Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There would be less crime and murder, if everybody carried a gun and knew how to use it.

After my dozens of anti-marijuana, anti-video game, anti-American, anti-gun, anti-atheist, and anti-suicide threads I finally made one that got 4+ pages

At 8/1/12 04:30 AM, Halberd wrote: After my dozens of anti-marijuana, anti-video game, anti-American, anti-gun, anti-atheist, and anti-suicide threads I finally made one that got 4+ pages

I also got people to make fun of England too fuck you England arresting people for harmless Twitter comments and talking British speak which I can't understand

At 8/1/12 04:31 AM, Halberd wrote:

I also got people to make fun of England too fuck you England arresting people for harmless Twitter comments and talking British speak which I can't understand

Cheers mate. This intellectual tallywhack was jolly good.

At 7/31/12 10:52 PM, JaY11 wrote:

I wonder how many people he would have managed to kill without such easy access, or any access at all, to a gun. You mock others for talking about "what if?" scenarios and yet you yourself use them to make guns seem like a good thing.

Hilarious considering that you haven't acknowledged the scenario in which the victims in the audience had guns to which they could use to fight back with; how many people would he have killed if the majority of them were armed? Would he have open fire at all if he saw almost everyone armed? Remember, he picked that specific theater because of it's lax security measures.

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:
It's not completely outlawed in Mexico though.

And you think that the Mexican mafia would have less of an advantage if they were?

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot.

That sounds like a horrible and humiliating way to die, at least when you're shot in the head the death is instantaneous and the shooter will look like a coward for not challenging you on equal ground.

Are you trying to tell me that guns are so big in America now that outlawing them would leave them easily available to just criminals?

Fucking yes, I've said this at least twice, are you ignoring me because I'm just that far out of your league? Hell, people in the UK can still get a hold of unmarked guns and it's absolutely outlawed there.

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 7/31/12 11:03 PM, DickBuns wrote:

Again. Outlawing firearms will not reduce crime at all, only cause more. Mexico has incredibly strict gun laws (this is the 2nd time I'm explaining this to you) where people may only purchase very limited capacity and low caliber firearms for hunting or for self defense. And look at hte amount of murders, kidnapping, rape, etc. etc. etc.

It's not completely outlawed in Mexico though, plus it's just a piece of shit place in general.

Uhm. Firearms aren't completely outlawed in the UK either. Again, it's clear you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot. Are you trying to tell me that guns are so big in America now that outlawing them would leave them easily available to just criminals? If so i'm sorry it's in a state like that.

There's nothing to be sorry for. It's geography. Even if the US gathered up every last firearm inside it and burned every last one of them while banning them, we'd still have shit smuggled in from canada and mexico on a daily basis. It's different for your island country. But you know. You're sorry because of how the Earth is shaped.

At 8/1/12 03:50 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 7/31/12 10:52 PM, JaY11 wrote:

I wonder how many people he would have managed to kill without such easy access, or any access at all, to a gun. You mock others for talking about "what if?" scenarios and yet you yourself use them to make guns seem like a good thing.

Hilarious considering that you haven't acknowledged the scenario in which the victims in the audience had guns to which they could use to fight back with; how many people would he have killed if the majority of them were armed? Would he have open fire at all if he saw almost everyone armed? Remember, he picked that specific theater because of it's lax security measures.

You seriously think that the situation would have been better if the majority of the audience was armed? This psychopath who breaks into a cinema would just stop and leave because everyone in the cinema would have a gun out in the open? Fuck that. Or do you think that turning this shooting into a full on gun fight in a crowded theatre between him and the audience would have been better?

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot.

That sounds like a horrible and humiliating way to die, at least when you're shot in the head the death is instantaneous and the shooter will look like a coward for not challenging you on equal ground.

This is just dumb, first of all you are much more likely to survive a physical beating than a gunshot or multiple gunshot wounds, I wasn't just talking about death, I was talking about violent crimes in general. Secondly not all deaths due to guns are headshots. Thirdly who gives a fuck how the criminal looks after he kills you.

