Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Check the dates on your post....

At 7/7/07 07:46 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Check the dates on your post....

And just where is the evidence to back up you're pitiful little statment, hm?

The first and most often used weapons are firearms. Firearms, which include a wide range of handguns and rifles, account for three out of every five murders committed in America. Most handguns are fast and easy to use and require little, if any, training. With a gun, it doesn’t matter how big, or physically able you are, anyone from a small child to an elderly person can pull a trigger....
I looked up a percentage and posted above. According to my data 60% of murder weapons and firearms. =p

At 7/7/07 08:00 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I looked up a percentage and posted above. According to my data 60% of murder weapons and firearms. =p

Then supply it, and something to prove your previous statement that semi-automatic weapons were the most used firearms OF those crimes.

The onus is on you to provide proof for your own arguments, we're not going to go look up your data for you. If you can't handle being called out on your shit, then general forum is THAT way.

Whether or not a gun is automatic, semi-automatic, or not; the man holding the gun is the one responsible. Gun control is not what we need. We need dangerous minds to be cotrolled.

Just give everyone a lobotomy and be done with it then.

At 7/7/07 07:39 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Total nonsense

I love it how you repeatedly ignore the fact you got entirely proven wrong, and just fill a post with utter nonsense that still proves nothing you say and only acts as a distraction from the numerous points I made that proved you wrong.

You keep perpetuating your lies over, and over again and then when you get proven wrong, you dodge it, and bring up something else that still has absolutely no affect on the facts.

For the last time, get this through your thick fucking skull:

1) More crimes are prevented than caused with firearms in the US.
2) People who buy their guns legally specifically are many more times likely to prevent a crime than cause a crime. Making banning guns not only ineffective but counterproductive.
3) Tighter gun control has proven not to work, in your own country. If you compare our gun murder rates one more fucking time, disregarding all the variables again, it will prove you are either dishonest or retarded considering all those countries had lower gun murder rates even before they enacted tighter gun control.

You already KNOW that you got proven wrong, you already know that your stance is 100% wrong. You know that the case I made is so concrete that everything you say from henceforth is just your desperate attempt of salvaging your dignity and the expense of your integrity.

You lost. Get over it or actually try to prove that tighter gun control in the US will work. But I already proved it won't, so that is why you've said the horrendously uneducated, stupid shit you have for the past 2 pages.

I eagerly await whatever ridiculous nonsense that spews forth from your weak little mind next.

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

1) More crimes are prevented than caused with firearms in the US.

Source?

"approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves." -- FBI Site

At 7/8/07 06:44 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

1) More crimes are prevented than caused with firearms in the US.

Source?

OMG... have we not already gone over this? Is entirely forgetting what was only proved your only way of supporting your false stance?

- There are roughly 400,000 firearm crimes a year in the US.

- There are roughly2 Million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens each year in the US.

That automatically shows that guns do more good than harm. But then when you make it knowm that the majority of firearm crime is committed by people who CANNOT and DO NOT legally own their firearms.

That means that less than 200,000 firearm crimes are committed by law-abiding citizens (probably a lot less more) compared to the 2 Million defensive gun uses by law-abiding citizens.

That is a 10 to 1 ration of crimes PREVENTED compared to crimes caused by legal gun ownership.

Not only does it show that more crime is prevented than caused with legally owned guns, but it shows that if guns were banned, gun crime would go WAY up.

kthxbai

Wait...so there are more defenses than crimes?

I'm confused now.

As you've said it, there are 5 times more defensive uses than crimes.

Of course I agree, topic starter. But surely you realise that nothing can be done now. Too many people already have guns. It's not like you can expect almost every household to just periodically hand in all their guns.

It's not going to happen.

It's too late.

At 7/8/07 06:57 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Wait...so there are more defenses than crimes?

Yes! There are more defensive uses of firearms than criminal uses of firearms. What the hell don't you get about that?

I'm confused now.

As you've said it, there are 5 times more defensive uses than crimes.

Yes, and the sources prove that. What the hell confuses you about that? Or is this another one of your silly ways of ignoring something when you get proven wrong?

-There are 2 Million DEFENSIVE uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens yearly in the US.
-This overwhelmingly negates the 400,000 instances of firearms being USED in crime.
- Of those 400,000 gun crimes, 200,000 or less are committed by legal owners.
- That means that legal use of firearms in the US prevents 10 times more crime than it causes.

