Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If that's the case then I suggest we hand out free guns to everyone and see what happens.

At 2/25/09 09:50 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Because there aren't supposed to be this many humans to begin with.

Then save the planet and kill yourself, or come up with a good argument to support your ideas.

18 hours since I challenged you to come up with a good argument, and all you've managed to post are pseudo-cryptic catchphrases? Please.

At 2/25/09 05:51 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If that's the case then I suggest we hand out free guns to everyone and see what happens.

I'd go on vacation to a region where they weren't giving away free guns and sell it.

I think anyone who undergoes a background check, and acquires a license should have the right to own high powered weapons. Perhaps a psych evaluation wouldn't hurt too, included in the cost of the license fee.

At 2/25/09 06:00 PM, Proteas wrote:
18 hours since I challenged you to come up with a good argument, and all you've managed to post are pseudo-cryptic catchphrases? Please.

Everything is an argument, if you want to look at it like that.

I'm asking a question. Two questions actually, neither have been answered.

Does the sale and manufacturing of firearms make money or lose money?

and

What effect do you think survival-related technologies have on us as an evolving species?

At 2/26/09 11:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Does the sale and manufacturing of firearms make money or lose money?

They make money, what that has to do with this conversation is beyond me.

What effect do you think survival-related technologies have on us as an evolving species?

It shifts the standing principle of "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the smartest." If you bring a knife to a gun fight, you lose by default. If I can stand downrange and pick you off with a rifle, you lose. If I can stand back 50 miles and blow you and your town back to the stone ages with a push of a button whilst you're still trying to figure out how to mix gunpowder to make a bomb, you lose.

Now, what's you point?

I don't see why banning assault rifles would be that much of a problem in the first place. If there's a spree killer on the loose, chances are an ordinary gun should suffice. Unless there's like an army of these guys, then I think we'd be dead.

At 2/26/09 04:21 PM, Ericho wrote: I don't see why banning assault rifles would be that much of a problem in the first place. If there's a spree killer on the loose, chances are an ordinary gun should suffice. Unless there's like an army of these guys, then I think we'd be dead.

I don't care if it's IdiotFinder's schtick, I'm using it.

FOUND ONE!!

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go back and read page three of this topic, NOW.

At 2/26/09 12:36 PM, Proteas wrote:
They make money, what that has to do with this conversation is beyond me.

Really? I'm no expert, so I'm assuming you are taking into account all costs of gun control, police enforcement, military, gun-related crime, and so forth. Versus the profit of the consumer good. I would think it's necessary to separate and make distinctions here. There are different kinds of guns are there not?

There's military? Recreational (hunting/target shooting etc) and self-defense, correct?

Are all three of these necessary? I know, currently, they are, because that's how things are. But we can always throw our hands up and just say, "that's just how it is."

But what if it wasn't. What if you had a choice. What would you choose to do?

It shifts the standing principle of "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the smartest." If you bring a knife to a gun fight, you lose by default. If I can stand downrange and pick you off with a rifle, you lose. If I can stand back 50 miles and blow you and your town back to the stone ages with a push of a button whilst you're still trying to figure out how to mix gunpowder to make a bomb, you lose.

My point is, that's a huge shift in information and of the ability of tools. Are you a believer in nurture vs. nature? Do you agree that every variable in the environment effects the development of organisms? What about the mentality? Inventions come out of necessity, so, is it now, will it always be, necessary to have this level of protection? Is it beneficial to have that level? To need that level?

What will a complex and culturally explosive tool have as an effect on the population? I know you can't look around and tell me that everyone uses this innovation responsibly. Do you think that will ever be possible? To learn and move forward beyond divisive measures of force.

Some people don't get it, the US gov will say a bolt action hunting rifle is an "assault rifle", and with some handguns and shotguns

So we will not only see ak-47's and m-4's/ar-15's banned but also most other rifles that have scary looking features/attachments.

This is because Democrats don't understand that Assault weapons are used in less than 6 percent of crimes committed with a fire arm. They don't care about the stats, they just play on peoples fears, by saying we'll protect you by getting rid of Assault weapons. Now they're using an argument that basically states that the Mexican drug cartels are getting their weapons from the U.S. (which is false, because its a lot easier to get them in South and Central America).

At 2/26/09 10:21 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Versus the profit of the consumer good.

That's what a gun is; a consumer good. The costs of gun control and everything else you've stated is incurred by government entities, not the gun company themselves.

What would you choose to do?

Remain armed. I see where you're going with this line of reasoning, and you're arguing that we should be able to legislate our way into an ideal world where guns are not needed, you're full of shit for arguing it. We don't live in an ideal world, corruption exists, and disarming the populace has historically preceded the government becoming a fascist regime.

