Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Hm... would you look at that, all this wasted effort on why the United States needs gun control and it turns out that South Africa is at the top of the heap when it comes to the problem of gun violence. Maybe we should have an assload of repetitive threads debating wether or not THEY need gun control measures in the hopes it will magically do something to curve that crime rate.

---

At 6/23/07 02:54 PM, Proteas wrote: Hm... would you look at that, all this wasted effort on why the United States needs gun control and it turns out that South Africa is at the top of the heap when it comes to the problem of gun violence. Maybe we should have an assload of repetitive threads debating wether or not THEY need gun control measures in the hopes it will magically do something to curve that crime rate.

Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

---

At 6/23/07 03:07 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

There's actually four different pages on NationMaster dedicated to gun statistics by country, my friend. I guess the only "wrong" page you link to is the one that disagrees with what you're predisposed political inclinations are.

But hey, at least both our pages agree; South Africa is a blood drenched shit hole. More worth of a gun control debate than the United States.

Oh that's right, if we did thatt, you wouldn't be able to bash the United States. A favorite past time, I suppose?

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

Case in point. >:-D~

---

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...

Gun violence is inevitable in a society where any guns exist. However, they've got less gun violence per 100,000 than we do, and that's not due to cultural factors, but to their gun control. After all, if it was cultural factors that allowed for gun posessison, the UK would be up there, for their Bill of Rights of 1689 made weapons ownership legal to the same extent that our constitution did, allowing for their bill made it legal for protestant males, while ours, originally, only made it legal for white males.

---

At 6/23/07 03:40 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: After all, if it was cultural factors that allowed for gun posessison, the UK would be up there, for their Bill of Rights of 1689 made weapons ownership legal to the same extent that our constitution did, allowing for their bill made it legal for protestant males, while ours, originally, only made it legal for white males.

They also didn't have a national rifle association backing up said right to keep and bare arms, or anything even resembling the gun culture of the united states today. You'd be hard pressed to try and even introduce such regulations here in the states and even get them past debate in the house.

---

Yes we do every day guns are sold and no one keeps track of why they are bought and how they are used and a right to bear arms is our legal right but why do you need a such weapons I mean I understand that if you one day think that some one is going to run into your house and try to shoot you then its ok. but is that really gonna happen?

---

And the UK has less gun crime per capita than we do...they have very few gun murders as is.

You're entirely right, though.

Gun control means less gun crime, that's a fact.

---

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?

I repeat... non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights under the US constitution which only covers US citizens.

Also, the Geneva convention only applies to uniformed POWs that are under a legitimate chain of command, that is in tern under command of a nation that is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. Members of terrorist groups aren't eligible for Geneva convention rights because they don't belong to a country, and they don't follow the rules of war in the first place.

Not giving US Constitutional rights, or Geneva Convention rights to enemy combatants isn't illegal.

Now, to address "basic human decency" I don't believe that we have the right to treat humans indecently. However, there is nothing indecent to humans going on in Guantanamo. There is no proof of any violations of human rights, no proof of torture etc.. In fact, people in Guantanamo are treated better than US citizens in US prisons. Muslims are given Koran-adhering meals, prayer rugs, exercise, etc... these things don't even exist in a lot of the prisons in their countries of origin.

Guantanamo is just a scapegoat, and a political tool to exploit by people with an anti-US, anti-bush, anti-WOT agenda. People take it as a fact that it is a horrible place, yet there is zero proof that anything illegal or "indecent" is happening. Meanwhile... the same people who criticize the US for Guantanamo have probably never said a word about you know... beheadings, mutilations, prolonged periods of torture etc... being used by our enemies.

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

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?

No, but theres nothing you can do to get rid of guns. So your point means absolutely nothing.

The only way you're going to get rid of all guns and entirely eliminate gun violence is if you have a magic spell that makes all of them disappear out of existence.

But you can't end gun violence by prohibiting legal gun ownership because it doesn't do that, it doesn't magically make gun smugglers have a change of heart, it doesn't magically make criminals change their ways and give up their guns. All it does is prevent the people who are the least likely to use guns irresponsibly (law abiding citizens) from attaining guns, while doing nothing to address the actual source of gun violence which is criminals who will get guns regardless of laws, regardless of ANY effort by any politician in our country.

Gun control is fine within reason, but once you start talking about getting rid of guns and infringing on the 2nd amendment you automatically lose credibility, not only because it is unconstitutional, but because it is stupid, wrong, and just plain ineffective. In fact, it isn't just ineffective, it is counterproductive and makes things worse.

At 6/23/07 09:26 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

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

That depends on how you interpret it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment entitles Americans to two things, a well regulated militia, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two separate yet related things.

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?

See, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. 32 people were killed, it was a tragedy, but statistically it was a fluke, and statistically, many things kill a lot more people than guns do. So if you want to ban guns entirely, besides not even lowering gun violence, you're only addressing a tiny fraction of the unnatural deaths in the US.

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.

Please tell me you're still not that stupid...

