Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So, cellar, when I post a source that categorically states that Alaska has a higher gun murder rate per 100,000 than California, it's wrong for the sole reason that I posted it?

Face facts - you're flip flopping: you want to blame Mexicans so go by numbers. When I state New Mexico and Arizona don't have numbers anywhere near, you go for murder rate - with California and Texas far below them. When I call you up on it, you suddenly get more confused than you are defensive, as it dawns on you that you can't say one and the other: you need to choose, although that would mean you were wrong at some point.

Sort of like starting a thread entitled "Gun control doesn't work (proof)" by listing one gun massacre in England (before the handgun ban), Germany and Canada - just like you post a link to ONE black guy who went on a kill spree to try and prove...something, although God knows what. Especially when there have been three gun massacres in the US in the past 18 months, yet there hasn't been on in the UK since 1996.

Then again, this is coming from somebody that says a 4,000% increase in gun murders in South Africa in the decade guns have been freely available is irrelivant, rather than something shocking like possibly giving a hint that gun control actually works.

The US is the only first world nation to have its own unique set of problems.

Alright, you're clearly in my realm now, and no we don't. Most major powers undergo many of the same and similar problems, both modern and ancient.

"No they don't, and you're LYING RIGHT NOW"
"you're so pathetic that you keep getting proven wrong"
"Do I have to recap?"
"you keep acting like a fucking moron and I'm sure that once you get humiliated for the 10th time"
"You're so dishonest is sad. "
"Haha, you've proven that it is you who is stupid. And now you're just further LYING and avoiding the truth of how pathetic and wrong you are all the time, you're showing how even more DISHONEST you can be to perpetuate your false views."

Learn some new tricks already. The same insults for every single person you come across just bores me....

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?

Gun control is a dead end.The only people that buy guns ligitematately dont use them in crime anyway.Criminals get their guns from the black market & file off the cereal number.

why is there so much unrelated crap on this thread? guns r good

At 7/29/07 06:23 PM, HomicideJack wrote:

At 7/29/07 05:45 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: why is there so much unrelated crap on this thread? guns r good

im with ya there!

lol yay i like me guns

ill get back to this thread soon. i just cant be bothered looking up a myriad of statistics, and then separating them to compare white u.s vs white europe/ u.k gun murders.

Gun control is a dead end.The only people that buy guns ligitematately dont use them in crime anyway.Criminals get their guns from the black market & file off the cereal number.

You dont think thats a bit of a narrow minded opinion, or were you being sarcastic? ALL gun crime is carried out using black market guns? That isnt true, and why dont other countrys have sucha black market problem, causing so much gun crime?

At 7/29/07 01:27 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, cellar, when I post a source that categorically states that Alaska has a higher gun murder rate per 100,000 than California, it's wrong for the sole reason that I posted it?

THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED DID NOT STATE THAT.

Look for yourself, it DOES NOT compare gun MURDER rates, which you claimed it did. I already PROVED that Alaska and Wyoming - states that you falsely said had higher gun murder rates - actually each have FAR lower gun murder rate than Arizona and New Mexico, states that YOU claimed didn't have a problem.

Face facts - you're flip flopping: you want to blame Mexicans so go by numbers.

Actually that's what you did, when you wanted to lie and suggest that Arizona and new Mexico don't have a problem.

When I state New Mexico and Arizona don't have numbers anywhere near, you go for murder rate

More lies from you again.

YOU used overall gun murder amount, which doesn't take into account population, to DECEITFULLY claim that two states (Arizona and New Mexico) that have a LOW population somehow don't have a problem. You pinned them up against states that have several times more people, and therefore obviously have several times more gun murders.

I showed by creating a relative, applicable, RATE (population divided by gun MURDER) that Arizona and New Mexico (states you lied and used links falsely to suggest had no problem) were much worse than the states that topped the list that YOU dishonestly used to claim relative problems.

- with California and Texas far below them. When I call you up on it, you suddenly get more confused than you are defensive, as it dawns on you that you can't say one and the other: you need to choose, although that would mean you were wrong at some point.

You're so full of lies, that has become your entire tactic. You've been disproved and humiliated so much in this thread that your only way of coping with it is to entirely lie about everything.

I PROVED that Arizona and New Mexico have lower gun MURDER rates than states that YOU claimed falsey had worse problems. I proved this soundly, you know it, I know it. But you're so desperate to save face, so pathetic in your attempt at salvaging your dignity after having been proven wrong left and right, you just ignore it and keep claiming things that have already been proven to be wrong.

