Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/8/07 10:59 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Except that in countries with gun control, murder rates are significantly lower.

Which doesn't prove gun control works. As has been shown 16 times in this thread alone, Englands crime were lower than the US BEFORE they banned guns.

The same people that were responsible for shooting their spouses, family members and friends in arguments

Urban legend. Next?

Except that with gun control many of these 'legitimate defensive uses' may
a.) be unnecessary or
b.) resolved with another form of self-defense i.e taser guns.

If someone breaks in my home and attacks me with the intent of harming me, I will kill them. Pure and simple. You have no right to tell me I can't defend myself or my family.

The Firearms Act required full registration of guns. Introduced to the UK in 1920
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.asp x?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=84&NavF rom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1073666&Acti veTextDocId=1073666&filesize=1095

Fully automatic weapons were banned from private ownership by the 1937 Firearms Act

So if you're going to allege 'gun bans were responsible for the UK spike in murders' you'd be mistaken considering several gun restrictions were already in place prior to implementing a full Federal ban. It can be argued the UK's history of lower murder rates, and lower % of murders by firearms was due to already existing strict gun control measures.
----------

Now, prove that those laws are responsible for the lack of crime.

Don't stress too much. I already know you cant.

---

Once again... D2kvirus entirely ignores what was proven, and just moves on and says something else that is irrelevant.

---

At 8/5/07 08:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

it's hard to stab 33 people to death

It's hard to kill 168 people as a lone gunman. But I guess, it's easier to do with fertilizer. Should we ban fertilizer by your logic?

Large feritilizer purchases are monitored. It's harder to buy a bunch of ammonium nitrate than you might think.

UK gun murder rate is restricted to a few postal districts, and are either gang or drug related.

Um, actually higher overall gun crime in the UK seems restricted to areas that have LOWER legal gun ownership!.

LINK

I need you to read and understand this:

Handgun CRIME and handgun VIOLENCE are not the same statistic. Do you understand that? Are you aware that "Someone being shot" and "A crime in which a handgun is reported" are not always the same thing?

And something that escapes you, banning guns doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals. The people who commit the majority of gun crime in the US, and obtain their firearms illegally, and WILL obtain their firearms illegally regardles of gun bans, are people who don't obey laws, and won't obey gun laws.

Most guns used by criminals (as you showed via a link in a different topic) are obtained either through straw man purchases or from corrupt gun dealers. Sure, you can't completely eliminate guns, but you can cause the price to inflate so much that they become a lot harder to get.

---

At 8/9/07 08:45 AM, Elfer wrote: Most guns used by criminals (as you showed via a link in a different topic) are obtained either through straw man purchases or from corrupt gun dealers. Sure, you can't completely eliminate guns, but you can cause the price to inflate so much that they become a lot harder to get.

Chris Rock theory. Make every bullet 10,000 dollars?

This ignores guns already in the hands of private people, and those who steal guns.
Not to mention the black market.

---

At 8/9/07 10:15 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Chris Rock theory. Make every bullet 10,000 dollars?

This ignores guns already in the hands of private people, and those who steal guns.
Not to mention the black market.

No it doesn't. You can't steal a gun from thin air, and if a gun has to be smuggled across a border to get into the hands of a criminal, the price of the gun is going to jump a LOT.

In any case, I don't support a gun ban, I just also don't support crummy arguments against it presented as absolute proof.

---

At 8/8/07 10:10 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Australia: Gun deaths in rapid decline since stricter gun control introduced.

and of course, that drop in the murder rate didn't start prior to the stricter gun control.

---

At 8/9/07 11:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/8/07 10:10 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Australia: Gun deaths in rapid decline since stricter gun control introduced.

and of course, that drop in the murder rate didn't start prior to the stricter gun control.

Someone in a gun control debate examining the validity of statistics?

BLASPHEMY!

---

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Definition of "infringe" from dictionary.com

"1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule."

Therefore: Gun Control = Unconstitutional

End of thread kthnxbai

---

Dude, I'm so with you!

