Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think guns should forever be legal, but you would need a background check before getting said weapon. And maybe a licence for some forms of firearms.

At 10/2/11 02:45 PM, rocky99213 wrote: I think guns should forever be legal, but you would need a background check before getting said weapon. And maybe a licence for some forms of firearms.

handguns require are license which needs a background check in my state. and they normally give you a background check at the counter when you are about to pay for the firearm and leave with it. they always give background checks for any firearm. and to be able to legally carry a handgun with you they make you get a ccw permit. the handgun and ccw permit both will cost money to get and involve a background check and i believe a test like firearm safety and things.

At 10/2/11 11:56 AM, Fim wrote: point 2 ) "we need it for self defence"
- also bullshit. If you need guns for self defence then you are basically suggesting that you have more right to police your security than the government or the police force, except unlike them you will have had no training on the ethics and safety involved in using a gun. And more importantly, those who may be robbing you or attacking you will also have access to guns which makes a confrontation even more dangerous and more potentially deadly, I think OP covered this point.

No, we are suggesting that we have an option when somebody decides to come at us with any sort of deadly weapon or in groups instead of "Hey, can you guys wait a few minutes, I have to call the 5-0. Besides, we don't like being babied like the Brits do, as is apparent by you thinking it's up to the government alone to provide our security. Also, it is hard to compare an island, to a mainland, considering that if it comes down to it, it is a lot easier to prevent illegal weapons being brought into the country then it is for a country with a southern border almost as long as your entire countries perimeter.

point 3 ) "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Case and point, a gun is designed to kill. If people have easy access to a murder weapon, there is a amplified statistical likelihood that they will be misused, or accidentally kill somebody. No other tool on earth is better designed to kill someone instantly, if access to this weapon was more difficult to obtain it's undeniable that deaths by firearms would decrease.

If we have less access to knives, then stabbings will go down. Don't you love that logic? More people die every year from car crashes then they do by getting shot. But hey, you probably enjoy being able to drive so you'll overlook that.

point 4 ) guns are bad mmmkay

Also, I love that people have their independent believes and that's fine, so long as you are willing to justify your point with someone who may disagree with you. An opinion that you can not defend is a pretty useless thing. If anyone can give me a solid and conclusive argument to why gun legality is a good thing then I will change my mind ;)

A gun should be legal because fuck letting the government regulate what we can and cannot own.

At 10/2/11 09:45 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 10/2/11 04:37 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Not sure if anyone linked this yet, but I thought it is relevant to the discussion at hand since the OP was using comparison of the UK to the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Brita in-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Must have been compared without taking population into account, because South Africa has so much serious crime that its way out of the UKs league. Crime is the worst problem in South Africa excluding AIDS/HIV, while in the UK its about as much a problem as the rest of western europe.

In fact, the massive difference in both countries between how bad crime is, is so large that I would say that comparing them is absurd.

Sure, the article uses comparisons with South Africa, but the real subject matter here is, is the difference in violent crime between the US, and the UK.
The fact is, is that the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. We just have more guns, so we some more fatalities, but over all, less violent crime.

The fact is, that criminals who break the law in the US who want guns, will break the law to get guns. Providing even more strict gun control laws than we have now will do nothing more than to punish those who follow the law. Whereas those criminals don't give a rat's arse about those control laws.

At 10/2/11 11:56 AM, Fim wrote: I swear I've debated this on newgrounds a thousand times, but I've come to a realisation that it's just one of those cultural differences between us brits and americans that we can't seem to bridge on. Mostly, americans just don't seem to have the same rationalisation process when it comes to gun ownership, it's just something they've always grown up with and accept as part of normal 'americanism'.

Although I will argue point 1 ) "It's part of our constitution / amendment "
- This is bullshit. The amendment was made hundreds of years ago, back then you still had slavery, and women couldn't vote. Since then many laws in both the UK and the USA have changed because we have realised they were wrong. If you have a law that can not be successfully upheld or justified then throughout the ages then it should be changed. In no part of my ideology is being free associated with owning a gun.

