Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/21/07 11:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/21/07 06:45 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

And I have irrefutable proof to the contrary.

No, you don't. You have irrefutable proof that previous attempts and banning guns to reduce crime failed miserably. No one with a clue debates that.

You said banning guns would reduce crime... I proved that based on the FACTS, rather than your vivid imagination, it WOULDN'T do tis in the US.

Here you go doing what you've done before, you fail to quote what was ACTUALLY said and you reply out of context.

But how many of those cases in which gun's prevented crimes did gun's prevent crimes involving guns in the first place?

Doesn't matter. More crimes are prevented by law abiding citizens than are caused by them, and more crimes are prevented by guns than are CAUSED overall in the first place.

Therefore, there is no logical reason to ban guns, not only because there is no merit in that there is no proof it will take guns away from criminals ( and there is PROOF that gun bans DON'T take away guns from criminals), but also because taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will cause crime to go up because as it is now, MILLIONS of crimes are prevented by law-abiding citizens aremed with guns. Taking away THEIR guns is the dumbest possible thing someone can do when they are trying to reduce crime.

No murder is going to say "damn, I WANT to murder him, but he has a gun!"

Apparently they do actually. As shown that statistically, areas with higher gun ownership in the UK had lesser levels of gun crime. Legally-owned guns deter illegally-possessed guns by criminals. Criminals are cowards, they rely on lesser-armed, vulnerable citizens to prey on.

Give the citizen a gun, and you even the odds. Even odds aren't good for criminals.

The solution? Shoot him in the back. Run him over. Once again, the case I gave you of McDonalds introducing make it bacon coinciding with a rise in gun crimes.

Here you go again, entirely ignoring facts and just resting on your false opinions.

FACT: Murder in the UK WENT UP after the gun ban (page 14), the murder in proportion to population almost immediately went up after 1997, and was the HIGHEST in the data set since 1967. All of the highest murder rates occurred AFTER the gun ban, and they occurred almost IMMEDIATELY after the gun ban, but never occurred before then to such a degree.

Murder rates to the high degree that occurred AFTER the gun ban are STATISTICALLY PECULIAR compared to how they were BEFORE the gun ban.

There is a direct correlation that only a complete imbecile wouldn't acknowledge.

But since you ARE an imbecile apparently, I can simply say that even if banning guns didn't cause this higher murder rate (which it did), the gun ban STILL DIDN'T WORK, because not only did it FAIL to reduce crime, gun crime, and murder... but these things INCREASED after the gun ban.

The gun ban FAILED.

If you want to pretend like this is just random coincidence, then I could use your STUPID

If it's stupid, why can't you legitimately counter it without typing insults in all caps?

I already didn't legitimately counter it.

And funny, you base your whole argument on the lack of disproof of YOUR opinions and speculations. You haven't provided any proof of anything, you just say what amounts to "maybe this... you can't disprove it therefore even though you conclusively proved everything you said, I'm going to continue to live in la la land and ignore it because my hypotheticals aren't disproved, yet at the same time I can't validate them."

Next time someone says anything I disagree with, I'm going to take your route and create some elaborate scenario that, unless proven wrong, somehow casts doubts on the things they say.

"Hey cellardoor6, did you know French people are thinner than Americans, and therefore this means they eat more healthy and exercise more."

"Fuck that, maybe the French don't even exist, and we're just in the Matrix right now. YOU HAVEN'T DISPROVED THIS, therefore your point about the French is moot."

argument to say that murder in Australia going down as after their gun ban as d2kvirus claimed, was just a coincidence.

Yes, you definately could. And without evidence to directly link the two, you should.

Nope, what D2Kvirus claimed CAN be correlated with the buy-back of guns in Australia, only a fool would deny it. HOWEVER, he can't use it for grounds to ban guns in the US, because not only does Australia have a completely different situation, but because I have provided proof that in the US, getting rid of guns in the similar way Australia did will not work.

You might say that the murder increase in the UK due to gun bans can't be applied to the US, but it can because I have also proved that legal gun owners prevent more crime in the US than they cause. I've showed solid correlation, I've validated it by what HAS happened in the UK after bans, and by what WILL happen in the US after bans based on the irrefutable facts that guns cause more good than harm in the US.

You've provided no ACTUAL proof to the contrary, you've just paraded your ignorance of the facts and based your argument on unvalidated, make-believe, non-existent variables.

That doesn't prove that a hypothetical future U.S gun ban would fail.

How illogical is that?

Let's get this straight... Even though ALL of the evidence shows that a gun ban will fail in the US, we should ignore this. Because by one stretch of your imagination, the irrefutable correlation between banning guns and increased crime or lack of decrease in crime could be just a coincidence, therefore we should TRY to ban guns, even though their is no factual merit for doing so.

If you find no correlation, even though it is boosted by FACT that areas of the UK with more guns had less crime... then we can simply say that GUN BANS DID NOT WORK.

Yes, the facts certainly point the the gun bans failed.

And you just contradicted yourself again.

I dub you Cuppa-Contradictions.

By coincidence or causation (causation actually) it had the OPPOSITE of the desired effect.