At 8/1/12 04:15 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 7/31/12 11:03 PM, DickBuns wrote:

Again. Outlawing firearms will not reduce crime at all, only cause more. Mexico has incredibly strict gun laws (this is the 2nd time I'm explaining this to you) where people may only purchase very limited capacity and low caliber firearms for hunting or for self defense. And look at hte amount of murders, kidnapping, rape, etc. etc. etc.

It's not completely outlawed in Mexico though, plus it's just a piece of shit place in general.

Uhm. Firearms aren't completely outlawed in the UK either. Again, it's clear you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

Extremely tight laws on firearms then.

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot. Are you trying to tell me that guns are so big in America now that outlawing them would leave them easily available to just criminals? If so i'm sorry it's in a state like that.

There's nothing to be sorry for. It's geography. Even if the US gathered up every last firearm inside it and burned every last one of them while banning them, we'd still have shit smuggled in from canada and mexico on a daily basis. It's different for your island country. But you know. You're sorry because of how the Earth is shaped.

Okay then, guns are bad but you can't escape them, I am sorry for "how the Earth is shaped" if that's what you see as the problem here.

:At 8/1/12 06:33 PM, JaY11 wrote:

You seriously think that the situation would have been better if the majority of the audience was armed? This psychopath who breaks into a cinema would just stop and leave because everyone in the cinema would have a gun out in the open?

You've yet to explain why he wouldn't; therefore this is not a counterargument, this is straw man argument.

I can, however, explain why he would; he surrendered to the cops without confrontation when he was caught despite the fact he was still armed and loaded. If he kills indiscriminately, without rhyme or reason, then why would he care to surrender to the cops as opposed to opening fire on them? It couldn't have been because he had buyers remorse after the fact, he announced to the cops that he was the Joker when they caught him. It can't be because he premeditated his glory moment, because prior to being caught he tried to escape by means of blending in with the S.W.A.T. team that arrived, additionally his plan was botched by the fact he intended to stall the cops and their arrival to the theater by blowing up his own apartment building and it didn't happen; his intentions were to continue his killing spree after massacring the audience at the theater.

Or do you think that turning this shooting into a full on gun fight in a crowded theatre between him and the audience would have been better?

He was able to injure more than fifty people and killed twelve of them because they were boxed in and defenseless. Do you think he would have had as high of a body count if people started firing back at him?

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot.

That sounds like a horrible and humiliating way to die, at least when you're shot in the head the death is instantaneous and the shooter will look like a coward for not challenging you on equal ground.

This is just dumb, first of all you are much more likely to survive a physical beating than a gunshot or multiple gunshot wounds, I wasn't just talking about death, I was talking about violent crimes in general.

Who's to say that the assailant in question won't try to beat you to death? Why would you open fire on someone unless it was intended as a kill shot? Why can't you use guns as melee weapons?

Secondly not all deaths due to guns are headshots.

I never said otherwise; giving one example =/= listing a method to imply it's the one and only. Again, you're using a straw man argument.

Thirdly who gives a fuck how the criminal looks after he kills you.

Believe it or not, people actually give a shit about how they'll be viewed after they're dead. Pacifists are, one and all, retarded.

Okay then, guns are bad

No they aren't, they have no inherent moral value to them at all. Extreme pacifists are fucking retarded.

but you can't escape them, I am sorry for "how the Earth is shaped" if that's what you see as the problem here.

Does this mean that you concede that we should keep our gun rights? It sounds like you just admitted that legally owning firearms is a necessary evil.

At 8/1/12 07:45 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 8/1/12 06:33 PM, JaY11 wrote:

You seriously think that the situation would have been better if the majority of the audience was armed? This psychopath who breaks into a cinema would just stop and leave because everyone in the cinema would have a gun out in the open?

You've yet to explain why he wouldn't; therefore this is not a counterargument, this is straw man argument.

Because a person in such a mindset that he would go into a cinema and spray at innocent people would not take the time to check, in the dark room, if the people he is firing at are carrying weapons. At that point it wouldn't matter.

Or do you think that turning this shooting into a full on gun fight in a crowded theatre between him and the audience would have been better?