Since you have NOT provided a list that actually lists states by GUN MURDER RATE, and I can't find one either, a way to find out RELATIVE gun murder rates is to divide the population of each state by the number of homicides with firearms.

Arizona
Population: 6,166,318
Gun homicides: 414

1 in 14894 people are murdered per year with a gun in Arizona.

New Mexico
Population: 1,954,599
Gun homicides: 169

1 in 11565 people are murder per year with firearms in New Mexico

Now, let's compare it to the states that you keep FALSELY saying have higher gun murder rates.

Alaska
Population: 670,053
Gun homicides: 37

1 in 18109 people are murdered with firearms a year in Alaska, much lower than Arizona and New Mexico.

Wyoming
Population: 515,004
Gun homicides: 11

Alaska and Wyoming, DO NOT have higher gun murder rates.

PROVED!

Now, since you're so incredibly pathetic, you're just going to ignore this and keep claiming otherwise while failing entirely to even respond to these facts. Your way of perpetuating your false views is to deny facts and lie, you keep lying because the truth contradicts your stance. You care more about salvaging your false view than you do about actually knowing the truth.

Then again, this is coming from somebody that says a 4,000% increase in gun murders in South Africa in the decade guns have been freely available is irrelivant, rather than something shocking like possibly giving a hint that gun control actually works.

Gun control works in a country that is in a small-scale civil war, that's for sure. Gun control to the degree that you propose will not work in the US, and will make things worse as I have PROVED.

Banning guns will not affect the ACTUAL problem, which is ILLEGAL possession of firearms, something that is not affected by gun control considering that criminals (the people using the guns irresponsibly) DON'T OBEY LAWS, and therefore WILL NOT OBEY GUN LAWS.

This concept is supported by the fact that after handguns were banned in the UK, handgun CRIME WENT UP DUE TO IT. The UK banned handguns in 1997, misguidedly thinking that this would reduce crime with firearms. IT 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 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:

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Therefore, you can't just claim gun control works. It doesn't always work. The UK may have lower gun crime, but you can't corellate that purely on gun control because, as I proved, gun control didn't even work in the UK.

Gun control that you propose the US does only takes guns away from the people that SHOULD have guns, and statistically use their guns to prevent crime at a rate at least 10 times higher than the rate they commit crime with them.

Once again, FACTS that you keep denying:

- There are 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

- 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.

- There are 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens in the US annually. This means that over all, guns are used responsibly more than irresponsibly in the US in absolute terms by 5 times. LEGAL gun use only prevents 10 times more crime than it causes.

Even though this proves your stance is wrong, even though it proves you are proposing something that will not achieve what you keep falsely claiming it will, you KEEP IGNORING it, only to make a claim against these facts again. Your entire argument revolves around lying.

I await some more of your fact-dodging, ridiculously delusional nonsense.

I actually use a russian SKS ( it's a predecessor to the AK-47) for pig hunting because it's accurate and powerful enough for a pig.

Also, odn't talk about guns because you probably don't hunt especially it u think u use assault rilfles for duck hungtinh ( u use shotguns because they dhoot a spread of BBS)

At 7/29/07 07:01 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/29/07 06:23 PM, HomicideJack wrote:

At 7/29/07 05:45 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: why is there so much unrelated crap on this thread? guns r good

im with ya there!

lol yay i like me guns

;
I just came back from lunch in a little village about 1/2 hour away.
In the local Pub, over the bar is a saying about gun control.
I don't think anyone on one side or the other of the gun argument can argue with what this bumper sticker says.

"Guns don't kill people, they just make it real easy"
It don't come any closer to the truth than that, guy's.

At 7/30/07 02:06 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

"Guns don't kill people, they just make it real easy"
It don't come any closer to the truth than that, guy's.

Well true, a gun is a weapon. and whats more desensitizing then pulling a trigger? Without a gun you need to conjure up the emotional fortitude to actually stab someone (assuming a knife would be the best fitting alternative). That be the case, you most likely have to do so several times in order to ensure death. Much more barbaric then oh say, pulling a trigger a couple of times when someone pisses you off.

At 7/30/07 04:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Well true, a gun is a weapon. Much more barbaric then oh say, pulling a trigger a couple of times when someone pisses you off.

;
Like the little sticker said "it just makes it, a hell of a lot EASIER"

At 7/30/07 04:13 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Like the little sticker said "it just makes it, a hell of a lot EASIER"

I wanted to elaborate? or is that too much..?

Celladors arguments are at mute point because Gun's are inheritly evil, just like paganism and sex.