But on the murder front, it was coincidence.

And according to the FACTS, it would CAUSE crime in the US if such a thing was implemented.

No. According to the facts (or FACTS as you so annoying yelled it), it did cause (CAUSE) crime in the U.K to rise. There are no facts on an event which hasn't happened yet.

Um hello? Legally-owned guns prevent MILLIONS of crimes, much more so than they cause. Therefor, banning them will have the opposite desired effect, because criminals will still have guns, but law-abiding people will not. Gun crime will still take place, but legitimate defensives with guns will not.

Simple logic, validated by facts.

Now piss off and mind yourself with things you actually understand for once.

Except that you've failed to "disprove" my opinions in the least

Actually I entirely disproved all of your false opinions and the only thing you provide to pretend otherwise is - get this - another one of your stupid opinions.

---

At 8/22/07 12:12 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/21/07 09:10 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Sorry, I don't differentiate between intentional manslaughter and murder, both of which are homicide.

I like how you took "Manslaughter" to mean "Only voluntary manslaughter" and completely ignored involuntary manslaughter, which also counts as homicide.

This doesn't matter you retard.

The homicide rates being compared still have the same criteria now as they did before, in, and after 1997. Thus showing an increased trend in homicide overall. (there was an increase in murder specifically as well which I will later show)

Unless YOU can prove that some gigantic increase in infanticide or manslaughter occurred in each one of those years since 1997 they had increased homicide, then every single thing you say means NOTHING other than a testament to how truly pathetic and cowardly you are when you can't even put stake in an argument, you just nitpick from the sidelines.

You provide nothing to an argument, you just pick and choose certain things whenever you want to, and focus on how I say things rather than what I say. Your entire argument revolves around taking what I say out of context to cast doubt on something I claim which is still validated by the links I use.

Instead of resorting to semantics as your sole source of argument, have the balls to for once actually argue the issue.

A homicide is just any death for which someone is culpable, it doesn't require intent.

And yet the overall homicide rate went up... unless you can provide some evidence that each year that homicide has been higher than in 1997, something other than murder was to blame, then be my guest.

Actually, since you're the one making the claim that the increase in the homicide rate is due to an increase in murder rate, you're the one responsible for showing that the murder rate has actually been increasing.

Ahem... LOOK (pg23).

Murder has increased since 1997 in the UK, not decreased. Now, you'll notice that the most recent years (05/06) have smaller amounts, that is because the court cases are still pending and there hasn't been a conviction, as it says.

Murder has gone UP overall in the UK since 1997.

Tip: They're different things!

Tip: you're getting pretty desperate when you ignore all the facts I provide that prove my case, and instead focus on the nomenclature of a few words I say.

Tip: You're getting pretty sloppy when you don't know what your own links are saying, when you don't know what "homicide" means, and you don't know what "proof" means.

Tip: You're getting even more pathetic when you ignore all the facts, and instead focus on meaningless semantics and nomenclature, entirely refusing to do any work yourself.

You're a coward, you stay outside of an argument and just step in for a moment to pick up little mistakes from people and pretend somehow this makes their entirely CONCRETE argument somehow invalid. This is all while you're too afraid to actually take a stake in the argument because you know you're unable to validate any of your own views, you basically sit back and demand people prove things to you, while you do nothing yourself.

You've been doing this for quite some time. You conflate incompatible terms like "homicide" with "murder" or "crimes in which a handgun was reported" with "gun violence".

An in the meantime, you provide zero evidence for anything you say, whenever you do provide links and make wacky claims of what they say, they are to non-existent pages. I've never, ever seen you prove anything you've ever said. Your whole argument is based on b

---

At 8/21/07 11:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, you don't. You have irrefutable proof that previous attempts and banning guns to reduce crime failed miserably. No one with a clue debates that.

Oh, hell, that's no different than those who say Communism hasn't failed because it's never been tried. If every attempt to do something in the past has failed, then that something has failed.
End of story.

But how many of those cases in which gun's prevented crimes did gun's prevent crimes involving guns in the first place? (E.G, someone pulling a gun on a cop, armed civilian shoots criminals)

Well, if more crimes a year are prevented b guns than cause by guns...guns are a good thing!

No murder is going to say "damn, I WANT to murder him, but he has a gun!" The solution? Shoot him in the back. Run him over. Once again, the case I gave you of McDonalds introducing make it bacon coinciding with a rise in gun crimes.

Wow, that's stupid. That's like. "Oh my god, I chipped my tooth on a rock." "No you didn't. Because I ate a sandwich for lunch!"

Yes, you definately could. And without evidence to directly link the two, you should.

And I do.
Simply put: After gun bans, Englanda crime went up, Australia's went down.
There's simply not a person on the planet smart enough to pin the cause on guns. There are too many other factors.

Murders potentially irrelevent, "Gun Crime went up" could indicate that people didn't follow the ban and previously legal gun activities counted as crime (but let's assume that they didn't), and all a rise in gun crime proves is that the British gun ban failed. That doesn't prove that a hypothetical future U.S gun ban would fail.

But it doesn't prove a gun ban would succeed either.
Current trend don't prove your theory so try again!
Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Yes, the facts certainly point the the gun bans failed.

