Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/25/07 08:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

You see, this is where you're being wrong - again.
After all, how many times do I have to post this? You know, statistics that gun crime happens to be quite a popular pasttime in countries without strict gun control - only Australia and Germany are real anomalies on that list.

You can talk about the UK gun crime rate going up - ignoring the fact that owning a gun in the first place is a crime, you dolt - but the US is the only First World nation to feature in the top ten.

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

78 deaths in a year. Almost entirely within four postal districts, and often with the word "gang" or "drugs" attributible to them. Somehow I don't seem to be understanding what point you're trying to make, since it isn't as if that's on a par with the US. Hell, it isn't on a par with several states within the US.

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

You proved you're a Christian scientist in Hell: "It's not hot and I'm not here."

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.

An "all-encompassing grudge" against people who need to get an argument, who very quickly throw out comments like "weak shit you're providing", and come across like an automoton who stays on the rails no matter how much proof to the contrary is put in front of them.

Have you considered a career as spokesman for the Cult of Scientology?

Also, which part of a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year doesn't register with you?

-I've PROVED that in the US legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes.

How?

-I've PROVED that most gun crime in the US is done by people who cannot legally obtain firearms.

Such as the person who legally procured guns for Harris & Klebold to use at Columbine, for example...

-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.

Yes, because owning a handgun is a crime post-'97, and wasn't beforehand - so anyone who flaunts the ban is committing a crime by the mere act of ownership.

-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.

Sorry, how?

The places in the UK with the most gun crime: Hackney, Peckham, Streatham, Moss Side. That's three London boroughs and one district of Manchester, all with reputations for gang violence and drug trading. Belfast is the highest, but you don't need to be a member of MENSA to think why they might be gunning each other down.

Hackney has long had a reputation for having an A&E department at the local hospital not to dissmilar to Sowetto, and has a stretch known as Murder Mile, so to say that it's an area low in gun ownership is laughably incorrect to the point I will flat out accuse you of making your statistics up.

You also forget where the most guns are registered is in rural areas, due to farmers purchasing shotguns (which are not touched by the laws), so of course there will be less gun crime there, due to how pointless it is to hold up a rural post office - because they've all been closed down.

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.

Let's go back to the gun murder rates, shall we? Again, note that all but two nations have loose (if any) gun control. Please, disprove that.

- 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.

I don't know, how fucking retarded can I be? Could I be so crass as to start a topic based on falsehoods andterms such as "liberal frenzy" to try and prove a point, which ends with this nugget of information for you to read:

"You're right cellardoor, just because gun control has been unable to prevent a few isolated incidents we should throw caution to the wind and allow everyone and thier mum to have military-issue fully automatic weapons. Don't worry, why would we want to use them to kill people when they're good for so many other things?"

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

You see, this is the point where it becomes even more apparent you had no argument to speak of at all: "You're wrong, I'm right"?!?

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

As opposed to mass deception by somebody with no argument and a lot of misrepresentation under their belt? Well damn, that's the way to go through life, isn't it!

Please, accuse me of hating America and be done with it, that's the only desperate throw of the dice you could possibly use.

and you are telling me that Cho COULDN'T have killed 32 people with a bat?

That's exactly what I'm telling you. If we lived in a magical world w/o guns, it wouldn't have been the VT massacre. It would've been the VT scuffle.

In a magical world with out guns there would be swords, knives, axes, bows, fire there is so much that can kill a person, guns are just quicker, and alot less messy, And a gun shot is a lot louder than a decapitation...

Copied from rleeermey.org, no clue where they got it from

Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.
The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc., etc.
The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you

At 6/27/07 11:35 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/25/07 08:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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

At 6/25/07 04:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

You see, this is where you're being wrong - again.
After all, how many times do I have to post this?

You total and complete fucking moron. How stupid can you possibly be? That proves absolutely NOTHING because each country has its own sets of social problems and loads of factors that lead to ALL crime.

Simply comparing countries and their firearm murder rates does NOT prove the effectiveness of their gun control measures alone, and it doesn't prove that gun control automatically means less gun violence. As I PROVED. You keep coming to false conclusions based on something that doesn't even determine the effectiveness of gun control, it's out of context.

You can talk about the UK gun crime rate going up - ignoring the fact that owning a gun in the first place is a crime, you dolt - but the US is the only First World nation to feature in the top ten.

