Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Ye gods, I never thought I would see the day where there would be people even less intelligent than Begoner. But DKvirus and Tony are proving to be so.

This here happens to be one of (if not the) best arguments Cellar has presented. AND HES RIGHT!

Also, to explain something, about there being more firearm use in defense than crimes. This is the result of using a firearm against a guy with a knife, setting something on fire, bombing something, kidnappers, or someone whos raping you (or you wife/mom/sister) or in some states someone who is robbing you, etc.

---

At 7/8/07 08:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

Editing what somebody said - especially to avoid answering a valid question yet again - is trollish. As are some of your responses made afterwards - highly mature, intellectual and relevant.

But you never had an argument, did you?

---

At 7/14/07 07:45 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 08:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

Editing what somebody said - especially to avoid answering a valid question yet again - is trollish.

What you're doing is trollish because you're entirely failing to address the topic and focusing all of your attention on my as your only way of participating in the thread.

But you never had an argument, did you?

Funny, I've already meticulously PROVED my argument, and it has been YOU who has never had an argument. You STILL don't have an argument because you haven't had the moxy to stay within the confines of the topic that you already know you've lost, yet are too stubborn and insecure with reality to admit.

Let's recap; you've proposed banning guns in the US, I've claimed it won't work. You've provided no real evidence to support your stance, while I've PROVED that my stance is entirely sound by using a whole host of relevant facts and organizing them in a coherent way.

Let's take another look at the FACTS shall we?

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 because there are 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens in the US annually.

That means that law-abiding citizens use their guns defensively, preventively, 10 times more than they do irresponsibly. Legal use of firearms prevents 10 times more crime than it causes. This 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 reducing the use of handguns in crime. This stupid ban DID NOT WORK. The use of handguns in crime went up drastically in the UK, going up 40% in 2 years. Not only that, but if you read that all the way through, it seems that after the ban, the places with the lowest amount of guns had the highest amount of crime, and the places with the highest amount of guns had the lowest amount of crime.

UK gun crime kept going up after the ban, it 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.

Therefore, there is ZERO support for your stance of banning guns. There is solid, irrefutable facts that boost my stance that there should be no gun ban. Therefore I have an argument, I've had one all along, I've been able to validate my claims, and been able to prove my argument is correct. You've done nothing of the sort, and now you're just desperate to maintain your pride and disregard your defeat in this thread, so you devote an entire post around me personally, while ENTIRELY failing to address the topic. You already lost, you know you can't address the issue anymore, it's a lost cause. You need to save face, so you're perpetuating the argument by making the topic about me only. It's pretty pathetic.

---

At 7/14/07 08:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/14/07 07:45 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 08:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

Editing what somebody said - especially to avoid answering a valid question yet again - is trollish.

What you're doing is trollish because you're entirely failing to address the topic and focusing all of your attention on my as your only way of participating in the thread.

AAAAAND that's another example of - pointing the finger at everyone but yourself. Genius!

But you never had an argument, did you?

Funny, I've already meticulously PROVED my argument, and it has been YOU who has never had an argument. You STILL don't have an argument because you haven't had the moxy to stay within the confines of the topic that you already know you've lost, yet are too stubborn and insecure with reality to admit.

All you've proven is that you can throw around a few numbers, but cannot adequatly come up with a legitimate excuse for over 15,000 Americans being murdered, with guns, every year - but somehow 78 Britons is a worse thing?

What you cannot adequatly explain away is how the highest muder rates in the UK and highest gun murder rates do not correlate (Manchester excepted).

What you cannot legitimatly claim is that all your gun murder statistics can be blamed on Mexicans, as you have tried to do, when the Mexican population of New York, Florida, South Carolina etc is minimal - while Arizona and New Mexico have far lower gun murder statistics, yet they too share a border with Mexico. And, on the subject, why most of the highest gun murder rate states also have the death penalty, thus the deterrant is not deterring people.

You want to make something out of more Americans getting killed in car accidents: three times as many, and there is a higher percentile of cars in the US. You ignore that five times more people are killed with guns in the US per year than in car accidents in the UK.

You seem intent on not recognising that the UK gun murder statistics are only in certain London boroughs and districts of Manchester: that Glasgow, second only to Belfast in the murder rate, doesn't feature gun crime is worthy of speculation.

Come to think of it, you also don't recognise that, even in London's black immigrant communities, you cannot say they are all gun murder hotspots.

You keep forgetting that actually owning a handgun is a crime in the UK, and not in the US, when hopping up and down saying gun crime has increased. Of course the statistics will increase if some drug dealer happens to carry a gun when they're arrested. You see, there's a slight difference between the generalised "crime" and the more specific "homicide".

You bang on about illegally owned guns, yet in the case of VT, don't make anything of how selling guns on eBay is irrisponsible to such an extreme a new word needs to be created in order to adequatly describe it.

You also don't realise that, by having the Second Amendment reinterpreted for people's own ends, you open up a market for guns - both a legal and an illegal one.

And, of course, you don't realise one thing: if you don't have a gun, you don't shoot somebody for "slighting" you - you might beat them up, but assault is a slightly different charge than murder. Say about 20 years difference?

You also don't seem to accept that Texas has no gun laws and, surprise surprise, is right up there when it comes to state-by-state gun murders.

You don't seem to have a problem with the US having a gun murder rate far higher than the rest of the First World, and within a bracket of Third World countries - somehow this is unimportant, but 78 Britons are.

You never accept that in Britian, our gun murders are criminal-on-criminal, which cannot be said for the US. In fact, since we banned handguns those killed with guns have been rival gang members/drug dealers. Before that, we had Dunblane and Hungerford.

What you do seem happy to do is claim those that disagree with you are "delusional" and stick to unimportant facets of a failed argument. You seem happy to appeal to argument-free zones that can't read a simple sentence in regards to their own Bill of Rights, or people that think that banning guns would financially cripple America (how has never been explained, since I can think of several other things going into the economy, and that most weapons are maanufactured abroad).

So carry on saying nothing at great length, assuming it gives you some respectibility - forgetting it's earned, and you don't get it by being a pro-gun, conservative troll with a chip on their shoulder.

---

A far more homologus culture as well as a less dense population; as well as better acess to illegal firearms are 3 great reasons to explain why the UK has so much less firearm incidents.

There's a reason why the point that the overwhelming majority of firearm murders are commited by criminals who can't get they're firearms legally is important. It means that they're already buying them illegally; and you can't make something illegal that's already illegal and expect to create a big change about it.