To learn and move forward beyond divisive measures of force.

In order to move beyond using measures of force, we as human beings must first learn to accept peace and be at peace with our fellow man. However, in the 200,000 some odd years that Homo Sapien has been walking the earth, violence and war has become an ingrained part of our culture. So good luck with that.

At 2/23/09 06:20 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm just going to skip right to my point;

If you're pro-gun control but your main focus is on "assault" weapons or things that are only available to the military (i.e.; rpg's, wmd's, incendiary rounds), then you're an idiot and don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. THE END.

You would be surprised what winds up in people's hands. The last time I was in a pawn shop (getting CO2 for my paintball gun) I saw a rack full of Thompsons and other weapons of that sort. But I do agree, handguns, sawn-off shotguns, things of that nature are the ones we need to be focused on.

At 2/27/09 05:27 PM, CBP wrote: I saw a rack full of Thompsons and other weapons of that sort.

I checked into it, and Auto Ordinance (the company that makes the Thomspon) no longer makes the Fully Automatic version of that gun, so chances are you saw the Semi-Auto versions of it. There's only a quarter-million of the original Thompson's left in the country, so I doubt that dealer would have had them just sitting on a shelf if they were....

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, you can't own a true Thomspon without jumping through several major hurdles. Case in point; there have only been two murder cases since 1934 involving a Thompson, and they were legally owned by a police officer.

But I do agree, handguns, sawn-off shotguns, things of that nature are the ones we need to be focused on.

So... how do you intend to approach this issue without stepping on the rights of the law abiding populace? Because afterall, the Supreme Court did recently declare that it is a Constitutional Right to keep and bare arms.

At 2/26/09 04:53 PM, Proteas wrote: Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go back and read page three of this topic, NOW.

What?! You people make some of the longest posts on these Politics forums! I don't have all day to read them, you know! I'm sorry!

At 2/22/09 09:05 PM, JoS wrote: Columbine Shooting

15 dead with one of the shooters primary weapon being the Tec-9 with a 52 round magazine, hitting on at least three characteristics of the Assault weapons ban.

The Tec-9 represents another problem with the assault weapons ban. It is in a different category as say an AK-47 or M-16. It small, lightweight and concealable. It also fires pistol ammo with a high capacity mag. So as a pistol it is especially hideous. One of the solutions to it would be to ban the high capacity mags. Wheras banning high cap mags in rifles would be counterproductive (for example the extra profile height and weight make it less concealable and more awkward), the idea of a 7-10 round limit on pistol mags could be something I could persuaded to support.

But yes handguns in school shootings and such tend to be more lethal, but this could also be as a result of the environment. Bank of America was outside, lots of space and cover. Inside a school, a hallway is like shooting fish in a barrel, no cover and you are bound to hit someone.

Schools do provide cover. You have classrooms you can duck into and in VT this did prove effective against Cho. So I think it is the exact opposite from a tactical perspective. In schools there is more cover whereas in the BoA shooting you have cops being hit because they didn't have enough cover.

This is great too. Reid & Pelosi oppose an assault rifle ban. Reid in fact voted against it in 1994 as well 2004. If they do then in 2010 or 2012 the party will get a thumpin' by the voters in the Mid-west and South. Bye-bye Democratic super majority! :)

At 2/27/09 06:03 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 2/26/09 04:53 PM, Proteas wrote: Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go back and read page three of this topic, NOW.

What?! You people make some of the longest posts on these Politics forums! I don't have all day to read them, you know! I'm sorry!

Here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:

1) The use of assault rifles in crime is exceedingly rare, in some studies approaching zero. Thus a ban is a waste of time, effort and money.

2) The physical characteristics of Assault Rifles make them particularly useless in the commission of crime...the very same characteristics anti-Assault Rifle proponents say they are dangerous.

3) Anti-Assault Rifle people do not know what they are talking about.

4) Their opinions are based upon "Bumper-Sticker Logic" rather than facts.

5) Military ammo is the least lethal ammo on the market (hunting and home-defense rounds are far, far more deadly).

6) The hunting ammo you can get for an assault rifle is to expensive to "spray & pray" therefore not used in crime. However, this hunting ammo is actually safer for hunters to use because it is not high-powered like hunting ammo typically are.

Also, just a little bit of advice, if you don't read the opposition perhaps you shouldn't post your opinion. It opens you up for attack and your argument is already undermined.

At 2/26/09 10:21 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 2/26/09 12:36 PM, Proteas wrote:
They make money, what that has to do with this conversation is beyond me.