Gangsters and burglars tend to be criminals before they use guns, therefore making LEGAL gun ownership more difficult isn't going to prevent them from getting guns. Seriously, use your fucking brain for once. The majority of crimes with firearms are committed by people who CANNOT LEGALLY PURCHASE OR OWN A FIREARM, and therefore making LEGAL ownership more difficult after we ALREADY bar criminals from attaining them, does NOTHING to target gun crime! All it does is target people who obey the law anyway, and can purchase guns legally and therefore are statistically much less likely to use guns in crime, and statistically prevent more crime than they commit.

I hate to point it out, but if guns are illegal, OWNING ONE WILL BE A VIOLATION OF GUN LAWS.

Your flawed logic actually saddens me. Since it is ALREADY a violation of the law for criminals to have firearms, its NOT GOING TO LESSEN THE GUN CRIME WE ALREADY HAVE. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

"Make legal ownership illegal, even though legal ownership isn't the cause, but illegal ownership by criminals who won't heed new laws IS the cause."

What point would banning guns do when the people who commit gun crimes are...guess what... CRIMINALS who obviously won't obey further gun laws?

The US has a fucking great big ocean on each side of it, meaning that any invader will have to be:

You never know what is going to have politically in the future. It's not just to protect you from an invader, it is also from a future potential tyrant, or other internal threats (ahem Re Conquista). It's kind of scary knowing that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants coming to your country don't even believe it rightfully belongs to you hmm? Of course, you'd know nothing about such a concern because you're one of those typical people that ignore history and its trends and instead dictate your views on your very false sense of "oh that would never happen"

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

It's funny because it's YOU who has no argument, I proved my case with facts in case you ignored it. Legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes, banning guns causes more crime than it prevents, those who commit crime are criminals and therefore new laws don't do anything. I proved those, things, what did you prove other than the fact that people with your views are entirely delusional?

Anti-gunner... accept reality.

---

At 6/23/07 11:06 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And the UK has less gun crime per capita than we do...they have very few gun murders as is.

The UK has less gun crime per capita because it has less crime per capita all the way around. You can't compare the country and only use gun laws as variables, that is truly retarded.

The UK is an island and therefore smuggling into the UK is much harder. They have less illegal immigrants, they have less minorities who statistically commit more crime, they have less of their population dwelling in urban areas that statistically have higher crime rates, they have a whole slew of factors that makes them statistically less likely to have crime, and gun crime.

If we adopted their laws, that wouldn't mean we would have the same gun violence rate. In fact, I already proved that if we adopted their gun control policies we would have MORE crime.

Gun control means less gun crime, that's a fact.

All respect I had for you is now gone. You actually know you're wrong but you're only perpetuating your stance because you're stubborn and blinded by your already unshakable, FALSE conviction. You're shooting yourself in the foot (pun).

Why did gun crimego up by a VERY high rate in the UK after they enacted TIGHTER gun control??? Hmm? That by itself proves gun control doesn't mean less gun crime. That proves that other factors contribute to it.

Hmm... could it be ethnicity, socio-economic factors, geography, amount of urban vs. rural habitation etc..?

Hmm, maybe that is why in the US, places like California and D.C. have high gun crime rates even though they have stricter gun control...

You're wrong, and you know it.

kthxbai

---

And the UK has less gun crime per capita than we do...they have very few gun murders as is.

The UK has less gun crime per capita because it has less crime per capita all the way around. You can't compare the country and only use gun laws as variables, that is truly retarded.

The debate was on Gun Laws; not so retarded to argue about gun laws being responsible. He also never denied other variables existed simply did a comparison. That is truly immature name-calling.

The UK is an island and therefore smuggling into the UK is much harder. They have less illegal immigrants, they have less minorities who statistically commit more crime

Hungary, Germany, Austria effectively most of Central Europe have lower firearm murders. These countries have stringent gun control laws and aren't islands.

UK is facing significant problems with illegal immigration much like the US is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/463727 3.stm

they have less of their population dwelling in urban areas that statistically have higher crime rates, they have a whole slew of factors that makes them statistically less likely to have crime, and gun crime.

Australia = Most Urbanized country in the world. There goes that argument.
Please list other factors, as opposed to just claiming they exist.

If we adopted their laws, that wouldn't mean we would have the same gun violence rate. In fact, I already proved that if we adopted their gun control policies we would have MORE crime.

True it wouldn't necessarily mean that. and no you didn't prove that at all. You used state-by-state comparisons. The UK didn't outlaw guns on a state-by-state basis. They outlawed gun posession nationwide.

Why did gun crime go up by a VERY high rate in the UK after they enacted TIGHTER gun control??? Hmm? That by itself proves gun control doesn't mean less gun crime. That proves that other factors contribute to it.

Other factors contribute, agreed. But that doesn't absolve guns from being part of the problem. Its much easier for you in a fit of rage to pull the trigger of a gun then it is for you to walk up to the instigator of said violence and stab them. It is also much more likely that they'll be able to run away.

Gun Crime rate goes down in London, same year, same study
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/27 69569.stm

US Gun crime 66%
UK Gun crime: 35%
See above link, i linked to the us statistic in another post.
Also, read: Central Europe, Australia. You won’t see the same statistic.

