At 6/19/07 11:52 PM, TheSnakeSkull wrote: I think that they should do one of the two.
1. They should only allow people that has been in serivce to buy semi-automatic weapons.
or
2. They shouldn't have them at all.

hey buddy, ever heard of the 2nd ammendment?
so shut the fuck up ya fucking democratic bastard

Second Amendment: The Right To Bear Arms.

I forget who said that gun laws depend on the culture, because that's exactly right. I mean, heck, Switzerland and Japan have some of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, but 15% of households in Switzerland carry fully automated assault rifles, and in Japan you can't even have so much as a cap gun.

At 6/20/07 12:02 AM, TheSnakeSkull wrote: I understand like shotguns,revolvers,and stuff like that.
But when it comes to fucking rocket launchers, Ak-47's, and Sniper Rifles I just think that is too much.

1) No one is talking about rocket launchers.
2) There is nothing wrong with a civilian owning an AK-47. I can be used for hunting, and smaller calibur guns like it and the M-16/Mini-14 may be preferable in certain hunting/sporting venues than more traditional high-powered hunting rifles.
3) I have said this time and again and it is late where I am so please forgive the yelling as the Old Man of NG explains it one more time: PUT DOWN YOUR X-BOX CONTROLLER, STOP PLAYING HALO AND COME BACK TO REALITY! ALL A SNIPER RIFLE IS, IS A MODIFIED DEER RIFLE! The modifications made to the rifle itself is things that increase ACCURACY and not LETHALITY! These are modifications that make hunting SAFER and therefore should be ENCOURAGED in guns sold to hunters. However, the modifications made to the ammo is a different story and some speciality rounds should be regulated.
This said, yes I do realize that there are .50cal sniper rifles out there that resemble the Master Chief's rifle. However, these are exceptionally expensive and purchased 9.9 out of 10 by guys who actually use it to hunt big game (where a round that size is necessary) or hunting prarie dogs (which is just fun!).

At 6/17/07 04:24 PM, JakeHero wrote:

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.

Great, now I have a reason to take you apart along with your argument, going by THAT opening gambit.

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?

Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?

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.

Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.

Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?

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.

Great way to miss the point!

I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."

You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.

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

It seems to escape you lot, doesn't it - there's a big difference between having a gun and shooting somebody, and not having a gun and not shooting somebody.

In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned, so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire. Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?

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?

Congratulations for reaching the point where taking you seriously is nigh-on impossible by reaching the same point that everyone who has nothing to say makes with a textbook take on the "Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" argument.

Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation. Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis. Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.

You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.

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

A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.

Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?

Please, stop polluting the boards with your generic stupidity. We have enough people just likee you, making the same non-points on the same subject, yet seem to think people who disagree with you logically and concisely are the ones lacking credibility.

At 6/18/07 11:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Where is it illegal to possess a gun other than schools and government buildings?

That's my point! Your source is clearly ill informed.

End of story.

At 6/20/07 10:42 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?

And I am comfortable in the knowledge that such draconian measures will never be levied here in the states, despite whatever "good" points you and others like you may try to ram down my throat with your appeal to fear and ad hominem attacks.

A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
in·an·i·mate (ĭn-ān'ə-mĭt) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead.
2. Not animated or energetic; dull.
3. Grammar Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.

So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?

Most crimes are committed with illegally purchased guns anyway. Look at Columbine, V-Tech, Red Lake, and Camden.

At 6/20/07 01:58 PM, AcDiK-DR4G0N wrote: Look at Columbine,

Purchased legally, thanks to Robyn Anderson, Mark Manes, and Phillip Duran. Only Manes served jailtime for the Stawman Purchase.

V-Tech,

He bought them legally....

Red Lake

Stole them out of his grand-dad's unlocked gun cabinet.

and Camden.

The guy was a World War 2 veteran, and they allowed him to keep his firearms.

At 6/20/07 02:16 PM, TomsPulp wrote: no! purchased illegaly, the 1st people bought them legally, then the 2 kids illegaly bouth them, so THEY ILLEGALY BOUGHT THEM, but yea, i get what you mean, but technicly, they didnt legaly aquire them, but, yea...

It's called a Straw purchase, and it's a felony under federal law for both the legal purchaser and the illegal purchaser.

Try eliminating THAT crime under what the average gun control proponent likes to speil about.

At 6/20/07 01:42 PM, Proteas wrote:

So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?

Now, now, he's not saying that.

