Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/22/08 10:29 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And then...

Camels.

And then...

Spoons.

And then...

Air

At 1/22/08 10:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/22/08 10:29 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And then...

Camels.

And then...

Spoons.

And then...

Air

Lets ban cricket bats too.

At 1/20/08 05:45 PM, AznWarlord wrote:

At 1/20/08 02:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The US has the highest murder rate of First World nations, and isn't this a source of embarassment and/or shame?

I've got a lot of posts to answer, but this one bugs me the most simply because the United States is one of the largest First World Countries. We are larger than Europe so it is natural that we have the highest murder rate than each INDIVIDUAL European nation.

No, you are mixing up things here. You can't just say that America has a bigger population and therefore will have more crimes done, simply because crime statestics includes an avarage, which takes the population into account.

I think most stasticians won't miss something as basic as if a country has 1 million people, and another country has 5 million people, then the amount of crimes for the latter country should be about five times as high. But the avarage crimes per 1000 people should be identical

Also, with the gun thing, if a spouse fires a bullet and misses, they may come to the realization that they are overreacting and stop. In a domestic stabbing though, the violence probably won't stop till first blood.

Really? I can imagine that if you fire a shot in panic, you are quick to follow it up with two three more. Where a knife you would need to withdraw the knife from the target body, be sprayed full of blood, and then plundge the knife back. Which sounds a lot more effortish.

And to Hyperwave, I've never watched the Matrix.

Aw.

At 1/22/08 10:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/22/08 10:29 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And then...

Camels.

And then...

Spoons.

And then...
Air

Then machetes... cause the Miami Herald once ran this headline:
Man Shoots Neighbor with Machete

To all those who say the founding fathers wouldn't want people to own assault rifles. You couldn't be more wrong. Thomas Jefferson advocated a violent rebellion every 20 years and said

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

Oh and yes the crime rate across the board is DOWN not up, and it has been decreasing for years now.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tabl es/viortrdtab.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hm rt.htm

At 1/22/08 06:38 PM, DeathAura wrote:

umm, i'm not being an idiot or trolling, but where would the gangs get the guns? You only said that last don't comment thing because you knew someone like me would foil this odd illusion of yours XD

Nah you're not trolling or anything, it's a just question I can easily answer. Gun manufacturing/Illegal Importing. Importing illegal goods isn't as hard as it looks - someone buys guns in Canada or Mexico and brings it back. It's not like America's border security is in anyway tough.

Making a gun is even easier. I just don't know how to do it.

And Trolling would be saying something irrelevant and starting something off-topic in this thread.

At 1/22/08 08:45 PM, CaptainChip wrote: A quote comes to the mind...

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
-Old bumper sticker.

That's a good one.

At 1/23/08 03:57 AM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 1/22/08 10:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/22/08 10:29 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And then...

Camels.

And then...

Spoons.

And then...

Air

Lets ban cricket bats too.

Great examples (including the ones I didn't quote). Banning shit because shit happens is a pretty dumb decision.

At 1/23/08 04:43 AM, Drakim wrote:

:You can't just say that America has a bigger population and therefore will have more crimes done, simply because crime statestics includes an avarage, which takes the population into account.

Crap, you're right, I didn't really think about that before posting. Still, Larger population means more gangs and more gangs means more gang violence. People do some crazy shit in America, and banning guns, to me, looks like it'll get crazier

:Aw

Yes Drakim, it is sad I never watched the Matrix. I gotta do that sometime.

why is it that most american's dont realize the importance of the second amendment

the founding fathers are spinning in their graves

Heres an idea: Make another person cosign for a gun, and if the gun is used for anything illegal, the person who cosigned also gets in trouble.

Psssst.

Gang members steal a shit-load of their guns from ordinary folk.

So with the Ban or without it, Gangs have guns, and shoot an awful lot of people.

...take away the guns, and at least you take away the countless deaths brought on by idiots who blow holes in themselves or family members by cleaning their rifles, or poor, misunderstood kids bringing them to schools to shoot a good 30-40 fellow students before blowing their own brains out, or 12 year olds taking them from their parents just to play with 'em and accidentally shooting themselves or their little buddies.

Not to mention murders brought on by bar-fights and brawls, when the losing side/person decides to "even the odds" by pulling out his piece. Or jealous lovers, shooting their wives and/or girlfriends for cheating on them or simply leaving them.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

At 1/19/08 10:50 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: We're not trying to ban all guns, just the ones civies don't need. No good honest civilian needs...
hollow-points

Bigger hole = faster death. also hollow points have less penetration so its less likely to go clean through someone and hit something or someone else. For security guards, hollow points are essential, especially when you fire off a .40 or a .357

nor assault rifles,

nor fucking proton cannons.

