Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/16/07 10:57 PM, blznavy wrote: 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?

Umm, you're fucking fourteen. You understand nothing of the Consitution or the culture. Come back in two years and we may hear you out, but until then don't give an answer to the solution without knowing the real problem.

At 6/16/07 01:46 PM, Tal-con wrote: It's easier to shoot someone than it is to set up a fire w/o people noticing.

Ummm...you really do not know what you're talking about do you? Timothy McVeigh detonated an ammonium nitrate bomb outside of a federal building in 1995 that killed 168 people...including pre-school aged toddlers. No one noticed the U-Haul truck parked outside with a detonator...

Uh, yeah, they were the tool, but they were the necessary tool. The VT massacre never would've happened if Cho couldn't get his hands on guns.

I don't care who you are...that is funny. Have you ever thought that if Cho could not have gotten his hands on guns VT would have been a LOT worse?

Oklahoma City 1995: Ammonium Nitrate Bomb

This attack wasn't done with guns either...

Niether was this one...

Heck this one was planned to use explosives mixed with guns...

Here's the fact you forget about people like Cho and Kliebold and Harris...they are not murderers but entry level terrorists. They have an agenda and an intense drive to kill people who they perceive as oppressors. And the truth is you want them to do what they do with guns because the cost to life is minimizied. But go ahead take away guns, give them an incentive to graduate up to bombs where the death tolls will become much more significant.

Welcome to the world of the real. Take the bluepill and live in ignorance...just stop trying to legislate for the rest of us.

At 6/16/07 10:32 PM, Tal-con wrote:

*Ahem* Is anyone familiar with appeal to emotion?

It isn't a plea to emotion, derr, it's a fact.

It is the twisting of what happened to encourage a fact that is supported by very little factual evidence, or in your case a lack of knowledge about the subject.

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

1) There is a trade in illegal guns brought in from overseas. China for one was caught red handed (forgive the pun) smuggling military versions of the AK-47 into California.
2) Here is a hing: do not be so bold in stating things as facts, especially hypotheticals. That is the sign of a fool. As I said in my last post if he did not have a gun...he could've just as easily made a bomb and killed even more people. But I guess you're right it wouldn't have been a massacre, but an atrocity.

At 6/16/07 10:32 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/16/07 05:50 PM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

It isn't a plea to emotion, derr, it's a fact.

Actually it is an emotionally-charged, out of context claim that doesn't really mean much in the whole scheme of things. The VT massacre got more attention because it all took place at once and college kids were killed. However, it and other similar tragedies only make up a tiny fraction of over all gun crime in the US and changing gun laws due to that one instance won't really alleviate gun crime, or murder over all in the US.

So due to the emotional response people have to it, they irrationally attack the gun. BUT they fail to realize that the majority of crimes are committed by people who DO NOT legally obtain firearms, and many crimes are prevented by people who DO legally possess firearms.

You don't want to put the situation in context, so you appeal to emotion by emphasizing one event that is statistically a fluke, and statistically won't be prevented in the futre by tighter gun laws.

Let's see, if the crazy korean kid wanted a gun so bad he could of simply got it off the blackmarket.

It's a lot harder to get a gun off of the black market

Not for a criminal, seeing as how most gun crimes are committed by people who are legally ineligible to purchase/possess firearms. That means that most people who buy guns for the intent of committing crimes do so through the black market.

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

Cho could have got his hands on a gun illegally, that is a fact. And it is a fact that since most gun crimes are committed by people who do not legally own them guns... then the black market is what needs to be cracked down on rather than legal ownership.

kthxbai

I'm all for gun control- use both hands.
just common sense, people.
(jk)

At 6/17/07 09:11 AM, ShardStorm wrote: I'm all for gun control- use both hands.
just common sense, people.
(jk)

I liked that, it was funny.

but i still dont get any deserved attention.

At 6/17/07 12:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: BUT they fail to realize that the majority of crimes are committed by people who DO NOT legally obtain firearms, and many crimes are prevented by people who DO legally possess firearms.

Less guns doesn't mean more crime.

Even John Lott admits the possibility of that: "The more serious possibility is that some other factor may have caused both the reduction in crime rates and the passage of the law to occur at the same time." (this is from pg. 153 of his book).

At 6/16/07 05:50 PM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

Yes. We're also familiar with stating facts. We're also aware that by bringing that up, you're trying to duck the issue without giving up your "right" to post a response.

By the way, why haven't you posted this when some bullshit dispenser comes up with the "Obviously you're just a piece of shit who wants law abiding citizens to be unarmed so they can be raped and murdered by criminals. YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG" argument.

Isn't that appealing to emotion (albeit in the manner of a complete dickhead) too?

Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.

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.

You'll find that every two-bit gangsta wannabe suddenly won't be able to get hold of a gun, so that's a chunk off the 15,000 p/a already. Every paranoid idiot who thinks the people outside their house are loitering with intent to rape and murder his family (coincidentally there's a bus stop there) won't be able to accidentally shoot their friends, family or neighbours because they thought the Manson Family had reformed just to get them is another chunk off the 15,000 p/a.

