalizing ***** and taxing it - you could eliminate it's primary negative influence - which is getting people involved with criminals and make some money for the government. All of this came out in "The Presidents Report On *****" which was prepared for Richard Nixon in 1970. ******* was legal until the '30's when after the repeal of prohibition the alcohol industry lobbied for it's criminalization to remove it as competition for their re-emerging products - which by the way - create their own set of problems - which is why prohibition was able to be passed in the first place. So ... If you arm law abiding citizens to the teeth - you don't have a problem. If you try and stop criminals from getting guns - they will get them anyway and use them to kill each other. People don't care so much about the number of deaths involved in anything - as they do about their money, convenience and impatience. Despite a course of action that would eliminate much of our drug problems and keep billions of dollars out of the hands of criminals - people would prefer to cling to their prejudices than solve the problem. Mostly people believe what they want to believe - regardless of the facts. Whether it's gun control, automobile safety, drugs or the possibility of that cute girl over there going out with them ... logic's primary use is in rationalizing whatever it is we already want to do. Look at the morons wanting to ban land mines. Land mines are easily manufactured - so there is no way for anyone to prevent anyone who wants them from getting them ... or just making their own. The major powers with organized armies - map the mine fields they place and clear them later. They have in fact got mines that will deactivate after a certain period of time. All the problems with mine fields are from poorly organized militia's, rebels, insurgents ... whatever you want to call them - who scatter their mines about indiscriminately and never clean them up. So - the only people who would obey any ban on land mines - are the ones who clean them up anyway - whereas the ones responsible for the problem - wouldn't obey any such ban and couldn't clean them up if they wanted - since they don't remember where they put them in the first place. So - all you have is people exercising their emotions "Oh! Look at all the children with no legs!" with no rational informed thought behind them. That is what human beings do. Indulge their emotions and use what intellect they have to rationalize it. That is what human beings have always done. THANK YOU! Can we take that brain of yours, clone it, and put it in the thick skulls of our leaders? PLEASE!!!!! On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Vinsurith Morteth Minmatar Hauptman Cartel	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Jacob Mei Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 13/07/2009 22:27:54 A few odd facts. There are towns that have made it illegal to NOT own a gun. They have a Zero crime rate. The vast majority of gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals usually over drugs. Much of which occurs in states with heavy gun laws. Except for gun deaths caused by criminals killing each other, auto mobile deaths dwarf not merely gun deaths - but deaths in war. Automobiles are safer than they were but resistance to auto safety was because the safe guards would add to the cost. When the USA had a 55 MPH speed limit. Automobile deaths dropped by 5,000 per year. When they reinstated the 65MPH speed limits - they jumped right back up. The cars were safer but there were more of them. ******* is rightly considered a gateway drug by law enforcement - however - what they don't get - is that what it is a gateway to - is crime. As drugs go - ***** is relatively innocuous. It isn't good for you but compared to cigarettes, ** or *** it isn't that bad. By legalizing ***** and taxing it - you could eliminate it's primary negative influence - which is getting people involved with criminals and make some money for the government. All of this came out in "The Presidents Report On *****" which was prepared for Richard Nixon in 1970. ******* was legal until the '30's when after the repeal of prohibition the alcohol industry lobbied for it's criminalization to remove it as competition for their re-emerging products - which by the way - create their own set of problems - which is why prohibition was able to be passed in the first place. So ... If you arm law abiding citizens to the teeth - you don't have a problem. If you try and stop criminals from getting guns - they will get them anyway and use them to kill each other. People don't care so much about the number of deaths involved in anything - as they do about their money, convenience and impatience. Despite a course of action that would eliminate much of our drug problems and keep billions of dollars out of the hands of criminals - people would prefer to cling to their prejudices than solve the problem. Mostly people believe what they want to believe - regardless of the facts. Whether it's gun control, automobile safety, drugs or the possibility of that cute girl over there going out with them ... logic's primary use is in rationalizing whatever it is we already want to do. Look at the morons wanting to ban land mines. Land mines are easily manufactured - so there is no way for anyone to prevent anyone who wants them from getting them ... or just making their own. The major powers with organized armies - map the mine fields they place and clear them later. They have in fact got mines that will deactivate after a certain period of time. All the problems with mine fields are from poorly organized militia's, rebels, insurgents ... whatever you want to call them - who scatter their mines about indiscriminately and never clean them up. So - the only people who would obey any ban on land mines - are the ones who clean them up anyway - whereas the ones responsible for the problem - wouldn't obey any such ban and couldn't clean them up if they wanted - since they don't remember where they put them in the first place. So - all you have is people exercising their emotions "Oh! Look at all the children with no legs!" with no rational informed thought behind them. We've had people that think realistically run for office. Someone always comes by to make them out to be a racist, sexist, or an idiot. Then the sheeple vote like idiots. I've read those statistics too...cities/towns where concealed weapons are legal and easier to get have far less violent crimes than anywhere in the world. Armed citizens scare criminals more than the law.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.13 23:07:00 - [23] holy crap this thread got derailed in record time And did you know that this is in fact Surfin's Plunderbunny's forum alt? It's official!