You may also want to consider that it might be more usefull to organize police forces into tracking down and dismantling black market gun sales.

---

At 7/14/07 11:39 AM, TomsPulp wrote: dont fucking compare britan with USA, we are a tottaly different country...

Really? And there was I thinking the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth. Take all the paranoia and chips on the shoulder of 17th Century Christia Fundamentalists from Britain, dseperate them from the rest of the world, and simmer.

A lot of American attitudes come from that. So, yes, I can compare - you have the same mentality, as your founding fathers took them over with them.

more guns save lifes than take lifes...thats all you need to know

I know the word is "lives" for a start, cockmonger.

And I also know those lives would be less at risk if there weren't guns freely available, thus creating a market for them and, as a result, a black market for them: a black market that can charge considerably less than in, say, Britain due to guns being freely available.

Make guns unavailable, the black market price goes up. When that happens, then two-bit gangsta wannabes and nickle and dime robbers can't get their hands on one. Try and get shot by someone that doesn't have a gun - it's impossible.

also, most gun crimes are committed by illegal criminals that cant even get a gun in the first place....so banning guns wont take them away from the people who do crimes with them!

What did I just say?

By making guns harder to get hold of, the chance of innocent bystanders being killed decreases: handguns have been banned in the UK for ten years, and all of our gun deaths have been criminal-on-criminal, while automatic weapons were banned 20 years ago and not one person has been killed with one since.

Of course, there is no connection with a lack of guns and a lack of people being indiscriminatly gunned down with guns.

SO STOP FUCKING SAYING WE NEED TO BAN GUNS, WE DONT!

I will keep saying it - what're you going to do? Shoot me? Better wait for your 18th birthday before you can do that. Oh, but wait, you can't take it on a plane, can you? Damn...

---

At 7/14/07 11:45 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: A far more homologus culture as well as a less dense population; as well as better acess to illegal firearms are 3 great reasons to explain why the UK has so much less firearm incidents.

Funny, the way that Trollheimer goes on about it, you'd thinmk we were Columbia and South Africa combined.

Also, if you want to consider density, look at council estates: they cram people in there and, coincidentally, they are where a lot of violence is bred from.

There's a reason why the point that the overwhelming majority of firearm murders are commited by criminals who can't get they're firearms legally is important. It means that they're already buying them illegally; and you can't make something illegal that's already illegal and expect to create a big change about it.

As mentioned elsewhere, there's a loophole responsible for a certain amount of the guns on the street:
In 1997, handguns were declared illegal as it was declared, quite rightly, there is no legitimate use for one other than shooting another person (rifles and shotguns are avaiulable for farmers), and there was an amnesty to hand them to the police. However, gun dealers didn't want to lose out on their profits, so converted the guns to fire only blanks, basically as something to put on the mantlepiece - only for people to buy these up, and convert them back to firing live ammo.

In other words, in a legal sense, they are legally buying a blank-firing weapon, and illegally converting it to a live one. Yes, there are others sneaking in weapons illegally, but going back to market price, which is better: paying a huge amount for a black market Beretta, or buying a blank-firing Beretta for about £100 ($200), and converting it? After all, you're under the radar in doing so, which you aren't if you import.

You may also want to consider that it might be more usefull to organize police forces into tracking down and dismantling black market gun sales.

The problem is our police get caught up in details: they are mor elikely to charge a person for having a joint than catch and charge a dealer, because they have to fulfill a quota of arrests (thanks to Tony Blair introducing targets to every facet of British administrative life - see also education, health etc.). In other words, rather than arrest the drug lord (one arrest) they arrest people with weed on them/low end dealers (ten arrests). Does this solve anything? No. You cannot have adequate policing when each force have to arrest X amount of people per week/month/year. You go for the cause, not the effect.

Gouing back to Brixton, is it no wonder that once they decriminalised carrying weed for your own personal use, the police got their job done better? Suddenly they had the time to go for the suppliers which, as also mentioned, included the Yardies (who also import guns into the UK - they even rent the things out on a street corner, which is an image).

Yet there's a but: in places like the Moss Side district of Manchester, which is both a murder hotspot, and a gun murder hotspot (the only place which is both) has a culture of silence and watching each other's backs, which is born from the combination of their Working Class roots, and the criminal element being formed of Irish immigrants new and old, which will get in the way of any investigation or operation (and is comparable with attitudes in South Central LA).

---

At 7/14/07 01:15 PM, TomsPulp wrote: dude, if you make guns illegal the criminals wont just turn there guns in........all the good citizens will, but criminals wont, so now who has the guns?

That's the situation in the UK: only criminals have handguns (by creative or illegal means, as documented above), but they only seem to use them on each other, not on civillians.

And , by not having guns, good people won't snap and, in a fit of rage, gun down their wife/family as they could with guns freely available.

the criminals, itll make there job a lot easier for them.
at least now we can defend our selfs against them, with a gun ban we cant.

In fact it won't: it's another stick to beat the criminals with if they have ownership of a gun, and a good way to bring down a master criminal - haul them in for owning a gun, then pin all the other charges on them. Meanwhile, the black market price will rocket up overnight, making them unavailable to any criminal that can't afford them.

True, there may be, as is the case in the UK, gun dealers putting money first and converting guns to blank-firing weapons, which can be converted back, but surely that can be easily corrected?

also, what did the 1994 USA "assault weapon" gun ban do? NOTHING BUT RAISE "ASSAULT WEAPON" CRIMES

Yes: owning one is a crime, thus the crimerate goes up - you don't need to shoot somebody with one to do so.

But the 1988 assault weapon ban in the UK appears to have worked, as there hasn't been an assault weapon murder (let alone spree which sparked it) since - although it was more likely to be influenced by Huberty and Sherrill in the US in the previous four years.

after a school shooting or some incident like that you cant propose a national gun ban, you need to propose some new mental health laws.

Until perfectly "sane" people kill people at random: there was no clue that Thomas Hamilton would go on to shoot up Dunblane primary school, for example. The image of the killer as a crazy psycho is, sadly, overused - yet innaccurate. I used to live with a guy you'd earmark as a potential spree killer, but he didn't go off on a killing spree (although that may have been down to the unavailability of any guns to do it with).

crazy people will do crazy shit with or without guns

It's just attacking somebody physically can be prevented or countered, shooting somebody can't.

---

At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: If you entered this thread because you read the title and want to unleash a rapid-fire barrage of insults, then leave now. I don't want to deal with you, just those that respect my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

Now, on to my point. Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something? If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer. If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use. The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

Don't you think?

