Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why not 12-gauge with Nerf Balls?

At 3/13/07 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote: You know what you do. You make bullets really expensive.

;
I believe it was the comedian Chris Rock who suggested that idea a couple of years ago.
He said something about make bullets $5000.00 each.
So that way most people would have to save up for a long time to be able to afford bullets.

So what would that really solve.

People would use knives, axes, machetes, hell pick up a rock or a bottle.
THe one thing it would solve is one nutjob going into a school or a workplace & killing & wounding lots & lots of people.
But then again there are homemade bombs.
Face it folks the human animal will figure out another way to do it !
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ! ! ! !
People Kill People !

Call them bullet deaths? :P

At 3/13/07 02:44 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote: Then learn to aim properly.

One shot, and that's it. You are expecting people to have dead on accuracy with a FUCKING TOY, and you think I'm nuts?

you're machine gun in the general direction of the bad guy is old fashioned.

One, machine guns are not legal for civilian use. Two, since when is defending myself against someone who wishes to do me serious harm "old fashioned?"

At 3/14/07 12:38 AM, Nylo wrote: And proteas, the second ammendment just says you can only bear arms. It doesn't say what kind of arms you're legally able to bear.

Arms
–noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Firearm
–noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

Sorry, but you are nitpicking semantics that don't exist. I have a right to my guns, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. :-D

just not one that is heavily lethal to the target.

Why should I have mercy on someone who is trying to deprive me of my basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, hm? Why are you (essentially) on the side of what would be a facist government that would seek to strip the general law abiding populace at large of their basic right to defend itself with proven effective means of doing so?

And on top of that, you has as yet to address my question about what this ideal "non lethal" weapon with as much stopping power as a 20 gauge shotgun actually IS. Pathetic.

At 3/14/07 01:17 PM, Proteas wrote: Two, since when is defending myself against someone who wishes to do me serious harm "old fashioned?"

It's been happening since the ascension of man. I guess that's old-fashioned.

Why should I have mercy on someone who is trying to deprive me of my basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, hm? Why are you (essentially) on the side of what would be a facist government that would seek to strip the general law abiding populace at large of their basic right to defend itself with proven effective means of doing so?

Because I want to protect you! Really I do! Now give, give GIVE ME YOUR STUFFS.

And on top of that, you has as yet to address my question about what this ideal "non lethal" weapon with as much stopping power as a 20 gauge shotgun actually IS. Pathetic.

Indeed.

At 3/14/07 11:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/13/07 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote: You know what you do. You make bullets really expensive.

;
I believe it was the comedian Chris Rock who suggested that idea a couple of years ago.
He said something about make bullets $5000.00 each.
So that way most people would have to save up for a long time to be able to afford bullets.

So what would that really solve.

People would use knives, axes, machetes, hell pick up a rock or a bottle.
THe one thing it would solve is one nutjob going into a school or a workplace & killing & wounding lots & lots of people.
But then again there are homemade bombs.
Face it folks the human animal will figure out another way to do it !
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ! ! ! !
People Kill People !

Yeah I forgot how easy it is to conceal an axe and machete in your pocket.
We would definitely see a spike in "drive-by knivings"
What is the difference between being wounded and dead anyway?
And of course, all those common criminals really know the simple mechanics to making a bomb.
But then, why make it easier by giving them little pellets to shoot?

At 3/14/07 04:30 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 3/14/07 11:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/13/07 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote:

Yeah I forgot how easy it is to conceal an axe and machete in your pocket.

You mean like how easy it is to somehow conceal a pump action shotgun, a bolt action rifle or an assualt rifle.

And of course, all those common criminals really know the simple mechanics to making a bomb.