In England, they do. Uneqivocably. Guns were banned, crime went up.
As I said before, might not be the guns. But I can prove for a fact that banning weapons did not make crime go down.

But on the murder front, it was coincidence.

"If the facts don't agree with me they are IRRELEVANT!"

Except that you've failed to "disprove" my opinions in the least, nor will you be able to until you gain the power to see into the future. Once again, you fail to realize that disagreeing with your opinion =/= being incorrect. You also fail to realize that calling someone a "fucking idiot" or anything else doesn't disprove their POV, especially if you do not know their POV; last time I checked, I never posted how I think a hypothetical gun ban should be carried out if I was hypothetically for banning guns. In other words, you have no idea what my idea on a gun ban would be, yet still call me ignorent without hearing the plan.

Ok, then. I'm going to kick you in the shin. It will feel like God kissed you. Forget all the evidence that says that getting kicked in the shins hurts like hell. THIS TIME, it'll be better than sex. I promise.

No one gives 2 shits what your idiotic theory is.
MY POV is that gun control has little if any success. Since mine is backed up by facts, and yours is based on "it'll work next time"...we'll go with mine. Cause mine is the smart one.

PS. I don't care what your plan is. You're too stupid to look at the facts ion hand, so I doubt your ability to come up with a solution.

---

At 8/22/07 01:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Unless YOU can prove that some gigantic increase in infanticide or manslaughter occurred in each one of those years since 1997 they had increased homicide, then every single thing you say means NOTHING other than a testament to how truly pathetic and cowardly you are when you can't even put stake in an argument, you just nitpick from the sidelines.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in a part which you conveniently decided not to respond to, there were about 360 deaths in recent years from sources that couldn't have had anything to do with a gun ban. Fifty-some suffocations on a lorry, the bombings, and the doctor who killed about 250 of his patients (Which occurred quite a few years ago, but was added to the homicide rate when the cases were tried).

Instead of resorting to semantics as your sole source of argument, have the balls to for once actually argue the issue.

Pointing out your abuse of inappropriate statistics isn't semantics.

Ahem... LOOK (pg23).

Murder has increased since 1997 in the UK, not decreased. Now, you'll notice that the most recent years (05/06) have smaller amounts, that is because the court cases are still pending and there hasn't been a conviction, as it says.

Murder has gone UP overall in the UK since 1997.

In much the same way that it's gone up every decade.

Also:
- Those statistics are for convictions, not reported murders, meaning that it could be due to improved investigation methods, and the convictionas are recorded at the conclusion of the trial, not in the year in which they occurred. How many murder trials end in the same year that the person was killed?
- In a population of 53 million people, is the difference between 250 and 326 statistically significant? Can you say it with say, 90% confidence? (95% is generally the standard CI, but I'll give you a break here.)

Tip: You're getting even more pathetic when you ignore all the facts, and instead focus on meaningless semantics and nomenclature, entirely refusing to do any work yourself.

Differentiating between "homicide" and "murder" is not meaningless.

You're a coward, you stay outside of an argument and just step in for a moment to pick up little mistakes from people and pretend somehow this makes their entirely CONCRETE argument somehow invalid.

First, thank you for the personal attack. I'm sure that you are impressing a great many people, and that my argument is weakened by it.

If I can pick up mistakes, the argument isn't concrete. Especially when they're flaws in the basis of the argument. As I recall, you've been trying to show that gun violence has been increasing as a result of the handgun ban, and you still haven't been able to do it.

This is all while you're too afraid to actually take a stake in the argument because you know you're unable to validate any of your own views, you basically sit back and demand people prove things to you, while you do nothing yourself.

I've stated my opinions before, but for one reason or another, people don't like to address them, including you, even though I was using your sources as a basis for my argument.

To reiterate though, stuff I think:
- A simple gun ban would likely be ineffective, if not counterproductive. In a magical world where we could say "Poof! No more guns!" it would be nice, but in reality things aren't quite so simple as that.
- As legal gun owners commit a relatively small portion of gun crimes, we should loosen the restrictions on what guns they're allowed to buy. This would help out hobbyists and collectors.
- Since the majority of illegal guns come from licensed dealers who are corrupt and funnel guns into the black market, we should tighten the watch on gun dealers, by moving funds from ineffective gun control policies that hinder legal owners into a program that keeps track of what guns dealers are buying, what guns they're selling, who they sold them to (i.e. no sales without a background check), and what they have in stock. This could include occasional "surprise inspections" to make sure that the dealers actually have the guns that they say they have.

If you actually want me to make claims and stand up for something in a debate, debate agaisnt those points.

An in the meantime, you provide zero evidence for anything you say, whenever you do provide links and make wacky claims of what they say, they are to non-existent pages. I've never, ever seen you prove anything you've ever said. Your whole argument is based on b

I think the wackiest "claim" I have ever made is "I could find no correlation between gun ownership and murder rate in the United States using the most recent year for which I could find both statistics."