I know what you mean. to many guns are being dold to people. they should fill out a form, and this post has been on for a long time? cool! but yea. gund are being sold to under age buyers its atarting to go crazy! soon people will be walking around with guns and shooting random people who didnt diserve it! just like the V- tech rampage!

---

Just a reminder gun control wouldn't work. people would just get the guns illeagaly, like eric harris and dylan kebold did.

---

At 7/14/07 09:16 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/14/07 08:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What you're doing is trollish because you're entirely failing to address the topic and focusing all of your attention on my as your only way of participating in the thread.

AAAAAND that's another example of - pointing the finger at everyone but yourself. Genius!

Hahaha wow, you're going to be THAT disingenuous and pathetic?

What were you JUST doing? YOU were trolling. You didn't post a single thing pertaining to the actual topic and you focused your entire post around me personally, and in the midst of it, you had the HYPOCRISY to say I'm being a troll.

And now, you say I "point the finger" at everyone but myself... hahaha, yet another gigantic example of hypocrisy. Seriously, your arguments reek of desperation.

But you never had an argument, did you?

Funny, I've already meticulously PROVED my argument, and it has been YOU who has never had an argument. You STILL don't have an argument because you haven't had the moxy to stay within the confines of the topic that you already know you've lost, yet are too stubborn and insecure with reality to admit.

All you've proven is that you can throw around a few numbers

Hahaha I love it. When someone proves something with mathematical fact, you have to pretend its just throwing around numbers. You base your arguments purely on your intangible logic (or lack thereof) and actually have the stupidity to criticize people for using FACTS as the basis of their argument.

but cannot adequatly come up with a legitimate excuse for over 15,000 Americans being murdered, with guns, every year - but somehow 78 Britons is a worse thing?

First of all, once again, that is the most disingenuous nonsense ever. Your whole argument is based on a very isolated, misinformed view of the whole thing. This isn't about giving an "excuse" for gun violence. This is about debating the merit of BANNING guns as a goal to reduce gun violence, I've proven that there is no merit for banning guns or enacting gun control similar to that of other western countries.

Yes, the UK has lower gun violence than the US, a lot of countries do. And a lot of those countries have stricter gun control. But this in and of itself doesn't prove that if the US enacted similarly strict gun control, that it would reduce gun violence. In fact, there is much more evidence that it wouldn't.

The US has a crime problem, the US has all sorts of variables that make gun violence high. The UK and EVERY SINGLE other western country does not share those variables. As I've shown before with those evil numbers and facts you despise... the US has a huge minority population of minorities that statistically commit a much higher amount of crime than the white majority.

1/3rd of our population commits crime at rates MANY times more than the 2/3rds majority, and that 2/3rds majority is however about equal in tendency to committ crime as the majority in the countries you compare the US to. The US also has millions and millions of illegal immigrants. The US borders an arms smuggling and drug smuggling, POOR nation to the south, with a GIGANTIC, almost entirely undefended border separating our two countries. We have variables, outside of our control, and especially outside of the influence of gun laws, that create a situation that causes a relatively high level of crime, and particularly gun crime.

So when you just look at gun deaths of countries coupled with their respective gun laws, it makes it appear to the uneducated that the problems the US has can be blamed on laws. When in fact, the US has all sorts of variables that make it RIDICULOUS to compare our situation to other prosperous nations that DO NOT share our unique set of problems.

It is also ridiculous because most of the firearms used in crime in the US are actually legal in other countries that have way lesser gun violence, and the countries in question still had lesser gun violence before their currently strict gun control laws even existed.

---

What you cannot adequatly explain away is how the highest muder rates in the UK and highest gun murder rates do not correlate (Manchester excepted).

And what you can't even begin to explain is how the areas in the UK with the highest gun ownership have the lowest crime, and the areas with the lowest gun ownership have the highest crime.

What you cannot legitimatly claim is that all your gun murder statistics can be blamed on Mexicans, as you have tried to do, when the Mexican population of New York, Florida, South Carolina etc is minimal

See that's ridiculous because whatever population statistics you found don't take into account illegal immigrants, because they don't take the census. Population stats for states are based the information received from citizens or legal residents. I'm almost positive it didn't factor in illegal immigrant estimates, because well, that's impossible to do in a state-by-state basis. All we have are national estimates that have proven, time and time again, to be inaccurately low.

And besides, I didn't blame it on "Mexicans" themselves. Part of it is smuggling from the country of Mexico, which in turn acts as a hub for smuggling from Central America and South American. If we were to ban guns, we'd still have a shitload of guns because it would create a market for smugglers. Just like in drugs, when something gets banned, it becomes a business to be exploited by criminals who in turn make the problem larger than it was before.

while Arizona and New Mexico have far lower gun murder statistics, yet they too share a border with Mexico.

Hahaha what I find funny about that is you're saying that their gun murder rates are low, but their murder per capita is high.

Arizona and New Mexico are rated 7th and 9th respectively in highest murder per capita in the US, and that is significant considering they are fairly rural.

Now, since they have high gun ownership, someone like you would say that their murder rate is high because of it. Yet since you just referenced that their GUN murder rate is low, you're using that to suggest that influence from its Mexican population and proximity to Mexico can't be used as a variable to explain why gun murder in the US as a whole is high.

I love it.

You want to make something out of more Americans getting killed in car accidents: three times as many, and there is a higher percentile of cars in the US.

Um more Americans die from car crashes than guns. If the goal of banning guns is in fact to save people's lives, then it seems that people should then propose banning cars. But such would be incredibly illogical wouldn't it? Therefore, it is illogical to ban guns too, just because they kill people.

You ignore that five times more people are killed with guns in the US per year than in car accidents in the UK.

Hahaha what? Do you see how wacky your argument is getting. You're using the fact that more Americans are killed by guns in the US than people die in car accidents in the UK...

You totally emphasize the weirdest things.

You seem intent on not recognising that the UK gun murder statistics are only in certain London boroughs and districts of Manchester: that Glasgow, second only to Belfast in the murder rate, doesn't feature gun crime is worthy of speculation.

Um and that matters how? That doesn't at all because after banning a type of gun, its illegal use did not become reduces, and it increased. Showing that THAT type of legislation (which was the point of argument) does not have merit because it didn't work when enacted in the UK. You can't say the US should ban guns because the UK who has tighter gun control has lesser gun crime, when the UK's banning of guns DIDN'T WORK.

