Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/12/13 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/12/13 04:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/12/13 01:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

And neither are assault rifles! lol

Wow you truly are ignorant most gun advocates are though.

Umm...you do realize I am military and a hunter...

Being a Fascist and neo Nazi (National Socialist) does not excuse ignorance it breeds it. Also Oath keeping is bullshit.

so I actually have the training, knowledge, and skills to be a bona fide authority on the subject... right?

There is no justification for homicide and that includes doing the bidding for the power elite.

If anyone is ignorant... it's you. You have yet to display any nuance or knowledge on this topic.

I don't advocate gun violence or ownership in 99% of contexts. That being said there's nothing wrong with having an old shot gun on the farm to keep from being disturbed by Bears and other wildlife and what not.

At 2/12/13 01:17 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/11/13 04:45 PM, Shade wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

* The AR-15 is a good gun for ranchers taking out coyotes preying on cattle and other livestock.
* The AK-47 is a good alternative to a high powered hunting rifle if you're hunting in the brush and do not need all that power.

But in the end, assault rifles are rarely used in crime and when they are...they are far less effective than handguns or shotguns.

I'm fine with people owning automatic weapons and quite frankly I've no issue with gun owners I just don't see much point in owning a gun. I'm more of a sword guy myself.

At 2/12/13 09:09 PM, Shade wrote:

At 2/12/13 01:17 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/11/13 04:45 PM, Shade wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

* The AR-15 is a good gun for ranchers taking out coyotes preying on cattle and other livestock.
* The AK-47 is a good alternative to a high powered hunting rifle if you're hunting in the brush and do not need all that power.

But in the end, assault rifles are rarely used in crime and when they are...they are far less effective than handguns or shotguns.

I'm fine with people owning automatic weapons and quite frankly I've no issue with gun owners I just don't see much point in owning a gun. I'm more of a sword guy myself.

we aren't actually talking about full autos, these are semi auto versions. No more full autos can be made since 1986, and they can only be possessed by people with class III licenses and the money to afford them.

At 2/12/13 12:26 AM, Warforger wrote:

No I didn't. You're completely missing my point, that the people on the Gun Rights side are much more unreasonable than the gun control side.

and you used a handful of people making up insane conspiracy theories as your one and only piece of evidence that the entire side is unreasonable and crazy. piss poor attempt and you know it.

Fine, but it's total bullshit to insult him for at least trying to appeal to them and keep on with the onslaught and continously try to say he's trying to take their guns away.

well, looky there, Obama used his first state of the union address since reelection to push for gun control.

Erm no. The US has one of the murder rates in the Western world, much higher than Canada or Britain which have lower murder rates. Although gun control isn't the only factor, we see here a problem with people assuming correlation = causation. For example income inequality has shown to be heavily correlated with crime.

I'd say it's culture more than anything. our culture and many subcultures villify a good education and glorify many causes of crime, like vice.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know the NRA was a tiny group...

I was talking about the people making up sandy hook conspiracy theories and you know it.

And again I say you've missed the point.

making the same point you are. if a few conspiracy theories can make one side completely irrational, then the entirety of the democratic party want to ban all guns because a few democrats want to ban guns.

it's because those in the media focus on the negative and what bolsters their point of view while ignoring the facts and putting aside what doesn't and stick it somewhere few will find, but will leave it there because removing it entirely will out them for their bias.

That still doesn't change the point of guns in general. It may make them less deadly but it certainly doesn't mean they're not supposed to kill people.

big fucking deal, guess what, tobacco kills more people than guns. why don't we ban tobacco? it has no beneficial use. it gets people addicted, then slowly kills them.

Let's see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re lated_death_rate

yes. let's be dishonest and post a chart that has shit to do with the point of banning guns not doing anything for crime.

here, let me post a relevant article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6407137/Armed-o fficers-placed-on-routine-foot-patrol-for-first-time.html

gun ban worked GREAT in lowering the crime rate and gang violence! oh wait. no it didn't it made it worse. as I stated before, the UK has a higher crime rate than the USA. why? criminals have nothing to fear from the law abiding populace because only those interested in breaking the law and making victims out of others have weapons. Fewer gun deaths? perhaps, but they have other crimes that make up for it

you're more than twice as likely to be assaulted in the UK, more than twice as likely to be raped in the UK, more likely to have your car stolen (when adjusted for per capita). and some neighborhoods in the UK are so dangerous the cops need military grade weapons to patrol to keep themselves safe. Like I said, the weapons ban in the UK is working WONDERS for curbing crime. Except legal access to weapons is not causing crime.

