Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/09 09:58 PM, LiquidSperber wrote:

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

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.

There are laws against taking race cars on the street. I'm just saying

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.

Did he actually announce this at some point? I've seen people clammer like monkeys (not a behavior I'm either attributing to all gun owners or exclusivly applying to gun owners) when he got elected but I haven't seen one peice of anti gun policy

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.

1. Sport is fun but it's sport.
2. Going back to my expereinces on the range. When I was putting .45 rounds through that piece of paper I felt the kick and knew that nothing that came through my window at night would stand up to that.
3. Al quada is not going to storm our beaches. But people also point out the possibility of our own government going against us. While I don't see that happening I'll entertain it for the sake of the example.
Has anyone considered that when they catch a weapons dealer they hold onto their client lists so that, before going full blast evil, they'll have probable cause go in and take everyone who's armed against them nice and legally?
4. At some point, what gear do you really need to hunt?

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

Good for them. I never campainged against those. And if they served the function there I don't see any case where someone would need more.

There's a wonderful video on youtube about the Assault Rifle Ban. I'm surprised nobody has posted it yet.

Well, here it is: That Pesky Assault Rifle Ban

At 3/5/09 09:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

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.

How do you go from this above statement-

Possibly.

-to this statement. When the tangents are more or less the same. I suppose I mean to say, aren't there more than one kind of sheep? Doesn't the prevalence of one sometimes effect the failure of another?

Then couldn't wolves in a light be herdsmen?

.... no.

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

Couldn't one see wolves as necessary though. And in some lights the very factors that prevent chaos? (Such as controlling the population of a herd). Or is that not applicable.

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

Why is the right thing to do? Aside from morals and ethics, I do not see how the herdsmen is any more necessary than the wolf. I see them controlling the herd in different ways. But there is still an element of control/affection involved. Whether intentional or not.

There are laws against taking race cars on the street. I'm just saying

Much as there are laws against shooting people and/or robbing them.

Did he actually announce this at some point? I've seen people clammer like monkeys (not a behavior I'm either attributing to all gun owners or exclusivly applying to gun owners) when he got elected but I haven't seen one peice of anti gun policy

I guess we all were fooled by his posting on the WHITE HOUSE'S web site that he was going to ban "assault weapons" From http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_p olicy/ -> "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.". Stupid us for thinking he intends to ban assault weapons.

1. Sport is fun but it's sport.

And your point is what? Sport is a legit reason to own a gun. Remember, the Bill of Rights is a bill of RIGHTS. Using a gun for sport is my right. You don't have to like it, just respect it.

2. Going back to my expereinces on the range. When I was putting .45 rounds through that piece of paper I felt the kick and knew that nothing that came through my window at night would stand up to that.

Pistols are very ineffective people stoppers, usually requiring multiple shots. Feel free to use what you please. But, when my life is on the line I prefer as much power as possible.

3. Al quada is not going to storm our beaches. But people also point out the possibility of our own government going against us. While I don't see that happening I'll entertain it for the sake of the example.

Apparently you missed 9/11. They already have. Or, Bombay India.

Has anyone considered that when they catch a weapons dealer they hold onto their client lists so that, before going full blast evil, they'll have probable cause go in and take everyone who's armed against them nice and legally?

How would confiscating guns be considered legal?

4. At some point, what gear do you really need to hunt?

Just one AR-15 would suffice. Put on a 5.56 upper and hunt animals smaller than deer. Swap out that upper for a larger caliber and hunt larger animals. Finally, swap that out for a .22 upper and hunt squirrel and rabbit. One gun, almost any animal. So, unlike other hunter rifles, these can be used across the range of animals.

Good for them. I never campainged against those. And if they served the function there I don't see any case where someone would need more.

Yes, you have most certainly campaigned against those. That is EXACTLY what you've been campaigning against.

At 3/6/09 11:27 AM, Basement-Dungeon wrote: There's a wonderful video on youtube about the Assault Rifle Ban. I'm surprised nobody has posted it yet.

Well, here it is: That Pesky Assault Rifle Ban

Ahh, there it is. I thought it was a web site or PDF. I've been looking for that. Its one of those videos that IF you still demand a ban after watching that, you are well beyond responding to fact and logic and are at the stamp your food and have a tantrum until you get your way stage.