[I hope you all understand what i was trying to bring across from this]

At 7/29/07 08:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - There are 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

Proved us right...that's one HELL of a lot of crimes!

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

I've rebutted this falsehood numerous times.

At 7/31/07 02:40 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - There are 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

Proved us right...that's one HELL of a lot of crimes!

You're delusional. See, once again you fail to realize that , AS I PROVED, the majority of that crime is comitted by people who cannot and do not legally own the firearms they use in those crimes. Also, people who DO legally own their firearms prevent 10 times as many crimes as they cause.

Therefore, it proves you wrong. Because, this means that guns do more good than they do harm. It proves that taking away guns would cause more crime than it would prevent.

And you're so dishonest and desperate in your attempt to salvage your argument that now you're just lying intentionally. And thus you prove that not only are you wrong, but that people with your stance can always counted on to be wrong, because their argument is based on lies rather than truth. When truth comes out, people like you lie to salvage your argument, at the expense of the truth.

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

I've rebutted this falsehood numerous times.

Now you haven't. In fact I repudiated ENTIRELY the inapplicable links that you used that didn't even prove what you said, when you ATTEMPTED to rebutt that TRUTH numerous times.

At 7/31/07 03:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/31/07 02:40 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - There are 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

Proved us right...that's one HELL of a lot of crimes!

You're delusional. See, once again you fail to realize that , AS I PROVED, the majority of that crime is comitted by people who cannot and do not legally own the firearms they use in those crimes. Also, people who DO legally own their firearms prevent 10 times as many crimes as they cause.

Problem: Where do those guns come from? Illegal grow ops?

Maybe the correct implementation of gun control is to watch where they're going, and crack down hard on licensed dealers who feed guns to the illegal market.

The black market doesn't manufacture guns, it acquires them through illegal deals or through theft. Both of those make acquisition the only illegal link in the chain.

I'm not saying that a gun ban is a good idea, but the whole "Criminals use illegal guns anyway" argument seems a bit off, since if a gun ban was implemented it would choke the major source of illegal firearms.

At 7/31/07 10:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/31/07 03:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/31/07 02:40 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - There are 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

Proved us right...that's one HELL of a lot of crimes!

You're delusional. See, once again you fail to realize that , AS I PROVED, the majority of that crime is comitted by people who cannot and do not legally own the firearms they use in those crimes. Also, people who DO legally own their firearms prevent 10 times as many crimes as they cause.

Problem: Where do those guns come from? Illegal grow ops?

I do understand that a lot of guns used in crime originated from a legal source, either by theft or by black market deals by dealers, however the facts still show that banning legal gun ownership would result in more more crime. There is zero proof that banning guns would mean less gun crime, there is 100% proof that it wouldn't, and would make things worse.

Just like in the UK, when legally obtained guns become scarce, it creates an import market for smugglers. A lot of illegal guns already do come from Mexico, or can be smuggled from basically any other country. Banning guns would just create a market, and not only would there be more crime due to less crime prevented due to the fact responsible owners would lose their guns, but also because the US would be flooded with black market arms, by people trying to make money to fill a niche.

Maybe the correct implementation of gun control is to watch where they're going, and crack down hard on licensed dealers who feed guns to the illegal market.

I have no problem with that. However, that doesn't really fall under the category of gun control the way that certain legislation (that Highlyillogical and D2kvirus proposed), such as bans does. Also, the US already does crack down, hence the ATF.

I'm not saying that a gun ban is a good idea, but the whole "Criminals use illegal guns anyway" argument seems a bit off, since if a gun ban was implemented it would choke the major source of illegal firearms.

That's not true, as I proved, when handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime went up through the roof.

Banning guns doesn't make guns go away. And in the US, banning guns would only take away guns from law-abiding citizens who prevent 10 times more crime than they cause, and prevent 5 times more crime than is caused in the US overall.

Guns do more good in the US than harm, these are facts. It's getting pretty ridiculous that after this was proved conclusively, some dipshit will say "16,000 deaths OMG !!!1" without acknowledging that I PROVED this number in itself does not, in any way, merit banning guns when you acknowledge the full-context of the situation. The only way people can support that stance further is to deny reality, and resort to the typical, mindless, emotionally-charged nonsense. Or in Highlyillogical's and Dk2virus's cases, just use links that don't prove what you say they do, and lie as much as possible.

cellar, once again qualititive data eludes you in a major way, this time in relation to the most common murders you get.

The most common murder isn't a drive-by shooting from a group of gangsters, or somebody shooting up their school - the most common murder cases you will find are, among others:
* Man kills wife.
* Jilted ex kills former lover.
* Mother kills unwanted child.
* Person feels slighted by another person and kills them.