Guns are inanimate objects that ENABLE crimes.

At 6/20/07 04:15 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/20/07 01:42 PM, Proteas wrote:

So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?

Now, now, he's not saying that.

Guns are inanimate objects that ENABLE crimes.

In 1993 (a year before the AWB) the Dept of Justice (under Clinton) released a report that had the following to say about violent crime in America:

------------------------------
Use of weapons
-------------------------------

*Offenders used or possessed a weapon in an estimated 27% of
overall violent incidents, 8% of rapes/sexual assaults, 52% of
robberies, and 25% of assaults.

*Offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent
crimes; a knife in 6% and some other object used as a weapon in
5%.

Funny thing about this is that a weapon other than a gun is used in more crimes than in crimes where the perp is armed with a firearm...

Furthermore, when you talk about effectiveness I came across another statistic (I'll try to find later) that the worst massmurders in this country were done via bomb or arson. There goes the theory that a firearms restriction would've stopped Cho. Like I've said before, if he didn't have guns he would've most likely figured out how to build a bomb.

*Violent crimes by strangers were more likely than crimes by
nonstrangers to involve a weapon.

Also, here's something interesting on Self-Defense:

*In about 71% of all violent crimes, 81% of rapes and sexual
assaults, 61% of robberies, and 71% of assaults, victims took
some type of measure to protect themselves.

*Victims of violent crimes were more likely to report that a
protective measure they had taken helped the situation than a
measure that had been taken by someone else. The most common
way that victims reported their actions helped was by allowing
them to avoid injury altogether or to prevent greater injury.

SOURCE

Guess what this means? The individual's efforts were better at dealing with the situation than the police! Why? Often times the police are notified after the violent crime has been committed, or if notified during the incident it is more likely than not that they will be unable to respond until after the attack is over. And so my friends who think guns are for pussies or that not having a gun makes you safer, try dealing with an intruder when your wife is four months pregnant.

That happened to me. 9-1-1 said that they could not respond while he was breaking in; only after he was in the house. Had I not been armed and been a potential threat to the perp, the police would not have responded until he was in the house. At that point if the guy had been armed or violent my ex-wife, my unborn child and I could have been dead.

And this leads me into my next problem with the gun control argument over self-defense and the use of guns. Under the stats you like to throw around (I'm talking to you Illogical, my friend) what I described above would not have been counted as using a firearm in self-defense. See you do not have to draw down on or shoot a criminal to use a firearm in self-defense. In fact you are most effective when you and your family are barricaded in a room where a locked door is between you and the guy.

The reason is when he enters the room he does not know where you're at. However, he is in the "kill box"...you know where he is coming from. And you have an opportunity to keep the situation from escalating. When he tries the door you charge your gun (even if a round is already chambered) this lets him know you actually have a gun, this works well with a voice warning. 9 times out of 10, the perp will flee because he is not there to do violence and even if he is he is not so dedicated to hurting you that he will take that loosing risk.

However, if he keeps coming you know he's not there to give you flowers. If the door is not that heavy then you can effectively fire through it. If it is heavier wait until he kicks it down and open fire from a concealed position. You will be behind cover, and they will be nicely framed in your room's doorway. Easy shot.

And now you know the tactics of effective home defense: don't confront but play effective defense. And yet people who use these tactics are not figured into most studies of firearms used in self-defense.

gun control doesnt work

At 6/20/07 06:52 PM, TheMason wrote:

Had I not been armed and been a potential threat to the perp...

If you had looked carefully at the sources I provided, they state, in this one, for example:

"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."

So, in a significant percent of cases, the guy would have left. If yyou confronted him, you were more liikley to get injured. How's that sound?

http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract /273/22/1759 is my source, by the way.

*sigh*-the biggest problems are that too many restrictons would probably be impractical...also, the worst crimes are commited with weapons constructed by the criminal (ie-bombs) or are improvised (ie-planes, or a heavy, blunt object...)

At 6/20/07 10:42 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Great, now I have a reason to take you apart along with your argument, going by THAT opening gambit.

Well now I'm excited. Let's see how you do.

Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?

Could you be more specific with the wikipedia article? I do have a telepathic link to your brain stem and would know exactly what you mean when you say "same thing" and "wikipedia page" because there's only one page on wikipedia.

Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.

Okay, so imposing a ban on guns wouldn't disarm law-abiding citizens? By the way, what's the same argument WolvenBear and I use? I mean, I should totally know exactly what you mean off the bat, even if you weren't specific and just vague.

Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?

I misread your post. So sue me.

Great way to miss the point!

I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."

You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.

I was replying to your part about "pussyish."

In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,

They sure can't! http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wil son20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-ce nter Criminals are really fucked with these gun regulations! I like how you cleverely word it "average burglar" so you won't have to answer for the professional ones and the other violent criminals that do have guns and go unchecked.

so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire.

You do realize how ridiculous this sounds? All of a sudden, criminals are scared of lights in places? I'm pretty sure there are criminals that are willing to maim someone to get what they want in the house.

Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?

You are also forgetting the facts the burglar could be physically superior to person's whose house they're breaking into or just straight up psychopaths that get their kicks out of killing people.

Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation.

I know this. And I am arguing your regulation would do more harm than good.

Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis.

I didn't inject those into the argument.

Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.

Correction: I post links and the only outcome, you post hypotheticals without considering variables.

You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Every person who takes a gun safety course is taught that shooting and asking questions later or not remaining calm is a form of incompetence. So do you believe everyone with a handgun is going to become paranoid?

A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.

Um, guns ARE inanimate. What you listed isn't a criteria to be considered inanimate.

Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?

I'm all for that. Backround checks, waiting periods, clean record all I am arguing against is outlawing types of firearms.

Please, stop polluting the boards with your generic stupidity.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

We have enough people just likee you, making the same non-points on the same subject,

I think you misinterpreted my stance on the issue.

yet seem to think people who disagree with you logically and concisely are the ones lacking credibility.

I apologize if I gave off such arrogance.

I wont even go into statistics. Both sides of this debate have some highly bogus numbers, and honestly I am not even taking the time to look up the better resourses on this computer.

However I have a few things to point out since about 95% of you have no idea what in the hell your talking about.

1. A pistols, rifles, and shotguns all can cause injury and kill people. However owning or shooting one doesn't make you anymore likely to cause crime, or randomly rob people. If that were the case most soldiers, and police would be off shooting.

2. Claiming that a redneck will go crazy and shoot at random people is the worst concept ever. Thats basically saying the same thing as every black man who is on drugs will rape a white woman. Yes its basically racial against rednecks. Most rednecks (although there are always your local idiot who will kill someone be it a car or playing with explosive) probably are safer with firearms then most cops.

3. It doesn't matter if the weapon carries 6 rounds or 63. If you have ever seen Jerry Michlick(professional shooter name might be wrong) Shoot 3 targets 12 times with a revolver in 2.5 seconds.... well you get the point. If you don't think its possible for others to learn trust me your mistaken. Then again most of us who train are extremely cautious and very conscious of what a gun can and cant do and the legal ramifications.

4. My final bit. For those of you who idiotically claim that if 1 life is saved by the removal of firearms, then you should also understand that if a firearm is used to save someone they could be good. I have had stories of men at home who have protected there CHILDREN from people with knives, guns, and blunt objects. Women who have saved themselves from being raped because they carried a pistol.

I personally would rather have a firearm, then take the risk of not having on and needing one. I like smoke detectors in my house for the same reason I want a gun. Chances are my house will never burn down, but its nice to have something there that might save me.

At 6/20/07 10:42 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.

Hmmm, yet in MY argument I clearly announced that I was using appeal to emotion as a tool of mockery. Since you yourself had posted something to the effect of "why can't gun advocates get it...that they have blood on their hands", I mocked you.

By the way, the rest of the page is me tearing you a new one for refusing to address a single point I put up. You got your ass handed to you in that argument, btw.

It seems to escape you lot, doesn't it - there's a big difference between having a gun and shooting somebody, and not having a gun and not shooting somebody.

And you keep putting this shit up, and expecting it to be taken as gospel.
"No one had guns in England!" But the violent crime rate with guns went up. "It was only ONE city!" Yea, but that's the city that you claim all the crimes in England happen in. "AMERICA IS TEH VIOLENTZORS!"

You never contribute anything intelligent to the thread.

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?

Congratulations for reaching the point where taking you seriously is nigh-on impossible by reaching the same point that everyone who has nothing to say makes with a textbook take on the "Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" argument.

Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation. Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis. Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.

Yet, in places where guns are banned violent crime increases. Including with guns.
Washington DC is a great example.

As is England.

A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.