Hmm... could it be ethnicity, socio-economic factors, geography, amount of urban vs. rural habitation etc..?

Agreed.
However socio-economic factors and ethnicity are underlying factors in drug abuse. You also made the argument earlier "its impossible to stop illegal gun trafficking" Its also impossible to prevent drug trafficking. You insinuated we should maintain the legality of guns because its impossible to stem illegal trafficking of it. Do you propose we legalize drug trafficking and drug selling? Going down hard on gun trafficking could very well make it unprofitable and fruitless to pursue such a venture seeing as how drugs can be self-produced and sold at higher margins whereas guns need to be purchased at much higher prices.

Also, outlawing drugs has made it difficult to purchase. You either purchase it because you’re extremely interested in it enough to search for dealers or because you’re addicted to it. Conversely somebody would only buy a gun with a strong intent to kill. This is where the system comes in. Improve mental health, educate the youth out of a carefree gun culture, continue to breakdown racial tension and inequalities. Call me crazy but perhaps this is why gun control is working in other countries. Teenagers and degenerate 20s can't parade around claiming they're part of crips or bloods and start shooting each other for the sake of killing. The Football riots you see all the time in the UK and Europe, The Parisian riots last year, the Cronulla riots in 2005 didn’t end up becoming perpetual gang wars, massacres and bloodbath orgies because of one thing. Angry people had no access to guns therefore angry people could not shoot. Plenty of people have died and many killers are/ were remorseful claiming they weren't thinking or that it was as i said, a moment of anger.

:“Cars and Bikes kill people too should we outlaw them?”

That was something you said in an earlier post. Had to repost it for a laugh. That was an incredibly fucking stupid analogy and i almost choked laughing when I first saw it.

I'll consider making a reply to your other post. But I'm finding it hard to justify. That post was just blatantly stupid and immature yet again. If you consider retorting this post, do so in a civil manner.

---

At 6/24/07 06:49 AM, tony4moroney wrote: The debate was on Gun Laws; not so retarded to argue about gun laws being responsible. He also never denied other variables existed simply did a comparison. That is truly immature name-calling.

He said "gun control means lower gun crime" which I proved to be false.

UK is facing significant problems with illegal immigration much like the US is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/463727 3.stm

That's no where near what it is in the US of course. That article you provided said that they have 570,000 illegals. The US has 12 Million illegal immigrants (some estimates say 20 million), that is much larger in both absolute and relative terms considering the US population is only 5 times bigger than the UK's (300 million vs 60 million) yet we have 20-40 times more illegals.

Australia = Most Urbanized country in the world. There goes that argument.

Island... Meanwhile, you realize that their gun control isn't much different from ours pertaining to guns that are used in most crime (handguns). For instance, the guns used in the VT shooting are entirely legal in Australia where hand guns are entirely legal. They have other factors that make handgun crime relatively low.

Please list other factors, as opposed to just claiming they exist.

It's funny because I already soundly proved my point and every thing you've provided to the contrary (even though you never actually responded directly with sources) has been only your own false logic.

The UK didn't outlaw guns on a state-by-state basis. They outlawed gun posession nationwide.

Um they didn't even outlaw possession, they banned handguns in 1997 to lessen gun violence because handguns were used in most crimes. And their handgun crime WENT WAY, WAY UP because of the ban, take a look:

... the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

Hell, take a look at this:

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Hmmm, that in and of itself proves you entirely wrong! The places with the most guns had the least gun crime, and the places with the least amount of guns were more likely to have more gun crime. WHAM, gun control does not equal less gun crime! I proved my point, you haven't.

You and Highlyillogical got proven wrong.

But just to rub some more salt in your wounds, lets take a look at another, more recent article:

"Gun crime soars by 35%

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

... The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.

You get that? Gun crime doubled in the UK 6 years into the handgun ban, 6 years into their irrational, illogical, misguided, and counter-productive gun control legislation.

You're wrong, I'm right.

US Gun crime 66%
UK Gun crime: 35%

OMG... that doesn't mean anything in and of itself you total fool, get that through your head. The US has many factors that are unfavorable for crime (all crime) prevention, as I've stated.

Heres just a simple thing regarding race: 1/3rd (33%) of the US population is composed of minorities (vast majority of minorities are blacks and Hispanics).

Only 1/12th (7.9%) of the UK is composed of minorities, mostly Asians.

Now, take look at the crime rates among ethnic groups in the US. Take a thorough look. Blacks and Hispanics are both many times more likely to commit various crimes, murder rape, robbery etc.. than whites. Asians are less likely to commit crimes than even whites.

And notice how the the majority of the UK minority population consists of Asians.

Hmm...

Use your fucking brain this time, and don't you dare resort to calling me racist. The fact is that the US has a much higher proportion of minorities who statistically commit many times more crime than the white majority. The UK has a much higher white majority, and most of the few the minorities they have are the ethnic group that commit the least amount of crime in the US...

And when you're talking about 1/3rd of our population, that is huge. Since they commit several more times more crime than the 2/3rds white majority, that means they commit as much (thats a underestimation), or more crime than whites just by themselves. So take them away statistically, and the US crime rates would be about equal with the UK.