I guess people like him are some 9-year old with an account and feeble reasoning power, people who honestly don't know things, or people who deliberately post the WRONG things trying to get us on their side because, say, they saw a rabbit shot with a .45 automatic on TV. Well, that's life! There is more bloodshed in the RAINFOREST than there is in the hunting woods I go to. Animals NATURALLY rip each others guts out just to keep the balance of the ecosystem. And fully automatic weapons are not what led to the V.Tech rampage. A poor kid (and I am in NO WAY defending Cho-Sieung whateverhisnamewas,) with no friends and burning hatred for minorities and ethnic groups possibly got on drugs and then cut his fellow students to shreds with two uzis. (I saw the video surveillence on the news. Trust me, it's a LOT less sick when Pico does it.) Guns don't kill people. Guns are given to people, and then, sometimes, people kill people WITH guns. Gun control is limited but still effective in MS and almost everywhere else in the US, and it needs to stay that way. As a flat out, true, American, 98% Conservative, 2% Independant guy, I know that total gun control is unconstitutional. UN-CON-STI-TU-TI-ON-AL. "..shall have the right to bear arms..." "Shall not have property searched or seized without warrant..." These words ring forever through every mind of every true American's heart. These words shall be followed. It (the whole Constitution) is the heart and foundation of America's modern civilization. 1867. 1943. 1980. 1998. 2006. 200- These years, America still followed these rules. My great-great granndad followed them. And his great-granddad before him. All the way back to my pioneer ancestors, they followed those rules. And I will not let some LIBERAL tear down one of the greatest documents of all time with some total gun control policy without a fight.

---

* 15,876 people murdered in US in 2006 with guns - FACT
* Only 192 of those murders was justifiable - FACT
* 73 people murdered in UK in 2006 with guns - FACT
* 34 US states have a higher number of gun murders than the UK - FACT
* Gun massacres since 1997 handgun ban in UK: 0 - FACT
* Gun murder halved in Australia in the decade since introduction of stricter gun control - FACT
* The US is the only First World nation in the top ten gun murder rates - FACT
* Gun murders increased 4000% since they became available to all in South Africa - FACT
* Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites), and Thailand has the third highest gun murder rate. Singapore also ranks at 32nd.
* Florida has the largest Puerto Rican and Cuban populations of the US - FACT
* New York has the largest Dominican populatiuon in the US - FACT
* Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Dominican Republicare not among the 32 countries with the highest gun murder rates - FACT
* To imply all Latinos turn into a homogeneous, murdering mass once they arrive in the US is incalcuably naive and/or racist - FACT
* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast have a predominantly black population - FACT
* Of the London boroughs with lthe largest black communities, only Hackney has a high (or notable) gun murder rate - FACT
* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only Columbia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Mexico, Uruguay and Portugal have a predominantly Hispanicpopulation - FACT
* That leave 11 of the top 20 with predominantly white populations - FACT
* Estonians, Latvians and Bulgarians can (and do) immigrate to the UK, yet there is no sharp increase in gun murder - FACT
* The UK gun murder statistics can be tied down to two cities, in areas of large gang cultures - FACT
* The US has a nationwide gun murder proplem - FACT
* If you want to use rates to say Arizona and New Mexico have gun problems to blame the Mexicans, you have to say there isn't so much of a problem in Texas and California, where the largest Mexican populations lie - FACT* Or, if you want to go by numbers, you can't blame Arizona and New Mexico - FACT
* Trying to use both in the same argument is pretty f'n stupid, cellar - FACT
* And, using that site, you notice that Hawaii and Massachussets have the lowest gun rates, and the strictest gun laws - FACT
* Wisconsin has strict gun laws, and is in the bottom half of total number of murders, and the rate of murder - FACT
* Those most likely to snap and shoot up the neighbourhood are predominatly white - FACT
* That going on a killing spree is now designated as a disorder indicates the level of the problem is higher than you want to admit - FACT
* Criminals are sold guns by licensed dealers through legal means, as the dealer isn't doing their job - FACT
* If those selling guns can't do their job, guns need better control for that reason alone - FACT
* Gun dealers in the UK converted guns to replicas to avoid handing over their merchandise in '97, and gangs are converting these to fire live ammunition - FACT

Don't you fucking dare to call anyone a liar, criticise their argument or call their credibility into question when you've been ducking and ignoring these valid, important points for the four months you've barely convinced yourself gun control doesn't work. Stil to flaming people's comments section, sounding like you've suffered a psychotic breakdown in the process - it's your level, and we all know it.