These are comitted by "law abiding people" who are not prevented from owning a gun by law (apart from the last, which is 50/50) - not by some psycho who illegally purchased a weapon to kill somebody, but somebody with the fool idea in their head that a gun can protect their home and family, rather than being what destroys it.

And, as tony has rightly stated, if you are going to kill you - for the sake of argument - wife with a knife, blunt object, cord or whatever, a sense of remorse can make you stop before you have killed them (especially the latter two). With a gun, the sense of remorse can only come around when the body hits the floor, once you've pulled the trigger - the gun is designed to desensitise you from what you're doing, by making it far less impersonal than a knife, or a sword.

Keep jumping up and down, cellar, trying to blame non-whites for all of America's gun crime and ignore valid counter arguments. Why do you think I'm not quoting your posts? Because that would be dignifying your poisonous bullshit that's soon going to have been trolled out for four months post-VT, wielding dishonesty, untruthfulness, hostility, immiturity and ignorance like a caveman wields a club.

Its sad because the way the world works means we need guns to get things done.

At 8/1/07 10:58 AM, Danny6 wrote: Its sad because the way the world works means we need guns to get things done.

Not necessarily - money (and other valuable commodities) tend to grease the wheels rather well.

At 6/11/07 09:33 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Guns aren't the problem, it's the culture that's the problem. Look what happened to that nice korean boy that tried to go to school in your country! You people made him crazy!!!

That exactly why they need to stay in there country.

At 8/1/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's not true, as I proved, when handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime went up through the roof.

Yeah, crimes in which a handgun was reported.

You're aware that the UK has a big problem with crimes involving replicas, right?

At 8/1/07 10:57 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/1/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's not true, as I proved, when handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime went up through the roof.

Yeah, crimes in which a handgun was reported.

You're aware that the UK has a big problem with crimes involving replicas, right?

Prove that the replicas are responsible for the increase...

Because based on the facts we have, banning handguns didn't achieve its goal of reducing handgun crime, therefore in and of itself it is a failure.

At 8/1/07 11:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/1/07 10:57 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/1/07 01:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's not true, as I proved, when handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime went up through the roof.

Yeah, crimes in which a handgun was reported.

You're aware that the UK has a big problem with crimes involving replicas, right?

Prove that the replicas are responsible for the increase...

Well, considering I haven't seen any information detailing an increase in the number of people actually being shot with a firearm, I'm inclined to think that people are getting a lot more cocky about using replicas than they were before.

Because based on the facts we have, banning handguns didn't achieve its goal of reducing handgun crime, therefore in and of itself it is a failure.

Hey, I know that gun bans are a failed policy. One of the major problems with them is that shutting your eyes tight and hoping really hard doesn't make all of the guns already in the hands of criminals (i.e. a whole bunch) magically go away.

It also means that criminals who do have a handgun will probably be pimping them significantly harder, since Grandpa Joe at the liquor store isn't going to pull out his colt 45 and kick your ass with it if you walk in waving a gun around.

The rise in handgun crime could easily be due to an overall increase in confidence in both firearms and replicas, the difference being that criminals can still get their hands on replicas pretty easily.

I'm sorry if someone already said this (i'm not reading 15 friggin pages) but i saw people saying you need to get a mental examination and crap but if they are gonna shoot some place up couldnt they just buy guns illegally?... How the hell do you controll that? If you don't know that someone has a gun what can you do?

At 8/1/07 10:52 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: cellar, once again qualititive data eludes you in a major way, this time in relation to the most common murders you get.

The most common murder isn't a drive-by shooting from a group of gangsters, or somebody shooting up their school - the most common murder cases you will find are, among others:

Proof?

Prove something you say for once please. Prove that those types of murders outnumber the murders comitted by law-abiding citizens in either relative or absolute terms.

These are comitted by "law abiding people" who are not prevented from owning a gun by law (apart from the last, which is 50/50)

Proof?

not by some psycho who illegally purchased a weapon to kill somebody, but somebody with the fool idea in their head that a gun can protect their home and family, rather than being what destroys it.

Here you go saying things again that are in total ignorance of the facts that were already provided.

The fool idea that guns protect homes and families?? You mean the actual fact that legal gun ownership prevents 10 times more crime than it causes? And that legal gun owners use guns defensively and legitimately 5 times more than the national TOTAL total of gun crimes?

I've already proved this with links, facts, and simple math. You keep making claims in spite of what has already been proven, all while you provide no proof to validate the claims you make.

