Question for people Pro-guns....

[Raesvelg]

The reason crime in the UK is much lower is not because guns are outlawed, but simply because there are less violent criminals there. In the US, there are reasons for our high crime rate, and it has to do with racial and socio-economic issues that aren't present in the UK.

Crime is about the people, not their weapons.

That's just it: Crime isn't lower in the UK. Violent crime is four to five times higher, depending on which data sets you're using. Homicide is lower, but not crime in general.

We just like to kill each other a hell of a lot more, sadly.

 

[Alleged Despair]

Even if handguns are outlawed that still will not stop some people from acquiring them. However I think it will drastically reduce the number of people who do. I have not read this entire forum so I don't know if anyone has already brought this up yet but another issue with the average joe owning handguns is someone unintentionally shooting another person. It does not happen that often but I have seen it both on the news and know someone who someone who has that happened to them. For all you gun supporters out there I have a request. I'd like to see a story of something good that actually happened because of a civilian owning a gun. Or at the very least maybe sometime that could have been less tragic that was avoided because of a civilian owning a handgun. I for have never heard of such a thing.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

 

[Xyliss]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Really? So America has very little crime other than gun crime? Also surely being mugged of £20 (though not very nice) is much better than getting shot...or is that just me?

 

[senordesol]

I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

Concealing your gun should be illegal, eh? Business owners should keep open carriers out, eh?

So anyone wont to cause mischief merely need to have a look around to make sure no one is armed (as will be likely in a place of business under your provisions), then make sure their own weapons are concealed.

Sounds good.

 

[Dan Steele]

I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

 

[Ryotknife]

I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

err...i may be wrong here but the movie shooter did not originally enter with any weapons. He propped the back door open, went into his car that was waiting right outside of the entrance, suited and geared up, then went back in through the rear entrance with the weapons.

Therefore even a "no guns allowed" policy would not have helped.

Actually a no guns allowed policy wouldnt help in nearly ANY case. I dont think a potentially crazy murderer is going to turn around just because of a SIGN, but you DO disarm the people inside making all of them easy targets. In fact, a smart person would TARGET business that have a no gun policy because then you are GUARANTEED that everyone in there is defenseless.

 

[Ryotknife]

I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

I rather be shot than stabbed though. Knife deaths look pretty gruesome and painful.

 

[spartan231490]

As someone living in the UK, I personally think that our police should be armed more, if not every officer that at least one firearm per car, this is partially due to my "Do crime-Be Punished" stance, and I would much prefer to see more criminals dead than rotting in a jail cell; but per person? Hmmm... well, if the logic behind owning a gun is to protect the owner from burglars, the burglar is also armed, if no-one could by guns, some people may be less confident in burglary, and therefore not attempt it, it would at least prevent more people being injured during burglaries, bad enough that your stuff gets stolen, but you have to go to hospital? And don't you have to pay significant sums of money for healthcare in america? No guns for civilians could solve a few problems...

Please do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Additional: I do go slightly off tangent, but less guns would mean less bullet wounds.

Increased gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns that criminals have, especially in a nation with such massive unsecured borders as the US. In fact, increased gun control doesn't reduce the rates of murder, violent crime, or overall crime in any way.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

so in short, less(Fewer) guns doesn't mean less(fewer) bullet wounds.

Even if handguns are outlawed that still will not stop some people from acquiring them. However I think it will drastically reduce the number of people who do. I have not read this entire forum so I don't know if anyone has already brought this up yet but another issue with the average joe owning handguns is someone unintentionally shooting another person. It does not happen that often but I have seen it both on the news and know someone who someone who has that happened to them. For all you gun supporters out there I have a request. I'd like to see a story of something good that actually happened because of a civilian owning a gun. Or at the very least maybe sometime that could have been less tragic that was avoided because of a civilian owning a handgun. I for have never heard of such a thing.