The US is the only first world nation that has 12 million illegal immigrants , borders a country like Mexico that is a huge arms and drug smuggler, and has 1/3rd of its population consisting of minorities that statistically commit multiply times more crime than the majority.

The US has many factors that lead to higher crime, higher crime of any kind. A BIG part of it is the race factor. Let's compare:

- 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 population consists of minorities (most minorities are Asians).

Now take a look at the crime rates among different races in the US.

Blacks and hispanics, are many times more likely to commit crimes in the US, especially violent crime (therefore gun crimes as well), than whites do. And Asians commit crime at a lower rate than even whites.

You get that? The LARGE minority population we have commits a ALOT of crime in our country. The much smaller minority population you have mostly belong to the racial group that commit the smallest rate of crime in the US.

I doubt your country would have a lower murder rate than ours if you shared our racial make-up.

-I've PROVED that in the US legal gun ownership prevents more crime than it causes.

How?

See, here you go again. Your only way of salvaging your points that I already disproved is to entirely deny that I proved them. I PROVED that legal gun ownership in the US prevents more crime than it causes:

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

2) The majority of firearm crime is committed by people who CANNOT legally purchase or own firearms. So most firearm crimes are committed by illegally obtained firearms, not by legal gun owners. 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) For defensive gun uses by legal gun owners to balance out and statistically negate the less than 200,000 gun crimes committed by legal owners, law abiding gun owners would only have to use firearms defensively less than 200,000 times.

4) But guess what? There are 2 MILLION defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens yearly in the US.

You get that yet you delusional twit? Legal gun ownership in the US prevents more crime than it causes. 2 million crimes prevented vs. less than 200,000 (probably a lot lower) crimes caused by gun owners.

I prove things, you say you prove things by linking to things that don't even prove what you say they do.

-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.

Sorry, how?

You are so incredibly pathetic. You entirely ignore the facts I already provided. READ 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.

Hmm... areas with higher legal gun ownership means lower crime while areas with lower gun ownership means higher crime.

PROVED.

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

You see, this is the point where it becomes even more apparent you had no argument to speak of at all: "You're wrong, I'm right"?!?

It has already become apparent that you lost and that you know you're wrong when your only argument consists of denying facts that were already proven, and small instances of out-of-contest nonsense to come to your final conclusion.

You ARE wrong, I AM right. I proved it because my argument has already been validated via the facts, your argument is so ridiculous and so shoddy that I don't even understand how someone can be so stupid as you to use them to come to your wacky conclusions.

I look forward to your even more pathetic rebutall that provides zero relevant facts consists 99% of your own misguided, uneducated nonsense as your sole source of argument. I've proved my case, you have proved nothing.

kthxbai

I know at some pioint, if not already, someone will use a previous school shooting as a pro-gun control example. so let me say some things about that. Virgina tech was the first shooting where the killer bought his own gun. In the case of columbine, eric and dylan stole the guns from a freind. in the case of red lake, -regret- stole the guns from his parents, in fact, every shooting execpt for V-tech took place with a stolen gun.

At 6/27/07 09:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You total and complete fucking moron. How stupid can you possibly be? That proves absolutely NOTHING because each country has its own sets of social problems and loads of factors that lead to ALL crime.

Non-expected opening gambit from you...

What does it prove? It proves that, no matter how you want to spin it, if you live in a country without gun control, you're more likely to get shot and killed than in one that has.

It's pretty simple (and even simplistic), but have you ever tries to shoot someone without a gun? It's as hard as taking you seriously.

Simply comparing countries and their firearm murder rates does NOT prove the effectiveness of their gun control measures alone, and it doesn't prove that gun control automatically means less gun violence. As I PROVED. You keep coming to false conclusions based on something that doesn't even determine the effectiveness of gun control, it's out of context.

So the countries where you're more likely to be shot and killed, which coincidentally don't have gun control (with the exception of 1/16 of that list) means nothing? How can being more likley to be shot and killed PROVE that gun violence is down when your gun-murder rate is pretty fucking high, indeed putting the US in a bracket with crime-ridden, drug-producing, corrupt Third World hell holes?

Just accept it, the US shouldn't be up there for the simple reason the US doesn't fit the profile of those other countries, yet they seem to be quite intent to shoot and kill each other there - over 15,000 times in 2006, for instance.