He was able to injure more than fifty people and killed twelve of them because they were boxed in and defenseless. Do you think he would have had as high of a body count if people started firing back at him?

There is simply no way that a gunfight in a situation where people are fleeing and screaming in a dark enclosed place would make the situation any better. If anything, people are at even greater danger because there would be more than one confused gunman firing. I think that even if audience members had guns, they probably wouldn't have fought back anyway, the situation would have been too spontaneous and unexpected for a panicking human to do anything about it but run.

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:

It's not even good in the UK, but gun crime is in a different league to any other violent crime. I'd rather be at risk of getting beaten in the street than shot.

That sounds like a horrible and humiliating way to die, at least when you're shot in the head the death is instantaneous and the shooter will look like a coward for not challenging you on equal ground.

This is just dumb, first of all you are much more likely to survive a physical beating than a gunshot or multiple gunshot wounds, I wasn't just talking about death, I was talking about violent crimes in general.

Who's to say that the assailant in question won't try to beat you to death? Why would you open fire on someone unless it was intended as a kill shot? Why can't you use guns as melee weapons?

i'm not quite sure how this is supposed to be in favour of gun ownership

Secondly not all deaths due to guns are headshots.

I never said otherwise; giving one example =/= listing a method to imply it's the one and only. Again, you're using a straw man argument.

you said that a gunshot to the head would be better than being beaten to death, implying that everyone who shoots with intent to kill is aiming for the head

Thirdly who gives a fuck how the criminal looks after he kills you.

Believe it or not, people actually give a shit about how they'll be viewed after they're dead. Pacifists are, one and all, retarded.

Okay then, guns are bad

No they aren't, they have no inherent moral value to them at all. Extreme pacifists are fucking retarded.

stop with this nonsensical "guns are inanimate therefore they're not bad" argument, it should be obvious that whenever someone is talking about guns being a bad thing they mean guns being used by people

but you can't escape them, I am sorry for "how the Earth is shaped" if that's what you see as the problem here.

Does this mean that you concede that we should keep our gun rights? It sounds like you just admitted that legally owning firearms is a necessary evil.

Not a necessary evil. An evil you cannot escape from.

You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

At 8/1/12 08:56 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

it must be really nice to believe that by firing a weapon you have gained magic knowledge that one cannot gain by any other means

Also, someone explain to me how an inanimate hunk of metal can be evil.

A lot of guns in Canada, but we don't shoot each other because we(mostly) are not crazy craze!

Guns are a really small part of the problem, but I still feel that guns that can fit in your pocket is a bad idea.

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:56 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

it must be really nice to believe that by firing a weapon you have gained magic knowledge that one cannot gain by any other means

That's not what I said at all. I said that you know nothing of real gun politics and geography by what you've stated in this thread. You having not handled or fired a weapon is just another point that can be used against you because the only things you actually know about firearms is what you hear or see in the media.

Like how you said 'spray'. Such a weapon cannot "spray" butllets as it's not even an automatic firearm, and even so, if he could "spray" it would not be very effective. Sustained automatic fire can't do shit. That's why no one in the military uses it unless the weapon is mounted on a vehicle.

I don't think you can possibly show more ignorance on the subject than you already have. Oh wait, you did when you said that no one in the UK has guns. Even though lots of civilians own firearms. ROFL.

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, DickBuns wrote: Also, someone explain to me how an inanimate hunk of metal can be evil.

nobody has ever argued this

hey why not make nuclear bombs standard issue for all civilians because, you know, nuclear bombs are just inanimate hunks of metal just like guns

At 8/1/12 09:08 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:56 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

it must be really nice to believe that by firing a weapon you have gained magic knowledge that one cannot gain by any other means

That's not what I said at all. I said that you know nothing of real gun politics and geography by what you've stated in this thread. You having not handled or fired a weapon is just another point that can be used against you because the only things you actually know about firearms is what you hear or see in the media.

Define 'media'. What you're saying suggests that one cannot have sufficient knowledge on this subject simply because they haven't lived there and experienced it first hand.

Like how you said 'spray'.