how about the time when a vice principle stopped a school shooting, saving dozens of lives, because he had a gun?
What about the estimated 1.5 million Americans who use guns in self-defense every single year, about 500 thousand of which firmly believed that someone would have died if they didn't have that gun? What about the fact that police shoot innocent people 11% of the time whilst gun owners defending themselves do so only 2% of the time?
What about the time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, only to have some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant?
How about the time a group of gang members attacked a church with AKs and grenades and were scared off when an armed citizen within the church returned fire?
I could go on all day. The fact is that absolutely zero scientific evidence exists to support the assumption that more gun control reduces crime, and there is scientific evidence(though not conclusive) that suggests that more handguns actually means less crime.
http://www.beyourself.com/howtostp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_Massacre
You don't hear about it because it doesn't make good news, not because it doesn't happen.

I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

1) Because most times when you're attacked your attackers outnumber you and are drunk or high which makes them harder to stop, assault weapons with large clip capacities are the best defense weapons out there.

2) Most states that allow handguns to be carried require them to be concealed, this isn't a personal choice. I never understood it either, but I think it has something to do with police thinking the public would be scared by people openly carrying a pistol.

3) Horrible idea. Criminals won't respect that law, only the law abiding citizens who might stop them. It has been shown time and time again by the locations these psychos shoot up that gun-free zones actually put the people in them in more danger. One time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant? This law has since been changed largely due to the fact that one of the people there, one who had left a handgun in her car, lost both of her parents and then ran for the state assembly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Really? So America has very little crime other than gun crime? Also surely being mugged of £20 (though not very nice) is much better than getting shot...or is that just me?

Yeah, but the rape and dying by stab wounds aren't so kind. Hyperbole aside, there is no scientific evidence to support that gun control reduces crime, violent crime, or murder rates, and several studies have been done.

I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

Hyperbole, why was I expecting more. You do realize that machine pistols and assault rifles are already banned in the US because they are fully automatic yes? For self defense, semi-automatic and high capacity magazine is the only way to go. Firstly, you might be outnumbered badly in a self-defense situation. Second, expecting anyone to hit on the first shot when they're scared out of their minds is naive. Third, it takes multiple hits to stop an attacker, especially when using a handgun. People who are drunk or high have been shot as many as 32 times and still kept shooting back, expecting people to be able to defend themselves with a single action revolver is idiotic.

 

[Grant Hobba]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

wow the level of smug is insane, just so you know that comment isn't very accurate, why is it two deaths in place of one ?

where is the logic and statistics to back your claim?

The US is the world leader is mass shootings. there have been 6 this year alone, in the UK there have been 0.

I think you need to do some research before you make wild claims... I know statistics can say what you want them to... but where there are stricter gun laws there are significantly less gun crimes i.e mass shootings and deaths....

 

[FireDr@gon]

EDIT: Does it occur to those talking about "pest control" that those bears and pigs might consider humans to be the pests? They have as much right to life as you do, they own the land just as much as you do - but at least they don't choose to be pests, they're there because people settled on their land - not the other way around. Besides, can't people resolve these problems of land ownership without resorting to "Kill, kill, kill"?

And what would you propose I wonder?

Pigs are pests because they ruin farmland which WE need to -you know- eat. To wit, they are also very aggressive, often attacking perceived threats that come into their territory. And if you think they're just harmless little piggies...Google is your friend.

They also have sex. A lot. So much so that 'their land' (as you call it) quickly expands into our land. And since pigs don't really understand things like 'property lines', 'keep-out signs', or fences (beyond horrendously expensive ones), they need to be culled.

Survival of the fittest, baby.

I propose we leave them the fuck alone and not cull them. If we need to expand endlessly at the expense of other animals to feed our spawn then i simply propose we have -you know- LESS BABIES.