You insinuated we should maintain the legality of guns because its impossible to stem illegal trafficking of it. Do you propose we legalize drug trafficking and drug selling?

No, thats an ENTIRELY different dynamic. Illicit narcotics don't contribute to society, their use isn't a constitutional right, they kill more people than guns, they ruin more people's lives than guns, they damage our society much more than guns do.

In fact, I already proved that legal ownership of guns prevents more crime than it causes. You haven't proved that drugs do more good than they do bad so creating such a comparison shows how desperate you are to make your ridiculous points.

“Cars and Bikes kill people too should we outlaw them?”

That was something you said in an earlier post. Had to repost it for a laugh. That was an incredibly fucking stupid analogy and i almost choked laughing when I first saw it.

Every single thing you have ever said on NG is stupid. Every analogy you've used has been ridiculous. If gun violence (i.e. unnatural death) is what you're trying to prevent, then why not go after the things that cause MUCH more death than guns? Hmm?

I know why, because you're an imbecile. You're one of those misguided, mindless fools you have been indoctrinated with the demonized view of guns that lefties tend to have. You see the gun as some evil object, you have an irrational response to it due to how you were raised and how society around you reacts to guns. Therefore, your reaction to gun violence is irrational, almost as irrational as your stupid fucking solution.

I proved you wrong in basically everything you said. Gun control doesn't work, other factors cause the high crime, gun violence and murder in the US, and banning guns would only make things worse. I proved these things, you proved NOTHING that you said.

You're wrong, I'm right.

You lost, I won.

Kthxbai

---

At 6/23/07 03:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/23/07 03:07 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

There's actually four different pages on NationMaster dedicated to gun statistics by country, my friend. I guess the only "wrong" page you link to is the one that disagrees with what you're predisposed political inclinations are.

Read the title, Proteas.
Yours: Gun violence > Homicides > Overall homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country
Mine: Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country

Note mine was specific to the firearm homicide rate, yours is the overall homicide rate. There's a difference - that being the Ukrainians are a tad more creative than Columbians when it comes to murdering people.

A bit of quick math would indicate gun homicides make up 1/3 of the US murder rate, over 1/3 in South Africa, and over half in Columbia. More notably, they make up 3/4 of all murders in Thailand.

But hey, at least both our pages agree; South Africa is a blood drenched shit hole. More worth of a gun control debate than the United States.

The US is the only First World nation in the top ten - for the supposed First Nation (let alone a First World Nation), that is not a place to be. The US is also the only First World nation in the top 20 of your link, again not somewhere you want to place.

Still, it holes all this crap about the UK being a hotbed of being shot - it isn't placed on either.

Oh that's right, if we did thatt, you wouldn't be able to bash the United States. A favorite past time, I suppose?

AAAAAAAAAAND that's the level, is it?

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

Case in point. >:-D~

You said the others didn't have the NRA to teach them about gun ownership, yet the US has them and they're doing quite well at being irrisponsible with the things. Sorry.

---

At 6/24/07 04:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment entitles Americans to two things, a well regulated militia, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two separate yet related things.

I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."

It's a condition, like your mother saying "When you've done your chores, you can play video games."

See, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. 32 people were killed, it was a tragedy, but statistically it was a fluke, and statistically, many things kill a lot more people than guns do. So if you want to ban guns entirely, besides not even lowering gun violence, you're only addressing a tiny fraction of the unnatural deaths in the US.

Ah, that sentence again...

Wait..."statistically it was a fluke"?

Right, were the 21 gunned down in a McDonalds by James Huberty (armed with an Uzi semi-auto, a pump-action Winchester, and a 9mm Browning) a statistical fluke, or bad shooting?

Also, why do you seem intent to duck the issue - plenty of people are killed in unnatural accidents, but plenty are killed by design by some gun-toting soon-to-be murderer with the Constitutional right to have the weapon he's about to discharge in their general direction.

And how is the deaths of 15,000 people addressing "a tiny number" of unnatural deaths?

Per 100,000, 9.1 Americans are murdered.
Per 100,000, 3.6 Americans are shot to death.

That's over a third of all murders in the US being directly linked to guns. I dread to think what you consider tyo be a large quantity if 39.56% is considered "a tiny fraction."

Gangsters and burglars tend to be criminals before they use guns, therefore making LEGAL gun ownership more difficult isn't going to prevent them from getting guns. Seriously, use your fucking brain for once. The majority of crimes with firearms are committed by people who CANNOT LEGALLY PURCHASE OR OWN A FIREARM, and therefore making LEGAL ownership more difficult after we ALREADY bar criminals from attaining them, does NOTHING to target gun crime! All it does is target people who obey the law anyway, and can purchase guns legally and therefore are statistically much less likely to use guns in crime, and statistically prevent more crime than they commit.

So ILLEGAL gun ownership won't make it more difficult for them to own a gun, due to the rise in the black market price overnight (which will put it beyond the reach of a nickle and dime robber or two-bit wannabe gangster as they won't have the money to hand).