I also recall that the page which you vehemently claimed didn't exist was a site where you had to make two to three mouse clicks (which I instructed you on how to do) to find the relevant statistics. I couldn't link directly to them, because the site worked via an internally scripted query rather than one in the URL. Still, I believe all you had to do was select "Murder" from a list on the left, and the appropriate year in a list on the right, then click a button to retrieve the data.

The reason you don't see me "proving" things is because I don't claim that I've proved anything when it's not conclusive evidence. You, however, throw the word "proof" around whenever you find a link that has the word "gun" in it.

---

At 8/21/07 09:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It doesn't matter because gun crime still went up overall in the UK, thus showing the gun ban didn't work.

Well actually in the past couple of years it hasn't, as your Home Office link shows.

You're just in denial now. The areas of the UK where people still had guns after the gun ban had lower levels of gun crime. The areas with lower gun ownership had higher gun crime.

It's not black and white. Ok, I would assume that most legally owned guns would be owned in the countryside. That's simply the culture, a lot of farmers and toffs own guns. This is opposed to the inner city zones, where hardly anyone is going to have a legally owned gun, but there will still be more crime BECAUSE it is a city.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/
hosb0207.pdf

Ok, we're still higher than 1997. But if we carry on the trend of the last two years, we'll be back down before too long and it will hopefully keep on dropping.

If you look at the trend... since the gun ban, homicide has been the highest it has has been since at least 1967. And coincidentally, all the highest years for homicides per million people have been SINCE the 1997 gun ban!

Hang on, what was it you said about other variables? You can't just quote the homicide rate in a debate about gun control. There are plenty of other things involved, like our rising gang culture and drug culture.

And those gun owners who like guns are law abiding citizens and don't commit crime with their guns, and prevent far more crime than they cause. You're focusing your attention on the LEAST of one's concerns.

Tell that to Dunblaine Infant School.

If you weren't a complete and utter moron brainwashed by your delusional society, you'd realize that the people you SHOULD be focusing your attention on are criminals first and foremost, not people who like guns and LEGALLY own them.

But I think that that's what the powers-that-be are now doing, without the fear of some maniac popping up and killing a bunch of kids with a selection of his finest legal guns. I'M not police, but I would think that they are targeting illegal guns, as well as trying to stop the illegal gun trade.

And it would be suited to your country if it wasn't filled with illogical, gun-fearing cowards who blame the gun and gun owners for something that is problem of individual criminals.

You clearly understand very little about my country's society. Ownership of guns here would deter very little, if any crime here, and any crime it might deter would be uncomparable to incidents like Dunblaine and Hungerford.

Apparently, your country would be more suited if it had higher gun ownership, considering lower gun ownership by the force of law has made your country's crime worse instead of better.

Again, less trigger happy police helps us all sleep safer in our beds. Unless you're Jean Charles de Menezez, that is.

Actually... Mexico is more wealthy than any other Latin American country.

Don't play stupid, Latin America is hardly wealthy.

Regardless, you're being a coward and diverting attention from a simple fact. Mexico is a huge contributor to crime in the US, your country doesn't have anything even remotely similar to magnitude.

I'd like to think my government would actually try and do something other than build a fence and blame it on the Mexicans.

That's the politically correct thing to say. But then again... one could say poverty is attributable to skin color. There is no example beyond that of individuals to show that race isn't a factor.

Yes, so then it's up to the government to try and narrow the gap in wealth and reduce poverty.

It's the same in your country you fool, your country just has less of these particular minorities in order for it to be as pronounced.

Yet we still have quite a large gap in wealth, it just happens that the working classes in our country mostly haven't formed into gangs.

HAHAHAHA.
They are already participating in a mass crime spree, they commit ENORMOUS amounts of crime.

That was 55,000 out of seven million. 1 in 140. A lot of them for the 'crime' of simply being in your country.

And then they come back and keep committing crime anyway.

You really don't understand the issue here. Most Mexicans do not want to risk their lives and money by illegally going over the border just to commit crime. Sure, some may be that desperate when they arrive but then we go back to restricting the flow, which is up to the government and shouldn't just be done by building a huge fence and ignoring all the poverty which flourishes a few miles from the border.

Nope. In fact, the variables prove that crime in the US is relative to those variables, and not to the laws, and certainly not gun laws.

Well, if we're playing that game, then I could point you to the rising levels of gang crime in my country, as well as the already huge but rising drug trade, and then to the influx of millions of Eastern European immigrants. It works both ways.

---

At 8/21/07 05:33 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/18/07 02:29 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: blah blah blah...crime goes up

So the man who claims that UK's crime went down...admits it went up.
What a jackass.

A jackass is somebody who blatantly ignores how wrong that statment is: gun crime that involves actual guns is going DOWN - people brandishing replica guns like the real thing is going UP, while HALF of the UK's gun crime involves air weapons.

When the majority of the UK's gun crime involves non-lethal weapons, or non-weapons, whilst use of actual, live round firing weapons is decreasing at the same time, you cannoy say gun crime is going up. In other words, that's part of cellar's argument founded on a blatant mistruth that is obliterated by knowing what you're talking about.

What a moron, indeed...

---

Cellar, are you so fucking out of touch with reality that you claim the same link that I have posted numerous times suddenly changed when we weren't looking?