---

At 8/10/07 07:30 AM, Elfer wrote: Someone in a gun control debate examining the validity of statistics?

BLASPHEMY!

Hahah, that's goin in my record books!

---

Once again, D2kvirus entirely ignores what was already proven and just states things out of context, entirely ignoring that I've already proven they don't in any way justify banning guns.

What a delusional freak of nature.

---

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * 15,876 people murdered in US in 2006 with guns - FACT

The US has a large population, with an unfavorable geographical position, and a racial make up of large groups of minorities that make high gun murder rates entirely outside of the control of gun control. Thus making your entire out of context use of numbers without logic FALSE and pointless. FACT

* Only 192 of those murders was justifiable - FACT

While justifiable homicide rates mean nothing because people don't have to kill someone to defend against them with a gun. 2 million crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens, compared to the only 200,000 crimes they commit, and the only 400,000 fire arm crimes committe din the US a year. FACT

* 73 people murdered in UK in 2006 with guns - FACT

The UK is an island with a small minority population, making comparisons across the board between the UK and the US entirely inapplicable and LAUGHABLE for anyone who isn't a complete and utter moron like you.

13/rd (33%) of the US is composed of minorities.

Most of these minorities are Blacks and Hispanics, 13% and 12.5% of the population respectively.

These racial groups commit violent crimes and MANY times the rate that whites do, white who are a smaller minority in the US than in the UK.

%u2022 Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

%u2022 When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun.

%u2022 Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

The UK minority population is only 1/13th (7.9%), the large majority of the minorities are are Asian, who commit violent crime at 1/4th the rate whites do in the US.

* Gun massacres since 1997 handgun ban in UK: 0 - FACT

Gun massacres before 1997 handgun ban were decades apart, making the lack of gun massacres since then STATISTICALLY NON-PECULIAR.

* Gun murder halved in Australia in the decade since introduction of stricter gun control - FACT

Island with low population and low minority rate.

* The US is the only First World nation in the top ten gun murder rates - FACT

The US is the only First World nation with the whole host of variables that lead to high murder rates, all outside of the influence of gun control

* Gun murders increased 4000% since they became available to all in South Africa - FACT

South Africa is dominated by tribal behavior and is in a technical low-level civil war, and was even before they reintroduced firearms.

* Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE:

First of all, that's South Africa you fucking moron. The graph you linked to even said that Asians only committed murder at a higher rate than whites. "Coloured" and "Black" people committed murder at much higher rates than whites.

And even then, that's not the US dipshit, where Asians commit 1/4th the violent crime that whites do. We're talking about the variables in the US, because YOU are the retard who says the US should ban guns, even though I've conclusively proved that your entire stance is false.

Now, since everything else you said was just more total bullshit. I can disprove your entire theory, and entirely PROVE that your proposition of banning guns in the US is wrong, incorrect, uneducated, delusional, all the things that describe.

Once single fact:

GUNS IN THE US DO MORE GOOD THAN HARM, proven by:

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

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

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

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

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

The UK banned handguns in 1997 with the goal of (obviously) reducing the use of handguns in crime. This stupid ban 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.

You have absolutely ZERO grounds to keep supporting your false views. You're delusional because every single time something you say gets proven to be wrong or inapplicable, you just ignore what was said a ndn keep saying false things over and over again.

You're seriously brainwashed or something because...damn. What kind of a person deliberately takes a stance that they know is wrong like you do?

---

At 8/9/07 01:39 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/8/07 10:59 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

The same people that were responsible for shooting their spouses, family members and friends in arguments

Urban legend. Next?

Nope not an urban legend, most victims were murdered by a relative, spouse or friend. Also, depending on which source you go by (fbi or federal bureau of justice stats.) 40% - 50%+ of murder victims were due to arguments or relationships. (cited previously - look last page top, me).

Except that with gun control many of these 'legitimate defensive uses' may
a.) be unnecessary or
b.) resolved with another form of self-defense i.e taser guns.

If someone breaks in my home and attacks me with the intent of harming me, I will kill them. Pure and simple. You have no right to tell me I can't defend myself or my family.

Doesn't answer my question at all.

prove that those laws are responsible for the lack of crime.

You're an idiot

---

Tsk tsk, cellar - going for the flamer's response. Are you acting pissy because I banned you from my comments page (which reminds me: what were you doing on there anyway, apart from looking for a reason to kick off?), and then remembering to try to state a fact...which, of course, didn't distort anything.