The preamble to the US constitution clearly states that the people have the right and responsibility to overthrow the government if they deem that it is abusing it's power and abusing them. Being armed is necessary in this function. As well as that, well, militias exist all over the world. Just look at the arab spring. Fought by won by militias for the most part, and not by organized armies.

point 2 ) "we need it for self defence"
- also bullshit. If you need guns for self defence then you are basically suggesting that you have more right to police your security than the government or the police force, except unlike them you will have had no training on the ethics and safety involved in using a gun. And more importantly, those who may be robbing you or attacking you will also have access to guns which makes a confrontation even more dangerous and more potentially deadly, I think OP covered this point.

This is silly logic. For the most part, we do have more right to police our security than the government or police force for the most part. We have castle doctrines here in the US that allow us to protect our homes with lethal force if someone is breaking and entering. The state and federal government police agencies have a responsibility to not kill anyone unless they are deemed armed and dangerous. As for the people not having the training, that is extremely inaccurate, and it just seems you pulled that out of your rear. I can give you dozens of websites to ranges and shops that are willing and able to provide excellent self defense training with rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Both ethics, and safety training. My guess is that you don't actually know much about the gun nut scene here in the US.

%u200E"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force."

excerpt By Marko Kloos

At 10/2/11 04:56 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: %u200E"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force."

excerpt By Marko Kloos

Reminds me of the anecdote where a cop pulls somebody over for speeding or some shit and finds out that the man is armed to the teeth with various rifles and shotguns in his vehicle and carrying a handgun on him, and the cop asks him what he's afraid of. "Nothing."

I'm guessing Fim is one of those European types who has never seen an operational weapon nor fired one.

Argumentum ad verecundium is a dangerous thing. That is. The logical fallacy that just because some entity or person with authority says so, means that it is correct.

Thinking that the police and government have more right to protect you than you yourself have to protect you is silly, and follows the above logical fallacy. I won't be a sheep. Will you continue to be one?

At 10/2/11 11:56 AM, Fim wrote: I swear I've debated this on newgrounds a thousand times, but I've come to a realisation that it's just one of those cultural differences between us brits and americans that we can't seem to bridge on. Mostly, americans just don't seem to have the same rationalisation process when it comes to gun ownership, it's just something they've always grown up with and accept as part of normal 'americanism'.

Although I will argue point 1 ) "It's part of our constitution / amendment "
- This is bullshit. The amendment was made hundreds of years ago, back then you still had slavery, and women couldn't vote.

Irrelevant "It's old" argument.

Since then many laws in both the UK and the USA have changed because we have realised they were wrong.

And?

If you have a law that can not be successfully upheld or justified then throughout the ages then it should be changed. In no part of my ideology is being free associated with owning a gun.

What's wrong with guns? Is it the word, what it's associated with, what? Also explain how it can't be upheld or justified.

point 2 ) "we need it for self defence"
- also bullshit. If you need guns for self defence then you are basically suggesting that you have more right to police your security than the government or the police force,

I don't have a right to protect myself, possibly the only life I've got? It's not about having "more of" a right to defend yourself, it's about defending yourself instead of wasting precious time waiting for the police to, because chances are you'll be hurt before they even leave the station if you've managed to call them somehow.

except unlike them you will have had no training on the ethics and safety involved in using a gun.

Which is why civilians are trained in use and safety quite extensively. It doesn't take years of training to learn how to defend yourself with a weapon most attackers would run away from immediately.

And more importantly, those who may be robbing you or attacking you will also have access to guns which makes a confrontation even more dangerous and more potentially deadly, I think OP covered this point.

So it's better to have no gun and therefore no chance rather than having a chance to diffuse the situation?

point 3 ) "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Case and point, a gun is designed to kill.

Not only that, but also to intimidate so you might not have to kill with it.

If people have easy access to a murder weapon, there is a amplified statistical likelihood that they will be misused, or accidentally kill somebody.

