Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/8/09 10:55 PM, Proteas wrote:
And quite frankly, it's getting on my nerves.

I have repeatedly said I thought that my main point was that because the metaphor is not truly reality that the OPs topic of gun bans remain ineffective in doing shit.

That the entire concept of guns creating is crime is further slapped down by the metaphor which CLEARLY does not need guns, knives, or any weapon for that matter to be applicable (albeit in general terms) to reality.

What did you think I was trying to do? I guess I'm crazy.

At 3/8/09 11:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I have repeatedly said I thought that my main point was that because the metaphor is not truly reality

It's supposed to be a SIMPLE metaphor representing the difference between the average criminal and the average individual. If you don't like it, be creative and come up with your own.

At 3/8/09 11:13 PM, Proteas wrote:
It's supposed to be a SIMPLE metaphor representing the difference between the average criminal and the average individual. If you don't like it, be creative and come up with your own.

But it also represents the difference between applied law (such as these bans) and reality (guns do not create crime).

At 3/8/09 11:17 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But it also represents the difference between applied law (such as these bans) and reality (guns do not create crime).

Uh... no it doesn't.

At 3/8/09 11:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/8/09 11:17 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But it also represents the difference between applied law (such as these bans) and reality (guns do not create crime).

You mean to tell me that the concept of a black and white world were such metaphors would apply with 100% accuracy holds no bearing on how gun legislation and reality are equally at odds?

Well whatever.

The fact remains that it is unawareness (in general not in terms of the metaphor), among other things, that fuels inefficient and unnecessary legislation is it not?

At 3/8/09 11:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You mean to tell me that the concept of a black and white world were such metaphors would apply with 100% accuracy holds no bearing on how gun legislation and reality are equally at odds?

Okay, the wolves represent anti-gun legislation and the sheep represent...

Yeah, this isn't working. Come up with your own analogy.

that fuels inefficient and unnecessary legislation is it not?

I think it's stupidity in general that fuels this, but to each his own.

The sheep represent anti-gun legislation support, the wolves are chaos/violence that have NOTHING to do with guns, then you have senators who would be herdsmen I guess, battling for control, and then the sheep dogs (people like you) who are the only ones that actually know what's going on.

Now was that so difficult?

At 3/9/09 12:06 AM, Proteas wrote: Now was that so difficult?

EXTREMELY.

Good night.

I disagree with the ban on the fact that people who REALLY need an assault rifle for an evil purpose WILL get one. Plus I think the people need to be armed in case the government makes an unexpected turn. I'm not thinking it will happen, but you never know whats around the corner. The government and it's people are two different things. If the government passes a law or acts in a way that hurts the people as a majority, the people need to have a way to fight back.

Hey, Britain has a total gun ban, And we are doing just fine!...

...Not...

Different tangent.

In an era that is even more mature than the Enlightenment don't you find it funny that our fallback is still force?

At 3/9/09 02:36 AM, bloodthirstypanda wrote: I disagree with the ban on the fact that people who REALLY need an assault rifle for an evil purpose WILL get one. Plus I think the people need to be armed in case the government makes an unexpected turn. I'm not thinking it will happen, but you never know whats around the corner. The government and it's people are two different things. If the government passes a law or acts in a way that hurts the people as a majority, the people need to have a way to fight back.

Really evil people who want a nuclear weapon, WILL get one eventually.

So should we allow everyone to have their own nuke?

Or what about biological weapons? Terrorist can make anthrax if they want. Should that mean, we should be able to buy anthrax in stores?

Because a gun you can hold is totally the same as a fucking giant weapon of mass destruction. (haha that term is ridiculous sounding)

At 3/9/09 09:46 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Because a gun you can hold is totally the same as a fucking giant weapon of mass destruction. (haha that term is ridiculous sounding)

Hey, if they threaten to nuke you...

If someone threatens to nuke you I'm pretty sure your government will do something about it.

Unless the politicians are corrupt...

At 3/9/09 02:36 AM, bloodthirstypanda wrote: Plus I think the people need to be armed in case the government makes an unexpected turn. I'm not thinking it will happen, but you never know whats around the corner. The government and it's people are two different things. If the government passes a law or acts in a way that hurts the people as a majority, the people need to have a way to fight back.

Yeah, I'm kind of assing it a bit by gluing all these arguments together, but I still don't think saying that something should be allowed because otherwise people get it illegally anyway makes a superb argument. If this were the case, there shouldn't be a ban on anything.