Getting it?

Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

At 6/17/07 04:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

exactly, too many rednecks take their guns over peoples lives. thats pretty sick.

At 6/17/07 01:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Yes. We're also familiar with stating facts.

Yes, something gun-control advocates don't do often.

We're also aware that by bringing that up, you're trying to duck the issue without giving up your "right" to post a response.

I've already echoed the same shit, as the other guy has. It isn't good to be redundant, no?

By the way, why haven't you posted this when some bullshit dispenser comes up with the "Obviously you're just a piece of shit who wants law abiding citizens to be unarmed so they can be raped and murdered by criminals. YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG" argument.

I don't think so. If so, could you quote me and which thread, because I've said gun control disarms law abiding citizens, but the other stuff I'm not sure. Anyone who isn't a total dumbshit could see that much.

Isn't that appealing to emotion (albeit in the manner of a complete dickhead) too?

Had I said it.

Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.

Right, when you're walking down the street in the Middle of Columbia, LA, Brooklyn, etc and fifteen ghetto kids walk up to you and decide they're going to hurt you bad, well, why don't you try your idiotic notion of masculinity. That or you could beat off to kick boxing some more. We'll all be laughing at your bull-headed stupidity when you end in the hospital with fractured lungs and broken bones.

You'll find that every two-bit gangsta wannabe suddenly won't be able to get hold of a gun, so that's a chunk off the 15,000 p/a already.

You're a bigger fool than I thought if you actually believe this shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Every paranoid idiot who thinks the people outside their house are loitering with intent to rape and murder his family (coincidentally there's a bus stop there) won't be able to accidentally shoot their friends, family or neighbours because they thought the Manson Family had reformed just to get them is another chunk off the 15,000 p/a.

Right. And let me tell you that every delusional fuckoff who thinks everyone with a gun is incompetent enough to shoot someone for no reason has no voice of credibility on the issue. Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?

"Oh Let's punish the inanimate object for the wrongdoings of its handler! Hurry, before I piss my panties!"

http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest /2000Digest/February/Gun%20Control%20Doesn't%
20Work.htm

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mountaien.h tm
Hell, things would be better if at least half of everyone owned a gun(explained in the youtube video above)

Getting it?

There's not much to get about an asshole's elitism.

At 6/17/07 01:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Isn't that appealing to emotion (albeit in the manner of a complete dickhead) too?

How is it any different than the appeal to emotion you just made about how if we gave up guns, we'd be free from supposed gangbangers that are over-running us right now?

Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.

It can easily be argued that the invention of the gun is just another pitstop on the road of evolution. We went from close quarters combat with rocks and sticks, to swords, bows and arrows, and now... guns. If I can stand back 30 yards away and blow away a target without so much as breaking a sweat, I've substantially increased the chances of my DNA being passed onto the next generation.

You can call it "pussyish" all you want (which would be an ad hominem attack on gun owners) , but brute force doesn't neccesarily equal intelligence anymore.

At 6/17/07 04:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

Then you are a hypocrite in addition to being double minded about the issue, because you and I both know that there are things out there that kill far more people than guns.

At 6/17/07 04:21 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

At 6/17/07 04:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

exactly, too many rednecks take their guns over peoples lives. thats pretty sick.

I thought we beat back these ignorant attitudes (based upon arrogance and pompousness) back with the facts in this thread on the main page.

This is not just about ideology but good governance. While you are focusing on saving one life you can be better serving society by tackeling larger issues such as:

1) Roots of crime.
2) Education.
3) Making cars safer/cleaner (more people die because of this consumer good in this country than die by guns).
4) Making our entitlement programs not only more effecient but more solvent as well (when these tear down our government you will see one helluva spike in violent crime in this country).
5) Sealing our borders. As long as we have porous borders we are going to have a gun problem in that the bad guys are guaranteed a source.

At 6/17/07 01:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.

I would rather have the means to stop this from happening to my family and be called a pussy by people like you, than have your false sense of masculinity.

At 6/17/07 06:47 PM, Tal-con wrote: It's not using the deaths of anyone to get a point across. I could make the point with any example.

Fact is, the kid was implimenting appeal to emotion. No arguing about it.

Fact is, if we lived in a magical land with no guns, murder would drop dramatically. There would have been no VT massacre. There would have been a VT scuffle.

And alot less political freedoms.

Yes, because:

A.) Like I said, most guns on the black market are originally obtained legally.

For one thing you and I don't know this. It could be legal, or it could be guns brought directly from the manufacturing compay, and it could even be made from the seller's own home. I personally know someone who is able to make an Ak-47 in their workshop.

If you had, say, a one gun limit per person (because let's be honest, no one needs 20 guns to defend themselves),

Right, because we can curb the Constitution when we disagree with it. Nevermind avid gun collectors.

the black market on guns would be damaged dramatically. It's not like pot where you can just grow it.

