Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/10/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

I think you'll find that, actually, you continually ignored it across that and two other threads, and you continue to do so.

It gets exceptionally tiring to have being constantly being wrong at you in an obnoxious manner - especially at the point you have to spam my profile.

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.

This coming from someone who once again uses the gambit that, hey, they've had a couple of gun massacres in the UK in the past twenty years - obviously on a par with the US, where they've four this year. Yes, the UK has the problem, let's divert attention away from the US.

Pathetic, cellar, truly pathetic.

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.

Sorry, I'll ask again: HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE UK HAVE BEEN SHOT WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE 20 YEARS SINCE THE HUNGERFORD MASSACRE?.

Of course, the only reason you knew about it is that I mentioned it in one of the prior threads.

NO IT HASN'T.

Cellar, even that Home Office document you posted to prove you right did the opposite - it backed me up. It says, as I have already posted, that handgun use has dropped by a third, and replica usage has treebled in the same time.

In other words, you're proving yourself wrong.

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

LOL!

Is that a nervous laugh - it's in that Home Office docuument - half of the reported gun crime in the UK is using air weapons.

You are a pathological liar!

You are continuing to be proven wrong by YOUR OWN SOURCE.

And, just to show who the real liar is here, do you even try and answer this in your response? No, you patently ignore it - if anyone is running away, it's somebody who is ducking that their supposed key evidence has, to anyone who bothers to read it, proven you to be wrong. It has proven you to be somebody that misrepresents the facts. And, most of all, proves what a pathetic little shit you are.

Stick to posting threads about your gun collection, and news posts about going clay pigeon shooting/to the shooting range (yes, cellar, I can read other people's profiles without flaming them, because I am a mature non-asshole that doesn't stoop to shamefully low levels to divert attention away from having a pro-gun sargument that is patently untrue) - it's your level.

---

At 12/15/07 01:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 12/10/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

I think you'll find that, actually, you continually ignored it across that and two other threads, and you continue to do so.

Lol what? You mean the threads where you got proved wrong in basically every single thing you said the whole time?

This coming from someone who once again uses the gambit that, hey, they've had a couple of gun massacres in the UK in the past twenty years

Yes, which took place when the UK still had tighter gun control than the US has.

You were emphasizing massacres in order to strike up emotional responses because that's all you had left. You stated that lax gun control caused massacres. Then when it became apparent that similar massacres have taken place in several countries that have tighter gun control, you just weaseled your way out of addressing it and started emphasizing the lack of massacres in the UK recently never minding that gun murder still went up as a whole.

Yes, the UK has the problem, let's divert attention away from the US.

Nope, because you were claiming your country was proof gun control works, and then when it was PROVED that gun problems have gotten perpetually worse in your country since both the assault weapons ban and handgun ban, you can't even ATTEMPT to address it.

You link to articles that don't even claim what you say they do, and then when someone replies to you, you never elaborate on your links and just claim from then forward that you proved something that you didn't at all.

Pathetic, cellar, truly pathetic.

LOL

You have major issues with your complete lack of honesty. You get caught lying, proved wrong left and right, use links that you know don't at all validate what you say they mean, and you do what you do now... after having absolutely ZERO substance to your argument you come back days after you get proved wrong and just spout out your bullshit yet again.

Sorry, I'll ask again: HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE UK HAVE BEEN SHOT WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE 20 YEARS SINCE THE HUNGERFORD MASSACRE?.

You're doing it AGAIN!

Gun crime has gotten perpetually worse in the UK, making the lack of use of certain individual kinds of firearms IRRELEVANT, and it only FORTIFIES the pro-gun argument because banning guns does not get rid of gun crime or gun violence.

NO IT HASN'T.

Cellar, even that Home Office document you posted to prove you right did the opposite - it backed me up.

No it didn't.

It says, as I have already posted, that handgun use has dropped by a third, and replica usage has treebled in the same time.

The US of non-air guns in crime has DOUBLED since the gun ban.

The use of air weapons went down, and the US of replicas might have gun up but this is IRRELEVANT because serious injuries and deaths by firearms have gone up at the same time.

Thus proving gun bans didn't work in your country.

In other words, you're proving yourself wrong.

Actually I proved you wrong, you know it, I know it.