Now, here's a list of people that could legall use a firearm:
James Huberty
Charles Whitman
Robyn Anderson (supplier of Harris & Klebold)
Thomas Hamilton
Michael Ryan
Ronald DeFeo
Patrick "Godfather of the term 'Going Postal' Sherrill
David Berkowitz
Aileen Wournos

All of them (among numerous others I could list) are responsible for murdering large numbers of people using a firearm (Berkowitz and Wuornos being serial killers - and not the only ones to use a gun as their main weapon), and none wer eineligible for purchasing guns by any means - USE YOUR BRAIN.

And, once again, it's hard to prevent criminals buying guns if there are plenty out there being sold in pawn shops which are less stringent when it comes to background checks, or in the case of Cho easily available on fucking eBay.

Your flawed logic actually saddens me. Since it is ALREADY a violation of the law for criminals to have firearms, its NOT GOING TO LESSEN THE GUN CRIME WE ALREADY HAVE. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

Sure I do - make it illegal to own a gun before they can become a criminal with it. Is it rocket science?

"Make legal ownership illegal, even though legal ownership isn't the cause, but illegal ownership by criminals who won't heed new laws IS the cause."

And a marketplace flooded with guns (legally or illegally) of course ISN'T the cause...

You never know what is going to have politically in the future. It's not just to protect you from an invader, it is also from a future potential tyrant, or other internal threats (ahem Re Conquista). It's kind of scary knowing that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants coming to your country don't even believe it rightfully belongs to you hmm? Of course, you'd know nothing about such a concern because you're one of those typical people that ignore history and its trends and instead dictate your views on your very false sense of "oh that would never happen"

Alright, if the threat does come from within, I have one thing to say on that: it was pretty stupid to arm them by holding up the Second Amendment all this time, wasn't it?

Sorry, is that making too much sense? Stop the violent uprising from within: don't arm them so willingly. Gee, you'll look pretty damn stupid when they march on Washington, rifles in one hand, recepit in the other.

And you want to label people that make sense as delusional while you make out somehow a massive invading force will swim to the US? Please, for the love of God, get an argument.

---

At 6/23/07 10:34 PM, Tal-con wrote: That is sarcasm, and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, or lying.

I was being sarcastic in order to drive home the point I was making, tal-con. That's my style, it and it always has been.

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).

Spray and pray doesn't work as an effective means of killing people, I've already shown that with the little breakdown I made a while back of the Columbine and V-Tech shootings. The point is that those who are in favor of gun control for so called "assault weapons" are only doing so based on the idea that they are inherintly more dangerous than hunting weapons which are purposely designed to KILL WITH AS FEW SHOTS AS NEEDED.

At 6/24/07 11:44 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: The US is the only First World nation in the top ten - for the supposed First Nation (let alone a First World Nation), that is not a place to be. The US is also the only First World nation in the top 20 of your link, again not somewhere you want to place.

And it's rhetoric like this that leads me to believe that you're only goal here is bash the United States. Why? Because if you were really wanted to present yourself as a humanitarian that was concerned about gun violence in this world, you would be after the 8 or 19 or however many other countries there are in front of us instead of sitting here nitpicking what WE'RE doing wrong.

Does it bother me that we're that high on the list? No, not at all. Because statiscally speaking, I'm more likely to die from other "un-natural" causes than I am to be shot death as the average gun control proponent would have me believe.

We may be up there on the list, but we're no Columbia or South Africa and you fucking know it.

---

At 6/24/07 12:20 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."

If you're interpretation of the 2nd amendment carried any weight at all, that's the way it would have been applied after it was ratified over 200 years ago. It's as simple as that.

And, once again, it's hard to prevent criminals buying guns if there are plenty out there being sold in pawn shops which are less stringent when it comes to background checks, or in the case of Cho easily available on fucking eBay.

Show me on ebay where you can buy a firearm.

Go on, I'll wait.

---

At 6/24/07 01:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

And it's rhetoric like this that leads me to believe that you're only goal here is bash the United States. Why? Because if you were really wanted to present yourself as a humanitarian that was concerned about gun violence in this world, you would be after the 8 or 19 or however many other countries there are in front of us instead of sitting here nitpicking what WE'RE doing wrong.

Christ on a bike, now I'm unAmerican because I point out that you're good at shooting at each other, yet seem to be incapable of taking any responsibiluty for it - which is also another great big chunk of the pronlem.

If yoiu weren't so busy pointing and shouting "COMMUNIST!!!" at the top of your lungs (or whatever), the argument remains - the US is the only First World nation in those lists with a large murder rate, and a large gun-related murder rate, while the rest are crime-ridden Third World nations with a myriad of their own problems to deal with (usually gross poverty, endemic corruption throughout the system, or being a major drug producer).

The US isn't one of these, yet they have a damn high proportion of their populace being murdered, and nearly 40% of that is by using a gun. And you want to make out I have an issue here? I'm not living in some deluded state that ha sme accuse those who bring it up of hating America - if anything, I just hate the people who live there that come up with bullshit like that.

But that counts for any country, really. That makes me UnAssholian. Can I become the Joe McCarthay of The House of UnAssholian Activity from this?