You can copy and paste your pro-gun, Conservative troll agenda into every post regarding gun control (wait, you said I'm the one with a petty grudge, didn't you?), and it can get picked apart until people just get sick and tired of reading it and disproving it (three topics and counting, CD6), but the fact is when 15,000 people are shot and killed in the US, you can't try and make out that 78 people, almost entirely criminals, getting shot and killed in the UK in 2006 is comparable, because that would make you the "fucking moronic retard".

The US is the only first world nation that has 12 million illegal immigrants , borders a country like Mexico that is a huge arms and drug smuggler, and has 1/3rd of its population consisting of minorities that statistically commit multiply times more crime than the majority.

There are 4.9 million immigrants in France, many from West Africa countriues that are havens for drug trade, genocide, drug smuggling...yet is their gun murder rate 1/3 of the US's?

Italy receives a lot of West and North African immigrants, but does their gun crime rate reflect any trends of the US's - and I have to say that Italy wasn't in the afore-posted list, which was a surprise (neither was Brazil, where as many people live in abject poverty in the favellas and get by selling drugs and as members of gang culture - yet they didn't register on that list).

So, you are saying that immigrants are shooting everyone, are you? Fine, blame the non-whites - white people never shoot anybody, do they!!!

- 1/3rd (33%) of the US population is composed of minorities (vast majority of minorities are blacks and Hispanics).

Why is the US only 0.0662 per 100,00 of the Mexican gun murder rate? If 1/3 of the murders could be blamed, by you, on the Meicans, it would be 1.2 per 100,000. Do a little math here, please...

- Only 1/12th (7.9%) of the UK population consists of minorities (most minorities are Asians).

Hang on, but our gun crime rate is rising, without Mexicans involved?

Besides, you say it's based along race lines, yet we're mainly populated by those of the Indian Sub-Continent - yet ignore what I stated about locations, that gun crime is almost entirely based within high-crime, gang/drug crime areas: in other words, it's Criminal A gunning down Criminal B almost every single time.

That cannot be said of the USA.

Dude, read what you're saying - it reads like you blame Mexicans for the gun crime rate in the US!

Now take a look at the crime rates among different races in the US.

Blacks and hispanics, are many times more likely to commit crimes in the US, especially violent crime (therefore gun crimes as well), than whites do. And Asians commit crime at a lower rate than even whites.

Guess what the majority population of Hackney, Streatham and Peckham are? That's right: black.

Sorry, didn't you research that?

You get that? The LARGE minority population we have commits a ALOT of crime in our country. The much smaller minority population you have mostly belong to the racial group that commit the smallest rate of crime in the US.

And the crime is either:
a.) Committed within their own community.
b.) Committed within the criminal fraternity.
c.) Combine (a) and (b).

Can this be said for the US? No.

I doubt your country would have a lower murder rate than ours if you shared our racial make-up.

Let me inform you a little about the ethnic make-up of the UK:
3000 years ago: Celts, who wer enot averse to blood sacrifices.
2000 years ago: The Romans came, and blood was spilt.
1800 years ago: The Saxons, already a bloodthirsty mob, came.
1000 years ago: The Normans came, and instilled some form of sanity.
The entire Middle Ages: Constant, bloody wars with Scotland, France and Spain.

After that, we had a Civil War, a few more wars with various far-flung parts of out Empire (and general skirmishes with the French, Russians, South Africans), as well as two World Wars and a lot of general war I didn't mention in that timeframe.

Our make-up is based on blood far more than the US, yet we don't gun each other down in the street like you have in the US. We don't snap and gun down a few dozen people like we have in the US.

See, here you go again. Your only way of salvaging your points that I already disproved is to entirely deny that I proved them. I PROVED that legal gun ownership in the US prevents more crime than it causes:

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

And how many are there inj the UK, remembering that to make any sort of point it has to be at least 20% of that figure. Is it?

2) The majority of firearm crime is committed by people who CANNOT legally purchase or own firearms. So most firearm crimes are committed by illegally obtained firearms, not by legal gun owners. 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).

Didn't I post a list of people who bought weapons legally and have a few hundred corpses to their names?