Anything can be a murder weapon and misused. Where's all the statistics of knife rampages? Beating with broken bottles? Baseball bats? Human hands?

No other tool on earth is better designed to kill someone instantly, if access to this weapon was more difficult to obtain it's undeniable that deaths by firearms would decrease.

People go to the black market for a reason, it's because of strict gun laws. Due to no citizens having a weapon because of such laws, what happens when those who HAVE obtained them illegally, attack citizens? What, you're going to wait for police?

point 4 ) guns are bad mmmkay

How so?

At 10/2/11 04:56 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/2/11 11:56 AM, Fim wrote:

point 2 ) "we need it for self defence"
- also bullshit. If you need guns for self defence then you are basically suggesting that you have more right to police your security than the government or the police force, except unlike them you

This is silly logic. For the most part, we do have more right to police our security than the government or police force for the most part.

Thank you, I was about to make the same rant. But I'll just add instead.

I live in Montana, where going on the a hike or just walk threw the park can bring you face to face with a grizzly bear. Hell I live three blocks from downtown Missoula (our third biggest city) and there was a bear sighted not one block from my house (in the direct that takes downtown never the less).

Alright! Yay! Ban Guns so no one dies from them :D
Alright! Yay! Ban Knives so no one gets stabbed by them :)
Alright! Yay! Ban Sticks so no one gets bludgeoned by them :|
Alright! Yay! Ban Rocks so no one gets smashed by them :\
Alright! Yay! Ban Humans so no one gets killed by them D:'

I think I made my point.

At 10/3/11 01:25 AM, Gobblemeister wrote: I think the AA12 should be illegal because everyone camps with it

I think you need to continue being too old to watch spongebob but doing so anyways in addition to being a virgin.

At 10/3/11 02:05 AM, SirKillington wrote: Alright! Yay! Ban Guns so no one dies from them :D
Alright! Yay! Ban Knives so no one gets stabbed by them :)
Alright! Yay! Ban Sticks so no one gets bludgeoned by them :|
Alright! Yay! Ban Rocks so no one gets smashed by them :\
Alright! Yay! Ban Humans so no one gets killed by them D:'

I think I made my point.

Is your point something along the lines of the fact that you can't arrange a coherent statement regarding this issue?

At 10/3/11 05:25 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/3/11 02:05 AM, SirKillington wrote: Alright! Yay! Ban Guns so no one dies from them :D
Alright! Yay! Ban Knives so no one gets stabbed by them :)
Alright! Yay! Ban Sticks so no one gets bludgeoned by them :|
Alright! Yay! Ban Rocks so no one gets smashed by them :\
Alright! Yay! Ban Humans so no one gets killed by them D:'

I think I made my point.

Is your point something along the lines of the fact that you can't arrange a coherent statement regarding this issue?

Mercator is a hillbilly, dont try discussing guns with him, he thinks he wins the arguements by default just because of his living conditions.

At 10/3/11 05:26 AM, Thunderghost wrote:

At 10/3/11 05:25 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/3/11 02:05 AM, SirKillington wrote: Alright! Yay! Ban Guns so no one dies from them :D
Alright! Yay! Ban Knives so no one gets stabbed by them :)
Alright! Yay! Ban Sticks so no one gets bludgeoned by them :|
Alright! Yay! Ban Rocks so no one gets smashed by them :\
Alright! Yay! Ban Humans so no one gets killed by them D:'

I think I made my point.

Is your point something along the lines of the fact that you can't arrange a coherent statement regarding this issue?

Mercator is a hillbilly, dont try discussing guns with him, he thinks he wins the arguements by default just because of his living conditions.

I'm as much a hillbilly as you are a dumb bimbo valley girl. You know nothing about my living conditions, and really, my living conditions (as swell as they are) have nothing to do with this discussion.

Basically, you're an idiot for trying to undermine me without having any sort of legitimate points to make. Not to mention there was no argument here. You lose. Good day sir.

great discussion..........