Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

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!

---

At 6/21/07 10:29 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

:: "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."

Please stop posting this as some sort of mantra...it is too vague to base any solid conclusions off of.

For example, is that all crimes? If a guy is looking to steal a TV, chances are he's not there intending to do the property owner harms. It is a common attitude that burglars think they are stealing from the home owner's insurance company rather than from the home owner directly. In this case of crime the individual criminal has just as much incentive not to escalate the situation.

However, in the case of violent crime (assault, rape or murder) the criminal intent is to CONFRONT the victim. Therefore the victim has little choice but to confront the assailant. In these cases a person armed with a firearm is more likely not to get hurt or get hurt less.

However, we do agree that a victim of crime should not seek to escalate the situation. If there is a burglar in the house call the cops...but do not go and try and find him. If you are armed your advantage is severely curtailed and if the other guy gets the upper hand he now has your gun and your family is defensless. If you must shoot, shoot to kill and only as a last resort.

Good attempt my friend, but the argument falls flat.

---

At 6/21/07 06:31 PM, AfroJustice wrote: 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

Afro, if you are going to call someone stupid learn to spell and use proper English like any literate person should.

Secondly, there is data that shows that simply banning guns from the non-criminal citizenry does not lead to less murders. This is simplistic bumper sticker logic that has no factual basis. However, there are data sets/studies out there that show that initiatives such as concealed carry permits result in a reduced rate of violent crime.

---

At 6/21/07 03:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

First of all D2K, I would like to address the problem of citing Wikipedia. It has its flaws and I would never use it in writing a paper either professionally or for school. Nor would I accept it as a source from one of my future students.

However, in the NP Politics forum I believe it has a place.
* Wiki articles do a decent enough job at providing background on a subject and saves time when you are trying to craft a post that requires some context.
* They are written so as to be easy to read, about on a High School reading level. Thus using it as a source helps the author craft a post that is more accessible to a wider audience.
* It is sourced and it is up to the author and reader on whether or not to accept what the Wiki article has is correct, or if the sources should be investigated further.

I think that to discredit someone who uses Wiki infrequently or in a responsible manner is just arrogance (and coming from me that means alot...just ask Demosthenez! lol) and a way for you to stick your head in the sand and ignore the person's argument.

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

Yes it can be qualified as inanimate:

Main Entry: in·an·i·mate
Pronunciation: (")i-'na-n&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin inanimatus, from Latin in- + animatus, past participle of animare to animate
1 : not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <a n inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <a n inanimate body>
2 : not animated or lively : DULL
- in·an·i·mate·ly adverb
- in·an·i·mate·ness noun

Just so you are aware of the meaning of the word animate:

Main Entry: 1an·i·mate
Pronunciation: 'a-n&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin animatus, past participle of animare to give life to, from anima breath, soul; akin to Old English Othian to breathe, Latin animus spirit, Greek anemos wind, Sanskrit aniti he breathes
1 : possessing or characterized by life : ALIVE
2 : full of life : ANIMATED
3 : of or relating to animal life as opposed to plant life
4 : referring to a living thing <a n animate noun>
- an·i·mate·ly adverb
- an·i·mate·ness noun

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.

And once again you are wrong. A rock or a gun can NEVER be animate outside of science fiction. Animate (in the adjective form that is pertinet to the discussion we are having) means not only life but it applies only to animal life and not plant life. The gun or rock does not gain reason, thought or a soul because you pull its trigger or throw it. Therefore a gun, bullet and rock is an inanimate object.

The word I think you are thinking of is:
Main Entry: in·ert
Pronunciation: i-'n&rt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inert-, iners unskilled, idle, from in- + art-, ars skill -- more at ARM
1 : lacking the power to move
2 : very slow to move or act : SLUGGISH
3 : deficient in active properties; especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action
synonym see INACTIVE
- inert noun
- in·ert·ly adverb
- in·ert·ness noun

SOURCE

---

At 6/21/07 03:31 PM, D2Kvirus 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?

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.

I feel I have to address this, because this is just silly. A gun may have parts in it that move, but none of these parts do so without some mechanical force acted upon some part of a gun. Only a gun that can fire itself autonomously, without any aid from any outside force, can be called animate.

