Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/6/07 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: I could just as easily argue that the guy hadn't taken his medication all week, went to a 1 day sale at the Mall to get his girlfriend something for Christmas, and upon finding the particular item was sold out...

Or maybe he got to the mall and was checking out with that one perfect gift for his girlfriend only to make the realization: "That's right! Silly me! I don't have a girlfriend! But I do have a SKS..."

---

At 12/6/07 12:37 PM, dELtaluca wrote: playing devil's advocate some more

ok i worked it out and its actually not that great a difference, from Google + nearest source if google didn't give a value.

population of USA is only about 20million less than the sum of the countries cellardoor mentioned ^^.

anyways, Elfer its not a matter of it being 'illegal' its a matter of it being harder to acquire firearms.

---

At 12/6/07 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: "That's right! Silly me! I don't have a girlfriend! But I do have a SKS..."

Well I kind of covered that by saying he hadn't taken his medication in a week...

---

i think the shooter was after George bush.

---

At 12/6/07 12:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: "That's right! Silly me! I don't have a girlfriend! But I do have a SKS..."

Well I kind of covered that by saying he hadn't taken his medication in a week...

True and you did it rather subtly and well. I just wanted to flush it out a little...

---

At 12/6/07 12:44 PM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:37 PM, dELtaluca wrote: playing devil's advocate some more

ok i worked it out and its actually not that great a difference, from Google + nearest source if google didn't give a value.

population of USA is only about 20million less than the sum of the countries cellardoor mentioned ^^.

anyways, Elfer its not a matter of it being 'illegal' its a matter of it being harder to acquire firearms.

Right, but if someone is going to murder a bunch of people, acquiring a firearm will be a relatively small hurdle, even if it is illegal.

For example, if you're going to go on a rampage and kill yourself, cost is not prohibitive. And if you've got ten thousand dollars to drop on a single gun, someone can get it for you.

---

At 12/6/07 02:24 PM, Elfer wrote: For example, if you're going to go on a rampage and kill yourself, cost is not prohibitive. And if you've got ten thousand dollars to drop on a single gun, someone can get it for you.

ok, lets look at the shootings where it involves teenagers, in most cases they don't go and get the gun themselves do they? the gun is present somewhere - in the home, next-door, friends house wherever, they take and use it.

---

At 12/6/07 02:28 PM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 12/6/07 02:24 PM, Elfer wrote: For example, if you're going to go on a rampage and kill yourself, cost is not prohibitive. And if you've got ten thousand dollars to drop on a single gun, someone can get it for you.

ok, lets look at the shootings where it involves teenagers, in most cases they don't go and get the gun themselves do they? the gun is present somewhere - in the home, next-door, friends house wherever, they take and use it.

1) The last two shootings did not involve teenagers who could not go out and purchase a gun.

2) A person willing to committ one federal crime, won't necessarily be picky on who he's selling the firearm to.

---

At 12/6/07 02:28 PM, dELtaluca wrote: ok, lets look at the shootings where it involves teenagers, in most cases they don't go and get the gun themselves do they? the gun is present somewhere - in the home, next-door, friends house wherever, they take and use it.

Yeah, because that's easier at the moment. Just because that's the way it currently happens doesn't mean it's the only possible way for it to happen.

---

At 12/6/07 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: I could just as easily argue that the guy hadn't taken his medication all week, went to a 1 day sale at the Mall to get his girlfriend something for Christmas, and upon finding the particular item was sold out had a nervous breakdown and started shooting up the place. After all, it's no coincidence that this shooting took place in a mall at Christmas time.

that was pretty much the point of my post. people grab at unrelated events too easily.

---

At 12/6/07 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: The fact of the matter still remains; Britain has some of the most strict gun control laws on earth, and yet, you still have gun crimes and mass shootings, which runs counter to the liberal thought process of "no guns = no gun crime."

In theory, that statement is true.

The real fundamental flaw is in thinking that "gun control = no guns"

---

At 12/5/07 06:52 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: If you're gonna go shooting up a crowded place, why turn the gun on yourself? Fight the police, go out with style!

Nobody likes a cop-killer.

Back on topic: With how many shootings there have been recently, this should be telling us that we don't have strict enough control over guns.

It's not gun control laws causing people to do this. Mental instability and glorification of killing are to blame.

---

At 12/6/07 03:39 AM, Doublelinked wrote: Long rambling post that made little sense.

Fun fact: In a 274 word post, you used only 3 periods.

;

---

At 12/6/07 09:23 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Fun fact: In a 274 word post, you used only 3 periods.