Really? I'm no expert, so I'm assuming you are taking into account all costs of gun control, police enforcement, military, gun-related crime, and so forth. Versus the profit of the consumer good. I would think it's necessary to separate and make distinctions here. There are different kinds of guns are there not?

Keep going...you're almost there...now just add fact and you'll come to our conclusion. When you add in the societal costs then you see that assault rifle bans just do not make good sense from a governing perspective. 1) They are not effective for the commission of crime and 2) they are, statistically speaking, not used in crime. Therefore things like the AWB are wastes of taxpayer's money and our representative's time when you look at the (pardon the pun) bang you get for your buck. In the end you take resources (manpower, money, crimefighting assets) from things like education that will reduce crime...and throw it at a problem that does not exist.

So yeah I have included all those things into the calculation and the end result: AWB's are not worth it.

There's military? Recreational (hunting/target shooting etc) and self-defense, correct?

Are all three of these necessary? I know, currently, they are, because that's how things are. But we can always throw our hands up and just say, "that's just how it is."

But what if it wasn't. What if you had a choice. What would you choose to do?

Now what exactly are you trying to say? An assault rifle is a good multipurpose rifle. Military ammo is cheap (which you want considering how non-lethal it is) so I can practice with it. The round itself is not highpowered which means I can bring down a deer with a hunting projectile...but if I miss it's not going to travel near as far as the more traditional hunting rifle round. Finally, an AK-47 w/30 rd mag is an effective deterent to home invasion...resulting in the display of force rather than its use.

What will a complex and culturally explosive tool have as an effect on the population? I know you can't look around and tell me that everyone uses this innovation responsibly. Do you think that will ever be possible? To learn and move forward beyond divisive measures of force.

What you say is true...but that is true of every innovation. Cars kill many more people a year in the US than guns. Computers can be used by sexual predators to prey upon the weakest and most vulnerable in society. Any knowledge or tool can be corrupted. To single out guns, and assault rifles in particular, is more about feelings than fact...even when evaluated by the standards you have suggested/advocated in your post.

At 2/28/09 04:26 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/27/09 06:03 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 2/26/09 04:53 PM, Proteas wrote: Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go back and read page three of this topic, NOW.

What?! You people make some of the longest posts on these Politics forums! I don't have all day to read them, you know! I'm sorry!

Here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:

1) The use of assault rifles in crime is exceedingly rare, in some studies approaching zero. Thus a ban is a waste of time, effort and money.

2) The physical characteristics of Assault Rifles make them particularly useless in the commission of crime...the very same characteristics anti-Assault Rifle proponents say they are dangerous.

3) Anti-Assault Rifle people do not know what they are talking about.

4) Their opinions are based upon "Bumper-Sticker Logic" rather than facts.

5) Military ammo is the least lethal ammo on the market (hunting and home-defense rounds are far, far more deadly).

6) The hunting ammo you can get for an assault rifle is to expensive to "spray & pray" therefore not used in crime. However, this hunting ammo is actually safer for hunters to use because it is not high-powered like hunting ammo typically are.

Also, just a little bit of advice, if you don't read the opposition perhaps you shouldn't post your opinion. It opens you up for attack and your argument is already undermined.

Thanks for the cliff notes! Honestly, we need more people like you.

Anyway, there are a lot of good points made, especially that statistic about so few spree killers using assault rifles. I find that kind of hard to believe (but I've heard of weirder things) but I think that the second ammendment allows us to have guns, and what really sticks in my mind is that woman whose parents were killed in a massacre and she became supportive of people carrying guns, because if she had hers, she and her family might've protected herself.

At 2/27/09 02:31 PM, Proteas wrote:
So good luck with that.

Good luck with being pessimistic.

200,000? That's fucking NOTHING.

How can you even begin to use that as an argument.

You just said.

"Too bad, that's the way it is."

And you call my arguments poor.

Hey mason, I think that there should be no government what so ever.

No cars either. We should just combine these two things, cars and government. Into the only thing we really need the government for on a minute-to-minute basis, transportation.

I mean, what's the point of a gun if you have a government with guns. Please don't tell me, "to protect us from the government."

That is pathetic and naive. I suppose, if you need a gun to protect you from your government, "just in case," sounds to me like you shouldn't have a fucking government.

Let me remind you what you said.

"There will always be violence, there will always be corruption."

THAT IS A LAZY AND SURRENDERING THOUGHT.

How can we be expected to evolve in ANY way if you keep thinking like that? "well, that's the way things are, so we have to deal with it."

Yes, we do have to deal with it. How about, completely redefine the way things are? I mean, it's not like there's any rush. We've got millions of years.

