Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/15/07 04:10 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/11/07 07:21 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, firearms are not the cause of tragedies such as VT...they are the tool, but not the cause.

Do you honestly think Cho could've taken out 32 people with a baseball bat?

That's beyond the point. The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Nobody thought that an attack the size of 9/11 was plausible but over 3,000 were killed and you are telling me that Cho COULDN'T have killed 32 people with a bat?

Nice try.

At 6/15/07 03:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're negating one very important factor in a U.S. Government versus it's own people guerilla war

Shay's rebellion didn't cause mass desertions, nor did the bonus army "put-down" nor the quelling of the race riots.

Though those aren't guerilla conflicts, they are events where american forces were used in a capacity where they were "fighting" their fellows...

Mason pointed this out earlier...

Possibly true, possibly. Still, we can't assume that the military would desert. For all we know, a repressive government could be a military coup against the civillian power – something that the founders feared.

I think it would stand to reason the American people would put up one HELL of a fight against a rogue U.S. Government.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

Unless, of course, I'm giving to much credit to my contemporaries, thinking that they would actually have the backbone to standup against a corrupt government they so often denounce...

We wouldn't have Red Dawn against american forces, that's for sure. Now, I'm all for freedom and justice and equality, but, come on, seriously, how many well trained and well equipped individuals will actually stand up? And will they be able to unite? To get assistance from the rest of the population?

It's just too many variables.

Do you think that he could have taken out so many people if somebody else who was trained and had a licensed concealed weapon was there?

At 6/15/07 04:26 PM, johnpoo wrote: Remeber Eric and Dlyan?? They were two highschool students that shot up a school called Columbine(search it if you want). The guy who killed at V-Tech mentioned those two a lot in the tape he left behind for the cops.

Gun control didn't stop them. They broke several firearms laws in the process of obtaining and using their weapons.

At 6/15/07 05:05 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Shay's rebellion didn't cause mass desertions, nor did the bonus army "put-down" nor the quelling of the race riots.

You're not taking reality into account when you compare today's society and culture to that of America that far in the past... especially considering that Shay's Rebellion just so happens to have occured 200 some odd years ago.

"Stop Loss" orders, anyone? Does the phrase "lowest recruitment numbers in history" ring a bell?

It's just too many variables.

In short, the punks of today don't have the balls to follow through on their anti-government rantings. I thought as much.

At 6/15/07 04:10 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/11/07 07:21 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, firearms are not the cause of tragedies such as VT...they are the tool, but not the cause.

Do you honestly think Cho could've taken out 32 people with a baseball bat?

Of course not. But with fertilizer and diesel fuel he could've taken out a helluva lot more people.

Your little bit of bumper sticker logic only produces an emotional response and sounds good, but does not in anyway address the point that I made: guns are not the cause of things like V....only the tool. As such what we need is more control rather than laws.

At 6/15/07 12:13 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Like I said; we're willing to give up other rights in order to own guns. The second amendment doesn't directly destroy other freedoms, but politicians use it to gain support of the people (particularly rural areas) while they take away other rights in order to gain more power.

So let me get this straight: your hypothesis is
1) Politicians will use the fear of banning guns to gain power.
2) Once in power they will then proceed to errode other freedoms.

If this is correct, could you please actually support your hypothesis.

Furthermore, this seems awfully close to my "State of Fear" hypothesis about environmentalism (on the Left) and terrorism (on the Right)...

At 6/15/07 05:05 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/15/07 03:33 PM, Proteas wrote: Mason pointed this out earlier...

Possibly true, possibly. Still, we can't assume that the military would desert. For all we know, a repressive government could be a military coup against the civillian power – something that the founders feared.

Very true, however:
1) Our military structure is made so as to mitigate the chances of a military coup.
2) When you start looking into State militias and Air/National Guards...the military is just too large and diverse for any general to be successful.

We wouldn't have Red Dawn against american forces, that's for sure. Now, I'm all for freedom and justice and equality, but, come on, seriously, how many well trained and well equipped individuals will actually stand up? And will they be able to unite? To get assistance from the rest of the population?

Again we would have a Red Dawn scenario. If you notice it happened in a rural, midwestern setting...not an Eastern or Western Urban environment. Local cow pokes would take to the hills. Never underestimate the power of a couple of tens of thousand rednecks in a state armed and drunk on schnapps!

It's just too many variables.

At 6/15/07 09:35 PM, TheMason wrote: So let me get this straight: your hypothesis is
1) Politicians will use the fear of banning guns to gain power.
2) Once in power they will then proceed to errode other freedoms.

If this is correct, could you please actually support your hypothesis.

Bush, Cheney, and the beloved governor of the great state of Georgia *sarcasm, of course* Sonny Perdue.

Furthermore, this seems awfully close to my "State of Fear" hypothesis about environmentalism (on the Left) and terrorism (on the Right)...