You bang on about illegally owned guns, yet in the case of VT, don't make anything of how selling guns on eBay is irrisponsible to such an extreme a new word needs to be created in order to adequatly describe it.

And now you're banging on about total bullshit even though I PROVED TO YOU that eBay hasn't allowed people to sell guns on their site since 1999.

The VT shooter DID NOT get his guns from eBay, because it is now against the rules. Therefore your criticism of American society being "irresponsible" in that regard is void, and inapplicable to the topic.

You also don't realise that, by having the Second Amendment reinterpreted for people's own ends, you open up a market for guns - both a legal and an illegal one.

You gotta love a non-American pretending that their interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is more accurate than your own...

I interpreted the Second Amendment as it has been proven by scholars time, and time again, to permit, separately, the right of militias to be well regulated, and also for the right of the people to bear arms.

And since we interpret the Second Amendment as it was intended, we allow every law-abiding citizen to purchase and own firearms (within reason) for self defense, defense of the nation, defense FROM the authority of the nation in case of future gestapo behavior, and for utilitarian use for hunting, recreation, etc..

And it's funny when anti-gun morons (like you) who know nothing about firearms, think that they can determine what should or should not be legally owned by Americans based purely on their tainted understanding of guns.

I LOVE it when people say that all semi-automatics are overkill, or that rifles like the AR15 have no useful purpose in hunting or self defense, and that they are all powerful, massacre-prone, evil demon weapons. In the meantime, the have no clue what the actual capability of the weapons are, how they stack up to other weapons that would never be considered as dangerous, and have probably never seen one in real life, let alone shot one.

Love it.

---

And, of course, you don't realise one thing: if you don't have a gun, you don't shoot somebody for "slighting" you - you might beat them up, but assault is a slightly different charge than murder. Say about 20 years difference?

You also don't seem to accept that Texas has no gun laws and, surprise surprise, is right up there when it comes to state-by-state gun murders.

You also don't seem to accept that Washington D.C., has THE STRICTEST gun laws in the US, and they have by far the highest murder rate, many, many times higher. And you fail to acknowledge that Maine, a state with ZERO gun laws, has by far the lowest murder rate.

Nice try there, hypocrite.

You don't seem to have a problem with the US having a gun murder rate far higher than the rest of the First World, and within a bracket of Third World countries - somehow this is unimportant, but 78 Britons are.

No see, I wish gun murder went down in the US. But I recognize the FACT that this won't be accomplished by banning guns. In fact, I wish every law abiding citizen in the US who is mentally and physically able should buy a firearm for self defense and learn how to use it properly. THAT would actually reduce more crime in the US, according to the facts, than banning guns would.

What you do seem happy to do is claim those that disagree with you are "delusional"

They are delusional, they actually are. That is why I say it. If you see FACTS that entirely disprove your arguments and show that what you propose is illogical and will yield counterproductive results, then you are delusional if you keep maintaining that stance.

and stick to unimportant facets of a failed argument.

Haha I actually emphasize the actual relevant bits of my already victorious argument. Your WHOLE argument that you KNOW has failed miserably, is based on diverting attention from the actual facts, the facts that PROVE that banning guns, as you proposed, WILL NOT WORK.

Your whole charade here is just an example of you trying to salvage your pride after having been owned brutally with facts.

So carry on saying nothing at great length

Actually I'll carry on entirely defeating everything you say, as I've already done. And as I'm sure you'll do, you'll continue to entirely miss the point of the debate, ignore the fact that I proved my case as concretely as can be. Then, you'll dishonestly suggest that I have no argument, when in fact, it is you who has had no argument this whole time, and continues to have no argument.

assuming it gives you some respectibility - forgetting it's earned, and you don't get it by being a pro-gun, conservative troll with a chip on their shoulder.

Haha I love it when you call me a troll. You are the epitome of a troll. For yet another time, you've provided no real substance to your argument. You haven't addressed the facts, you've entirely failed to provide a coherent argument to support your irrational, already-defeated view that the US should ban guns.

I've proved you wrong so meticulously and concretely, that you can't even RESPOND to the facts anymore, you filled an entire post with pure nonsense.

---

At 7/14/07 08:34 PM, TomsPulp wrote:

most guns out are semi auto's...... you cant hunt with a fucking gun that only holds one shot, thats fucking stupid

True... I suck with blackpowder rifles...

---

At 7/14/07 03:13 PM, TomsPulp wrote:
im right your wrong, you dont know how it is out here.

Sure I do: 15,000 Americans are shot and killed per year - apparently that isn't a problem, is it?

And if you're so right, how comes you got it so drastically wrong about hunting rifles? The idea is you have one shot, but it's a guaranteed kill - with a handgun you have to get to within 25 yards or so of a buck and shoot (which is unlikely), and even then it isn't a guaranteed kill in one bullet.

also, criminals dont use guns only on criminals, if guns were banned in USA, Los Angolas would go to fucking hell. gangs would rob stores left and right since noone can have guns legaly. criminals use guns on civilans out here.

If you had the intellect to read, you might have noticed I stated that in the UK it's criminal-on-criminal, which is not the case in the US: as you said yourself, criminals use guns on civilians.

And have you noticed that all this alleged arguments say that "if guns were banned in America, XYZ" - that's not definite proposition, is it?

---

At 7/14/07 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/14/07 09:16 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/14/07 08:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What you're doing is trollish because you're entirely failing to address the topic and focusing all of your attention on my as your only way of participating in the thread.

AAAAAND that's another example of - pointing the finger at everyone but yourself. Genius!

Hahaha wow, you're going to be THAT disingenuous and pathetic?

Oh, and actually typing out "hahahahaha" as part of your answer is yet another obvious trollism.

What were you JUST doing? YOU were trolling. You didn't post a single thing pertaining to the actual topic and you focused your entire post around me personally, and in the midst of it, you had the HYPOCRISY to say I'm being a troll.

Nope, pointing out something you don't seem to be aware of, but everyone else is: it's just like Demonhertzs constantly accusing me oof arrogance while I'm proving him constantly wrong on anything he cares to try and debate about.

And now, you say I "point the finger" at everyone but myself... hahaha, yet another gigantic example of hypocrisy. Seriously, your arguments reek of desperation.

Not really, they just bitchslapped you with a home truth.

All you've proven is that you can throw around a few numbers

Hahaha I love it. When someone proves something with mathematical fact, you have to pretend its just throwing around numbers. You base your arguments purely on your intangible logic (or lack thereof) and actually have the stupidity to criticize people for using FACTS as the basis of their argument.