Apparently one has yet to check the internet or even Anarchists Cookbook.
Jeeze, someone never made pipe bombs as a kid.

banning guns is a useless gesture to stopping gun deaths, if you take a gun, they will just make another, especially criminals. i won't be putting up a link to show how this is done, because, basically im getting tired of getting banned. however, if you just have to know how this works, use a search engine.

the basics is this, a gun is made out of a strong metal tube in which you put in gunpowder, a bullet, and ignite the gunpowder. "let's ban gunpowder!" no, that won't work either because gunpowder is made of sulphur, charcoal, and saltpeter. which all 3 have many many uses, so banning those is out of the question. charcoal is used in art, sulphur is used in making tires, gardening, among other things, and saltpeter is used in food preservation.

bullets can be made out of anything that is hard and non flammable. you can even put bits of broken glass and metal into the tube and make you one mean shotgun. 12 gauge power? maybe not, if you got good at making gunpowder and found the proper equipment you could probably make something better than 12 gauge. my grandpa used to melt down coins and put the molten metal in a mold to make his own bullets, which can be made using plaster.

metal tubes.. lets see... pipes for plumbing perhaps? good luck banning that.

even if you make their production illegal, you can still make them. you can make your own shotgun for about $50. maybe less, but i would recommend the best materials you can get for constructing the gun.

i do not condone or recommend making your own gun without taking a gunsmith course.

At 3/14/07 04:30 PM, EKublai wrote:

Yeah I forgot how easy it is to conceal an axe and machete in your pocket.

Machete, would fit up the sleeve of a loose jacket, put the ax head under your armpit let the handle run down your ribs to below your belt, wouldn't even need a full length jacket to hide it.

We would definitely see a spike in "drive-by knivings"

sarcasm, your not very good at it yet.

And of course, all those common criminals really know the simple mechanics to making a bomb.

bombs are simple to make , bottle of gas ,rag, light it boom.

But then, why make it easier by giving them little pellets to shoot?

My brother has a wrist rocket slingshot.
It has 2 bands of surgical tubing on each side of the pocket.
From about 50 ft away it will put a glass marble thru a 1/2 inch sheet of plywood, he says he gets better penetration with ball bearings ,but marbles are easier to get.
Wonder what a ball bearing hitting you in the side of the head would do ?
Probably wouldn't even dent your noggin Ekublai.

At 3/14/07 04:40 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:30 PM, EKublai wrote:

Yeah I forgot how easy it is to conceal an axe and machete in your pocket.

Machete, would fit up the sleeve of a loose jacket, put the ax head under your armpit let the handle run down your ribs to below your belt, wouldn't even need a full length jacket to hide it.

We would definitely see a spike in "drive-by knivings"

sarcasm, your not very good at it yet.

And of course, all those common criminals really know the simple mechanics to making a bomb.

bombs are simple to make , bottle of gas ,rag, light it boom.

But then, why make it easier by giving them little pellets to shoot?

My brother has a wrist rocket slingshot.
It has 2 bands of surgical tubing on each side of the pocket.
From about 50 ft away it will put a glass marble thru a 1/2 inch sheet of plywood, he says he gets better penetration with ball bearings ,but marbles are easier to get.
Wonder what a ball bearing hitting you in the side of the head would do ?
Probably wouldn't even dent your noggin Ekublai.

okay I'm done with the sarcasm. But seriously, you really don't think taking guns out of the equation would not affect murder? would people really wanna resort to slingshots? Molotov cocktails? For one, their illegal to make, and owning a gun isn't with licensing. A bottle of gasoline would for likely just kill you. Axes under the shirt would be a bit of a hassle since you might wanna concentrate on not slashing yourself down the chest while you take it out.

Sry for my bigheadedness. The point is, is that there's a reason why gun-violence is so popular.

At 3/14/07 04:52 PM, EKublai wrote: okay I'm done with the sarcasm. But seriously, you really don't think taking guns out of the equation would not affect murder?

Okay you fucking bonehead. Let's try this again. YOU CAN'T TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE EQUATION WITHOUT NUMERABLE OTHER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITIED TO, THE SECOND FUCKING AMENDMENT ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Ingrain that in your thick skull, you dull piece of cockspawn.

Sry for my bigheadedness. The point is, is that there's a reason why gun-violence is so popular.

And there's also an equally valid fucking reason that guns are the preferred method of dispatching aggressors, and not portable microwaves.