A gun is inanimate in teh same way a rock is. Guns don't shoot themselves. Rocks don't throw themselves. Now we don't know the basic meanings of words?

Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?

I have some 60 bladed weapons of multiple varieties. If it became illegal to own said weapons and I have no desire to give them back...guess what? I'll keep them. And if I am of criminal persuasion, I'll sell them to people who want to commit crimes.

Please, stop polluting the boards with your generic stupidity. We have enough people just likee you, making the same non-points on the same subject, yet seem to think people who disagree with you logically and concisely are the ones lacking credibility.

And it continues.

Never address any point ever made that proves you beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong. Simply bring up a new point. When owned there, bring up something else. When you have nothing intelligent to say, call your opponents trogdolytes.

Basic facts that you STILL won't adress:
England's murder rate is higher now than it was before the gun ban.
The drop of crime in England corresponds to new enforcement efforts, not any gun law.
The US violent crime rate rose last year, after a decade of decline.
Guns are still available in England.

I'm sure I'm missing some. But there's enough here to bury you on one more forum.

someone probably already said this but if there are no guns...
no problems.
Only Police and Military should have them and if the police and military want to run rouge with the guns, then they disgrace this nation even more.
Problem with this statement: smuggling.
Because everyone is trying to make an extra buck in America people will smuggle weapons to America, but the death toll by gun violence will go down because not many people will have a gun. 80 people everyday die to gun violence. Source
There is only one out of two things you can do with a gun: kill or severely hurt someone

At 6/21/07 12:54 AM, JakeHero wrote: You do realize how ridiculous this sounds? All of a sudden, criminals are scared of lights in places? I'm pretty sure there are criminals that are willing to maim someone to get what they want in the house.

Actually, 42% of criminals flee without confronting the victim.

"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."

Same source.

At 6/21/07 08:56 AM, Icyfire777 wrote: someone probably already said this but if there are no guns...
no problems.
Only Police and Military should have them and if the police and military want to run rouge with the guns, then they disgrace this nation even more.
Problem with this statement: smuggling.
Because everyone is trying to make an extra buck in America people will smuggle weapons to America, but the death toll by gun violence will go down because not many people will have a gun. 80 people everyday die to gun violence. Source
There is only one out of two things you can do with a gun: kill or severely hurt someone

Ok so you think getting rid of all guns is the solution? Well heres a little pointer some people dont know. Australia just got rid of guns and guess fucking what CRIME WENT UP MORE THAN 50%!!! Oh dear god what is happening Britian got rid of guns CRIME RATE WENT UP AGAIN HOLY FUCK WHAT DOES THIS MEAN???? Canada just "tried" to get rid of guns #1 noone turned in their guns #2 they lost money because adventurous hunters will not pay their bullshit tarrif to hunt #3 in general they fucked up and pissed off their people. Now how do you suppose getting rid of guns is a good thing?? Getting rid of guns is not the solution it makes the problem so much worse. Now take your head out of your ass and think about this does the gun pull the trigger no does the gun have a brain or ability to know its going to kill people no hmmm so who does this? The nut behind the buttstock thats who. As ive stated earlier and others have too GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE GUNS JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOME ASSHOLE WITH A GRUDGE TO KILL THESE PEOPLE.

At 6/20/07 09:10 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: How's that sound?

Sound's like sitting at on the other side of the day armed to the teeth and letting the intruder KNOW IT is just as effective as stepping out into the hall to SHOW HIM how armed you are, but that's just me.

If these debates have taught me anything, it's that you can use statistics to pretty much say whatever you want.

I have one question, just out of curiosity, how often do burglars actually break into houses while there are people there, solely for the pupose of becoming violent and fucking up the inhabitants?

I always wonder whether this is really a likely occurence or just a handgun owner's wet dream.

At 6/20/07 01:42 PM, Proteas wrote:
So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?

Until people somehow find a way to run into the bullets it fires (i.e. a projectile), it cannot be qualified as inanimate.

Also, they have moving parts. How else do you think the next bullet gets into the chamber - magic?!? It loads the bullets itself, and the bullets are what does the damage. It is not inanimate in the same way as a rock, because to use one as a weapon, you have to pick it up and throw it. A gun you just point and pull the trigger, it does the rest for you.

At 6/21/07 03:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: it does the rest for you.

But by simple definition, a gun is not an animate object, D2K, I've already shown that. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but you are factually WRONG on this matter and you know it.

