Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/13/08 05:37 PM, tawc wrote:

At 4/13/08 02:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your whole argument is void

Um what. No it's not, in fact I can prove that gun ownership is more beneficial to society than harmful. I've proved many, many times, including probably to you, that guns are used more responsibly and in defense of people than in crime in the US.

No you can't, you sprout shit about how places like the UK are growing in Culture

What?

Let's take a peak at the facts:

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 in the US, you'd have to show that legally-owned guns cause more crime than they prevent in the US. You'd have to show that guns are used more irresponsibly than responsibly. But you can't do that, because there are 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law-abiding citizens in the US annually.

That means that law-abiding citizens use guns defensively more than 10 times as much as they do in crime. 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.

since the Ban on guns. without taking into account the fact that gang culture and things are growing rapidly.

Um. despite the gun ban in the UK in 1997, gun crime has been getting perpetually worse there. And before you say it, It's a lie when people try to say this is due to air weapons that look like real guns.

Here's some more recent info (pg36):

- 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. (59 is the 2006 stat)

At 4/13/08 05:37 PM, tawc wrote: I'll ask you a question. Why the fuck is it that the US has by far the most school shootings than any country?

OK first off, the US has a large population. The fact that it happens more in the US is partly because there are simply more people, more kids, and more schools. However, there are LOADS and LOADS of school shootings in other countries, but they never get as much attention as the ones that happen in the US.

School shootings happen in countries with tighter gun control all the time.

For example, something that shows you how much people are obsessed with the US is how the Columbine Massacre, which happened in 1999, was the biggest news ever. Up until VT, people all around the world basically referred to Columbine as proof that the US needs gun control. Yet, in Germany, a country with very, very strict gun control, they had the Erfurt Shooting in 2002, just 3 years after Columbine, yet it's one of the least known shootings even though MORE PEOPLE died in that event than in Columbine.

Although the US does have a peculiar amount of school shootings, part of the reason that it seems so exclusive to the US is because of media bias. You're not getting an accurate assessment, because you're constantly being bombarded with media that is designed to undermine the US and attack the US. If there was 1 massacre in the US for every 10 in Europe, your media would still try to give the ones in America disproportionate coverage due to their predetermined goal to criticize the US.

People pay way, way more attention to the US than they do other countries so even a worse massacre in Germany will not get a fraction of the coverage that a massacre in the US will.

You said "I had a shotgun in the trunk of my car, I thought about shooting him"

That was dramatized. Although I said "no BS", I did embellish the details a bit for effect, although the backstory is true.

Also, refresh my memory... didn't you tell me you wanted to kill me in a PM once? Does that make you a murderer? Does that mean you shouldn't be able to have access to sharp objects or be able to operate a vehicle? I have my own opinion of that, but I'll let you answer that yourself.

Show me this PM. I can't remember saying that.

Apparently I deleted it.

I'm pretty sure you did say it but whatever. I can't prove it, never mind.

At 4/13/08 06:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Stuff

Ah Cellar...good to see you on the thread. I can retire from the debate for awhile!

In the United States people have the right to bear arms. Combine the number of firearm-related injuries or Columbine-style events in the US to, for example, european countries.
I think you shall soon see the difference.

At 4/13/08 06:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/13/08 05:37 PM, tawc wrote: I'll ask you a question. Why the fuck is it that the US has by far the most school shootings than any country?

OK first off, the US has a large population. The fact that it happens more in the US is partly because there are simply more people, more kids, and more schools. However, there are LOADS and LOADS of school shootings in other countries, but they never get as much attention as the ones that happen in the US.

Ok, take Europe, which has more population than the US, yet the US still has far more shootings!

School shootings happen in countries with tighter gun control all the time.

For example, something that shows you how much people are obsessed with the US is how the Columbine Massacre, which happened in 1999, was the biggest news ever. Up until VT, people all around the world basically referred to Columbine as proof that the US needs gun control. Yet, in Germany, a country with very, very strict gun control, they had the Erfurt Shooting in 2002, just 3 years after Columbine, yet it's one of the least known shootings even though MORE PEOPLE died in that event than in Columbine.

Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.
I remember it on the news, and I remember them saying that the the kid who did it listened to Slipknot, and my mum then got pissed of because I was listening to Slipknot.

Although the US does have a peculiar amount of school shootings, part of the reason that it seems so exclusive to the US is because of media bias. You're not getting an accurate assessment, because you're constantly being bombarded with media that is designed to undermine the US and attack the US. If there was 1 massacre in the US for every 10 in Europe, your media would still try to give the ones in America disproportionate coverage due to their predetermined goal to criticize the US.

But there isn't one US massacre for every european one is there. There are far more American ones.
Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.

People pay way, way more attention to the US than they do other countries so even a worse massacre in Germany will not get a fraction of the coverage that a massacre in the US will.

The German one got masses of coverage at the time, maybe not in your country which doesn't focus on anything outside the states, but Britain did. Columbines rememberd more now. Because of American culture and media dominating the world as you love to put it.

You said "I had a shotgun in the trunk of my car, I thought about shooting him"

That was dramatized. Although I said "no BS", I did embellish the details a bit for effect, although the backstory is true.

lol please just shut the fuck up.

I'm pretty sure you did say it but whatever. I can't prove it, never mind.

I'm pretty sure I didn't, and I'm postive you would of kept a sexy little bit of bait like that, because thats the sort of cunt you are.