Invent a new, cheaper to develop, easier to individually control, more decisive and understandable weapon as the firearm.

WHAT IS MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT FIREARMS?

Are people just THAT ignorant of themselves that they can't apply it to the whole?

At 3/14/07 04:52 PM, EKublai wrote:

okay I'm done with the sarcasm. But seriously, you really don't think taking guns out of the equation would not affect murder? would people really wanna resort to slingshots? Molotov cocktails? For one, their illegal to make, and owning a gun isn't with licensing. A bottle of gasoline would for likely just kill you. Axes under the shirt would be a bit of a hassle since you might wanna concentrate on not slashing yourself down the chest while you take it out.

Sry for my bigheadedness. The point is, is that there's a reason why gun-violence is so popular.

But the main point is that you cant take guns out of the equation. In a gun amnesty a few years back in Scotland, a man in Fife handed a homemade cannon to police. Guns will always be available, if not through official channels then through criminal deals.

I don't know, guy. They could be right. After all the ban on illicit drugs totaly stopped all flow. Now you can't even buy Marijuana in this country. Least of all at school.

Hey, Wait a minute.....

At 3/14/07 01:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/13/07 02:44 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote: Then learn to aim properly.

One shot, and that's it. You are expecting people to have dead on accuracy with a FUCKING TOY, and you think I'm nuts?

Hell yeah. You shoot someone with a gun and they die or go to hospital. When you shoot someone with this toy you can wait till they try to get back up you can shock them again because the needle things are still in his chest. And you can take the end off it and use it as a normal taser.

Like I said. Try to hit the target in one shot and you'le be on you're way to buying something the power rangers would use. ITS MORPHING TIME!

At 3/14/07 06:51 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote:

At 3/14/07 01:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/13/07 02:44 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote: Then learn to aim properly.

One shot, and that's it. You are expecting people to have dead on accuracy with a FUCKING TOY, and you think I'm nuts?

Hell yeah. You shoot someone with a gun and they die or go to hospital.

And if you shoot them 14 times, they are deader.

When you shoot someone with this toy you can wait till they try to get back up you can shock them again because the needle things are still in his chest.

And when you taze him 14 times continuously, he has a heart attack and dies. Wow, what an improvement THAT law was! Now, all I need to know how to do is rewire a fucking flashlight and I've got a state-funded electric chair connected to my mean, scary pistol.

Dammit what do you shits learn during your lifespan? How to microwave food and wipe your ass?

If I were a mod, I'd be banning people like you in politics left and right, if you didn't constantly provide the stupid dickweed factor that makes solid arguments look like edicts from God.

Ban Doctors not guns
by Unknown

According to statistics provided by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and by doctors.
Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned:
"Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."

Even if the doctors were doing it on purpose thats still 100, 000 more a year killed by doctors than guns.
And I may if anybody cares , publish deatails of how many lives are SAVED each year beacuse a potential victim was armed.

At 3/14/07 12:38 AM, Nylo wrote:

Sorry, but you are nitpicking semantics that don't exist. I have a right to my guns, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. :-D

Nitpicking semantics is a fact of life in Judicial jungle, sorry to say. New ways to interpret the constitution are not uncommon. I'd think twice before I underestimated the influence of semantics. The Supreme Court sure does.

Why should I have mercy on someone who is trying to deprive me of my basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, hm? Why are you (essentially) on the side of what would be a facist government that would seek to strip the general law abiding populace at large of their basic right to defend itself with proven effective means of doing so?

How is this facist if you still get to keep a gun? I don't see anywhere in the second amendment that your right to bear arms entitles you the right to dictate how the technology of the firearm is used. What basic rights, liberties, or persuits are you losing by being made sure you don't kill someone? If the point of home defense is to stop the perpetrator and you can do that, where's the problem? Where is the government infringing on any rights?

And on top of that, you has as yet to address my question about what this ideal "non lethal" weapon with as much stopping power as a 20 gauge shotgun actually IS. Pathetic.