It's sad that you think i only care about pigs because you assume (incorrectly) that i think they're 'cute' or because i'm ignorant. I care about pigs because they (and everything else on this planet) are connected via delicate and complex relationships to the massive ecosystem that every living thing depends on. It's not even about pigs - it's about the incorrect assumption that humans have more right to life than animals, period. Every organism is equally as important as the next. It's dangerous for people to foster the attitude that we are somehow above nature and natural systems or that "we can do fine without this-or-that species" because the simple fact is, we can't. Its irresponsible to just reproduce without caring about the consequences of overpopulation and it's irresponsible to eliminate animals because they're "pests" when we have little to no understanding of the big-picture reprecussions.

I think it's hypocrytical to consider a species to be cullable and not another, to whit - it's not considered ok to cull humans, but pigs are fine. Also you seem to have missed my point about ownership of land - the pigs don't own it, we don't own it. We just live on it, there's a difference. And as neither of us own it, they have as much right to it as we do, ergo they dont deserve to die just because you want to live there.

Your attitude towards animals and their rights is scarily similar to peoples' attitude towards Native Americans way back when everyone thought they had found a new land to exploit that was, inconveniently, already populated. I didn't want to bring up something that seems aimed at Americans so i will point out that this kind of behaviour can be found in virtually every nations' history - see spaniards and South America. By the way, and finally on topic; both conquests were made possible by the use of firearms since they would pretty much have been on equal terms without them - probably at a disadvantage because they were unfamiliar with the land and unprepared to deal with it.

I think i speak for more than just myself when i say i'm anti-gun because guns make killing easier and i'm against killing.

 

[Trull]

I dislike guns because they give an unfair advantage.

I say we "illegalise" guns throughout the planet, and use the metal and resources to make other weapons, like swords and bows and arrows.

At least not every hit will be a deadly one, you can train how to dodge a sword (unless it's a real fast swordsman w/rapier), however bullets are a wee bit faster than that.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

The argument I hear most frequently is that bad dudes don't care 'bout laws so we need guns to protect ourselves from the baddies.

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

I don't think you'll ever be able to prevent real baddies from getting these kind of weapons, or diehard hunters.

I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres.

[sub]That being said, my father owns a gun. It's a 9 mm and probably doesn't even work at this point. It's pretty much a bluff weapon.[/sub]

The AR-15 was never banned for civilian sale. Assault weapons, weapons in an automatic configuration were banned. The perpetrator of the Batman shooting acquired all of his guns, magazines, and ammunition through legal channels, over so long a period of time as to not raise any alarms. He planned this, meticulously, and would not have been prevented committing his crime were there no guns to shoot: he would simply have done something else. Maybe simply blown up the theater. The ingredients to make high-explosive devices are MUCH easier to acquire than guns. To whit, I have virtually no money, and could, by next week, have materials and directions enough to destroy a small building. Imagine what that maniac might have done.

 

[senordesol]

[

I propose we leave them the fuck alone and not cull them. If we need to expand endlessly at the expense of other animals to feed our spawn then i simply propose we have -you know- LESS BABIES.

It's sad that you think i only care about pigs because you assume (incorrectly) that i think they're 'cute' or because i'm ignorant. I care about pigs because they, like everything on this planet, are connected to the massive ecosystem that every living thing depends on. It's not even about Pigs, it's about the incorrect assumption that humans have more right to life than animals, period. Every organism is equally as important as the next. It's dangerous for people to foster the attitude that we are somehow above nature and natural systems or that "we can do fine without this-or-that species" because the simple fact is, we can't. Its irresponsible to just reproduce without caring about the consequences of overpopulation and it's irresponsible to eliminate animals because they're "pests" when we have little to no understanding of the big-picture reprecussions.

I think it's hypocrytical to consider a species to be cullable and not another, to whit - it's not considered ok to cull humans, but pigs are fine. Also you seem to have missed my point about ownership of land - the pigs don't own it, we don't own it. We just live on it, there's a difference. And as neither of us own it, they have as much right to it as we do, ergo they dont deserve to die just because you want to live there.

