Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

you know what? i'll be if everyone was allowed to carry firearms legally with the proper training and licensing, i'll bet all the murders in this country would drop pretty fucking fast.

some asshole walks into a store and tries to stab the clerk who catches him stealing shit, and the clerk'll blow his head off. and the crip knows it, so he'll back the fuck off

vigilanteism is significantly underated and demonized in this country. the cops can't be everywhere, and for the most part, people want order and the law upheld. they want safety in the community. this so called "militia" is the protection of the peaceful members of society from sociopathic murderers, who are only a small portion of the population.

god bless america, and give them all the guns they want

Reasons for gun control

1. Banning guns works, which is why, in New York, DC, & Chicago, cops need guns to protect themselves from the hoards of criminals in their respective cities.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict
gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, yet anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are, and the fewer weapons you own, the safer you ultimately are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should, quote, "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a
computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment to own weapons, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land,
using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right
of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of
certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by
the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the
states respectively, and to the people" all are allowed to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" is given to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should
ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to defense. (Of
course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.)

17. The right to self defense is a privilege, not a right, givenonly to the police and government, not civilians.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's
and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus
stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no
background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only
has 20.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings
at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, laws which most people will abide by because they can be trusted to listen to the word of the law

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the
Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare
hands.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who usually face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition, in the form of low capacity, 10 round magazines.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the police are not responsible for their protection.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of innocent people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands." Guess what? You, an ordinary civilian, have the wrong hands.

41. The fact that massive disarmament in a country has almost always led to government tyranny and mass murder (as in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Russia, for example,), will not occur in the US, because the people in the government are too pure of heart to try to dominate the American populace.

MKII - You can't just invent stuff. I'm sorry. You can't compare the crime rates of Washington DC and Vermont, and say it's simply because of the gun laws. You can't say London has a worse crime rate than NY, because it doesn't. And you can't say that Switzerland requires people to own a firearm, because they aren't! There is nothing to debate here.

Your making up bullshit and jumping to moronic conclusions. It's people like you who destroy any credibility for the argument against gun-control. No wait, there is no credible argument against gun-control. Nearly everyone, myself included, is for some gun control. It's not a radical, liberal idea.

And it's not just because I'm a "close-minded stupid liberal who want's to take away god-fearing American's guns." Because I'm not. I'm more open-minded then 90% of the people on this board, I'm not actually stupid - I am fairly liberal, I'll give you that one - but I'm also not for a widespread ban on firearms.

At 2/24/04 10:36 PM, Izuamoto wrote: some asshole walks into a store and tries to stab the clerk who catches him stealing shit, and the clerk'll blow his head off. and the crip knows it, so he'll back the fuck off

Exactly. It's not like the robber will now arm himself, and he won't now shoot the clerk if he moves at all. Everyone is a lot safer. Definitely. In the same vein, shouldn't we give nuclear arms to every country in the world? Seems like a good idea..

Tell me something; why shouldn't there be any gun control? Not a ban of them, a control of them. Pardon my ignorance, but why is that so wrong?

if you are more open minded than 90% of the people here, then taht's really sad.

btw, i didn't invent it or anything. got it from a friend. if you think she was wrong, then compile a list of your own.

At 2/24/04 10:55 PM, MKII wrote: if you are more open minded than 90% of the people here, then taht's really sad.

btw, i didn't invent it or anything. got it from a friend. if you think she was wrong, then compile a list of your own.

your friend seems to be full of wisdom... or crap... same difference, eh?

At 2/24/04 10:54 PM, Gooie wrote: Tell me something; why shouldn't there be any gun control? Not a ban of them, a control of them. Pardon my ignorance, but why is that so wrong?

some gun control is fine, but latly things have been getting more restrictive.

At 2/24/04 10:55 PM, MKII wrote: if you are more open minded than 90% of the people here, then taht's really sad.

It is kind of sad, but on the other hand I'm quite open-minded.

btw, i didn't invent it or anything. got it from a friend. if you think she was wrong, then compile a list of your own.

I don't care where it was invented, it was all bullshit. I'm talking about your first few statements, where you said such great lines as, "people in Switzerland are required to own firearms."

I'm not going to even start with your list, because it was a garble of sarcasm and seriousness, mixed messages and confused thoughts.

At 2/24/04 10:25 PM, 70TA wrote:

At 2/24/04 10:19 PM, MKII wrote: i hate talking to liberals. they're too close minded, bent on banning guns and softening up the justice system.

MKII, these clowns don't give up complaining. It goes in one ear and out the other with these idiots. I totally agree with you. Don't let these morons try to get the better of you.

You know 70TA, I am one of teh more right wing people on this BBS, on this issue however, I think youd better listen to waht the others are saying. And you WOULD look alot less like a jackass, if you at least TRIED to argue with the liberal members on this board(please note, on just about all other issues, i would also be arguing). Just because their liberal, doesn't mean they CAN't be right on ANYTHING.

