Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/28/05 11:11 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: as i read the responses to this post, i have concluded the majority of people seem to believe that if gun restrictions become limited, by some miraculous event, all sortsa crazy people will start shooting up america.

Don't make me take my gun and shoot some sense in to you.
All this talk, and you just conclude that everyone thinks gun owners are pshycos. Way to go to ignore the other details.

so that leaves me to ask, hows texas doing? anyone see a bunch a crazed texans shooting up a random house? my point is as follows: DONT ASSUME ALL PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS. sure, there are crimes of passion, but that cant be prevented by any measure of gun control. a man sees his wife cheating on him, and there are no guns around. so hes gonna go "ooop, too bad, looks like i cant kill my wife with a common kitchen knife in the sink. I guess ill have to drink away my pains"

Gun control is meant to prevent death by guns. (A-duh)
If a death can be prevented by guns, why shouldn't it be done?

Of course it won't solve all the world's problems. Now YOU don't jump into the conclusion that gun oppenents want to solve all the world's problems. Just the problems associated with gun violence.

If it means having a 3 to 5 day waiting period, a written exam, etc. Why not?
Gun control is always a good thing.

as for the second type of killer, the psycho, there is nothing that can be done about them. but all of you who flame this topic fail to realize that these two types of criminals, the passion killer and the psycho, make up and small percentage of our murders compared to robberies, burglaries, gangwars, and other actions the lowlifes of America consort to. these types of criminals are not fanatics and acually want to live. this means if their actions have a direct threat on their lives, they wont do it. if a person who wants to burglarize a house know that theres a 50% chance the owner has a DE 50 cal in his nightstand, he wont carry it out. now i digress that the number of completely insane people in this country are very small and a normal lowlife criminal would not rob a house or store or kill or whatever if he knows that there is a chance for him or her to die in action.
NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE INSANE CRIMINALS

Having two guns aggrevates the problem.
Sure, I coulda brandished out my gun at my robber. But it's not a simple solution as you have made it to be. It's not like my robber is gonna say, "Oh my, you're a bad boy!" And flee. You said something that if I had a gun, I could had solved the problem.

No it wouldn't.

It wouldn't made it worse because I put the robber in a even more strained situation, and the risk on lives of my co-workers and bank costumers goes up significantly. Why? Because one of us could easily get the shaky finger, and-- "POW!"

One of us is dead, or both of us are dead, or somebody else gets hurt.
There.
Owning guns do not prevent crime.

Police officers who have guns prevent crimes.

By the way, in event that there is some insane criminal with a gun, the damage he can cause is limited in that all the people he is shooting at have some sort of firearm. Columbine didn’t have to lose as many students as they did.

Stop the fantasies.
Everybody woulda gotten all nervous and starting shooting up. EVERYTHING.
More lives would have been not spared.

If everyone had guns you think people could be trusted to use it for their own protection
i think you should take away all guns thats inprobable and will never happen but it would work
i heard chris rock saying if people charged thousands of dollars for bullets then no one will buy em

fli u retard.
1: i never said all people u retard i said the MAJORITY so learn to read

2: if a criminal knows that people have guns, he wont rob a house in the first place. the bit u said about agravation of criminal, ect is when a guy trys to defend him or herself against a mugger. my case is that the mugging wont occur if a criminal knows the fact that a person may have a gun.

3: i never said to do away with gun control laws. i said dont make em illegal. gun control, for example, written tests, the waiting period, that is all required

now be a good noob and READ THE FReEAKING RESPONSE before u make a fool of urself

At 5/30/05 12:33 AM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: fli u retard.

How is name going to help you prove your argument?

Take a laxitive.

1: i never said all people u retard i said the MAJORITY so learn to read

Yeah--

At 5/28/05 11:11 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: as i read the responses to this post, i have concluded the majority of people seem to believe that if gun restrictions become limited, by some miraculous...

yada, yada, blah, blah... what were you saying?

2: if a criminal knows that people have guns, he wont rob a house in the first place. the bit u said about agravation of criminal, ect is when a guy trys to defend him or herself against a mugger. my case is that the mugging wont occur if a criminal knows the fact that a person may have a gun.

And if there weren't any guns,
then there wouldn't be a mugging incident with guns.

How dumb.
Do you actually believe that no mugging would ever occur cause a people are carrying guns?

Yeah. Whatever.

3: i never said to do away with gun control laws. i said dont make em illegal. gun control, for example, written tests, the waiting period, that is all required

now be a good noob and READ THE FReEAKING RESPONSE before u make a fool of urself

Ha. Noob. Said the kettle to the oven.
Perhaps you could convince people if... a-duhh... I dunno, if you actually give an decent argument.

