Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/21/07 10:48 PM, HomicideJack wrote: mines high power my friend from the junkyard modified it its powerful enough to blow throush steel...

Umm...I kindof gotta raise the bullshit flag on this one. How did he modify it? Did he change the calibur of the rifle or did he tinker with reloading?

At 6/21/07 10:50 PM, HomicideJack wrote: i can put a 4 inch gap in a steel door

Did he install a .50 cal flux-capacitor?

we need to get ahold of DAO-12 Striker shotguns Pancor JackHammer auto shotguns and 20mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft long-range high power sniper rifles...

i dunno he just modified it while i was blowing up junk in his 10 acre junkyard...

At 6/21/07 10:12 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

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.

The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his or her firearm more than once.

SOURCE

Looks like guns save more lives than they take (which is more? 2.5M or 36G?)

Another link

Ah, yes, the well known academic source Beast Enterprises.

On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." No effect. Ok, I can buy that. Positive effect? Highly improbable, they say.

And a study that I've repeatedly cited that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property." And "A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that, and I quote: " Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

okay so my opinion on gun control is prolly similar to alot of people,

1: totally outlawing guns= retarded
2: Background Checks FTW
3: I think there should be a limit to how many guns you can buy within a certain amount of time.
like maybe 1 gun a month...
4: You can't ban certain guns, cuz in the name of self defence you should at least be able to own a gun of equal quality that a criminal is going to get ilegally.

At 6/20/07 11:06 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

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.

I provided more than one source, but you ignored it, but I'll address that in a bit.

End of story.

Nope. You're just saying that because it entirely destroyed the false point you made.

At 6/20/07 09:10 PM, 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."

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?

It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

There are SO many things wrong with that source. look (same link):

1) It wasn't a nation-wide study; it was only for Atlanta, Georgia. It was one single city which isn't a key for the rest of the country.
2) It only included home invasions. It didn't mention assaults, attempted murders, rapes etc... that take place outside of the home.
3) The study was extrapolated from only 198 cases, hardly large enough to create a tolerable margin of error.
4) Only 3 of the victims (1.5%) in those 198 cases used firearms to defend themselves, therefore you're not using an applicable source to come to your wacky conclusion that firearms aren't practical in defensive use.

Moving on

I want you to accept reality, and this is key now - It is a FACT that legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes and that legal gun owners use firearms defensively ALOT, and do so more than they commit crime with those firearms. Let’s go over the facts:

1) There are about 400,000 firearm crimes in the US annually.

2) The majority of this firearm crime is committed by people who do not and cannot legally own firearms. Therefore at least 200,000 gun crimes are committed by people who are not legally eligible to purchase/own firearms (probably a lot more than that).

3) Now, in order for defensive gun uses to balance out and statistically negate the less than 200,000 gun crimes committed by legal owners (remember that is a generously high stat), law abiding citizens would only have to use firearms defensively <200,000 times.

4) Guess what? Between 13 studies (not even including the Kleck study you don't trust), on average, 800,000 - 2.5 Million Defensive gun uses occur annually in the US.

5) You might say something along the lines of "but if there was no legal ownership, criminals wouldn't steal them in order to use them. Cut off legal purchase and there will be no guns to steal" well that is wrong and has proven to not work. I've used the hell out of these links, but it is so incredibly convenient:

The UK banned handguns in 1997 in order to lessen gun violence. And of course, this didn't work and actually had the opposite desired effect. The use of handguns in crime went up drastically, going up 40% in 2 years. Then gun crime went up 35% in one year, and doubled 6 years into the ban. In 2003 they had twice the gun crime they did in 1997 before the ban.

You get that? It's reasonable to suggest that their gun violence went up because criminals were emboldened and aided by the absence of concealed firearm carry by the citizens they prey on, because less armed citizens with concealable weapons means less crimes prevented in defensive use.

Now… that’s the UK we’re talking about. They’re not exactly an arms dump, they don’t exactly have thousands of guns lying around unaccounted for like we do due to years of criminal activity/smuggling etc... They don’t border a virtual, gigantic arms dump like Mexico.

But what happened in the UK proved something - preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns is entirely ridiculous and based on the most horrendously flawed logic. By doing such a stupid, misguided thing, all they did was punish and target the people who are the least likely segment of society to use firearms in crime, while giving a boost to people who commit crime, attain firearms regardless of the law, and who can rest assured the innocent people they prey on aren't armed.