And MKII, all those statements, (london's crime rate, switzerland gun laws, etc.) EXCEPT for the crime rate in DC/NY compared to vermont, sound like utter bullshit you pulled out your ass. So unless you give me a hard source...
Now Vermont has NO large towns, doesnt produce ANYTHING, and is basically all woods. OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE LESS CRIME. There is simply nobody to commit it against. It's like saying, Well the North pole has no gun laws, and that's why theres no crime on the north pole.

At 2/24/04 10:58 PM, MKII wrote:

At 2/24/04 10:54 PM, Gooie wrote: Tell me something; why shouldn't there be any gun control? Not a ban of them, a control of them. Pardon my ignorance, but why is that so wrong?

some gun control is fine, but latly things have been getting more restrictive.

Name a new, restrictive law.

Name a democratic prez candidate who is for a total ban of all firearms (I'll make it easy - none of them have advocated this).

never thought I would say this, but pimp has a point. If you are just going to flame with us and be closed minded about our political parties, then what is the point? Why post?

. Gun skeptic

read if you like, not that it will make a difference. gun-control advocates will just ignore it and say how full of shit me and my personal life is.

of course, their attitude towards guns might change once they are getting robbed, burglarized, mugged, etc, but i hope that never happens to them

At 2/24/04 10:48 PM, -redskunk- wrote:.

Your making up bullshit and jumping to moronic conclusions. It's people like you who destroy any credibility for the argument against gun-control. No wait, there is no credible argument against gun-control. Nearly everyone, myself included, is for some gun control. It's not a radical, liberal idea.

the thing with gun control is it's redundant. have all the controls you want, but the people who want the guns for the wrong reasons will bypass all the normal channels of control. we should spend more time and resources busting illegal firearms dealers than kids who grow pot in their basement.

And it's not just because I'm a "close-minded stupid liberal who want's to take away god-fearing American's guns." Because I'm not. I'm more open-minded then 90% of the people on this board, I'm not actually stupid - I am fairly liberal, I'll give you that one - but I'm also not for a widespread ban on firearms.

At 2/24/04 10:36 PM, Izuamoto wrote: some asshole walks into a store and tries to stab the clerk who catches him stealing shit, and the clerk'll blow his head off. and the crip knows it, so he'll back the fuck off

Exactly. It's not like the robber will now arm himself, and he won't now shoot the clerk if he moves at all. Everyone is a lot safer. Definitely. In the same vein, shouldn't we give nuclear arms to every country in the world? Seems like a good idea..

so you're saying, if a criminal walks into a room with seven other people who have guns and can fire accurately, that he's still gonna shoot the clerk and get so peppered with bullets he looks like a piece of swiss cheese? err, no. in order to understand the issue you have to understand human psychology. ESPECIALLY on this issue.

as for nuclear arms, no, "we" shouldn't "give" them nuclear arms. we are talking about the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their families within america. it's entirely different from power hungry politicians getting nuclear arms. technically, if they can develop the technology, that's everyone else's problem, but we shouldn't be GIVING them the technology. but that's an entirely different subject, and you can't really compare the two.

At 2/24/04 11:06 PM, MKII wrote: of course, their attitude towards guns might change once they are getting robbed, burglarized, mugged, etc, but i hope that never happens to them

My attitudes towards guns? I plan on owning a handgun someday. I don't delude myself into think that it will be used for self-defense. I never have gotten robbed, burglarized, or mugged. I'm not in hysterics about being the victim of crime.

No, I intend to have a handgun for target practice. I recognize that it could be an amusing past time. I recognize how it could relieve stress. I would like to become proficient in marksmanship.

Yet I advocate gun control laws. Are you beginning to see how it is not black and white? The issue isn't a totalitarian gov't banning all firearms, or a wild-west frontier where everyone runs around with rifles shooting up the bars.

Because neither is happening, nor will they happen.

Stop being a reactionary, and don't write total crap. I'm going to keep calling you on your first statements. That's a bad way to start off a debate, posting blatant bull.

whatever. your right to free speech

gun control is fine in theory. in fact, it's a great idea in theory. but that's just it. it's not working

shit, most people won't ever be mugged or attacked. but then, why do we have police, if we are absolutely certain nothing will go wrong?there is always the possibility it it will happen and there's nothing wrong, if you are so inclined, with taking steps to better defend yourself. it doesn't make you paranoid

At 2/24/04 11:15 PM, Izuamoto wrote: the thing with gun control is it's redundant. have all the controls you want, but the people who want the guns for the wrong reasons will bypass all the normal channels of control. we should spend more time and resources busting illegal firearms dealers than kids who grow pot in their basement.

Of course. We need to crack down on the black market, and people lending their firearms. That is a huge way for "criminals" to obtain firearms also, family and friends. But repealing all gun control laws is counter-productive.

so you're saying, if a criminal walks into a room with seven other people who have guns and can fire accurately, that he's still gonna shoot the clerk and get so peppered with bullets he looks like a piece of swiss cheese? err, no. in order to understand the issue you have to understand human psychology. ESPECIALLY on this issue.

I'm saying that if a robber walked into a store, and believed the clerk might have a weapon under the counter, the robber would load his gun, and be much more ready to use it. If he doesn't believe the clerk will possess a firearm, or any other vigilante, then he won't load the gun, and he won't readily use it.

