Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/15/12 10:57 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote: Stuff

Nope, I'm not letting you slip by

At 12/15/12 10:54 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

In your country where the government hands people guns as a fucking right.

You do realize that there is an extensive amount of background checks before you can get a gun, right?

The only way to legally get a gun is if you've never committed a crime. Any other way and they would have gotten the gun anyway, because if they can illegally obtain a gun while there are legal ways, they can illegally obtain a gun while it's illegal.

What happened was a downright travesty and I feel sorry for all those involved. That being said here's my stance about guns.

There needs to be stricter gun laws. And no, not ban guns. We need more limits on how many people can own guns and what kind of guns and who is actually mentally capable of owning a gun. Considering that most criminals obtain their weapons illegally from legal buyers is a problem in it's own. Most Criminals buy their guns legally, steal them from people who biught them legally, or purchase them from people who are selling them who purchased them legally originally. So something is extremely wrong with the original legal purchases of guns.

With all this being said, people are absolutely retarded and ridiculous to EVER assume that people having more guns on them in public would increase their safety. It seriously fucking jabs at my brain to think that there are people out there who would think that when put into a dangerous situation that they would overcome the fear of death to be a hero in a situation just because they have a gun on them.

At 12/15/12 10:57 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:
The theater was full of several military men, I think they would have managed to tackle him to the ground. Worst case scenario someone loses a finger.

Full my ass, there were only several reservists. As a military reservist myself, I wouldn't even dare to say I can disarm a well armed man. But of course, you hippies would say anything.

But you'd prefer a few dozens people get killed instead?

We never know what damage as any weapon can do, it's all matter on who wield the weapon. If Holmes was so fucking willing to kill. Even without a gun, he can just come up with more clever plan. I can think of dozens way to kill all those people in the theater, quickly. Pipebombs, gas leak, arson, nail guns... or all together. If I am Holmes.

You are one fucking idiot. Ban guns, you think Holmes wouldn't think of something else more creative? Nail guns, do similar damage and automatic. BAN NAIL GUN! How about he makes pipebomb and go amok? BAN PIPE!

I think if the US grew up and banned guns like most civilized countries there gun homicide rate would be normal.

PFFT! Ha ha, bitch, you grew up in Canada. Ontario, I see. I know Ontario is full of hippies like you, thinking that Canada is fucking civilized. Lemme guess, you are from Toronto? Ever been to the ghettos? Guns are everywhere. The moment you slip out your insulted word, next thing you know a bullet in your thick skull. I feel bad for a lot of good men died to protect this country full of hippies and hipsters who know nothing more than little speeches on gun, and act like they know a lot about freedom.

The world isn't full of civilized people with rainbow riding. Neither Canada is.

At 12/15/12 10:56 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 12/15/12 10:54 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

Hundred of gun crimes every week.

In your country where the government hands people guns as a fucking right.

You do realize that there is an extensive amount of background checks before you can get a gun, right?

The only way to legally get a gun is if you've never committed a crime. Any other way and they would have gotten the gun anyway, because if they can illegally obtain a gun while there are legal ways, they can illegally obtain a gun while it's illegal.

Seriously, everyone, stop being massive fucking retards.

You don't have to commit a crime to have the intent of committing one. There's no way to predetermine whether or not someone is going to shoot someone when they purchase a gun, but a lot of fucking people pass this so called background check and use legally purchased weapons to cause harm to others anyway.

A gun is a powerful tool that's great at what does, harming people. For whatever reason somehow EVERYONE should have one. Statistically speaking a gun is more likely to be used in the participation of a crime in the US versus self defense.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research /gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

Besides dropping out a few weeks prior to the shooting James Holmes was a standard poster boy of academic achievement.

Who would have guessed? Oh that's right, you can't. Better to arm EVERYONE that way NO ONE gets hurt, correct?

And like you said, criminals just get their guns illegally anyway so background checks don't really prevent shit. Just put more guns into the hands of everyday citizens who don't typically use them to prevent crimes, at least not anywhere near as much as Americans use to guns to commit crimes.

At 12/15/12 11:09 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Full my ass, there were only several reservists. As a military reservist myself, I wouldn't even dare to say I can disarm a well armed man. But of course, you hippies would say anything.

Then what use to you to this nation if you and several of your equally competent buddies can't take down an agitated guy with a big enough?

We never know what damage as any weapon can do, it's all matter on who wield the weapon. If Holmes was so fucking willing to kill. Even without a gun, he can just come up with more clever plan. I can think of dozens way to kill all those people in the theater, quickly. Pipebombs, gas leak, arson, nail guns... or all together. If I am Holmes.

