Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I can't help but notice that neither of the people who answered me actually answered the question. For the moment let's agree that that language in gun laws is at times convoluted and designed by people as far to the other side as people are accuseing you of being on this one. Now let's answer the real question.
Full auto or burst fire, military styleing, all that good stuff that a reasonable person would see and consider an assualt rifle, what use is that in civilian hands?

At 3/5/09 05:58 AM, stafffighter wrote: Full auto or burst fire, military styleing, all that good stuff that a reasonable person would see and consider an assualt rifle, what use is that in civilian hands?

The only thing on this list that would be worrying to anyone would be "full auto," which, as I have already pointed out is heavily regulated by the U.S. Government to the point that only two crimes have been comitted with them since 1934 (and they comitted by a police officer, off all people). Civilian availability of fully automatic weapons and their use in crime is a non-issue, and the same goes with "burst fire."

When speaking of civilian model semi-automatic weaponry, you're speaking of the ability to pull the trigger once for each shot fired without having to stop and manually reload the round. It's not "hold the trigger down and rain down lead on the enemy," functionally it makes the weapon no different than a revolver.

As for "military styling," what qualifies a weapon to be "military styled?" A pistol grip? Big damn deal, there's shotguns on the market right now that have a pistol grip with no buttstock ala the Winchester 1887 shotgun used in Terminator 2; Judgement Day, or a Mossberg 500 Cruiser, but I don't ever hear a PEEP out of gun control nuts on it, and it's not even discussed in context of what impact the AWB had on crime.

Oh that's right, it didn't have an effect on crime. MY BAD.

At 3/4/09 07:06 PM, Proteas wrote:
Coyote = Wolf in that example, so you're not really helping your case...

Wolves hunt. Coyotes scavenge. If I remember correctly.

I would say they are not the same.

It's like comparing a shop lifter to a bank robber.

And I think that civilians should be allowed to buy assault weapons. I think we should even have gladiators again. Wouldn't that be cool. I would so go to see that shit.

You know, a society that actually respects violence and sees violent death as sacred, which it should be.

Check out what wolf and coyote mean in other contexts.

Wolf.

Coyote.

At 3/5/09 12:07 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Wolves hunt. Coyotes scavenge.

Wolve's prey on whatever is easiest for them to attack and take down, just like the coyote. Click and click.

And I think that civilians should be allowed to buy assault weapons.

And you define an "assault weapon" as WHAT, exactly?

I think we should even have gladiators again. Wouldn't that be cool. I would so go to see that shit.

What, American Gladiators and UFC fights aren't enough for you?

At 3/5/09 01:24 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Wolf.

Coyote.

.... a dream dictionary. Seriously?

You know for someone who wants to be taken seriously in this discussion, you're not putting a whole lot of effort into it.

I think allegorical definitions hold just as much merit as literal ones. Especially since it was a metaphor to begin with.

At 3/5/09 03:02 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I think allegorical definitions hold just as much merit as literal ones. Especially since it was a metaphor to begin with.

Metaphorically speaking? You don't what the hell you're talking about.

At 3/5/09 03:11 PM, Proteas wrote:
Metaphorically speaking? You don't what the hell you're talking about.

Explain. I guess coyotes do eat sheep.

Is that what you mean?

Anyways.

At 3/5/09 02:50 PM, Proteas wrote:
And you define an "assault weapon" as WHAT, exactly?

Any kind of weapon that people categorize as assult, I don't know the definition myself, but it shouldn't be banned, whatever it is.

What, American Gladiators and UFC fights aren't enough for you?

A disgusting blasphemy that trivializes violence and no doubt contributes to the spread of it. If someone went to see a real fight to the death, they would think twice about getting violent. I suppose they could become desensitized even more too.

But not if it was done with enough honor. You could even elevate this to the level of replacing war if you played your cards right.

Again, it's about controlling the mentality of the populace without every using forceful means that I think could render a society with the most potential for complete peace.

You know for someone who wants to be taken seriously in this discussion, you're not putting a whole lot of effort into it.

I'm just trying to illustrate that I definitely have a flock of 1 or 2. How do you define a flock? How many are there, don't some flocks attack others? Wouldn't that turn one flock of sheep into a pack of wolves?

At 3/5/09 03:19 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Explain. I guess coyotes do eat sheep.

Is that what you mean?

Coyotes and wolves both prey on weaker, lesser animals. You painted yourself as a "coyote" because it appealed to you sense of aesthetics (nobody wants to admit they are a sheep), you didn't actually think about what a coyote does in the wild.

If you want to paint yourself as an entity who is ever mindful of his surrounding environment, a herdsmen would be a better example.

Any kind of weapon that people categorize as assult, I don't know the definition myself, but it shouldn't be banned, whatever it is.