Secondly, a bullet is not necessarily a part of a gun. It is a secondary device that can be used with a gun, but a gun can exist without the presence of any ammunition. At any rate, a bullet still requires some force to be applied in order for it to be propelled

Lastly, your example seems to be of an auto, or semi-auto gun. There are many types of guns that do not automatically load a bullet into the chamber (and even that motion is due to the mechanical action of pulling the trigger, which causes one part of the gun to act upon another, eventually leading to the propulsion of the bullet and reloading of the gun), guns that do not eject shell casings, and guns that do not require triggers at all.

Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

---

At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

Even when something moves them (which is what D2K was saying made them animate), the gun and bullet are still inanimate. Neither object possesses any kind of inate reason, consciousness or life.

* A gun does not think about whether or not what it does is right or wrong.
* A gun does not analyze why it exists.
* A gun does not procreate, eat, or breathe...it is not alive.

Therefore, final answer is that a gun is NEVER (outside of Science Fiction) animate. It is either in motion or inert.

---

At 6/21/07 02:33 PM, Proteas wrote: If these debates have taught me anything, it's that you can use statistics to pretty much say whatever you want.

"There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."
-Mark Twain

---

At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

Even when something moves them (which is what D2K was saying made them animate), the gun and bullet are still inanimate. Neither object possesses any kind of inate reason, consciousness or life.

* A gun does not think about whether or not what it does is right or wrong.
* A gun does not analyze why it exists.
* A gun does not procreate, eat, or breathe...it is not alive.

Therefore, final answer is that a gun is NEVER (outside of Science Fiction) animate. It is either in motion or inert.

I was addressing what he believed animate to be and I believed that I had covered that point in saying that guns can't attack autonomously, but yeah, you're right.

---

Those who think gun control will help are most likely wrong because it will have the same effect as prohibition drinking and crime were theorized to decrease but, the opposite happened organized crime grew and alcohol consumption went up.

---

At 6/21/07 03:52 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

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

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.

D2K,

For me the purpose of owning a weapon is to use it as an option of last resort when violence is the only recourse left to defend yourself and/or your family. In such a case a real man has a responsibility to quickly and effectively remove the threat to his family leaving little to no doubt of the outcome. This is how you keep your family from being raped/murdered in the first place. In the home defense scenario training, shrewdness and mental toughness will beat brawn in every case.

Secondly, a knife will probably not be effective in the hands of my 115lbs, 5'6" ex-wife against most men. So should be denied the ability to defend herself? Furthermore, should she be denied the security of her ex or current husband having the means to ensure the outcome of a confrontation with an assailant is in her favor? Should she be denied these things because of your testosterone and archaic notions of machismo & maniless?

Furthermore, killing another human being should be an easy thing to do. Fighting with deadly weapons should be a last resort and only in situations where there is good reason. An insult against a person's wife should not resort to gun or knife play. A good pummeling maybe. An assailant seeking to do bodily harm to you (without provocation) or your wife/children should be taken down as easily as a deer or any other wild animal.

If you think this is cowardice then maybe you and the rest of the psychopathic barbarians should go off to some island and slaughter each other with your swords. Help humanity by deepening the gene pool. I'll stay behind and be a coward.

---

what the hell...if gun control is gonna be a big problem why doesnt That dumbass in the white house step in? heck hes probley got an M4A1 hidden in the oval office....do not blame the killers for this blame president bush for not enforcing gun control

---

you know you can get 50 cal rifles from cabela's? thats why we needs some level of gun control....but then i wouldnt get to blow deer in half with a 12.7mm 50 caliber steel core full copper jacket round...

---

At 6/21/07 08:26 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote:

At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

I was addressing what he believed animate to be and I believed that I had covered that point in saying that guns can't attack autonomously, but yeah, you're right.

I understand and appreciate that, I just noticed that the last part of the first sentence listed above actually agreed with him...and I know that was not what you were trying to say. Just laying the ground work for the next time he logs onto this thread.

---

At 6/21/07 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:

Secondly, there is data that shows that simply banning guns from the non-criminal citizenry does not lead to less murders.