I said if the technology were possible. You're able telecommunicate to me through a series of wires over hundreds, if not thousands, of miles in mere seconds and I have to address t you what's technologically possible in this era if enough effort were put into it?

I'm more interested in why you think this is a bad idea than attempts to avoid offering your wisdom on why continuing to lead the world in gun deaths is the better, more sensible choice.

dude you guys are totally taking what I was saying out of contest. I 'm giving hypothetical reasoning that you cannot apply. Obviously you can't ACTUALLY take guns out of the equation. BUt the fact is, is that if you COULD have a world without guns, there would be a lot less deaths by violence. I just don't see the possibility of people walking around with bombs the same way I see people walk around with 'em in Chicago.

At 3/14/07 05:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Okay you fucking bonehead. Let's try this again. YOU CAN'T TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE EQUATION WITHOUT NUMERABLE OTHER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITIED TO, THE SECOND FUCKING AMENDMENT ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

please don't patronize me sir, I got no beef with you or your single-pathed view of things.

At 3/14/07 05:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:52 PM, EKublai wrote: okay I'm done with the sarcasm. But seriously, you really don't think taking guns out of the equation would not affect murder?

Okay you fucking bonehead. Let's try this again. YOU CAN'T TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE EQUATION WITHOUT NUMERABLE OTHER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITIED TO, THE SECOND FUCKING AMENDMENT ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Ingrain that in your thick skull, you dull piece of cockspawn.

I really was serious about that part. Can you justify violating the Constitution in such a blatant manner?

I know you can't, because you know you can't.

I seem like a single-viewed dick to you, but to me, I need to be a single-view dick to you for you to understand exactly how ridiculous your "serious" question was.

If you can't handle it, cry onyour mother's tit, she'll give you some encouragement and tell you that you did good.

Sry for my bigheadedness. The point is, is that there's a reason why gun-violence is so popular.

And there's also an equally valid fucking reason that guns are the preferred method of dispatching aggressors, and not portable microwaves.

Invent a new, cheaper to develop, easier to individually control, more decisive and understandable weapon as the firearm.

WHAT IS MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT FIREARMS?

Are people just THAT ignorant of themselves that they can't apply it to the whole?

At 3/14/07 09:09 PM, Nylo wrote: How is this facist if you still get to keep a gun?

Just because you paint an orange with stop sign red rustoleum and stick a green toothpick in it doesn't make it an apple just because you say it is. These "non lethal" weapons you've been going on and on about are not by definition guns or firearms, they are toys.

I don't see anywhere in the second amendment that your right to bear arms entitles you the right to dictate how the technology of the firearm is used.

Because these items would not be guns, I've already said it.

What basic rights, liberties, or persuits are you losing by being made sure you don't kill someone?

Why the hell should I have mercy on someone who is out to do me and my family harm? Do you think they'll have as much mercy on me as I will them by using one of these air tasers? FUCK NO.

Where is the government infringing on any rights?

1984 anyone?

I said if the technology were possible.

So in short, there is no such weapon and you've been basing your entire argument off of conjecture and bullshit. Nice work.

I'm more interested in why you think this is a bad idea than attempts to avoid offering your wisdom on why continuing to lead the world in gun deaths is the better, more sensible choice.

... there are things in this country that kill more people per year than guns, why don't you piss and moan about them for a while?

Haha.. Lol.. Gaffor.. Cough.

This thread could only get funnier if Wade were to post a pic of himself holding one of his pretty knives wearing a kevlar suit and a Hannibal mask with a thought bubble saying "Try Me!"

Dude I'm done arguing with this you win. It wasn't even part of my argument at all. I was stating a freakin hypothetical whatever. My argument isn't even about takig away guns. I wanna stop the mass sale of ammunition. That's why I made the Chris Rock reference. The second amendment gives the right to own firemarms, not specifying the amount of firearms. It might sound like "yeah taking bullets out of the equation is practically taking guns" but does it really take 20 to protect your family?