Holy hell use your freaking brain for once.

At 7/8/07 06:57 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Wait...so there are more defenses than crimes?

I'm confused now.

As you've said it, there are 5 times more defensive uses than crimes.

Well, if the crime was prevented by the use of a gun, then it didn't happen. Also your figure is on the amount of gun crime. I'm certain that guns have been used to defend against criminals bearing knives, crowbars, ect.

On a side note, your 1% figure referred to crime victims. Wouldn't that imply that they tried to defend themselves and failed?

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/7/07 07:39 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Total nonsense

Cellar, by doing just that you proved what a troll you are.

In future, expect the same amount of respect I give to WolvenBear and Dre-Man...buyt at least they have a concept of what idiotic, clueless, neo-con trolls they are. So, who's delusional?

At 7/8/07 09:11 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/7/07 07:39 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Total nonsense

Cellar, by doing just that you proved what a troll you are.

In future, expect the same amount of respect I give to WolvenBear and Dre-Man...buyt at least they have a concept of what idiotic, clueless, neo-con trolls they are. So, who's delusional?

At least he gave a counter-argument. Would you rather him fill up the page with your previous arguments if he's just going to respond to them in general? :P It was sorta rude but at least he didn't fill up the page unecessarily that way.

But cellardoor6, I ask you a question: Don't you agree that one of the good arguments against gun control is that gun control takes power away from the citizens by making them more defenseless and therefore giving the government more power to walk all over its citizens?

At 7/8/07 09:11 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/7/07 07:39 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Total nonsense

Cellar, by doing just that you proved what a troll you are.

How? I think you're the troll because even though you know you got proven wrong, you repeatedly perpetuate your obviously false views by bringing up totally unrelated nonsense.

You still have provided absolutely no contextual evidence to support anything you say. Then, when the un-sourced NONSENSE you say gets proven wrong, you have to pretend that you "picked apart" my argument. You think that your OWN silly, uneducated claims can "pick apart" mathematical fact.

You proved that your stance you've taken is based on an irrational bias, it's not based on facts. Because you've already seen the facts that make the things you call for useless and counterproductive if your goal is in fact to reduce gun crime, it is a FACT that if the US did what you think it should do, gun crime would go up. It seems that you would intentionally support measures that would increase gun violence, just so that you could make LEGAL gun ownership illegal, because you have a psychotic, entirely illogical bias against guns and gun owners, not gun crime.

When facts no longer hold any sway in your argument, it's pretty obvious that something is clouding your judgment. You're a miserable human being.

At 7/8/07 05:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: But cellardoor6, I ask you a question: Don't you agree that one of the good arguments against gun control is that gun control takes power away from the citizens by making them more defenseless and therefore giving the government more power to walk all over its citizens?

Yeah, as I said before that is a major point. But using that point solely usually discredits the argument in the mind of most people, because well, people are stupid. Nobody wants to believe that some sort of Gestapo behavior could take place in the 21st century (or beyond), they think history will never be repeated, so of course they don't really emphasize the fact that an armed citizen population is basically the only way to make it impossible for such a thing to take place again.

Now, since such a goal of preventing your country from take over doesn't hold sway in the minds of people like Highlyillogical and Dk2virus, I intentionally emphasize the fact that right now, legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes, by 10 fold thus making THEIR anti-gun argument incredibly wrong and counterproductive.

They make the point that banning guns will reduce gun crime, I proved that it won't and hasn't. If their goal is in fact to reduce gun crime in the US, then they should be pro-gun if you look at the facts. Once they kept their stance after having their entire justification for banning guns ripped to shreds, it became obvious that their stance is not very rational.

In actuality, they are brainwashed to be anti-gun and anti gun owner, not anti gun crime. Their mindset is a negative byproduct of the demonization of guns by the media, they focus all of their attention on the actual gun and only use gun crime as a catalyst. So even though they use the facade of a quest to reduce gun crime as their justification for banning guns, they've shown that reducing gun crime really isn't their goal, just getting rid of guns is, either that or the support political ideology that supports getting rid of guns.

It shows how utterly delusional the anti-gun stance is when the thing they are trying to get rid of in order to reduce gun crime, the gun, actually prevents 10 times more crime than it causes. It's a testament to the mental disorder that is modern liberalism when you intentionally and mindlessly support doing something knowing full well that it won't actually be effective, and will actually make things worse.