What you write is all fluff--
I won't even regard all the caca bad talk.

I guess I have to wait for someone to give a decent argument.
You for one aren't doing a thing for me. Baby, you leave me cold.

guns dont kill people. people kill people

sorry, couldent resist.

well if all the idiots and criminals kill each other off, then humanity will be better in the long run.

At 5/30/05 02:39 AM, mayeram wrote: well if all the idiots and criminals kill each other off, then humanity will be better in the long run.

now if only criminals were so nice to do that

but now we have cops for that

At 5/22/05 09:45 PM, LadyGrace wrote: That is all.

Did anyone even bother to read this link? It covers a lot of the "against" arguements in the last two pages.

I'd just like to point out that every person I've ever known to be injured or killed by a gun was so by their OWN gun.

One was accidental. One was a break-in robbery that turned ugly. One was a club night gone wrong. 3 people dead, one injured and all with their own guns.

On a completely different note:

Guns are illegal: ZOMG drive-by SWORDINGS!!!

fli, u fail to see the point here. if america CANT make guns illegal because of the NRA. the NRA has basically politically blackmailed all presidential candidates, saying"if u ban guns, the employees of the NRA, a huge percent of the american workforce will not vote for u. thus, ur utopian ideal of "no guns, no muggings" is tru only in countries where weapons arent a main export ei korea, japan, ect. so the only tru solution is to give all people guns so that the mugger can realize that thier "job" has a considerably high risk of being shot.

fli, read the damn response and quit being so close minded. ther is no way in hell this country is going to ban guns complelty. if u run for president and try it, ill vote for ur, but the NRA wont. reality check, fli

and i just cant resist.... fluff? caca bad talk? grow teh fuck up

idiot

At 5/30/05 04:13 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: fli, u fail to see the point here. if america CANT make guns illegal because of the NRA.

No... the NRA is an organization.
The Constitution is the thing that you're thinking, but

fail,

to actually say it.

the NRA has basically politically blackmailed all presidential candidates, saying"if u ban guns, the employees of the NRA, a huge percent of the american workforce will not vote for u. thus, ur utopian ideal of "no guns, no muggings" is tru only in countries where weapons arent a main export ei korea, japan, ect. so the only tru solution is to give all people guns so that the mugger can realize that thier "job" has a considerably high risk of being shot.

Keep on thinking that.

fli, read the damn response and quit being so close minded. ther is no way in hell this country is going to ban guns complelty. if u run for president and try it, ill vote for ur, but the NRA wont. reality check, fli

Ban guns? Did I say ban guns? Mmm... Oh wells. If you say so.

Ok, the only way a gun will protect you is if you're holding it and it's loaded. If every single citizen of a country thats dumb enough to legalize guns did this everyone would be killed. Guns can't prevent crime if they're owned by the public.

guns are more trouble then there worth

Despite the study, I think that arming everyone is a SEVERE step in the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, it seems to be your best option until you find a way to choke the supply of illegal weapons.

A better option would be for NOBODY to have guns, or if people were taught that violence is just wrong.

The ownership of a firearm has nothing to do with crime - Gun crimes will not 'skyrocket' if everyone has a gun - I have one and do you know how many gun crimes I have been involved with? - none - zero - zilch - there are lots of trite little phrases and stereotypical cliches concerning this matter but most of them actually do hold true - "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" - "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - the list goes on... I lived out west in Arizona for a while and MANY people carried guns there - From talking to people out there, it seemed that criminal types were a little less willing to try to use a gun when they knew that so many others also carried one.

You cannot and MUST not ever attempt, or convince others, to make guns illegal or to place bans on this or restrictions on that...

Here's one of my favorite passages concerning this matter:

When they took away the Fifth Amendment, I didn't say anything, because I wasn't guilty.

When they took away the Fourth Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't carry drugs.

When they took away the Second Amendment, I didn't say anything, because I didn't own a gun.

Now they've taken away the First Amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

Slippery slope arguments are generally seen as a logical fallacy.

ok, now because it seems people dont want to arm the public, and after reading many responses, i am now neutral on the issue. however, i would like to make one last challenge: if you all refuse to arm the public, how will you control them? this is, after all, the home of the NRA. not only that, but even if guns in the public are illegal, what will you do about the criminals with guns. most criminals dont buy guns legally, so laws wont make a difference.

Most criminals don't get their guns from the magic black market fairy either. A lot of firearms used by criminals are stolen.

