Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/12 05:30 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 8/14/12 07:59 AM, naronic wrote:

Illegal gun sales don't always work like they do in the movies. IRL, it's as simple as arranging a straw purchase, as I detailed above.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/gu ns.html

I'll admit this is a good point, but if the straw purchase is legal then the gun and the straw purchaser whom acquired that gun would be easily traceable.
If the gun was illegal you'd still have to have connections with a person whom had the means and connections to make a straw purchase illegally.

Another point I'll make is that the mass killing of the psychotic, and the simple murder of a criminal are 2 different types of crimes and not comparable. As you even stated the aurora guy didn't even have a criminal record or criminals to associate with, therefore he bought his guns legally.

In fact I'm pretty sure the only mass murderers within the last 15 years or so whom used straw purchasing as a viable method of arming themselves would be the Columbine killers (whom did have criminal offenses prior to the shooting). Purchasing a gun illegally or even using a straw purchase is still more complicated than it looks and that's reflected in the recent absence of them in these mass murdering offenses lately, they're all legal purchasers.

And my point still stands, illegal guns are still traceable.
By making legal guns harder to acquire we're tearing down one of their assets.

At 8/12/12 03:07 AM, MrFlopz wrote: I would like someone to explain to me why damage per bullet is the only factor worth considering when it comes to the deadliness of a weapon. How are 30 bullets fired into a crowd from an assault rifle worth less than 10 from a pistol?

1) Let's say the guy has a 30rd mag and sprays & prays. There are several things that make this better for the intended victims:
* The combined recoil and the act of 'panning' with the rifle makes it where there is virtually no accuracy and lessens the chance of multiple hits.
* Round for round bullets that are made for self-defense, hunting and 75% of shotgun shells will do more damage to a body than a military Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) round. These bullets tend to expand once they pierce the body and tumble inside the body cavity tearing up internal organs...or explosively exit the body. A military or Armor Piercing round will keep its shape and will exit the body having travelled a straight line and doing minimal damage to internal organs.
* The ways a AR will kill someone is through multiple hits and the person bleeding out before getting medical help. And by multiple I mean double digits. In Somalia US soldiers were hitting Somali militia 5-6 times and they were remaining combat effective...and these are starving people not Corn-fed Americans. The other way is getting a direct hit to the heart or brain...shots that require either extreme luck or accuracy you don't get with rapid fire.

2) Magazines over 30 rounds become unreliable and likely to jam...just like in Aurora and I believe the N. Hollywood shoot-out of 1997.

3) Let's look at the other scenario of someone with a handgun:
* FMJ is sold as 'target' rounds instead of 'Mil-Spec' (Military Specifications)...so people are drawn to more lethal ammo instead of opting, ignorantly, for what they believe to be 'extraordinarily lethal' military grad ammo.
* Pistol rampages leads shooters to aim instead of spray and pray.
* Pistols are easier to sneak into places whereas ARs are practically impossible to conceal and actually pretty awkward in confined/small spaces.

So in the end if shooter A is using a pistol he is most likely aiming and using ammo that will shred internal organs therefore his 10 rounds will be more likely to A) hit more people and B) cause severe wounds. On the other hand: shooter B with an AR with 30 bullets will hit less people and cause less severe wounds.

...the argument that a pistol is more effective than ARs for mass killings in crowded areas just baffles me. Isn't an assault rifle a weapon made purely for the sake of reliably causing human casualties?

This is a common misperception. Military rifles are designed to fire military ammo...which under the Geneva Convention cannot cause undo harm or misery. Thus in an attempt to make war more humane...it has become less lethal. Furthermore, full-auto is so ineffective that after Vietnam M-16s and M-4s were converted to a 3-rd burst because all it does is waste ammo. And burst fire is only really effective when you want to force an enemy to take cover/stop firing...not taking them out.

So while yes it is designed to cause human casualities...they are designed to produce wounded casualities instead of dead casualities. Because if you and I are in opposing Armies and I hurt you I take you and two of your friends out of the fight since they have to take care of you. If I kill you...I only take you out of the fight.

At 8/14/12 06:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/14/12 06:06 PM, naronic wrote: And my point still stands, illegal guns are still traceable.

and that helps how?

If you'd be so kind to actually follow the argument me and RWG were having instead of interjecting and hastily misinterpreting me then you'd find that this was a response to the RWG's claim that "it was good that criminals buy their guns legally because their traceable"

By making legal guns harder to acquire we're tearing down one of their assets.

right more gun control that works perfectly, just because a few assholes ruin it all legal law abiding citizens must suffer. and try getting that legislation passed through the House and the NRA and other second amendment lobby groups.

I expect the NRA and second amendment lobbing groups to do just what gun control enthusiasts advocates are doing right now. Enforce "their way or the highway" mentality without coming to a logical compromise.