Firstly, where is this magical data? And I'd like to know what banning guns causes if not less violence.

Come on, don't be silly:

According to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.p df, there were 1,228,000 rejections for gun permits or transfers from 1994 to 2004. What does that mean? That means that there were good reasons for denying these permits...

---

At 6/21/07 09:16 PM, HomicideJack wrote: you know you can get 50 cal rifles from cabela's? thats why we needs some level of gun control....but then i wouldnt get to blow deer in half with a 12.7mm 50 caliber steel core full copper jacket round...

Nevermind that the 50 caliber rifles available from cabela's are simple deer hunting rifles and not the high powered military model 50 caliber rifle made by Ronnie Barret that are loaded with a highly powerful round only available to military and law enforcement personel, your simple little brain interpreted that to mean you could buy something inherintly dangerous, didn't it?

You intellectually dishonest little shit.

---

At 6/21/07 09:46 PM, Tal-con wrote: That's all you'll ever need, not including hunting rifles, of course.

Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle. We go from a small handheld weapon used spray a large amount of ammunition at short range, more for the purpose of INJURING people than KILLING them, to a weapon specifically designed to kill...

Brilliant.

And I would also like to point out, because I've lost track by now who said or in which topic it was said, but you can't buy gun's on ebay. You can buy parts, but that's it. If Cho was buying them piece by piece on ebay and assembling them in his dorm, it would have taken a helluva lot longer than 2 months to get everything he needed.

---

At 6/21/07 09:46 PM, Tal-con wrote: http://www.joycefdn.org/News/NewsDetails.aspx ?NewsId=126

Police stings on corrupt gun dealers: Most gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own a firearm; sales to such people are by definition illegal. ATF data show that a tiny fraction – 1 percent – of gun dealers are the original source of 57 percent of the guns police later recover from criminals; guns from these stores make their way, directly or indirectly, into illegal gun markets.

I really need to thank cellardoor for that source. Not only did he prove my point, but he helped mine as well. Most gun crimes are committed by people who own the gun illegally, but guns on the black market tend to come from gun stores.

Umm...he didn't really do anything to support your point at all. This is you reading into the above quote.

1) That does not mean that gun dealers are knowingly supply the black market. How many of these guns were sold to law abiding citizens and then stolen?
2) How many of these guns were purchased as straw purchases (someone who has the legal ability to buy a gun and then turns around and gives/sells it to someone who legally cannot)?
3) How many of these were bought legally and then used in a crime of passion?

The problem with this issue is that statistics can be very subjective and it is hard to find an unbiased source. Once a study is released that supports one side or another, it is almost immediately co-opted by that side. (ie: look at this great study I found originally published in whatever scholarly journal on the NRA/Handgun Control Inc website!)

---

At 6/21/07 10:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle.

Assault weapons are better for killing people in urban environments or close quarters. Also, like other semi-auto weapons, they are faster firing. They can have features like folding stocks etc.

---

mines high power my friend from the junkyard modified it its powerful enough to blow throush steel...

---

At 6/21/07 10:28 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/21/07 10:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle.

Assault weapons are better for killing people in urban environments or close quarters. Also, like other semi-auto weapons, they are faster firing. They can have features like folding stocks etc.

AWs (the term itself is misleading) account for 4-8% of the crime committed in the US. They are simply not a problem because even with folding stocks they are not especially well-suited for crime sprees.

As for "spraying bullets", arson is much preferred in murdering more than 4 people at a time...

Guns with folding stocks are sometimes singled out for harsh treatment. For example, the New Jersey legislature's "assault weapon" ban outlaws the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, but only the model with a folding stock.[63] A folding stock makes a gun shorter and easier to carry, thus making it useful to hunters. A folding stock also makes a gun more maneuverable in a confined setting such as a home, and hence harder (p.399)for an attacker to take away.[64] The reduced size makes the gun easier to conceal, for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Unless all handguns are also deemed illegitimate, because they are far more concealable than rifles in any configuration, there is no rational claim that a rifle's folding stock makes it less legitimate than other firearms.

---

i can put a 4 inch gap in a steel door