But he chose a gun that he legally purchased with the consent of your government? Had said gun not been available he might not have committed the crime at all, guns are a lot easier to access than any of those things you listed with the exception of a nail gun.

Hell I read you can get a gun easier than you can get some cold-flu medicine at Walmart. Murica

PFFT! Ha ha, bitch, you grew up in Canada. Ontario, I see. I know Ontario is full of hippies like you, thinking that Canada is fucking civilized. Lemme guess, you are from Toronto? Ever been to the ghettos? Guns are everywhere. The moment you slip out your insulted word, next thing you know a bullet in your thick skull. I feel bad for a lot of good men died to protect this country full of hippies and hipsters who know nothing more than little speeches on gun, and act like they know a lot about freedom.

Gee, I sure didn't know that people in areas full of crime might have illegally obtained weapons and might use them to commit crimes. Sure glad I don't live in the US though, even still. Our gun crime rate, even when adjusted per capita, has nothing on yours. Maybe it's the easy access, not the nature of criminals.

The world isn't full of civilized people with rainbow riding. Neither Canada is.

Neither Canada is... English not your first language?

Then what use to you to this nation if you and several of your equally competent buddies can't take down an agitated guy with a big enough?

Full retard.

What use are you to this nation if you and a few of your bodies can't take down a skinny agitated guy with a knife? Also even three-four men being harmed in the process of disarming him isn't anywhere as bad as the men, women, and children who didn't even stand a chance when the guy entered theater smoke bombs, assault rifles, body armor and all.

Even if they were armed they didn't have much of a chance.

At 12/15/12 10:45 PM, Xenomit wrote:

It was a middle school, nothing would have stopped that at all. He intended to kill those kids, and it was gonna happen one way or another. Banning guns would not have helped or hurt.

It means he wouldn't have used guns/rifles to kill a bunch of children because he wouldn't have been able to obtain them from his mothers home as she wouldn't have been allowed to own them...

Think about how it would have helped in that movie theater though. Or any other situation where someone's committing a serious crime and a civilian has a gun.

Or you know, make a situation even worse.

This was the first article I found

I see, back in 2002. Just 5 years after the ban came into affect and with the seizing of guns being a slow one. And the majority of those gun crimes being for things like armed robbery and criminal damage. We're down again anyway since that outdated article. And in 2008 there were a grant total of 42 gun related deaths here. Thats just 15 more than one man managed to kill on his own 2 days ago.

At 12/15/12 11:21 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

At 12/15/12 10:56 PM, Xenomit wrote:

Oh gosh, can't believe I am riding on same boat as Xenomit does, then let it be.

Then what use to you to this nation if you and several of your equally competent buddies can't take down an agitated guy with a big enough?

Well, that's where guns come in right? We study combats but we don't always guarantee to protect the people 100%, especially when we do not have our tool, in this case, guns. Getting ourselves killed when we can't do anything is the most fucking idiotic thing. We are not meatshield.

It isn't like action movies, bitch.

But he chose a gun that he legally purchased with the consent of your government? Had said gun not been available he might not have committed the crime at all, guns are a lot easier to access than any of those things you listed with the exception of a nail gun.

Have I not made it clear? Holmes doesn't give a fuck what weapon he uses, as long as he get the job done.

Hell I read you can get a gun easier than you can get some cold-flu medicine at Walmart. Murica

Gee, I sure didn't know that people in areas full of crime might have illegally obtained weapons and might use them to commit crimes. Sure glad I don't live in the US though, even still. Our gun crime rate, even when adjusted per capita, has nothing on yours. Maybe it's the easy access, not the nature of criminals.

You are sure about that?

The world isn't full of civilized people with rainbow riding. Neither Canada is.

Neither Canada is... English not your first language?

Grammar nazi, I see.

The thread....it's burning

At 12/15/12 11:21 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote: Who would have guessed? Oh that's right, you can't. Better to arm EVERYONE that way NO ONE gets hurt, correct?

No

You're not worth arguing with, you'll very clearly find any way possible to make yourself seem right

And like you said, criminals just get their guns illegally anyway so background checks don't really prevent shit.

Exactly, how fucking stupid are you

Making guns illegal will not prevent gun crime, it would only piss off a ton of people who love guns

Holy fucking jesus

Just put more guns into the hands of everyday citizens who don't typically use them to prevent crimes, at least not anywhere near as much as Americans use to guns to commit crimes.

So then what fucking difference does it make?

