Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/1/12 09:41 PM, Ilssm wrote:

you're an idiot

You guys have been bitching about this for like 2 or 3 pages now, everyone has their own opinons. Shut up.

Also, I don't see why if an individual has been trained on how to properly use a weapon and is a responsible, sane and decent member of society, why an average person can't have a gun.

It doesn't seem that hard to understand.

It's because Jay is an idiot who believes everything that his local media and government tells him about guns, and he's never handled one, let alone used one his entire life.

What can you expect from such a dimwitted sheep? Nothing except for him to parrot what he's told.

At 8/1/12 10:57 PM, DickBuns wrote:

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.

That's not how nuclear bombs work.

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.

The analogy was fine. You just had to draw it out for a while by first completely misunderstanding it and then trying to apply your lack of knowledge on radioactivity to it.

At 8/1/12 10:58 PM, DickBuns wrote:

It's because Jay is an idiot who believes everything that his local media and government tells him about guns, and he's never handled one, let alone used one his entire life.

"local media and government"? Yeah, it's like North Korea over here, I walk down the street and see propaganda billboards telling me about the horrors of guns. No real information about guns ever gets past the filters over here.

What can you expect from such a dimwitted sheep? Nothing except for him to parrot what he's told.

guns are good maaaaan you're all mindless sheeples maaaaan

At 8/1/12 11:11 PM, Natick wrote:

At 8/1/12 10:58 PM, DickBuns wrote: SOME PEOPLE DON'T SHARE MY CARBON COPY OPINIONS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Please calm down.

You mistake me. Like I said. I don't get mad like you do. I don't ask for people to have carbon copies of my opinion. I ask for people to be educated regarding their own. Which obviously Jay is not. It's nice though that you came in to this thread seeking to upset me. I must have said something to you that really got to you.

At 8/1/12 11:14 PM, Ilssm wrote:

I've actually never shot a gun either, but as long as a person is responsible I don't see the problem with it.

Isn't this essentially the attitude of any place that allows civilians to buy guns? Of course we all know that works; guns never fall into the wrong hands.

At 8/1/12 11:15 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/1/12 11:14 PM, Ilssm wrote:

I've actually never shot a gun either, but as long as a person is responsible I don't see the problem with it.

Isn't this essentially the attitude of any place that allows civilians to buy guns? Of course we all know that works; guns never fall into the wrong hands.

Because we all know that outlawing them will keep the criminals from getting them right?

At 8/1/12 11:15 PM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/1/12 11:11 PM, Natick wrote:

At 8/1/12 10:58 PM, DickBuns wrote: SOME PEOPLE DON'T SHARE MY CARBON COPY OPINIONS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Please calm down.

blah blah blah

"yeah well you're just uneducated! also, check out my use of smiley faces and hilarious pictures I found and make notes on how totally nonchalant I am!"

classic dickbuns

At 8/1/12 11:20 PM, JaY11 wrote:
"yeah well you're just uneducated! also, check out my use of smiley faces and hilarious pictures I found and make notes on how totally nonchalant I am!"

classic dickbuns

Addressing irrelevant posts in an attempt to bring a red herring to the table.

Classic Jay.

At 8/1/12 11:28 PM, Natick wrote:

At 8/1/12 11:15 PM, DickBuns wrote: I make blatantly false judgements on people that I've never met in poor attempts to throw attention of the fact of how short my fuse is.

Look, just go to your happy place and breathe a little. Then let's all settle this like gentlemen.

I'm the one with the short fuse, yet you've told me that you've wanted so badly to go and physically beat people for things they've said on the internet.

LOL. Ok kid.

At 8/1/12 11:34 PM, DickBuns wrote:

Addressing irrelevant posts in an attempt to bring a red herring to the table.

if you really want me to reply to the only relevant post left that badly:

At 8/1/12 11:18 PM, DickBuns wrote:

Because we all know that outlawing them will keep the criminals from getting them right?

