Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't see much luck in defending yourself against a someone wielding a gun if you yourself aren't allowed to have one.

At 4/2/07 09:26 PM, N-Zyme wrote:

At 4/2/07 09:24 PM, The-Laugher-Of-Lor wrote: 1. Nice alt.

too bad you will never know whose

2. What if those civilians are as murderous as the murderers they're chasing?

its only ok to be murderous against murderous mastards and what better way to have the advantage then to be more murderous.

hmm. Uh what the hell is a murderous mastard? Is it a type of dinasaur like selmanela?

At 4/2/07 10:19 PM, N-Zyme wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:18 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Self defense is just PREVENTING an attack and defending yourself, if a guys comes at you with a hammer, you don't have the right to murder him.

well, what I dont wanna be hit with a hammer so I just shoot him? A hammer can kill someone easier then a gun can.

No, a gun can kill someone with applying a little pressure and aiming. A hammer is melee. The thing is, I would shoot him but this shit just doesn't hold up in court these days. Newsflash, self defense means self defense. If he keeps going at you and you have no other option then you can shoot him in the head. It's a lawsuit happy country.

GUNS ARE BAD, CASE CLOSED!

At 4/2/07 10:18 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Whilst I disagree with gun control, you have a very retarded reason why you disagree with gun control. Civilians do not kill criminals, let the police and other law enforcement fields handle that (civilians probably aren't good at it either).

Wrong, more assaults, rapes and murder attempts are prevented from armed citizens than they are from law enforcement.

You're talking about a country with millions of square miles and civilian population of 300 million (including 11-20 million illegal immigrants).

Federal and local law enforcement can't even ATTEMPT to protect everyone from criminals. And nor should citizens expect them to.

But what citizens should expect is the right to protect themselves with deadly force. That is what the Concealed weapons permit is for, which you have to go through training to get. So actually, citizens who get this training are very effective and defending themselves against criminals who have no such training.

Self defense is just PREVENTING an attack and defending yourself, if a guys comes at you with a hammer, you don't have the right to murder him.

Um, if a small dainty woman is being attacked by a guy with a hammer, she has every right to STOP him with all means necessary and using a firearm is the most effective way of doing it. Killing someone in self defense is NOT murder.

When apprehending a suspect, the goal is to bring them out ALIVE, not kill them and have no leads.

This isn't CSI.

There are no "leads" to be had when you're protecting yourself from a violent criminal. You STOP them before they can hurt you, that is the bottom line.

In conclusion, get a better reason to disagree with gun control.

Get a better reason to disagree with his disagreement of gun control. Because you don't know wtf you're talking about

Actually it all depends on how i am feeling or where i was located at the time of the break in. Say if i was near the 9mm the person is gonna get 15 hollow points in him. But if i am near the 870(shotgun by the way for those of you who know nothing about fire arms) i would have fun, probably take the plug out and load the first two with bird shot and the last three with buck shot.

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, DannyBoy666 wrote: But if i am near the 870(shotgun by the way for those of you who know nothing about fire arms) i would have fun, probably take the plug out and load the first two with bird shot and the last three with buck shot.

You're 14 years old, you shouldn't have any gun near you or in your possession.

*Eats popcorn and watches the arguments fly by* Interesting...

Ah, a right-wing cricle jerk/left-wing flame bait thread...

yes and? I've grown up near guns and know more about them than most people ever will. i mean the first time i ever shot a gun was when i was three, and it was a shotgun. And still i understand about my right to self defense, and my right to bear arms, i am an American right? So I think i still have that right. I mean i know the ten commandments of gun safety. And people DON'T have the right to intrude into my home. And i will defend myself with any means necessary and if the situation permits then a firearm will come into play.

oh by the way, cellar door has excellent taste in films, Apocalypse Now was a Masterpiece I recommend it to anyone looking for a good Vietnam movie, And as for Pulp Fiction That is self explanatory.

At 4/2/07 10:47 PM, MissAllanPoe wrote: *Eats popcorn and watches the arguments fly by* Interesting...

Nobody really cares to respond with any real argument so I guess it's over.

Here's a better idea than getting of topic about fourteen year olds and their knowledge about the subject: Pick what the hell you mean by gun control. Laws are control , and our nation has gun laws, so in a sense we have gun control. I couldn't care less about background checks or simple FLL forms. If you abide by the law, these are painfully simple steps that are no trouble whatsoever.