;

Fun fact: In a 12 word post, you used only 11 spaces O_o

---

At 12/6/07 09:23 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Fun fact: In a 274 word post, you used only 3 periods.

;

Yeah I have a tendency to not use periods and proteas banned me for a day (but no periods is better than sentence fragments lol).
Although even without periods everything in there about gun legislation is true so you can't say it made no sense. Unless your talking about the legislation itself and then yeah I'd have to agree the legislation makes no sense.

---

At 12/6/07 09:10 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 12/5/07 06:52 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: If you're gonna go shooting up a crowded place, why turn the gun on yourself? Fight the police, go out with style!

Nobody likes a cop-killer.

Yeah. And the worst types of spree killers are the ones who get captured and produce a whole legal and social mess. They'd just go to a lengthy trial and end up in prison for life or get the death penalty anyway, so turning the gun on themselves neatly ties up a whole lot of loose ends.

---

At 12/7/07 05:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah. And the worst types of spree killers are the ones who get captured and produce a whole legal and social mess. They'd just go to a lengthy trial and end up in prison for life or get the death penalty anyway, so turning the gun on themselves neatly ties up a whole lot of loose ends.

Then there's the whole issue about life sentences not really being life sentences (more like 20 years). Why else would they charge someone with multiple life sentences?

---

At 12/6/07 06:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Interesting...

I
could
swear
that
other
countries
with
tighter
gun
control
had
shootings
as
well

But I guess your little claim there overrides history.

My God, this was obliterated months ago when you were trying to deny there's a link between having a gun and shooting somebody, compared to not having a gun and not shooting anybody.

The 1988 Hungerford massacre led to the banning of assault weapons and multiple-shot shotguns.
The 1996 Dunblane massacre led to the banning of handguns.

In other words, both happened when the guns involved were legally available. Or, to put it another way, there hasn't been a gun massacre in the UK since. A coincidence, of course.

The key difference between the US and UK's gun crime is that in the UK, the majority of it is either utilising air weapons or modified replicas - the use of actual guns has decreased. In the US, the problem is live weapons and live ammo - that's a massive difference.

The other difference is that the UK's gun crime is criminal-on-criminal: even the deaths of Rhys Jones and Magda Pniewska this year were supposed to be, if the shooter's aim was better. In the US, the gun death rate is far more indiscriminate - gun massacres aside, the deaths range from gang-related violence, accidents when somebody decides to play William Tell, freak accidents (the gun discharging when the owner drops it when cleaning it, killing somebody in the next room), or somebody losing their temper in a argument with friends, family, or some guy at a bar and pulling a gun and firing before they can think.

However, both the UK and US share a common trait with one group that have guns: both have trigger-happy police.

---

At 12/7/07 05:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah. And the worst types of spree killers are the ones who get captured and produce a whole legal and social mess. They'd just go to a lengthy trial and end up in prison for life or get the death penalty anyway, so turning the gun on themselves neatly ties up a whole lot of loose ends.

;
You know Elfer, about the only thing the murderer did right that day was to shoot/kill himself.
It's just too bad he didn't do it, before he went to the mall !

---

At 12/8/07 11:56 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: My God, this was obliterated months ago when you were trying to deny there's a link between having a gun and shooting somebody, compared to not having a gun and not shooting anybody.

AHAHAHAHA you mean when you got systematically disproved and ran away?

The 1988 Hungerford massacre led to the banning of assault weapons and multiple-shot shotguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

The 1996 Dunblane massacre led to the banning of handguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

In other words, both happened when the guns involved were legally available. Or, to put it another way, there hasn't been a gun massacre in the UK since. A coincidence, of course.

Wow, and you emphasize massacres, while ignoring that overall gun violence has gone up?

Interesting. Funny how the entire basis of your entire argument is based on complete lies.

You wait several months after you've already been conclusively proved wrong, and come back lying out your ass. LOL!

The key difference between the US and UK's gun crime is that in the UK, the majority of it is either utilising air weapons or modified replicas - the use of actual guns has decreased. In the US, the problem is live weapons and live ammo - that's a massive difference.

Ooops, here you go lying again after you've already been proved wrong, yet again... after a long string of you getting perpetually proved wrong.

Use of actual firearms has doubled since the gun ban.

STATS (page 26):

- Total injures with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Serious injuries with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Slight injury with non-air firearms has gone up by 5 times
- Murder with firearms has gone up since the gun ban (now before you mention the fact that the amount in 2005 was equal to right after the gun ban, take into account that the most recent stat for murder rates was back up to 58 in 2006)

Thank you, come again.