Your entire argument now is in contradiction to what we have all seen happen in every gun debate you've had the audacity to enter.

Once your entire argument gets conclusively proved wrong, you just keep arguing an already lost point because you care more about trying to salvage your dignity than you do about trying to honestly interpret reality.

Is that a nervous laugh - it's in that Home Office docuument - half of the reported gun crime in the UK is using air weapons.

And crimes using non-air weapons (i.e. real weapons) has doubled since the gun ban.

The report says the use of real firearms in cause of injury and death has gone up, while the US of air weapons has GONE DOWN, thus showing that if air weapons crime is half, that this is actually LOWER than it was before the gun bans because the use of real guns in injuries has only gone up?

Seriously, your argument is getting so hilarious that even when the numbers are right in front of you, you just completely ignore them. So I guess I have to repeat myself again, seeing as how you've seem to forget.

LOOK AT THE FACTS (pg 36)

- 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)

You are a pathological liar!

You are continuing to be proven wrong by YOUR OWN SOURCE.

HAH!

---

At 12/15/07 01:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Sorry, I'll ask again: HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE UK HAVE BEEN SHOT WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE 20 YEARS SINCE THE HUNGERFORD MASSACRE?.

How many people in the UK have been shot with assault weapons in the 20 years preceding the Hungerford massacre?

---

At 12/16/07 02:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Lol what? You mean the threads where you got proved wrong in basically every single thing you said the whole time?

You really aren't too good at this whole "reading" deal, are you?

This coming from someone who once again uses the gambit that, hey, they've had a couple of gun massacres in the UK in the past twenty years

Yes, which took place when the UK still had tighter gun control than the US has.

Could you, or could you not, buy a gun?

Yes, it's relevant cellar.

You were emphasizing massacres in order to strike up emotional responses because that's all you had left. You stated that lax gun control caused massacres. Then when it became apparent that similar massacres have taken place in several countries that have tighter gun control, you just weaseled your way out of addressing it and started emphasizing the lack of massacres in the UK recently never minding that gun murder still went up as a whole.

OK, now you're really talking bollocks: or weren't you paying attention where it transpires the US is the only first world nation to have a gun murder rate in the top ten of the whole world? Or that the best part of 17,000 Americans were murdered with guns last year, as well as 800-1200 accidental deaths? Besides, it continues to escape you: similar massacres happen before gun control is tightened, and not at the frequency which the US has them.

And, if you were paying attention (or not a lying little shit), you may have learned that the UK's gun crime is criminal-on-criminal, and only happens in few specific cities, and is not nationwide. But, hey, that'd involve you saying you didn't have the faintest clue what you were talking about while you continued to blather under the fool impression that you do.

It's almost as if you're presenting a version of events where you're right and everybody else isn't...

Nope, because you were claiming your country was proof gun control works, and then when it was PROVED that gun problems have gotten perpetually worse in your country since both the assault weapons ban and handgun ban, you can't even ATTEMPT to address it.

I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN, and you better give an answer, HAS ANYONE BEEN MURDERED WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON SINCE THE POST-HUNGERFORD BAN?

Yes or no, cellar - and if you're answer isn't either of these words, that indicates you're an ignorant liar.

LOL

You have major issues with your complete lack of honesty. You get caught lying, proved wrong left and right, use links that you know don't at all validate what you say they mean, and you do what you do now... after having absolutely ZERO substance to your argument you come back days after you get proved wrong and just spout out your bullshit yet again.

OK, cellar, have you considered having medical treatment? I'm now seriously concerned that you cannot accept that, after I'd given quotes and page references to that article YOU posted, you say it doesn't say what I am telling you it patently does.

Sorry, I'll ask again: HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE UK HAVE BEEN SHOT WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE 20 YEARS SINCE THE HUNGERFORD MASSACRE?.

You're doing it AGAIN!

OK, you're an ignorant liar.

Sorry!

Gun crime has gotten perpetually worse in the UK, making the lack of use of certain individual kinds of firearms IRRELEVANT, and it only FORTIFIES the pro-gun argument because banning guns does not get rid of gun crime or gun violence.

See, you cannot give a straight answer.

NO IT HASN'T.

Cellar, even that Home Office document you posted to prove you right did the opposite - it backed me up.