At 6/21/07 12:54 AM, JakeHero wrote:

Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?

Could you be more specific with the wikipedia article? I do have a telepathic link to your brain stem and would know exactly what you mean when you say "same thing" and "wikipedia page" because there's only one page on wikipedia.

So, you've forgotten you posted the link to the Wikipedia article on appealing to emotion, then?

Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.

Okay, so imposing a ban on guns wouldn't disarm law-abiding citizens? By the way, what's the same argument WolvenBear and I use? I mean, I should totally know exactly what you mean off the bat, even if you weren't specific and just vague.

"Gun control disarms law abiding citizens"
"YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG"

Same argument. Sorry if you find this somewhat vague and non-specific, but I guess that's your problem for not having the intellect to think laterally.

By the way, Wolfy, your climbdown by saying it was mockery sounded forced when you were shot down before, so trying it again helps you...how?

Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?

I misread your post. So sue me.

No, I'll just point out you can't read, so your credibility goes downhill. Sorry.

Great way to miss the point!

I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."

You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.

I was replying to your part about "pussyish."

And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly - a way to desensitise yourself from the fact you're killing somebody which you generally don't get when stabbing etc. It's the easy way to do what should be a hard job.

In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,

They sure can't! http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wil son20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-ce nter Criminals are really fucked with these gun regulations! I like how you cleverely word it "average burglar" so you won't have to answer for the professional ones and the other violent criminals that do have guns and go unchecked.

And your professional burglar will want to add murder to their sentence, which is 25 years on top of the 10 they'll get...why? Don't be so fucking stupid.

so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire.

You do realize how ridiculous this sounds? All of a sudden, criminals are scared of lights in places? I'm pretty sure there are criminals that are willing to maim someone to get what they want in the house.

It's called being afraid as they have been detected, which if you're a criminal you don't particularly want as it leads to arrest, sentencing, prison...you get the idea? Why hang around and risk being identified when you can run for it?

Is basic psychology somehow above you?

Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?

You are also forgetting the facts the burglar could be physically superior to person's whose house they're breaking into or just straight up psychopaths that get their kicks out of killing people.

I repeat, if you risk getting a sentence for burglary, why would you want to add assault or murder to your sentence?

Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.

Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation.

I know this. And I am arguing your regulation would do more harm than good.

No, you're arguing because you can hit reply, despite having nothing to say and/or add. Big difference.

Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis.

I didn't inject those into the argument.

"Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" - JakeHero, 17th June 2007.

You did - charcoal and white.

Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.

Correction: I post links and the only outcome, you post hypotheticals without considering variables.

Correction: you post links to the Wikipedia definition of appealing to emotion and random bits on Youtube inbetween reams and reams of incoherant paranoiac's ramblings.

You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Every person who takes a gun safety course is taught that shooting and asking questions later or not remaining calm is a form of incompetence. So do you believe everyone with a handgun is going to become paranoid?

A good percentile of 15,000 people per year would testify if they weren't, you know, dead due to a paranoiac with a handgun.

A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.

Um, guns ARE inanimate. What you listed isn't a criteria to be considered inanimate.

Do people run into bullets at a fast enough speed to have a fatal wound? Strangely, no. That implies animation, then.

Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?

I'm all for that. Backround checks, waiting periods, clean record all I am arguing against is outlawing types of firearms.

Using an article that bitches about the NY Times "editorialising", yet doing it themselves? And if you read the article, you'd note this passage:

"There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. "

Sorry, isn't that what I've been saying - easy access to guns means any wannabe two-bit gangsta can get a gun and will be stupid with it?

Sorry, a background check may not pick up on their gang history/membership, for the simple reason that a background check on Ted Bundy wouldn't scream "potential serial killer" at you.

This is a generic fallback - indeed all your proposed measures are - yet none of them are remotely foolproof. Come on, Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm (let alone two), but did. Enough people have sat through their waiting periods to get hold of a gun, then used it in the manner it wasn't sold for (although it was designed for). And i's easy to have a clean record before you shoot somebody - Harris and Klebold did, among others.

At 6/21/07 03:52 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, you've forgotten you posted the link to the Wikipedia article on appealing to emotion, then?

Yes, I remember that one, but like I said sarcastically, it's not the only one. So don't be a little bitch when I don't recall the exact one you mean unless you tell me.

"Gun control disarms law abiding citizens"
"YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG"

Those aren't the same. One is stating a fact nonchalantly, the other points a finger and is ad-hominem, of course, I'm sure you consider the latter a form of debate.

