Being a parent is a huge responsibility, you are responsible for a life, I personally believe there should be such a license and it should exist in the form of financial proof, to bring a child into the world you will need the money to raise it and support it, so I would say that a system which looked at the financial situation and proof of being able to support your child would show the thought and consideration of the potential parents and the parents would be respectable, working people, the kind of people you want children to grow up with to inspire them to work unlike today's society of uneducated common scum abusing society and raising kids on money that isn't theirs.

While the blueprints may be available the ability to produce is tightly regulated, you cannot simply start a weapons factory and that seems a little expensive since you would only be able to supply yourself if laws preventing sale were being enforced. Maybe I've misunderstood but I can't see your point, I understand your point with regards to things like torrents and blueprints but these are not physical objects, banning the sale of weapons is a physical thing and the production of them is physical, compared to say torrenting a DVD for example where everything remains digital and does not require you to construct the product once receiving the data. With regards to printing 3D weapons then the law would clearly stop them being allowed publicly, legally. Obviously the illegal distribution would still occur but if remove it from being so publicly available then there would be a clear decrease in usage. Given the seriousness of weapons then i would expect such sites that would pass on blueprints would be shut down and this would mean people would have to search harder and this again would reduce the final number of people who would obtain it. If you stop people having it to start with then it prevents any possible situation involving prevention, to say you want weapons for self defence would be to say you think Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons to defend themselves because other countries have them, surely you don't think that and would agree less people/countries with potentially destructive weapons is good. As it so happens the news just give out some figure on gun deaths, 3.2/100,000 in U.S.A, 1.6/100,000 Canada and 0.1/100,000 Britain. I just give the view if it's not there then it can't be used, your argument into what the law would control is far to vast to discuss(however if on the topic of things like torrents I would perhaps suggest that if a site allows for or can consolidate illegal activities it should be shut down, especially if it's main usage is illegal trade ( U torrent, Pirate bay etc..) as would any public store if it was known to allow illegal activities to take place in it and I believe it it got to/ gets to the point of weapons being able to be transferred like this we would see far more intrusive laws passed by governments to monitor and flag peoples internet usage)--- apologies if I sidetracked

It's degrading, disrespectful of the human body and void of morals that as a society we need. Decency in people is needed, if people willingly sell their bodies how can you respect them as people, how can their opinions and thoughts and votes be taken seriously, if they are so willing to sell their bodies then surely all of the above would easily be manipulated, this is why prostitution was more common amongst those of lower intelligence a pattern visible today in strip clubs.

He is not racist, they are less evolved. Evolution(when considering humans) you could simply say is 1st the occupation of the best land, 2nd best utilisation of said land and 3rd the advancement in society such that death rates decrease and life span increases, trading, communication and so on. Western society is much more evolved than most African countries, just look at our decreased death rates, increased life span, better health care and higher IQ, complex social hierarchies and generally better quality of life.

Time is a physical construction that has effects on the physical world and has done since the start of time (maybe a bad choice of words). We have labelled this physical thing Time but it was there before, it's like we call trees, trees, they were trees before but we just defined them by giving them a lable.

The evidence given, that 1 article that gives little data from 1 source (as a scientist that is not enough to make a conclusion from) is used to back up a statement made, a statement that may I say is wrong, for the simple reason that you can find good evidence that gun control laws do work. As for the part of the article about concealed guns or not I find irrelevant due to my opposition of guns anyway. To even make a comment about the Old West being better times is ridiculous considering there clearly was higher death rates and a poor quality of life not to mention a far lower level of intelligence which is an interesting point as there a psychology articles showing a correlation between decreased intelligence and the purchasing of guns ( A quick note on that point is that it excludes those sales for hunting and job purposes). My point is just that if you don't have guns on sale then there's less crazy people with guns and therefore no need to carry guns. I am a British citizen as I said so I cannot really comment on the need for a gun, I think if I lived in America where guns are available so readily i probably would buy one and say I need it for self defence but I feel sorry that you feel the need to possess a gun, to possess a tool capable of killing someone. I apologise if you feel I did not read the argument or if you feel my point was misplaced but when a point "Gun control laws don't work" is made on a website made for debating and I disagree with the point then I am going to reply, even if you seem happy to accept one piece of evidence with no regard to it's possible bias.

As a human I am disgusted as to the fact that people still want to buy guns despite the amount of death they cause. First let me say I am not against the sale of select weapons for hunting and farmers but no one else needs weapons and certainly no one needs fully automatic carbines or 12 gauge shotguns, why would anyone need weapons that are close to and are in some cases military grade?? The line "guns don't kill people, people do" is quite ridiculous as an argument for gun sales since it is "people" that the guns are being sold to!! It is just a case of prevention, remove guns being so easily accessible and you then decrease the gun crime and remove the need for guns to defend yourself. This is common sense, it's the reason why no countries are now allowed to make nuclear weapons, to say people deserve guns do defend themselves is to say places like Iran and North Korea should be able to make nuclear weapons to defend themselves and if you think that then clearly something is wrong

School uniforms not only decrease bullying which is the standard argument but have also been proven in psychological studies to increase concentration and productivity in a learning environment. This is why people where "smart" clothing to work because the outward appearance of professionalism and the link to work instantly creates a mindset for work, equally uniforms do the same for kids, it helps them understand the importance of appearance and professionalism, knowing the difference between when they should work and when they shouldn't. There is a reason why when in schools all the smart well behaved students will look tidy while the ones who cause trouble will look scruffy and dirty.

I do believe both are important however, it is the actions of the follower that will effect other people, it is the follower who will interact with other people and it is the follower who is living by and is therefore a result of his/her religion. So I would say the actions of the followers more clearly defines a religion since you observe the result, you observe the teachings at work and it surely is these actions that allow you to then judge.

Surely you can see that not allowing easy access to weapons will decrease their use, that's just a simple fact of life. True there will always be those people who will want to kill and will find a way to get a gun but if it was harder to obtain the weapons many would be deterred, as soon as situations escalate to the use of guns there are clearly going to be more deaths than say with a knife, as a British citizen I can say knife crime is the largest killer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/ 2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state . This link shows with data from the F.B.I the obvious fact that most murders in the US are by gun and this is obviously going to be the case, when a powerful weapon is so readily available why wouldn't people use it. I don't know if it's just me but I don't see why people need guns at all. ( apart from hunting etc. but in those cases special laws can be made to permit farmers and hunters to have hunting weapons like in the U.K. To say the gun control laws don't work is wrong, while you may find articles showing a few shooting here and there that's the point, they are far rarer and with fewer casualties because the laws only allow select guns anyway and very few people can obtain them.