No it didn't.

I'm afraid that it did. What the hell is your level of debate, pre-school?!?

It says, as I have already posted, that handgun use has dropped by a third, and replica usage has treebled in the same time.

The US of non-air guns in crime has DOUBLED since the gun ban.

I gave a page reference, and you don't even check it? Please, this is the point you should stop even attempting to criticise another's argument, as you are patently talking crap.

In other words, you're proving yourself wrong.

Actually I proved you wrong, you know it, I know it.

See what I mean about somebody being wrong in an obnoxious manner?

Your entire argument now is in contradiction to what we have all seen happen in every gun debate you've had the audacity to enter.

Sorry, who posts documents that prove the other guy right again?

But, let's face it cellar, we all know what you're like. Aloow me to demonstrate the regard you're held in on NG with your recent posts:
Why won't: "Well read the fucking question that was asked you retard, "Why Won't America Agree to Climate Change Emission Cuts proposals?" You may or may not notice that the topic stater doens't even mention Canada...That and I don't support our governments decision to hold out. Unlike you who are so fucking blindly patriotic to the gov you defend their stance no matter what it is." - bcdemon

Dear Britain: "Cellardoor6, you seem to use well based out arguments which are sadly based on flawed responses and your ignorance amazes me as well. Your a patriot to your country but a bad one, you give America a bad name." - Pugberto

Iraq Death Toll Down Again: "Or just go about with your bias, rejecting anything that doesn't reflect the cellypoo©2007 world view. Shut your brain out to any new information, because that's what true neocons do. Don't bother using that brain of yours, it's just gonna get corrupted and brainwashed by the Stealth Jews running the liberal world.

At this point in time I really doubt you ever graduated college, or even high school for that matter. Then again, business majors never were required to think to earn those degrees......" - Imperator.

Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Race in 2003I didn't notice that cellar had actually responded for a while. Yet again when cellardoor has felt threatened by the possibility of answering some of the questions asked of his argument has he just completely turned off and ignored the entire post while calling me a coward for "hiding from the facts." So let's just restate some of the questions and see if we can actually get a straight answer." - Slizor

There seems to be a pattern - you ignore every scrap of evidence that doesn't compute with your clockwork worldview, so therefore everyone else is wrong, a liar, they run away...you're pathetic, cellar,and appear to be the only person painfully unaware of it.

No, fuck "pathetic" - you're wrong cellar, you have always been wrong, and will continue to be wrong right up to the point you can't even accept you died the previous Tuesday, and those people trying to embalm you are obviously "fucking morons" who have no idea about anything.

Besides, if somebody like you is so intent on singing the virtues of guns, that's proof positive that they're harmful to society and people within it, as a delusional prick with a grudge and a seriously delusioned worldview is the proud owner of a Winchester 1400 MKII 12-gauge auto shotgun, albeit bitter most of their gun collection was taken away.

---

At 12/16/07 01:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN, and you better give an answer, HAS ANYONE BEEN MURDERED WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON SINCE THE POST-HUNGERFORD BAN?

You didn't answer my question, nor the very pertinent one cellar and I have been asking you for the past few months. But you know what? I'll play along here. I'm not even going to check, I'll just assume the answer is no, zero people have been killed by assault weapons in the UK following the ban. Even if this is true, what's your point? We've seen that using handguns, a single well-placed azn can kill 32 people.

On top of that, I'd like to know how many people were killed by assault weapons before the ban, excluding the obvious outlier.

---

At 12/16/07 01:35 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/16/07 01:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN, and you better give an answer, HAS ANYONE BEEN MURDERED WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON SINCE THE POST-HUNGERFORD BAN?

You didn't answer my question, nor the very pertinent one cellar and I have been asking you for the past few months. But you know what? I'll play along here. I'm not even going to check, I'll just assume the answer is no, zero people have been killed by assault weapons in the UK following the ban. Even if this is true, what's your point? We've seen that using handguns, a single well-placed azn can kill 32 people.

Which leads straight into the fact nobody has gone on a shooting spree in the UK, thus getting into a situation where they can shoot 32 people, with a handgun. While cellar can try and BS about appealing to emotion and other neocon buzzword to avoid giving an answer, the fact is we haven't had somebody snap and take it out on the local population, as the tools to do it are restricted.

Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton both had licenses for their weapons - a 180 from cellar's stance.

On top of that, I'd like to know how many people were killed by assault weapons before the ban, excluding the obvious outlier.

Prior to Hungerford, there were one group with a cache of "semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles", the weapons outlawed (with this exact wording) post-Hungerford: the IRA.

---

At 12/16/07 02:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Which leads straight into the fact nobody has gone on a shooting spree in the UK, thus getting into a situation where they can shoot 32 people, with a handgun.

But obviously people CAN acquire guns, as the violence involving firearms is increasing. You haven't considered other reasons that shooting sprees haven't happened, for example "They're not prone to happening whether or not firearms are legal" or "There are important differences between the US and UK outside of gun control"

You're trying to make a statistical argument by relying entirely on outliers. It doesn't work that way.

While cellar can try and BS about appealing to emotion and other neocon buzzword to avoid giving an answer, the fact is we haven't had somebody snap and take it out on the local population, as the tools to do it are restricted.

But as we can see, the access to guns is clearly NOT preventing violence, as firearm violence has gone up.

Prior to Hungerford, there were one group with a cache of "semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles", the weapons outlawed (with this exact wording) post-Hungerford: the IRA.

You didn't answer the question. How many?

Also, the article you linked to indicates that the IRA's arms aren't gone anyway.

Anyway, my point is, answer this question:
"If gun control is truly effective in preventing firearm violence by restricting access to firearms, why have we observed an increase in firearm violence since the gun ban?"

You have been dodging this for MONTHS. If you can't answer this question, everything else you've been saying is entirely irrelevant.

---

At 12/16/07 03:12 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/16/07 02:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Which leads straight into the fact nobody has gone on a shooting spree in the UK, thus getting into a situation where they can shoot 32 people, with a handgun.

But obviously people CAN acquire guns, as the violence involving firearms is increasing. You haven't considered other reasons that shooting sprees haven't happened, for example "They're not prone to happening whether or not firearms are legal" or "There are important differences between the US and UK outside of gun control"

Which goes back to two words that repeatedly come up in my posts: "converted replicas." It's one thing to have a live firearm in your posession, another to have what is in all intents and purrposes a replica, but is in fact converted to a weapon that fires live ammunition.

Which, in turn, leads to the sort of person who would have the contacts (and disposible income available) to either have somebody convert a replica, or to import them from Eastern Europe, which is where they are usually imported from. That's not a regular member of society (or an irregular one) - they cannot get hold of one, so that means it is unlikely an embittered loner can't get one to go on a shooting spree.

You're trying to make a statistical argument by relying entirely on outliers. It doesn't work that way.

Look up the DOnald Neilson (AKA Black Panther) case.

While cellar can try and BS about appealing to emotion and other neocon buzzword to avoid giving an answer, the fact is we haven't had somebody snap and take it out on the local population, as the tools to do it are restricted.

But as we can see, the access to guns is clearly NOT preventing violence, as firearm violence has gone up.

But it is not affecting the populace, merely members of rival gangs/criminal fraternities (with the two previously mentioned exceptions, which were a case of bad shooting rather than intent), this is the fundamental difference that cellar does not accept.

Prior to Hungerford, there were one group with a cache of "semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles", the weapons outlawed (with this exact wording) post-Hungerford: the IRA.

You didn't answer the question. How many?

There's 2,500 deaths attributed to The Troubles, for a start.

Also, the article you linked to indicates that the IRA's arms aren't gone anyway.

They are, however, out of use - if they can reel off an amount of weaponry, that means it isn't in their hands. While the IRA continue to hold onto their weapons, they are under more scrutiny than they were 30 years ago, therefore easier to catch out if they happen to be planning an attack using them.

Anyway, my point is, answer this question:
"If gun control is truly effective in preventing firearm violence by restricting access to firearms, why have we observed an increase in firearm violence since the gun ban?"

Haven't I said at least 25,000 times that the violence is self-contained, NOT cross-cultural as it is in the US?

You have been dodging this for MONTHS. If you can't answer this question, everything else you've been saying is entirely irrelevant.