I can't complete my Iron Man outfit without it! I DO need it! I'll settle for
a rail gun... if I have to.

At 2/5/08 10:32 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote: A bunch of tired old reasons for banning guns...

...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.

At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

So this is an "appeal to emotion"?

Or, to a slightly larger extent,

this?

And this is just concerning the school shootings, mind you.

"A bunch of tired old reasons"? No shit, Sherlock. It's about as "tired" and "old" as AIDS and Hurricane disasters and Terrorist bombings.

Only in this case, theoretically, the death toll could be limited by a simple ban.

At 2/6/08 06:10 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote:

At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

So this is an "appeal to emotion"?

Yes.

Or, to a slightly larger extent,

this?

Yeah.

And this is just concerning the school shootings, mind you.

Yes, you use certain emotionally-charged instances such as school shootings in order to fortify your irrational points that hold absolutely no water when the facts come out. It has been proved by both Mason and I time and time again that banning guns does not make gun violence go away, and in many countries it can be argued to have made it worse.

Emphasizing the emotion of a certain event is a way for you to create the illusion that such a horrible thing would not happened if the policies you propose were enforced.

Banning guns does not automatically make guns go away. Banning guns does not prevent criminals from getting guns. You either can't think objectively, or you know you can't provide an objective argument, so you apply no context and just link to Columbine as pretend it fortifies your own argument, yet it doesn't.

At 2/5/08 10:32 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote: Psssst.

Gang members steal a shit-load of their guns from ordinary folk.

So with the Ban or without it, Gangs have guns, and shoot an awful lot of people.

...take away the guns, and at least you take away the countless deaths brought on by idiots who blow holes in themselves or family members by cleaning their rifles, or poor, misunderstood kids bringing them to schools to shoot a good 30-40 fellow students before blowing their own brains out, or 12 year olds taking them from their parents just to play with 'em and accidentally shooting themselves or their little buddies.

Not to mention murders brought on by bar-fights and brawls, when the losing side/person decides to "even the odds" by pulling out his piece. Or jealous lovers, shooting their wives and/or girlfriends for cheating on them or simply leaving them.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Hypothetical Situations, any proof? That is going to happen no matter what they have access to, knives, letter openers, axes, shit anything that is sharp and can do damage, hell it wouldn't have to be sharp! Baseball bats work just fine. But the problem with that is I can't hunt with a Baseball Bat!

At 2/6/08 06:10 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote:

At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

"A bunch of tired old reasons"? No shit, Sherlock. It's about as "tired" and "old" as AIDS and Hurricane disasters and Terrorist bombings.

On the whole there are about 16-18,000 deaths in America due to firearms each year. Other consumer goods such as cars result in more deaths and pose a more significant threat to the public good than guns.

Only in this case, theoretically, the death toll could be limited by a simple ban.

Prohibition proved to be a failure. Like booze guns can be smuggled, concealed and home made; by-passing the ban.

At 1/23/08 06:15 PM, HarryFeltersnach wrote: why is it that most american's dont realize the importance of the second amendment

the founding fathers are spinning in their graves

;
I just thought they were spinning, because there is a real possibility of either a black man, or a woman in the top job in the country.
Something they never would have imagined.

It's a good thing they don't have hair anymore as well!

then again even if we ban guns it doesnt mean that gangs or other violent criminals wouldnt then find there "Artistic Side" and make up fun ways to kill somebody instead of a simple Boom headshot!

At 2/6/08 06:10 AM, LinkSilvermane wrote:

At 2/5/08 03:11 PM, TheMason wrote: ...unfortunately for LinkSilvermane these reasons have been shown to be appeals to emotion rather than objective observations of reality.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

So this is an "appeal to emotion"?

Or, to a slightly larger extent,

this?

Got interupted...damn office hours.

But yes those are appeals to emotion. School shooting, while showing an upwards trend, remains a rare event that get plenty of media attention and obfuscates the issue. They are single, rare events that when employed sheds no light on the issue but their employment illicits an emotional response.

A better argument to start with would have been:

Under the 1994 assault rifle ban there was a decrease in the US murder rate. This is based upon trends over time rather than single, emotive case or outlining a series of rare events that are presented world wide (that they can be displayed case by case rather than by statistics is your first sign that it is rare phenomenon) that weakens your argument since it shows that these things happen even in countries with bans.