So you don't even know what's being discussed, and you want it banned? Have you even been reading this topic?

A disgusting blasphemy that trivializes violence and no doubt contributes to the spread of it.

And what exactly do you think the original gladiators were, an honor sport?

No, it was a form of capital punishment in Rome. They weren't men fighting for the thrill of it or for any particular title, they were men fighting for their own survival. Kill or be killed in the most horrific and excruciatingly painful ways. It was entertainment for the Emperor and the paying public.

And with that, I've got you 0 to 3 on "things you don't know a damn thing about." Would like to continue speaking out of your ass, or would you like to go to google and actually research your position a bit before you actually start to valiantly defend it?

I would like you to care enough to realize what I'm saying.

At 3/5/09 06:25 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I would like you to care enough to realize what I'm saying.

1. I never said this shit should be banned. Only in vague initial posts, if even then. My last posts, at least the ones directed at you, do not state any such position.

2. I already alluded to the fact that such gladiatorial activities could have the opposite effect of what I suggested. And at NO time did I indicate that such reverence would be necessary because of Roman precedent.

3. My last sentence is another real question that tries to explore the particulars of the herd metaphor metaphor.

"Any kind of weapon that people categorize as assult, I don't know the definition myself, but it shouldn't be banned, whatever it is."

Like really. I just want to go over this again so you can realize your mistake. You'll probably blame it on me being vague. And I agree. I apologize.

At 3/5/09 06:25 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I would like you to care enough to realize what I'm saying.

No, you want me to be dumb enough to not realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

At 3/5/09 06:32 PM, Proteas wrote:
No, you want me to be dumb enough to not realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

Me not knowing what I'm talking about is no excuse for responding to half of my post.

At 3/5/09 06:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Me not knowing what I'm talking about is no excuse for responding to half of my post.

Half your post wasn't worth dignifying with a response.

At 3/5/09 06:37 PM, Proteas wrote:
Half your post wasn't worth dignifying with a response.

So you're not interested in exploring what types of sheep there are and how circumstances can change a someone from a sheep to a wolf, from a wolf to a sheep dog, from a sheep to a herdsmen, etc?

You're not interested in discussing whether it is human nature of nurture that produces levels of violence, and in what ways?

Because that is what the other half of my post was.

Like I really don't understand how that doesn't dignify a response. This topic wouldn't exist if such characteristics in people weren't prevalent.

I love the herd metaphor. But I guess I'm the only one.

At 3/5/09 06:40 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Because that is what the other half of my post was.

Oh, so now you're bringing out an alt to make it look like you've got support, hm?

At 3/5/09 06:48 PM, Proteas wrote:
Oh, so now you're bringing out an alt to make it look like you've got support, hm?

4 post limit.

Also on this sheep business. If you and others allude to humans being naturally violent, then wouldn't the wolves actually be in some cases sheep?

I was interested in your take on this. And how herds change.

At 3/5/09 06:49 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Also on this sheep business. If you and others allude to humans being naturally violent, then wouldn't the wolves actually be in some cases sheep?

The metaphor of the sheep refers to a person's sense of awareness of their surrounding environment. As a sheep, you are clueless to what's going on around you, you're just going through the motions and minding your own life.

A wolf or coyote is someone who is hyper aware of their surrounding, and out to attack the sheep who are not.

Explain to me how, in this metaphor, a sheep can prey on another sheep.

At 3/5/09 06:54 PM, Proteas wrote:



Explain to me how, in this metaphor, a sheep can prey on another sheep.

Would you call someone who sticks up a convienence store to be more aware of their surroundings than other people?

If their awareness changes or if the motions change.

The former would require that the sheep grow and evolve and that the metaphor not be static, of course.

The latter could be anything, depending on the environment, for instance racist whites and blacks in the 60s and before.

Would that be an appropriate example?

I would definitely say that sheep prey on other sheep all the time, maybe even more so if they are more unaware and more selfish than a wolf.

The metaphor fits further that sheep will consume until there is nothing left and wolves will exist to regulate the sheep, correct?

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Would you call someone who sticks up a convienence store to be more aware of their surroundings than other people?

The idea isn't solely that they are "aware," but that they are willing and capable of preying on lesser beings.

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, Helicopterz wrote: I would definitely say that sheep prey on other sheep all the time

THAT ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT OF THE METAPHOR.

The point is that people who don't arm themselves or don't realize that the world outside their front door is a dangerous one are SHEEP, and that criminals are the WOLVES waiting to take advantage of them.

The metaphor fits further that sheep will consume until there is nothing left and wolves will exist to regulate the sheep, correct?

Unless there is an authority to step in and protect them, yes. Thus, herdsman.

At 3/5/09 07:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Would you call someone who sticks up a convienence store to be more aware of their surroundings than other people?

The idea isn't solely that they are "aware," but that they are willing and capable of preying on lesser beings.

