The Now Show is wonderful. Thank you onegoodmove for introducing it to me.

That was the last episode of this season though.

Again, yet another person completely and utterly missing the point and looking for an easy scapegoat. VT had absolutly nothing to do with guns, the same with most if not all school shootings, and everything to do with a kid being completely isolated and and numerously slipped through the cracks. The weapon could have been anything, it does not matter, what matters is that we, as a society, need to stop ignoring those amoung us who need the most help. And if the British government is flooding guns into parts of society that are gang ridden, isn't it equally the responsibility of the rest of the citezenry who votes these people into office to hold them accountable as it is for the gang members to choose not to use the guns? Is it not the resposibility of American citizens to demand that health care in our country takes care of those who are declared a "threat to society?" To make sure these individuals have access to cheap phychologists and possibly institutionalization regardless of loss of profit? No, let's just blame the guns, take them all away and continue on like we have been, ignoring the obvious because that problem is too difficult to solve.

Life without guns? Hmm, how many students and teachers would have died had Cho attacked the student body with his knife and machete collection?

The kid would have been nutty and dangerous anyway but not nearly as dangerous. The point is the ease with which one can kill with a firearm.

I grew up in gunland and once owned enough weapons and ammo to wipe out my whole neighborhood were I bent that way.

I loved my guns was a very good shot, especially with pistols, even worked as a 'trick' shooter in a couple of wild west tourist shows.

Having lived in Canada for a number of years now, I've seen the real difference between a place where guns are every where and a place where they are not. It is much better living in a place where my nut case neighbor doesn't have a personal armoury to impower his many delusions.

The streets are different and people in general have a very different attitude regarding guns and violence.

Greatly reducing the number of firearms, especially pistols and military weapons will not sove all of ones' social problems but it is an important step in the right direction.

Pulling a trigger is just too easy. The consequences of that easy action are quite terrible.

The point the speaker made regarding the second amendment is a very good point.

"I'm starting to think that humans are entirely bollocks"

Its great when you see someone starting to see the light!

"Having lived in Canada for a number of years now, I've seen the real difference between a place where guns are every where and a place where they are not. It is much better living in a place where my nut case neighbor doesn't have a personal armoury to impower his many delusions."

Excuse me? I thought Canada had more guns per people than America, maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, let's take the other side of the spectrum: suppose guns are so common that every other person carried them around. Cho wouldn't get so far in his massacre then either. Granted, Cho needed a better background check, and that's something I support, but I would feel safer if people around me I knew and trusted all carried firearms. Face it, criminals will get firearms anyway, and taking them away from the good law-abiding citizens just makes us defenseless. The 2nd amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

"Having lived in Canada for a number of years now, I've seen the real difference between a place where guns are every where and a place where they are not. It is much better living in a place where my nut case neighbor doesn't have a personal armoury to impower his many delusions."

Excuse me? I thought Canada had more guns per people than America, maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, let's take the other side of the spectrum: suppose guns are so common that every other person carried them around. Cho wouldn't get so far in his massacre then either. Granted, Cho needed a better background check, and that's something I support, but I would feel safer if people around me I knew and trusted all carried firearms. Face it, criminals will get firearms anyway, and taking them away from the good law-abiding citizens just makes us defenseless. The 2nd amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

Let's discuss the 2nd amendment for a moment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (emphasis mine).

Here I see a demand for compromise.

Pro-gun: In order to assemble into a well regulated militia, the People, as individuals, must first have right to arms. Without arms, they cannot combine into any sort of effective militia.

Pro-gun-control: a well regulated militia is the ends, the goal. People with arms is simply the means to that end. It is clearly implied that once armed, it is the responsibility of the People to organize and self-regulate.

I for one would like to see more compromise on this issue. To be blunt, I think people demanding automatic weapons to "hunt deer" are insane. I also think people who say "we would be safer without guns" are missing the point entriely.

I am happy to mitigate my circumstances, keep all weapons under lock and key, and avoid unreasonable demands like rocket launchers and land mines.

However, in return, I ask people to look beyond the simple "guns hurt people" slogans. People hurt people, and yes, guns make it far easier. Guns also protect innocent people during those horrible times when the police are on the way, but not yet there.

Imagine for a moment you are a college student working the night shift at a 7-11 to afford romen and books (I've been there). Imagine for a moment guns are made 100% illegal. Now imagine that some troublemaker has just wandered in to rob the joint. What are they going to be holding? What is the clerk going to be holding? What is going to happen in the 15-30 minutes before the police arrive?

The world is full of crazy, evil, selfish people. Sometimes the best defense, the ONLY defense, is a solid offense.

Interesting video from everyone's second favorite atheist

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

The following is a rhetorical question. This in no way implies any known threat to anyone.

What if- some wacko downloaded the anarchist cookbook, built an explosive out of household cleaners, and detonated it in a crowded place?

Surely no one would blame the household cleaners.

Devil's advocate: guns contribute to far more innocent deaths, per year, than household cleaner-based explosives.