At 5/24/05 03:52 PM, eyeknowstuff wrote: WILD WILD WEST

that's all I have to say... everyone in the west had a gun, did that help? nope
All that did was give law enforcers less power over criminals. And since pretty much everyone shot someone, everyone became criminals. Thus, it'll just be a lawlessly violent land.

someone has watched way too many John Wayne movies

At 5/30/05 04:13 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: fli, u fail to see the point here.

lol.

Okay, let me try and tell a story. Once upon a time, there was a majestic kingdom in the Mountains known as Switzerland. Despite being very peaceful people who have had almost no wars in thier entire history, a fact attributed to thier high mountain barricades that rubbed off on thier mindset, current day Switzerland is not what you would expect.

How many guns do you believe are in Switzerland, the nation of brotherly love?

Honestly, alot. Every able-bodied adult male has an automatic assault rifle issued to them by the government for use in the Swiss militia.

Then again, Switzerland has a low crime rate.

The question is: how can a country have one gun for every man, but have such a low crime rate?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

<:O

Really this could just as easily be used as evidence that high altitude perevents crime.

high altitude prevents crime...

True enough it can all be bent to say whatever we want it to and I think that's where the problem is... I think you were closer than you think - As for the prevention - SEVERE and CONSISTENT punishment deters criminals - here in the US, our legal system has more holes than you can count - WAY TOO MANY people commit crimes - serious crimes - and either get off altogether or walk away with a slap on the wrist at best while others, who may not be able to afford the best lawyers, get put away for YEARS for minor crimes. You can rape or murder in lower NY and get out in 5 or 6 years on good behaviour but in FL you'll be put away for 10 for having a dime bag... Make sense - not really...

I believe that GUNS are not the problem - the problem has more to do with the scumbag defense attorneys who line up to make a name for themselves - not ALL attorneys - but many...

Until we can establish CLEARLY DEFINED punishments for various crimes and remain CONSISTENT in judgements regardless of how much you have in the bank or how many movies you've made, we'll always have these problems.

As was posted - granted it was tongue-in-cheek - saying that GUNS=CRIME is very similar to saying HIGH ALTITUDE prevents it...

im glad to see someone has finally seen my point. criminals are stupid and cowardly.. the majority WILL NOT commit crimes if they kno they are threatened. thus, my argument to not make guns illegal (basically allowing the people who want guns to get em) criminals who will get guns through the black market anyway will face stiffer resistance in the populace itself. after this, make a gun related murder's penalty more than 10 years. make it so that if a person shoots another person who is innocent, the murderer will face death charges. this prevents criminals from accually using the gun and the populace is encoraged. the criminal pointed it at me first, so i pulled 3 on him. the court lets the pedestrian go. works in texas, why not everywhere?

At 6/2/05 12:01 AM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: im glad to see someone has finally seen my point. criminals are stupid and cowardly.. the majority WILL NOT commit crimes if they kno they are threatened. thus, my argument to not make guns illegal (basically allowing the people who want guns to get em) criminals who will get guns through the black market anyway will face stiffer resistance in the populace itself.

Have you seen police stand off?
Criminals, though they may be stupid, generally do not care for the welfare of people.

Does every criminal flee from a cop who has guns? No--
Have you never thought that there is the possibility of stand offs?

Having a gun is not some criminal deterent. There's been enough stand offs and episodes of C.O.P.S and news to show that your general statement is wrong.

after this, make a gun related murder's penalty more than 10 years. make it so that if a person shoots another person who is innocent, the murderer will face death charges. this prevents criminals from accually using the gun and the populace is encoraged. the criminal pointed it at me first, so i pulled 3 on him. the court lets the pedestrian go. works in texas, why not everywhere?

Texas? Where's your statistics?

Again,
stiff penalties is a good preventer of all types of crimes.

But,
it's not going to prevent everything as you believe.

At 5/16/05 07:04 PM, Phoenix_Guitarist wrote: I live in a house with 237 Guns. Both Antique, and modern. I regularly Attend shooting Matches.
I understand that if someone tried to break into my house, They'd Get the shit blown out of them. Because...i'm kind of Crazy.
So......I'm not sure whether or not the entire world should have a weapon. I mean damn, You get 30 kids who go and watch Bad boys II. Then right after the movie, they're diving over the hoods of cars, trying to do the Matrix shit while shooting at eachother.
And dont lie to yourself, Some Dumbass (whether drunk or not) would do it.

So anybody breaking into your house would be sure to make sure they were armed, right? No sense in going into an armed man's house unarmed, if you catch my drift, yeah?
Hence, it would then become a quick fire shot. You'd probably get off the first shot, seeing as how you go to classes and all that, but you never know, he might get lucky, and now you're dead. Oops, that was quick.