I'm not debating the finer points of this metaphor anymore, I'm debating what it actually means.

At 3/6/09 03:52 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: -to this statement.

Lack of awareness can pose a threat someone else in a given group because they would not be aware of someone about to attack.

Couldn't one see wolves as necessary though.

How is crime necessary?

I do not see how the herdsmen is any more necessary than the wolf.

Without a protecting authority to step in and intervene on the general public's behalf, chaos would ensue because the criminal element no longer has a fear of reprisal for their misdeeds. Pretty soon you would be left with a society where the criminals reign supreme, the general public is helpess to stop it, and the governing authority is nothing but a mere figurehead on the political landscape.

Not unlike... some parts a lot of third world nations.

At 3/6/09 10:38 PM, Fyndir wrote:

At 3/6/09 08:47 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: Apparently you missed 9/11. They already have.

If only people in New York had all owned assault rifles, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

What?

Nice try. Except the poster's statement was that he didn't think it likely Al Queda would storm our shores. They've attacked the world trade center (which ORIGINATED on our shore). They've attempted several other attacks (such as Fort Dix and the millennial celebration) also on our shore.

So, go troll elsewhere and distort someone else's statements.

And if there was no chaos?

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?

As Proteas said the discussion on full-auto/burst fire is moot. The military doesn't see much value in full-auto assault rifles. It is impractical for combat that is why the standard infantry rifle is now burst only. Squad Automatic Weapons (SAWs) are full-auto but they are not assault rifles but rather machine guns and best used in emplaced positions for defense or supression fire.

Now let's talk about what "reasonable" people would consider an assault rifle. What use it in civilian hands?

Assault rifles are MORE safe than pistols, shotguns or traditional hunting rifles. It may seem counter-intuitive but to reduce the effects of gun crime the government should do more to encourage would-be psychopaths to buy assault rifles. Make penetrating military ammo the cheapest, least taxed ammo out there meanwhile tax hunting and self-defense ammo more. Furthermore, limit the mag capacity of pistols...but encourage high cap mags in rifles.

This may seem radical but military ammo doesn't cause as serious wounds as hunting or self-defense ammo. The victims would have a better chance at survival. The high capacity mags add weight and make it even more difficult to conceal an already difficult to conceal firearm.

Furthermore, assault rifles are NOT high-powered rifles. The traditional bolt-action rifle is the basis for most sniper rifles. In fact in the World Wars up until Vietnam the US' snipers were more often than not hunters who had their families send them their deer rifles for use in combat. But I digress. The truth is an AK-47 has a shorter range than a .270 bolt action deer rifle. Thus if you miss a deer you have a greater chance of hitting someone or something you do not intend to hit/harm/kill. Furthermore, that you can practice with cheap, full-metal jacket military ammo before going hunting means you have a sharper skill set and reduces the chances of you missing when using a round firing a hunting projectile.

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

1) The thing is you are making an argument that has all the indications of having the same level of gun knowledge as a standard anti-gun guy. So you have fired a gun and held one. With how many types of firearms do you have experience? What training do you have?

2) Why do you believe that an assault rifle clone (what most "reasonable"/gun-ignorant people would miscategorize as an AR) is too high of a level of firepower for a civilian?

At 3/6/09 11:02 PM, Fyndir wrote:

At 3/6/09 10:55 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: Nice try. Except the poster's statement was that he didn't think it likely Al Queda would storm our shores.

Indeed, and the topic is about assault rifles.

Lord forbid that people discuss the topic, or make their statements connected to the topic, that would just be silly.

Its no wonder libs are always on the wrong side of the argument as they never seem able to connect the logical dots. So, to make it easy for you, here is the COMPLETED connect the dots picture:

summarized thread

question: why would anyone need an assault weapon
answer: for national defense

question: do you really think al qaeda will storm our shores
answer: they already have done so on multiple occasions

There. Two dots, fully connected. Maybe now we can try a harder exercise like something with THREE dots.