78 criminals killed with guns.
15,000 people, criminal or civilian, killed with guns.

10% raise in UK gun deaths requires 7 or 8 people to die.
10% raise in US gun deaths requires 1,500 people to die.

You want to post a graph, I post the figures - I'm using both quantitative and qualiatitive data, you just post a graph. When you put the two numbers side by side, you instantly lose this assumed advantage because of the small difference of three extra digits.

First of all, once again, that is the most disingenuous nonsense ever. Your whole argument is based on a very isolated, misinformed view of the whole thing. This isn't about giving an "excuse" for gun violence. This is about debating the merit of BANNING guns as a goal to reduce gun violence, I've proven that there is no merit for banning guns or enacting gun control similar to that of other western countries.

There's plenty of merit : the gun murder rate in South Africa shot up (no pun intended) when guns were made available to all in 1994, as suddenly murdering each other in the Jo'berg ghettos was a lot quicker and easier than any of the methods previously available. Is a massive increase in gun deaths in a country the moment guns became freely avaiulable to all disingenious? Is the fact Texas, with no gun control whatsoever, being home to the second largest number of gun deaths disingenious?

There's the argument that guns, rather than being empowering, are more likely to see you lose control of a situation (just like Spanish and Italian police resorting to baton charges as they have the ability to on regular bases).

Yes, the UK has lower gun violence than the US, a lot of countries do. And a lot of those countries have stricter gun control. But this in and of itself doesn't prove that if the US enacted similarly strict gun control, that it would reduce gun violence. In fact, there is much more evidence that it wouldn't.

The flipside is only seven countries have more - that's my issue which is constantly sidestepped (or I'm accused of hating America as X has more, therefore...). And those countries, as stated, are Third World, crime ridden, poverty ridden, corruption ridden - all of which in manners that eclipse the US. And those countries have less restrictions than the US does.

The US has a crime problem, the US has all sorts of variables that make gun violence high. The UK and EVERY SINGLE other western country does not share those variables. As I've shown before with those evil numbers and facts you despise... the US has a huge minority population of minorities that statistically commit a much higher amount of crime than the white majority.

What I despise is how you're passing the blame onto minorities - and how you ignore any minority commiunities in the UK which can be blamed, until the cold light of day highlights that you cannot. I listed the three most notable black communities in London, and only one of them has a problem. I noted Irish comminities have similar problems, yet Manchester has a problem with guns, yet Glasgow and Liverpool (which have larger Irish populations) don't.

And I noted that, of the ten highest gun murder states, you cannot blame Mexicans for eight of them - in fact, New Mexico and Arizona share a border with Mexico, yet they don't have high gun murder rates. Neither Michigan or Illinois have large Mexican populations, Florida is Cuban/Puerta Rican, neither of which have a problem..

Lastly, current statistics blow the immigration argument out of the water: are Alaska or Wyoming immigration hotspots?

1/3rd of our population commits crime at rates MANY times more than the 2/3rds majority, and that 2/3rds majority is however about equal in tendency to committ crime as the majority in the countries you compare the US to. The US also has millions and millions of illegal immigrants. The US borders an arms smuggling and drug smuggling, POOR nation to the south, with a GIGANTIC, almost entirely undefended border separating our two countries. We have variables, outside of our control, and especially outside of the influence of gun laws, that create a situation that causes a relatively high level of crime, and particularly gun crime.

It's just there aren't any drug routes or high immigration population in Wyoming this year, so what the hell is happening there?

The UK has plenty of variables outside of it's control: as soon as you fly into Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh or Cardiff airport, you're a rail journey short of getting into the country - the IRA were using this (and ferry links - their security checks are borderline non-existant, while Dublin airport had no security when I was there three years back) for years to get in and out of the country to do jobs. The English Channel, too, is not exactly secure - anyone that can afford a yaught or whatever and pilot it from one side to the other can get in and out of the UK with ease.

So when you just look at gun deaths of countries coupled with their respective gun laws, it makes it appear to the uneducated that the problems the US has can be blamed on laws. When in fact, the US has all sorts of variables that make it RIDICULOUS to compare our situation to other prosperous nations that DO NOT share our unique set of problems.

The US's problems aren't unique - that's the problem. Remember, the US was founded by fundamentalists with persecution issues from the UK. The US has the same isolationist issues that the UK had (and still does, given the support for the UKIP and BNP). In the UK we have communities bunched together in councile estates and tenements not a million miles away from the layout of Chicago. Brits snap all the time - look at the aftermath of an England loss in the World Cup, where products of the nation that beat them are summirarily smashed to pieces.

Portugal has four times the gun murder rate of Spain, yet the countries are remarkably similar, even share a border. Slovenia shares borders, history and problems with all of the former Yugoslavia, yet Serbia, Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina don't have the gun deaths they do (and that is a surprise as you'd think it'd be the other way 'round).

---

Meh.....

Before the flames start piling up again:

I think that gun control is simply an issue that needs to be studied more before any sort of conclusion can be reached.

We have examples where strict gun control works brilliantly.
We have examples where strict gun control fails miserably.
We have examples where lax gun control works brilliantly.
We have examples where lax gun control doesn't do squad to prevent anything.

Bottom line:
We have at least one varialbe unaccounted for. A third (and fourth?) variable that acts on the situation.

Using the three most recent examples:
Texas: No laws, high crime
DC: Strict laws, high crime
Maine: No laws, low crime

Obviously there is another factor that interacts with gun control to provide such results. Perhaps population density has something to do with it? That would help explain DC versus Maine.

Point is:
After 13 pages I haven't learned a damned thing more about gun control.....

I did learn about 15 new ways to insult someone though.

---

At 7/15/07 02:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

78 criminals killed with guns.
15,000 people, criminal or civilian, killed with guns.

10% raise in UK gun deaths requires 7 or 8 people to die.
10% raise in US gun deaths requires 1,500 people to die.

I like how people pull these statistics out.

Of course if you ban guns you're going to have less gun-related deaths (obvious: D'uh!).

But that's what is so funny about it. Gun-related deaths go down, but not deaths, nor crime. So if gun deaths aren't going down and crime isn't going down, then what's the point on wasting billions on gun control?

Funny stuff. Funny stuff.

---

At 7/15/07 02:22 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/15/07 02:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

78 criminals killed with guns.
15,000 people, criminal or civilian, killed with guns.

10% raise in UK gun deaths requires 7 or 8 people to die.
10% raise in US gun deaths requires 1,500 people to die.

I like how people pull these statistics out.

