Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/16/06 10:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Of course those change things. If you're doing illegal activity, it certainly isn't the gun's fault. It's yours. You contributed to your own death.

What the hell are you talking about? The gun is what kills you, it doesn't matter if it's being used legally or illegally. Additionally, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun." They all started out in lawful possession. Regulating firearms would make a noticable impact on "illegal" guns. It's commonsense.

At 3/16/06 08:22 PM, mackid wrote:

At 3/16/06 06:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: And all I can say is... meh.

You say "meh" to the fact that firearms are the second leading killer of teenagers? You say "meh" to the fact that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be used for purposes aside from killing a criminal (as stated above)?

And what will happen if we get rid of guns?
We're just going to find something else to replace it.

At 3/16/06 11:30 PM, LogicExiled wrote: And what will happen if we get rid of guns?
We're just going to find something else to replace it.

Yes, and we might as well not illegalize any drug, because people can just huff gas.

At 3/16/06 11:25 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/16/06 10:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Of course those change things. If you're doing illegal activity, it certainly isn't the gun's fault. It's yours. You contributed to your own death.

What the hell are you talking about? The gun is what kills you, it doesn't matter if it's being used legally or illegally. Additionally, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun." They all started out in lawful possession. Regulating firearms would make a noticable impact on "illegal" guns. It's commonsense.

Meth starts out as a group of perfectly legal household products, but that changes too. And what the hell he's talking about is that for the most part if you obey the laws stay out of bad situations and just be smart in general you won't get shot.

At 3/16/06 06:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: We don't need more gun control, we need less stupid people.

Frankly you could go two ways with this. No no huns or any knowledge of guns even existing, or guns. Becuase if someone knows how to make one, the will. Simple as that. Like it or not, they're here to stay, so if you don't want one, don't get one.

At 3/16/06 11:25 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/16/06 10:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Of course those change things. If you're doing illegal activity, it certainly isn't the gun's fault. It's yours. You contributed to your own death.

What the hell are you talking about? The gun is what kills you, it doesn't matter if it's being used legally or illegally. Additionally, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun." They all started out in lawful possession. Regulating firearms would make a noticable impact on "illegal" guns. It's commonsense.

Actually alot of illegal firearms in the US are illegally brought into the country *cough* Mexico*cough*, or are illegaly made. So trying to ban guns in the US won't stop the illegal arms trade anytime soon.

At 3/16/06 08:22 PM, mackid wrote:

At 3/16/06 06:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: And all I can say is... meh.

You say "meh" to the fact that firearms are the second leading killer of teenagers? You say "meh" to the fact that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be used for purposes aside from killing a criminal (as stated above)?

I say "meh" to the fact that you created a link to a propaganda site. One thing you learn as you get older is that stats can be manipulated easier than a $2 crack-whore.

Here's an example: A woman is being battered by her husband or live-in boyfriend. He makes it clear that he will hunt her down, if she tries to leave him. He's physically stronger than her. She decides she just can't take it anymore. She buys a handgun.......

Now one of 2 things happen:
1) He attacks her, she gets her new gun and shoots him in self defense; clear cut case of it.

2) She waits until he's asleep, then INTENTIONALLY shoots him!

Guess what? Her example is added into that B.S. stat that says, "A gun in the home is more likely to end up killing a family member, than an intruder." THAT statement has always implied that the shooting of a family member would be accidental! Let's take a look again, at the above example. #1 clearly was not "accidental." And, #2 is even MORE blatantly intentional than #1......... Yet, examples like the one above, are tossed in to jack-up the number of accidental shootings. That site doesn't tell you the ACTUAL number of accidental shootings! They just jack it up to make their side look good!

The one thing you fail to realize is that guns are inanimate objects. Place one on a table, it's not going to levitate and shoot at you by itself! ......... Let's say, for the sake of arguement, all guns end up being banned. Okay, every decent person turns in their guns. Every criminal, since they don't give a damn about the law, keeps THEIR guns! Great, now there will be MORE decent people who get killed than ever before! Nice job!.....