Very very little. Japan heavily regulates guns and you can only shoot one at a range. Part of it is that a gun is considered a privilege, not a right.....

Or something criminals can still get their hands on. luckily japanese gangs aren't half as prevalent as American or UK gangs. They're there, they break the law, they do what they want, but they don't turn entire neighborhoods into war zones.

At 2/12/13 09:21 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: we aren't actually talking about full autos, these are semi auto versions. No more full autos can be made since 1986, and they can only be possessed by people with class III licenses and the money to afford them.

That just goes to show what I know.

At 2/12/13 09:09 PM, Shade wrote:

I'm fine with people owning automatic weapons and quite frankly I've no issue with gun owners I just don't see much point in owning a gun. I'm more of a sword guy myself.

Ah... the Napoleon Dynamite approach to self-defense.

The sword notion is just plain silly. In order to effectively wield a sword one must be very proficient with it. Further more it is of dubious social morality since it favors the strong over the weak. Guns equalize the equation. They help a 5'5" 110lbs woman defend herself from a 6'1" 250lbs male attacker.

The sword elevates the strong and martially skilled over the rights of the weak. Guns allow the weak freedom from fear.

At 2/13/13 11:48 AM, Shade wrote: That just goes to show what I know.

And that is part of the problem. I'm not calling out you specifically, but people are generally ignorant of guns overall. Most americans think that an AR-15 or AK-47 is some high powered killing death machine, and aren't even aware that as far as the general public is concerned true assault weapons (like military grade, automatic weapons) practically don't exist.

They see an AR-15 on their MSNBC propaganda channels and assume it's just a thing that sprays bullets, and want them banned because they're metal instead of wooden.

At 2/13/13 07:40 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: hell when he talked about that chick who died a mile from his house in chicago he never said anything about how Chicago has some of the strictest gun control yet has some of the highest crime rates in the country

The real ignorance displayed here is the fact you guy's think that high crime is because of strict laws LOL. The laws are strict because the crime rate is extremely high "action and reaction". High crime rate is an indication of a failing societal model and poverty so the ideal is to fix the things that people do not even understand are the issues.

I remember your first couple of posts where you came onto this site touting just how smart you were compared to those of us poor plebes. Some day I will learn my lesson and not engage you in debate...after all how can I compete with such rhetorical skill:

At 2/12/13 07:49 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/12/13 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote: Umm...you do realize I am military and a hunter...

Being a Fascist and neo Nazi (National Socialist) does not excuse ignorance it breeds it. Also Oath keeping is bullshit.

I did not realize that being in the US military automatically makes me a neo-Nazi (NOTE: considering neo-Nazis are paramilitary groups that are typically NOT supportive of the state...you would have been more correct to just say Nazi) or a fascist (again...in this context you do not capitalize fascist. Hm...I guess I may be a bit of grammar Nazi). Same with hunting.

And yes...brilliant point on my point about the Oath Keepers (in this context you should have capitalized 'Keeping'). Oh wait...I have never said anything about the Oath Keepers nor have I ever voiced or pledged support to them.

But then again, the best orators and debators always resort to name-calling when they do not have any command of the facts nor any credible counterpoint.

so I actually have the training, knowledge, and skills to be a bona fide authority on the subject... right?

There is no justification for homicide and that includes doing the bidding for the power elite.

Wow...way to beat my point with an unrelated topic. We can talk about the justification for using lethal force, that is a good topic actually.

However, in what way does your belief establish any intellectual basis to call someone (who is a legitimate authority on a subject) ignorant.

If anyone is ignorant... it's you. You have yet to display any nuance or knowledge on this topic.

I don't advocate gun violence or ownership in 99% of contexts. That being said there's nothing wrong with having an old shot gun on the farm to keep from being disturbed by Bears and other wildlife and what not.