Trump card: automobiles kill far more people than guns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Canada does not have so many pistols and they are very regulated. You can't buy a pistol and get the FAC (federal fire arm certificate) in ten minutes and to get a carry permit is almost impossible. As a former PI, I tried more than once.

More guns are on the street than there used to be, mostly coming up from the States. Yes murder rates go up with the number of guns on the street.

It takes more than the mere absence of fire arms to fix a sick society but arming lunatics is still a very bad idea. Having no pistols and military weapons on the street will not cure poverty or the many other social problems that lead to the level of violence in the US but it will greatly reduce the actual murder rates.

Surely no one would blame the household cleaners.

No, but they'd probably blame books!

Thanks, Zaphod. That was entertaining. The automobile thing is the real kicker.

noooooooooooooooooooooob-- thanks for posting that Penn & Teller clip! Good one.

Sorry, but as a resident of Tokyo, Japan, and a long term US resident. I can definitively state. A state that outlaws guns, with maybe the exception of hunting rifles, is better. As a noticeable white foreigner I can travel safely around the worst areas of the city early in the morning without fear of harm or hostility. America HAS no idea how much it suffers because of antiquated gun laws, and the gun lobby speaking through the political apparatus as though it were making sense. This debate is over in my mind. You either are a flack, a moron repeating some talking point, a pscyho, or you support stronger gun laws.

I'm a Canadian who's lived in the US for over 9 years and now I'm living back in Canada.

Currently I live in Hamilton, and I travel to Toronto. These are arguably the most violent places in Canada to live/work. In Hamilton, where I live, there were 5 murders due to guns for 2006. Toronto is much higher, but still very low compared to ANY major city of the same size in the US.

I know many people here that hunt and own rifles, but I know no one that owns a hand gun. The is only one use for a hand gun, to kill other people. So why do we need them handed out to people? To protect yourself from an imaginary threat?

What about crimes of passion? Heated arguments, road rage, psychotic breaks. If everyone owned a gun there is no way the world would be a safer place. I hope any rational person would recognize this.

Again, this is not about a piece of metal that can spit another piece of metal out at high vilocity. It's about the problems society has. Let me tell you this, I live in San Francisco, and a year ago the citizens of SF banned all guns within city/county limits. There is no grand-daddy clause, every SF citizen was required by law to give up all their guns. It is illegal to transport weapons through the city even if you are not a resident of the city and are trying to get from Daly City to Marin (the fastest, easiest and cheapest way to do this is to go straight through SF). Simply put, YOU CAN'T HAVE OR OWN A GUN ANYWHERE IN SF FOR ANY REASON WHAT-SO-EVER (THIS INCLUDES OFF DUTY COPS, FYI).

So, how are we doing now? Better right? Less gun deaths? Less innocents dying due to stray bullets?

No. Just the oppisite really. The number of guns deaths and violence has increased sense the law has passed. You can't find %, cause no one wants to admit that it was a bad idea, but everyone in the city knows it. Because crimanials don't give a shit about gun laws. Also, the black market starts getting a boost in gun sales cause now it's a hot commodity.

So, what could the problem be if we've taken away the guns? The only answer is that society here is so fucked up that no amount of gun laws will ever protect us. We need to fix society to fix gun violence. Like someone else mentioned, there's always the Anarchist Cookbook.

The number of guns deaths and violence has increased sense the law has passed. You can't find %, cause no one wants to admit that it was a bad idea, but everyone in the city knows it.

I'm not sure of what you mean by "You can't find %".

If you are saying the stats are hidden, I don't believe you. The stats are pretty easy to find. Assuming you actually look for them.

I would agree that banning handguns in one city, a city surrounded by grossly over armed cities, has no chance of working.

By the way, you should know that most of the weapons on the 'black market' were stolen from people and businesses who legally owned the guns now on the street.

The argument is about the guns themselves, as well as the sick society that is so addicted to them that it can't imagine life without them.

You can't talk about the insane level of violence in the US without talking about the insane number of devices that spit hot bits of metal at high velocity, for the express purpose of killing and maiming humans.

Pistols and assault weapons were invented and developed for that express purpose. Pretending otherwise is pure make believe.

The legal market is the primary souce of product on the black market. Take all the guns away and you still have a shit load of social problems but you will also have fewer deaths of innocents and even criminals.

But you can not have that effect by banning weapons in a single city.

Penn's atheism has nothing to do with his views on guns or his idea that Wal Mart is somehow good for the American working class. Penn is a far right libertarian, one of the many trends represented among non believers.

I would also add that his love of logic and objective facts goes way soft in his arguments against gun control and his arguments in favour of laize faire capitalism.

You might also note that arguments based purely on authority is not common to rationalists.

While is is very common for religious believers to believe something simply because their authority figures say it's so, that is not a common trend among atheists and rationalists.

Dawkins and Harris to name only two, are respected or not, because of the content of their arguments, not believed simply because they say it. I know that is a hard one for people who's beliefs and thinking is normally dictated from above by authority figures, whether the Pope, Pat Robertson, or 'reverend' Phelps.