I haven't, you merely continue to refuse to acknowledge the answer (or the fact I posted the Australian statistics, where there has been a massive decrease since their gun ban). Besides, if anything, gun crime is dropping again compared to five years ago - something else cellar won't conceed.

it's as if some gangs/criminals wnated to exploit the post-amnesty vacuum between 1998-2001, and they have been caught up with, leading to a drop...

---

At 12/16/07 03:49 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Which goes back to two words that repeatedly come up in my posts: "converted replicas." It's one thing to have a live firearm in your posession, another to have what is in all intents and purrposes a replica, but is in fact converted to a weapon that fires live ammunition.

First of all, I tip my hat to you for using "intents and purposes" instead of "intensive purposes"

Second, wouldn't those two be functionally the same?

Which, in turn, leads to the sort of person who would have the contacts (and disposible income available) to either have somebody convert a replica, or to import them from Eastern Europe, which is where they are usually imported from. That's not a regular member of society (or an irregular one) - they cannot get hold of one, so that means it is unlikely an embittered loner can't get one to go on a shooting spree.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that an embittered loner who is going to go on a killing spree doesn't have disposable income. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't their disposable income amount to their life savings?

If these types of people were really out there and determined to go on a shooting spree, they could either acquire a gun by spending a few thousand dollars, or start making explosives if they really can't find one. I'm no tactician, but it seems like that second one would turn out worse anyway.

Look up the DOnald Neilson (AKA Black Panther) case.

Ok, let me elaborate on something. When I criticize you for using only outliers, bringing up another outlier is not the best way to counter my claim.

But it is not affecting the populace, merely members of rival gangs/criminal fraternities (with the two previously mentioned exceptions, which were a case of bad shooting rather than intent), this is the fundamental difference that cellar does not accept.

Do you have any statistics showing the different amounts of gang-related violence as compared to non-gang violence before and after the gun ban?

There's 2,500 deaths attributed to The Troubles, for a start.

All with assault weapons, huh? I forgot, the IRA doesn't use explosives.

Anyway, my point is, answer this question:
"If gun control is truly effective in preventing firearm violence by restricting access to firearms, why have we observed an increase in firearm violence since the gun ban?"

Haven't I said at least 25,000 times that the violence is self-contained, NOT cross-cultural as it is in the US?

That still doesn't show how the gun ban has been reducing gun violence. Also, as far as I know, the majority of violent crime in the US is not cross cultural.

I haven't, you merely continue to refuse to acknowledge the answer (or the fact I posted the Australian statistics, where there has been a massive decrease since their gun ban). Besides, if anything, gun crime is dropping again compared to five years ago - something else cellar won't conceed.

I must have missed those, I'll go back and check to see how massive the decrease actually is.

---

At 12/16/07 01:09 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 12/16/07 02:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Lol what? You mean the threads where you got proved wrong in basically every single thing you said the whole time?

You really aren't too good at this whole "reading" deal, are you?

You really aren't to good at this whole "thinking" deal, are you?

Yes, which took place when the UK still had tighter gun control than the US has.

Could you, or could you not, buy a gun?

Wow!

Another way of you ignoring that gun control hasn't worked in your country.

Countries, including your own, have had tighter gun control AND have had massacres.

But emphasizing massacres is another example of how you try to ignore the facts and appeal to emotion. You ignore that although massacres have taken place in your country (when it still had tigther gun control than the US), you ignore that even decades and decades ago when gun control was relatively the same, your country still had lower overall gun violence. Thus showing that the gun is not the issue.

This is in addition to the fact that since the advent of gun bans in your country, gun problems have gotten perpetually worse, INCLUDING the use of real guns, in crimes that end up injuring and killing people.

Your only way of ignoring it is to say "use of replicas has gone up".

That's pretty weak. That's like trying to downplay the increase of knife-stabbings after a knife-ban by ignoring that knife-stabbings have gone up, and instead just say that stabbings with toothpicks is dramatically on the rise, never minding that this doesn't affect the fact that the knife ban didn't work.

And since the UK handgun ban, the amount of MURDERS in England and Wales went up!

Then, in the UK as a whole, it went up as well!

Then, in 2005, Scotland specifically had the highest murder rate it has had in 10 years...8 years after the gun ban that gun ban you support that DIDN'T WORK!