Your attitude towards animals and their rights is scarily similar to peoples' attitude towards Native Americans way back when everyone thought they had found a new land to exploit that was, inconveniently, already populated. I didn't want to bring up something that seems aimed at Americans so i will point out that this kind of behaviour can be found in virtually every nations' history - see spaniards and South America. By the way, and finally on topic; both conquests were made possible by the use of firearms since they would pretty much have been on equal terms without them - probably at a disadvantage because they were unfamilar with the land and unprepared to deal with it.

I think i speak for more than just myself when i say i'm anti-gun because guns make killing easier and i'm against killing.

Except I haven't proposed hunting them to extinction, just enough to keep the herd in check. It need not be all or nothing. And since North America's birth rate has slowed significantly, we're doing just fine on the 'less babies' front too.

We've gotta eat, and we're not willing to starve for the sake of the pigs. We do own the land by virtue of the fact that we can hold it; and guns are an integral part of the strategy.

As another has pointed out, there's a difference between pigs and humans. I favor humans because they are my species, if the pigs have a problem with that, they'll have no problem finding us.

 

[FireDr@gon]

Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? Don't just kill them, there will always be more where they came from - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

 

[senordesol]

Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

Hehe. Okaaaay.

Yes, when there's an intruder in my home I'm going to try and go all Dr. Phil on my assailant. Good plan. /Sarcasm

Look, if it makes you feel better: the Earth will recover no matter what we do. Species come and species go, again birth rates in more developed countries are more or less stabilizing, and -hey- I'm not against vertical farming. But until we reach a point where that equalizes, we need our resources. So that means "So Long, Piggies, Thanks For Being So Delicious!"

 

[FireDr@gon]

If you can't live together, one of them will have to go. And pigs be tasty, yo. Much more delicious than humans.

Have you ever tried human flesh? If so then it is I who should worry for you...

 

[FireDr@gon]

No, the earth will not "Recover no matter what we do" and that's the whole smegging point of what i've been rambling on about. Why don't you take an A-level or equivilant in Biology so you can wise up. You shouldn't need to go as far as degree level to realise your mistake.

 

[Krantos]

The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

OK, I'm ambivalent about gun control. I was mostly just reading this thread out of boredom, but I have to comment here.

Please, please, PLEASE, stop using this argument to support the second amendment. That rationale ceased to carry any weight about 100 years ago. Back when that amendment was written it was entirely possible for any civilian to have weapons equal to what the military had (barring cannons). It meant that an armed populace could potentially stand up to military force. Not likely but possible.

Today's military has the civilian sector so out gunned it's not even worth commenting on. That 30-06 in your gun case isn't going to do a damn thing if they drop a cruise missile in your living room, and it certainly isn't going to penetrate any armored vehicles should they decide to waltz down your street.

There are plenty of arguably good reasons to support the right to bear arms, so please stop using the one that ceased to be true a century ago.

 

[FireDr@gon]

Buretsu - I didnt mean to imply that guns would spell the end for us all, nothing that dramatic - far more dangerous is the assumption that we can piss on the planet and it's systems for as long as we want without consequences, it may not be as sudden as nuclear war but the effects are just as bad. Also the cause of crime is not, and i never said it was, guns. It's overpopulation and uneven distribution of wealth that causes a defecit in resources which creates conflict. That and a host of socio-economic problems which stem, mainly, from overpopulation. And if guns are "the best tool for perpetrating violence" then that surely is a reason to -you know- stop making them.

It's objective to talk about humans as if i was not one, to view both humans and pigs as merely species inhabiting earth. Far less subjective than the view that "humans are the highest form of life on earth".

About that, let me point out that there are more bacteria in a human body than there are cells in a human body - true a bacteria can't paint a picture or invent democracy but there's no denying that in terms of both 1: time of existance on earth and 2: number of individuals then bacteria, what you would probably call the "lowest" life form, is kicking our ass.

And yes, we invented some tools - i think in the grand scheme of things that ammounts to bugger-all. Like i said, they only really served to disrupt a delicate balance that took around 4bn years to set up.