What the US is doing wrong is looking the other way. What the US is doing is misrepresenting their own Constitution. What the US is doing is selling sa lot of guns to a lot of people, and producing a five-figure bodycount every year.

Is this sinking in yet?

Does it bother me that we're that high on the list? No, not at all. Because statiscally speaking, I'm more likely to die from other "un-natural" causes than I am to be shot death as the average gun control proponent would have me believe.

I already did the math on this: damn near 40% of the homicides on your list correlates to gun-related crime.

40%

Does that figure not stick out?

We may be up there on the list, but we're no Columbia or South Africa and you fucking know it.

Yes, you're a First World nation that doesn't produce a large proportion of the world's cocaine or conflict diamonds, that doesn't have huge numbers of the population living in abject poverty, that doesn't have an endemic corruption from top to bottom (OK, you are in that respect).

So, why are they shooting at each other? Why do so many people snap and go on killing rampages? Why is it they can accept they have a gun problem in South Africa and Columbia that needs to be addressed, but the US can't - or won't?

Of course, that no prominent American politician wants to risk losing their pro-gun voters, so won't engage in any dialogue on the subject at all is, frankly, pathetic. How about taking a risk, speaking out, and if their approval rating shoots trhough the roof, that would be a start.

Shame that, with an election coming up, nobody will risk it. But then again, isn't that why every President these days owns a cat and a dog, wary of alienating any potential voter?

Yes, I fucking know you aren't South Africa or Columbia, but you don't seem to know that you aren't some kind of Nirvana where Everything's OK.

---

At 6/24/07 12:20 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/24/07 04:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment entitles Americans to two things, a well regulated militia, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two separate yet related things.

I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."

Well you're wrong.

It's a condition, like your mother saying "When you've done your chores, you can play video games."

No, it's saying "The right to a well regulated militia (which doesn't only mean the ability to keep weapons), and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, both shall not be infringed"

It listed two things, and at the end said both are required by that amendment.

See, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. 32 people were killed, it was a tragedy, but statistically it was a fluke, and statistically, many things kill a lot more people than guns do. So if you want to ban guns entirely, besides not even lowering gun violence, you're only addressing a tiny fraction of the unnatural deaths in the US.

Ah, that sentence again...

Wait..."statistically it was a fluke"?

It's statistically a fluke because most gun crimes are committed by people who attain their guns illegally. The fact he bought them legally and used them is in such a crime is a fluke.

Therefore, by increasing gun control which targets LAW ABIDING citizens, you're not addressing the segment of society that commits the most crime. Therefore, statistically, the VT shooting was a fluke and the gun violence in the US over all isn't contributed to much by that instance.

And STATISICALLY, if he didn't get the guns legally, then he could still have got them illegally. In fact, there was a higher chance that he would have got them illegally considering most crimes are committed by people who don't attain the guns legally.

Also, why do you seem intent to duck the issue - plenty of people are killed in unnatural accidents, but plenty are killed by design by some gun-toting soon-to-be murderer with the Constitutional right to have the weapon he's about to discharge in their general direction.

Seriously, you keep fucking ignoring reality and it just makes you look like a retard.

The MAJORITY OF gun crimes are committed by people who are NOT ELIGIBLE to buy guns, therefore they DON'T have the constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore further gun control doesn't even address the issue.

In fact, AS I PROVED, further gun control causes more crime than it prevents because law abiding citizens prevent and deter FAR more crime than they commit with their legally-owned firearms.

Are you so utterly blinded by your false take on this that you can't accept reality?

Gun control doesn't mean lesser gun crime. Further gun control doesn't keep guns out of the hands of the people that actually cause the most gun crime.

All of them (among numerous others I could list) are responsible for murdering large numbers of people using a firearm (Berkowitz and Wuornos being serial killers - and not the only ones to use a gun as their main weapon), and none wer eineligible for purchasing guns by any means - USE YOUR BRAIN.

It's funny you tell me to use my brain considering by the way you keep ignoring reality and failing to see the simple truth, it seems that you have brain damage.

All those people you listed still only account for a tiny, tiny fraction of gun crime. Go back and read the actual fucking sourced I provided that PROVE that the majority of gun crime in the US is committed by people who CANNOT legally obtain firearms.

Therefore, your ENTIRE point about 'massacres' by legal owners means NOTHING. All you're doing is emphasizing the emotional response to a tragedy to ignore the SIMPLE fact that legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes and that illegal gun possession (which is the REAL PROBLEM) is not affected by further gun control.

Everything you said thereafter was just you perpetuating your stupid, false points that I already disproved. So do yourself a favor and actually read and accept the FACTS instead of parading your flawed logic (that I already destroyed the validity of) as your sole source of argument.

You've proved nothing you've said, yet I've already proved everything I've said to destroy your anti-gun argument. You already lost, everything you're doing from here on is just your pathetic attempt to salvage your dignity and maintain a false view that has absolutely ZERO basis in reality.