At 3/7/09 04:58 AM, TheMason wrote:

Assault rifles are MORE safe than pistols, shotguns or traditional hunting rifles. It may seem counter-intuitive but to reduce the effects of gun crime the government should do more to encourage would-be psychopaths to buy assault rifles. Make penetrating military ammo the cheapest, least taxed ammo out there meanwhile tax hunting and self-defense ammo more. Furthermore, limit the mag capacity of pistols...but encourage high cap mags in rifles.

Uh oh. Its a bit soon to launch into ADVANCED logic while these guys are struggling with basic logic. So far we have:

1) people STILL exclaiming that "assault weapons" are machine guns after having been told by at least three people that the AWB bans ZERO machine guns. Maybe a better tact for us would be to say "whats so bad about machine guns?" then quote the 2 deaths since 1934 stat.

2) I give an analogy of sheep seeing no need for guns because they are blissfully unaware there is danger out there and their response is something about cannibalistic sheep.

3) I give an example of banning any car I don't like or have a need for, and get a response about speeding laws.

4) I answer a question about whether semi-autos can be used for national defense and, because it required reading the previous post, someone declares me off topic.

5) People still supporting the AWB cannot explain how elimination of bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, or grenade launcher attachments somehow push rifles over the edge from ok to own, to "way too dangerous" for the common citizen to own.

6) I mention that people during the riots protected themselves/their property with semi-auto rifles and hear back that THOSE aren't the rifles intending to be banned. They are in fact EXACTLY the rifles on the ban list - semi auto rifles.

7) I am questioned as to whether Obama actually plans to ban guns, when his entire history, including the campaign trail, and ultimately the White House website clearly says he intends to ban them.

So, I wouldn't anticipate too many people grasping the advanced concepts. We lay out our arguments with logic and facts and they dismiss/ignore them because it doesn't mesh with their preconceived feeling.

At 3/7/09 09:54 AM, LiquidSperber wrote:

question: do you really think al qaeda will storm our shores
answer: they already have done so on multiple occasions

So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

At 3/7/09 10:28 AM, stafffighter wrote: So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

Neither does he. He got backed into a corner and played the 9/11 card as a last resort. It's like when cephalopods shoot ink to get away from a predator.

Except be exploiting a national tragedy.

At 3/7/09 10:28 AM, stafffighter wrote: So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

Yeah, they used box-cutters on the 911 attacks. I think a standard gun would do just fine against them.

At 3/7/09 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 3/7/09 10:28 AM, stafffighter wrote: So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

Yeah, they used box-cutters on the 911 attacks. I think a standard gun would do just fine against them.

You guys are all missing the point.

BUu I'd be damned if I could tell you where the DAGers thought they were headed.

At 3/7/09 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 3/7/09 10:28 AM, stafffighter wrote: So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

Yeah, they used box-cutters on the 911 attacks. I think a standard gun would do just fine against them.

Thanks for enlightening me you guys. I was under the impression that terrorists could attack shopping malls, cities, schools, homes, etc. But you straightened me out. They can ONLY attack airplanes with BOX CUTTERS.

But, I'm confused. Why then ban assault weapons when we could just ban box cutters? I'm still new at this illogical thinking so maybe someone can enlighten me.

Here's a quiz for you geniuses:

1 - Are there foreign terrorists inside America?
a) yes as was proven by 9/11
b) yes as was proven by Ft. Dix
c) yes as was proven by the Millenium Celebration
d) a, b, and c
e) no (you sheep may skip to question 4)

2 - Do all terrorists in the US have to just attack airplanes with just box cutters?
a) yes (you sheep may skip to question 4)
b) no. terrorists could attack other types of targets with other types of weapons too.

3 - If you are attacked by a terrorist group
a) there would never be a need for a semi-auto weapon (you may skip to question 4)
b) there may be circumstances where a semi-auto would be preferable (you have successfully understood the whole premise. Congratulations!)

4 - The reason this logic is too complex for me to understand is because:
a) I'm a mental 2 yr old
b) I'm so deparate for those bad guns to go away that I can't be bothered with logic/statistics/facts (baah)

At 3/6/09 09:17 PM, Proteas wrote:
How is crime necessary?