Of course it won't stop criminals from getting them, but this is NOT a good thing. The fact that this is the case wherever you live is a sad thing. It's unfortunate that people have such easy access to guns despite whether or not they are outlawed. Not having them outlawed/strictly controlled isn't a good freedom, it's just a shit alternative to an even shittier one.

At 8/1/12 11:43 PM, Natick wrote:
That's a 4.5 at best. Plus I'm not the kind of person who brings a loaded gun into a theater.

That doesn't say anything about me as a person other than the fact that I am prepared for such an assault by such an criminal. I'm not a potential victim. You lot are. That's all that says.

Hurling constant insults at Jay just for having a different position isn't really helping this "I AIN'T EVEN MAD" position either.

Nah. It's hurling insults because he's clearly ignorant. That, and he really acts dumb. Just calling it like I see it. You can't compare a nuclear weapon which will kill millions of people in one detonation, leave lasting fallout for decades, and possibly change the climate, to a small arm.

Oh and "kid", eh? You're only 6 years older than me, if that's even your real age. Don't act like superior simply because your parents fucked a few years earlier.

"I admit that I'm no better. I've contemplated hunting down plenty of users and killing them off one by one in multiple fits of rage over the past year. Although, I can't do it now since I just said it and if someone else goes through with, I guess I'm proper fucked."

Ok.

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

Regardless of the specifics,

Uh, what the fuck is this? Are you deliberately disregarding important variables because they don't support your argument as opposed to actually addressing them? Yes, yes you are.

I still stand by my point that without such easy access to weapons the situation would have

been much less extreme.

You do realize that the man had an expertise in how to construct homemade bombs right? If it weren't for the guns then what would have stopped him from just substituting them for explosives, something that's debatably far more effective than shooting rounds into a cloud of smoke? You do realize that with the absence of guns that this could have ended off far worse than not right?

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.

It's not an assumption, it's an assertion; big difference. Funny thing is, he DID back out of his plan because the cops had weaponry they could take him down with, the civilians did not. Why else would he surrender? What possible, conceivable motive would he have to surrender if he was too dedicated to his plan to readily back out of it under those conditions?

Ignoring these hypothetical scenarios

*middle finger*

he did execute his plan, and he killed and injured a lot of innocent people thanks to his easy access to dangerous weaponry.

He also had an expertise in constructing his own bombs, things could have gone far worse if he didn't have guns. Just saying, but then again, any point brought against you is merely hypothetical and isn't at all worthy of actually addressing now is it?

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.

Ignoring these hypothetical scenarios.

Hey, don't get mad, if you're not gonna try then why should I? I don't even need to explain how my rebuttal fits into context into what you just said considering how I brought up mutually assured destruction.

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.

Nice straw man argument pacifist retard, he said that they were inherently dangerous on the grounds that if they go without management and spring a leak they could radiate and poison the area, he didn't say that they were inherently malicious.

Oh and before you say he did, let me remind you that all throughout you consistently state "Whenever I or anyone else say "evil" we mean in the hands of people, not on their own", so you rebuked your own point before making it.

At 8/1/12 11:57 PM, Ilssm wrote:

I don't want to be known for being that asshole.

I on the other hand have ceased to care about how I'm perceived for some time now, I figure that since my reputation has been obliterated on multiple accounts already that I have nowhere else to go now but up, failure or success.

At 8/1/12 11:52 PM, phsychopath wrote:

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

Regardless of the specifics,

Uh, what the fuck is this? Are you deliberately disregarding important variables because they don't support your argument as opposed to actually addressing them? Yes, yes you are.

No, I was disregarding them for reasons I explained in the same sentence: they do not affect how I believe the situation would have changed had he had no access to guns.

I still stand by my point that without such easy access to weapons the situation would have

been much less extreme.

You do realize that the man had an expertise in how to construct homemade bombs right? If it weren't for the guns then what would have stopped him from just substituting them for explosives, something that's debatably far more effective than shooting rounds into a cloud of smoke? You do realize that with the absence of guns that this could have ended off far worse than not right?

But planting bombs and blowing them up in a cinema would be much more difficult than taking guns in, as he is clearly evidence of after strolling in with no problems at all.