Where is your evidence that your gun ban worked?

OH that's right, you have ZERO evidence. All the evidence has been against you the whole time.

OK, now you're really talking bollocks: or weren't you paying attention where it transpires the US is the only first world nation to have a gun murder rate in the top ten of the whole world?

And here you go again.

After it has already been proved to you time and time again that gun control is NOT the reason the US has higher gun murder rates, you still play the ignoramus and continue to think legal availability of guns is the only indicator and the only variable.

You ignore things like racial makeup, that regardless of what the cause is, causes a lopsided comparison between two countries, especially when people like you are stupid enough to pretend legal gun availability is the only determining factor.

FACT: 1/3rd or 33% of the US is composed of minorities. Most of these minorities are Blacks and Hispanics, 13% and 12.5% of the population respectively.

FACT: Only 1/13th or 7.9% of the UK population is composed of minorities, the large majority of which are Asian.

Now, if you take a look at the crime rates among races in the US:

%u2022 Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

%u2022 When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun

Right there is significant, so not only are blacks seven times more likely to commit murder, but they are 3 times more likely to use a gun, thus disproportionately boosting gun murder in the US. Since they make up about

%u2022 Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

Hispanics also commit violent crime at a rate 3 times that of the white majority.

This makes national statistics RIDICULOUSLY inapplicable when comparing the US and the UK across the board in the regard of gun violence. Hell, most of the minorities in the UK belong to the racial group in the US that commit LESS CRIME THAN EVEN WHITES DO

---

Furthermore.

-------

Then, we can talk about proximity to Mexico, a third world country, as a determining factor in the gun violence. You were already HUMILIATED in this issue before because you showed how you selectively used links for one thing, all while using another inapplicable link that contradicted your previous claim. It was proved that countries that border Mexico have relatively higher gun murder rates than states that topped the list of overall gun homicides (which was hilarious that you'd use that list given population differences).

So, after it has already been proved that gun control has not worked in your country, both given the fact that prior to gun control your country had lesser gun problems, and due to the fact that after things you support like gun bans, the gun problems have gotten even more worse in a shorter amount of time. Gun control, especially gun bans, has not worked in your country.

Therefore you are in no position to say that it would work for other countries.

You've already been proved wrong time and time again. You just keep saying it even though you know it's been proved wrong.

You're absolutely batshit out of your mind, in fact.

Or that the best part of 17,000 Americans were murdered with guns last year, as well as 800-1200 accidental deaths?

And here you do it again.

You provide absolutely zero context, you just spew out numbers that do not at all mean that legal availability of guns is causing it.

It's already been proved time and time again that legal ownership of firearms prevents less crime than it causes.

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

2) The majority of this firearm crime is committed by people who cannot legally own firearms due to their legal ineligibility, therefore they are already criminals. Therefore at least 200,000 gun crimes are committed by people who are not legally eligible to purchase/own firearms.

3) In order to support banning guns, you'd have to show that legally-owned guns cause more crime than they prevent in the US. But you can't do that (of course you can't) because there are 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens in the US annually.

That means that law-abiding citizens prevent at least 10 times more crime than they cause with their firearm. It also means that since most firearm crimes are perpetrated by people who do not legally own their firearms and don't obey gun laws (let alone any laws), banning guns would only take them out of the hands of the people who, according to the statistical facts, use guns responsibly.

4) Now to entirely defeat the argument you'll surely have that consists of "but if there was no legal ownership, criminals wouldn't steal guns in order to use them"; I can prove how banning guns doesn't mean guns go away:

The UK banned handguns in 1997 with the goal of (obviously) reducing the use of handguns in crime. This stupid ban DID NOT WORK. The use of handguns in crime went up drastically in the UK, going up 40% in 2 years. Not only that, but if you read that all the way through, it seems that after the ban, the places with the lowest amount of guns had the highest amount of crime, and the places with the highest amount of guns had the lowest amount of crime.

UK gun crime kept going up after the ban, it went up 35% in one year, and doubled 6 years into the ban. In 2003 the UK had twice the gun crime they did in 1997 before the ban.

So it's not only in the US that legal gun ownership is good in that it is used in defense more than in the commiting of a crime, ut in your country as well. This is considering that after the handgun ban, the areas of the UK with the most legally owned firearms had the lowest crime, and the areas with the least had the highest crime.