And for God's sake, apart from you not referring to that list (which is called "ignoring it"), you didn't even defend a damn good reason gun control is needed: if Harris & Klebold had their weapons like most underage kids would get somebody to buy them licquor, this proves that the current US policy on gun owenership is clearly insane.

3) For defensive gun uses by legal gun owners to balance out and statistically negate the less than 200,000 gun crimes committed by legal owners, law abiding gun owners would only have to use firearms defensively less than 200,000 times.

Sorry, "less than 200,000" times is a good thing, is it?

Personally, I say having to defensively use a gun defensivly less than 2 times is something to celebrate, but what would I know? I'm from a country that had a "liberal frenzy" (despite having a Conservative government at the time...) and thought that less than twice is a good idea.

4) But guess what? There are 2 MILLION defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens yearly in the US.

Coincidentally an 82 year old man disarmed a shotgun-toting robber here with a lettuce, so what are the statistics on defensive lettuce use versus offensive lettuce use?

By the way, the fact is that in the US you need to have 215,000 to negate the bodycount is the point.

So those 15,000 are, as you described earlier, "a statistical fluke"?

I can only assume nobody you know has ever been gunned down in cold blood for you to adopt that stance.

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

Can you name those areas please? If you don't, this means nothing as I can't casually point out you're making shit up again. Actually, I can because if you don't provide the names, you're making shit up.

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

I note you didn't mention the small part about having a gun in the first place being a crime, you just mention "armed crime levels" - which means nothing.

Hmm... areas with higher legal gun ownership means lower crime while areas with lower gun ownership means higher crime.

Legal gun ownership in the UK = farmers with shotguns, and nothing else.

Coincidentally there are in small communities where you can't vanish into the background after shooting somebody and, oh yes, no gang culture.

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

You see, this is the point where it becomes even more apparent you had no argument to speak of at all: "You're wrong, I'm right"?!?

It has already become apparent that you lost and that you know you're wrong when your only argument consists of denying facts that were already proven, and small instances of out-of-contest nonsense to come to your final conclusion.

The only person who's lost, in many senses of the word, is the person that has to wade into every gun control topic with their same bullshit and either:
a.) Have it pulled to pieces and left to rot.
b.) Not have it pulled to pieces as people are fed up of their bullshit, and it's not worth the time.

Bravo!

You ARE wrong, I AM right. I proved it because my argument has already been validated via the facts, your argument is so ridiculous and so shoddy that I don't even understand how someone can be so stupid as you to use them to come to your wacky conclusions.

You've validated the fact you know nothing of what happens in the UK, just refer to a graph and nothing behind it - which I have listed time and again, yet you seem to be blinking as you scroll past before automotoning you next chunk of propeganda for Neo Con Gun Nuts to drool over while they look the other way to what's happening.

You've proven that in order to continue your tirade against being unable to shoot people, the deaths of 15,000 people apparently means nothing, but the deaths of 78 people do - in a logic that is fucked up beyond belief.

You opened your argument with terms like "liberal frenzy", proving what you were really about.

And you've proven that your status as a Conservative Troll is well deserved, Shrek.

And you've proven that people in the US fetishize guns in such a manner that it's yet another part of the problem, as they deny anything wrong in their country and try and make out everyone else has a problem - just like a junkie in withdrawal denying their have a problem, not convincing anyone but themself.

And that's another reason gun control is needed - because if it wasn't needed, such desperate attempts to point the finger at anyone else wouldn't be so common, would they? After all, didn't you blame your entire gun crime statistics on immigrants - ignoring anothe rlink I posted a long time ago with the statistics by state, and you couldn't blanket blame every non-white for it solely based on their population?

D2K & Cellar,

I actually get tired of comparing the US to the UK on this issue. Even when you reduce the gun murder rate down to a per capita basis you cannot effectively compare the two because there are other factors that are involved.

1) The UK does not have the same social problems as the US; ie gang culture.
2) While you have reduced the stats down to a per capita basis you have not dealt with the issue that the US is massively larger than the UK in terms of population and land mass. Both of these introduce many variables that would explain why the difference in murder rates.

What the debate comes down to is should the US adopt UK or EU style gun control. Obviously D2K thinks so. However, Cellar and I disagree because our several different reasons.

The first is in the US gun control does not work. Take gang culture for instance. Gun control will not have any effect on that. 1) there are too many guns already in circulation in the US and 2) our borders are way too pourous to realistically think that we will keep new guns from entering the system. We have to deal with this problem through other means.