Criminals are either normal people driven to desperation, sociopaths, or greedy.

End.

So the recent shooting in Alabama used an AR-15 Bushmaster and a SKS rifle. 11 people died.

At 3/13/09 10:47 AM, JoS wrote: So the recent shooting in Alabama used an AR-15 Bushmaster and a SKS rifle. 11 people died.

See, if they all had access to heavy weaponry, they'd at least all be dead.

Now they only managed to kill 11.

At 3/13/09 10:47 AM, JoS wrote: So the recent shooting in Alabama used an AR-15 Bushmaster and a SKS rifle. 11 people died.

A travesty, but I'd like to point out both of which are not assault rifles.

15 people were killed in a shootout in Germany recently. The news report stated that Germany is fairly strong on gun laws. While not affecting us, I think this is something we should be able to learn a lesson from.

At 3/13/09 04:00 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 3/13/09 10:47 AM, JoS wrote: So the recent shooting in Alabama used an AR-15 Bushmaster and a SKS rifle. 11 people died.

A travesty, but I'd like to point out both of which are not assault rifles.

The Bushmaster is easily adapted as is the SKS rifle to be qualified as assault weapons.

At 3/13/09 11:09 PM, JoS wrote: The Bushmaster is easily adapted as is the SKS rifle to be qualified as assault weapons.

.... are you seriously trying to argue this point?

Assault weapon refers to a broad category of firearms, including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, and also including some pistols and shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only one round each time the trigger is pulled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_wea pon

Notice the terminology used here; military style. It speaks more toward the way the weapon looks than the way it actually functions, and even then the function it's citing is semi-automatic fire, NOT fully automatic or three round burst selective fire. If you read on, you'll find that there actually is no military definition for what constitutes an actual assault weapon, so this whole thing is a contradiction in terms.

Since everybody else is doing long posts, here's a short one:

Fuck gun bans and whoever supports them.

At 3/14/09 12:01 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/13/09 11:09 PM, JoS wrote: The Bushmaster is easily adapted as is the SKS rifle to be qualified as assault weapons.

.... are you seriously trying to argue this point?

I was referring to the definition in the US ban.. But no, I am not seriously trying to argue it. More in response to Masons comparison of Bank of America to Virgina Tech and how assault weapons are less dangerous than handguns. My argument was that the environment has a lot to do with it. School hallways have no cover, as opposed to the middle of the street.

At 3/14/09 10:22 AM, JoS wrote: More in response to Masons comparison of Bank of America to Virgina Tech and how assault weapons are less dangerous than handguns.

The bank of America shooting involved weapons that were illegally converted to fully automatic fire (an insanely difficult task that involves some serious machining skill from what I understand), whereas Virginia tech was simply a semi-automatic handgun. So it's more showing how effective "spray and pray" is versus "point and click."

Just because you have the ability to unload copious amounts of lead on your target in a short amount of time does NOT mean you'll actually be able to hit anything.

School hallways have no cover

Doors, classrooms, trashcans, halls branching off to another part of the school, doors leading outside....

At 3/14/09 01:05 PM, Proteas wrote: Doors, classrooms, trashcans, halls branching off to another part of the school, doors leading outside....

Bank of America - cars, trees, mailboxes, buildings, fewer people over a larger area

School shootings - large number of people in small area with little effective cover. Stand at one end of a hallway or cafeteria and start shooting and you will hit 5 or 6 people before anyone has time to get cover without even really having to aim. Not to mention the cover is nto very good and the shooter can easily walk up to you in almost any spot without fear of getting shot themselves.

I still argue environment plays more of a role in determining the outcome then the weapons do, to a certain extent.

At 3/14/09 01:11 PM, JoS wrote: I still argue environment plays more of a role in determining the outcome then the weapons do, to a certain extent.

So.... we should outlaw guns in school then?

At 3/14/09 01:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/14/09 01:11 PM, JoS wrote: I still argue environment plays more of a role in determining the outcome then the weapons do, to a certain extent.

So.... we should outlaw guns in school then?

No, I am saying using the death tolls from incidents is a bad way to formulate your policy on guns. Ban handguns cause they kill more people in shootings is a bad idea. Just like it would be a bad idea to encourage shooters to use AK-47s because in some situations they kill fewer people.