So what’s the point, what good would targeting legal gun ownership in the US do even though legal gun owners aren't the ones committing the crime and are actually preventing crime at an exponentially higher rate than they are committing it, all while preventing crimes perpetrated by CRIMINALS?

Wake up, my friend. Legal ownership is a GOOD thing. Denying it only takes the guns out of the hands of people who would otherwise be eligible to buy them, and therefore have no criminal record and would statistically be much less likely to use a gun in crime than the people who - guess what - aren't AFFECTED AT ALL BY GUN CONTROL: THE CRIMINAL.

Legal ownership of firearms in the US prevents crime, reducing legal ownership has increased crime in other countries

k....thx....buhbai

I've got an idea for gun control.

Outlaw guns.

In every state.

There are two arguments "Guns kill people" so we should ban them. True.
Then theres the alternative argument. "Gun control doesn't work because statistically, people in states where the purchase is banned or difficult to obtain a license still have a high incidence of murder."

Well I'll go with the earlier argument considering the last post was a puff piece on statistics.
This isn't a fucking math lesson. Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem. A major argument is "if people in virginia tech had rights to a gun less people would have died". Here's a better one. If a mentally deranged psychopath couldn't acquire a gun in the first place NO people would have died. At best ONE person gets stabbed and everybody runs away.

And if someone wants to get statistical then we can look at the murder per capita rate by country.

United States 5.28
Switzerland 1.42
Canada 0.47
Sweden 0.42
Australia 0.07
UK 0.06

expressed per 100 000 people.

WOW THATS A FUCKING SURPRISE THE TWO COUNTRIES WITH THE MOST GUNS ARE SWITZERLAND AND US WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE MOST MURDERS

Gun control doesnt work because its only applied state-to-state. Apply it nation-wide and statistics will show it does work as stated above, don't stress your brains too much on proper research trigger happy psychopaths.

At 6/22/07 05:44 AM, tony4moroney wrote: I've got an idea for gun control.

Outlaw guns.

It's funny how in the "If you don't like America, get out" thread you were ripping Bush for what you deemed to be unconstitutional acts, yet right now you just proposed ACTUALLY doing something entirely contrary to the 2nd amendment, therefore ACTUALLY going against the constitution.

Well I'll go with the earlier argument considering the last post was a puff piece on statistics.
This isn't a fucking math lesson.

And that is why people like you are uneducated enough in the subject to actually say the stupid shit you've been saying.

Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem.

1) It's a constitutional right to own guns. Getting rid of legal ownership would void the constitution and negate a founding principle our country.

2) Cars kill people, motorcycles kill people. They kill ALOT more people than guns do in the US so should we get rid of guns too?

3) By "getting rid" of guns you're implying banning guns... which wouldn't get rid of guns, it would only get rid of legal ownership, which AS I PROVED prevents more crime than it causes.

4) We can't force other countries to stop producing guns, we can't prevent all guns from being smuggled into our country. We can't find and destroy all the guns that are in our country right now that are unaccounted for. Therefore "getting rid of guns" will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the people who ACTUALLY CAUSE THE GUN VIOLENCE would obey no such law. Gun violence would actually go up because criminals would have defenseless citizens as prey.

5) For someone who accuses Bush of being Nazi-esque, it's odd for you to support an ENTIRELY intrusive government act, against the constitution, thus preventing the US from maintaining its goal of being a country that cannot be taken over by a tyrant or foreign occupier. You know that every single genocide, every single massive government-sponsored murder, every single totalitarian state in the world enforced gun control before they took power?

A major argument is "if people in virginia tech had rights to a gun less people would have died". Here's a better one. If a mentally deranged psychopath couldn't acquire a gun in the first place NO people would have died.

Banning guns doesn't mean that the mentally deranged psychopath wouldn't have gotten guns anyway. In fact, STATISTICALLY he was a fluke and STATISTICALLY, if he was denied the purchase he could have and would have gotten a gun through illegal means.

And if someone wants to get statistical then we can look at the murder per capita rate by country.

You provided no link and no context for those statistics...