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.

It's not an assumption, it's an assertion; big difference. Funny thing is, he DID back out of his plan because the cops had weaponry they could take him down with, the civilians did not. Why else would he surrender? What possible, conceivable motive would he have to surrender if he was too dedicated to his plan to readily back out of it under those conditions?

Trained police officers that know of the situation they are entering are a much bigger threat than your average cinema goer that happens to be carrying a gun who is completely unaware that they're about to be attacked. He had the upperhand by a longshot when he opened fire, just as the cops did on him when they caught him. He would have still had the upperhand even if the people in the cinema were armed.

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.

Ignoring these hypothetical scenarios.

there aren't any there

Hey, don't get mad, if you're not gonna try then why should I? I don't even need to explain how my rebuttal fits into context into what you just said considering how I brought up mutually assured destruction.

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.

Nice straw man argument pacifist retard, he said that they were inherently dangerous on the grounds that if they go without management and spring a leak they could radiate and poison the area,

which isn't true

he didn't say that they were inherently malicious.

which isn't what I meant, nor what I thought he meant

At 8/2/12 12:05 AM, JaY11 wrote:

But planting bombs and blowing them up in a cinema would be much more difficult than taking guns in, as he is clearly evidence of after strolling in with no problems at all.

But he simultaneously had the patience to plant them all throughout his apartment. Also, he apparently knew how to make grenades too, so obliterating the room using those methods shouldn't have been as much of a problem for him. He brought in guns because he figured it would be effective under the condition that the explosion that would occur at his apartment provided his crimes with ambiguity.

Trained police officers that know of the situation they are entering are a much bigger threat than your average cinema goer that happens to be carrying a gun who is completely unaware that they're about to be attacked. He had the upperhand by a longshot when he opened fire, just as the cops did on him when they caught him. He would have still had the upperhand even if the people in the cinema were armed.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the casualty number would have been as high as it was if they were armed.

there aren't any there

Oh yeah there are, you're comparing nukes to guns. Your comparison was abstract, therefore it's hypothetical.

which isn't true

I didn't say that what he said was correct, I said that you intentionally misquoted him.

which isn't what I meant, nor what I thought he meant

Yet, simultaneously, that's what you expressed.

At 8/1/12 09:41 PM, Ilssm wrote:

you're an idiot

You guys have been bitching about this for like 2 or 3 pages now, everyone has their own opinons. Shut up.

Also, I don't see why if an individual has been trained on how to properly use a weapon and is a responsible, sane and decent member of society, why an average person can't have a gun.

It doesn't seem that hard to understand.

Implying everyone else hasn't been doing the same for the same amount of pages. Please stop talking

This thread is terrible and filled with half assed arguments from both sides.

At 8/2/12 12:22 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 8/2/12 12:05 AM, JaY11 wrote:

But planting bombs and blowing them up in a cinema would be much more difficult than taking guns in, as he is clearly evidence of after strolling in with no problems at all.

But he simultaneously had the patience to plant them all throughout his apartment. Also, he apparently knew how to make grenades too, so obliterating the room using those methods shouldn't have been as much of a problem for him. He brought in guns because he figured it would be effective under the condition that the explosion that would occur at his apartment provided his crimes with ambiguity.

It could have indeed been a possible outcome that he would have chosen to do the same thing with explosives, had he had no access to guns.

Trained police officers that know of the situation they are entering are a much bigger threat than your average cinema goer that happens to be carrying a gun who is completely unaware that they're about to be attacked. He had the upperhand by a longshot when he opened fire, just as the cops did on him when they caught him. He would have still had the upperhand even if the people in the cinema were armed.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the casualty number would have been as high as it was if they were armed.

But it could have been even higher, imagine instead of everyone fleeing for escape in such a crowded and panicked atmosphere that there was a fully fledged gun fight between people. Anyway, this is why I wanted to steer clear of these hypothetical scenarios, because we're just going around in circles and inevitably disagreeing with each other on "what would have happened if...".