---

It wasnt him! It was Israel and El Qaida.
Members of the Mossad murdered them, and then brainwashed everyone to make them think that it was that guy!
It was actually the Mossad, And they did it because of "random nonsense by someone who watched far too many movies".

---

At 12/9/07 05:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/8/07 11:56 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: My God, this was obliterated months ago when you were trying to deny there's a link between having a gun and shooting somebody, compared to not having a gun and not shooting anybody.

AHAHAHAHA you mean when you got systematically disproved and ran away?

You mean when I got bored of banging my head against the wall of ignorance that is you and WolvenBear?

It's called walking away - you're spinning the exact same crap as you did in the wake of Virginia Tech. Man, you must find yourself tiresome half the time when you just post the same things, like a robot, despite it not having any meaning as it is remarkably irrelevant or, as you keep using Hungerford and Dunblane as "proof", a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

The 1988 Hungerford massacre led to the banning of assault weapons and multiple-shot shotguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

To the grand total of 73 gun deaths in 2006. And have we had any massacres using assault weapons since?

The 1996 Dunblane massacre led to the banning of handguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

And the use of actual guns has gone down. Now, think about it for a second: crimes using actual guns decrease, crimes using converted replicas go up. And have we had any gun massacres since - coinsidering the US has had Virginia Tech, Crandon and Omaha this year, with the total of 40 deaths.

So, the use of replicas increases while the use of actual guns does the opposite (indeed, replicas leap up every year when it comes to gun crime statistics). Now, of all groups in society, who would want to duck under the radar by not using a real weapon, and operate using what can be registered as a replica weapon, only converted so it can fire real ammo? Which group would want to use a legal loophole to say it's merely a replica, yet would want to convert it to be more than realistic?

As I've been telling you for months, before I finally had enough of your crap, it's the criminal fraternity. And, as you continually ignore, they do not murder innocent bystanders in cold blood, or pull a gun during an argument.

If you cannot accept that maybe I'm right in the UK gun deaths are criminal-on-criminal, and go out of your way to avoid answering that question, you're the one running away.

And get this into your head: HALF OF THE UK'S GUN CRIME IS USING AIR RIFLES.

In other words, both happened when the guns involved were legally available. Or, to put it another way, there hasn't been a gun massacre in the UK since. A coincidence, of course.

Wow, and you emphasize massacres, while ignoring that overall gun violence has gone up?

As stated in the link (and in bold, as you'd dodged it), actual gun crime has D-E-C-R-E-A-S-E-D.

Interesting. Funny how the entire basis of your entire argument is based on complete lies.

Please.

Next time you want to say there's gun crime in the UK, don't use massacres from before the bans came into place. Didn't you say something about emphasising massacres, hypocrite?

You wait several months after you've already been conclusively proved wrong, and come back lying out your ass. LOL!

If anyone has been proven wrong, it is the guy who says that Latinos become a homogeonous mass of murder the second they step foot on US soil, that massacres before gun laws came into place prove the Uk has a problem, that gun crime is going up in the UK when the majority of gun crime is using air weapons or converted replicas by the criminal fraternity against each other.

The key difference between the US and UK's gun crime is that in the UK, the majority of it is either utilising air weapons or modified replicas - the use of actual guns has decreased. In the US, the problem is live weapons and live ammo - that's a massive difference.

Ooops, here you go lying again after you've already been proved wrong, yet again... after a long string of you getting perpetually proved wrong.

How strange, I state a fact, you don't even attempt to come up with a rebuttal, but throw in some childish cat-calling. Why/ Because you cannot disprove it, as I have posted two links that show that:
1.) Air weapons make up half of the UK's gun crime statistics.
2.) Gun use is falling.
3.) Use of replicas increases every year.

Use of actual firearms has doubled since the gun ban.

"Overall firearms offences fell 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents - the lowest number in seven years. Firearms robberies, handgun offences and serious injuries from firearms are also down. "

You should also read this first. Oh, and this, this and this. And didn't I say gun crime was symptomatic with drug crime in the UK?

P.34
"It is not always possible to categorise the type of weapon used in an offence. For example, one cannot always be certain if a crime involved a real firearm. Unless a weapon is either fired or recovered after a crime, there is no way of knowing if it real or imitation...The categorisation of firearms will often depend on descriptions by victims or witnesses. Some crimes involve 'supposed' firearms (i.e. something concealed which was presumed to be a firearm)."

