Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'd also like to point out that yes, gun control does nothing to reduce crime. What it does is reduce the severity of many of those crimes, but mainly prevents accidents too.

At 4/11/06 02:34 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

Example? I've never seen a person break into a house, take some 00 buckshot to the chest, and come back with an AK-47 because he's "smart."

That's ridiculously stupid. They don't peek in to look what guns you have. If gns are legal, they'll presume people will be armed. Armed civilians = more armed criminals, and better armed criminals, especially since guns are more freely available, they cost less to obtain.

a gun is a gun, while one gun might be slightly more efficient than another gun, even the weakest and worst gun is a hundred times more efficient than none at all. Most burglars only need to hear the rack of a gun to be sent scurrying out of house. you could be james bond but a 10 year old who knows how to aim can still kill you with a .12 gauge

At 4/11/06 02:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: I'd also like to point out that yes, gun control does nothing to reduce crime. What it does is reduce the severity of many of those crimes, but mainly prevents accidents too.

To me, the reduction of our societies standard of living is not worth the lives of a few criminals, and sadly, a few honest people too.

Anybody here ever get robbed. I have, and if I had had a permit to carry I wouldn't have lost 10 bucks and a half ounce. I got held up at gun point by some scared kid who definately wasn't of legal age to carry, and probably needed the money for another hit.

Gun control laws do nothing to help law abiding citizens, all they do is make us easier targets.

At 4/11/06 03:19 PM, The_Tank wrote: Anybody here ever get robbed. I have, and if I had had a permit to carry I wouldn't have lost 10 bucks and a half ounce. I got held up at gun point by some scared kid who definately wasn't of legal age to carry, and probably needed the money for another hit.

Gun control laws do nothing to help law abiding citizens, all they do is make us easier targets.

You could have killed someone over 10 bucks and a half ounce. I don't care if he's a criminal, you could have killed him over a miniscule amount of money.

This is why we need gun control. To keep guns away from idiots.

At 4/11/06 03:21 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: You could have killed someone over 10 bucks and a half ounce. I don't care if he's a criminal, you could have killed him over a miniscule amount of money.

This is why we need gun control. To keep guns away from idiots.

We need more guns to keep the idiots from breeding.

Think of them as voluntary abortions. You wanna rob someone? There's a chance you might get aborted.

Very funny, except I'm not pro-abortion anyway. Plus, you're ridiculous.

At 4/11/06 03:39 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Very funny, except I'm not pro-abortion anyway.

You're anti-reality, that's all.

Plus, you're ridiculous.

He's right ya know.

You're anti-reality, that's all.

Care to explain how I'm anti-reality?

That's just a ridiculous insult unless you can provide some seriously solid backing.

I think if guns are to be allowed in a country then getting a licsence needs to be much more difficult, no previous violations of intoxication etc.

I'm happy with my low crime rates up here in Canada =P

At 4/11/06 03:39 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Very funny, except I'm not pro-abortion anyway. Plus, you're ridiculous.

At 4/11/06 03:46 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: That's just a ridiculous insult unless you can provide some seriously solid backing.

What was that?

Ah, and as for the comment about the 2nd amendment and "The right to bear arms", recall that back then the arms they had were weak muskets, they didn't expect technology to get out of hand.

At 4/11/06 03:54 PM, The_Crazy_Potato wrote: Ah, and as for the comment about the 2nd amendment and "The right to bear arms", recall that back then the arms they had were weak muskets, they didn't expect technology to get out of hand.

Speech they had back then didn't encompass the internet.

Again, more guns = less idiots.

Take it how you will.

At 4/11/06 02:56 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

a gun is a gun, while one gun might be slightly more efficient than another gun, even the weakest and worst gun is a hundred times more efficient than none at all.

But guns are far too dangerous...too many gun casualties happen (and only a few are criminals)

you could be james bond but a 10 year old who knows how to aim can still kill you with a .12 gauge

I dunno, James Bond can be preeeeeeeety sneaky. Question: If a 12 gauge shotgun is effective, why do you need an AK-47, M-16 or a CAR-15?

At 4/11/06 03:21 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: You could have killed someone over 10 bucks and a half ounce. I don't care if he's a criminal, you could have killed him over a miniscule amount of money.

This is why we need gun control. To keep guns away from idiots.

No, I could have ben killed over 10 bucks. When someone has a gun pointed at you your literaly seconds away from death, and I was completely unable to do anything to protect myself whatsoever.

I'm an idiot becuase someone robbed me with a gun? Or because I didn't want to hand over my possesions to an armed criminal? What the Hell else do we need handguns for if not to protect ourselves and our posessions. It's idiots like you that want to keep guns in the hands of criminals and let normal people walk around with targets on their chests.

Just because you or no one you know has ever been robbed, murdered, raped, or beaten doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

At 4/11/06 03:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:
I dunno, James Bond can be preeeeeeeety sneaky. Question: If a 12 gauge shotgun is effective, why do you need an AK-47, M-16 or a CAR-15?