Of course this would not be accomplished by banning guns, that is why I agree with you guys. The government IS bad, placing control on any group of organisms just agitates the situation, making it worse.

At 2/28/09 02:48 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Good luck with being pessimistic.

I consider myself a realist more than anything.

And you call my arguments poor.

Then you should have been able to easily refute it. Instead you got pissed off, called me an idiot, and gave up.

At 2/28/09 02:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yes, we do have to deal with it. How about, completely redefine the way things are?

So how do you intend to deal with this issue?

At 2/28/09 02:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: "There will always be violence, there will always be corruption."

THAT IS A LAZY AND SURRENDERING THOUGHT.

How can we be expected to evolve in ANY way if you keep thinking like that? "well, that's the way things are, so we have to deal with it."

how is banning something that isn't responsible for this problem going to solve it?

At 2/28/09 09:12 PM, Proteas wrote:
I consider myself a realist more than anything.

Well then you shouldn't be able to deny that the level of control on violence and how it effects resources is highly inefficient.

Then you should have been able to easily refute it. Instead you got pissed off, called me an idiot, and gave up.

I did.

First- time line, I indicated that your reasoning that something is ingrained in our society is like saying a species cannot evolve into something different. You should know that this is not the case

second- your attitude is questionable and

So how do you intend to deal with this issue?

If I knew how to do that I would really not tell you or post it on a board like this tbh.

Let me say that, it has nothing to do with force, it is all oriented towards actually affecting the way people think.

You gotta go to the roots, well, go past that, go to the seed itself. Most people can't get past mere leaves.

At 2/28/09 02:52 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Hey mason, I think that there should be no government what so ever.

I mean, what's the point of a gun if you have a government with guns. Please don't tell me, "to protect us from the government."

Ummm...there is hunting to provide food for your family (and the poor), self-defense against criminal elements and sport. Then there is the deterrence factor of foreign invasion, you know the Red Dawn scenario.

That is pathetic and naive. I suppose, if you need a gun to protect you from your government, "just in case," sounds to me like you shouldn't have a fucking government.

Ummm...the only "pathetic and naive" argument here is the idea that the only reason to have a gun is to protect one from one's government.

At 2/28/09 10:58 PM, TheMason wrote:
Ummm...the only "pathetic and naive" argument here is the idea that the only reason to have a gun is to protect one from one's government.

Who said that?

I didn't. I said a reason maybe. Not the reason. It's basically. I agree, fuck yes. Have guns, have what ever sorts of protection you need.

But it's the philosophy that needs to be administered FULLY. If I have a gun, I do not need a policeman, in theory.

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater or threaten another person. However, clearly, both of those examples are "speech," but few people would argue that those actions should be legal. In the same respect, the legal usefulness of an assault weapon (compared to other, non-assault type weapons) is minimal compared to threat it poses to those around the owner.

That is absolutely incorrect. You CAN yell fire in a theater. If, for example there is a fire. In the case there isn't a fire, you can still yell "fire", but are then faced with the consequences. Eliminating guns would be more akin to forbidding ANY speech within the theater for fear that you MIGHT yell fire.

Regarding the "threat" of "assault weapons" (which are really only the same semi-automatic guns that have been around for the past 100 years) - the FBI statistics show that less than 2% of gun murders occur from ANY long gun - assault, bolt action, shotgun, single shot, whatever. I suggest getting statistics from an official source rather than believing you know what is going on from watching Hollywood movies.

Finally, Mexico has very strict rules against semi-automatic guns. Does anyone think their gun control is working well? Why would you think our would work any better?

At 2/17/09 04:04 AM, Brick-top wrote: I don't see the point in Assault rifles.

Hunting: Usually a bolt actions is more than enough.

Self defense: Generally people use smaller, easier to hide weapons and if it's in the home a smaller calliber weapon is preferred.

Sports: There is nothing really bad to say about this, but honestly, there are plenty of alternatives.

I take it you are not a shooter. Its always the non-shooters who tell shooters what they need or don't need.

More and more hunters are using AR style rifles. Why? Because they are accurate, light weight, built to withstand the elements, easy to shoot, and, because they are very versatile, may be the hunter's all around gun.

Regarding home defense, more and more people are using semi-auto's. Why? Because pistols are miserable people stoppers. Also, home invaders are starting to wear kevlar. A semi-auto rifle solves those problems.

Regarding sports, there are plenty of sports AR's are used: 3-gun, service rifle, high power, varmint, etc, etc.

Finally, I find it quite humorous that after years of anti gun people declaring the 2nd amendment was intended for the militia, they now say that guns shouldn't be military style.