However, the assault rifle ban is shown to be spurious because you could still buy assault rifles (even those mentioned by name such as the AK-47 and M-16)...

So my point still stands...the anti-gun argument is intellectually bankrupt...

There is also the debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether or not if in this amendment the term "people" refers to individuals or the individual states. Odd that this individual vs state debate is only confined to this amendment and yet everywhere else this term used it is accepted as refering to an individual right...

But anyway an interesting section from Wikipedia's bio of T. Jefferson:

Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "Commonplace Book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

At 1/23/08 04:05 PM, AznWarlord wrote:

At 1/22/08 06:38 PM, DeathAura wrote:

umm, i'm not being an idiot or trolling, but where would the gangs get the guns? You only said that last don't comment thing because you knew someone like me would foil this odd illusion of yours XD

Nah you're not trolling or anything, it's a just question I can easily answer. Gun manufacturing/Illegal Importing. Importing illegal goods isn't as hard as it looks - someone buys guns in Canada or Mexico and brings it back. It's not like America's border security is in anyway tough.

Making a gun is even easier. I just don't know how to do it.

And Trolling would be saying something irrelevant and starting something off-topic in this thread.

Wow, good point. Haven't thought of that. Also to back up your oppinion, many gangs are world wide, making it even easier. Thanks for clearing my mind lol.

Ok its as simple as this.
What guns are already banned?
-Sub Machine guns, Machine Guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry of any kind

what guns do gansters have?
sub machine guns, machine guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry

Now my point is, if guns become illegal, your taking away our right to bear arms. All the US would be doing is disarming the citizens, because obviously criminals get illegal weaponry anyways.

THIS LAW IS GAY!!!!

At 2/6/08 08:12 PM, TheMason wrote: So my point still stands...the anti-gun argument is intellectually bankrupt...

A relatively small number of people get shot every year, so guns must be taken away from all the law-abiding citizens to solve this problem!

Yup, you're right. Emotionally rich; intellectually bankrupt.

All manner of people got in on the booze-smuggling industry, and many of them got very rich. It's commonly thought to be true that Joseph Kennedy, the father of John Kennedy, funded his stockbroking ventures (and later JFK's campaign) with money from bootlegging.

Ok its as simple as this.
What guns are already banned?
-Sub Machine guns, Machine Guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry of any kind

what guns do gansters have?
sub machine guns, machine guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry

Now my point is, if guns become illegal, your taking away our right to bear arms. All the US would be doing is disarming the citizens, because obviously criminals get illegal weaponry anyways.

THIS LAW IS GAY!!!!

At 2/7/08 08:01 PM, arcansi wrote: Ok its as simple as this.
What guns are already banned?

Fact Check

-Sub Machine guns, Machine Guns, High Powered Rifles, G.I. Weaponry of any kind

Sub Machine guns: Banned ONLY if they are fully-automatic; but there are no special regulation for semi-auto (one bullet per trigger pull).
Machine Guns: See above.
High Powered Rifles: Not banned at all. These are your typical hunting rifles. You can even get Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. Although you gotta be rich because they start at $2,000.
GI Weaponry: See above; you can buy an AK-47 or M-16 as long as they are semi-auto and cannot fire full-auto or burst (typically 3 bullets per trigger pull).

Personally, I think banning guns would be beneficial if (and only if) we could hypothetically eliminate black market guns.

Of course, It would still also be unconstitutional, so I would still be against it.

At 2/7/08 09:42 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Personally, I think banning guns would be beneficial if (and only if) we could hypothetically eliminate black market guns.

Of course, It would still also be unconstitutional, so I would still be against it.

Don't forget the guns already in the people (and bad people)'s hands.

At 2/8/08 12:07 AM, highwatermark wrote:

Don't forget the guns already in the people (and bad people)'s hands.

Well, in my crazy hypothetical world, all guns already sold would be cash-compensated.

Also, the Matterhorn would be a real mountain.

Oh yes; I dare to dream.

Even if you could hypothetically get rid of illegal guns, the world would still be worse off.
Crime does not need guns to happen, but regular citizens need it to ward off criminals, since the police are simply not effective when it comes to protecting you from being the victim of a crime.

At 2/8/08 12:30 AM, therealsylvos wrote: Even if you could hypothetically get rid of illegal guns, the world would still be worse off.
Crime does not need guns to happen, but regular citizens need it to ward off criminals, since the police are simply not effective when it comes to protecting you from being the victim of a crime.

Adding onto that, if police have no guns, how are they even going to do their job? Right now, the police force isn't exactly the most fit group in society.