Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/21/03 02:20 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote: Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

But I think the gun helps.

It dosen't matter what tools they have at their disposal. If a murder wants to kill you, he will. With or without guns. Having legal firearms acts as a deterrent. Just like the US having Wepons of Mass destruction as a deterrent to other nations. They know if they nuke us, they are going to get nuked back.
It's the same way with a crminal. They know if they try to rop/rape/murder us, they might get shot for it.
Personally, I think MORE people should have guns.

No. Most murders are committed when an argument heats up and someone reaches for a weapon, usually a gun or knife.

If I was a criminal, and I knew everybody had a gun, I would arm myself with a gun, and shoot first. Its not a pretty circle.

Criminal gets gun.
Civilian gets gun.
Every civilian gets guns.
Criminals get paranoid.
Criminals get (more) guns.
Back to start.

At 7/21/03 03:36 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/21/03 02:20 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote: Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

But I think the gun helps.

So does the knife. And the piano wire for that matter.
Does that mean we should ban knives and Pianos?

It dosen't matter what tools they have at their disposal. If a murder wants to kill you, he will. With or without guns. Having legal firearms acts as a deterrent. Just like the US having Wepons of Mass destruction as a deterrent to other nations. They know if they nuke us, they are going to get nuked back.
It's the same way with a crminal. They know if they try to rop/rape/murder us, they might get shot for it.
Personally, I think MORE people should have guns.

No. Most murders are committed when an argument heats up and someone reaches for a weapon, usually a gun or knife.

And banning guns will end this? If you ban guns, criminals will still have plenty of weapons to grab.

If I was a criminal, and I knew everybody had a gun, I would arm myself with a gun, and shoot first. Its not a pretty circle.

Criminal gets gun.
Civilian gets gun.
Every civilian gets guns.
Criminals get paranoid.
Criminals get (more) guns.
Back to start.

Well, if the Civilians have no guns, the cycle looks more like this:
Criminal Gets gun
Criminal gets more guns.
Criminal kills civilians.
Civilians are helpless to stop Criminal.

At 7/21/03 04:43 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote:

At 7/21/03 03:36 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/21/03 02:20 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote: Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

But I think the gun helps.

So does the knife. And the piano wire for that matter.
Does that mean we should ban knives and Pianos?

Not at all. As I have already stated, knives have pactical uses. They are used in the kitchen, to cut things and stuff. Piano wire also has a use, for making sound in pianos.

Guns have no use other than to kill or hurt. I am not counting clay pigeon shooting.

No. Most murders are committed when an argument heats up and someone reaches for a weapon, usually a gun or knife.

And banning guns will end this? If you ban guns, criminals will still have plenty of weapons to grab.

Possibly true, but guns are the quickest, most effective and easiest way of killing. Ask any murderer if he wouold prefer a handgun or piano wire and he will choose the handgun. Why? It's easier, no messing around, you can shoot from afar and people are terifierd of guns.

Well, if the Civilians have no guns, the cycle looks more like this:
Criminal Gets gun
Criminal gets more guns.
Criminal kills civilians.
Civilians are helpless to stop Criminal.

Or maybe...

Criminal gets gun.
Criminal gets arrested, and put behind bars for life.
Civilians happy.

At the discussion between bumcheekycity and THE_HULKSTER, I must said that THE_HULKSTER have really abusurd logic (which is good for controlling most situations) and bumcheekcity has normal logic.

But it is clear that the normal logic takes a puch the the absurd one.

Guns are needed, but that dosen't make them a very good thing.

It is like some mods ;-)

I'd have a shitload of guns if this thing called the army didn't exist.

The thing is, as long as there are inanimate (or maybe animate, beavers, goats, perhaps?) objects exist, they can be used as weapons against other people. There's no stopping that. Sometimes you just get the urge to hit someone with a mallet.

True, but if you hit someone in the head with, let's say, a Stephen King novel they'll have one hell of a headache or may even sever a slight concussion if you hit them hard enough.

On the other hand, if you shoot them in the head...

At 7/21/03 10:38 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: True, but if you hit someone in the head with, let's say, a Stephen King novel they'll have one hell of a headache or may even sever a slight concussion if you hit them hard enough.