You really have to start living in reality as well. I'd say a human life is worth more than a medal earned in a flashy gun show.

Also follow the argument I say again, DID I SAY TO BAN GUNS?

At 8/14/12 06:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: here is a good visual for what Mason said

I don't like the term Assault Rifle. Besides the whole people don't know what selective fire is thing, I think of some high grade military level shit, and just a cosmetic makeover of a normal rifle.

At 8/14/12 08:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/14/12 08:03 PM, naronic wrote:

maybe thats because they believe in the Bill of Rights and our rights to bear arms and protecting us from said rights to be infringed upon, you know the ATF? well they havent had a permanent Director since 04 the same year the NRA and Bush let the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expire and not be renewed.
the current system works fine. there are background checks waiting periods filling of forms. god I constantly get asked if Im legal enough to buy a handgun and asked to see my Drivers License because I look so young. (mothers side BTW)

If it worked fine we wouldn't have more mass shootings during the last 2 years than in the entire 90's, somethings not working I'm simply trying to pinpoint what it is.
As for the 2nd amendment, I really don't think all that much of it. It certainly isn't as relevant today or as timeless as other amendments and mostly is used by right wing gun advocates as a default comeback in lieu of any actual meaningful argument.

so what people die all the time worth of a human life is only worth what they have done. plus Firearm shows are amazing.

-_- disregarding this...

Also follow the argument I say again, DID I SAY TO BAN GUNS?

Never said you did I was insinuating that there shouldn't be more restrictive policies that inconvenience the rights of legal law abiding citizens just because I few assholes.

inconvinence vs death, the choice again should be obvious.

I say again, straw purchases are insanely easy to arrange. Even today, they're quite prevalent among common criminals. You don't need any sort of underworld connections, just a buddy with a right to purchase, and some money to pay him off. By using your plan, we would be persecuting legal gun-users without actually stopping the bad guys from getting their guns.

1, you have no metric for how prevalent straw purchases are, and 2 illegal and legal sales of guns can be traced back to legal stores and legal shows.
There are flaws in the system, but the sale of legal guns is apart of that flaw as you can see. Illegal guns don't come from nowhere, and what would help benefit everybody is for them to be harder to acquire.

At 8/14/12 08:03 PM, naronic wrote: I expect the NRA and second amendment lobbing groups to do just what gun control enthusiasts advocates are doing right now. Enforce "their way or the highway" mentality without coming to a logical compromise.

Here's one of my problems with people who claim "something has to be done" following these tragedies: what counts for 'logical compromise'? Look at the 'study' that is cited on the other gun control topic right now; very little of the 'scientific' and 'pragmatic' symptoms the Doctors point to are of very little consequence when it comes to firearms. On the surface what they say is rational and logical...however it is rationality and logic based on an ignorance of the topic they are talking about.

The reality is ppl who want 'something done' about gun violence that tackle the issue from the point of regulating guns...need to be educated on firearms. Compromise is only logical and only works when both sides understand the problem and are informed. On this subject, one side is consistently underinformed and ignorant, therefore any compromise would be irrational, illogical and ineffective.

You really have to start living in reality as well. I'd say a human life is worth more than a medal earned in a flashy gun show.

And here's the proof of what I'm saying: this is a purely emotional statement that does nothing to fix the problems of gun violence.

At 8/14/12 08:30 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 8/14/12 06:42 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: here is a good visual for what Mason said

I don't like the term Assault Rifle. Besides the whole people don't know what selective fire is thing, I think of some high grade military level shit, and just a cosmetic makeover of a normal rifle.

1) I'm on the fence when it comes to the term. Technically what I own are semi-auto clones of assault rifles. But I'm a collector of them because they handle and operate, minus selective fire, like assault rifles.

2) In the end that was all the 1994 AWB addressed was cosmetic issues. After the 'ban' one could still buy AR-15s and AK-47s that fired the same round at the same rate in the same magazines. The only differences: they could not have pistol grips, too many foreign made parts, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs or 'grenade' (flare) launchers.

This just proves the point that legislators and gun-control advocates don't know what they are talking about. They get caught up on false assumptions of what 'military' guns are capable of and their looks, which is what Tony was saying: if it looks scary it must be more deadly. When in reality they couldn't be more wrong.

RWG
TonyDG

Why do I feel half my argument's being neglected? What can't be solved with stricter qualifications for gun acquisition can be easily solved by monitoring suspicious characters and tracking where legal weapons end up (as I so told RWG), I.E. ending the straw purchase threat. If the gun is given to a known criminal or any other person whom doesn't meet the requirements of a gun purchase then bring down the hammer.