Read the whole article, note that the graphs show that, on neither graph, does it state that blacks commit the most murders, so therefore your "argument" of tribal lineage being easy to blame is patently false.

Has all that masturbation made you so blind you cannot tell the difference between grey (Asians) and light green (Blacks) when it states, categorically, that Asians (and whites) use guns far more often in crime than blacks or coloureds? Or the other graph, that has coloureds - East Indians, not anyone from any African tribe on definition alone - commiting far more murders than blacks?

Are you such a sad little fuck you misrepresent what is put in front of you?

I wouldn't tell anyone to "piss off and talk about something they have knowledge of" (or whatever that trollish shit you spewed was - I don't really give a fuck) when you can't even read a fucking graph properly.

---

At 8/22/07 10:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: A jackass is somebody who blatantly ignores how wrong that statment is: gun crime that involves actual guns is going DOWN - people brandishing replica guns like the real thing is going UP, while HALF of the UK's gun crime involves air weapons.

When the majority of the UK's gun crime involves non-lethal weapons, or non-weapons, whilst use of actual, live round firing weapons is decreasing at the same time, you cannoy say gun crime is going up. In other words, that's part of cellar's argument founded on a blatant mistruth that is obliterated by knowing what you're talking about.

What a moron, indeed...

But the violent crime didn't go down, even in spite of the gun ban, what does that tell you? It certainly didn't make the country any safer. If anything, it lends credence to the belief that if you take away the guns, people will just kill each other with other things. Personally, if I'm going to be murdered, I'd really rather be gunned down than stabbed, but that's a preference issue. What is pertinent, however, is the fact that, while, according to you, gun crime dropped, it didn't fix the sheer amount of violence and crime that was going on. So, really, what did the gun ban accomplish for society?

---

At 8/22/07 10:26 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Cellar, are you so fucking out of touch with reality that you claim the same link that I have posted numerous times suddenly changed when we weren't looking?

Here you go again, denying reality as always. How do you even cope with the knowledge that you lie about everything? Isn't that bad for your self-esteem?

----RECAP----

On THIS PAGE (17) you used THIS LINK to falsely to say this:

QUOTE

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites)

YOU ARE WRONG, you LIED...like you always do.

Take a look at the very graph you linked to, it specifically shows that "Coloured" and "Black" people commit the most homicide by far, whites commit the lowest, Asians are 2nd lowest.

Either you lied like you always do, or you're color blind.

Has all that masturbation made you so blind you cannot tell the difference between grey (Asians) and light green (Blacks) when it states, categorically, that Asians (and whites) use guns far more often in crime than blacks or coloureds?

Hahahaha

Apparently you're not only colorblind, but you're also absolutely innumerate.The graph you used to state something false, only showed prevalence of the use of guns by each ethnic group. It does not state that they commit more murder with firearms than the other groups overall, it just stated they are more likely to within that minority for each individual homicide case. Since blacks and colored people still commit much more homicide, yet their propensity for using a gun is not that much lower, then MORE PEOPLE are still killed with guns by blacks and "coloureds" than by Asians or whites. You fail to realize that OVER ALL HOMICIDE in South Africa is overwhelmingly attributed to "coloured" and "black" people.

But then again, your whole point for bringing it up was to try and claim that race has nothing to do with the crime in the US. Don't you find it funny that you bring up South Africa, to try and disprove something that is already PROVEN to be true in the US? That blacks in the US are much more likely to use guns in violent crimes that they are also more likely to commit? Thus boosting national (in addition to other variables I have proved) gun crimes and murder disproportionately.

Once again, FACTS about crime 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

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

So even though you were entirely WRONG about what you attempted to claim about South Africa, it has nothing to do with the US, where Blacks and Hispanics (who make up the largest portion of US minorities) have a higher propensity for violent crime and while blacks are more likely to use guns in these crimes, while whites are lower, and Asians are even lower than that. Thus showing that in the US, factors entirely outside of gun control will still lead to higher gun crime and gun violence particularly, because the US has a racial make-up that, statistically, is unfavorable for crime prevention.

Or the other graph, that has coloureds - East Indians, not anyone from any African tribe on definition alone - commiting far more murders than blacks?

In South Africa, the term "coloured" isn't exclusive to East Indians. Tt refers to anybody of mixed race.

Are you such a sad little fuck you misrepresent what is put in front of you?

And that's coming from you, after all the times you get proven wrong, caught in your lies, and have every point you make meticulously and completely negated by facts?

I wouldn't tell anyone to "piss off and talk about something they have knowledge of" (or whatever that trollish shit you spewed was - I don't really give a fuck) when you can't even read a fucking graph properly.

Hahaha it's so funny because it's been YOU who has read the graphs incorrectly this whole time HAHAHA.

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE:

Orly? False huh?

The very graph that you linked to, and YOU read incorrectly claims otherwise.

Come again, kthnxbai

---

At 8/22/07 08:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: ----RECAP----

On THIS PAGE (17) you used THIS LINK to falsely to say this:

QUOTE

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites)

YOU ARE WRONG, you LIED...like you always do.