Right, like they are in the UK, Australia, and every other gun-control shithole.

and B.) Cho bought his guns legally, even though he had a history of mental health issues.

And this is not due to guns. It's due to the confidentiality of a person's therapy. Blame privacy if you like.

So yes, I believe gun control would've at least made it harder for Cho to get his hands on guns.

That doesn't amount to jackshit. If it happened it happened. If it wouldn't of stopped him then it was meaningless to impliment in the first place. You've gotten nowhere.

You can't kill 32 people with a keyboard, no one's calling for key board control. Your point fails, and if you find my logic annoying, then don't post.

I don't find your logic annoying, I find what you do annoying, Grammer.

Gun Control is bullshit, while all obeying normal civilians will not have guns, criminals will still receive guns from another source rather than gun shops (I doubt any actually get them from gun shops) and go on crime sprees and fuck up society even worse than what it is now.

At 6/16/07 07:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's the same argument made by the people who are against guns, but for marijuana.

i love irony.

Yes, the two things are completely equivalent, because you can get high by smoking guns and shoot people with marijuana.

At 6/18/07 12:31 AM, JakeHero wrote:

Right, like they are in the UK, Australia, and every other gun-control shithole.

If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

doesnt matter if we have gun control they'd still find ways to smuggle Ak-47's and 9mm and UZI's into America through Canada and Mexicono matter what we do...they even smuggle rpg's into America through the Mexican border ...

At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

And if no one has drugs then you can't get high, but this doesn't happen when it comes to the drug war.

At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

Nor can you protect your family.

At 6/18/07 07:32 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

Nor can you protect your family.

Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.

At 6/18/07 07:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/18/07 07:32 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

Nor can you protect your family.

Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.

That's beyond the point, the possibility of defending my family is almost impossible without a gun.

Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.

I don't have any stats on this, but I think the common usage of guns is in warfare. This is a bit of an educated guess, but I think the most shots fired have been in a war situation.

Okey dokie. Let's address the "self defense" claim.

"In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms...Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms."

"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property." That's 83,000 victims of the "931,000
violent crimes." Not much, especially when you consider that 83,000 includes cops.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsda ft.txt

Here's another study, this time from Emory University's Center for Injury Control at the Rollins School of Public Health.

"In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance."

Just as importantly: Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection.

And this is in the gun toting south, people...1.5%! Come on!

"Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "

defend your family huh? well thats why i got a Spas-12 tactical shotgun and a 50 cal. hunting rifle...both of which i got at cabela's oddly they also have civilian versions of ak-47's which criminals modify to make full auto ak's....

At 6/18/07 07:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/18/07 07:32 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.

Nor can you protect your family.

Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.

WRONG There are about 2 Million DGU's (Defense Gun Uses) by law-abiding citizens each year in the US. You get that? That is MILLIONS of crimes prevented by defensive use of firearms.

Now, since the majority of 400,000 or so firearm crimes in the US are committed by people who DO NOT legally own their firearms and CAN'T legally own firearms in the first place...

That means means LEGAL use of firearms prevents about 10 times more crime than it causes!!! This means that if there were no legal ownership of guns, we would not only still have gun violence, but we would have MORE of it.

Now before you say "if they are banned they won't be stolen by criminals who use them in crime" well that is WRONG too. After the UK banned legal ownership of handguns, their handgun crime doubled 6 years into the ban, and soared by 35% in one year.

kthxbai

At 6/18/07 10:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

WRONG

Here's an example of the problems with that source...

"were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively"

Based on that, he's just ASSUMING that there are many DGUs...Kleck has no even SEMI-empirical research to cite.

At 6/18/07 10:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/18/07 10:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

WRONG

Here's an example of the problems with that source...

"were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively"

Where is it illegal to possess a gun other than schools and government buildings? We have carry and concealed rights in the US, that is the point... to prevent crime. It's not only about defending your home.

Based on that, he's just ASSUMING that there are many DGUs...Kleck has no even SEMI-empirical research to cite.

What is a semi-empirical research study then?

Keep reading, other estimates put it at 1.5 million, some at 400,000:

At least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns"

At least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians."

That still means more crimes are prevented than caused by legal owners of guns considering the majority of the 400,000 or so gun crimes each year are committed by people who DO NOT legally own firearms. Even if you use the lowest estimate there is, it is still exponential.

Take away legal gun ownership and you'll have more crime because less crime will be prevented, and criminals will be emboldened and actually commit more firearm because they will get and use firearms regardless of the laws (as happened in the UK), and will have defenseless civilians to prey on.

Suggesting that gun ownership doesn't prevent crime is wrong. Suggesting that crime will be lessened by banning guns is wrong, and has proven to be wrong.

At 6/18/07 11:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Suggesting that gun ownership doesn't prevent crime is wrong. Suggesting that crime will be lessened by banning guns is wrong, and has proven to be wrong.

Yeah, it's too bad that everyone doesn't have guns here in canada, because all the criminals are running around with them and we're all scared to leave our igloos. lol