Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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?

Personally, i think all the protectionists need to stop fucking talking about "you dont need that for hunting", "thats not used to kill a deer." I dont hunt... many gun owners do not. Hunting is not the only legitimate reason to own a gun.

What about protecting youself? A semi automatic does exceptionally well in these conditions.

If your about to be murdered or raped, when every second counts, how well can you really trust that bolt action rifle, especially at close distances?

FUCK you protectionists who want to disarm GOOD people. These people did nothing wrong, they are LAW ABIDING US CITIZENS. DONT. TREAD. ON. ME.

At 12/22/12 05:49 PM, Revo357912 wrote: I was thinking national/state in order to not be limited by boundaries. Also, requiring websites that sell guns to US citizens to require them to input a gun registration code in order to make sure the person is licensed.

Right now I think that we need to expand background checks to all states and have them do them the same way.

Also, what you describe about internet gun sales already exists. In order to buy you have provide the supplier with your FFL before he ships it.

Now, Craig's list and other person-to-person sales that take place over internet classifieds is another story. With this we could start making background checks available to the public for about $10.

As for registry...we have that de facto already. FFL dealers have to maintain a record of every gun they sell. If they go out of business or stop selling guns, they turn these records over to the BATF. To expand the registry further would be a waste of time, money and manpower. Canada tried that...and recently dumped it for being too expensive and not having all that significant effect on gun crime.

Clarifications:
2/3: Very basic training, meaning just a safety course, learning the gist about the gun you want (whether it's rifle, shotgun, pistol, no specifics) and how to keep your gun well maintained, the responsibility you have, and a little bit of target practice (so that the person knows how to actually shoot in time of need). The safety course and the responsibility course will be only one time every 5 years, and that's only if you now own more than one gun type, and will only be required 3 times max.

We have that somewhat already in states with Concealed Carry. To get a permit they have to attend class and then show proficiency with their gun. In Mo have you to shoot both a revolver and automatic.

Training in general is something I'm actually a little on the fence about. I have seen some stupid, careless and irresponsible people on the range.

On the other hand...

Gun accidents have decreased by 95% since 1904 when we started keeping track of such stats. You are more likely to die from a walking accident than by a gun accident. And finally, you cannot teach morality...so people with evil intent are not going to just start thinking good thoughts because an instructor tells them to.

I see it costing a lot of money and not doing anything.

I don't think there needs to be separate classes for different types of gun. Assuming automatics would be banned in this scenario, learning the basics of a gun in general would suffice for the average citizen. A course every 5 years would also be unnecessary except for perhaps the elderly.

I'm saying this simply because there are plenty of responsible adults who understand what a gun is and how to use it. But it would be a good idea to have a license that can receive "points" for violent crimes, where serious felonies would revoke the license and limit purchases to bolt-actions and place a cap on purchasing ammunition.

If you are convicted of a felony you may no longer own, buy or possess a firearm.

5: This is mostly to be able to report stolen fire arms with greater ease.

There is no reason to make this process easier. If your firearm is stolen, most likely you've had a break-in. If you are a law-abiding citizen you' re going to call the cops anyway. The stolen firearms will be part of the report.

====

I commend you both for trying to come up with solutions to the problem of gun violence. But the problem is the gun and our laws do not really address the root causes. That's what I want to see...addressing the social ills and problems that cause people to do horrendous things.

I for one would like to see our penal system re-vamped. As it stands all it does right now is provide a college or university-style setting for experienced criminals to recruit and train noob criminals how to do harder crimes. What if instead we used closed military bases to set-up 'cities' for the inmates. McDonalds and Walmart (just two names pulled from my ass) open up a restuarant/store. The inmates staff them learning skills...managing the stores. Meanwhile, other inmates contract with other service industries and manufacturers to learn those trades. At night they go to school to get a GED or some sort of college degree.

This way people serve their sentence and come out rehabilitated. Employers receive tax credits for hiring these people. Instead of what we have now...people serve their time and when they get out struggle to find work and the only new skills they've developed are criminal ones.

We have a lot of work to do. Pursuing gun control is the lazy, 'nothing' solution.

At 12/20/12 04:48 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

Guns are designed to kill.

Wrong. Military firearms are actually designed to intimidate and if necessary wound an enemy combatant. This inflicts a much greater cost (human, fiscal, and logistical) on the enemy than by killing.