WOW THATS A FUCKING SURPRISE THE TWO COUNTRIES WITH THE MOST GUNS ARE SWITZERLAND AND US WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE MOST MURDERS

Are you retarded?. Murder rates aren't only indicative of gun ownership. Murder and gun violence can be determined by race, geography, demographics, population density etc... the US has a large amount of minorities (1/3rd of the population) that statistically commit more crime and murder than whites. The US borders Mexico, which is a gigantic smuggler of drugs and guns. The US has a much higher proportion of urban-dwelling people, and MANY other factors that contribute to higher murder rates.

Gun laws aren't the only determining factor. That is why, in the UK, which has a lower murder rate (due to a lot of variables) when they banned hanguns, handgun crime WENT UP by an exponential margin. How do you explain that then if getting rid of LEGAL gun ownership gets "rid of gun violence" huh? YOU'RE WRONG!

If you actually read the statistics I provided, you would have realized it. But you're so bent on repeating the typical, misguided, entirely UNFOUNDED nonsense that people like you do, that you can't even see reality.

At 6/22/07 04:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 4) Guess what? Between 13 studies (not even including the Kleck study you don't trust), on average, 800,000 - 2.5 Million Defensive gun uses occur annually in the US.

I read those, and while I really, really dislike "guncite.com," I can't help but to acknowledge that they exist.

Personally, I like this guy Dr. David Hemenway, Harvard '66 and Harvard PhD '74.

Here's one article about him: http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433 .html

And here's a paper of his: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm It's on the website of the Second Amendment Foundation, a pro-gun site, and yet the paper says:

"The fact that the survey is trying to estimate a low probability event also means that a small percentage bias, when extrapolated, can lead to extreme overestimates. "

"The K-G survey design contains a huge overestimation bias. The authors do little to reduce the bias or to validate their findings by external measures. All checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated."

"NCVS results indicate that, nationally, victims use guns against offenders approximately 65,000 times per year. [6] Kleck believes people under- report to the government NCVS interviewers, especially since the surveys are not anonymous. He also finds fault with the NCVS survey for asking about self- defense gun use only for individuals who have been victimized. [7] Interestingly, it is this latter feature of the NCVS which dramatically reduces the overestimation bias found in the private surveys."

And, remember, the NCVS says: "an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns."

Worse, says the NCVS, "BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually
involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds
of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost
one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts
or burglaries from stores or other businesses." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsd aft.pr)

At 6/22/07 08:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Gun laws aren't the only determining factor. That is why, in the UK, which has a lower murder rate (due to a lot of variables) when they banned hanguns, handgun crime WENT UP by an exponential margin. How do you explain that then if getting rid of LEGAL gun ownership gets "rid of gun violence" huh? YOU'RE WRONG!

If you actually read the statistics I provided, you would have realized it. But you're so bent on repeating the typical, misguided, entirely UNFOUNDED nonsense that people like you do, that you can't even see reality.

You're conflating "gun crime" with "gun violence"

You've done this many, many times.

Also, you're using the phrase "exponential increase" to describe their gun problem in an attempt to make it sound super-dire, but you're aware of what an exponential increase is, right? A steady increase of 0.0000001% per year is an example of exponential growth.

The way to be accurate and alarming is to say that crimes in which a handgun was reported doubled over a period of six years.

Unfortunately you also neglect to mention that a lot of the "handguns" used in crimes are replicas that aren't capable of firing rounds.

I've got an idea for gun control.

Outlaw guns.

It's funny how in the "If you don't like America, get out" thread you were ripping Bush for what you deemed to be unconstitutional acts, yet right now you just proposed ACTUALLY doing something entirely contrary to the 2nd amendment, therefore ACTUALLY going against the constitution.

I'm aware that preventing gun ownership is unconstitutional. Its my personal opinion that guns should be outlawed. The difference is Bush impeachs upon constitutional rights without justifiable reason. You think throwing people into Guantanemo Bay without a right to a hearing, Torturing people, spying and impeding upon individual freedom, writing out habeas corpus is comparable to gun ownership? Youre sadly mistaken.

Well I'll go with the earlier argument considering the last post was a puff piece on statistics.
This isn't a fucking math lesson.

And that is why people like you are uneducated enough in the subject to actually say the stupid shit you've been saying.