It's about one thing, MENTALITY! ......... Someone wants to kill another person; but they don't have a gun. Do you honestly think they'll just say, "Oh well, I don't have a gun. I guess I'll just go home and have a nice cup of tea, instead." HELL NO!!! .......... The person who wants to kill will use a knife, a bat or a length of lead pipe; if he REALLY wants to end someone else's life. You take guns away, you're STILL left with the murderous intent......... Here's another example: Instead of using a gun, they use a car. I can guarantee you that a 2-ton bullet, traveling at 55 mph is going to do a Hell of a lot more damage than say, a 158-grain, .38 caliber bullet, traveling out of a revolver at about 850 feet-per-second.......

Trying to ban an inanimate object by making up stats and presenting them as facts, while completely ignoring the real problem, that to me is just bizarre.

At 3/17/06 01:03 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Actually alot of illegal firearms in the US are illegally brought into the country *cough* Mexico*cough*, or are illegaly made. So trying to ban guns in the US won't stop the illegal arms trade anytime soon.

I'm inclined to call bullshit unless you have a source for that. And It'd have to be a significant percentage to contradict my claim.

At 3/16/06 11:30 PM, LogicExiled wrote:

At 3/16/06 08:22 PM, mackid wrote:

At 3/16/06 06:25 PM, TheShrike wrote:

And what will happen if we get rid of guns?
We're just going to find something else to replace it.

Exactly, like brass knuckles, or a cattle prod, or a baseball bat, or a mechete, or ninja throwing stars. (I could go for hours on this)

At 3/16/06 11:25 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/16/06 10:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Of course those change things. If you're doing illegal activity, it certainly isn't the gun's fault. It's yours. You contributed to your own death.

What the hell are you talking about? The gun is what kills you, it doesn't matter if it's being used legally or illegally. Additionally, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun." They all started out in lawful possession. Regulating firearms would make a noticable impact on "illegal" guns. It's commonsense.

No, the person who pulls the trigger kills you. Same as, the knife doesn't kill you, it's the person who handles it. Don't be purposefully dense, you're better than that. And no, not all guns start legal. Uzis for example. No, regulating firearms WOULDN'T make a difference. My dad loved guns. He owned 13 rifles. They were all stolen from us. Someone somewhere has 13 of our rifles. Tell me how regulation solves that? There was an anti-gun liberal who said something along the lines of "I hate guns, but let's be honest. There are so many illegal guns out there that no amount of regulation will control. At some point you have to say what's one more?"

At 3/16/06 11:37 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Meth starts out as a group of perfectly legal household products, but that changes too. And what the hell he's talking about is that for the most part if you obey the laws stay out of bad situations and just be smart in general you won't get shot.

He's got a point skunk. Hell, meth is a good example, but for our purposes, it's needlessly complex. A better example is a can of spray paint. It has a purpose. To paint things. Dumb kids get bags and huff it, and die. Was that the intended purpose? Hell no. Do those kids parent's deserve anything? Of course not. Should we regulate the hell out of the paint industry (or the glue industry) because stupid people used their products wrong? Of course not.
You're trying to pretend that nothing matters here except for the death toll. Hell, for that matter, we shouldn't allow teens to drive cars. Or allow people to drink. Because they don't do it right. And there are a hell of a lot more cars (and stupid people who own them) then there are guns. And they're misused a hell of a lot more too.

At 3/17/06 01:25 AM, Monocrom wrote: Now one of 2 things happen:
1) He attacks her, she gets her new gun and shoots him in self defense; clear cut case of it.

2) She waits until he's asleep, then INTENTIONALLY shoots him!

Guess what? Her example is added into that B.S. stat that says, "A gun in the home is more likely to end up killing a family member, than an intruder." : Trying to ban an inanimate object by making up stats and presenting them as facts, while completely ignoring the real problem, that to me is just bizarre.

The Dave Chappel solution:
Every bullet costs 5 grand. The cops find someone dead:

"Damn you know he deserved it. Bastard had 150 grans worth of bullets pumped into him."

guns are bad and if you dont agree with me...ill shoot you

At 3/16/06 08:30 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: The fact is that the Brady cooperation more often then not completely misrepesents, or flat out lies about the data they use. Take good notice of how none of the statistics they used are cited. Why would you do that, espically when it's so easy to link everything using the internet, could it becuase the statistics they use are completely misrepresented, or made up?

Sure...sure...