On the other hand, muskets, shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols are all designed to kill.

In order to be intellectually honest and consistent Obama and Feinstein should be working to ban all non-military style guns.

:)

At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote: This is based on my observations on other countries, such as Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, South and North Korea, Russia, and United States, ...

Not trying to nit-pick...but:

* One of the reasons I do not find the pro-gun control argument convincing when describing other countries is their over-reliance on anecdotal evidence. A person can cherry pick cases that prove one point or another. For example, a pro-gun person would pick out Switzerland and Mexico because they actually prove their point. Meanwhile, someone from Handgun Control Inc. would pick out Japan, Canada and S. Korea.

* Not only is 'cherry picking' a problem, it also ignores significant differences. For example, most of those countries have ethnic majorities in the 90% and up range. There is no minority that is treated like a second-class and experiences diminished economic and/or educational opportunities. Also, China, N. Korea and Saudi Arabia are to varying degrees police states with harsh penalties for breaking the law.

* What you want to do is look for trends using inferential statistics. This is done with computer programs which frees up the social scientist's time and eliminates bias from the results. What we find, in simple terms, is how often you see variable x influence variable y. In the case of guns, the math is determinate. Gun control and the presence (or lack thereof) does not, statistically speaking, effect crime rates...even gun crime. Poverty levels, education, and Ethnolinguistic Fractionalization are shown to be far more causal.

* What is cool about doing the social science on guns is that it is one of those rare incidents where we can have complete data AND a sample population (aka: n) of 100%. So we can put the crime rates of practically every country in the world (N. Korea is highly suspect on any stat Pyongyang provides). This makes the conclusion more solid and strong. I am only talking about international questions involving gun control. However, the question of how many times guns are used defensively each year does rely upon survey methodology.

But I agree with Switzerland:

* Every male at 18 should report for military training. We could cut back on the Department of the Army and rely upon a militia instead of an Army. Everyone not going into the Air Force, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard full-time (or as a reservist) would report to Army basic training.

* You are required to keep a M-16 or M-4 in your home, maintain it, and drill with your local militia unit regularly.

* You are required to keep, sealed, a box of 120 rounds of military, FMJ ammo along with your gun. This is audited yearly by your militia unit.

* Annually you will receive a PHA (Preventative Health Assessment), which will along with physical health, examine your mental fitness for duty.

At 12/22/12 07:23 PM, OngarTheWorldWeary wrote:

FDA-approved prescription drugs kill 290 Americans every single day, meaning that for mass shootings to even approach that number, you'd have to see a New Town massacre take place EVERY HOUR of every day, 365 days a year. The government doesnt want gun control because they care about you, they want a monopoly on firepower. If they really cared about you they would ban perscription drugs.

So, supposing only 20 died in New Town (was more), and it would have to happen every day to catch up with the 290 your pointing out, then... lets do some math.

20*24= 480.

Huh, what do you know, 480 isn't 290.

Not only that, but if 290 die a day from prescription drugs, that's 105,850 a year.
Weird, it doesn't make the top ten list.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Or this top list either:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/top-15-causes-of-deat h
Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate #United_States
Or even here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/leading-causes-of-death-from-
1900-2010-2012-6?op=1

Oh, but it does seem your info came from one person's book, who I quote, "estimated" the number of deaths from side effects related to the drugs. That's right, not whether the drug caused it or not, but if the person died from a side effect listed on the drug.
In other words, if you have high blood pressure due to diabetes, a potential side effect listed on a certain diabetes medicine may temporarily increase blood pressure, and you die of high blood pressure, that counted as a death caused by the drug in his statistics.

I'm not disagreeing with you that pharmaceutical companies are bad, I agree with that 100% in that, but don't just blurt out random things and blame it on a president you might not like. This ain't the conspiracy thread, its the gun thread.

On a side note, Mason, I agree, and what you said kind of sort of (in the loosest way) ties in what I said when arguing on the anti-gun side: the culture in America is what has to changed to fix the problems with firearms more than anything. And what you said is a perfect place to start.

CDC's top 10 causes of death in this country (2010):

* suicide by gun: #4
* homicide by gun: #5
* unintentional by gun: ?