In other words, if a gun looked real enough being waved in your face, you'd think it was a real one, wouldn't you? Man, this one hasn't sunk in either?

If you read page 35, you'd see handgun use had dropped from around 6000 uses to just over 4000 in five years, while imitation weapon use had tripled (shotguns, legally available, have been at the same level the whole time - they tend to be used by bank robbers and nobody else, and rarely - if ever - discharged).

And how about page 43?
The graph states that 10,437 out of 21,521 reported gun crimes used *drum roll* air weapons - that's half, with 2,753 imitation firearms on the list - 3,628 weapons are listed as "unknown", with 1,022 "other" (which, presumably, means genuine handguns).

Strange that you just picked out one page...

---

At 12/9/07 11:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: You mean when I got bored of banging my head against the wall of ignorance that is you and WolvenBear?

I'm trying to figure out whether or not I should feel left out...or complimented! lol

---

At 12/9/07 11:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Gun crime stats

Assuming everything you said is right. Why is it worth it for gun crime to go down if TOTAL crime goes up?

---

At 12/9/07 11:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 12/9/07 05:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/8/07 11:56 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: My God, this was obliterated months ago when you were trying to deny there's a link between having a gun and shooting somebody, compared to not having a gun and not shooting anybody.

AHAHAHAHA you mean when you got systematically disproved and ran away?

You mean when I got bored of banging my head against the wall of ignorance that is you and WolvenBear?

Lol ignorance? Is that a compliment when it's coming from you given your VAST levels of ignorance?

You got systematically proved wrong, humiliated, and ran away because you know your argument had no credibility. Literally every single thing you said to boost your argument was conclusively discredited.

So you come back, start running your mouth again in this thread, because apparently you thought it was long enough ago that somehow all the things that transpired will magically be forgotten. That's pretty cowardly. You already know you've lost the argument a long time ago, and that is why you ran away and never even replied to those posts where line by line, I disproved what you said, and yet now you start saying the VERY SAME THINGS that have already been disproved.

It's called walking away - you're spinning the exact same crap as you did in the wake of Virginia Tech. Man, you must find yourself tiresome half the time when you just post the same things

It must be tiresome for you to continually spout out the same lies, over, and over, and over again as watch as they get disproved over, and over, and over again.

That's why you ran away from those threads.

The 1988 Hungerford massacre led to the banning of assault weapons and multiple-shot shotguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

To the grand total of 73 gun deaths in 2006. And have we had any massacres using assault weapons since?

LOL here you go again. Flawless logic there. You don't care that gun control has been proved not to work in your country since assault weapons and handguns were banned. You emphasize that you haven't had any massacres that were already statistically RARE even before the gun control. Nevermind your gun problems have got perpetually worse since, increases in gun murder, serious injury with guns, gun crime... across the board have gone up.

The 1996 Dunblane massacre led to the banning of handguns.

And gun violence has gone up since.

And the use of actual guns has gone down.

NO IT HASN'T.

You haven't proved it, and your claims has already been DISPROVED.

Now, think about it for a second: crimes using actual guns decrease

Um actually crimes using real guns has increased, multiplied rather.

crimes using converted replicas go up.

Yeah, but use of actual guns has increased also.

And get this into your head: HALF OF THE UK'S GUN CRIME IS USING AIR RIFLES.

LOL!

You are a pathological liar!

It's LESS THAN 1/3rd, and the current levels are LOWER than they were before the gun ban.

As stated in the link (and in bold, as you'd dodged it), actual gun crime has D-E-C-R-E-A-S-E-D.

ACTUAL GUN CRIME HAS NOT DECREASED. It has multiplied.

And the times that this was claimed was due to LIES BY YOUR MINISTERS.

You wait several months after you've already been conclusively proved wrong, and come back lying out your ass. LOL!

If anyone has been proven wrong, it is the guy who says that Latinos become a homogeonous mass of murder the second they step foot on US soil

Here's some more of your hilarious lies. Complete and utter disregard for fact is the foundation of your argument.

We went through this, I disproved you: 1,2 , and revealed how you lied about the subject the whole time (documented here).

that massacres before gun laws came into place prove the Uk has a problem, that gun crime is going up in the UK when the majority of gun crime is using air weapons or converted replicas by the criminal fraternity against each other.

Wow

The key difference between the US and UK's gun crime is that in the UK, the majority of it is either utilising air weapons or modified replicas - the use of actual guns has decreased. In the US, the problem is live weapons and live ammo - that's a massive difference.