It's almost as if you're presenting a version of events where you're right and everybody else isn't...

LOL

You haven't provided a single applicable bit of information this entire time. Not only do you regularly use links that don't claim what you say they do, but when something that you say LITERALLY gets proved wrong, you just keep saying it anyway.

I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN, and you better give an answer, HAS ANYONE BEEN MURDERED WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON SINCE THE POST-HUNGERFORD BAN?

I'll ask you again. DOES IT MATTER WHAT WEAPON IS USED IF THE GUN MURDER AND GUN INJURIES HAS GONE UP SINCE THE GUN BANS?!!?

Once again, you're proving how incapable you are of honestly looking at the issue. If assault weapons weren't used, but use of other firearms went up that would actually VALIDATE the pro-gun stance because it is a fact that assault rifles are used less often, and to less effect overall in gun crime.

Yes or no, cellar - and if you're answer isn't either of these words, that indicates you're an ignorant liar.

LOL the only ignorant liar here is you, and you've proved it. Because after something you say gets completely and utterly discredited and ripped apart, you just keep resorting to semantics and say things like "YES OR NO?!?!'" never minding that the very foundation of your question is flawed, and that no matter how it is answered, it still doesn't validate your point that gun bans work.

---

LOL

-----------

OK, you're an ignorant liar.

Oh really, is that why it's actually been you who has been caught lying before? You only prove that you don't actually care about this issue in and of itself, you are only taking your argument because of your personal, wacky reasons whatever they are.

You have shown that you are so determined to deny reality, and you care so little about the truth, that you intentionally use links that don't claim what you say they do, and pick and choose stats from different pages for different claims while the stats given in one contradict the other in another aspect.

You were caught in your ENORMOUS lies several times. And you denying it now is just another lie racked on to your long protracted history of complete dishonesty. 1, 2, 3

See, you cannot give a straight answer.

And you can't realize that the question you asked is irrelevant because since the gun bans, gun murder and gun injuries by real guns have gone up, while the use of air weapons has gone down.

Your entire argument now is in contradiction to what we have all seen happen in every gun debate you've had the audacity to enter.

Sorry, who posts documents that prove the other guy right again?

You.

But, let's face it cellar, we all know what you're like. Aloow me to demonstrate the regard you're held in on NG with your recent posts:

bcdemon

Notice how bcdemon was proved wrong in that page and humiliated?

Pugberto

Another disgruntled Brit that didn't like the fact that he was put in his place.

Iraq Death Toll Down Again:

Of course you fail to note that Imperator was conclusively proved wrong and humiliated in the same way that happens to you?

Slizor

Lol Slizor got proved wrong up and down that thread the whole time, and like you, he didn't provide a single applicable link or fact the entire time, and the link he used actually completely discredited the point he made by it.

There seems to be a pattern - you ignore every scrap of evidence that doesn't compute with your clockwork worldview

Nobody ever provided a scrap of evidence in any of those threads you idiot.

No, fuck "pathetic" - you're wrong cellar, you have always been wrong

Now you're just getting psychotic.

Funny how you literally actually get conclusively proved wrong all the time, you have never, ever given a single applicable rebuttal, you have never validated a single thing you've said, and you say I'm wrong.

You know you're wrong, that's the funny thing. You're just such a disgruntled little bitch that you need to perpetuate the argument because you don't have the honesty or sense of reality to realize you've already lost, a long time ago.

Besides, if somebody like you is so intent on singing the virtues of guns, that's proof positive that they're harmful to society and people within it, as a delusional prick with a grudge and a seriously delusioned worldview is the proud owner of a Winchester 1400 MKII 12-gauge auto shotgun, albeit bitter most of their gun collection was taken away.

And now you're proving you're quite psychotic stalker. You lose arguments against me all the time, you just humiliate yourself, and the ENTIRE POST you just made did not include a single bit of information relative to gun control.

Funny isn't it? You've been reading my post history for quite a while haven't you?

---

D2K:
You can nitpick all you like, but why would you defend the ban when the results are clear?

---

At 12/16/07 10:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote: D2K:
You can nitpick all you like, but why would you defend the ban when the results are clear?