Take a look at the very graph you linked to, it specifically shows that "Coloured" and "Black" people commit the most homicide by far, whites commit the lowest, Asians are 2nd lowest.

Either you lied like you always do, or you're color blind.

1) That graph shows the victims of homicide, not the perpetrators
2) The graph he was talking about was this graph
3) That graph just shows the percentage of murders in a certain racial group, and says nothing about the quantity of the murders, so he's still wrong anyway
4) Also as far as I know, the correct graph also shows the weapons used on victims and not by perpetrators.
5) Since the majority of violence in South Africe is intra-racial (Mentioned at top of page), you can disregard points 1) and 4).

---

Cellar, how is it that you jump from ignoring one argument that holes your "argument" beneath the waterline to ignoring another so frequently?

Let's recap: I state categorically you cannot say gun crime has increased as use of actual guns has decreased, so you go back to saying the gun murder rate has gone up - ignoring that this is almost exclusive to two cities in the whole UK, and has the term "gang-related" prefixing the word "shooting." No innocent bystanders gunned down, no random shootings of somebody walking down the street (let alone several dozen in one go). bIn other words, if criminals are shooting other criminals in two cities in a whole nation, that proves that gun control is actually working.

But, naturally, you'll ignore this, call me a liar, and not realise what a tiresome bore with a non-existant grasp of any concept that's put in front of you that you truly are.

---

This might've been said before but I don't have time to read through all 19 pages.

If we could wave a wand and start a magic spell that would make EVERY gun in the entire world (except for those owned by cops) disappear, then we would probably have less crime in the world.

BUT, we can't and doing so would be very unfeasible and wouldn't work. Even if we got rid of the 2nd amendment and started a nationwide banned that still wouldn't remove guns from the nation. For evidence I give you the very unpopular movement sweeping the nation in the 1920s, prohibition. In January 1920, all alcoholic beverages were banned, but did that stop people from obtaining booze? Of course not. People found tons of ways to brew their own booze, buy them from speakeasies or find other ways around the system. This led to organized crime to feed everyone's booze addiction, which in turn led to more crime and more booze. 13 years later prohibition is repealed after becoming a dismal failure and we still have booze today.

The point is that no matter what the government says, people will still find ways to get guns even if you make an outright ban on them.

---

Yeah...yeah I can't respect an opinion that has no grounds to base itself on.

You can't just buy a freaking gun. It is definitely not that simple, unless you're doing it illegally. Even then it's usually our own government that's distributing these illegal guns. Look at Iraq; we were selling them guns for like ten years before we decided that they "posed a terrorist threat" (which I maintain was total bullshit).

And haven't you ever heard "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Not to mention the fact that your opinion goes directly against the constitution.

Oh, and I think you're preaching to the wrong crowd. I don't think the general NG population is going to agree that we need gun control. Look at it's content.

Even then, what if ZOMBIES attack?!

---

If you read the Zombie Survival Guide, you will know that handguns are a no-no: a rifle (preferably a Garand or something similar) is all you really need, as you can pick your shot from far away and get a kill - and there's plenty of ammo available.

Coincidentally that applies for well-regulated militias specified in oft-misquoted/represented/interpreted Amendments to the US Constitution.

---

At 8/26/07 01:54 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: If you read the Zombie Survival Guide, you will know that handguns are a no-no: a rifle (preferably a Garand or something similar) is all you really need, as you can pick your shot from far away and get a kill - and there's plenty of ammo available.

The handgun is a last resort. The knife is for making scrambled eggs :P

---

At 8/26/07 02:13 PM, nipples4894 wrote:

At 8/26/07 01:54 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: If you read the Zombie Survival Guide, you will know that handguns are a no-no: a rifle (preferably a Garand or something similar) is all you really need, as you can pick your shot from far away and get a kill - and there's plenty of ammo available.

The handgun is a last resort. The knife is for making scrambled eggs :P

A machete would be the best last resort (or, if you're feeling practical and can swing like a motherfucker, a crowbar).

---

A machete would be the best last resort (or, if you're feeling practical and can swing like a motherfucker, a crowbar).

I am now that much more prepared. Thanks.

---

At 8/26/07 12:00 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Cellar, how is it that you jump from ignoring one argument that holes your "argument" beneath the waterline to ignoring another so frequently?

Nothing you have said this whole time has put any holes in anyone's arguments but your own. You've been proven wrong left, right, and up and down this entire thread and every single time I reply with a quote and systematically prove you wrong, you make one of these littles posts in which you just entirely ignore everything that was actually said.

Let's recap: I state categorically you cannot say gun crime has increased as use of actual guns has decreased

It hasn't decreased, it has increased. I proved this, and you ignore it.

so you go back to saying the gun murder rate has gone up

I PROVED murder has gone up in the UK since the gun ban, to show that you can't use what happened in Australia to apply to any country. Even in YOUR COUNTRY murder was not decreased by gun bans, nor was gun crime, or handgun crime. The things the gun bans were supposed to alleviate got exponentially, and statistically peculiarly worse afterward.

ignoring that this is almost exclusive to two cities in the whole UK

Pfft, you wanna prove that? Then actually prove that those cities are solely responsible for the nation-wide increase in both gun crime and murder in the UK since the gun bans?