Wow...again you really put me in my place! Despite the fact that you do not show any real intellectual authority on this topic...your emotionally charged drek definately establishes you as someone who's opinion anyone should care about!

At 2/13/13 04:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/13/13 04:12 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/13 07:40 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: hell when he talked about that chick who died a mile from his house in chicago he never said anything about how Chicago has some of the strictest gun control yet has some of the highest crime rates in the country

The real ignorance displayed here is the fact you guy's think that high crime is because of strict laws LOL. The laws are strict because the crime rate is extremely high "action and reaction". High crime rate is an indication of a failing societal model and poverty so the ideal is to fix the things that people do not even understand are the issues.

No.. because Chicago has HAD some of the strictest gun laws in the US and its rate of gun crime is much higher now then it used to be.

So has the cites population/gangs grown along with the crime rate. If guns were made even easier to attain then there would have been more guns on the street/stolen from homes and in turn used in other crimes and murders. Less guns available;e to the criminal means less innocent bystanders hurt and unfortunately if that means that law abiding public at large has to forgo their weapons in order to save lives than why not right.

At 2/14/13 08:46 PM, S3C wrote:

so are you going to respond to my post(s) or continue to dodge the questions that are presented to you?

What exactly is your question again?

At 2/11/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?
why own chocolate when it makes you fat?
why own a television when you can get your news via radio?
why own a radio when you can get your news via newspaper?
why own art supplies when they're not necessary to your continues survival?

None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !

Actually, Sweets ,like chocolate are a leading cause of diabetes, which killed over 1 million people in 2008. gun deaths? a ittle over 30,000. which one is the killing machine again?

watching too much Television is a factor in obesity, along with junk food. about 300,000 people die a year from obesity related problems. guns kills about 30,000 people a year. which one is the killing machine again?

deaths from toilet paper? I've only ever heard of one. Still, you don't need it, so in the same logic as banning guns because you 'dont need it' I'd say we do away with toilet paper. man survived many thousands of years without it.

At 2/15/13 01:53 AM, Korriken wrote: Actually, Sweets ,like chocolate are a leading cause of diabetes, which killed over 1 million people in 2008. gun deaths? a ittle over 30,000. which one is the killing machine again?

The problem here is that this makes everything a killing machine and misses the point. Guns are designed to end life, that is their original and primary purpose, chocolate is not.

At 2/15/13 01:57 AM, Warforger wrote:

The problem here is that this makes everything a killing machine and misses the point.

if course, let's not ever mention that anything is more dangerous than guns, which many, many things are. that would hurt your argument too much.

Guns are designed to end life, that is their original and primary purpose, chocolate is not.

no, guns are designed to fire bullets, shot, flares, among others. what you do with it is up to you. Cars aren't designed to end life, but if i misuse it and plow into a crowd at high speed, i can end many in a very short time. Machetes aren't designed to end life, but if i use one to cut someone up, it can easily be accomplished. Baseball bats are not designed to end life, but if i lay one across someone's skull, i can easily bring their life to an end in a few swings.

Dynamite is not designed to end life, but i lit one and threw it into a crowd, guess what? it ends life!

what something is 'designed' for has nothing to do with what it CAN be used for. Either that, or by your definition, everyone at a gun range are misusing their guns, they need to be firing on each other and not paper targets, because, guns are supposed to be used to kill people, which very few guns are ever used to kill someone.

but like I said, gun control isn't about safety, it's about stripping away the law abiding populace from being allowed to defend themselves. criminals will still have their weapons. btw, check that link, look at how robberies rose 21 percent since the gun control laws went into effect. that has happened in most places with a crime problem that enacted tough gun laws. you take guns from the law abiding tax paying citizens and the criminals rejoice, then those with guns boldly go about their business of robbing people because they KNOW that if you obey the law, you're incapable of defending yourself against their gun.

Unless the government can devise a way to get into gang hideouts and remove their guns as well, then a gun ban is only going to make the crime problem worse. However, the police have little interest in assaulting a gang hideout because it would get some of their men and women killed in the process.

and naturally, using the military would set a very dangerous precedent.