Of course if you ban guns you're going to have less gun-related deaths (obvious: D'uh!).

But that's what is so funny about it. Gun-related deaths go down, but not deaths, nor crime. So if gun deaths aren't going down and crime isn't going down, then what's the point on wasting billions on gun control?

Erm, if gun-related deaths go down, that automatically implies that deaths go down, because gun-related deaths have gone down - accidental or deliberate. When a section of the death statistics decreases, then the whole death spectrum decreases to accomodate the decrease.

I like how you grasped that in an ass-backward way.

---

At 7/15/07 02:30 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Erm, if gun-related deaths go down, that automatically implies that deaths go down, because gun-related deaths have gone down - accidental or deliberate. When a section of the death statistics decreases, then the whole death spectrum decreases to accomodate the decrease.

The number of total deaths does not go down.

If gun-related deaths go down, then, say... knife-related deaths go up.

OMG, IT'S SO SIMPLE A 3RD GRADER CAN GET IT!

I like how you grasped that in an ass-backward way.

I like the fact that none of you filthy leftists understand how these things work.

---

At 7/15/07 02:32 PM, Memorize wrote:
The number of total deaths does not go down.

If gun-related deaths go down, then, say... knife-related deaths go up.

OMG, IT'S SO SIMPLE A 3RD GRADER CAN GET IT!

That's a correlation that's gonna need some documentation. And I used correlation deliberately, as opposed to the other "C" word.

---

At 7/15/07 02:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/15/07 02:30 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Erm, if gun-related deaths go down, that automatically implies that deaths go down, because gun-related deaths have gone down - accidental or deliberate. When a section of the death statistics decreases, then the whole death spectrum decreases to accomodate the decrease.

The number of total deaths does not go down.

Yes it does - as the number of gun deaths goes down, that affects the total, and that would mean the US would need a sudden increase in another form of death to counterbalance it.

I pray you never take up accountancy.

If gun-related deaths go down, then, say... knife-related deaths go up.

As I said, if the number stays consistant, total deaths won't increase.

OMG, IT'S SO SIMPLE A 3RD GRADER CAN GET IT!

For stabbings to go up we'd need to see a vast increase in drive-by stabbings, people to be so dumb they run towards the knife-toting wannabe mass murderer, or somehow drop it so it discharges it's blade through their heart when they clean it.

Which won't be happening soon.

I like how you grasped that in an ass-backward way.

I like the fact that none of you filthy leftists understand how these things work.

I now demand to know how many drive-by stabbing you have in the US per annum. Mostly because if they happen, it's amusing in a morbidly bizarre manner.

In other words, I get it, you clearly have no comprehension of the concept of "these things" to even have a chance of getting it.

---

At 7/15/07 02:42 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Yes it does - as the number of gun deaths goes down, that affects the total, and that would mean the US would need a sudden increase in another form of death to counterbalance it.

Do you know how many deaths there are a year?

1500 isn't a lot.

I pray you never take up accountancy.

I pray you never take up politics.

Nor go into business.

For stabbings to go up we'd need to see a vast increase in drive-by stabbings, people to be so dumb they run towards the knife-toting wannabe mass murderer, or somehow drop it so it discharges it's blade through their heart when they clean it.

Never knew guns used in a drive-by were, for the most part, legally obtained.

In other words, I get it

In other words... you don't get it. Filthy liberals never will. They cannot comprehend it. It is impossible.

---

At 7/15/07 02:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/15/07 02:42 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Yes it does - as the number of gun deaths goes down, that affects the total, and that would mean the US would need a sudden increase in another form of death to counterbalance it.

Do you know how many deaths there are a year?

1500 isn't a lot.

15,000, Memorize. You're a digit out. That's a lot.

I pray you never take up accountancy.

I pray you never take up politics.

I'm not the one who misquote the Second Amendment, misquotes gun death figures...get the hint?

Nor go into business.

Too late. I do rather well, actually - £500 ($1000) a job.

Never knew guns used in a drive-by were, for the most part, legally obtained.

Trying to duck the issue again? Tsk tsk.

In other words, I get it

In other words... you don't get it. Filthy liberals never will. They cannot comprehend it. It is impossible.

Sure I do - you're wrong, and have to use terms like "filthy liberals" to somehow claw back some ground (in that nutty head of yours). Comprehend this: you are, quite clearly, a moron. Official.

---

At 7/15/07 03:03 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

15,000, Memorize. You're a digit out. That's a lot.

So I missed a 0 when typing.

Still, not a lot.

I'm not the one who misquote the Second Amendment, misquotes gun death figures...get the hint?

Though every court case and historian would claim that YOU misquote the 2nd amendment.

Too late. I do rather well, actually - £500 ($1000) a job.

Hate to burst your bubble, but 500 euro doesn't equal $1000

Trying to duck the issue again? Tsk tsk.

It was gun-related.

tsk tsk.

Sure I do - you're wrong, and have to use terms like "filthy liberals" to somehow claw back some ground (in that nutty head of yours).

And that's where you're wrong.

Because you use my saying "filthy liberals" in an attempt to bring yourself higher.

Comprehend this: you are, quite clearly, a moron. Official.

Though almost every study agrees with me. Almost every study, almost every scholar, almost every historian.

---

At 7/15/07 02:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/14/07 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/14/07 09:16 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/14/07 08:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What you're doing is trollish because you're entirely failing to address the topic and focusing all of your attention on my as your only way of participating in the thread.

AAAAAND that's another example of - pointing the finger at everyone but yourself. Genius!

Hahaha wow, you're going to be THAT disingenuous and pathetic?

Oh, and actually typing out "hahahahaha" as part of your answer is yet another obvious trollism.

Oh, and being hypocritical in every single thing you ever say isn't? I laughed because what you say is hilarious due to its sheer stupidity and hypocrisy. You accused me of being a troll, yet your entire post at the time was a personal attack, with zero reference to the debate. YOU were being the troll.

Nope, pointing out something you don't seem to be aware of, but everyone else is: it's just like Demonhertzs constantly accusing me oof arrogance while I'm proving him constantly wrong on anything he cares to try and debate about.

It's funny, you've never proved anyone wrong, or ever proved your argument. All you do is use your OWN words, your own ridiculously faulty logic to try and negate someone elses argument. But occasionally, you'll use a link and pretend it boosts your points, which it doesn't.

And in this thread, it was YOU who got proven wrong and you know it. And the fact that you can't admit it, and still continue to spew out the most ridiculous crap shows that you are in no position to determine who has proved what, let alone whether or not you proved something.