I don't know nor care what weapons that guy used when he shot up that theatre. When I said 'spray' I just meant firing randomly at people. Not that it matters anyway.

I don't think you can possibly show more ignorance on the subject than you already have. Oh wait, you did when you said that no one in the UK has guns. Even though lots of civilians own firearms. ROFL.

oh wait, I didn't say that

ROFLMAO XDDDDD

At 8/1/12 09:09 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, DickBuns wrote: Also, someone explain to me how an inanimate hunk of metal can be evil.

nobody has ever argued this

hey why not make nuclear bombs standard issue for all civilians because, you know, nuclear bombs are just inanimate hunks of metal just like guns

Uhm. Yes you did. And nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this thread. Not to mention you are trying to pull irrelevant red herring hyperbole. Are you really that dim witted? Below is a quote from you in which you call guns evil.

At 8/1/12 08:33 PM, JaY11 wrote:

Does this mean that you concede that we should keep our gun rights? It sounds like you just admitted that legally owning firearms is a necessary evil.

Not a necessary evil. An evil you cannot escape from.

At 8/1/12 09:14 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:09 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, DickBuns wrote: Also, someone explain to me how an inanimate hunk of metal can be evil.

nobody has ever argued this

hey why not make nuclear bombs standard issue for all civilians because, you know, nuclear bombs are just inanimate hunks of metal just like guns

Uhm. Yes you did. And nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this thread.

nuclear bombs in my example could have been anything that is only dangerous in the hands of people, you completely missed the point regardless

Not to mention you are trying to pull irrelevant red herring hyperbole. Are you really that dim witted? Below is a quote from you in which you call guns evil.

And as I have explained multiple times in this thread, whenever I, or anyone is referring to guns as 'evil', it is plainly obvious that we mean in the hands of people. Unless you seriously think otherwise. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.

At 8/1/12 09:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

nuclear bombs in my example could have been anything that is only dangerous in the hands of people, you completely missed the point regardless

most things are only dangerous in the hands of people, what kind of analogy is that?

At 8/1/12 09:14 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:08 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:56 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

it must be really nice to believe that by firing a weapon you have gained magic knowledge that one cannot gain by any other means

That's not what I said at all. I said that you know nothing of real gun politics and geography by what you've stated in this thread. You having not handled or fired a weapon is just another point that can be used against you because the only things you actually know about firearms is what you hear or see in the media.

Define 'media'. What you're saying suggests that one cannot have sufficient knowledge on this subject simply because they haven't lived there and experienced it first hand.

Like how you said 'spray'.

I don't know nor care what weapons that guy used when he shot up that theatre. When I said 'spray' I just meant firing randomly at people. Not that it matters anyway.

Spray implies indiscriminate automatic fire. You knew exactly what you were implying. And now you're backpedaling. Very nice. You don't know or care about what weapon the guy used when he shot up the theater. This gentlemen, just goes to show what sort of idiocy is on the anti-gun side.

oh wait, I didn't say that

ROFLMAO XDDDDD

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:
It's not completely outlawed in Mexico though, plus it's just a piece of shit place in general.

Implying that guns are completely outlawed in the UK.

Once again backpedaling. You are pathetic. Lern2debate.

Dude, as you post, you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole and turning your own credibility into swiss cheese.

At 8/1/12 09:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

Uhm. Yes you did. And nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this thread.

nuclear bombs in my example could have been anything that is only dangerous in the hands of people, you completely missed the point regardless

Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous because they contain nuclear materials that let off harmful radiation to the environment. Even if we didnt' use them and just stacked them in a warehouse, they'd be dangerous after they rusted a part. Another shitty swiss cheese argument on your part.

Not to mention you are trying to pull irrelevant red herring hyperbole. Are you really that dim witted? Below is a quote from you in which you call guns evil.

And as I have explained multiple times in this thread, whenever I, or anyone is referring to guns as 'evil', it is plainly obvious that we mean in the hands of people. Unless you seriously think otherwise. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Even so, guns aren't evil in the hands of people. It is the people that are evil. Not the guns. Explain how the rifle a hunter carrying a rifle out to a field to get that first deer of the season is evil. Oh wait. It isn't. Because inanimate objects aren't evil. Only people are. More swiss cheese arguments that hold no water.