---

lol at cellardoor convinced that his opinion is the word of the lord.
quoting only to promote his arguments rather then addressing some legitimate points made.
resorting to name-calling and making the dogmatic declaration that he is infinitely right.
suggesting hes proved everything when all hes done was gather a bunch of statistics to back his arguments. much like several people have also presented their arguments, all in favor of gun prohibition.

not realizing the irony of calling other people idiotic and emotional when his entire post is made up of "youre an idiot" "youre blessed with crazy lefty hippy views" and the "im right youre wrong, youre just fucking stupid cause you dont see the world the way i do" and not proving any of these pathetic immature claims or realizing the irony in it.

its worthless to argue against you because youre 'blessed with the idiotic, crazy rightist views' if you will. you seem to enjoy calling people names and failing to cite sources that back up how youve proved everything to be divinely right. whilst ignoring exactly all the sources others cite or simply calling them "irrelevant" or "stupid" when yours are incontextual and retarded in itself. you didnt prove shit as i once said. you compared on a state by state basis and went on to say it was irrelevant on a national scale.

its true that statistically blacks commit more crimes then whites and asians. you never specified that the uk minority was asian vs u.s blacks until later, so feel free to reflect on how much of a fucking spastic you are here for claiming im an idiot when you hadnt specified ethnicities. NOR did i even mention this :]. i said that the UK was having a crises with illegal immigration much akin to the US which was one of your arguments. claiming this is irrelevant because "u.s crises is worst" is stupid. The majority of these illegal immigrants are mexicans simply working below minimum wage for a living. 7 illegal immigrants for every 300 residents. 1 illegal immigrant for every 120 residents. (dont have my calculator on me).

Continue to ignore this. Central Europe = Not an Island. Gun Smuggling resulting to inflated murder rates? No.
Urbanization in Australia has not resulted in drastically higher crime rates. therefore Australia can be argued as "an island" the point was urbanization resulting in crime. You cannot disprove it by claiming its an island fucking spastic. Grow up a little bit and present your arguments properly we're not in grade school.

Disprove the Switzerland explanation. Most Swiss murders are committed at home. They leave their rifles at home, rather then carry it around with them (for obvious reasons). Coincedence much?

Now whereas most Swiss associate their guns with a servitude to the upholding of their state and have a comprehensive screening process because of the easy accesibility in the u.s any 'ice-t', crips or bloods or psychopathically deranged kid can obtain a gun and shoot people.

"thats irrelevant its a statistical fluke" actually, the correct term is anomaly. Its not an anomaly when 85% of the world's serial killers are american.
http://www.karisable.com/crserial.htm
and 66% of murders are committed with a gun.

ive accepted some of your credible points (though theyre rare inbetween the slantering of other people, horseshit you compile and narcissistic statements)

whereas you continue to stay oblivious to everyone elses points and claim we're all ignorant idiots. its fucking hilarious. the irony and stupidity is too much to bear.

i hope youll be glad to know im laughing at you.

'kthxbai'

---

Tony... you keep ignoring reality and providing sourced that don't address the FACTS that I already used to entirely prove you wrong.

Just keep doing what you're doing, because even though I already meticulously and soundly proved my point... the fact that your only rebuttals are the incredibly weak shit you're providing, it makes me point even more correct by default.

---

At 6/25/07 04:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Tony... you keep ignoring reality and providing sourced that don't address the FACTS that I already used to entirely prove you wrong.

Funny, in the...is it four topics now?..I've run off a list of FACTS that indicate that if anyone's wrong, it would be you.

Just keep doing what you're doing, because even though I already meticulously and soundly proved my point... the fact that your only rebuttals are the incredibly weak shit you're providing, it makes me point even more correct by default.

You haven't proven anything - come on, CD6, you start a topic saying gun control doesn't work (proof) and have a blatant lie in your opening gambit, that being the Dunblaine Massacre happening despite gun control in the UK, when it was the reason for it.

And as for "incredibly weak shit", you're the person that keeps perpetrating the gun nut's wet dream about criminals and invaders hiding in the shadows, and they need to be met with the foce of The People, despite the fact any invasion is in the juristiction of the army, navy and air force first and foremost, not Jake the Gas Attendant from Aberdeen, Washington and the .44 Magnum he bought because he wants to be Dirty Harry.

You keep Xeroxing your text from your previous post and it seems you're waiting for it to be holed beneath the waterline once again, and sent to the bottom with all hands in a short space of time.

Come on, "You're wrong" because I can recognise a conditional statement and you just go with what the NRA have been saying all these years to convince the easily led? Tell me, did you believe Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be launched in 45 minutes because you were told loudly enough and often enough, despite the fact it wasn't true?

---

well gun control wont stop shootings like vt, crazies willl always find a way. But gun control makes it harder, for both crazies and hunters, to acquire firearms. Im a hunter and i feel if waiting a bit longer to get a hold of a new shiny 20 gauge for my pheasant hunting even helps too slow some korean madman from grabbing hold of a rifle and letting loose a stream of bullets at innocents im fine with it.

---

At 6/25/07 11:08 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/25/07 04:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Tony... you keep ignoring reality and providing sourced that don't address the FACTS that I already used to entirely prove you wrong.

Funny, in the...is it four topics now?..I've run off a list of FACTS that indicate that if anyone's wrong, it would be you.