And now, you say I "point the finger" at everyone but myself... hahaha, yet another gigantic example of hypocrisy. Seriously, your arguments reek of desperation.

Not really, they just bitchslapped you with a home truth.

You have no truth, all you have is your own desperate attempts to salvage your pride. You've provided the most heinously stupid arguments this whole time. You've been dishonest since the beginning, refusing to accept facts, and determined to distort the facts as long as it appears that you've not been brutally owned time and time again. If you think that what you did was "bitchslap" me with truth (which it didn't) then I dropped a nuclear bomb of truth right on top of your head, and then proceeded to piss on your ashes.

Hahaha I love it. When someone proves something with mathematical fact, you have to pretend its just throwing around numbers. You base your arguments purely on your intangible logic (or lack thereof) and actually have the stupidity to criticize people for using FACTS as the basis of their argument.

78 criminals killed with guns.
15,000 people, criminal or civilian, killed with guns.

10% raise in UK gun deaths requires 7 or 8 people to die.
10% raise in US gun deaths requires 1,500 people to die.

That doesn't mean anything at all. See, I use numbers to prove something, you use numbers that don't prove anything you say.

That doesn't prove your argument that the US should ban guns, that US gun deaths are due to our gun laws, and that banning guns will reduce gun crime. Seriously, you might as well bring up statistics of how many Americans die from cancer in your argument, because the numbers you use are inapplicable in an argument where you've specifically stated that the US should gun bans, a statement that isn't validated by the facts that you provided.

It's actually you now who is throwing around numbers because the numbers you provide don't prove the things you use them for, like my numbers proved what I used them for. I proved you wrong, I proved your entire argument wrong and proved mine correct with a systematic, organized presentation of facts that showed that guns do more good than harm in the US, and that legal ownership prevents more crime than it causes. Making it a mathematical fact that banning guns will not achieve what you say it will achieve, and will actually make things worse, according to the facts.

Then you're so utterly desperate that you throw out the most inapplicable numbers and think that this somehow detracts from the fact that you've proven nothing by them.

You want to post a graph, I post the figures - I'm using both quantitative and qualiatitive data, you just post a graph.

Where did this "quantitative and qualitative" data prove that banning guns will reduce gun crime? Oh yeah that's right, NOWHERE. You didn't prove it, all you did was show that the US has more deaths due to firearms, you entirely ignored the fact that the US is a different country, and cannot be compared to the UK, a country that doesn't have anywhere near the kind of problems the US has, which are outside of the control of law.

When you put the two numbers side by side, you instantly lose this assumed advantage because of the small difference of three extra digits.

You can't put the numbers side by side, and anyone with a shred of comprehension would understand this (which obviously excludes you.). It's not a sound comparison, it's only one single factor in a whole slew of variables. It doesn't prove anything you say, you just use it because its the only possible thing you can use. In the meantime, you HAVE NOT, and CAN NOT prove that banning guns in the US will lessen gun crime, and it's only parading your ignorance when you use those stats to suggest so.

There's plenty of merit : the gun murder rate in South Africa shot up (no pun intended) when guns were made available to all in 1994

That's not the US. South Africa has a shitload of problems due to its history and demography. Just like you can't compare the US and the UK in gun laws/gun crime, you can't do so between the US and South Africa. And by the way, do you have a link to prove that?

---

Double Post

What I despise is how you're passing the blame onto minorities

Which can rightfully be done considering the two gigantic minority groups in the US, Hispanics and Blacks, commit crime at a rate much higher than the white majority. And the US has the largest minority population in a major country. 1/3rd of our population is composed of minorities, with most of them consisting of racial groups that statistically commit much more crimes than the 2/3rds majority of whites.

- and how you ignore any minority commiunities in the UK which can be blamed, until the cold light of day highlights that you cannot.

I love it how you ignore previously proven facts. You have absolutely no honesty, your way of cowardly keeping your already nonexistent argument is to ignore things that were already proven to be significant. The fact is, the US has a racial makeup that is unfavorable to crime based on the crime tendency of those races in comparison to the white majority, which has a much bigger majority in the UK. A part of the reason the US has a high crime/murder rate is because we happen to have large populations of 2 races that statistically commit much more crime.

FACT: 1/3rd or 33% of the US is composed of minorities. Most of these minorities are Blacks and Hispanics, 13% and 12.5% of the population respectively.

FACT: Only 1/13th or 7.9% of the UK population is composed of minorities, the large majority of which are Asian.

Now, if you take a look at the crime rates among races in the US:

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun

Right there is significant, so not only are blacks seven times more likely to commit murder, but they are 3 times more likely to use a gun, thus disproportionately boosting gun murder in the US.

• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

Hispanics also commit violent crime at a rate 3 times that of the white majority. But Asians (who only make up small portion of the population, commit crime at a rate of 1/4th that of the white majority.

This makes national statistics RIDICULOUSLY inapplicable when comparing the US and the UK across the board in the regard of gun violence. Because Hell, most of the minorities in the UK belong to the racial group in the US that commit LESS CRIME THAN EVEN WHITES DO.

Therefore, you simply cannot compare the US and the UK based on gun crime and gun laws alone. Because it isn't going to document the success of gun laws, it's just going to document the existence of crimes that are due to a WHOLE HOST of factors that are entirely outside of the power of gun control laws. Gun laws or not, the UK would still have lower crime due to its demographics.

And I noted that, of the ten highest gun murder states, you cannot blame Mexicans for eight of them

You're so fucking dishonest. Those are in absolute terms, irregardless of population. That's not gun murder rate. And even then, 3 of those states in the top 10 have high immigrant populations from Latin American. And the top of the list is California, the state with probably the tightest gun control laws.

- in fact, New Mexico and Arizona share a border with Mexico, yet they don't have high gun murder rates.

They have the 5th and 8th highest gun death rates in the country!. Where are you getting the information that their gun murder rates are low? Because you didn't provide that in a link you dipshit.

Neither Michigan or Illinois have large Mexican populations

They have large black populations.

Florida is Cuban/Puerta Rican, neither of which have a problem..

Um, Florida has 4th highest gun murder stat. Are you a moron?

Hell, you're saying that Florida doesn't have a problem because you want to pretend that immigration from Latin America can't be part of the problem, yet they actually DO have a amount of gun murders, and you'd use the very same fact to blame it on their loose gun laws.

Seriously, your arguments are getting so ridiculously flawed, so fucking disingenuous. You're just rubbing salt in your own gapping, festering wounds.