For example:
* China and India have larger populations than the US, yet do not have comparible gun murder rates.
* In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm, averaging 400,000 every year.
* he still doesn't accept what I have said many times that, of the largest black communities in the UK, only Hackney has any gun murder issue. As in, the other ones don't.
* He obviously seemed to miss thhe fact that Asians commit the most gun murders in South Africa, followed by blacks.
* Or that 55% of the countries with the highest gun murder rate have predominantly white populations.
*By the way: "1/13th (7.9%), the large majority of the minorities are are Asian, who commit violent crime at 1/4th the rate whites do in the US"? America Asians are mainly Chinese, in the UK it's Indio-Pakistani. And, once again, Thailand - which is in Asia - has a higher gun murder rate than most countries. Mainly drug related, coincidentally.
*Actually, there was an EIGHT year difference between gun massacres - and ELEVEN years since we had one. It was a six month gap between the last two in the US, and four months waiting for the next one.
* So, because Austalia is predominatly white and has a small ethnic population (6% Asia, 2% Aboriginal), a 50% decrease in gun murder since the ban isn't worth anything? How does your logic system work, cellar?
* Take the paranoias and prejudices of English Fundamentalist Christians, transport them to the other side of an ocean, and put them in contact with vastly different cultures. Throw in German, Irish and Scandanavian immigrants, simmer for 400 years - that's America. How is it so many attitudes and outlooks are similar between the US and UK, but crime statistics are not?
* You ignored, again, that blacks are the third most likely to commit gun murde rin South Africa - after Asians and Blacks. And, as for "tribal behaviour", remember Aparthaid turned Zulus and Xhosas against each other (rather than against the government). Who instigated Aparthaid? Whites.
* Despite whites coming out on top in strangulation and "Other"? And, looking at the overall murder rate, you may be disappointed to read that blacks aren't #1. Whites are.
* Once again, if Asians aren't responsible for gun murders, why does Thailand have a higher rate of gun murder than Mexico and ANY country of a predominatly black population?
* Guns obviously don't do good if they're discharged at bystanders at semi-regular intervals, pointed in the face of bank clerks and store owners - unless you happen to have the gun. And, frankly, anything you support is obviously a problem.
* So, the number or percentage of gun murders in the home passed you by, too? As did other ways to be killed by a gun, such as suicide or accidental gun death - there's more ot gun deaths than murder, cellar.
* Didn't I mention the UK gun criume rate being EXCLUSIVE to TWO CITIES which have HIGH RATES OF GANG VIOLENCE repeatedly for four months?
* By the way, if 53% of gun crimes in the UK involve air weapons, while there was a 46% increase using replica guns, it is quite stupid to quote thes ein context against uses of live weapons and ammunition. Which, coincidentally, is what you did.
* And, since we all know you'll ignore that site, it also states "Worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons." Whoops!
* You avoided the 50% DECREASE in Australia as they're white, yet talk about the increas ein the UK, which is mainly white. Errm...you ddefeated your own argument, there.

So, you graduated from "liar" to "you fucking moron" - and you were as poisonously ignorant as before.

At 8/10/07 10:25 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's also unconstitutional to ignore the parts about a well-regulated militia or the necessity to the free State.

---

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * 15,876 people murdered in US in 2006 with guns - FACT

This is down from 2004. In which 16,528 were murdered, and 2005 in which 16,137 were murdered. Fact.

* Only 192 of those murders was justifiable

Not quite. Your own link states:
"Law enforcement reported 533 justifiable homicides. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 341 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 192 individuals. "
We'll delete "Fact" from your point there.

* 73 people murdered in UK in 2006 with guns

Again, from your own data:
"Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year."
Firearms murder has jumped 7%. Also from your link:
"In fact, the current number of firearms offences is almost twice that of 1997/98."
"This is a 6% increase from 2003/04 and continues the pattern of annual increases every year since 1997/98. "
Since you deliberately ignore the evidence in there that gun crime is rising...your "fact" is meant to mislead. We'll remove "Fact" from your point here.

* 34 US states have a higher number of gun murders than the UK - FACT

I'd like to see the per capita rates. This isn't terribly relevant to anything tho.