I look forward to the day when Hilary comes to the Whitehouse, makes the agreement with the UN to ban firearms, which is only supported in countries with tyrants and dictators, in the US COMPLETELY bypassing Congress, raising an underground militia with the guns and ammo buried under the house, and attacking the Whitehouse directly and killing that bitch. Afterwards ALL gun control will be done away with and people can walk down the street carrying a fully automatic AK-47.

If everyone has guns there will be less crime, and you'll hear less reports of people getting mugged since the victims will have a 9mm hidden in their business suit and opening fire on the street trash. When everyone has guns everyone will be self reliant and won't have to wait for SWAT to rescue hotages at the Red Cross.

Hey Al Quada! Do me a favor and bomb the UN building alright?

If you ban guns then we will have a another case of death.

one the lessons learned in history.

Hillary clinton wants to lead us to a NEW WORLD ORDER!

and i can't wait till we elect her.

A lot of people fail to understand that if guns are made illegal to the general public and monitored strictly, no-one would need any firearms to defend themselves and/or end up shooting other people. Sure, there would still be weapons, but maybe people would become more interested in learning proper self defence.
You cant stop guns being sold and traded completely, but if shops were closed down, there, in my opinion, would be a lot less people killing each other with guns,.

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/22/07 04:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I'm aware that preventing gun ownership is unconstitutional. Its my personal opinion that guns should be outlawed. The difference is Bush impeachs upon constitutional rights without justifiable reason.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO BAN GUNS YOU MORON. First and foremost it DOESN'T WORK.

i laughed so hard at this, i present a legitimate argument and then a degenerate manages to turn it into a profanity slinging match. I thought the entire thread was on debating gun control. Seeing as how there is a gun culture that's causing a massive per capita murder rate in comparison to other countries with gun control, and seeing as how the majority of those murders are committed with a gun, there is a justifiable reason to ban guns, hence this thread and the debate going around in political circles. Whether its an appropriate measure or not is debatable. To allege its unjustifiable is evidence that you sir, are a fucking idiot.

You think throwing people into Guantanemo Bay without a right to a hearing

Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

What a fucking idiot, misread the entire paragraph? Do you have selective reading problems?
and yes, non-U.S citizens are covered by international law. Also Guantanemo Bay doesn't rule out throwing U.S citizens in jail without due trial. ADERRRR

And that is why people like you are uneducated enough in the subject to actually say the stupid shit you've been saying.

I'm disappointed in you, I thought someone who insinuates others are unintelligible would at the very least present something worthwhile rather then "im right, you're wrong. kthx bai" as a conclusive argument. or disproportionately use slanderous statements to get a point across as opposed to civil discourse. Did you get your education at a special school? lol

Funny because I justified that statement below, i wanted to make it simple and concise.

Making ti simple and concise allows you to entirely ignore reality and come to a false conclusion based on NOTHING

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I can't believe what i've just read. Did you get your English lessons from Rupert Murdoch? Or a monkey? I want to know where you got an education, so I can blacklist it. You fail at debate.

If the detractors wanted to argue Gun-Prohibitions weren't stemming violence all they had to do was look at the international statistics to be proven wrong.

That doesn't prove them wrong. There are MANY factors that cause violence, gun laws are only a small part of it.

Again, I never denied there were other factors. I'm simply saying that only accepting 'other factors' and COMPLETELY ignoring guns as being a factor in perpetrating gun violence was at the very most an incompetent interpretation and the very least fucking retarded. Judging by your comprehension skills I'd say you fit into the latter.

Canada's gun laws don't make them have less violence and murder, claiming such a thing is ridiculous.

Is it as ridiculous as making a claim that 'anybody who correlates less guns with less gun violence is being simply ridiculous?'

Every single point you've ever made so far in your short stint on NG has been entirely mistaken.

I must digress, I think you must've mistaken your dad's small penis for your mum's mammary glands as a child. On point again, I'd concur with your allegation if only it was an address to yourself. Nothing you've said is slightly intelligible.

I just said yes we should get rid of guns. And no cars and motorcycles kill people but theyre rarely used with the INTENT to kill.

How does that actually matter. Isn't the intent to lessen deaths? If you want to do that you should outlaw all vehicles considering they kill many times more people every year than guns do.