Crime is necessary for any government in order to form a level of control over the populace.

As a 2nd amendment person you should KNOW that crime only exists because of the government. Or are you talking about chaos again here. I would think the two are different. Crime only existing in a society and chaos existing no matter what.

And like staff said, criminals are not always necessarily more aware. What would you call these unaware wolves? I'm aware that's not what the metaphor means. It means a black-and-white distinction.

This is hardly the case in reality and you know it.

At 3/7/09 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 3/7/09 10:28 AM, stafffighter wrote: So, the passengers on the airplanes should have had assualt weapons? I really don't see where you're going with this.

Yeah, they used box-cutters on the 911 attacks. I think a standard gun would do just fine against them.

What, pray tell, is a "standard gun"?

Assualt rifles should not be banned because in the modern day the battlefield will no longer be in random woods or desert plains... they will soon be in the streets and subways due to the introduction of terrorist guerrilla tactics. The army will no longer be targeted but the civilians, US, not them. So if we want to live without gettin in between terrorists and the army we've only got one choice: to fight out. There are two ways to fight out, fight through the army or fight through a group of terrorists, and the best choice is to fight 100 instead of 10,000,000, we don't live in ancient sparta after all so going after 100 wouldn't sound like a bad idea. But how to fight them? They got assault rifles, you got a spoon, the ban for assault rifles needs to be lifted. And wait till you hear about how this relates to homework.

At 3/7/09 01:53 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: As a 2nd amendment person you should KNOW that crime only exists because of the government.

So crime would magically disappear without a government in place to stop it, is that what you're telling me?

What would you call these unaware wolves?

Unaware criminals? Unaware of what? Unaware of the fact that they are unaware?

This is why I'm not debating this metaphor anymore. You keep assigning implausibly assinine values to it expecting to trip me up and put me at a loss for words, and it's not working.

This is hardly the case in reality and you know it.

And so far, you haven't been able to put forth a single coherent argument yet in this topic.

I said unaware like staff said? I suppose that would indeed be unaware of the fact they are unaware.

Rash crime, how would you categorize that in the context of banning guns or law in general?

Perhaps a point in the direction that crime (as in chaos as per tracked by the government) is not always done out of skill or awareness, that it is often indecision, impulsive, not thought-out. And in this light I wanted to suggest that this is yet another reason that banning guns or punishing people in general is an ineffective way to control the "herd" or whatever you want to call it.

Of course it's better than no control at all.

At 3/7/09 11:56 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I suppose that would indeed be unaware of the fact they are unaware.

Unaware of what?

that it is often indecision, impulsive, not thought-out.

Of course, but the point is that what sets someone apart from the rest of the heard is the willingness to commit a crime and use everyone else's unwillingness to act in their own defense to their own advantage.

Of course it's better than no control at all.

So controlling people isn't effective, but it's better than nothing?

Does this inane logic of yours lead anywhere that might EVENTUALLY lead back into the topic of discussion, or are you just going to continue using this topic to wax philosophically while offering up no solutions?

I thought we already came to the conclusion that the solution for ineffective controls like banning guns could be sufficed by proper education, respect, and ideology etc. And that banning things, especially this band which falls prey to the public's misconception on what type of gun is actually which, is completely stupid.

At 3/8/09 04:31 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 3/7/09 09:54 AM, LiquidSperber wrote: There. Two dots, fully connected. Maybe now we can try a harder exercise like something with THREE dots.

WHoooooooooooooosh.

Since you are incapable of doing anything but making shoddy half-assed attempts at attacking people, I'll simplify my point.

Provide an example where me, the relatively untrained, untested and unproven civilian having an assault rifle would benefit anyone in a terrorist attack.

Sounds like you took my quiz and not surprisingly got to question 4. Not to worry, most one dimensional thinkers do. You see, one dimensional thinkers think that IF there are no examples of it ever happening, it can NEVER happen. A more logical person would realize that is absolute bollocks.

But, I'll gladly take your challenge. Israel repeated has been attacked by terrorists and its citizens REGULARLY are forced to fight them off. If terrorism continues to rise and spread (and assuming you got past question one from my previous quiz we know terrorists are already in the US) it is reasonable to expect that citizens might need to protect themselves. Do you think US citizens along the Mexican border right now might want a semi-auto rifle? I'm sure if you googled you'd find semi's have been used by citizens for protection against drug thugs/runners.