Note that I would be making exceptions for hunters/policemen

To end gun crime, and consequently gun deaths when ignorant shop keepers won't give up their money, we should just stab every man, woman and child on the planet.

Population Control and the end of gun deaths. Everyone wins.

At 3/15/07 12:34 PM, EKublai wrote:

It might sound like "yeah taking bullets out of the equation is practically taking guns" but does it really take 20 to protect your family?

Why do you argue this way? Yeah, you can buy your food at Costco, but does you family really need 5 gallons of mayonaisse? That much mayonaisse will kill a person if they ate it all!

Does it take 20 to protect my family? I dunno, maybe. It might take one or two, maybe 500, I don't know. People like you who really want to eliminate guns at all costs, without thinking of the consequences (as pop culture has tuaght you today, along with TV and your GenX parents).

Can you manufacture your owns rounds? I know I can.

Note that I would be making exceptions for hunters/policemen

Why do you need so many exceptions? How will you enforce these restrictions? Just answer those two questions and I'll leave you alone.

At 3/14/07 07:49 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

And when you taze him 14 times continuously, he has a heart attack and dies. Wow, what an improvement THAT law was! Now, all I need to know how to do is rewire a fucking flashlight and I've got a state-funded electric chair connected to my mean, scary pistol.

A car batteries Amp is 2 or 3 miliamps. A tazer like this is even more low. So there is little to no chance of death. Unless the person has heart conditions. But a fat old man who smokes mugging you isnt going to happen any time soon.

Dammit what do you shits learn during your lifespan? How to microwave food and wipe your ass?

Who wipes? And how dare you disrespect the mike!

If I were a mod, I'd be banning people like you in politics left and right, if you didn't constantly provide the stupid dickweed factor that makes solid arguments look like edicts from God.

Good thing you're not then

At 3/15/07 02:14 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote:
A car batteries Amp is 2 or 3 miliamps. A tazer like this is even more low. So there is little to no chance of death.

How about through misuse / tampering?

..or will you just "outlaw tampering" to ramp up the amps.

If I were a mod, I'd be banning people like you in politics left and right, if you didn't constantly provide the stupid dickweed factor that makes solid arguments look like edicts from God.

Good thing you're not then

That doesn't make sense.

At 3/12/07 05:15 AM, Nylo wrote: 2. Replace all internal combustion weapons (ICWs) that are handheld for a non-lethal replacement. All ICWs will be confiscated by proper authorities.

3. Failure to comply with the previous point is violation of the law and subject to legal action.

That would never happen/work.
Also, fuck you.

At 3/15/07 12:24 AM, EKublai wrote: BUt the fact is, is that if you COULD have a world without guns, there would be a lot less deaths by violence. I just don't see the possibility of people walking around with bombs the same way I see people walk around with 'em in Chicago.

;
What I was saying to you before is that I disagree with you.
THere was a time befor guns & people were violent & killed each other.
I feel the same would be true again. Just because you don't have a gun won't stop people from useing other weapons to kill each other.
No guns may stop the ramdom "Going Postal" attacks from taking place.
But lets not forget about that asshole who blew the whole front off a federal building using a homemade bomb built inside a rental cube van.
I think that piece of works name was Mcvey, his fertilizer & diesel bomb killed a lot of innocent people, NO Gun Was Used!

At 3/15/07 01:45 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Never said anything about bannng guns.

It would be easy to enforce these laws, not necessarily that effective, but then again most laws of this type arn't but that doesn't mean we give up on it.

You come in with a hunting license you can buy bullets for whatever cheap cost it is. If you come in with just a regular firearms license, then you gotta pay more. People already wear fake ids, and buy illegally dealed guns so what bad could it do. It's not like drugs where yu have to worry about what else is in your herione.

You give all this reasoning for how easy it is to do things outside of the law. I congratulate you for your ability to make homemade bombs, rounds, whatever. But have you ever noticed that's not the case for most people. For most, people would prefer to buy their weapons to kill. Ever notice how when people want to dispose of a body they first don't make a chainsaw but buy it? People don't make their own guns, they get them illegally or register for them.