Now if you're talking about our nation adapting laws as strict as those of the UK, that's pure stupidity. I'm not even going to mention the mother of all stupidity bans (AWB). We already know that enforcing laws on weapons that will prevent a citizen to purchase a gun will not stop the trafficking and distribution of weapons to dedicated criminals. How the fuck do you thing a gang banger ends up with a gun? Your average homeboy certainly didn't stroll into a Walmart and pick it up.

So in terms of efficiency, firearm bans and strict weapon laws achieve nothing, right? Needless to say, anybody who spends the time and money to get certain licenses or the like won't waste it all just to kill someone. If somebody is THAT into firearms as a sport, chances are they love their hobby to much to lose it like that.

I will say only this: If you own a car, you are required by law to register, liscense and insure the vehicle, an object designed as a means of transport that could kill people if it is misused. To expect less of firearms, which are designed for the express purpose of killing is not only unrealistic, it is genuinely dangerous. Societies where gun ownership is limited in this fashion generally enjoy lower gun-crime rates and indeed lower crime rates overall.

At 4/2/07 10:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:18 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Whilst I disagree with gun control, you have a very retarded reason why you disagree with gun control. Civilians do not kill criminals, let the police and other law enforcement fields handle that (civilians probably aren't good at it either).

Wrong, more assaults, rapes and murder attempts are prevented from armed citizens than they are from law enforcement.

Now I would nearly agree with you as countrys such as UK, australia ect have many more assaults than americans, Is this because america has loads of guns???? No because america still has many more rapes than most countrys.

You're talking about a country with millions of square miles and civilian population of 300 million (including 11-20 million illegal immigrants).

lol you fuckin dick. It doesn't matter how big the country is, I expect america has very similar ratios of Policemen to population as Any other 1st world country.

Federal and local law enforcement can't even ATTEMPT to protect everyone from criminals. And nor should citizens expect them to.

Yes it can, bigger country, more police.

But what citizens should expect is the right to protect themselves with deadly force. That is what the Concealed weapons permit is for, which you have to go through training to get. So actually, citizens who get this training are very effective and defending themselves against criminals who have no such training.

Citezens should expect the right to not have to protect themselves and the right not have to worry that every ones paranoid and has a gun down there trousers.

Get a better reason to disagree with his disagreement of gun control. Because you don't know wtf you're talking about

I think concelable weapons being legal is stupid. Rifles, shotguns are fine, I've been shooting many many times an i used have a cute little .410. But Pistols an uzis and such are baltently a bad idea.

At 4/3/07 12:46 PM, zzzzd wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:18 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Whilst I disagree with gun control, you have a very retarded reason why you disagree with gun control. Civilians do not kill criminals, let the police and other law enforcement fields handle that (civilians probably aren't good at it either).

Wrong, more assaults, rapes and murder attempts are prevented from armed citizens than they are from law enforcement.

Now I would nearly agree with you as countrys such as UK, australia ect have many more assaults than americans, Is this because america has loads of guns???? No because america still has many more rapes than most countrys.

You just NEVER know what the hell you are talking about do you? The US has MORE rapes because the US has a higher population. But the rape RATE in the UK is higher than in the US.

But the original point is that more crimes are prevented in the US from citizens themselves than from Police. Thats a simple fact. Police can't be everywhere at once and that is why law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for self defense.

You're talking about a country with millions of square miles and civilian population of 300 million (including 11-20 million illegal immigrants).

lol you fuckin dick. It doesn't matter how big the country is, I expect america has very similar ratios of Policemen to population as Any other 1st world country.

No it doesn't. But you're still being too much of a moron to understand the actual point. The US is huge, and highly populated both. But it's not DENSELY populated therefore having law enforcement jurisdiction over the entire country be efficient is IMPOSSIBLE.

There are people that live in areas where the police wouldn't respond for hours. And since it's an already unavoidable fact that CRIMINALS have high access to guns, and already have many guns, taking away guns from law abiding citizens would only BOOST firearm crime.

What better way is there to help criminals than to disarm the people they prey upon?

Yes it can, bigger country, more police.

Damn you're dumb. Sorry to tell you, but you're really just... dumb. Really, really dumb. The bigger the country doesn't just mean "more police". There are variables such as distances, logistics, time and other factors that make policing a country as big as the US, with the problems the US has, just impossible.

The US borders Mexico, which is the biggest, most corrupt arms smuggling and drug smuggling country in the world from whom 11-20 million of them are in our country illegally.