No because again, as I've said Cars aren't often used with the motive to kill people. Cars cause deaths due to accidents, whereas Guns are and which are also used to perpetrate crimes. Get my point now? Or do I need to clarify myself further? Fucking moronic spastic, excuse the tautology, i think its important to emphasize how much of an idiot you are.

Following the theme of formulating a rebuttal in a similar manner to yourself, I'll conclude myself as you would.

IVE PROVED YOU COMPLETELY WRONG YOU ASININE FUCKWIT. moronic people with no capacity to comprehend statistics or appropriately justify their weak arguments of undisclosed 'other factors' involved shouldnt be allowed to even consider that an irrefutable argument.
as ive proved GUNS KILL PEOPLE.
IVE PROVED GUN CONTROL WORKS ON A NATIONAL SCALE
all youve proved is youre an ignorant fuckwit that misconstrues other peoples statements to make them befitting for a stupid rebuttal with a disproportionate use of the word moron, moron.
so by being an absolutely retarded bigot, you make me more right by default.

kthxbai

At 6/30/07 09:49 AM, TheMason wrote: D2K & Cellar,

I actually get tired of comparing the US to the UK on this issue. Even when you reduce the gun murder rate down to a per capita basis you cannot effectively compare the two because there are other factors that are involved.

1) The UK does not have the same social problems as the US; ie gang culture.

An incomprehensibly bad example.
Yes, the UK has a gang culture and a large one at that. Follow the soccer/football a bit and You'll realize this. Fortunately due to a lack of guns they don't start shooting each other at the end of every soccer match. This is also an explanation for higher violence in the UK, there's just no headline for 'violent incidents relating to your football team losing'.

2) While you have reduced the stats down to a per capita basis you have not dealt with the issue that the US is massively larger than the UK in terms of population and land mass. Both of these introduce many variables that would explain why the difference in murder rates.

The population issue is virtually resolved through the per capita comparison. As for land mass, most murders occur in urbanized areas in the U.S much like the U.K, so geographics can't be argued as having some form of significant bearing. You could argue land mass may have a little affect on murder rates but then comparing it to Australia or other European countries with effective Gun-Control in place debunks this. A comparison to the other European countries (as i've listed earlier) would also rule out the borders vs island argument.

What the debate comes down to is should the US adopt UK or EU style gun control. Obviously D2K thinks so. However, Cellar and I disagree because our several different reasons.

The first is in the US gun control does not work. Take gang culture for instance. Gun control will not have any effect on that. 1) there are too many guns already in circulation in the US and 2) our borders are way too pourous to realistically think that we will keep new guns from entering the system. We have to deal with this problem through other means.

Borders? Europe. Gang Culture? England. Too many guns in circulation? Australia.
I'd like to cite sources, statistics and present a more thorough argument but running into trolls like your buddy cellardoor kind of kills the idea of 'debating', if you will.

Cellar and I also believe that concealed carry and defensive use of firearms outweigh the murder rate. Therefore, gun control only takes guns away from people who would responsibly use them.

If you learn how to effectively manage relationships and borders like the EU, learn how to crack down on illegal gun cartels and then provide more safer alternatives to self defense such as pepper spray, B.B Guns, Tasers; then guns as a form of self defense isn't necessary on almost all instances of self-defense. It also then in turn prevents police from shooting you in paranoid fear of you possessing a gun, which isn't exactly a rare phenomenon.

Furthermore, in the US gun control laws are written by people who are ignorant of the topic and the technology.

This isn't exactly a difficult problem to address. Get people who are knowledgeable about the subject to write up the laws (that aren't in someway sponsored, primarily or secondarily affiliated with or employed by a gun manufacturer).

It became a joke bill which did nothing but make the anti-gunners feel like they accomplished something. It is this concern with "feelings" rather than results from the gun-control crowd that produces failed and ineffectual gun control legislation.

Well coming from somebody who hasn't been affected by gun violence, but of course been involved in some 'scuffles' you could say I'm not pro-gun control due to emotions. But thankfully the lack of guns during those incidents hasn't led me to become a victim or perpetrator of the 16 000 odd gun homicides every year.
But don't take my word for it feel free to talk to the 18% of gun homicide victims, children under 14 and see how they feel about guns being a form of 'protection'. Oh wait, they're kind of dead aren't they.

To liberals:

Who are you to decide when, how, and if I can defend my own life?

I don't even see how people can argue this. 2nd Amendment. Nuff' said.