I didn't say that what he said was correct, I said that you intentionally misquoted him.

which isn't what I meant, nor what I thought he meant

Yet, simultaneously, that's what you expressed.

Well i'm sorry for causing a misunderstanding, my original intent was simply to point out how stupid it was to say that leaving a nuclear bomb on it's own could cause "harm to the environment".

At 8/2/12 12:33 AM, JaY11 wrote:
Well i'm sorry for causing a misunderstanding, my original intent was simply to point out how stupid it was to say that leaving a nuclear bomb on it's own could cause "harm to the environment".

Leaving a nuclear weapon unattended and exposed could cause harm to the environment. Metals rust and degrade. True story. Are you really that dumb to think that leaving nuclear materials in a metal container is enough to ensure that they won't cause harm to the environment?

Happiest flame war ever.

I would have shot at him too.. thats crazy.

At 8/2/12 01:24 AM, DickBuns wrote:

At 8/2/12 12:33 AM, JaY11 wrote:
Well i'm sorry for causing a misunderstanding, my original intent was simply to point out how stupid it was to say that leaving a nuclear bomb on it's own could cause "harm to the environment".

Leaving a nuclear weapon unattended and exposed could cause harm to the environment. Metals rust and degrade. True story. Are you really that dumb to think that leaving nuclear materials in a metal container is enough to ensure that they won't cause harm to the environment?

"nuclear materials" aren't that magic, ultra dangerous glowing green liquid you see in cartoons you know

At 8/2/12 10:51 AM, JaY11 wrote:

"nuclear materials" aren't that magic, ultra dangerous glowing green liquid you see in cartoons you know

The only thing that doesn't corrode easily from Yellow Cake is concrete. It burns through steel and aluminum very very fast.

220 replies in 3 days on a dumb topic that got circle jerked?
Good god Newgrounds, we have very little time until this becomes 4grounds or /n/

Gun control works guys!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-0 5-46

A gun is nothing more then a piece of technology. People need to be properly trained and educated to use one. There are good gun laws already and a good system. It may or may not need a few tweaks to please everyone but it is still good. There should be a higher awareness and educational classes to train people for situations that involve gunfire and how guns are used in symbolic and literal ways.

If we can't teach people to use a gun properly. How will we ever teach people to properly use a robot?

At 8/2/12 08:26 PM, DickBuns wrote: Gun control works guys!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-0 5-46

only 8 kills? he could have racked up much more with a better weapon, like a gun for instance

still, he did a pretty good job

At 8/2/12 08:58 PM, JaY11 wrote: only 8 kills? he could have racked up much more with a better weapon, like a gun for instance

still, he did a pretty good job

that is subjective opinionated logic. Therefor it does not apply. A gun is an intimidating thing to fire, where as a knife is a bit more easy. There are so many factors that can be considered to the point that you can't accurately say he would of killed more people with a gun. That is why you cannot make such claims.

At 8/2/12 09:03 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/2/12 08:58 PM, JaY11 wrote: only 8 kills? he could have racked up much more with a better weapon, like a gun for instance

still, he did a pretty good job

that is subjective opinionated logic. Therefor it does not apply.

as is the implication that there would have been less casualties if guns were involved

A gun is an intimidating thing to fire, where as a knife is a bit more easy.

stabbing somebody to death seems like a pretty intimidating task to me, if somebody is in such a damaged mindset that they are willing to kill multiple people, I doubt they would discriminate between weapons simply because of how intimidating they are

There are so many factors that can be considered to the point that you can't accurately say he would of killed more people with a gun. That is why you cannot make such claims.

I was just using the same logic as the post I quoted

At 8/2/12 10:16 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 8/2/12 09:03 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/2/12 08:58 PM, JaY11 wrote: only 8 kills? he could have racked up much more with a better weapon, like a gun for instance

still, he did a pretty good job

that is subjective opinionated logic. Therefor it does not apply.

as is the implication that there would have been less casualties if guns were involved

The implication was that people will still find ways to kill eachother, even if guns are not involved. Great job missing the point.