Funny because I justified that statement below, i wanted to make it simple and concise. If the detractors wanted to argue Gun-Prohibitions weren't stemming violence all they had to do was look at the international statistics to be proven wrong. As opposed to looking at it state by state which is a flawed analysis as i discussed.
i.e if it was an argument about statistics, theyd be mistaken.

Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem.

1) It's a constitutional right to own guns. Getting rid of legal ownership would void the constitution and negate a founding principle our country.

2) Cars kill people, motorcycles kill people. They kill ALOT more people than guns do in the US so should we get rid of guns too?

I just said yes we should get rid of guns. And no cars and motorcycles kill people but theyre rarely used with the INTENT to kill. key difference. fucking ridicolous analogy buddy.

3) By "getting rid" of guns you're implying banning guns... which wouldn't get rid of guns, it would only get rid of legal ownership, which AS I PROVED prevents more crime than it causes.

No, I'm talking about outlawing guns and removing them. Also, I insinuated that guns werent the only problem. its a culture. USA has the highest per capita rate of murders in the developed world. its a reality buddy. Case in point Australia and the UK had legalised gun control + after banning it, over time gun ownership was reduced, its virtually non-existent and now murder-rates by firearms have reduced - dramatically.

4) We can't force other countries to stop producing guns, we can't prevent all guns from being smuggled into our country. We can't find and destroy all the guns that are in our country right now that are unaccounted for. Therefore "getting rid of guns" will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the people who ACTUALLY CAUSE THE GUN VIOLENCE would obey no such law. Gun violence would actually go up because criminals would have defenseless citizens as prey.

Your opinion is gun violence would go up. YOUR OPINION. your opinion is that criminals would go trigger happy. don't present it as irrefutable fact when it is blatantly opinion. For a guy that loves flaming me youre really sucking at it. AGAIN. You cannot prevent guns from being smuggled in completely, but you can try to breed your country out of a trigger-happy culture. You can also reduce the amount of guns easily accesible on the street. As all the said countries have done.

5) For someone who accuses Bush of being Nazi-esque, it's odd for you to support an ENTIRELY intrusive government act, against the constitution, thus preventing the US from maintaining its goal of being a country that cannot be taken over by a tyrant or foreign occupier. You know that every single genocide, every single massive government-sponsored murder, every single totalitarian state in the world enforced gun control before they took power?

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, UK, Australia. You really think a tyrant is going to rise through the ranks and overtake these countries? NEVER has it happened. This is total horseshit. You know what else tyrants done to rise into power? Impose upon civil rights, breed a culture of zealous patriotism, condemn another country as being pure evil, claim they were divinely right and suggesting anything stated against them was unpatriotic and an inhibor to the cause. Have a guess which country has committed this. USA. Read: fascism

A major argument is "if people in virginia tech had rights to a gun less people would have died". Here's a better one. If a mentally deranged psychopath couldn't acquire a gun in the first place NO people would have died.

Banning guns doesn't mean that the mentally deranged psychopath wouldn't have gotten guns anyway. In fact, STATISTICALLY he was a fluke and STATISTICALLY, if he was denied the purchase he could have and would have gotten a gun through illegal means.

Statistically a fluke? are you stupid? He had EASY access to guns. EASY license. Most people could walk into a gun shop, smile politely, say they were concerned about self-protection, walk out with a gun and some bullets on the very spot or 7 days later. also has it ever occured to you that people get angry? if you have a gun in your hand and you get into a fit of rage you for one second may go out of control and shoot the instigator of said anger. its very probable.
If statistics are significant and you believe its a fluke I'd strongly suggest you make a comparison once again of USA versus non-gun wielding countries. You'll be hard pressed to find any other country with a trigger happy attitude that breeds deranged mass-murderers.

And if someone wants to get statistical then we can look at the murder per capita rate by country.

You provided no link and no context for those statistics...

Nor did you for any of your arguments. Read: Irony. Here I'll provide it now. At the end of the post. I hope you do the same for your ill-formed opinions.

Are you retarded?. Murder rates aren't only indicative of gun ownership. Murder and gun violence can be determined by race, geography, demographics, population density etc... the US has a large amount of minorities (1/3rd of the population) that statistically commit more crime and murder than whites. The US borders Mexico, which is a gigantic smuggler of drugs and guns. The US has a much higher proportion of urban-dwelling people, and MANY other factors that contribute to higher murder rates.