There are flaws in the system and they're not downgraded by factoring in "illegal weapons from the outside" because they mostly come from legal weapons from the INSIDE.

Now that we've clarified that, back to the task at hand.

alright I then explain why I go In to buy a AR-15, first I have to go to the class (BY FEDERAL LAW) then pay for my permit to own and carry (and carry is another class you have to take with Background checks) once thats all done I go to the Gun store I show them my drivers license my permits, GO THROUGH ANOTHER BACKGROUND CHECK, fill out some forms then pay the man.

Mentioning inconvinence is not a good argument if the consequence can be death. In any way shape or form, if you're clean (and remain clean and non-suspicious outside the gun store as well) then you have nothing to worry about. You're going to get your guns anyway, there's simply more precaution in between. You're in no dire need of a firearm.

The Second Amendment is still VERY relevant today The main purpose behind the 2nd amendment is to keep the Government in check by the people. Not to keep hunting arms, or self protection. Those are serendipitous by products of owning a firearm The men drafting the Constitution knew that an unarmed populace could be controlled by a POSSIBLE tyrannical Government

Going by the logic that we may be in the year 1800 or in the country Syria then you might have a point. The 2nd amendment was made during a militant, revolutionary America battling Great Britain back in the 1700's where the general populace only had access to muskets and flintlocks. It holds virtually no relevance today as if the government made up it's mind that it wanted to dictatorize America it would've already happened and we would already be killed. Our entire government runs off the people they govern, the employees have to come from somewhere don't they?

Sure, let's invade the personal lives of thousands (if not millions) of private citizens, and blacklist a whole bunch more, just so the crooks are forced to spend a couple extra bucks arranging a straw purchase.

Do you not understand or are you completely out of touch with the stakes here? Inconvinence < lives, plus what's so intrusive about monitoring where firearms end up? We would only have to "intrude" if you were doing something you weren't supposed to with those firearms. Plus it would cost next to nothing and would actually lower crime as algorithmic crime prevention takes off.

At 8/15/12 07:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: A/t 8/15/12 06:37 PM, naronic wrote:

bring the hammer down on who the straw purchaser or the Licesensed gun dealer?

Both? Oy veh -_-

no becuase what I mentioned above is more than nessecary to get firearms.

firstly I don't know if what you say is true
because as I know now the only things you have to do is ahem

Verify that you meet the legal requirements for buying a weapon (which includes mental illness, to which specifying is still an issue)
and have a permit.

no it was to ensure American citizens had a provision of ousting a tryanical government where freedoms were taken way and can be regained. flinlock and gunpowder firearms have nothing to fucking to do with it.

I explained why that's irrelevant, and yes flintlock and muskets had everything to do with it because THAT'S WHAT THEY KNEW AS A FIREARM BACK THEN.

but it only takes one asshole go through history Hitlr, Mao, Stalin.

But yet nothing like that has happened in the US, only in countries without our gov system.

At 8/15/12 07:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 8/15/12 06:37 PM, naronic wrote: Do you not understand or are you completely out of touch with the stakes here? Inconvinence < lives, plus what's so intrusive about monitoring where firearms end up?

When you're done with your petty appeals to emotion, consider the fact that by "intrusive," I was talking about your plan to analyze everyone's mind after they decide to buy a gun. We already run basic background checks, we shouldn't need to poke people's brains just to see if they're on the up and up.

What are you talking about? It's not emotion, it's logic, the most basic kind at that, unless you'd like to speak differently.
And my plan to analyze minds? What the heck? Have you been paying any attention to my argument at all?

And by "monitoring," are you referring to registration? Because I happen to support registration, but you should know that it's only useful in identifying guns after the fact. Ergo, after they are used in a crime. It's not much of a prevention tool.

Monitoring where the gun goes or ends up, tracking the gun.

At 8/14/12 08:53 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the majority of Military Infantry weaponry is meant to wound or incapacitate not kill, hunting rifles are meant to kill why do you think the majority of hunting rifles are over .223?

That won't stop me from thinking of things with the word "assault" in them as being able to royally fuck shit up.

Everyone keeps ignoring my link :'(

Any young entrepreneur who is ok with dabbling on the illegal side of things can just print out AR 15s. What are we going to do, regulate fucking printer sales?

At 8/15/12 09:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Unfortunatley you shouldn't I have hunting rifles that do more damage than most assault rifles.

I know that. That's why I hate the term assault rifle. Love the aesthetic, don't like the name.

At 8/15/12 07:30 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 8/15/12 07:23 PM, naronic wrote: What are you talking about? It's not emotion, it's logic, the most basic kind at that, unless you'd like to speak differently.

"ZOMG, implement my plan and give up your freedoms because it will save lives!!!!!!!!"

Your freedom is the "right to bear arms" to which you would be able to under my system, there's simply more precaution.
And yes, saving lives should be the top priority here, it is logic.