At 7/12/07 10:03 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/22/07 04:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

i laughed so hard at this, i present a legitimate argument and then a degenerate manages to turn it into a profanity slinging match.

You didn't give a legitimate argument. You got proven wrong solidly and you perpetuated your argument based on your own personal desire to salvage your own views, rather than accept reality.

Seeing as how there is a gun culture that's causing a massive per capita murder rate in comparison to other countries with gun control, and seeing as how the majority of those murders are committed with a gun, there is a justifiable reason to ban guns, hence this thread and the debate going around in political circles.

Once again, your view is based entirely on irrational thinking due to the ignorance of the actual facts. You cannot compare the gun crimes of other countries that have entirely different dynamics in crime over all, and then use gun laws to determine it.

The countries that have lesser gun crime but tighter gun control had lesser gun crime BEFORE they enacted tighter gun control. Their gun laws only play one part in it, therefore it doesn't make sense to have an entirely different country with an entirely different set of issues follow in their footsteps, especially if it has been proven that gun control doesn't always work, and has IN FACT made gun crime more prevalent after guns were banned in places like the UK that already had lower gun crime than the US.

To allege its unjustifiable is evidence that you sir, are a fucking idiot.

Banning guns in the US is unjustifiable, the only person here who is the fucking idiot is you apparently because you have denied the facts repeatedly just because it proved YOU wrong, and you're arguing due to your own ego, not due to your actual concern over gun crime.

If you look at the FACTS, and accept them instead of allowing your desire to salvage your own views cloud your sense of reality, you'd see that banning guns in the US would make crime worse. But no, your argument is based on ignorance of facts. Your desire to keep supporting your ignorant view even after your justification for banning guns was conclusively destroyed with facts, is evidence to show that reducing gun crime isn't really your goal. Banning guns has been proven not to reduce gun crime, yet you still wish to ban guns, thus showing your goal is anti-gun, and anti-gunowner, your goal isn't really to reduce gun crime.

I'm disappointed in you, I thought someone who insinuates others are unintelligible would at the very least present something worthwhile rather then "im right, you're wrong. kthx bai" as a conclusive argument

No, because I already provided my conclusive argument, I've already proved you wrong with the numerous facts I provided. It's already obvious that you're wrong and I'm right, and you've given absolutely zero reason to claim otherwise.

or disproportionately use slanderous statements to get a point across as opposed to civil discourse.

Funny because your entire post has been slander and you've almost entirely ignored the actual topic.

Did you get your education at a special school? lol

Try... the University of Washington.

Again, I never denied there were other factors.

But you entirely ignored them by basing your entire support for banning guns on the fact that the US has relatively high gun crime and happens to have lax gun control. You failed to acknowledge the facts that gun laws are only one single part of it. You failed to acknowledge how it was PROVEN that tighter gun control doesn't automatically mean there will be less gun crime after it is enforced, as I proved. Thus showing your only way of defending your stance was by ignoring all other factors and using the out-of-context use of a single statistic as your only argument for supporting something that isn't really justified by that statistic as you mindlessly claimed it was.

IVE PROVED YOU COMPLETELY WRONG YOU ASININE FUCKWIT.

Actually you have not proven one single thing you've said. All you've done is base your entire argument on your IGNORANCE of facts.

You've said that banning guns will reduce gun crime, you provided no evidence of this. I however proved conclusively that banning guns will not work in the US, and is actually entirely counter-productive. Let's take a look at the facts, once again, that you love to ignore:

1) There are around 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

2) The majority of this firearm crime is committed by people who cannot legally own firearms due to their legal ineligibility, therefore they are already criminals. Therefore at least 200,000 gun crimes are committed by people who are not legally eligible to purchase/own firearms.

3) In order to support banning guns, you'd have to show that legally-owned guns cause more crime than they prevent in the US. But you can't do that (of course you can't) because there are 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens in the US annually.

That means that law-abiding citizens prevent at least 10 times more crime than they cause with their firearm. It also means that since most firearm crimes are perpetrated by people who do not legally own their firearms and don't obey gun laws (let alone any laws), banning guns would only take them out of the hands of the people who, according to the statistical facts, use guns responsibly.