You just acknowledged that criminals can obtain guns illegally, and then you proceeded to acknowledge that gun owners don't typically commit crimes with them

Holy fucking fuck you're dumb

At 12/15/12 11:35 PM, Xenomit wrote: No

You're not worth arguing with, you'll very clearly find any way possible to make yourself seem right

Isn't that the entire point of an argument? Proving your stance to be correct.

Exactly, how fucking stupid are you

Making guns illegal will not prevent gun crime, it would only piss off a ton of people who love guns

Holy fucking jesus

Except in areas where guns are illegal, you know civilized nations, there's a shit less ton of gun related crime. Some criminals still have guns, but when they're a heavily traded commodity such as in the US it's easier for EVERYONE to get them including criminals.

That's why there's more gun related crime in the US, it's pretty fucking easy to acquire a gun.

So then what fucking difference does it make?

It's made a difference in a lot of countries, gun owners will bitch and moan for a few years then we won't see heavy gun related crime ever again.

You just acknowledged that criminals can obtain guns illegally, and then you proceeded to acknowledge that gun owners don't typically commit crimes with them

When will you learn to read and comprehend? I suppose that's not an academic requirement in the US, as well as the ability to think. I said gun owners in the US are unlikely to use guns for self defense and provided a source in my previous post.

They are however likely to commit crime, the US having the worst gun related crime rates versus any nation even with an adjust per capita rate.

Holy fucking fuck you're dumb

Yes, yes I know you're out of arguments and will now resort to personal insults.

At 12/15/12 11:40 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote: When will you learn to read and comprehend? I suppose that's not an academic requirement in the US, as well as the ability to think.

gross stereotyping and being hateful isn't good for your "argument"

reform yourself

Someone calls the mods before this thread explode... oh already did?

At 12/15/12 11:35 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

Did you even read your links or just look at the title?

Yet in 2009, the region of 70,000 witnessed no murders. Last year, its two homicides put it 77 per cent above the national rate.

Anyway, thank god guns wont be illegalized

Don't want citizens to have guns? Go fuck yourselves.

At 12/15/12 11:43 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Someone calls the mods before this thread explode... oh already did?

Yep. And I still say talking about the issues around this is better than navel gazing grief. Still, getting into fights doesn't help anyone. I'm not here to strong arm anyone but we do have rules about fueding here. Emotions are high after this. There's no reason to eat each other.

At 12/15/12 11:46 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

At 12/15/12 11:35 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

Did you even read your links or just look at the title?

Yet in 2009, the region of 70,000 witnessed no murders. Last year, its two homicides put it 77 per cent above the national rate.

learn to read the article fully, sweetheart.

For all the annual variations, some cities are repeat offenders. Year after year, western cities dominate the rankings as the worst for crime. And, in reverse, the most populous cities in Ontario and Quebec consistently score well. TorontoâEUTMs overall crime score ranking is No. 52, exactly where it was in 2000.

At 12/15/12 11:48 PM, Xenomit wrote: Anyway, thank god guns wont be illegalized

Don't want citizens to have guns? Go fuck yourselves.

Xenomit 2016!

I'll stop now, let Xenomit carries on. This ho is an idiot.

At 12/15/12 11:49 PM, dem0lecule wrote: learn to read the article fully, sweetheart.

I read all I needed to, most populous cities ALWAYS have the worst crime rates. But the article doesn't list specifically how many violent crimes occurred in the more popular cities. What it did list however is that 2 homicides put a single city 77% above the national (within the nation) average. That means Canadian crime in general is pretty fucking low, especially when compared to American crime (which is only augmented by your cultural love for guns).

At 12/15/12 11:42 PM, Sekhem wrote: gross stereotyping and being hateful isn't good for your "argument"

That isn't a stereotype, Americans aren't known for being the least educated. It's a joke, like Xenomit's entire argument which basically boiled down to him saying "I'M DONE YOU'LL DO ANYTHING TO WIN, YOU'RE GOING TOO FAR"

Surely? Statistics, sources, and trends have no place in this thread but psuedoscience and hypothetical situations involving what if Russia attacked America at any amount? That's standard practice.

At 12/15/12 11:46 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

At 12/15/12 11:35 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

Did you even read your links or just look at the title?

Yet in 2009, the region of 70,000 witnessed no murders. Last year, its two homicides put it 77 per cent above the national rate.

In case you weren't aware just yesterday in Connecticut somebody killed 11 times more people in one day than were killed in that region of Canada for the entire year.

And they say gun control doesn't prevent violent crime.