No innocent bystanders gunned down, no random shootings of somebody walking down the street (let alone several dozen in one go) bIn other words, if criminals are shooting other criminals in two cities in a whole nation,

Um what?

that proves that gun control is actually working.

Hahaha, all you're doing is proving that mindless anti-gun people like you have to lie and live in complete and utter denial in order to maintain anti-gun views, views that are disproved time and time again by facts.

The gun bans in the UK did not work, not only did they fail to reduce murder and gun crime, but these problems were increased after the gun ban at a rate never before seen in the UK. In fact, when looking at the statistics, the high rate of gun crime and murder in the UK after the gun bans are so peculiar in a historic sense, that it is almost certain they were DUE to the gun bans.

Simply and fundamentally, if gun bans didn't achieve the very goals they were designed to achieve, that means - guess what - the gun bans failed. In and of itself, this fact entirely destroys the false views you've exuded this whole time. But the fact that these gun bans, actually MADE IT WORSE validates pro-gun views that I've been proving and vindicating this whole time.

Everything you've said this whole time has been false basically. Not only have you been proven wrong countless times, but you've also been caught LYING at times that it suited you. You and your views are so pathetic and delusional in outlook, that you intentionally and willingly lie in order to support a stance you know has been proven to be WRONG.

How miserable can someone be when they support a stance they know is wrong, and lie repeatedly in order to provide non-existent support for their false views? You're just proving that anti-gun views are so baseless, so illogical, so devoid of merit, that the only way they can be given the illusion of merit is to fabricate, distort, and to lie about every single aspect of the debate.

---

The V-tech guns he got was illegal

most of the killers use illegal guns

l2p

---

Well, I notice that nobody responded to the shit I said, but let it never be said that I don't take a stance in debates.

---

At 8/27/07 01:18 AM, xMoriaOrc wrote: The V-tech guns he got was illegal

most of the killers use illegal guns

l2p

Very simply why gun control is just going to hurt collectors, hunters, or range shooters. People who buy guns legally don't buy them to murder. People who buy illegal guns off the streets are the ones who do murder, and making laws on legal guns won't stop the traffic of illegal guns.

---

We need fucking people control, that's what we need. You just need to tell fuckers to stop firing guns for no good damn reason. That's all. O.o

---

At 8/27/07 01:18 AM, xMoriaOrc wrote: The V-tech guns he got was illegal

he bought it due to a lax in background checking. if gun purchases were outlawed to begin with he wouldnt even be able to purchase those guns he used.

most of the killers use illegal guns

proof?

---

Cellar, if you're going to misquote somebody, take the hint: don't misquote them with a link to a graph that states the overall homicide rate in South Africa can't be attributed to "tribal behaviour", indicating it is the Coloureds - East Indian immigrants, as stated - have the highest homicide rate, just to avoid the fact that the gun homicide rate, as this graph states is higher amongst Asians and Whites.

You look like an idiot if you do so. And idiot that has to misquote people to try and formulate the usual string of bullshit you've been doing so for months on end at that. Which begs the question: just how many times have you misquoted posters highly valid points to try and pretend you knew something?

---

At 8/27/07 01:18 AM, xMoriaOrc wrote: The V-tech guns he got was illegal

During February and March 2007, Cho began purchasing the weapons that he later used during the killings. On February 9, 2007, Cho purchased his first handgun, a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol, from TGSCOM Inc., a federally-licensed firearms dealer based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and the operator of the website through which Cho ordered the gun.[67][68][69][70] TGSCOM Inc. shipped the Walther P22 to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Virginia, where Cho completed the legally-required background check for the purchase transaction and took possession of the handgun.[71] Cho bought a second handgun, a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol, on March 13, 2007 from Roanoke Firearms, a licensed gun dealer located in Roanoke, Virginia.[67][72]

Cho was able to pass both background checks and successfully complete both handgun purchases after he presented to the gun dealers his U.S. permanent residency card, his Virginia driver's permit to prove legal age and length of Virginia residence and a checkbook showing his Virginia address, in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase. He was successful at completing both handgun purchases, even though he had failed to disclose information on the background questionnaire about his mental health that required court-ordered outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.[73][74][75]

On March 22, 2007, Cho purchased two 10-round magazines for the Walther P22 pistol through eBay from Elk Ridge Shooting Supplies in Idaho.[76] Based on a preliminary computer forensics examination of Cho's eBay purchase records, investigators suspected that Cho may have purchased an additional 10-round magazine on March 23, 2007 from another eBay seller who sold gun accessories.[77]

Cho also bought jacketed hollow point bullets, which result in more tissue damage than full metal jacket bullets against unarmored targets[78] by expanding upon entering human bodies.[66] Along with a manifesto, Cho later sent a photograph of the hollow point bullets to NBC News with the caption "All the [shit] you've given me, right back at you with hollow points."[79][80][81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_C ho#Weapons

most of the killers use illegal guns

Oh look! The Orangeburg, Kent State, and Jackson State shoottings were all done by cops! Brenda Anne Spencer used a rifle her father gave her for Christmas! Wayne Lo used a semi-automatic russian carbine he legally purchased at a pawn shop! AND THE LIST GOES ON!!!!