LOL

Those sure are clear alright.

Upload it to imageshack.us and post a link.

---

At 12/16/07 10:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote: D2K:
You can nitpick all you like, but why would you defend the ban when the results are clear?

Whether this was intentional or not, it's really, really funny.

---

At 12/16/07 10:57 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/16/07 10:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote: D2K:
You can nitpick all you like, but why would you defend the ban when the results are clear?

Whether this was intentional or not, it's really, really funny.

Wasn't intentional ;) I don't know was like a negative or something. I put through paint and it looks like it will work. anyway from the aic

---

bah still didn't come out clean.
Well UK and Wales is the one that spikes right about 1998, with Australia being the shortest line.

---

My my, cellar appears to be upset. So much so his own "argument" trips over itself on the following points:
* He talks about the UK's overall murder rate, NOT the gun murder rate. Cellar, do you have any idea how irrelevant posting that is?
* He did the exact same for Scotland, too. Yes, these are the same links I'm posting - you can check if you like.
* And here's one of my own - look, UK gun crime falling!
* Once again, Cellar is intent to blame all of societies ills on minorities, specifically Mexicans and Afro-Americans. Of course, if you look at the gun murder statistics and then look at the ancestory of the states, this logic would dictate that the Afro-Americans in Florida are slacking compared to their New York counterparts - as well as the already ludicrous logic previous displayed in thinking all Hispanics would congeal into one murderous mass once they set foor on US soil. For example, Cuba's murder rate is low, so are you assuming that Cubans suddenly go into Murderous Hispanic Mode when they arrived in Florida?
* The UK immigrant population is predominantly Indian - Asia stretches from Turkey to Japan, so you'd need to be specific. And, if cellar did any research, he'd spot that India's murder rate is triple that of the UK.
* Cellar still won't accept that the most common form of any murder is along the line of man gets angry at wife, and kills her. He's intent on saying I focus on massacres (another in a long list of blatant lies), and ignores I made this statement months ago.
* Not once has cellar produced a statistic on how many crimes have been caused by a criminal pulling out a gun - strange, that...
* Just like he never seems to get it through his Patently Wrong head that, as the UK gun crime rate is criminal-on-criminal, it cannot possibly be compared to that of the US, where it is anything but.
* Or that the guns used in the UK are converted de-activated weapons or converted replicas, imported from Eastern Europe - which the average person will not have access to, thus making it impossible for them to accidentally shoot somebody, kill a freind or family member in the heat of an argument, or go on a shooting spree. Again, this cannot be said of the US, as their death rate so accuratly proves.
* For the UK statistics, merely having a gun pointed at you counts as a "slight injury" - an unconverted replica can then provide a slight injury to be counted in the statistics: the person will report the weapon pulled as a live firearm for the simple reason a replica weapon doesn't have the word "REPLICA" in neon letters on it - as I already covered, the report you posted that proved me right (in other words, you're psychotic) said the same thing. Using a gun as a bludgeon is also counted as gun crime, not as assault (again, this can be done with a replica, and the recipient would be none the wiser).
* And the fact is replica weapon use has trebled, while actual gun use has dropped by a third - again, it's i nthat document he so helpfully provided, then when it says something he doesn't want to hear, it doesn't say it...
* And half of all weapons offences in the UK use air weapons on top of that.
* Gun crime may have spiked in 2001 at the 102 mark, but as it was 73 murders in 2005/6, that means it has dropped by over 25%.

You see, cellar likes to ignore valid points that prove he's wrong, and continues to mislead at best (patently lie at worse) in order to try and prove he had a point to begin with.

Indeed, the petty little ramblings about people who have shot down his crap prove he just can't take valid criticism - or, to be more accurate, when people have tired of trying to debate with him like an adult as he has no interest in that if you don't agree with his neo-con psychosis, they tear him apart and he turns into Troll Boy.

To cellar, victory in a debate is when the other person just can't be bothered to pretend they want to put up with his shit. In iother words, he's intent on making three straight posts, and doesn't care how merely clicking on a link will hole his "argument" under the waterline by merely clicking on the misleading link.

---

Of course, you could always just read this.

It just so happens to shoot down most of cellar's arguments with the same arguments I've made for months...