Same argument. Sorry if you find this somewhat vague and non-specific, but I guess that's your problem for not having the intellect to think laterally.

No, I just wouldn't know what you mean if you're not specific, considering they're many other things I posted before having to witness you menstrating.

No, I'll just point out you can't read, so your credibility goes downhill. Sorry.

So you've never misread anything before? You're sounding more and more like an asshole.

And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly

And I repeat, if it is cowardly why don't you take on fifteen people with just your fist?

In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,

And your professional burglar will want to add murder to their sentence, which is 25 years on top of the 10 they'll get...why? Don't be so fucking stupid.

Um, I'm pretty sure if they have a gun the person, whose house they're robbing, would be powerless to stop them?

It's called being afraid as they have been detected, which if you're a criminal you don't particularly want as it leads to arrest, sentencing, prison...you get the idea? Why hang around and risk being identified when you can run for it?

And I'll say the samething: they will still be some that are willing to fight and hurt people if the house has something that robber wants. What's so fucking hard about that to understand?

Is basic psychology somehow above you?

And is not being a pompous, little twat beyond your ability?

Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.

Please quit pelting me with your hubris and hypothetical bullshit.

No, you're arguing because you can hit reply, despite having nothing to say and/or add. Big difference.

Now you're starting to entertain me. You chide me for not adding anything new, but all you're doing is A) Dedicating a post to attack me and B) Repeating the same liners as if frequency will make them right all of a sudden.

"Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" - JakeHero, 17th June 2007.

Guess I should of put in gun violence. See, it's not so easy to understand what someone's talking about unless specific, eh D2?

Correction: you post links to the Wikipedia definition of appealing to emotion and random bits on Youtube inbetween reams and reams of incoherant paranoiac's ramblings.

How many links have you posted, asshole? Basically, all you've done is prove how fucking little you know about english with your poor-wordplay and excessive bitching about me and WolvenBear.

A good percentile of 15,000 people per year would testify if they weren't, you know, dead due to a paranoiac with a handgun.

And I'll repeat, it's they're own fault, people are instructed not to be so trigger-happy with their guns. Banning pools because some jackasses forget the proper procedures isn't the sensible thing to do.

Do people run into bullets at a fast enough speed to have a fatal wound? Strangely, no. That implies animation, then.

Umm, animate means alive, it's not a synonym for moveable. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/animate Better watch your asses, everyone! D2 will serious pwn your ass with his perfect knowledge of words!

Using an article that bitches about the NY Times "editorialising", yet doing it themselves? And if you read the article, you'd note this passage:

"There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. "

Sorry, isn't that what I've been saying - easy access to guns means any wannabe two-bit gangsta can get a gun and will be stupid with it?

And I'll say what I said before, I'm for making it more difficult to acquire guns, what I'm against is outlawing types of guns. Gun stores would still sell them, the only effect a ban would have is slight inflation in price, not to mention private manufacturers.

Sorry, a background check may not pick up on their gang history/membership, for the simple reason that a background check on Ted Bundy wouldn't scream "potential serial killer" at you.

No, but chances are they've been involved in criminal behavior before. If it shows up on the screen they knocked over a liquor store or assaulted someone then it'll be illegal to sell them the gun.

This is a generic fallback - indeed all your proposed measures are - yet none of them are remotely foolproof.

The only thing I have proposed is making it more difficult. No shit that isn't infallible, but it's a good start.

Come on, Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm (let alone two), but did.

And then I'll tell you what I told two other people. He got it due to a technicality of having confidentiality of his therapy. Right now there's legislature that would patch this loophole and I'm all for it.

whats the point for gun control even if we do have it there will come along another psycho like cho who will get firearms from illegal gun dealers coming in from Mexico who has ak-47's uzi's and tech-9's.....all we need is a big ass fence on the mexican border like the berlin wall of America.....

the one thing that pisses me off more about the gun control peepz is that they 2 stupid to realize is that while takin guns away wont stop the crime but it will stop ppl from gettin killed as often.

plus think about it. if 2 ppl got in a fight and only had fists to fight with, the worst thing that could happen is a bloody nose or a several day hospital stay.

but give those two ppl guns and one is gonna get killed.

simple but the pro gun ppl r to fuykin stupid to kno thaty

um....you can kill people with your fists and if i cant use my gun i'll use my foot long hunting knife!