It's misinformed halfwits such as yourself that are why I don't take much stock in the rhetoric put forth by the anti-gun crowd. Next you'll be trying to argue that semi automatic weapons should be outlawed because they look inherintly dangerous.

---

At 8/27/07 11:03 AM, Proteas wrote:
It's misinformed halfwits such as yourself that are why I don't take much stock in the rhetoric put forth by the anti-gun crowd. Next you'll be trying to argue that semi automatic weapons should be outlawed because they look inherintly dangerous.

Semi-auto weapons wer ebanned here after Michael Ryan killed 16 people (and wounded 15 others) with a couple of them. Coincidentally nobody has been killed with one on UK soil since.

Coincidentally, xMoriaOrc was using the excuse/argument put forward by the pro-gun brigade. Thanks for giving that one a kicking - it saves me the effort.

---

At 8/27/07 10:23 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/27/07 01:18 AM, xMoriaOrc wrote: The V-tech guns he got was illegal

he bought it due to a lax in background checking. if gun purchases were outlawed to begin with he wouldnt even be able to purchase those guns he used.

Just as making alcohol illegal completely stopped the flow of it? Or how since a lot of drugs are illegal, there are never problems with them?

most of the killers use illegal guns

proof?

In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

---

At 8/27/07 11:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Coincidentally nobody has been killed with one on UK soil since.

Coincedentally, you live in the UK.

---

At 8/27/07 11:23 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/27/07 11:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Coincidentally nobody has been killed with one on UK soil since.

Coincedentally, you live in the UK.

Coincidentally, a drop from 2-8% to the sum of 0 shows it worked.

As I've stated elsewhere, 53% of Britain's gun crime is air rifles, brandishing replicas as real weapons increases every year...and gun crime using actual, live round firing guns has decreased. Coincidentally.

---

At 8/22/07 12:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/21/07 11:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/21/07 06:45 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

But how many of those cases in which gun's prevented crimes did gun's prevent crimes involving guns in the first place?

Doesn't matter. More crimes are prevented by law abiding citizens than are caused by them, and more crimes are prevented by guns than are CAUSED overall in the first place.

So wait.. youre just going to take that statistic on it's face value and then go to an all encompassing conclusion that guns therefore do more good then harm?
I think it's pretty important we at least get an understanding behind it. How many of those instances would be entirely non-existent had a gun not been present in the first place? How many of these instances were preventable by another measure.. as someone else pointed out a man stopped an assailant with a cabbage head. You could prevent the advances of a threatening individual with a tazer gun, pepper spray or less lethal defensive weapon effectively.

Therefore, there is no logical reason to ban guns, not only because there is no merit in that there is no proof it will take guns away from criminals and there is PROOF that gun bans DON'T take away guns from criminals

There is actual, substantiated proof that the majority of these illegal arms were possessed through straw-man purchases and gun dealers doing illegal trades. Both sources of which are eradicated through gun control.

Murder rates to the high degree that occurred AFTER the gun ban are STATISTICALLY PECULIAR compared to how they were BEFORE the gun ban.

But there are also several factors to consider such as immigration - homogeneous countries have been shown to have a drastically lower instance of hate crime, obviously. also, inflated statistics due to anomalous instances, as someone else pointed out earlier the victims of the london bombings were included in the murder statistics and also, a changing societal attitude not necessarily correlating with gun control.

Nope, what D2Kvirus claimed CAN be correlated with the buy-back of guns in Australia, only a fool would deny it. HOWEVER, he can't use it for grounds to ban guns in the US, because not only does Australia have a completely different situation, but because I have provided proof that in the US, getting rid of guns in the similar way Australia did will not work.

Where was this proof and secondly i guess this shows that it is in fact possible to implement a successful gun control policy.

You might say that the murder increase in the UK due to gun bans can't be applied to the US, but it can

So here you're saying 'UK's circumstances are different to our own therefore your point is moot' but funnily, when it conveniences you, youll draw up a comparison.

because I have also proved that legal gun owners prevent more crime in the US than they cause.

Except this isn't so much proof as it is an inane reading of statistics at face value. youve never proved it considering you can't prove that these crimes would've still occurred even provided there were no guns in those circumstances which is the purpose of gun control or that they couldn't been prevented just as effectively with another form of self defense such as tazer guns or pepper spray. as someone else said a cabbage head has been used to prevent a crime.

I've showed solid correlation, I've validated it by what HAS happened in the UK after bans, and by what WILL happen in the US after bans based on the irrefutable facts that guns cause more good than harm in the US.

so youre validating a correlation by using the special circumstances of one country, the special circumstances of another and then - at a total disregard for your previous statements claim that this is comparable and 'proof'.

And according to the FACTS, it would CAUSE crime in the US if such a thing was implemented.

Except that according to these facts youve presented crime would reduce. The murder rate has increased in the uk, but murder by firearms is still low, their murder rate is lower then ours and overall, crimes have reduced in the uk.