'if you're not in Optic, you don't know anything about guns' - winston churchill

At 8/1/12 09:27 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:14 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:08 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 09:06 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:56 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:46 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:35 PM, MiloBased wrote: You guys ever gonna reach a conclusion or what?

after 5 pages I can conclude that we disagree

After 5 pages I can conclude that you know very little about real gun politics and geography other than what you've seen in the media.

it must be really nice to believe that by firing a weapon you have gained magic knowledge that one cannot gain by any other means

That's not what I said at all. I said that you know nothing of real gun politics and geography by what you've stated in this thread. You having not handled or fired a weapon is just another point that can be used against you because the only things you actually know about firearms is what you hear or see in the media.

Define 'media'. What you're saying suggests that one cannot have sufficient knowledge on this subject simply because they haven't lived there and experienced it first hand.

Like how you said 'spray'.

I don't know nor care what weapons that guy used when he shot up that theatre. When I said 'spray' I just meant firing randomly at people. Not that it matters anyway.

Spray implies indiscriminate automatic fire. You knew exactly what you were implying. And now you're backpedaling. Very nice. You don't know or care about what weapon the guy used when he shot up the theater. This gentlemen, just goes to show what sort of idiocy is on the anti-gun side.

How is what weapon he was using at all relevant? Yeah, I made a mistake when I said he sprayed at the audience. Stop rejoicing at the fact that you realised it was a mistake and actually draw something useful from it you dolt.

oh wait, I didn't say that

ROFLMAO XDDDDD

At 7/31/12 11:24 PM, JaY11 wrote:
It's not completely outlawed in Mexico though, plus it's just a piece of shit place in general.

Implying that guns are completely outlawed in the UK.

Once again backpedaling. You are pathetic. Lern2debate.

outlawed =/= absolutely everybody doesn't have a gun

try again

At 8/1/12 09:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

Uhm. Yes you did. And nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this thread.

nuclear bombs in my example could have been anything that is only dangerous in the hands of people, you completely missed the point regardless

Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous because they contain nuclear materials that let off harmful radiation to the environment. Even if we didnt' use them and just stacked them in a warehouse, they'd be dangerous after they rusted a part. Another shitty swiss cheese argument on your part.

Not to mention you are trying to pull irrelevant red herring hyperbole. Are you really that dim witted? Below is a quote from you in which you call guns evil.

And as I have explained multiple times in this thread, whenever I, or anyone is referring to guns as 'evil', it is plainly obvious that we mean in the hands of people. Unless you seriously think otherwise. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Even so, guns aren't evil in the hands of people. It is the people that are evil. Not the guns. Explain how the rifle a hunter carrying a rifle out to a field to get that first deer of the season is evil. Oh wait. It isn't. Because inanimate objects aren't evil. Only people are.

And so what if guns aren't evil in the hands of people? Is this going anywhere? Nothing is evil without human intervention, I don't recall ever arguing otherwise. This bullshit way of justifying things that are highly dangerous in human hands is exactly what I was getting at with the nuclear bomb comparison.

"Guns are okay on their own so if we add people to it there's no problem right?"

This is what people in favour of guns actually believe

More swiss cheese arguments that hold no water.

you're an idiot

whoops I missed out this equally ridiculous part

At 8/1/12 09:27 PM, DickBuns wrote:

nuclear bombs in my example could have been anything that is only dangerous in the hands of people, you completely missed the point regardless

Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous because they contain nuclear materials that let off harmful radiation to the environment. Even if we didnt' use them and just stacked them in a warehouse, they'd be dangerous after they rusted a part. Another shitty swiss cheese argument on your part.

oh wait nevermind, you clearly didn't read what you quoted

At 8/1/12 08:33 PM, JaY11 wrote:

Because a person in such a mindset that he would go into a cinema and spray at innocent people would not take the time to check, in the dark room, if the people he is firing at are carrying weapons. At that point it wouldn't matter.