As i said before. Guns are PART of the problem i thought id bolden that text for people like you so you wouldnt miss it. The greater scheme of things is to address these issues as well, but Guns are part of the problem what do you think that bullet comes out of? Demographics?

Gun laws aren't the only determining factor. That is why, in the UK, which has a lower murder rate (due to a lot of variables) when they banned hanguns, handgun crime WENT UP by an exponential margin. How do you explain that then if getting rid of LEGAL gun ownership gets "rid of gun violence" huh? YOU'RE WRONG!

It temporarily spiked. The UK now has a low handgun murder rate. and posts low figures per year. Sadly youre wrong again.

If you actually read the statistics I provided, you would have realized it. But you're so bent on repeating the typical, UNFOUNDED nonsense that people like you do, that you can't even see reality.

im definitely unfounded. definitely misguided. like all the leaders of those stated countries which post lower murder rates then the US every year. critical difference. gun control.

heres the link you wanted cutie
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit _fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

and some more, although id say these arent as concrete.

developed nations unsurprised, due to american 'right to arms' condoning gun acceptability.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601871.html

Gun Control Works;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070612/
sc_livescience/gunshowregulationsworkstudyfin ds

Virginia Tech Father’s Plea: Stricter Gun Laws, Better Gun legislation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_
us/virginia_tech_mental_health_2;_ylt=Apspf5V cNyvwR0x3mX068Z1GR4sA

66% murders in US commited by Guns
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

15 Gun Manufacturers sued for negligence, responsible for shootings
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/11/gun.suit.04/

how do you propose everybody having guns works? someone shoots at you you shoot back we go wicked wild west?

if they outlaw guns i'll go postal on who evers responsable....but first i'd need a class-2 destruction device which could be a DAO-12 "Striker" or a Pancor JackHammer...either way i'd go postal even if i'd have to use a tomohawk or a 4.6mm pistol dont outlaw guns!

At 6/22/07 04:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I'm aware that preventing gun ownership is unconstitutional. Its my personal opinion that guns should be outlawed. The difference is Bush impeachs upon constitutional rights without justifiable reason.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO BAN GUNS YOU MORON. First and foremost it DOESN'T WORK. Secondly, banning LEGAL gun ownership entirely misses the entire point considering the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by people who CANNOT legally own firearms.

You think throwing people into Guantanemo Bay without a right to a hearing

Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

And that is why people like you are uneducated enough in the subject to actually say the stupid shit you've been saying.

Funny because I justified that statement below, i wanted to make it simple and concise.

Making ti simple and concise allows you to entirely ignore reality and come to a false conclusion based on NOTHING that doesn't even actually address the actual issue. You took a single out of context source and used it to come to a conclusion that wasn't even supported by your source.

If the detractors wanted to argue Gun-Prohibitions weren't stemming violence all they had to do was look at the international statistics to be proven wrong.

That doesn't prove them wrong. There are MANY factors that cause violence, gun laws are only a small part of it.

As opposed to looking at it state by state which is a flawed analysis as i discussed.

It's actually flawed to use a nation-to-nation comparison you moron. Every country has a whole set of factors in demography, racial make-up, geography, and many other variables that amount to a certain murder and violence rate. Just gun laws alone isn't the ultimate factor.

Canada's gun laws are not that much different pertaining to guns that are used for the most crime which are handguns. Yet their murder and violence rate is lower because they have a much smaller proportion of minorities who statistically commit more crime, they don't have 11-30 illegal immigrants, they don't border a country like Mexico that smuggles guns etc..

Canada's gun laws don't make them have less violence and murder, claiming such a thing is ridiculous.

i.e if it was an argument about statistics, theyd be mistaken.

Every single point you've ever made so far in your short stint on NG has been entirely mistaken.

I just said yes we should get rid of guns. And no cars and motorcycles kill people but theyre rarely used with the INTENT to kill.

How does that actually matter. Isn't the intent to lessen deaths? If you want to do that you should outlaw all vehicles considering they kill many times more people every year than guns do.

No, I'm talking about outlawing guns and removing them.

You can't remove guns. Outlawing them only makes it so that the only people who have guns are those who don't obey laws and therefore will get guns regardless. Banning guns doesn't mean there are no guns dipshit. In fact, banning guns means MORE gun crime because less crimes are prevented or deterred.