And, as tony has rightly stated, if you are going to kill you - for the sake of argument - wife with a knife, blunt object, cord or whatever, a sense of remorse can make you stop before you have killed them (especially the latter two). With a gun, the sense of remorse can only come around when the body hits the floor, once you've pulled the trigger - the gun is designed to desensitise you from what you're doing, by making it far less impersonal than a knife, or a sword.

Oh yeah, you of all people know what a gun was "designed" to do. Never mind the fact that the majority of guns aren't even used for killing, and won't be used for killing. Never mind that someone who murders someone with ANY device or method is still a murderer, and made a conscious decision to end someone's life.

The argument that guns make killing easier in the utilitarian standpoint is legitimate, but claiming that having a gun makes someone mentally more capable of killing someone is absolutely absurd.

Keep jumping up and down, cellar, trying to blame non-whites for all of America's gun crime and ignore valid counter arguments.

Nobody give valid counter arguments.

Where was a valid counter argument? Was it when you repeatedly used links selectively and dishonestly to claim things that they didn't prove? Was it when you denied the FACT that the US has many factors, including racial make-up and geographic position which make higher gun crime rates prevalent irregardless of gun laws?

Nobody gave a valid counter argument. In fact, anything that could possibly be interpreted as a valid counter argument was sabotaged by the total DISHONESTY of the people providing it (you and highllyillogical most notably).

Why do you think I'm not quoting your posts?

The reason you're not replying with quotes is because my previous post was a METICULOUS, COMPLETE, STEP-BY-STEP DISPROOF of everything you said. You only way you could have replied while sticking to your routine of ignoring everytime you get proven wrong and caught in your lie, would have been to reply to maybe 3 or 4 lines.

I caught you in your lies, I PROVED you wrong in several aspects, I proved that your argument was based on the most dishonest, fact-dodging, delusional, and irrational stance possible. I proved that the ONLY WAY for someone to actually maintain the anti-gun stance is to lie, and distort and ignore facts. I showed that anti-gun views aren't based on facts, they aren't based on the actual desire to reduce gun crime, it's based purely on POLITICAL DOGMA. You're antigun because you're loyal to your political ideology. You WILLINGLY live a lie, you willingly support something you know is wrong because it coincides with your larger, all-encompassing MENTAL DISORDER of your political views.

It's hilarious that YOU say I am dishonest, even though you REPEATEDLY denied several of your lies that I CAUGHT YOU IN. I proved that you used links dishonestly, how you picked and chose certain links to make claims that weren't even validated by the links.

Because that would be dignifying your poisonous bullshit that's soon going to have been trolled out for four months post-VT, wielding dishonesty, untruthfulness, hostility, immiturity and ignorance like a caveman wields a club.

Haha. It's funny because every single word you just used is actually a completely accurate description of you. Fortunately for me, I've been honest this entire time. I've used links honestly, I based my arguments on facts, I held true to the facts, instead of maintaining a view in spite of facts like you did.

So not only are you wrong about eveyrthing, but you're willingly wrong, you're so motivated by both your ego and your irrational political bias that you squander the truth. Now, even though you know I am right, even though you know you are wrong and that you LIED to pretend otherwise, you use words to describe me that actually describe YOU. Thus showing you are also a hypocrite, a delusional, dishonest, hypocrite who is absolutely WRONG in every single aspect.

Fun fact: Last time I was in a gun control topic, I was examining the relationship between murder rates and other variables, including gun ownership, population density, median income, etc etc.

The only one that showed anything resembling a correlation was race.

Lolz.

Ok you have to be very dumb to beleive that guns should be sold because look at countries were owning guns are illegal like in Japan, Australia and the UK, they have some of the lowest homicidal rates in the world. I know it's true that most criminals use guns gotten at big amounts imported illegally but most of the homicides and suicides are with guns bought legally because it's just too easy to get a gun, you just sign some papers and they check your history to see if you could have a gun (but of course has many flaws as we have seen). In fact, I don't know if you heard of a 10 month old who got a gun legally Alabama (I think it was that state, but I could have confused with Ohio :S) because the father signed some papers and the kids doodled a signature and somehow due to the magnificent system for selling guns their in the USA the kid got a gun :S (which is really weird...). Anyways I may have gotten a bit away from the point but what I mean is that selling guns should be banned from the USA cause if we compare with countries were buying guns is illegal the USA is seen as a veryyyyyyy violent country and I know that british, japanese or other people from other countries aren't mentally superior...

When I checked his profile...
Age: 13
Job: Stupidity