* Gun massacres since 1997 handgun ban in UK: 0

Gun massacres before 1997 in UK: 1. -Fact.
In fact, since you're using this to argue that the gun ban is the REASON for no more massacres, it's no longer a fact, but a propeganda tool...I'll fix that one for you too.

* Gun murder halved in Australia in the decade since introduction of stricter gun control

And the trend was started LONG before the gun buy back. Thus, the gun buy back is not the cause. Not a fact.

* The US is the only First World nation in the top ten gun murder rates - FACT

And?

* Gun murders increased 4000% since they became available to all in South Africa

OH, WOW! More people killed each other with guns than before they had guns? What the hell kind of stupid point is that? That's like saying "More people die of strangulation than before they made ROPE."
And there's an interesting little chunk of the table missing...1991-1998, when gun crime sky rocketed. What happened then? Oh, my...that's when Aprtheid ended. Hmmmm.

* Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites), and Thailand has the third highest gun murder rate. Singapore also ranks at 32nd.

Well, I'm glad you didn't put "Fact", because you're dead wrong. Your chart shows, in fact, the opposite. "Coloureds" commit the most murders. Of those, Blacks beat out Asians. And White commit the least murders. That's what your own chart shows you dope.
Even in the breakdown...while Asians beat out blacks in shootings and strangulations, they commit less knife and other crimes...making it a tie (the one year where Asian and Black lines connect in the overall graph).
You're other two "facts" are completely irrelevant.

latino stuff edited for space
* To imply all Latinos turn into a homogeneous, murdering mass once they arrive in the US is incalcuably naive and/or racist

Nice try there, chuckles. Toss in some real facts then try to make a smear based on them and call them fact? I think not. When Carter allowed Castro to ship refugees to Florida, it's not exactly like the prick sent us his best and brightest. No, he sent us the trouble makers and emptied out his prisons. He flooded the boats of refugees with undesireables. Fact

* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast have a predominantly black population - FACT
black/mexican stuff removed for space.
* Estonians, Latvians and Bulgarians can (and do) immigrate to the UK, yet there is no sharp increase in gun murder - FACT

Yet there's STILL an increase of gun murder. -Fact.

* The UK gun murder statistics can be tied down to two cities, in areas of large gang cultures - FACT

Which it could be BEFORE the gun ban, hence, nothing really changing. However, gun crime is starting to become a problem EVERYWHERE in England.

* If you want to use rates to say Arizona and New Mexico have gun problems to blame the Mexicans, you have to say there isn't so much of a problem in Texas and California, where the largest Mexican populations lie Or, if you want to go by numbers, you can't blame Arizona and New Mexico -

Texas and California lead the nation in violent gun deaths. Arizona is #13, New Mexico is #29. Both are characterized by long stretches of desert, and low population areas. We could indeed use illegals as the crux of their problems.

* Trying to use both in the same argument is pretty f'n stupid, cellar

Ad hominim without supporting data.

* And, using that site, you notice that Hawaii and Massachussets have the lowest gun rates, and the strictest gun laws - FACT

They also have the smallest amounts of black and hispanic minorities. - Fact.

* Those most likely to snap and shoot up the neighbourhood are predominatly white

Is that why a majority of gan violence is in minority neighborhoods? You don't hear about some white kid snapping and going on a driveby. The only way you can even TRY to back up this stupidity is by pointing to school shootings (the last of which was perpetuated by a Korean), which are incredibly rare, and pale in comparison to gang violence perpetuated by minorities.

* That going on a killing spree is now designated as a disorder indicates the level of the problem is higher than you want to admit - FACT
* Criminals are sold guns by licensed dealers through legal means, as the dealer isn't doing their job

Criminals who are not legally allowed to have guns get them through straw man purchases through someone who IS legally allowed to buy a gun. (See: Columbine.) This is your source and you deliberately misquote it. No fact here.

* If those selling guns can't do their job, guns need better control for that reason alone

There's nothing to indicate they're not doing their jobs. In FACT, strawman purchases are proof they ARE doing their job.

* Gun dealers in the UK converted guns to replicas to avoid handing over their merchandise in '97, and gangs are converting these to fire live ammunition - FACT

Wow, so people found ways around the law, and the gun ban is circumventable? Thanks for admittingit...FINALLY.