We have problems, the police aren't the answer, they can't be the answer. Responsible, law-abiding Americans who stastically DO NOT commit crime at all should be able to protect themselves.

Not only is this rational, but it's a traditional thing as well. Our country was founded on this, that is how we DEFEATED your country after all. Your country at the time, the most brutal, tyrannical empire the world has ever seen was defeated by freedom loving American colonists armed with pitch forks and muskets. Our country, the worlds oldest Democracy, was created by American civilians armed with firearms, that is the reason we exist today.

Maybe that is why you dumb Brits are so opinionated about it (aside from the fact that your country revolves around us anyway).

Citezens should expect the right to not have to protect themselves and the right not have to worry that every ones paranoid and has a gun down there trousers.

Yeah and harsher gun control would do ZERO to alleviate that. No Americans are worried that "omg that person might have a gun". Because law-abiding citizens don't commit crime with firearms, and they are the only people that would be effected by harsher gun control.

The people who actually commit crime with firearms are those who won't obey the law, and won't be affected by it in the FIRST PLACE.

Harsher gun control will do nothing, all it will do is punish the wrong people for the wrong thing.

I think concelable weapons being legal is stupid. Rifles, shotguns are fine, I've been shooting many many times an i used have a cute little .410. But Pistols an uzis and such are baltently a bad idea.

More people are killed in the US by shotguns than by "uzis and such"

You don't know wtf you're talking about so you might as well just keep your snooty British nose to your own problems for once. We all understand you Brits like to live vicariously through the life of America, we get it. But seriously you're just getting exponentially more pathetic as you go along.

And the battle continues. *Grabs some propell and gummy bears*

At 4/3/07 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You just NEVER know what the hell you are talking about do you? The US has MORE rapes because the US has a higher population. But the rape RATE in the UK is higher than in the US.

Yes, I always know what i'm talking about and to quote you... "NEVER INSULT MY VAST KNOWLEGE AGAIN"

The US has more Rapes per Capita Than the UK.
Also the majority of assaults in the UK are Alchol related and the UK has much higher alchol problems than the US, it's got nothing to do with the fact that British can't defend themselves by lethal force.

No it doesn't. But you're still being too much of a moron to understand the actual point. The US is huge, and highly populated both. But it's not DENSELY populated therefore having law enforcement jurisdiction over the entire country be efficient is IMPOSSIBLE.

I can't help but laugh, yes America is incredibly vast and large, Howether If I'm not mistaken the US is made up of states which all deal with there own police forces, So it's not a matter of one police force keeping control of the whole of america, it's split into smaller states similar in size to european countries. Also I think you will find that the majority of gun crime does not occur in the vast plains but in densily populated urban areas, Cities who have police departments of there own.

Damn you're dumb. Sorry to tell you, but you're really just... dumb. Really, really dumb. The bigger the country doesn't just mean "more police". There are variables such as distances, logistics, time and other factors that make policing a country as big as the US, with the problems the US has, just impossible.

Already explained how policing works in your country.

The US borders Mexico, which is the biggest, most corrupt arms smuggling and drug smuggling country in the world from whom 11-20 million of them are in our country illegally.

oh no.

Not only is this rational, but it's a traditional thing as well. Our country was founded on this, that is how we DEFEATED your country after all. Your country at the time, the most brutal, tyrannical empire the world has ever seen was defeated by freedom loving American colonists armed with pitch forks and muskets. Our country, the worlds oldest Democracy, was created by American civilians armed with firearms, that is the reason we exist today.

once again, you love bringing this up don't you. But I would just like to correct you slightly.

Britain at the time was not the most Brutal, Tyrannical empire and most certainly not towards the American patriots. Who were treated fairly as to keep the loyalists happy. The Irish rebellions which failed, failed because every rebel was massacred.... thats Brutal.
The american war of independence is a different story, colonists got it easy.

Also Both France and Spain were more powerfull than Britain at the time, And Both of which
were supplying and fighting for the americans. It wasn't fought using pitch forks, it was fought using the best Muskets and equipment. Also the Majority of the fighting was fought by the continetnal army, not civilians.

So you are talking over-patiotic shit.

More people are killed in the US by shotguns than by "uzis and such"

Not pistols though

You don't know wtf you're talking about so you might as well just keep your snooty British nose to your own problems for once. We all understand you Brits like to live vicariously through the life of America, we get it. But seriously you're just getting exponentially more pathetic as you go along.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you snooty fuckin americunt.