USA has the highest per capita rate of murders in the developed world.

And that couldn't POSSIBLY be due to the fact that the US has the highest proportion of minorities in the developed world, the highest amount of illegal immigrants in the developed world, as well as being the only country in the developed world to border a GIGANTIC arms and drug smuggling nation like Mexico.

Your opinion is gun violence would go up.

As statistics have shown.

YOUR OPINION. your opinion is that criminals would go trigger happy. don't present it as irrefutable fact when it is blatantly opinion.

It's YOUR opinion that banning guns would reduce gun violence, but it is WRONG considering the FACTS entirey disprove it.

Every single thing you've ever provided is only your opinion. But funny you say that considering at first your defense was that all I did was provide statistics without making it "simple" yet all you do is provide simple, false, NONSENSE as your logic.

If you actually had a slight clue as to what the fuck you keep talking about, you'd realize that EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU MADE can be disproved by facts.

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

Ever heard of international law? The U.N.? The Geneva Convention? Basic human decency?

At 6/22/07 10:45 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite?

"During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

And

"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime .htm)

At 6/22/07 12:53 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, yes, the well known academic source Beast Enterprises.

Google Gary Kleck, PhD and Professor of Criminology at FSU. Furthermore, on this issue it is not wise to attack the source of any study because it is so politically charged. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly respected medical journal, however its editorial staff has long made it known that it has an anti-gun bias. The same goes for the AMA. Therefore, their credibility on this issue is about as good as that of the NRA or the Beast Enterprises link I posted that had an interview with a college professor.

On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." No effect. Ok, I can buy that. Positive effect? Highly improbable, they say.

So? So much of the liberal and pro-gun control arguments are based on faulty logic and a "common sense" approach rather than deal with statistics that show your reasoning to be in error.

And a study that I've repeatedly cited that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property." And "A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that, and I quote: " Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

And see here is your problem. You are citing a source that comes from a group of researchers who are out of their depth. Yes, Doctors know how to conduct medical/biological/chemical research. They are trained for that. However, sociological/criminological research is out of their depth. I would trust a PhD in Criminology to better analyze crime data than a psychiatrist. I mean would you go to a history professor to diagnose a disease?

At 6/22/07 10:35 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

Ever heard of international law? The U.N.? The Geneva Convention? Basic human decency?

Actually International law does not exist. The term "international law" refers to a system of traditions and treaties that have no coercive power beyond the willingness of the signatory nations to follow through with the provisions of said traditions/treaties. You see the international community is one of anarchy, where nations act solely in their best interest and if a treaty no longer protects these interests then countries can and often end up simply ignoring them. But I digress, this is about gun control and I do not want to start a debate on international relations theory...

Furthermore, the Geneva Convention would not apply here...nor would the UN.

However, basic human decency does have a place. That means that we as a "democratic" (the Founding Fathers never intended us to be a Democracy, but rather a Republic that safeguarded the liberty of the individuals) modern industrial country has a duty and responsibility to protect the basic human rights of ALL people within our borders regardless of national allegiance. However, that does NOT mean that we should grant them the full rights of a US citizen. (ie: we can deny them the right to vote or buy/carry weapons.)

A main reason America has a higher incidence of gun crime than other countries is because of our drug problem. The conflicts that gangs have with police and rival gangs have created a strong market for the illegal traffic of firearms. Also we have a practically unguardable border with Mexico as well as a large portion of the east coast that we don't have the manpower to monitor through which guns and drugs can be smuggled.

This fact also explains why a ban on guns would do nothing to deter gun crime in America. Even if law abiding citizens surrendered their right to bear arms, the armed criminals have no incentive to do so. They have drug profits to protect. They have people to rob. The fact that it is currently illegal for most of these people to have guns has had no effect on their decision to arm themselves. If we inflate an already significant black market with a ban on guns, we'll see an increase of violence in order to protect that market.
in short America =/= Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, ect.

At 6/22/07 10:45 PM, Tal-con 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

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...

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.

He's not being sarcastic but rather accurate. A assault rifle such as the AK-47 is smaller (even with a non-folding stock) than most hunting rifles. And it is handheld. Furthermore it is designed to "spray and pray" (in full-auto mode only...and thus the military models and not the civilian clones) using ammunition that is less dangerous than either handgun ammo (where jacketed hollow points are easily obtained) or hunting ammo (where jacketed hollow points are even more the norm than in handgun ammo).