Lastly, current statistics blow the immigration argument out of the water: are Alaska or Wyoming immigration hotspots?

That is gun death rates you dishonest, fact-distorting little retard. TAKE A LOOK, Arizona and New Mexico, which you were just pretending had no problem even though they are immigrant hotspots, are in 5th place and 8th place respectively.

Goddamn you are pathetic. Your only way of arguing is to distort all facts as much as you possibly can, because you're WRONG.

The English Channel, too, is not exactly secure - anyone that can afford a yaught or whatever and pilot it from one side to the other can get in and out of the UK with ease.

Yes, anyone who can AFFORD A YAUGHT. Hardly the largest segment of society that commits crime now don't you think? You're that stupid? Honestly, you're going to be that stupid in order to salvage your false points?

You're comparing crossing 30 miles of ocean, with walking across a 3000 mile long border? Seriously, you're pathetic

The UK is an Island and all of its neighbors are well-to-do countries. The US takes up a huge chunk of a continent with thousands and thousands of miles of border with a poor Latin American country that in turn acts as a staging ground for people from dozens of other even POORER Latin American countries that are known for arms smuggling, drug manufacturing and smuggling etc..

The fact is, if the US banned guns, it be impossible to keep guns from getting in, let alone get rid of guns that are already here in the hands of criminals. The UK is an ISLAND.

The fact that you'd compare is just fucking hilarious, it further proves how weak your argument is, and how low into the depths of dishonesty you have to stoop in order to salvage what is an obviously lost cause, already having been defeated with facts.

The US's problems aren't unique - that's the problem.

Hahaha actually the problems that the US has ARE unique, the US is the only major prosperous country to border so many poor, nearly lawless countries bordering it, to have such a large population of immigrants that statistically commit much more crime than the majority, etc..

If you could some how apply all of these problems to ANY country, they'd be fucked, especially the countries that you're stupid enough to compare gun crime and gun laws with to the US.

I'd love to see how your country would react if 1/3rd of its citizenry was composed of the minorities the US is composed of, if we could magically pick it up out of the ocean and place it next to Mexico, and then give you our 12-30 million illegal immigrants. Your country wouldn't be able to deal with it, your gun laws would be pointless, your police would be toys for criminals, and your country would probably be destroyed, let alone face a crime epidemic.

---

At 7/15/07 03:42 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/15/07 03:03 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

15,000, Memorize. You're a digit out. That's a lot.

So I missed a 0 when typing.

Still, not a lot.

I don't know - if you got paid $10 when you should be paid $100, that's a lot.

Again, avoid accountancy.

I'm not the one who misquote the Second Amendment, misquotes gun death figures...get the hint?

Though every court case and historian would claim that YOU misquote the 2nd amendment.

"A consenting person, of legal age, may be a suitable sexual partner."

Go on, ignore the first two conditions there - if you want to be a rapist or a paedophile. Because that's what the NRA and you have both been doing - raping the Second Amendment.

Too late. I do rather well, actually - £500 ($1000) a job.

Hate to burst your bubble, but 500 euro doesn't equal $1000

500 pounds do.

Fucking hell, seriously don't go into accountancy if you are ignorant of the world's currancies, or even what their symbols look like.

And, by the way, £500 is 1,027.65. Go check for yourself.

Want to pretend there's a study that backs you up, or are you going to try to find comfort in the fact that you are a moron?

---

At 7/15/07 11:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

78 criminals killed with guns.
15,000 people, criminal or civilian, killed with guns.

10% raise in UK gun deaths requires 7 or 8 people to die.
10% raise in US gun deaths requires 1,500 people to die.

That doesn't mean anything at all. See, I use numbers to prove something, you use numbers that don't prove anything you say.

Care to tell me how that doesn't prove anything? Or are you in denial about the official statistics on gun crime, since they invalidate your so-called argument?

That doesn't prove your argument that the US should ban guns, that US gun deaths are due to our gun laws, and that banning guns will reduce gun crime. Seriously, you might as well bring up statistics of how many Americans die from cancer in your argument, because the numbers you use are inapplicable in an argument where you've specifically stated that the US should gun bans, a statement that isn't validated by the facts that you provided.

Sorry, several thousand people dying due to the free market of guns is not valid for an argument about gun s, gun culture and gun laws? Please, tell me how that logic works.

It's actually you now who is throwing around numbers because the numbers you provide don't prove the things you use them for, like my numbers proved what I used them for. I proved you wrong, I proved your entire argument wrong and proved mine correct with a systematic, organized presentation of facts that showed that guns do more good than harm in the US, and that legal ownership prevents more crime than it causes. Making it a mathematical fact that banning guns will not achieve what you say it will achieve, and will actually make things worse, according to the facts.

Such as, say, for every gun death in the UK there are 192 in the US?

Then you're so utterly desperate that you throw out the most inapplicable numbers and think that this somehow detracts from the fact that you've proven nothing by them.

People killed with guns are no inapplicable numbers - making out that 78 criminal-on-criminal deaths are somehow worthy of note when 15,000 deaths less discriminate by culture means nothing is both insulting and dangerously ignorant.

And perhaps you need to consider that the US has started to share problems with Columbia:
Columbia: National football player shot dead for elimination from World Cup
US: NFL player shot dead for elimination from playoffs

By the way, you asked for a link regarding South Africa? Note that in 1994 the black homicide rate shot up - and, as I said, that was the year guns became freely available across the racial barrier, as shown here. And increase from 1% to nearly 40% cannot be ignored.

Full article.

---

At 7/15/07 11:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um, Florida has 4th highest gun murder stat. Are you a moron?

And they're notorious for gun ownership and concealed weapons...

Connection, duh?

That is gun death rates you dishonest, fact-distorting little retard. TAKE A LOOK, Arizona and New Mexico, which you were just pretending had no problem even though they are immigrant hotspots, are in 5th place and 8th place respectively.

1. That's racist.
2. Look at the bottom of the list. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and so forth. States that have STRONG GUN RESTRICTING LAWS! THAT'S A KEY PART OF WHY THEY HAVE SO FEW GUN CRIMES.

Yes, anyone who can AFFORD A YAUGHT.

Yacht.

The UK is an Island and all of its neighbors are well-to-do countries.

Okay...and doesn't the UK have ghettoes, immigration issues, and drug issues (the last one is according to the bottom of the CIA World Factbook) just like the US? But why, oh why oh why are there less gun crimes?

Naturally, it's not all attributable to the limited access to firearms, but that is KEY.