You haven't proved anything you silly moron. You have not proved ANYTHING you've said and the silly things you do say don't even fully apply to the things you suggest they do.

Maybe you should learn to read and accept REALITY instead of doing what you're doing now which is ignoring it entirely.

I proved my case, you've proved nothing and haven't disproved anything I said.

Just keep doing what you're doing, because even though I already meticulously and soundly proved my point... the fact that your only rebuttals are the incredibly weak shit you're providing, it makes me point even more correct by default.

You haven't proven anything

Actually I have and you know it. You know I proved my case, but your all-encompassing grudge has turned you into a delusional little moron.

-I've PROVED that in the US legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes.
-I've PROVED that most gun crime in the US is done by people who cannot legally obtain firearms.
-I've PROVED that gun control doesn't always work and that banning handguns caused an increase in gun crimes in the UK...which fortifies the FACT that when more citizens have guns legally, they prevent more crime, when less have them, people who commit firearm crimes because they can and will still obtain firearms.
-I've PROVED that after the ban in the UK, the places with the least amount of guns had the most crime and the places with the most amount of guns had the least crime.

I proved my case meticulously and soundly. It is concrete. Nobody has proved anything to the contrary, because simple stating murder rates in comparison between two countries doesn't mean anything due to factors I already proved hold more sway than gun control, such as racial make-up.

- come on, CD6, you start a topic saying gun control doesn't work (proof) and have a blatant lie in your opening gambit, that being the Dunblaine Massacre happening despite gun control in the UK, when it was the reason for it.

How fucking retarded can you possibly be? You DO realize that before Dunblaine the UK still had tighter gun control than the US right? I made two separate points about Dunblaine.

1) Massacres of that nature take place in other places than the US, in countries that have tigther gun control and 2) It was used as a pretext for tighter gun control legislation in the UK, but this legislation DID NOT lessen gun crime and actually caused it to double in 6 years, proving that criminals still get guns regardless of the laws pertaining to LEGAL gun ownership.

You're wrong, I'm right. And you know it, so now you have to twist what I say.

Keep doing what you're doing, all it amounts to is self-deception.

---

it's fun; here in Québec, something called "Anastasia's law" has been passed incrising gun control in response to the Dawson college shooting. i read some of the things that the laws would do and it is the most inefficient and pointless piece of shit i have ever seen.
one of the new laws is that a permit is required to transport one's weapon(s). now i don't know if anyone else knows this but psychopaths don't pay much attention to such laws. there are already laws that require you to transport your weapons securely (locks, unloaded and all that fun stuff) which make sense, but do you think someone who is going to go shoot up a school is going to bother with simple security measures let alone acquiring a transportation permit? of course not.
even with this law how would an officer be able to tell there are guns in the trunk of a vehicule and take appropriate actions? unless they could see something that gives them a legitimate reason to search the car they would never know the person is transporting weapons.

---

increasing*

---

At 6/26/07 03:26 AM, TomsPulp wrote:
epic phail my friend......epic fail

of course its a fail the also the whole idea of gun control is one big ass ecpi fail larger than the universe make even class-3 destructive devices legal!! i need a pancor jackhammer auto shotgun!!!

---

At 6/26/07 04:09 PM, TomsPulp wrote:

At 6/26/07 03:43 AM, HomicideJack wrote:

At 6/26/07 03:26 AM, TomsPulp wrote:
epic phail my friend......epic fail

of course its a fail the also the whole idea of gun control is one big ass ecpi fail larger than the universe make even class-3 destructive devices legal!! i need a pancor jackhammer auto shotgun!!!

haha i know! gun control dont do shit, these wiggers/giggers/gangsters who arent allowed to get guns can get them easily, all itll do is make gun prices a few $100 higher for that gangster to buy them, gangsters get mad at that, lets save a life and have no new gun laws.

yeah but then they pull out thier knives and stabs the gun dealer/seller and then we have a newer more brutal form of murder.....then not only that but then the gangsters take the guns off the dead dealer/seller

---

They should just sell hunting rifles. None of this handgun shit. It just leads to more people getting their hands on things they shouldn't have.

---

At 6/24/07 08:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

It listed two things, and at the end said both are required by that amendment.

No. It says that arms can be posessed when you're a member of the ORGANIZED militia.

Therefore, by increasing gun control which targets LAW ABIDING citizens

Gun control is best when it comes before purchase. Restricting weapon sales is the primary goal.

Seriously, you keep fucking ignoring reality and it just makes you look like a retard.

Trying to prevent deaths of one kind is not retarded. By this logic you would call those who try to prevent cancer deaths retarded.

---

Gun Control that gets rid of hand guns and most rifles will never become law. And it shouldn't. The whole reason we have guns is to protect ourselves from the government. It's like John Locke said "A government should fear the people not the people should fear the government" or something like that. And last time the government tried to pass gun control a bunch of farmers got together and started a little thing called the revolutionary war. And don't give me any of this Milita bullshit because as soon as you start taking rights out of the constitution you open a can of worms that is hard to close. I mean once they take away the guns whats next your freedom of speech or your right private property?

---

discussing the fact i made a typo and later corrected myself: epic fail.