If soylent green makes you full, why eat carrot cake?

You're a fucking idiot too.

At 4/11/06 01:40 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Yeah, because some are rewritten tripe(which don't attempt to modernise the concepts but the wording, so it looks and sounds ridiculous), so it's twice removed from reality.

Why would someone try to "modernize" the concepts of the Bible? It's about stuff that happened thousands of years ago. It's not supposed to be modern. We don't rewrite the history books and say that the Indians practiced free love with the hippies and shot back with machine guns do we?

At 4/11/06 01:47 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

This is a faulty fact. Part of the "fact" for this little tidbit, is that guns brought inside the home by the criminal are considered "guns in the home".
US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available.
Suicide is irrelevant. People who want to kill themselves will kill themselves. We don't ban knives because people slit their wrists.
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

Sources:
http://www.2asisters..ation/ninemyths.htm#

*%20Myth%202
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

About guns and women: "Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately
higher in states where guns are more prevalent."

Suicide is once again irrelevant. Unintentional gun deaths are of course higher in states with more guns, just like car accidents are more prevalent where there are more cars. However, in states with more guns, gun violence is down 31%. 34% of criminals say they have been scared off, injured, or captured by a "victim" with a gun.
When Florida issued a right to carry law, women's violence was predicted on a grand scale, but the following changes actually occured:
homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%
It also makes police safer:
As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

Sources:
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
http://www.newsmax.c..01/2/21/202042.shtml

(Facts and figures from www.bradycampaign.org/)

The facts just dont support the Brady hype.

At 4/11/06 02:20 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Guns are a tool for killing people, not for self defense. Giving a person a better weapon will always make it easier to kill someone.

Guns are a tool for self defense. 34% of criminals have been scared off, captured or wounded by someone with a gun.
Someone has a right to defend themselves with deadly force.

There ARE tools for self defense, and several better ones are being developed. If you're really that interested in self defense, it'd be worth looking into them.

There is no better tool, especially for women, than guns.

But criminals aren't stupid. If you have guns, they'll get better guns, and train more with them.

The stats say otherwise. Increased gun control leads to reduced crime.

IF THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR GUNS.

At 4/11/06 03:21 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: You could have killed someone over 10 bucks and a half ounce. I don't care if he's a criminal, you could have killed him over a miniscule amount of money.

And he also could've been killed over 10 bucks and a half ounce. He has the right to defend himself.

This is why we need gun control. To keep guns away from idiots.

Hey you wanna open yourself up to rape that's great. If you are truly stupid enough to believe that you don't have a right to defend yourself because it's "only 10 bucks and an ounce", that's great. Don't get a gun. For intelligent people, we have our guns.

People get killed all the time over ten bucks. Retarded logic.

At 4/11/06 03:47 PM, The_Crazy_Potato wrote: I think if guns are to be allowed in a country then getting a licsence needs to be much more difficult, no previous violations of intoxication etc.

I'm happy with my low crime rates up here in Canada =P

So if you've ever gotten drunk you can't have a gun? Absolutely assinine.

And let's face it, what would they steal from you in Canada? Your moose?

At 4/11/06 03:54 PM, The_Crazy_Potato wrote: Ah, and as for the comment about the 2nd amendment and "The right to bear arms", recall that back then the arms they had were weak muskets, they didn't expect technology to get out of hand.

And? That has nothing to do with anything.

At 4/11/06 03:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: But guns are far too dangerous...too many gun casualties happen (and only a few are criminals)

Yea, because most crimes are committed by criminals. And most casualties happen from crime. More guns=lower crime. Lower crime=less casualties. Everyone but the bad guys win!

I dunno, James Bond can be preeeeeeeety sneaky. Question: If a 12 gauge shotgun is effective, why do you need an AK-47, M-16 or a CAR-15?

A 12 guage shotgun has a relatively small range to be effective. Also noted is that shotguns shoot pellets in a wide arc. So it increases the chances of ricochet and civilian casualties even in talented hands, as opposed to a handgun. And that AK-47 is a hell of a lot better to fight the tanks off with.....

At 4/11/06 12:26 AM, SnP wrote: _> Tell your kis to stay out of the cookie jar. What happens?

Give your kid a cookie, what happens?

Its the Bill or Rights, not the Bill of Needs. You have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is for do you?

I know exactly what the second amendment is for. People don't have guns for the same reasons we had them for when it was written. People mostly buy them for safety from break in's nowadays. It makes sense that the gun control laws and the second amendment should be modified to change with the times. We don't call them amendments for no reason.

At 4/11/06 04:58 PM, fallen_son wrote: IF THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR GUNS.

If there weren't any use for guns, there wou;dn't be any guns. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

At 4/11/06 04:51 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/11/06 01:47 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

Part of the "fact" for this little tidbit, is that guns brought inside the home by the criminal are considered "guns in the home".

Uh, source? Because I can't find a source for that.

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3]

So where did you copy this from? The NRA's website?

