What are you talking about?

I don't see anything wrong with blowjobs, or any sexual activity if you are both in agreement.

I don't follow you on the other examples.  A car was made to drive, try to sail across the ocean in one and it doesn't quite work. Hats are just badass and can be worn whenever you feel like it, especially if you have a gun.

There are some states that have made marriage legal, other than that they have the same rights as any other unmarried person.

But what rights do a gay couple have? Do you think a gay couple shouldn't have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

Ignore the religious and reproduction side of things for a minute. Shouldn't two people who want to be in a permanent legally recognised relationship be able to do so?

If I ignore that then yes sure.  And really I'm haven't been assigned a judge so people can do what they want, doesn't matter what I think does it?

Gay and lesbian couples are often adopters of those unwanted children who would otherwise grow up unloved and in care.That seems to me as socially useful a role as any other couple.

I honestly couldn't agree more.

In 10 years I would like to see the divorce rates of homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. My guessing is that it will probably be lower.

I don't agree with the difference being because we don't have guns

hand guns were only banned here after the Hungerford incident in 1987

before that they were legal, and shotguns / rifles still are for licensed people

the difference seems to be a deeply ingrained cultural thing

even when we could have guns with very little issues, we didn't really want them

I thought handguns were banned even more recently, after Dunblane? I may be mistaken. But yes, primarily cultural for sure - so nations like Canada that also have quite a lot of guns don't have USA-style murder stats.

The Hungeford aftermath was primarily rifles and shotguns. Dunblane prompted the handgun ban.

Went to check, and Wikipedia had the following in the Dunblane bit:

I think that says quite a lot about our attitudes towards firearms. Even when they were legal, it just wasn't something most people wanted.

This is timely. 

The failed one looks a bit grim!

Yes it does, I wouldn't want to be holding it when something like that happened.

That's why guns aren't made of plastic. Also, I winder what range they shot the balistics gell from.

I wonder how carbon fiber would fair.

Probably not great, I'm not sure what temperature gunpowder goes boom at but it'd probably be enough to soften the resin.

I think the meat cleavers thing was a deliberate choice on their part. If just wanted him dead, they could have done it in a much less attention-grabbing way, so it's not about what's an effective tool for killing someone.

Also, like Dan said, proper guns* are designed exclusively to kill things. More to the point, they make it really really easy to do so – so much so that even killing someone accidentally is very easy.

I would further argue that psychologically, killing someone with a knife is a very different thing to killing someone with a gun. With a knife, you have to get close, in their personal space, and risk retaliation. With a gun there is none of that – the balance of power is overwhelmingly in your favour.

edit:
oops, didn't realise this thread was so long and that most of these points have already been made :$

Video of it going boom:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/24/liberator_3d_printed_gun_catastrophic_failure/

I'll never understand the 'I have a gun to defend me in the street' attitude. Is it still the wild west in the US?

If someone pointed a gun at me, I would do exactly what they say, whether or not I had a gun on me.