Cellar and I also believe that concealed carry and defensive use of firearms outweigh the murder rate. Therefore, gun control only takes guns away from people who would responsibly use them.

Furthermore, in the US gun control laws are written by people who are ignorant of the topic and the technology. That is why the AWB of 1994 was such a failure. Yes during that decade there was a significant drop in firearm homicide, however this cannot be attributed to the AWB because the guns that were targeted were still able to be purchased legally. It became a joke bill which did nothing but make the anti-gunners feel like they accomplished something. It is this concern with "feelings" rather than results from the gun-control crowd that produces failed and ineffectual gun control legislation.

There is no positive impact to concealed carry or firearms ownership. We know this because of research...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/
329/15/1084

http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract /273/22/1759

Guns allow for crime. That's a well-established fact.

At 6/30/07 03:01 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Guns allow for crime. That's a well-established fact.

Are you sure? But regardless, here's a better question:

Will making guns illegal actually prevent gun crime?

Proving that the current circulation of guns causes crime is one thing. But can you prove that making it illegal will make the situation any better/

Making something illegal doesn't just make it magically disappear. And it doesn't necessarily make it better. We found that out during the alcohol prohibition, didn't we? Illegality is good for some crimes; such as murder, rape, etc.- but for stopping gun crime? Banning guns will not solve that one, I believe.

I would like to add to The Mason's post and reiterate a previous point I made that our large and practically defenseless land and coastal borders to Mexico and the south Atlantic allow for drugs and guns to be smuggled into the US far easier than the UK. The multi-million dollar drug trade fuels the multi-million dollar illegal gun trade. There's a large supply of illegal weapons being smuggled from Latin America to supply the drug turf wars on US streets. Legislation passed on the legal trade of guns will have absolutely no impact on black market sale of fire arms. If you really want to stop gun violence, it would be far more effective to combat the drug trade than make guns harder to legally obtain than they already are.

At 6/28/07 05:59 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: You can copy and paste your pro-gun, Conservative troll agenda into every post regarding gun control

See, this is what makes me laugh about you. You get PROVEN WRONG so incredibly hard, that now when the facts become clear, you have to discount it as "pro-gun conservative troll" behavior even though you KNOW that it was by far the most compelling evidence, and that it concretely supported my stance.

Even though I PROVED to you that LEGAL gun ownership in the US prevents more crime than it causes, and that even in YOUR country gun control has shown not to work, you keep attacking the pro-gun view rather than accepting the FACTS.

You're taking your stance because you don't like pro-gunners, you don't like guns, you're not taking it based on the facts.

(wait, you said I'm the one with a petty grudge, didn't you?), and it can get picked apart until people just get sick and tired of reading it and disproving it

You haven't picked apart or disproved ANYTHING. You haven't proved that gun control will work in the US, while I proved that it won't work, and that enforcing tighter gun control doesn't even get to the ROOT of the problem, which is the criminal, NOT the legal gun owner.

I proved my case entirely, you proved nothing. All you did was link to gun/murder rates and used that as your determining factor, disregarding all other variables that I showed hold more sway.

You keep using one single study religiously, failing to acknowledge the FACT that the US has certain variables that make such a study irrelevant to the ACTUAL debate determining whether tigther gun control in the US WILL work. But I proved that it won't, I proved that gun-bans the likes of which were enforced in the UK actually made things worse.

I PROVED that legal gun ownership in the US PREVENTS MORE CRIME THAN IT CAUSES, thus, banning guns in the US will NOT lessen gun violence considering it doesn't take the gun out of the hand of criminals, it only disarms the people that someone with half a brain would WANT to have guns.

That is the argument! Will tighter gun control ( such as bans and restrictions of ownership by law-abiding citizens) work in the US?

No, it will not. I proved this.

At 6/30/07 03:01 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: There is no positive impact to concealed carry or firearms ownership. We know this because of research...

There is other research out there that contradicts that research. Secondly, you posted links to medical journals. May I remind you:
1) Those organizations have an anti-gun bias.
2) You're talking about MDs. I was married to an MD so I know a little about their qualifications for this kindof research. They are not equipped for it.