The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available.

This doesn't sound like your wording. NRA website, once again, huh?

Suicide is once again irrelevant. Unintentional gun deaths are of course higher in states with more guns, just like car accidents are more prevalent where there are more cars.

So get rid of guns.

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

Uh, what? Just because a permit holder has never shot a cop doesn't mean that we should give out more permits. You're engaging in illogical reasoning. You seem to believe that if more permits are given out, then people with permits will not shoot cops...

The stats say otherwise. Increased gun control leads to reduced crime.

Ah, so true.

At 4/11/06 05:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 4/11/06 04:51 PM, WolvenBear wrote: As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

Uh, what?

This means that those who've applied and been accepted for permits have a positive impact on our society. Do you understand why?

Just because a permit holder has never shot a cop doesn't mean that we should give out more permits. You're engaging in illogical reasoning.

Your reading comprehension is lacking here, not his reasoning. He was using that stat to validate the right-to-carry law passed in Florida. If you had read the whole thread (which I know you did not, because you are a fucking numbnuts) you'd know the difference between right-to-carry and "permit to carry" states.

Please, for your own sake, revise yourself.

You seem to believe that if more permits are given out, then people with permits will not shoot cops...

According to all evidence, yes. In fact, according to stats, more cops' lives could be saved by the passage of this law. What are you afraid of?

At 4/11/06 05:06 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/11/06 04:58 PM, fallen_son wrote: IF THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR GUNS.

If there weren't any use for guns, there wou;dn't be any guns. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Explain singing fish.

At 4/11/06 05:58 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

At 4/11/06 05:06 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/11/06 04:58 PM, fallen_son wrote: IF THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR GUNS.

If there weren't any use for guns, there wou;dn't be any guns. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Explain singing fish.

What kind of reply is that?

At 4/11/06 05:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Uh, source? Because I can't find a source for that.
So where did you copy this from? The NRA's website?

No, I put my sources at the bottom of my post. But please, don't act like a group pushing for the Brady Bill are objective or have no agenda.

This doesn't sound like your wording. NRA website, once again, huh?

Source again, at the bottom.

So get rid of guns.

Nonsense, stupid logic. Get rid of criminals.

Uh, what? Just because a permit holder has never shot a cop doesn't mean that we should give out more permits. You're engaging in illogical reasoning. You seem to believe that if more permits are given out, then people with permits will not shoot cops...

Yea, not bad logic actually. One with 30 years of proof behind it.
People who go through the hoops to get a legal permit don't go out and shoot cops. It's pretty flawless logic. And the fact that it has never happened, increases the validity of my arguement.

The stats say otherwise. Increased gun control leads to reduced crime.

Ah, so true.

If you're being sarcastic, it failed. Because quite frankly the objective numbers prove you wrong.

At 4/11/06 06:01 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/11/06 05:58 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Explain singing fish.

What kind of reply is that?

A stupid one, like in every other post. She never has anything intelligent to add. It's always a witless little "Republicans are stupid" or some such tripe. And lots and lots of made up facts when she actually tries to argue.

At 4/11/06 06:13 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/11/06 06:01 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/11/06 05:58 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Explain singing fish.

What kind of reply is that?

A stupid one, like in every other post. She never has anything intelligent to add. It's always a witless little "Republicans are stupid" or some such tripe. And lots and lots of made up facts when she actually tries to argue.

Don't mistake me for someone who is on your side, ok? I didn't need or ask for your input.

At 4/11/06 07:07 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

You just made a wonderful argument against parents bothering to teach their kids anything at all. You're also confusing a crappy parent with a good one.

_> Then instead of perking thier interest on the pistol on the shelf, teach them about the gun.

At 4/11/06 01:47 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: My thoughts: YAY! GUN CONTROL TOPIC.

Time for my reasoning.

Let it be known that I am a vehement supporter of gun control. However-restrictions, while neccesary, cannot be all-encompassing. I hate hunting at its core, but I'm not going to prohibit it. Therefore, I'm not in favor of taking away weapons obviously for hunting (bolt actions with SMALL magazines 5 rounds or so, lever actions with small magazines, single shot rifles and one shot rifle caliber hunting pistols, and single shot or double barrel shotguns).

_> Hahaha.... where in the 2nd Amendment does it even hint that guns are to beused for hunting?

Firearms are inherently dangerous. Look at the facts and tell me why they're not.

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

About guns and women: "Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately
higher in states where guns are more prevalent."

(Facts and figures from www.bradycampaign.org/)

_> The moment I saw the link, your post went down the drain.

You might want to get your stats from people that are not on a crusade to ban guns.

At 4/11/06 03:47 PM, The_Crazy_Potato wrote: I think if guns are to be allowed in a country then getting a licsence needs to be much more difficult, no previous violations of intoxication etc.

_> Its right here in the states. A permit would be unconstitutional.

I'm happy with my low crime rates up here in Canada =P

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.
http://www.fraserins..p?sNav=nr&id=570