In only one age group did accidental gun deaths enter the picture: 10-14 year olds...and it ranked 10th with 26 deaths.

Then looking at nonfatal injuries treated in hospitals (2011)...

Guns did not even crack the top 10 list.

source

To put it in perspective, the anti-gun crowd often puts out a figure around 100,000 injured by firearms each year. A firearm is a consumer product.

So are cars and household chemicals.

Injuries alone:

* 2.76 million injuries due to cars.
* 800,000 injuries due to poisoning.

The greatest cause of injuries for all age groups but 15-24 year olds?

Falls at over 9 million.

When you look at all the ways you could die or get hurt...the probability of receiving a GSW is pretty darn slight.

At 12/23/12 12:09 AM, Revo357912 wrote: On a side note, Mason, I agree, and what you said kind of sort of (in the loosest way) ties in what I said when arguing on the anti-gun side: the culture in America is what has to changed to fix the problems with firearms more than anything. And what you said is a perfect place to start.

I was watching a PBS special on the Newtown shooting. One of the things they brought up was the fame these psychos get following the shooting. Perhaps it is time that the media not play along and stop putting the killer's picture all over TV and naming him.

If they stop getting their 15 minutes of fame...some may not go through with their plans.

At 12/23/12 08:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

Perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6T2Q4bBcUU

Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

At 12/24/12 06:32 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 12/23/12 08:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: China wants US to disarm citizens (I wonder why?)

Perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6T2Q4bBcUU

Anyway I'm here because of this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gu n-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

China should be more worried about there own nation then the outside nations outside there borders. You honestlly think we the American people will comply to China's demand? NO, we the American people have our own problems to worry about, why should China worry about us? China should be worried about taking care of themselves like parents taknig care of there children.

If China wants the American People to disarm and impose Gun Control, I say the Chinese Goverment can "shove it" for all I care. That alone proves that China needs to stop jumping into the affairs of other nations, yet they do so for the most ill reasons imaginable.

That said, nations need to learn to take care of themselves, whatever more or less matters not, only thing that matters so is that people need to learn that Great Power comes with Great Responsibility and Great Knowledge in turn also comes with Great Senes, if the Chinese Goverment hasen't learned this then something's wrong and that something is the one thing if not series of things they need to deal with on there own.

Again I will say, thoes who think Gun Control is the way will realize it isn't "the hard way", it's Weapon Responsibility we need to be more worried about because if we go the path of Weapon Responsibility then people in turn will take better care of there weaponry.

At 12/24/12 07:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

If anybody supports what they did, kill yourselves.

Holy Shit my uncle is on their!

On the bright side, he does have a gun...

My big issue with guns and crimes related to guns is that a criminal can murder another man in cold blood, get let out of prison in 20 years and do it all over again. If you kill a man for an xbox, $20, gang shooting, or for some bullshit reason you belong in prison for the rest of your life, period.

As for guns themselves, I don't see why semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, and all of these ridiculous things are needed for "hunting and self defense". These guns are designed to kill as many people as possible as efficiently as possible, there is no reason for them to be legal for anything.

At 12/26/12 02:14 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

Nobody is using a "machine gun" or "submachine gun" I suggest you actually learn about guns before you pull things out of your ass.

If it was all up to the NRA folks to decide, everyone and his mother would be armed with machine guns to keep our country "safe".

Anyway the AR-15 makes an excellent Varmint rifle when you need to shoot multiple times in order to actually hit more then one target quickly.

Sure, like hunting with a semi-auto of any kind can actually be called hunting, give me a break.

At 12/26/12 02:49 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I like how when you are wrong you just don't own up to it. You were utterly wrong about automatics so you just pointed your finger at the NRA and said "Look at them!!" Who in the NRA is saying we need "machine guns?" By the way
"Assault Weapons" are not Assault Rifles.

So you're a gun person and don't own an ak-47 or know anyone else that does? You don't know anyone that owns an uzi and you're a gun person? I don't own a single gun or have any redneck whitetrash friends and I still know people who are hiding away these ridiculous things. These guns are a problem, especially in gang shootings and flat out massacres. They are used by criminals because you can kill the most amount of people in the shortest span of time.

also try to figure out what a varmint rifle is before you comment on it. Or when wild boar are charging you often need more then one round to bring them down. (They don't care)

Might as well start packing some grenades on your hunting trips for good measure! Hunting is suppose to be about skill and actually taking a risk, risks other than your drunk buddy accidentally filling your face with lead.