Taking from others through threat of violence is generally considered a very low human quality.

At 3/5/09 07:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Would you call someone who sticks up a convienence store to be more aware of their surroundings than other people?

The idea isn't solely that they are "aware," but that they are willing and capable of preying on lesser beings.

Absolutely correct. That was the definition I was going for when I posted the little analogy. Sheep are just blissfully going through life, completely unaware of danger, but also completely unwilling to confront it - often accepting death. I was debating someone right after the Virginia Tech tragedy and he was saying concealed carry would have been ineffective because "nobody would mentally be able to pull out a gun and defend themselves". That quite possibly was the saddest thing I've ever heard. Someone is about to gun you down, and your only thought is to meekly surrender. But, if that is what you choose - more power to you. It wouldn't be my choice. And, I don't want a sheep making the decision that I can't protect myself.

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, Helicopterz wrote: I would definitely say that sheep prey on other sheep all the time

THAT ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT OF THE METAPHOR.

The point is that people who don't arm themselves or don't realize that the world outside their front door is a dangerous one are SHEEP, and that criminals are the WOLVES waiting to take advantage of them.

The metaphor fits further that sheep will consume until there is nothing left and wolves will exist to regulate the sheep, correct?

Unless there is an authority to step in and protect them, yes. Thus, herdsman.

I'm not sure where you (the poster two slots up) keep getting that whole "sheep will consume" stuff. What happens is that sheep wander around clueless. Luckily, crime isn't as rampant as the news would have you believe, so most get on just fine. Others, however, run headlong into the wolf. At that point the sheep dog/herdsman may step in and protect the sheep. That could be a police officer or it could be an armed citizen. Often, even then, the sheep complain about the sheepdog/herdsman's behavior - "couldn't you just have wounded him?" or "you used those ultra deadly hollowpoints" or "why did you have to shoot him more than once", etc.

P.S. No wonder some of you are having such a hard time grasping these concepts if you are worried about sheep preying on sheep :-)

At 3/5/09 05:58 AM, stafffighter wrote: I can't help but notice that neither of the people who answered me actually answered the question. For the moment let's agree that that language in gun laws is at times convoluted and designed by people as far to the other side as people are accuseing you of being on this one. Now let's answer the real question.
Full auto or burst fire, military styleing, all that good stuff that a reasonable person would see and consider an assualt rifle, what use is that in civilian hands?

Once again... semi-automatic rifles are FLYING off the shelves in record numbers. So, am I to believe YOU (someone I'm betting hasn't even held a gun, let alone knows their capabilities) that these guns have no civilian use? Or, should I believe the millions of civilians who OWN them? Apparently the economy isn't that bad or all these folks wouldn't be buying rifles they have no use for.

Several times I've listed their capabilities. You could save me getting writers crap if you'd just say "don't bore me with details and facts, I prefer my uninformed opinion".

In summary - we have guns that statistically are NOT being used in crimes, that you and others want to ban because they LOOK dangerous - even though they function the same as and fire the same cartridges as many guns that don't look dangerous and therefore WON'T be banned.

Can you honestly read that sentence and NOT feel silly?

The NRA actually took pictures of the same gun - but with different stocks - before it was nice wood, after it was black plastic - and asked people if either should be banned. The black one was declared bad, needing banning while its twin brother but wood clad was deemed ok.

At 3/5/09 08:17 PM, LiquidSperber wrote:

Once again... semi-automatic rifles are FLYING off the shelves in record numbers. So, am I to believe YOU (someone I'm betting hasn't even held a gun, let alone knows their capabilities) that these guns have no civilian use? Or, should I believe the millions of civilians who OWN them?

First of all. I have held guns. I have fired guns. I like going to the range and shooting. Do not assume that just because I dissagree with you that I must be some limp wristed pacifist.

Apparently the economy isn't that bad or all these folks wouldn't be buying rifles they have no use for.

So people buying them proves that they're practicle? There were reports, and topics here, about how as soon as Obama was elected gun sales went through the roof. So by your logic him being elected increased practicle need.

Several times I've listed their capabilities. You could save me getting writers crap if you'd just say "don't bore me with details and facts, I prefer my uninformed opinion".

I did read them. They revolved largely around sporting compitions based on those attributes. It's like if throwing knives were illegal and I pointed out needed them for knife throwing contests.

In summary - we have guns that statistically are NOT being used in crimes, that you and others want to ban because they LOOK dangerous - even though they function the same as and fire the same cartridges as many guns that don't look dangerous and therefore WON'T be banned.

Here you go catagorizing me as a standard anti-gun guy. I have nothing against the responcible ownership of a gun. I just beleive there's a level of firepower that civilians don't need. Now who's not reading the other guys post?