Don't you fucking dare to call anyone a liar, criticise their argument or call their credibility into question when you've been ducking and ignoring these valid, important points for the four months you've barely convinced yourself gun control doesn't work. Stil to flaming people's comments section, sounding like you've suffered a psychotic breakdown in the process - it's your level, and we all know it.

You deliberately misquoted 6 of your sources, tried to use stats to deceive people, and offered up "facts" with no evidence to back them up. Seeing as how I directly debunked almost everyone of your claims with your own source, I will indeed feel free to call you a liar.

---

At 8/12/07 08:33 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Nope not an urban legend, most victims were murdered by a relative, spouse or friend. Also, depending on which source you go by (fbi or federal bureau of justice stats.) 40% - 50%+ of murder victims were due to arguments or relationships. (cited previously - look last page top, me).

First, when the FBI talks about someone you had a relationship with, it means someone you know. Preacher, mailman, classmate, teacher, etc. Knowing your attacker, or being aquainted to them, doesn't mean you're close, or even friends.

Doesn't answer my question at all.

You're demanding to know whether self defense is legitimate. Which is, in and of itself, an insanely stupid question. Then you demand to know if the violence could have been prevented with a lesser means, which is an IRRELEVANT question. If the woman had had a tazer, instead of a shotgun, she MIGHT have been able to overcome her three attackers. She also might have ended up raped and murdered. Putting the emphasis on victims to demand they resolve a conflict they didn't start with a lesser force is assinine. It has led to such retarded ideas as "the equal force requirement" which used to state that you couldn't use a gun if your attacker only had a knife. Anyone who brings a knife is looking to do harm (as opposed to guns which are primarily used to scare). And this requirement meant that a 5'4 90lb woman was supposed to knife fight a 6'7 300 lbs man. Your argument is stupid on it's face.

prove that those laws are responsible for the lack of crime.

You're an idiot

No, actually, I'm highly intelligent. As I've proven again and again on these forums, the laws regarding guns have little effect on actually reducing crime. England banned guns because of a SINGLE INCIDENT. Since then, crime has inched upwards. D2K is quick to point out that their crime rate is lower...but it always was. Gun laws are not the reason for the lower crime. At the least, we can say that the laws aren't working and gun crime is still rising.
Same with Australia. Oh my god, they got rid of guns and crime dropped! But crime had been plummeting anyways, and really didn't accelerate under the gun ban, but instead dropped at the same level.
In the movie with Richard Gere, about China, they completely attribute their lower crime to their willingness to use the death penalty.
And the vaunted Assault weapons ban did nothing to curb crime as rifles aren't used often in crimes, and the changes made to guns were superficial. As this gentleman demonstrates. And now that the AWB has lifted, crime is STILL falling.

In short, you look at the fact that England has gun laws and less crime, and go "aha, it's the guns." What I'm asking you to do is prove that the laws are responsible. You can't (and you know it), so you label me stupid for pointing out the basic flaw in your argument.

---

probably

---

D2kvirus just CONTINUES to spout out crap that he either doesn't prove, things that have already been disproved, or things that are entirely irrelevant.

It's like a mental retard reciting a story they heard, even when they are told it's wrong, they just keep saying it over and over again.

---

At 8/12/07 09:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: D2kvirus just CONTINUES to spout out crap that he either doesn't prove, things that have already been disproved, or things that are entirely irrelevant.

It's like a mental retard reciting a story they heard, even when they are told it's wrong, they just keep saying it over and over again.

Can you prove that black people is crazy murder machines?

---

At 8/12/07 11:58 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/12/07 09:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: D2kvirus just CONTINUES to spout out crap that he either doesn't prove, things that have already been disproved, or things that are entirely irrelevant.

It's like a mental retard reciting a story they heard, even when they are told it's wrong, they just keep saying it over and over again.

Can you prove that black people is crazy murder machines?

Um, as I've already done... I proved that blacks commit violent crimes at 7 times the rate that whites do in the US, and are 3 times more likely to use a gun in these crimes. I can also prove, as I've done, that hispanics comit violent crimes at 3 times the rate that whites do.

Which shows that racial make-up, a large minority population with higher tendency to commit crime can cause higher gun murder, and murder rates in a country regardless of their gun control laws.