Whereas, in Britain, nobody has guns. Robbers rarely carry guns, and people arent allowed to keep guns, and certainly dont use them. Hence, if a criminal breaks into a citizens house, the citizen will come downstairs unarmed (or maybe armed with a bat of gold club), and the criminal will run away in order that he won't get caught. Sure, you've probably had your bike taken in the process, but nobody's dead at the end of it, which is a fairly good swap in my opinion.
This is actually what happens. Criminals rarely beat up people in their own houses, burglars anyway. It's more common for them to just take what they can and run like fuck outta the house.

Finally, let's put two people into a situatio, Gary and Mark. These guys are arguing over something relativly major, let us say that Mark slept with Gary's wife. So something large enough for tempers to flare, yes? Now let us consider the two situations where they are both armed, and both unarmed.
Both Armed: At one point in the argument, either Gary or Mark may pull his gun out. Let us say it is Gary who pulls the gun out first. Then, Mark will HAVE to make an attempt to get his gun from his holster, and shoot Gary, as he is being threatened with a firearm. In short, someone's going to get shot if someone pulls out a gun.
Both Unarmed: Obviously, nobody has any weapons close to hand. It is more likely in this situation that a fight will break out. Maybe one will hit the other, or glass him, if they'e in a bar. However, the key point is that neither of them are likely to be shot and die, althougha fight nmay be inevitable.

So if everyone had guns, the murder rate would increase, as you increase the amount of killings for oppertunistic murders (our Gary/Mark analogy), and also for shooting burglars and anyone percieved to be threatening you.

to fli's response:
police stand-offs occur after the incident that a crime occurs, my point, which im believe is void now, is that if guns where givin to people who want them, that stand off would not have occured. plz use ur logic

to bum cheeky's response:
crimes of passion was probobly the biggest glitch in my argument in that with less harmful weapons present, the two conflicting parties may fight, but no deaths may occur. yet the question remains: for mark or gary to survive, how many people have to die? this type of "u slept with my wife" fight almost never happens.

lets add a parrelel story:
gary and mark didnt have guns and next door, the bank was getting robbed. 4 people where killed due to complications as the robbers fled

gary and mark had guns, and one of them died, but the robbery never happed

there are so many vairiables to this, im starting to think im wrong

At 6/2/05 10:19 AM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: to bum cheeky's response:
crimes of passion was probobly the biggest glitch in my argument in that with less harmful weapons present, the two conflicting parties may fight, but no deaths may occur. yet the question remains: for mark or gary to survive, how many people have to die? this type of "u slept with my wife" fight almost never happens.

Doesn't it? Enough people are admitted to hospital after crimes of passion emerge in kitchens with knives drawn. Sometimes, these do result in death, but they can most often result in just an argument. Dont forget, many such arguments may not occurr in the kitchen. Basically, if everyone had a gun to hand, heated arguments would become a HELL of a lot less safe.

lets add a parrelel story:
gary and mark didnt have guns and next door, the bank was getting robbed. 4 people where killed due to complications as the robbers fled

We see, in the UK, bank robbers who have guns generally dont want to shoot people. This may be because they dont fancy a murder charge on top of their bank robbery charge, or because they dont want the mess. The point is such: they dont HAVE to kill anyone to rob the bank. Nobody will stop them, and nobody will die. If a guy with a gun challenges a bank robber, then one of them will HAVE to shoot the other, because otherwise they'll get shot.

Sure, the robber might get killed, and it might save the bank being robbed. But if nobody has a gun, there's a pretty slim chance of anyone getting shot, as we observe. If someone else has a gun, and apprehends the robber, someone is going to get shot. If there are two robbers, or three, both with guns, then it gets nastier. If there's another civilian with a gun, then we've got 5 guns in a situation. SOMEONE is going to die.

Statistically, banning guns reduced the deaths in Britain, not just gun deaths, all murders. So really you cannot make the argument that we are safer with guns, we aren't.

One may argue that the US's is a different culture, and that banning guns wont work here, and sure thats partially true, but also irrelevent, because it implies that bumcheek is correct and that we should change our culture.

The fact is, guns should be legal, simply because it allows for a more free society.

If we make guns illegal, what argument do we have to not take away privacy rights? We have none, privacy kills more people than guns, crime could be wiped out if we took away privacy. And privacy has no societal benefit, it only serves to benefit our selfish wants.

Does that make ti bad? No. When we give away freedom for the sake of security and some societal higher good, we no longer are individuals, were just ants in one giant colony.

ohoohoho u all just got jammed