You have the nerve to call me an idiot and you can't even comprehend basic statistics?

Puzzling that the right to carry arms supersedes any right to send ones kids to school without the threat that they will be gunned down. Guns seem to be far more important than American kids I guess.

At 12/16/12 12:01 AM, Gagsy wrote: Puzzling that the right to carry arms supersedes any right to send ones kids to school without the threat that they will be gunned down. Guns seem to be far more important than American kids I guess.

Yep. That's the logical conclusion here Gagsy. Guns are more important than kids.

At 12/15/12 10:52 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

In this case he was certain what he wanted to do, he would have gotten the weapons one way or another.

Well American gun policies certainly made it much easier for him. Yes, people get guns illegally. Yet somehow in countries where guns are banned there are less gun violence.

But whatever, your freedoms. Don't remind me

In theory, if guns are banned, gun violence will cease; however, gun bans don't work in America. It doesn't make sense to compare America to the rest of the world - simply put, things that work "out there" just don't work here. In America, banning guns would have ethical and legal reprecussions which would prevent it from happening, then, if a gun ban were to pass, the likelihood of anybody following the gun ban would be dismal at best. If you've ever hear of Prohibition in the U.S. then you can kind of get an idea what banning guns would be like. America and guns are bedfellows.

At 12/15/12 11:54 PM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

At 12/15/12 11:49 PM, dem0lecule wrote: learn to read the article fully, sweetheart.

I read all I needed to, most populous cities ALWAYS have the worst crime rates. But the article doesn't list specifically how many violent crimes occurred in the more popular cities. What it did list however is that 2 homicides put a single city 77% above the national (within the nation) average. That means Canadian crime in general is pretty fucking low, especially when compared to American crime (which is only augmented by your cultural love for guns).

In case you weren't aware just yesterday in Connecticut somebody killed 11 times more people in one day than were killed in that region of Canada for the entire year.

And they say gun control doesn't prevent violent crime.

You have the nerve to call me an idiot and you can't even comprehend basic statistics?

Look down the list below, that's top 20. Tell me where is Canada? You want comprehend basic statistics?

Here we go. Don't pull the population out as your dirty scapegoat? Japan and Germany has fucking hight populations. Why are they on that list?

Oh ho ho! Do you know that most Nordic and Scandinavian countries have fucking high gun owners? You see Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany on it? They both has very high statistic on gun owners. Where the fuck is Canada? No gun and low population.

Tell me princess, do I have my nerve not-to call you an idiot?

Maybe guns should be very very very slowly phased out or something in america.

That list is from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona l_homicide_rate#By_country

At 12/16/12 12:04 AM, Xenomit wrote:

Yep. That's the logical conclusion here Gagsy. Guns are more important than kids.

More important than that so hailed word 'freedom' Americans love so much. What with children having their schools on lockdown.

At 12/16/12 12:06 AM, dem0lecule wrote: Oh ho ho! Do you know that most Nordic and Scandinavian countries have fucking high gun owners? You see Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany on it? They both has very high statistic on gun owners. Where the fuck is Canada? No gun and low population.

Tell me princess, do I have my nerve not-to call you an idiot?

If we're below the US that means we're better at keeping our criminals paws of guns than you, doesn't it? Show the rest of the list, we don't even come close.

Explain to me why the US has such high gun related crime and such low uses of guns in self defense?

At 12/16/12 12:08 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 12/16/12 12:04 AM, Xenomit wrote:

Yep. That's the logical conclusion here Gagsy. Guns are more important than kids.

More important than that so hailed word 'freedom' Americans love so much. What with children having their schools on lockdown.

Yep. Taking everyone's guns by force is helping keep freedom intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona l_homicide_rate#By_country

Come on now, we're at a 1.6 and you're at a 4.2.

Are you really trying to make the argument our country is nearly as violent as yours?

At 12/16/12 12:10 AM, PrincessRanicorn wrote:

At 12/16/12 12:06 AM, dem0lecule wrote: Oh ho ho! Do you know that most Nordic and Scandinavian countries have fucking high gun owners? You see Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany on it? They both has very high statistic on gun owners. Where the fuck is Canada? No gun and low population.

Tell me princess, do I have my nerve not-to call you an idiot?

If we're below the US that means we're better at keeping our criminals paws of guns than you, doesn't it? Show the rest of the list, we don't even come close.

Explain to me why the US has such high gun related crime and such low uses of guns in self defense?

It's the people, education and flooded with hippies who take away the rights to bear arms for self-defence.

And you turn your AIDS ass away so quickly. No more scapegoat?