At 12/26/12 04:12 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Are you talking about civilian models which are still single shot? Most shootings are with pistols.

Sure most of all shootings are with pistols, but most shootings invoke the attempted murder of one or two individuals. What guns do you think criminals turn to when they want to slaughter a mass of people?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c rime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Knives kill more then your Semi-Auotmatic Rifles do

Sure, a knife is a much cheaper and a much more EASILY OBTAINABLE weapon.

And once again do you know what semi-automatic means?

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh by the way?

"The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and motor-racing fuel.
On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices opened for the day. Before arriving, he stopped to light a 2 minute fuse. At 09:02, a large explosion destroyed the north half of the building. The explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others."

Whoa it totally makes sense now, I'm going to buy a lifted ass truck, load twenty guns in the back (all of which I need just to combat my fear of driving to work) and slap my NRA sticker right on the bumper! Entirely non sequitur just like the quote above.

Oh my god you are dense you don't "hunt" vermin and when stopping boar from KILLING you you aren't hunting either. Coyotes will kill your animals, rats and other vermin will destroy your property and kill chicks and other small animals. You continue to comment when you don't even understand the terms you use.

You're right, shooting vermin is not hunting, so I guess there's no problem in whipping out the good ol semi to wipe em out. By the way there are far more cost effective methods of pest control other than unloading rounds only into the pests you manage to find.

At 12/26/12 03:38 AM, Saen wrote: So you're a gun person and don't own an ak-47 or know anyone else that does? You don't know anyone that owns an uzi and you're a gun person? I don't own a single gun or have any redneck whitetrash friends and I still know people who are hiding away these ridiculous things. These guns are a problem, especially in gang shootings and flat out massacres. They are used by criminals because you can kill the most amount of people in the shortest span of time.

Well that all depends. Are we talking about the true blood through and through legitimate AKs and Uzis that have some form of select fire, or are we talking about guns that only look them that are only capable of single shot? Because there is a huge difference between them. Think of it like a car, while it may look super sleek and scary/fast on the outside, what matters is what is under the hood. You can put all the bells and tactical accessories you want on a gun, but that does not change if it is a legitimate assault rifle or just one whose aesthetics mirror one.

Might as well start packing some grenades on your hunting trips for good measure! Hunting is suppose to be about skill and actually taking a risk, risks other than your drunk buddy accidentally filling your face with lead.

Nah, no need for grenades. Hunting is about skill. All the skill in the world does not change the fact that sometimes you do not get an instant kill shot, and that charging animals are in motion, and targets in motion are hard as fuck to hit compared to a static target. I would love it if every single shot was an instant kill for the animal, but sadly, that is not the case and a quick follow up shot is what ends that animals misery if it is merely injured

I do believe gun control is needed in the United States. I'm not sure exactly how the process is to getting one, but by the amount of people who have guns and all the tragedies related to guns I believe there needs to stricter laws. It would also be a nice touch to fund more Mental Health Facilities.

i don wanna live in a country where big gov'ment says i cant use rocket launchers to protect my family

At 12/26/12 07:09 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: i don wanna live in a country where big gov'ment says i cant use rocket launchers to protect my family

Hyperbole is a logical fallacy.

At 12/26/12 03:38 AM, Saen wrote: Ad hominems and ignorance on hunting and gun culture.

Yeah pretty much. Im not a redneck. I own a semi automatic firearm and a large caliber rifle. Im not white trash and I dont hunt.

Problem?

At 12/26/12 07:37 PM, DickBuns wrote: Problem?

No. Just a question: Why?

At 12/26/12 08:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/26/12 07:37 PM, DickBuns wrote: Problem?

No. Just a question: Why?

I once worked on ATMs for a major bank in the US. I dont/did not trust other people to leave me be as I had access to all of the cash in the safe. Merely carrying and displaying a firearm on my hip was enough to dissuade any attackers during my time period as a tech.

I own the rifle because I find it more satisfying to hit paper and metal targets at a hundred plus yards rather than at 10 feet like with a bb gun at a carnival. Its a cheap rifle, the ammo is cheap, and its kind of cool to own a 70 year old piece of history that won world war 2.