"The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than
in 25 other industrialized countries combined."("Firearm-Related Death in 26 Industrialized Countries", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997, 46(5): 101-105.)

for one...

At 3/16/06 09:02 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Of course!!!!! It all makes sense now. If only we didnt have guns, people wouldnt kill eachother and die!!!

Please.

Well, naturally people will be just as violent-natured as ever. However, not possessing a highly lethal weapon will most certainly make the threshold of attempting homicide much higher, plus reduce the success rate of those attempts significantly.

At 3/16/06 09:02 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: Getting rid of guns wont solve it, something else will come. England for example. Its harder to get a gun there, suprise suprise they happen to have knife stabbings.

Which is why, instead, you have gun control laws. Duh.

Personally I'm all for non-lethal alternatives, they just need to be better developed. There is no reason to own a lethal weapon for self defense if a non-lethal one can take it's place.

At 3/17/06 11:51 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:
Personally I'm all for non-lethal alternatives, they just need to be better developed. There is no reason to own a lethal weapon for self defense if a non-lethal one can take it's place.

What's more effective for self-defense in closed-quarters, against a criminal potentially possessing a firearm, than a shotgun?

At 3/17/06 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No, the person who pulls the trigger kills you.

Bullshit semantics game. Get real. The gun and its bullet kills you, we assign blame to the person pulling the trigger. If you're killed with a knife, you're killed by a knife. Hit by a car? YOU'RE KILLED BY THE CAR. Don't try to get all cute with me.

At 3/16/06 11:25 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/16/06 10:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Of course those change things. If you're doing illegal activity, it certainly isn't the gun's fault. It's yours. You contributed to your own death.

What the hell are you talking about? The gun is what kills you, it doesn't matter if it's being used legally or illegally. Additionally, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun." They all started out in lawful possession. Regulating firearms would make a noticable impact on "illegal" guns. It's commonsense.

Did you know that most "Illegal" guns are purchased in legal gunstores, and then have the numbers filed off them? Stricter gun control means that responsible citizens can "defend" themselves and those more likely to cause harm with them don't. How can you be against that? Because it weakens the second amendment? That's not a reason.
Banning guns in the UK didn't work because it was an instanteous complete and utter removal of firearms, and England is an island near any number of other countries. America is a little more isolated as it has stricter border policies and less countries nearby.

At 3/17/06 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A better example is a can of spray paint. It has a purpose. To paint things.

Blah blah blah. Add something to the conversation, I've heard all of this before. You do realize the purpose of a firearm, right? It's to kill things. Yes, people might shoot at targets. But the primary and original purpose was to kill. It is nothing like a spray can. When you use a gun to shoot and kill a person, you're using it for its original purpose.

At 3/17/06 12:22 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Did you know that most "Illegal" guns are purchased in legal gunstores, and then have the numbers filed off them? Stricter gun control means that responsible citizens can "defend" themselves and those more likely to cause harm with them don't. How can you be against that? Because it weakens the second amendment? That's not a reason.

No, because I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense. Regulating guns further will make it harder for legal firearm buyers to get their guns. Whereas those who don't care about the rules, still don't follow them. Following your argument, all we need to do to stop rape is to pass another law. It just doesn't work like that. We have plenty of laws that, if enforced, will do about all we can do to curb illegal buying. No new laws, just enforce the ones we've got.

At 3/17/06 12:23 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A better example is a can of spray paint. It has a purpose. To paint things.

Blah blah blah. Add something to the conversation, I've heard all of this before. You do realize the purpose of a firearm, right? It's to kill things. Yes, people might shoot at targets. But the primary and original purpose was to kill. It is nothing like a spray can. When you use a gun to shoot and kill a person, you're using it for its original purpose.

Yes, the primary purpose was hunting. The secondary one is defense. Any other reason is against the point of having the weapon. What IS your point? It's still people using a legal thing for a purpose that it wasn't meant for.

At 3/17/06 01:25 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yes, the primary purpose was hunting. The secondary one is defense. Any other reason is against the point of having the weapon. What IS your point? It's still people using a legal thing for a purpose that it wasn't meant for.