Ooops, here you go lying again after you've already been proved wrong, yet again... after a long string of you getting perpetually proved wrong.

How strange, I state a fact, you don't even attempt to come up with a rebuttal, but throw in some childish cat-calling. Why/ Because you cannot disprove it, as I have posted two links that show that:
1.) Air weapons make up half of the UK's gun crime statistics.

AHAHAHA

2.) Gun use is falling.

LOL YOU HAVE NEVER, EVER, PROVED THIS.

Gun use is going up in the UK, and has been going up since the gun ban. It has QUADRUPLED.

Use of actual firearms has doubled since the gun ban.

"Overall firearms offences fell 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents - the lowest number in seven years. Firearms robberies, handgun offences and serious injuries from firearms are also down. "

Ministers covered up gun crime.

"THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day. "

----------

So not only do you keep lying after it's already been disproved, but apparently you are profoundly brainwashed.

Let's recap:

Handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 to reduce gun violence, it in fact has not achieved this. Not only has it not achieved it, but apparently it has made it worse. Because AS PROVED, areas with higher levels of legal gun ownership in the UK have lesser crime:

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.

-----------

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens had the exact opposite desired effect.

What has happened since 1997?

- Total injures with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Serious injuries with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Slight injury with non-air firearms has gone up by 5 times
- Murder with firearms has gone up since the gun ban. (58 is the 2006 stat)

Your gun ban has not only FAILED MISERABLY at reducing gun violence, but it has caused the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT.

---

D2K: I would like you to respond to this single, simplified point.

As has been shown, the use of actual guns to commit violent crimes against the person has risen since the gun ban. As the main purpose of a gun ban is to reduce gun violence, doesn't this indicate that the gun ban has been ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst?

---

At 12/6/07 02:24 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but if someone is going to murder a bunch of people, acquiring a firearm will be a relatively small hurdle, even if it is illegal.

For example, if you're going to go on a rampage and kill yourself, cost is not prohibitive. And if you've got ten thousand dollars to drop on a single gun, someone can get it for you.

Than why is crime involving guns proportionately higher in the US than it is in the UK? Why are there more cases of gun massacres in the US than in the UK or anywhere else if it were not for the easy accessibility of guns?

---

At 12/10/07 02:42 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Than why is crime involving guns proportionately higher in the US than it is in the UK? Why are there more cases of gun massacres in the US than in the UK or anywhere else if it were not for the easy accessibility of guns?

You cannot reduce any social phenomenon to just one factor.

1) There are differences in physical and social geography. The UK is an island. Europe is a continent where countries share boarders with countries that share similar social attitudes and legal structures. On the other hand the US shares a massive boarder with a country that is significantly more poor an pourous. While I usually do not get into the whole US vs World gun laws argument; I would like to see the crime comparisons between the US, USSR and Russia.

2) There are also significant differences in culture. In Europe movies would be rated more restrictively for violence rather than sexuality; the opposite of in the US. We seem to glorify violence over here, and I do not think it is because of our "gun culture" but our "thug culture".

Also Tony, Cellar has the incidents of gun massacres elsewhere on speed-link. Even with the gun bans countries like Germany and last year in Canada people have still gotten ahold of "assault weapons" and either planned to go on a spree or had their plans foiled.

---

At 12/6/07 09:10 PM, Christopherr wrote: It's not gun control laws causing people to do this. Mental instability and glorification of killing are to blame.

Yeah, like most of you, the first thing that went thru my mind was.. "gee, this might be another of NG's Malltime-Madness playing nutjobs".

---

At 12/10/07 02:42 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 12/6/07 02:24 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but if someone is going to murder a bunch of people, acquiring a firearm will be a relatively small hurdle, even if it is illegal.

For example, if you're going to go on a rampage and kill yourself, cost is not prohibitive. And if you've got ten thousand dollars to drop on a single gun, someone can get it for you.

Than why is crime involving guns proportionately higher in the US than it is in the UK? Why are there more cases of gun massacres in the US than in the UK or anywhere else if it were not for the easy accessibility of guns?

Societal differences, or anything else at all that makes the US different from the UK. The gun crime and gun massacres in the UK were also lower than in the US BEFORE the gun ban.

When you look at a situation where other variables are controlled, such as the UK pre and post gun ban (i.e. where the banning of handguns is the ONLY difference), you can see that gun bans are ineffective in reducing violence committed with firearms.

You've already decided on a conclusion and are scrounging for facts that might possibly support it, rather than looking at the facts and drawing a conclusion based on them.