Excuse me, but M.Ds publishing public health studies in peer reviewed journals of medicine are more qualified than any of us to make any arguments.

At 7/1/07 06:50 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Excuse me, but M.Ds publishing public health studies in peer reviewed journals of medicine are more qualified than any of us to make any arguments.

Well if that's the case, you'll really love this topic I made a while back about how the Centers for Disease Control pretty much said "GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK.

And yet the CDC states that 55% of murders of persons under age 19 (in 2004) were committed with a firearm.

Interesting.

At 7/1/07 10:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And yet the CDC states that 55% of murders of persons under age 19 (in 2004) were committed with a firearm.

Interesting.

What's interesting is that you still fail to acknowledge the fact that banning firearms wouldn't mean that those murders would have been prevented.

In fact, you fail to acknowledge, once again, that statistically, similar murders would take place at a higher rate if we were to ban guns.

Interesting.

At 7/1/07 10:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And yet the CDC states that 55% of murders of persons under age 19 (in 2004) were committed with a firearm.

Interesting.

As cellado' said, how will banning guns make the rate of murders go down at all? You can provide all these statistics but you cannot prove that illegalization will make the statistics drop.

The CDC said that firearms will kill a lot of people, but did it say that banning firearms will prevent those people from dying? No.

At 7/1/07 10:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

What's interesting is that you still fail to acknowledge the fact that banning firearms wouldn't mean that those murders would have been prevented.

"guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide"

Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Interesting.

Remarkable.

Though rates of individual murders can be disputed, mass murders will be almost eradicated with strict gun control.

I hunt quail and u need a semi automatic gun half the time

At 7/2/07 09:32 AM, trevor-williams wrote: I hunt quail and u need a semi automatic gun half the time

-JakeHero

At 7/2/07 09:16 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Based on what evidence, highly?

At 7/2/07 09:32 AM, trevor-williams wrote: I hunt quail and u need a semi automatic gun half the time

You know, it's annoying little shits like you that are the reason I'm so fucking burnt out on the gun control debate right now. Because no matter what I say, no matter the strength of my points, theses topics and this forum are still going to be flooded with your ilk.

And all I can do is pray that you win a Darwin Award.

At 7/2/07 02:08 PM, Proteas wrote: And all I can do is pray that you win a Darwin Award.

RPG fishing anyone?

At 7/2/07 09:20 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Though rates of individual murders can be disputed, mass murders will be almost eradicated with strict gun control.

How so? Why would a person be willing to commit the crime or murder be unwilling to commit the crime of illegal possesion of a firearm?

Ya know who else supported gun control?
HITLER

At 7/2/07 09:16 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: "guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide"

Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Interesting.

Remarkable.

Looking at the same statement in a different way, homicides are associated with an increased chance of a gun being in the home. Maybe people who are planning on killing someone are more likely to get a gun, not the other way around.

Most major criminal groups obtain their guns illegally anyway, and lets be for serious here, its hella easy to obtain a gun illegally, because there are so many gaps in our security of the country.
Lets do something productive, instead of taking guns away from people who may potentially use them to protect their families, lets close the damn borders!

At 7/2/07 02:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:16 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Based on what evidence, highly?

I admit that what I said was a stretch, but assuming that guns in the home raises the chance of a homicide, not having guns is certainly better.

At 7/2/07 08:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I admit that what I said was a stretch, but assuming that guns in the home raises the chance of a homicide, not having guns is certainly better.

Assuming means nothing. I can counter that with:

"Assuming having guns in the home PROTECTS you from intruders...."

Again I pose the same questions to the gun control crowd that D@K in particular keeps avoiding, while pointing to other things:

1. If gun control leads to less deaths, why are there no examples of a gun law being enacted and then crime dropping within a reasonable period of time.
2. If (insert your favore anti gun country here) has a lower rate of homicide than the US BECAUSE of their gun control...why was their rate of homicide the same (or even lower) compared to the US before they banned guns?
3. If banning guns guarantees that there are no guns in said city/state/country, why is it that, without exception, gun crimes increase in said areas?
4. If banning guns has been a good thing for (said banning country) why shouldnt we compare their murder rate before guns to their rate after guns...instead of comparing them to the US?
5. If banning guns is so great for the citizenry, why is it that the only people who try to do it (without exception) are authoritarians looking to control every aspect of the citizenry's life?