Would you see any major issues with limiting private possession of guns (say, limit to hunting/defense needs and otherwise require them to be stored securely at a range/shop, etc?)
From a practical standpoint, no. In principle, yes, because it implies a lack of thrust in me, and in my ability to act civil around other people.
. I also think it's sad. Why? When a gun/rifle is part of your life it becomes an option for everything.
Really? I have three guns, and I only use them for punching holes in paper from extended ranges, which I find relaxing. And truth be told, the only other option I can think of for them, is hunting, which I don't do. But, thanks for telling me how I should behave and think in order to fit your prejudices.
You could, for example, change the rules so that the action doesn't stop every time a point is scored-- make it a bit more like boxing or MMA. (Yes, I know that would change the nature of the sport quite a lot).
You mean, like a Dog Brothers-fight?
if we could just get the robots to only fight other robots...
Yes. Then, all your enemy would have to do to defeat your robot army, is to send a human army.
His machines weren't "robots" any more than Predator drones are: they were remote controlled by radio.
Yes. That is probably why he stated that they were remote-controlled.
For practical purposes, it doesn't matter what the original texts say, it matters what the followers of the religion believe.
Ok, 80-200 years ago: "of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Chirstian are involved in over 100 of them" There is nothing unique in Islam or Christianity that makes them war prone(...)
Please read Surah 9:5 and 9:29 in the Quran, and tell me again that there is nothing in Islam that makes it war prone.
... the innocent civilian refugees dying in Gaza from missiles that are accurate enough to hit one car yet somehow manage to strike crowded residential areas every single day don't have the money to buy one of those. Or eat.
The reason Israels missiles "manage to strike crowded residental areas every single day", is simply becasue thats where Hamas sets up their rocket launchers. When you fire off rockets from within heavily populated civillian areas, despite the knowledge that your enemy is targeting your launch sites, bad stuff WILL happen.
However, if Israel hadnt kept on building settlements in the Palestinian areas of the west bank, sabotaging any attempt by the Palestinians to get a foothold in the U.N., or simply threated the Palestinians better, Palestinian resistance groups might not have felt as much need to attack Israel at any costs, but at the same time, firing off rockets towards your enemy from inside heavily populated civilian areas, makes Hamas at least party responsible for the heavy civillian losses in within Gaza City.
Maybe Israel should just take back what was Israel in 600 A.D., before muslims started conquering. Half of Egypt, most of Jordan, Lebanon and large chunks of Syria and Saudi Arabia were part of the state of Israel then. After all, it was taken from them by conquest, and that's all the justification muslims need, so why not do to them what they're doing to others ? They certainly deserve it.
Uhm, I think you spelled Byzantine Empire wrong.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