But he did take the time to set up an elaborate trip-triggered bomb trap for the cops to stumble into under the condition that someone complained about the public disturbance of him blasting his rave music out the window. Oh by the way, your rebuttal implies arrived and broke into the theater during the halfway mark of the movie, let me correct your statement by saying that he purchased a ticket and went into the screening room with the other audience members and saw them outside the theater room; in this country it's the law that your firearm be exposed at all times for the world to see under the condition you have one on you.

At 8/1/12 09:09 PM, JaY11 wrote:

hey why not make nuclear bombs standard issue for all civilians because, you know, nuclear bombs are just inanimate hunks of metal just like guns

Are you seriously stupid enough to bring nuclear bombs into this argument, because I could very easily bring up how the nuclear arms race during the cold war actually prevented infantry attacks on both sides. It's called "mutually assured destruction", the point we've been arguing the entire debate.

At 8/1/12 09:59 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 8/1/12 08:33 PM, JaY11 wrote:

Because a person in such a mindset that he would go into a cinema and spray at innocent people would not take the time to check, in the dark room, if the people he is firing at are carrying weapons. At that point it wouldn't matter.

But he did take the time to set up an elaborate trip-triggered bomb trap for the cops to stumble into under the condition that someone complained about the public disturbance of him blasting his rave music out the window.

Regardless of the specifics, I still stand by my point that without such easy access to weapons the situation would have been much less extreme. To think that he would back out of his insane plan after so much work because other people are carrying weapons is a huge assumption to make. Ignoring these hypothetical scenarios, he did execute his plan, and he killed and injured a lot of innocent people thanks to his easy access to dangerous weaponry.

At 8/1/12 09:09 PM, JaY11 wrote:

hey why not make nuclear bombs standard issue for all civilians because, you know, nuclear bombs are just inanimate hunks of metal just like guns

Are you seriously stupid enough to bring nuclear bombs into this argument, because I could very easily bring up how the nuclear arms race during the cold war actually prevented infantry attacks on both sides. It's called "mutually assured destruction", the point we've been arguing the entire debate.

If you had read slightly further down the thread after misunderstanding this simple point, you'd find that I'd said that nuclear bombs could be replaced by anything that is dangerous only in the hands of humans. I was saying that just because something isn't dangerous on it's own, doesn't mean it can't be extremely dangerous.

Unless you want to go the DickBuns route and claim that nuclear bombs are "evil" without human intervention because they would "damage the environment", which is a load of shit.

At 8/1/12 10:27 PM, JaY11 wrote:

I didn't claim that they were evil. Just that they were inherently dangerous. Get some reading comprehension you twit. And mutually assured destruction is indeed a legitimate point, since you want to bring in nuclear weapons like a complete dumbass.

Here. let me sum up your arguments for you rather plainly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

At 8/1/12 10:37 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 10:27 PM, JaY11 wrote:

I didn't claim that they were evil. Just that they were inherently dangerous. Get some reading comprehension you twit.

and you're still wrong

And mutually assured destruction is indeed a legitimate point, since you want to bring in nuclear weapons like a complete dumbass.

you guys sure like clinging onto the nuclear weapons thing despite the fact that it was merely an analogy which didn't need to include nuclear weapons at all

Here. let me sum up your arguments for you rather plainly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

3/10 for effort

At 8/1/12 10:39 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 10:37 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 10:27 PM, JaY11 wrote:

I didn't claim that they were evil. Just that they were inherently dangerous. Get some reading comprehension you twit.

and you're still wrong

No. I'm not. Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous. Because they contain nuclear radioactive materials. Which are inherently dangerous. You're a twit grasping for straws.

And mutually assured destruction is indeed a legitimate point, since you want to bring in nuclear weapons like a complete dumbass.

you guys sure like clinging onto the nuclear weapons thing despite the fact that it was merely an analogy which didn't need to include nuclear weapons at all

Probably because it was such a shitty analogy which illustrated really just how dumb you are on the subject.

Here. let me sum up your arguments for you rather plainly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

3/10 for effort

0/10 for yours.