Robbers aren't idly robbing stores on the whole. They are doing it as a last resort. Deterrance is shit.

If everyone in the store had a weapon, I would stop shopping at that store.

as for nuclear arms, no, "we" shouldn't "give" them nuclear arms. we are talking about the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their families within america. it's entirely different from power hungry politicians... but that's an entirely different subject, and you can't really compare the two.

Agreed. But your argument is similar to the reasoning behind owning nuclear weapons. They won't attack us, because we can attack them, on a larger scale. It's a policy of deterrance, and it doesn't work, especially when you shift to the individual scale.

My attitudes towards guns? I plan on owning a handgun someday. I don't delude myself into think that it will be used for self-defense. I never have gotten robbed, burglarized, or mugged. I'm not in hysterics about being the victim of crime.

look here

At 2/24/04 11:33 PM, MKII wrote:

My attitudes towards guns? I plan on owning a handgun someday. I don't delude myself into think that it will be used for self-defense. I never have gotten robbed, burglarized, or mugged. I'm not in hysterics about being the victim of crime.

look here

So are you saying that if we don't have a gun, this will happen to us? Raped? Mugged? Well, didn't the people comminting the crimes have guns?

"Over 14 million crimes were reported in 1994. $15.6 Billion in property was stolen."

Do you know how much the execs at Enron scammed people out of alone? Corporate scandals cost people ten times that number. 15 million crimes includes everything from smoking pot in your basement to idle shoplifting of candy.

"Crime is on the rise. Call this team of professionals: MELENDEZ & ASSOCIATES"

I don't know if crime is on the rise, but I know that violent crime is on the decline. *shrugs*

i think they got the info from the FBI. says that near the bottom of the page.

I think the FBI is a reliable source as any.

At 2/24/04 11:39 PM, MKII wrote: i think they got the info from the FBI. says that near the bottom of the page.

I think the FBI is a reliable source as any.

...
ROTFLMFAO

Wait, were you being serious?

FBI is second only to the National Enquirer.

At 2/24/04 11:43 PM, MKII wrote: FBI is second only to the National Enquirer.

Okay, from now on, everything that you say is null and void

Red Skunk may find this intersting

and before you post, don't jsut say it's bull, give some facts of your own,

At 2/24/04 11:39 PM, MKII wrote: i think they got the info from the FBI. says that near the bottom of the page.

I think the FBI is a reliable source as any.

Your source said $15 billion in stolen property. Corporate scandals aren't considered in that number.

Regardless, look at what else I said. I said that violent crime is on the decline. They said total crime is on the increase.

It's a law agency trying to make people hysterical.

I'm not refuting those stats. The FBI is a good intelligence agency.

here's some more stuff..... don't read if you don't want

here too... yup........

am i doing better now that i have some facts?

ignore these posts if they're getting annoying or whatever

At 2/24/04 11:53 PM, MKII wrote: Red Skunk may find this intersting

and before you post, don't jsut say it's bull, give some facts of your own,

I'm really not in the mood to argue. I've gotten a total of about three hours of sleep in the last two days.

I'm not saying gun control is the end-all answer. But facts can be twisted however you want. My favorite? Fact n0umber 6, how the US has "experienced far TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years.
Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people. That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S."

Umm, does anyone remember the Holocaust? Yeah, that bumped up the avg. amount of total murders in Europe quite a bit, didn't it?

---

Fine, I'll debate this site. Working backwards. Look at fact 5. They give you a nice table. They choose six countries. First, we must ask: "why have these countries been chosen?" Likely they are the best ones the website could find. ie: The lowest homicide rates for "high-gun ownership" countries, the highest homicide rates for "low-gun ownership" countries.

What makes a country a high or low gun ownership one? I do not know, because the link to their source is broken. But regardless, if you look at the homicide rates of the high-gun countries: 7.4, 2.7, and 1.4, these numbers are higher than the three low-gun countries: 4.9, 1.1, and 0.6

This graph is not supporting their / your position. The table also does not say if we're talking about homicides from firearms or not. Suicides have nothing to do with this argument, and judging by the numbers, the suicide rates are total suicides, not from a firearm.

Fact 4 - British authorities underreporty crime statistics.
Every country does. This is a moot point.

Fact 3 - British citizens are more likely to become the victim of a crime than are people of the United States.
This is interesting. But it doesn't really affect the gun control issue. There is no data that says the reason for Britians supposedly higher crime rate compared to the US is a direct result of gun control laws. You can't jump to that conclusion, that's flawed reasoning.

Fact 2 - Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
They take the statistics out of context. They say robberies, assaults, etc., rose after gun control laws were enacted.

Was crime rising before the gun control laws? If so, how much? Who knows?

Fact 1 - The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control.

Nice fact, but besides the point.

Once again, I'm not saying that gun control is the end all. It will not cut down on all crime. It is not the magic answer.

Obviously. And no one is saying it is.

if you're tired, then stop. it's kinda pointless anyway........ no one's gonna convert spontainiously...

three hours? i'd kill to be able to do that.....