On the other hand, if you shoot them in the head...

If you hit someone with a hardback copy of Stephen King's Bag of Bones or any of the Harry Potter series hard enough, it could cause enough damage to the skull to kill them. We're never going to get rid of things that can kill people, so we had best just learn how to minimize the threat.

Which is easier to carry around and to kill someone with, a thousand-pages hardcover best-seller novel or a handgun? I don't know about you but if I was going to assasinate Bush I wouldn't throw him a book from afar, I'd pull a trigger and shoot him in the head. (i.e. JFK)

I really cant see why some of you just cant understand this sequence:
Make guns illegal.
Civilins have no guns, criminals get them.
Criminals still use them; maybe even more since they know you have less of a chance to shoot back.

Civilins rights are taken away due to a minority; they shouldnt take the blame for the ones who are using them in illegal ways. Even if they are arrested and given long sentances, these people will still get them and use them. It takes away the rights of the desearving; this is counterproductive.
Making them illegal is a lame solution that isnt thought out very well at all.

We are not looking to take guns away from innocent civilians, we are looking to take guns away from terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

I agree with BWS. Criminals will get guns no matter what.

ThiConsider these historical examples:

We tried to ban alcohol in prohibition. Did it work? No, people made their own or smuggled it. It even made the situation worse by creating the Mafia.

We've tried to ban and keep out drugs. Has that worked? No, drugs are smuggled en masse into this country daily. It's even created dangerous criminal organizations centered around drug trafficking, drug-fueled street gangs/dealers and powerful international cartels.

If we ban guns, we can judge the results from history. Illegal guns will continue to flow into the hands of criminals via smuggling operations and it is likely that a new class of organized crime and widespread crime problems will develop around gunrunning just as it did around bootlegging and drugs.

At 7/22/03 12:20 AM, BWS wrote: I really cant see why some of you just cant understand this sequence:
Make guns illegal.
Civilins have no guns, criminals get them.
Criminals still use them; maybe even more since they know you have less of a chance to shoot back.

Because if guns are deemed 100% illegal, there won't be any more guns produced and then no one will have a gun. No, criminals can't import their guns through the black market because America is the country that is used to export guns to other criminal organizations and terrorists. Also, maybe the police will do something? You never know.

At 7/22/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: No, criminals can't import their guns through the black market because America is the country that is used to export guns to other criminal organizations and terrorists.

So the rest of the country makes no guns? None whatsoever? The rest of the world never will makes guns at all, even if there was a demand?

Also, maybe the police will do something? You never know.

Were the police have been able to stop booze smuggling or have they been able to stop drug trafficking?

At 7/22/03 12:36 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: So the rest of the country makes no guns? None whatsoever? The rest of the world never will makes guns at all, even if there was a demand?

Correction: 'So the rest of the world makes no guns?'

At 7/22/03 12:36 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

So the rest of the country makes no guns? None whatsoever?

Well, isn't what some people think stricter gun laws mean? A total nation-wide ban on guns?

The rest of the world never will makes guns at all, even if there was a demand?

Not enough to supply America and their country since the supply and demand is currently the other way around.

Were the police have been able to stop booze smuggling or have they been able to stop drug trafficking?

No, but there is such a thing as metal detectors.

BTW, I am not for banning all guns in all of the country. I am against selling any amount of guns to anyone. We're gonna end up with another Oklahoma city bombing if we don't keep guns away from psychos and terrorists.

At 7/22/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/22/03 12:20 AM, BWS wrote: I really cant see why some of you just cant understand this sequence:
Make guns illegal.
Civilins have no guns, criminals get them.
Criminals still use them; maybe even more since they know you have less of a chance to shoot back.

Because if guns are deemed 100% illegal, there won't be any more guns produced and then no one will have a gun.