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.07.13 23:08:00 - [24] Edited by: Jin Nib on 13/07/2009 23:10:24 I think most major western states have already abandoned the use of land mines as in-humane. In addition to that, they have not always been responsible with their use, they are still searching for the things in Viet Nam, the Russians developed mines that were scattered from airplanes, etc. The problem with mines is that they are extremely indiscriminate and their effects are long lasting. Even in cleared mine-feilds there is always a danger, and in general it's not the ones who laid the field who gets the task to clean it up. In other words the cost vs rewards has stopped paying off for western powers. Instead they work on far more direct and useful cool things like these: Which are far more useful in most cases But people will always use the weapons within reach, for small states without the money or ability to pay and upkeep for such systems, of course they'll use land mines if they encounter a situation in which they need them. Even western states would. It's obvious. In any case, compareing personal guns and weapons to land mines is rather far-fetched. A more accurate comparison for land mines was if you booby trapped your house in-case of intruders which I belive is illegal in most states. Not that anyone would know, or if they had such an inclination, care. The point is that gun bans only put weapons out of reach for those who are least likely to put them to bad use. An In game gun ban would not have that fault, but then it would also drive many players and carebears from the game. I can't decide if thats a bad thing or not . -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
THE L0CK	Posted - 2009.07.13 23:44:00 - [25] Originally by: Intense Thinker holy crap this thread got derailed in record time I expected as much. Originally by: Whitehound If I think, but I do not.
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.07.14 01:13:00 - [26] Edited by: Sobach on 14/07/2009 01:13:51 Originally by: LA RUCA Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they ban guns whats next? Knives? and then mehbe OH NO BUTTAH NEEF OF DEF! apparently the next thing would be kitchen knifes, as "...there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all." Linkage if something like this ever passes in UK... I feel sorry for you guys.
Olleybear The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.07.14 01:24:00 - [27] Originally by: MechaViridis In the US: Pro-2nd amendment --By banning guns, people can no longer defend themselves from criminals --In a life threatening situation, seconds matter, when police are minutes away --Gun education and proper training is the answer, not restriction. To truly appreciate the 2nd amendment in the USA, one has to undertand the true reason it is there. The 2nd amendment isn't there for the reasons above. The real reason for the 2nd amendment is: To protect the citizens from the government. This reason alone is all that is needed to keep the second amendment. Those against the 2nd amendment will bring up how guns are ineffective vs armored helicoptors and tanks, so the citizens dont have a need for guns. They couldn't be more wrong. How long has the US been in Iraq? There are still bombs going off there. Now imagine 300million americans, half of them armed. You get the picture. Originally by: MechaViridis But imagine this: What if the laws of high-sec banned guns on ships, and anyone with guns on their ships was given GCC. Also, to balance this, CONCORD responses would be delayed slightly longer. How do you guys picture high-sec if these changes were made? Better? Worse? Epic-lulzy? Dont see the point of doing this. <<< Just because your pet likes you, that does not mean you are a good person. >>>
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.07.14 01:47:00 - [28] Originally by: Sobach Edited by: Sobach on 14/07/2009 01:13:51 Originally by: LA RUCA Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they ban guns whats next? Knives? and then mehbe OH NO BUTTAH NEEF OF DEF! apparently the next thing would be kitchen knifes, as "...there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all." Linkage if something like this ever passes in UK... I feel sorry for you guys. I would lol but that is so stunning I think I forgot how. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.14 02:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Sobach Edited by: Sobach on 14/07/2009 01:13:51 Originally by: LA RUCA Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they ban guns whats next? Knives? and then mehbe OH NO BUTTAH NEEF OF DEF! apparently the next thing would be kitchen knifes, as "...there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all." Linkage if something like this ever passes in UK... I feel sorry for you guys. I would lol but that is so stunning I think I forgot how. Its also 3 years old so I don't think it will pass any time soon but just the mere fact that they brought it up is just wow.
yani dumyat Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.07.14 02:01:00 - [30] Scarcity = Violence The question of ordinary citizens having firearms works sometimes but i'd hate to see it become the norm here in Scotland where we have limited gun crime. Sticking dogmatically to either side of the argument ignores the main question of 'what is the best way to reduce violence?' The answer always revolves around resources.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.