At 3/5/09 07:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/5/09 06:59 PM, Helicopterz wrote: I would definitely say that sheep prey on other sheep all the time

THAT ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT OF THE METAPHOR.

In that context, no it wasn't. I'm extending it.

The point is that people who don't arm themselves or don't realize that the world outside their front door is a dangerous one are SHEEP, and that criminals are the WOLVES waiting to take advantage of them.

So could wolves be terrorists? Could wolves be countries that don't agree with you? If this idea of awareness extends to all points of view then wouldn't there be a chance that a sheep could become harmful to other sheep because of it's lack of awareness?

Unless there is an authority to step in and protect them, yes. Thus, herdsman.

Then couldn't wolves in a light be herdsmen?

At 3/5/09 08:46 PM, Helicopterz wrote: In that context, no it wasn't. I'm extending it.

Name me a breed of cannibal sheep, and we'll talk. Otherwise, you're just making shit up as you go along.

If this idea of awareness extends to all points of view then wouldn't there be a chance that a sheep could become harmful to other sheep because of it's lack of awareness?

Possibly.

Then couldn't wolves in a light be herdsmen?

.... no.

Wolves = Chaotic Evil, they seek to prey on the weak for their own purposes.

Herdsmen = Lawful Good, they seek to protect others because it's the right thing to do.

At 3/5/09 08:34 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 3/5/09 08:17 PM, LiquidSperber wrote:

Once again... semi-automatic rifles are FLYING off the shelves in record numbers. So, am I to believe YOU (someone I'm betting hasn't even held a gun, let alone knows their capabilities) that these guns have no civilian use? Or, should I believe the millions of civilians who OWN them?

First of all. I have held guns. I have fired guns. I like going to the range and shooting. Do not assume that just because I dissagree with you that I must be some limp wristed pacifist.

Fair enough, maybe this analogy fits better then... we all drive cars. I may favor sub compact cars. I see no reason that I should ever want anything other than a sub compact car. I therefore move to ban all cars because all I ever need is a sub compact. Its ONLY reasonable.

Apparently the economy isn't that bad or all these folks wouldn't be buying rifles they have no use for.

So people buying them proves that they're practicle? There were reports, and topics here, about how as soon as Obama was elected gun sales went through the roof. So by your logic him being elected increased practicle need.

Uh, YEAH. If Obama announced he was about to ban flintlocks, do you think there would then be millions of people buying flintlocks? I don't.

And NO, not by my logic. If someone thinks they are practical AND (here's the important part) may be unavailable they will buy sooner than later - like with "assault weapons".

My hypothetical flintlock ban fails because while being banned, not many people think them practical. Thus no buying spree for more than a handful of people.

Several times I've listed their capabilities. You could save me getting writers crap if you'd just say "don't bore me with details and facts, I prefer my uninformed opinion".

I did read them. They revolved largely around sporting compitions based on those attributes. It's like if throwing knives were illegal and I pointed out needed them for knife throwing contests.

Yeah, if you ignore everything else mentioned. I've mention sport. I've mentioned self defense. I've mentioned national defense. I've mentioned hunting. As far as firearms go, that fits just about any firearm use possible.

There were quite a few people glad to own semi-auto rifles during the LA riots, for example, to protect their stores/homes.

In summary - we have guns that statistically are NOT being used in crimes, that you and others want to ban because they LOOK dangerous - even though they function the same as and fire the same cartridges as many guns that don't look dangerous and therefore WON'T be banned.

Here you go catagorizing me as a standard anti-gun guy. I have nothing against the responcible ownership of a gun. I just beleive there's a level of firepower that civilians don't need. Now who's not reading the other guys post?

I'm looking hard, but not seeing any categorization AT ALL in that blurb. I'll go with YOU not reading the posts. Because, you still seem content to ban guns based solely on appearance - which is what the AWB IS. It has nothing to do with "responsible firepower". Oh, and I'll be the judge of what I need - thank you.

We've established these guns aren't used by criminals except in very small numbers, so apparently these gun's owners ARE exercising "responsible firepower". If you are concerned with crime, then I suggest you push crime control rather than gun control. The two aren't even mildly similar. Crime control is where you lock criminals away for long periods of time when they commit felonies. These criminals are the same people who typically, when released, commit the murders you are so concerned with. Its NOT the folks flocking to weekend gun shows to buy a rifle before the ban.

Gun control is where you enact a law you know to be pointless, but that the uninformed - like yourself - will swoon over, thankful that your elected official is "tough on crime". There are now 20,000 gun control laws on the book. Crime SHOULD be non-existent. Hell, DC and Chicago have virtual bans on all functional firearms - yet manage to lead the country in murders. A study by the CDC found insufficient evidence that ANY gun control works. Evidence should be simple - you enact the law, and crime plummets. Yet for some strange reason, it doesn't.