The thing thats sucks is the fact that there would be too high of a demand for there to be no producers. Someone would import them, but it wouldnt even be needed due to the amount in existance.
No, criminals can't import their guns through the black market because America is the country that is used to export guns to other criminal organizations and terrorists.
Many countries manufacture firearms; Isreal makes some damn good ones. With such a high demand, it would be inevitable that someone would produce them and import them...we gets literally tons of cocaine all the time.
Also, maybe the police will do something? You never know.
Well, Im sure they would. Its just that they wouldnt be effective as far as protection because the use of a firearm is quick and done by the time they hear about it. Of course, not many people arent faced with such a situation, thank God. Its just that I prefer to have the opportunity to protect myself in this way. Police respond, but they get there once its over...they cant beat a bullet.

At 7/22/03 12:41 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

No, but there is such a thing as metal detectors.

Metal detectors everywhere? Umm, will never happen. Besides, people carry around metal objects that aren't guns all the time. If guns become illegal then the entire country's supply of guns will be in the hands of criminals. Because guns are illegal and no longer created, the police have no guns to fight back against the criminals. Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean that they all suddenly disappear. Many, many criminals are illegaly carrying guns so making guns illegal for everyone wouldn't change anything except to take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

At 7/22/03 12:48 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/22/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/22/03 12:20 AM, BWS wrote:

Damn! I really chopped that up by responding inbetween what you said! Someones gonna read it and think im arguing with myself! (maybe that means I dont get a gun!)

We should regulate them a bit more so that psycho's have a hard time getting them legally.

At 7/22/03 12:20 AM, BWS wrote: I really cant see why some of you just cant understand this sequence:
Make guns illegal.
Civilins have no guns, criminals get them.
Criminals still use them; maybe even more since they know you have less of a chance to shoot back.

I don't know why 90+% of Americans think this way. In Britain guns are illegal. Infact, theyre VERY illegal now because there were a few high-profile killings a couple of months ago.

It Britain there are virtually NO law-abiding civilians with a gun. ONLY criminals have a gun. We don't actually have many people die per year from gun crime.

UK - In 1999 there were 0.12 Killings per 100,000 people.
USA - In 1999 there were 4.08 Killings per 100,000 population.

The above figures are obviously, for gun offences. No knives or anything. Guns only.

So I guess making guns Illegal helps a bit, seeing as that is 34 times more gun deaths in America than Britain.

At 7/22/03 05:11 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: I don't know why 90+% of Americans think this way. In Britain guns are illegal. Infact, theyre VERY illegal now because there were a few high-profile killings a couple of months ago.

Guns in Norway is also illegal.

It Britain there are virtually NO law-abiding civilians with a gun. ONLY criminals have a gun. We don't actually have many people die per year from gun crime.

You can have a gun in Norway if you have got hunting license. And there is many old WW2 veterans with stockpiles of guns and ammo. But the number of ppl dying from gunshots are very low. More common is knife.

UK - In 1999 there were 0.12 Killings per 100,000 people.
USA - In 1999 there were 4.08 Killings per 100,000 population.

The above figures are obviously, for gun offences. No knives or anything. Guns only.

I think the numbers are even less in Norway. I know for sure that the last month or so 3 ppl were killed from guns(this was in a gang fight between the Oslo's two gangs. Pakistan ones).

So I guess making guns Illegal helps a bit, seeing as that is 34 times more gun deaths in America than Britain.

Of course. My "to prevent war and similar, you have to remove the weapons" theory is very clear here.

There was a time when I was completely for the ban of all guns in the USA. However, I spent some time talking with my conservative friend who's for them remaining fully legal, and we had clashes of ideas. It got us both to thinking, and we slowly came to a concensus...

Guns are used for hunting, target practice, and sport. This is a fact I'm willing to accept and readily acknowledge, and these are not events I think should be taken away from the general public.

However...

Look at these activities. What do they all, all across the field, typically use?
Rifles. Large, two-handed guns that stand out like sore thumbs and are almost impossible to conceal.

But what about handguns?

When was the last time you saw someone go hunting with a handgun? Quite frankly, never. Handguns are designed for covert transportation of deadly firepower. With a handgun, a person can blast a bullet through someone's brain from 200 meters away in half a second.

I'd like to see you do that with a Steven King novel.

Handguns can be concealed in pockets, purses, the glove compartment of a car, inside a coat, behind one's back -- and they are responsible for the vast majority of gun related deaths.