And I actually agree with that, if I understand it correctly: The left uses global warming, while the right uses 9/11?

Gun contrl is about as logical as a two-legged stool.

At 6/15/07 09:43 PM, JakeHero wrote: Gun contrl is about as logical as a two-legged stool.

If you balance it right, it's better than sitting on the floor.

Take that for what you will, 'cuz I have no fucking clue what I just said...

At 6/15/07 09:52 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

But a two-legged stool is pretty half-assed compared to a three or four legged one, no?

Take that for what you will, 'cuz I have no fucking clue what I just said...

Errm, okay.

At 6/15/07 09:40 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

If this is correct, could you please actually support your hypothesis.

Bush, Cheney, and the beloved governor of the great state of Georgia *sarcasm, of course* Sonny Perdue.

Then you have to accept the same about Gore, the Clintons and Obama...

Furthermore, this seems awfully close to my "State of Fear" hypothesis about environmentalism (on the Left) and terrorism (on the Right)...

And I actually agree with that, if I understand it correctly: The left uses global warming, while the right uses 9/11?

Yes...that is exactly what I am saying. Any right (to bear arms, speech, religion, etc) can be used to manipulate the citizenry to give up less beloved rights in favor of rights that that particular social demographic values over all others. All you have to do (as a politician) is make the base fear losing it...then they will give up all others before finally giving up their beloved...

"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither." (Franklin right?)

right?)

I agree with mason's last post

However, i'm not going to say anything more, because no one reads my posts, no one ever comments on my posts or has for the past half year i've made them.

I will however say that murder is not just about the acess to weapons, Like anything, any scientist will tell you that there is never 1 single factor effecting a result, in terms of murder, Psychological tendencies, and upbrining are probably more influential than whether or not guns exist.

Alcahol is probably more leathal to society than guns are, because unliike guns, alcahol is attributed to vehicular manslaughter, Bodilly disease, as well as mental changes, all of which are most typically negativly impacted on humans.

I really don't see why we need to have automatic guns on the market for sale. Fuck, don't you hunt with high powered rifles? The fact is, there will always be really stupid people who can get their hands on a gun, so why not limit their choices to big rifles that can't be concealed easily.

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

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

Don't you think?

I don't agree with your opinion. Though you do state many valid points, (v-tech rampage and hunters and so on), you forget that sometimes yes, guns are used for good purposes. For example, self defense. If someone breaks into your home carrying a gun, you want to know that you have a reliable weapon that you can use that isnt a bolt action rifle.
Also, some people enjoy shooting. I, myself, am one of them, and along with me, there are a large group of people who do too.
the V-tech rampage was the one out of a million that actually decided to happen. If massacres on this scale were happening country wide on a regular bases (every week or so), then we would have a problem. But recently, we havent been having a lot of killings, just one or two that were bound to happen.
And even if there was stricter gun control, there are still illegal ways to procure firearms. Street dealers and so on will have them, and will sell them to anyone who is willing to pay a large enough sum.

yeah, it typed way too much :P

At 6/15/07 12:19 PM, JoS wrote: Sorry for the double post, but it is my understanding that if you go to a gun show ratehr than a dealer there is no background check or wait period. Please though, if I am wrong correct me.

Not true. Gun shows are where I buy the majority of my firearms because you can get better deals. You see the only people who can get a booth at a gun show to sell firearms is a licensed dealer who is required by law to do a background check just as if he was in his storefront.

However, the only way not to do a background check when buying a gun is a person-to-person sale. Then it is on the person who is selling the firearm to either do a background check and assume the responsibility if they sell it to someone who should not be buying a gun.

This is where the confusion comes in at. The fictitious "Gun Show loop-hole" myth spread by the anti-gunners is not referring to the dealers and organizers inside the gun show, but people who bring their guns to the show to sell them to the dealers or get them appraised but end up selling them to other gun show goers in the parking lot. This "loophole" exists whether there is a gun show or not.

At 6/15/07 10:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: However, i'm not going to say anything more, because no one reads my posts, no one ever comments on my posts or has for the past half year i've made them.

Hi SmilezRoyale!

Alcahol is probably more leathal to society than guns are, because unliike guns, alcahol is attributed to vehicular manslaughter, Bodilly disease, as well as mental changes, all of which are most typically negativly impacted on humans.

Especially when you consider that the amount of people murdered by firearms is roughly equal to the amount of people who die is accidents where a driver has been drinking...

At 6/16/07 01:25 AM, deafeningsilence5 wrote: I really don't see why we need to have automatic guns on the market for sale. Fuck, don't you hunt with high powered rifles? The fact is, there will always be really stupid people who can get their hands on a gun, so why not limit their choices to big rifles that can't be concealed easily.