4) Now to entirely defeat the argument you'll surely have that consists of "but if there was no legal ownership, criminals wouldn't steal guns in order to use them"; I can prove how banning guns doesn't mean guns go away:

The UK banned handguns in 1997 with the goal of (obviously) reducing the use of handguns in crime. This stupid ban, just like an equally stupid ban in the US that you would support, DID NOT WORK and actually had the OPPOSITE effect. The use of handguns in crime went up drastically in the UK, going up 40% in 2 years. Then gun crime went up 35% in one year, and doubled 6 years into the ban. In 2003 the UK had twice the gun crime they did in 1997 before the ban.

I therefore proved my case that you are wrong. Banning guns will not work, there is no justification for banning guns. There is proof that banning guns will make things worse in the US as it has in the UK, and there is proof that the very idea of banning guns in the US is RIDICULOUS considering legal-owners of guns in the US prevent more crime than they cause, and the people who are the biggest problem, criminals, will obey no ban, just like they don't obey our current gun laws.

Therefore it is OBVIOUS that after these facts become known, anyone who is as stupid as you are and still proposes banning guns is either A) entirely mentally dysfunctional or B) doesn't really care about reducing gun crime, but really just wants to ban guns even if it would actually make gun crime worse.

See, I base my argument on the facts, you base your argument purely on your own uneducated, distorted personal view of the things. The fact that your only way of giving a rebuttal is by devoting an entire post to childish personal insults, including zero fact about the actual subject of discussion, is testament to the utter weakness of your side of the argument, and to your own utter inability to debate a thing that invokes too much thought.

At 7/12/07 10:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/12/07 10:03 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/22/07 04:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

i laughed so hard at this, i present a legitimate argument and then a degenerate manages to turn it into a profanity slinging match.

You didn't give a legitimate argument. You got proven wrong solidly and you perpetuated your argument based on your own personal desire to salvage your own views, rather than accept reality.

Oh but i beg to differ:
" THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO BAN GUNS YOU MORON. First and foremost it DOESN'T WORK." - Cellardoor

Once again, your view is based entirely on irrational thinking due to the ignorance of the actual facts. You cannot compare the gun crimes of other countries that have entirely different dynamics in crime over all, and then use gun laws to determine it.

Yet again you cannot simply interpret my words in context.

The countries that have lesser gun crime but tighter gun control had lesser gun crime BEFORE they enacted tighter gun control. Their gun laws only play one part in it, therefore it doesn't make sense to have an entirely different country with an entirely different set of issues follow in their footsteps, especially if it has been proven that gun control doesn't always work, and has IN FACT made gun crime more prevalent after guns were banned in places like the UK that already had lower gun crime than the US.

I'm sure someone already presented an argument that debunked this as well, i believe your reply to him was and i dont kid, something along the lines of
"youre an absolute moron that continues to perpetuate your ignorance"

To allege its unjustifiable is evidence that you sir, are a fucking idiot.

Banning guns in the US is unjustifiable, the only person here who is the fucking idiot is you apparently because you have denied the facts repeatedly just because it proved YOU wrong, and you're arguing due to your own ego, not due to your actual concern over gun crime.

lol again, can't take anything in context, have you ever heard of debate? apparently everything to use is "im right youre wrong therefore your views are asinine and unjustified".

If you look at the FACTS, and accept them instead of allowing your desire to salvage your own views cloud your sense of reality, you'd see that banning guns in the US would make crime worse. But no, your argument is based on ignorance of facts.

Try looking in the mirror

I'm disappointed in you, I thought someone who insinuates others are unintelligible would at the very least present something worthwhile rather then "im right, you're wrong. kthx bai" as a conclusive argument

No, because I already provided my conclusive argument, I've already proved you wrong with the numerous facts I provided. It's already obvious that you're wrong and I'm right, and you've given absolutely zero reason to claim otherwise.

"youre wrong im right" again i have presented reason otherwise but i failed to reply to them and instead played your favorite game of cut a text which best fits YOUR argument, and is completely devoid of anybody ELSES points that you have difficulty concisely debunking.

or disproportionately use slanderous statements to get a point across as opposed to civil discourse.

Funny because your entire post has been slander and you've almost entirely ignored the actual topic.

I think you mustve missed the several parts where i said i was writing on the theme of being you.

Again, I never denied there were other factors.

But you entirely ignored them by basing your entire support for banning guns on the fact that the US has relatively high gun crime and happens to have lax gun control.

actually no i didnt, not in previous posts. you however present this argument
"gun control doesnt work" "gun statistics correlating gun control measures vs freedom to bear arms showing less murders by firearms is completely irrelevant. due to a multitude of factors OTHER then gun control. this in of itself is evidently biased and blissfully ignorant. as i said before but you freely disposed of this once again as you so often love to.