And my plan to analyze minds? What the heck? Have you been paying any attention to my argument at all?

"Heck look over their files, turn their character inside out and let the info spill on the table. They recently were reported for writing violent essays for their college project, keep an eye on them with scrutiny in your decision, maybe make them take therapy for about a year, see if they change their mind about the decision."

Eeyup. Need I say more?

In fact you do, unless you completely fail at reading comprehension, or are extremely mentally challenged in every aspect then you know what I meant.

Are you proposing we put a GPS on every gun in the US?

Not as impossible as it seems

At 8/15/12 09:46 PM, naronic wrote: Your freedom is the "right to bear arms" to which you would be able to under my system, there's simply more precaution.

You can apply this to literally any other single right.

And yes, saving lives should be the top priority here, it is logic.

Let's disarm the law abiding people while the people who would commit crimes only need to print out an AR-15. The reason they currently do not is because as it is, it is cheaper to just purchase them individually then having to swallow the start-up costs of being able to make them. The moment the legal avenues are gone, all it takes is somebody to stock a pile a couple of G's, and they can produce to their hearts content while being some of the only game in town.

Not as impossible as it seems

Oops, I accidentally destroyed the GPS while stripping my gun for cleaning, but couldn't tell that it was broken.

At 8/15/12 10:06 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 8/15/12 09:46 PM, naronic wrote: Your freedom is the "right to bear arms" to which you would be able to under my system, there's simply more precaution.
And yes, saving lives should be the top priority here, it is logic.

Except you have no logical basis for your claim that this system will save anyone.

Except that I do, look back over my post where I explained it

Not as impossible as it seems

NO! NO! NO!

Okay, now you are clearly past the point of common sense. The fact that you even proposed such a ridiculous idea shows just how desperate you are for a straw to grasp at.

Oh common, are we really going to start with this kiddie sh*t? The usual response someone is supposed to have in an argument when encountering a point that he or she may not agree with is, STATING REASONS WHY IT WOULD'NT WORK. Not simply "OMG LIEK R U RETARDED THAT WODNT WORK".

At least like this

Oops, I accidentally destroyed the GPS while stripping my gun for cleaning, but couldn't tell that it was broken.

You could build the gps into the gun obviously.

At 8/15/12 10:12 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 8/15/12 09:46 PM, naronic wrote:

look at all my previous posts RB, not just the ones I recently posted, they'll answer your concerns.

At 8/16/12 04:50 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

1. It's pointless. Like RB said, any criminal worth his salt would know how to disable the damn thing, regardless of whether it was built into the gun.

Or into the material? It doesn't have to literally BE a GPS that goes into the thing. It could be as simplistic as a solar powered computer chip that would send out a signal if it was detached from the weapon it was assigned to. Authorities could locate said perpetrator by going through his information and finding out where he lives. Voila

3. It's unconstitutional. My guess is that you've never heard of the right to privacy. Because putting fucking GPS devices on millions of pieces of private property (which people tend to keep in their home, car, or even on their person provided they have a CC permit) clearly isn't allowed.

We'd only be tracking the weapon not you, unless you were doing something you weren't supposed to be doing like taking the chip out of the gun, so again it's only precaution.
Think about this logically for a second, are we installing camera's in your home? Are we following you everywhere with snipers trained on you for any false moves? No, were simply monitoring the weapon, the firearm if you will. If you were to leave home without it then there's no way we could track you. Is that small fact not a small price to pay for saving the lives of 100 potential mass murder victims by the end of the decade? At least attempt to put this into a reasonable perspective, it's not that big of a deal. Trust your government, or move out of the country seriously.

4. It's ridiculous. Tell me, even if you manage to track every last gun made from this point, what about the ones made BEFORE the law came into effect? You certainly can't track those, can you? What about imported guns? What about homemade guns (like the plastic AR-15s that RB linked to)? YOU CAN'T TRACK ANY OF THOSE!

Good point, but we could install tracking equipment into the bullets, something people do run out of.

5. It's retarded. Those are alot of GPS devices to keep track of. How in the blue blazes do you expect to monitor every last one for illegal activity?

Exactly the same way we manage to track phones.

At 8/16/12 06:49 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its ridiculous you know why because what you propose sounds like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. and big brother is watching

no thanks like started the current system works fine what you proposed is absurd, intrusive and illegal. not to mention its just giving the government more power.

You think if we were to arm everyone with an AR15 you'd be safer from government tyranny, there is confidential weapon technologies that you can't even imagine, plus tanks, missiles and highly trained warriors > angry gun owners.
Also this isn't Hollywood, what could this government possibly achieve by attempting to turn itself into a dictatorship? Do you know where government employees come from?