Using a firearm to shoot something is exactly what it was meant for, that is my point. A firearm is just like a hand grenade, or an AP mine. And since it is a weapon, they ought to be controlled. Mackid is a moron who doesn't understand things, but you and acouple other posters are just being reactionary sons of bitches swinging to the other extreme. My family owns a rifle, and I want to buy a handgun sometime in the near future. But I understand the lethality of weapons, and understand that they should be regulated. It's just common fucking sense.

At 3/17/06 11:53 AM, areyousure wrote: What's more effective for self-defense in closed-quarters, against a criminal potentially possessing a firearm, than a shotgun?

A land-mine.

At 3/17/06 01:59 PM, red_skunk wrote: Using a firearm to shoot something is exactly what it was meant for, that is my point. A firearm is just like a hand grenade, or an AP mine. And since it is a weapon, they ought to be controlled. Mackid is a moron who doesn't understand things, but you and acouple other posters are just being reactionary sons of bitches swinging to the other extreme. My family owns a rifle, and I want to buy a handgun sometime in the near future. But I understand the lethality of weapons, and understand that they should be regulated. It's just common fucking sense.

I understand the lethality of weapons too. I am not against regulation. I am against FURTHER regulation. 3 day waiting period...great idea. Will it stop wackos from getting guns? Maybe a couple. No one who's really determined. But it might deter a few. Not enough to matter on a grand scale, but a couple of lives saved is a couple of lives.

Besides, I thought you were arguing for their removal. My bad.

How the hell am I supposed to shoot animals without a gun?! Use a fucking pop-gun?

At 3/17/06 02:00 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 11:53 AM, areyousure wrote: What's more effective for self-defense in closed-quarters, against a criminal potentially possessing a firearm, than a shotgun?

A land-mine.

Pressure-sensitive to the assailants weight, I presume.

At 3/17/06 03:01 PM, areyousure wrote:

At 3/17/06 02:00 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 11:53 AM, areyousure wrote: What's more effective for self-defense in closed-quarters, against a criminal potentially possessing a firearm, than a shotgun?

A land-mine.

Pressure-sensitive to the assailants weight, I presume.

Only if you don't want to blow up your child or pet. *shrug*

At 3/17/06 12:21 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No, the person who pulls the trigger kills you.

Bullshit semantics game. Get real. The gun and its bullet kills you, we assign blame to the person pulling the trigger. If you're killed with a knife, you're killed by a knife. Hit by a car? YOU'RE KILLED BY THE CAR. Don't try to get all cute with me.

No, it's not about a semantics game. All of those items you described are inanimate objects. By themselves, they can't hurt or kill you...... Put a person with murderous intent behind each one, chances are someone's going to die. But the murder victim wasn't killed BY the object. He was killed WITH the object.

Honestly, how many guns were convicted of homicide, last year? How many .9mm handguns are currently seving 25 years to Life, in maximum security prisons?........

Guns don't have murderous intent! A killer can't get his hands a gun, he'll just use something else! ........ What are you going to do; ban cars, kitchen knives, etc.

(Don't forget to ban the concrete side-walk! Knock someone down, slam their head against the concrete until they die! BTW, what will you use as a replacement for concrete)?

At 3/17/06 02:00 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 11:53 AM, areyousure wrote: What's more effective for self-defense in closed-quarters, against a criminal potentially possessing a firearm, than a shotgun?

A land-mine.

Meh, I'd go with a claymore, but same diffrence.

Anyway red_skunk, what is your actual position on owning firearms? I know you don't want an outright ban, but restrictions instead. So what exactly do you beleive those restrictions should be?

No, because I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense. Regulating guns further will make it harder for legal firearm buyers to get their guns. Whereas those who don't care about the rules, still don't follow them.

It does make perfect sense. Where do you think these "Illegal" firearms come from? Nobody's going to bother importing them when they can get them in gun stores. Getting rid of guns means a lot of criminals will still be armed, but not as many. You shouldn't need a lethal weapon to defend yourself, anyway, it works out more dangerous to you and your loved ones in the long run. Invest in a pellet gun or taser. You don't need to KILL someone for it to be self defense.

Not to mention that one of the biggest reasons for gun control is to prevent accidental injury and death, not necessarily murder.

At 3/17/06 07:33 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

You shouldn't need a lethal weapon to defend yourself, anyway Invest in a pellet gun or taser.

How about a bazooka? (Awwww, too much firepower, princess?)