You've said that banning guns will reduce gun crime, you provided no evidence of this. I however proved conclusively that banning guns will not work in the US, and is actually entirely counter-productive. Let's take a look at the facts, once again, that you love to ignore:

No you never conclusively proved anything. When somebody else presented an argument that questioned it you simplified your argument to a profanity slinging match. Its effectively "i'm needy, listen to my views, i disprove of your views ill provide nothing intelligible to refute your rebuttals"
The facts you've presented below, though lacking sources (or maybe im just not seeing the links cause im replying) are interesting. You havent written them PREVIOUSLY. where it was simply a case of:
"youre an idiot, statewide bans prove its wrong"
"there are other factors inadequate evidence presented<end rant>"
"shut up those stats are irrelevant. swear swear swear. im right youre wrong. <end rant>"

I'll get back to these in due time and the actuality is i may open up to your perspective of pro-gun ownership, these statistics again as i said, are pretty interesting. And i guess this is the entire idea behind, you know.. Debate? Civil discourse? conversation? as opposed to calling names like an insecure dick and misconstruing statements to make them fitting for another round of vanity bashing.

Hahaha

Look at yourself!

Notice how you have to entirely ignore the actual topic, give absolutely no actual response to the facts that entirely prove you wrong?

Just keep going, you're an absolutely hilarious little child when you become so disgruntled and damaged by your loss of the argument that you can no longer actually address the actual subject of debate.

Hahaha!

Warning: Digressive banter

Again, improperly developed degenerate who claims to have a shred of intellect.
Has it not occured to you that in light of your incapacity to conduct yourself in a civil manner
Your inability to debate legitimate rebuttals made and simply omitting them or presenting them with a slew of profanities, and the insistance that your arguments are divinely right and miscontruing statements time and time again to fit your pathetic rebuttals.
Has it occurred that through this, I've as i stated, decided it best to write "on the theme of you"?
I've proven this irrefutably time and time again, and thats the purpose behind it, but evidently you lack the capacity to recognize this, or anything that requires a reading level above Junior High. But hey feel free to come back at me with more 'witty' banter, and misconstrued quotes it just helps to clarify how idiotic you are.
--
I've never seen such a massive bigoted hypocrite who doesn't realize the err in his incomprehensibly asinine ways. Your arguments obtain more hypocrisies and miracles of correlation then the bible could conjure. Above all, your rebuttals are at best a whimsical display of undermining profanity. Beyond reform, your narcissism is beyond possible human comprehension. Trying to explain to you what it means to debate in a civil manner seems to be rewarded with more abuse. Thats ironic. Explaining the idea behind debate somehow gets misinterpreted despite several clarifications. Again, hilarious. You sir, are a moron. What do you at U.Washington? Janitorial Duties? Don't lie, I'm sure a delinquent like yourself is happy he's cleaning at such a reputable university given his pathetic sats and gpa.

Keep appealing to emotion. Keep ignoring facts and keep ignoring alternating perspectives. Because you know what? Apparently you're god's gift and your opinion is beyond reproach, its an intellectual sin to even contemplate even remotely disagreeing with you. Hence your reward of a slew of profanities and then omitting points you can't disprove or a severe misinterpretation of the point, broken down by your Psychologically trained analysis of "stupid" "my points better" Right? keep it up, youre fooling nobody but yourself.
lol what a joke.
--

You know, it only proves that you're wrong and you know you're wrong when you no longer address the issue and have to devote paragraphs into a personal attack, accusing me of doing things that I haven't done, but that actually YOU did the whole time.

It's like you're intentionally trying to look as dumb as possible. It's like this whole thing is a joke and you're really just intentionally acting like the biggest possible imbecile on purpose for your own entertainment.

At 7/13/07 12:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You know, it only proves that you're wrong and you know you're wrong when you no longer address the issue

Like you do...

and have to devote paragraphs into a personal attack,

...Like you do...

accusing me of doing things that I haven't done, but that actually YOU did the whole time.

...like you do. I don't have time to follow the argument and catch up, but I find it hilarious to see you say that.

It's like you're intentionally trying to look as dumb as possible. It's like this whole thing is a joke and you're really just intentionally acting like the biggest possible imbecile on purpose for your own entertainment.

Hey look, a personal attack.