Even with their shorter length an AK-47 w/folding stock is difficult to conceal and heavier, making it ineffective as a tool of the criminal.

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite? It's very easy to conceal a handgun, not so much with a rifle. If you try to take a hunting rifle into, say, a College campus, someone is going to notice.

Thank you for agreeing with us!

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite?

"During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

Okay, since 13 (or 15) plus 2 equals either 15 or 17 I think it is safe to assume that this statistic is a survey of 100% of inmates. Which means 83-85% of the inmates did not commit crime with any type of firearm.

This only proves my point that the AWB is a meaningless piece of failed legislation.

"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime .htm)

So:
32% of all murders were committed with a weapon other than a firearm.
58% of all robberies were committed without a firearm.
79% of al aggravated assults (as reported to police) were committed without a firearm.

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005." (Your source.)

Hmmm...seems that when it comes to violence the US has some issues to deal with that has nothing to do with guns.

"The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show
that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed
with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns,
and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown."

Just a snapshot of crime here...but this is a pretty standard spread regardless of year. I wonder what kind of gun criminals prefer. Let's see if the source I just pulled this from has anything else to say:

"Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found
that most criminals prefer guns that are easily
concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their
studies also found that the handguns used by the
felons interviewed were similar to the handguns
available to the general public except that the
criminals preferred larger caliber guns."

SOURCE (not the same report, but same organization as yours Illogical!)

Thank you for proving my point and doing the leg work for me!

Highlyillogical,

I've done some research into how Norinco, Colt and others got around the AWB of 1994.

You see the law stated that to fit the definition of what an assault weapon was: it had to accept detachable (no mention of capacity) AND THEN it had to have TWO of the following features:

1) Ability to accept high-capacity magazines.
2) Pistol grip.
3) Bayonet lug.
4) Grenade launcher (not what you think).
5) Flash suppressor.
6) Folding stock.

For example if a gun had a detachable magazine and a grenade launcher it was not considered an assault rifle. (NOTE: a grenade launcher here most commonly refers to a barrel attachment that fires modified hand grenades that are not available to the public, and has not been documented as being used in crime. It is more of a cosmetic feature.)

However, the feature most prized by legitimate and responsible gun owners was the high capacity magazines. These make shooting more fun and economical in that if you were at a range you did not have to spend time re-loading. This means more time for shooting, and if you have to pay by the time you spend there it means you are saving money.

However, a 30rd mag for an AK-47 adds weight and makes it unweildy in close quarters where you have to be able to manuever. Thus even a hi-cap mag is detrimental to committing crime.

As long as it looked liked this, an AK-47 could legally be purchased under the 1994 AWB. (Did I mention it was a failure?)

At 6/21/07 05:40 PM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

Hang on - once again you go back to the ghetto kid thing, while simultaniously implying it's OK to commit an act of mass murder, which gunning down 15 ghetto kids would be, is acceptible?

How did we get from "you'd want to take apart a guy who raped and murdered your family with your bare hands" to some shit about a gang of ghetto kids who, at the current rate, have knives and came up behind you in the dark?

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?

Carrying a concealed weapon is another thing on your record, by the way (or having one to begin with here). Once again, I doubt any burglar would want to have extra charges bumped onto his sentence if he gets caught.

And, once again, in dumbass-friendly type: WHY WOULD ANY SELF-RESPECTING BURGLAR WANT TO HAVE MURDER ADDED TO THEIR CHARGE SHEET?

Apart fropm anything else, firing the gun would alert the entire fucking neighbourhood - that's a REALLY bright way to avoid detection, isn't it?

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?

Officer: "Can you identify the person that broke into your house and assaulted you?"
Victim: "Yes."

Are you still caught up on the whole criminals-not-wanting-to-be-identified deal? Jesus, don't ever take to the life of crime, you wouldn't last a week...

Is basic psychology somehow above you?

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

"Pompous little twat"? HA!

If anyone's being pompous, it's the person who believes in the gun nut's wet dream of all criminals having guns and they think that raping and murdering your family is their "bonus" and continues to perpetuate it despite logic being thrown at them from all directions.

That also goes for thew "little twat" part, by the way.

Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.