*bangs head on table*
1) An AK-47 is just as unconcealabale than a .270 deer rifle. That is why ALL rifle type COMBINED only come to 1% of firearm crime on an annual basis.
2) You can hunt with an AK-47...more deer are probably killed in the US by AKs and SKSs (they shoot the same round) than the number of Americans (excluding soldiers in Iraq) who are killed by just the AK.
3) China has already been caught attempting to smuggle the full-auto military version into the US to sell on the black market. AKs are prolific in Central/South America, and we have a very porous boarder with Mexico. You are NOT going to effictively limit the choices of people who decide to COMMIT a crime. This line of reasoning is exceptionally superficial and does not address the problem of crime in anyway that will have any significant impact on dealing with crime.

At 6/15/07 09:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

In short, the punks of today don't have the balls to follow through on their anti-government rantings. I thought as much.

I'm not anti-government...

I'm anti-administration. Big difference...

At 6/15/07 09:40 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) Our military structure is made so as to mitigate the chances of a military coup.

That's certainly true. However, when civillians are removed from the loop (how hard would that be, anyway?), you lose the civillian control aspect, and while the military isn't full of wackos, it would only take a few strategically placed wackos to mess up everything.

2) When you start looking into State militias and Air/National Guards...the military is just too large and diverse for any general to be successful.

Any single general, sure, but a group? A cabal? As unlikely as that is, it's possible. Yet I doubt that it would succeed, naturally, owing to the general morality and anti-traitorous inclinations of our military.

If you notice it happened in a rural, midwestern setting

Those aren't the population centers, though. If they were really dealing with that, there would be quick and easy solutions. Plus, consider the satellite surveillance that could be brought to bear, etc.

A few dozen individual groups spread out throughout the midwest couldn't do that much.

not an Eastern or Western Urban environment.

Urban environments would be easily subdued, that's for sure, as you suggest. It would get quickly destroyed a'la the Warsaw uprising.

At 6/16/07 11:17 AM, TheMason wrote: You are NOT going to effictively limit the choices of people who decide to COMMIT a crime.

True, but it can't be a bad idea to fill up all the potential holes in the legal channels of purchase before you go on trying to figure out how to stop the illegal stuff.

At 6/16/07 01:44 PM, Tal-con wrote: That's exactly what I'm telling you. If we lived in a magical world w/o guns, it wouldn't have been the VT massacre. It would've been the VT scuffle.

The last time I checked, there aren't 2 different names for tragedies. It would be massacre no matter what.

That's such a silly thing to say.

32 kids dead because of a nut who got guns is a massacre.

One college age girl with a bruise from a baseball bat swung at him by a crazy English major from South Korea who was subdued and beaten to a pulp by her in front of everyone isn't a tragedy.

At 6/16/07 05:42 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: 32 kids dead because of a nut who got guns is a massacre.

*Ahem* Is anyone familiar with appeal to emotion?

One college age girl with a bruise from a baseball bat swung at him by a crazy English major from South Korea who was subdued and beaten to a pulp by her in front of everyone isn't a tragedy.

Let's see, if the crazy korean kid wanted a gun so bad he could of simply got it off the blackmarket. Outlawing a tool won't stop it from being used in illicit manner.

It's the same argument made by the people who are against guns, but for marijuana.

i love irony.

At 6/16/07 05:42 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: One college age girl with a bruise from a baseball bat swung at him by a crazy English major from South Korea who was subdued and beaten to a pulp by her in front of everyone isn't a tragedy.

Wow, you're obviously not an English major. One college age girl...him...?

From what I gathered, you're an asshole for not calling that a tragedy.

It was originally going to be a massive football player...Geez.

At 6/16/07 08:10 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It was originally going to be a massive football player...Geez.

Still...

At 6/16/07 10:32 PM, Tal-con wrote: It isn't a plea to emotion, derr, it's a fact.

Right, using the senseless death of 32 to students to get a point across doesn't fall under the category of appeal to emotion.

dee dee dee

It's a lot harder to get a gun off of the black market, since most guns which make their way onto the black market are first bought legally.

It's actually pretty damn easy to get a black market just like it's easy to get any other contraband. Do you think gun control would slow down this psychopath?

There would be no massacre if Cho couldn't get his hands on a gun, and that is a fact.

And you wouldn't annoy people if you didn't have access to a keyboard, what's your point?

yes we do need gun control, we only need guns for the military, hunters dont even need guns we have stores that sell us food, unless you live in the middle of now where then you need a gun but other than that, why do we need guns?

At 6/16/07 10:46 PM, JakeHero wrote:

It's a lot harder to get a gun off of the black market, since most guns which make their way onto the black market are first bought legally.

It's actually pretty damn easy to get a black market just like it's easy to get any other contraband. Do you think gun control would slow down this psychopath?

You know i bet it would of slowed it down if someone would actually put forth the effort to make sure a qsychopath didn't get the gun with a 30 round clip.

There would be no massacre if Cho couldn't get his hands on a gun, and that is a fact.

And you wouldn't annoy people if you didn't have access to a keyboard, what's your point?

I love your methods of debate.