Regarding the oft spouted foolish notion by gun banners that citizens are "untrained, untested and unproven", you DO realize we are currently in two wars, don't you? When soldiers complete their tours they return to the states to become trained, tested, and proven citizens. Furthermore, you guys aways go on about how only the police are highly trained enough to combat anyone with a gun. From the site referenced below we find that police average between 4 and 16 hrs PER YEAR of firearm training. They may fire once or twice per year to qualify with their weapon. I surpass that low end in a single range outing. There are hundreds if not thousands of training schools around the country for citizens interested in protecting themselves to learn tactics and marksmanship. Statistics show the POLICE end up with a higher percentage of bad shoots than citizens do.

Site for quote on police training hours:
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:kimt Of2zVQUJ:www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Ave ni/Training-Obsolescence.pdf+average+pol ice+firearm+training&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&
gl=us

At 3/8/09 01:14 PM, Fyndir wrote:

At 3/8/09 11:01 AM, LiquidSperber wrote: Regarding the oft spouted foolish notion by gun banners that citizens are "untrained, untested and unproven"

That line right there proves your complete lack of reading comprehension, to the point of it being hilarious, go read what I said again, and you might get why I'm laughing.

You clearly have no interest in an actual discussion on this matter, because you took the 4 words you wanted to hear and went off on a generic cut-paste style rant about them rather than actually responding to what was being said. I have yet to see a single post from you where you managed to go more than a couple of lines without attempting to insult the intelligence of people for disagreeing with you, and that's just sad.

I've reread it several times and still come to the same conclusion. My interpretation is that you are saying citizens are too untrained to be of use in combating terrorists. If that is NOT your position, please clarify. If it IS, then I've directly countered it.

At 3/8/09 12:09 AM, Proteas wrote:
Unaware of what

Their environment. Just like the sheep you mentioned. People do things for two reasons, either they choose to do something based on reason, or they make a rash decision based on situation. The latter usually has less thought put into it.

Of course, but the point is that what sets someone apart from the rest of the heard is the willingness to commit a crime and use everyone else's unwillingness to act in their own defense to their own advantage.

But this is assuming that all criminals are willing. You have lots of gang violence where the sheep mentality fits fine on the wolf side in my opinion.

So controlling people isn't effective, but it's better than nothing?

That's what people say, not what I say. I don't agree with it. I'm all for education and respect.

Let's hope they ban "sexual assault rifles"

... or not.

At 3/8/09 01:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Their environment.

Sheep are unaware of their environment in the manner that they are not willing to admit that they could in fact be attacked.

So we're back to my original question; criminals are unaware of what, exactly?

You have lots of gang violence where the sheep mentality fits fine on the wolf side in my opinion.

And that goes for what percentage of crime?

That's what people say, not what I say.

Do you see anybody else putting that argument forth?

At 3/8/09 10:03 PM, Proteas wrote:
So we're back to my original question; criminals are unaware of what, exactly?

Above sentence. Unaware of the dangers of committing a crime perhaps in their full entirety, I guess then if you do not see this you would argue that arresting or "attacking" a criminal is in essence different from the way they attack "sheep."?

And that goes for what percentage of crime?

I am not interested in statistics. I am sure the issue of gang violence has been overblown and hollywoodified. Again it deals with as you said being unaware of their environment attacking them. Though now that I think about it I guess in a light this would make young individuals involved in ganges hyperaware of this fact.

Do you see anybody else putting that argument forth?

The people pushing the ban? In the government? The people that I disagree with? You know, about, how I said. That bans are bad.

How many times do I have to say that. How many times do I have to say that I'm trying to talk about the broader issue.

I guess I'm sucking at it.

At 3/8/09 10:43 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I am not interested in statistics.

No, you're interested in debating the finer points of a metaphor you keep changing the definition of as time goes on. You're playing "Calvin Ball" where the rules change every five seconds and nobody wins.

And quite frankly, it's getting on my nerves.