D2kvirus keeps ignoring this and comparing the Uk to the US across the board, failing to realize that his country, and any other first world country does not share the unique variables that the US has that can cause a disproportionate amount of crime and gun crime.

The UK is an island, with a low minority population, and the few minorities they do have belong to the racial group that commit violent crime at 1/4 the rate that whites do in the US.

This is a factor that makes gun murder comparisons across the board ridiculous when trying to prove gun control works or doesn't work. Not only because I've proved that guns are used more responsibly than irresponsibly in the US, not only because guns prevent more crimes they cause, but because the US would have a relatively high problem if there was gun control or not.

---

At 8/13/07 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Which shows that racial make-up, a large minority population with higher tendency to commit crime can cause higher gun murder, and murder rates in a country regardless of their gun control laws.

Meh...a lot of it is that whole gangster culture bull crap, which is basically
"look at me I wear my pants low enough so you can see half my ass, I can shoot a gun sideways without aiming and hit the little kid next to you, steal everything in a convenience store, talk like a complete retard, do drive by shootings where I'm not aiming at anyone in particular just so long as I hit someone, and I can rape people and get away with it, take every drug known to man and several known to elephants, cockroaches and small furry animals, and beat up random people for no reason."
My opinion? They're a bunch of dickweeds. Yeah we need Gun Control, in the form of background checks and registering guns, not in the form of banning them altogether, if we do that crime actually goes up simply because plenty of people aren't going to be willing to turn their guns in, hell most of the people who use guns to kill people and remotely have a brain buy them through illegal channels so they won't get traced back to them.

---

At 8/13/07 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um, as I've already done... I proved that blacks commit violent crimes at 7 times the rate that whites do in the US, and are 3 times more likely to use a gun in these crimes. I can also prove, as I've done, that hispanics comit violent crimes at 3 times the rate that whites do.

Which shows that racial make-up, a large minority population with higher tendency to commit crime can cause higher gun murder, and murder rates in a country regardless of their gun control laws.

Have you shown this to be the case universally, or just in the US?

If you're going to apply the same logic to other countries, you have to show that minorities commit more crimes everywhere, not just in the US.

Again, you're playing fast and loose with the word "proof"

I'd be more inclined to say that the larger incidence of gangs and gang violence in the US is responsible for the higher crime rate and the higher crime rate among minorities, rather than simply racial distribution itself.

The UK is an island, with a low minority population, and the few minorities they do have belong to the racial group that commit violent crime at 1/4 the rate that whites do in the US.

Again, "in the US." You're saying that the US has unique variables that don't apply to any other first world nation, then you say that people who statistically commit less crime in the US must do the same everywhere.

This is a factor that makes gun murder comparisons across the board ridiculous when trying to prove gun control works or doesn't work. Not only because I've proved that guns are used more responsibly than irresponsibly in the US, not only because guns prevent more crimes they cause, but because the US would have a relatively high problem if there was gun control or not.

I think this is the key issue here. Making comparisons between countries is hideously complex business because there's no controlled variables. We can't experiment with it, and we can't draw meaningful conclusions.

And you're right, people will tend to kill each other, guns or no. That's why I think that while gun control might not be an inherently bad idea, it's ultimately not a solution, because it treats the symptom and not the cause. It's like covering skin cancer with makeup and saying "All better".

---

You need to have some regulation of selling guns if you were to use gun control (which I do not approve of)
If its just a ban, more people will do it just for spite. Like banning gum at an elementary school.

---

At 8/13/07 06:52 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: gun control doesnt work it makes things worse.

exactly! thats what I mean don't ban guns or there will be more problems like riots, angry hunters

---

i think i can sum up this entire thread in very few words: "once again (insert name here) has ignored what i said".

---

At 8/13/07 06:49 PM, machacker2000 wrote: You need to have some regulation of selling guns if you were to use gun control (which I do not approve of)
If its just a ban, more people will do it just for spite. Like banning gum at an elementary school.

There are significant differences between smuggling gum into an elementary school to chew it, and smuggling guns across a border into a country to sell them to violent criminals.

---

Seriously, people, what is there to argue? 2nd amendment, bitch, nothin' you can do about it.

---

At 8/13/07 09:45 PM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: Seriously, people, what is there to argue? 2nd amendment, bitch, nothin' you can do about it.

Thank you.