Please quit pelting me with your hubris and hypothetical bullshit.

" if it is cowardly why don't you take on fifteen people with just your fist?"
"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."

You get the idea...

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.

I'm dedicating the post to attacking the usual bullshit that happens to be getting splurged out, by you. It's called the notion that there's no point in bothering to be rational with irrational, incoherant mumblings.

To the point I won't insult the mods by repeating the rest of "your" "argument", because there's better things to do than watch you try and act clever.

At 6/22/07 08:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem.

1) It's a constitutional right to own guns. Getting rid of legal ownership would void the constitution and negate a founding principle our country.

Yes, as long as you are part of a militia and it is in the interest of the security of the Free State...

My God, we're back to this again?

2) Cars kill people, motorcycles kill people. They kill ALOT more people than guns do in the US so should we get rid of guns too?

Depends, when was the last time somebody cold-bloodedly ran over 30 people on their college campus?

My God, we're back to this again?

3) By "getting rid" of guns you're implying banning guns... which wouldn't get rid of guns, it would only get rid of legal ownership, which AS I PROVED prevents more crime than it causes.

You'll find that, by making guns harder to come by, your two-bit wannabe gangster or nickle & dime burglar won't be able to get their hands on a weapon, meaning they'll be less likely to gun somebody down by intent or by accident.

My God, we're back to this again?

4) We can't force other countries to stop producing guns, we can't prevent all guns from being smuggled into our country. We can't find and destroy all the guns that are in our country right now that are unaccounted for. Therefore "getting rid of guns" will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the people who ACTUALLY CAUSE THE GUN VIOLENCE would obey no such law. Gun violence would actually go up because criminals would have defenseless citizens as prey.

I hate to point it out, but if guns are illegal, OWNING ONE WILL BE A VIOLATION OF GUN LAWS. If anything, you can haul in any potential murderer/mugger/whatever just because they have a gun on them, rather then wait for them to be a convicted murderer/mugger/whatever.

5) For someone who accuses Bush of being Nazi-esque, it's odd for you to support an ENTIRELY intrusive government act, against the constitution, thus preventing the US from maintaining its goal of being a country that cannot be taken over by a tyrant or foreign occupier. You know that every single genocide, every single massive government-sponsored murder, every single totalitarian state in the world enforced gun control before they took power?

The US has a fucking great big ocean on each side of it, meaning that any invader will have to be:
a.) Canada.
b.) Mexico.
c.) Some other SOuth American nation coming through Mexico.

Anything else would involve a flotilla of ships steaming into American waters, at which point they are the responsibility of the navy and air force to turn back, not Dave the Plumber in Delaware with his .44 he got after watching Dirty Harry made him feel funny.

My God, we're back to this again?

Please, pro-gunner...get an argument.

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That doesn't prove them wrong. There are MANY factors that cause violence, gun laws are only a small part of it.

Question:

Can you have gun violence without guns?

At 6/23/07 01:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Question:

Can you have gun violence without guns?

Logically speaking, no. But when you look at the facts, much of the United Kingdom "doesn't have guns" and yet they do have gun violence there, which runs counter to the whole ideology that if you get rid of guns then gun crime will in fact disappear into the ether...

At 6/23/07 01:50 PM, Proteas wrote:
Logically speaking, no. But when you look at the facts, much of the United Kingdom "doesn't have guns" and yet they do have gun violence there, which runs counter to the whole ideology that if you get rid of guns then gun crime will in fact disappear into the ether...

Yes, to the grand total off 78 deaths per year, and those can be placed within four postal districts - three of those in London. Can you say the same of the US?

Now, why aren't you considering South Africa? When guns became universally available in the mid 90's, the shooting rate went through the roof because a quick, easy (and cowardly) way to kill people was now available to all, so now all those messy and time consuming stabbings could cease.

At 6/23/07 02:35 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Yes, to the grand total off 78 deaths per year, and those can be placed within four postal districts - three of those in London. Can you say the same of the US?

No, but then again I'm not the one guilty of magical thinking in this instance, either.

Now, why aren't you considering South Africa? When guns became universally available in the mid 90's, the shooting rate went through the roof because a quick, easy (and cowardly) way to kill people was now available to all, so now all those messy and time consuming stabbings could cease.

Because it's a third world country and the NRA isn't there to teach proper gun ownership?