If you really want self defense, then you aren't going to care whether you blast that robber's head off with a 18 X zoom nightvision scope top tier rifle or the handgun you've hidden in your dresser - a gun is a gun. There's no need to hide it if you're trying to freak them out or shoot them dead.

In this light, it would be best to say that large, unweildy weapons such as rifles, that account for fewer human deaths, are extremely difficult to conceal, and ultimately impractical for covert murdur, should be given the same access privledges that they currently have. Handguns, however, should have severe restrictions placed on them, so that only people who truthfully need them - like our cops, will still be able to use them -- just not vengeful joe #3,286.

I feel this is a pretty logical compromise -- anyone who leans too strongly to either side has some facts to wake up to.

At 7/21/03 01:55 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Thats not off the Simpsons, thats of an Izzard sketch.

One ripped off the other. Darn it...

I could concede that, if guns were used for hunting, then they should be kept in the attic, under lock and key until hunting season.

They should be fully liscensed up and backgroundc checks should be run. There is never a need for a handgun.

Ther only gun people should have is a riufle, and tyhen only if they hunt, can show a hunting club membership on request and have a fully liscenced gun that is only loaded when it needs to be.

At 7/22/03 09:56 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: I could concede that, if guns were used for hunting, then they should be kept in the attic, under lock and key until hunting season.

And when the hunting season was over, all the hunters had to turn in the ammo. I'd even say that the hunting clubs should keep the guns all year. But those building needed high secureity.

They should be fully liscensed up and backgroundc checks should be run. There is never a need for a handgun.

Unless you want to kill someone. And the person with a rifle should also be a good marksman, so he/she don't hurt the animal, but kill it instantly.

Ther only gun people should have is a riufle, and tyhen only if they hunt, can show a hunting club membership on request and have a fully liscenced gun that is only loaded when it needs to be.

yes, and if you did not have yout license, your gun would be taken away+fine. But getting a false license is not hard.
----
Stopping guns is almost (99,99%) impossible, as there always will be smuggelers and secret factories in poor countries.
We can't live in a society with restrictions on everything, tho guns should be restricted.
And there will always be the bad guys with the weapons. If you remove the weapons, something new will most likely be used.
But the restriction of guns would give less accidents, and that is the main reason it is illegal in many countries.

At 7/22/03 05:11 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

I don't know why 90+% of Americans think this way. In Britain guns are illegal. Infact, theyre VERY illegal now because there were a few high-profile killings a couple of months ago.

It Britain there are virtually NO law-abiding civilians with a gun. ONLY criminals have a gun. We don't actually have many people die per year from gun crime.

UK - In 1999 there were 0.12 Killings per 100,000 people.
USA - In 1999 there were 4.08 Killings per 100,000 population.

The above figures are obviously, for gun offences. No knives or anything. Guns only.

So I guess making guns Illegal helps a bit, seeing as that is 34 times more gun deaths in America than Britain.

I personally think the US has a crime and violence problem that isn't caused by guns. I bet the USA has a higher percentage of killings in general. Anyway, now that guns are so prolific in the US, you can't just outlaw them and expect they'll disappear. It might be best in the long run but in short term, I believe it would be very bad.

Good god, some people here are severely delusional.

"IF WE MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL TO CRIMINALS, ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS AND THE POLICE WILL BE POWERLESS TO PROTECT US BECAUSE IT'S ONLY LOGICAL TO TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM THE POLICE FORCE AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DEFEND OUR FAMILY FROM THE BURGLAR THAT BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE EVERY NIGHT!!!"

At 7/22/03 03:21 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Good god, some people here are severely delusional.

"IF WE MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL TO CRIMINALS, ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS AND THE POLICE WILL BE POWERLESS TO PROTECT US BECAUSE IT'S ONLY LOGICAL TO TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM THE POLICE FORCE AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DEFEND OUR FAMILY FROM THE BURGLAR THAT BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE EVERY NIGHT!!!"

Please stop the CAPS.

That is absurd logic or am I wrong?
I say that absurd logic runs the world.
What you wrote is what the common think, but exagerated.

And the world needs more naive burglars :-D

I agree with BWS. Criminals will get guns no matter what.

ThiConsider these historical examples:

Very well done Commander, you have manged to argue for never banning anything. I applaud you.