At 4/6/08 05:51 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 4/6/08 04:40 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Does the 2nd ammendment allow you to have a tactical nuke in your garden?
If someone assaults you, do you have the right to use it? And how is it with biological weapons?

If you using the nuke will not harm anyone other than the assailant and/or yourself, then sure.

But considering how huge an area a nuke covers the odds of that situation happening are very insignificant.

Oh and biological weapons are internationally banned (at least by my understanding).

Although when we're talking about we means GUNS not bombs and not biological germ warfare.

Biological weapons are internationally banned for countries, AFAIK not for private persons. Actually, any kind of disease is a potential biological weapon.

And how do you know the ammendment only means guns? It says just arms, and though there were no nuclear weaponry around at that time, neither was assault rifles.

And about hurting other people than me and the assailant: What part in the 2nd ammendment states that? And still, how can you prove that I will use it anywhere except on a boat far far from the coast if I get assaulted there?

At 4/6/08 12:21 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 4/6/08 04:40 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Does the 2nd ammendment allow you to have a tactical nuke in your garden?
If someone assaults you, do you have the right to use it? And how is it with biological weapons?

A nuke or a biological agent aren't firearms, asshole.

The second amendment says "arms". "arm" is short for "armament", which means:
Arm
Arm\, n. [See Arms.] (Mil.) (a) A branch of the military service; as, the cavalry arm was made efficient. (b) A weapon of offense or defense; an instrument of warfare; -- commonly in the pl.

So a nuke is very well an arm, and though I have an asshole I hope you keep away from it.

At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.

Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.

Of course, they ignore that school shootings in Europe and elsewhere in the world happened in countries where gun control is way, way tighter than in the US. They also ignore the facts that I proved which you conveniently refused to respond to: 1) Guns prevent more crime than they cause in the US 2) Gun control in the UK failed to help, and probably made things much worse, making universal calls for gun control unfounded.

That's where the media comes in with Europeans, it's to appeal to their sensibilities rather than provide them with facts. Media in Europe will be more successful if they stroke the delusional anti-Americanism that Europeans have developed over the years to help cope with their inferiority.

I remember it on the news, and I remember them saying that the the kid who did it listened to Slipknot, and my mum then got pissed of because I was listening to Slipknot.

Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.

Tawc, once again, the only thing you do is talk shit. The fact you didn't even attempt to respond to the facts I provided makes it even more hilarious when you accuse other people of "talking shit". You never prove what you say, so you make up for your lack of substance by just swearing compulsively.

At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.

Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.

You are so biased and ignorant! being completly honest, the only shootings which I can think of are Dunblane, Columbine, The Amish school shooting, The German Shooting, The Finnish shooting and V tech. And I think I remember a Canadian shooting.

The Finnish, Amish and V tech I remember because they were recent.
Dunblane and Columbine I remember because they have kept in common knowledge.
The German one I remember because I remember my mum talking about it and seeing it on the news when I was young.

I laugh at how because columbine got so much media coverage you think it's British media bias. When the real reason for it and why it is so remebered is because
There were two of them,
America had alot of media coverage of it and we all know how America media dominates the world!!!!
They loved the gothic music and the trenchcoats. Were steriotypes of school shootings stem from.
They had an arsenal of weapons, including explosives.
As well as other reasons.

The Amish school shooting had such large coverage because they were Amish!
V-tech because it was so massive.
Dunblane, because it was in Britain and it caused the Ban on handguns.
Germany and Finland because they were in europe.

The other one I can think of is the native indian lad who shot up a school, but I would be oblivious of that if it wasn't for Newgrounds.

There are many many more American school shootings. Many more There are so many which basically don't make it to our media. Even some fairly large ones. Were as European ones will nearly always make it to British media.

That's where the media comes in with Europeans, it's to appeal to their sensibilities rather than provide them with facts. Media in Europe will be more successful if they stroke the delusional anti-Americanism that Europeans have developed over the years to help cope with their inferiority.

I can't speak for European media, but British media really isn't that biased, I would say from what I've seen, not nearly as biased as the US media, but I couldn't make much of a jugement!

Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.

Tawc, once again, the only thing you do is talk shit. The fact you didn't even attempt to respond to the facts I provided makes it even more hilarious when you accuse other people of "talking shit". You never prove what you say, so you make up for your lack of substance by just swearing compulsively.

You are talking shit, you are ignoring the fact that the US has far more shootings than anywere including the whole of europe combined!

Infact I remember in the news not long ago where some fucked up British kid stabbed a lady something like 30 times. And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.

And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.

Well there ya go, end of thread. People who do this type of shit will do it with whatever they can get their hands on.

Prohibiting a gun from Steve so Tom can't steal it merely disarms Steve when Tom unavoidably flips out.

That's a non sequiter.

At 4/15/08 02:55 PM, tawc wrote:

At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.

Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.

You are so biased and ignorant!

LOL, Tawc, you're the biggest hypocrite in the world. You get proved wrong every single time you open your dirty mouth about any political issue, then you just talk shit at another time and accuse someone else of doing exactly what you do.

Do I need to remind you of our previous encounters again...?

I laugh at how because columbine got so much media coverage you think it's British media bias.

Not only did it get a lot of coverage due to bias at large, but also because people in European and British media wanted to use it for a specific political point. They were using it as ammunition (pun) to take gun control out of context and attack America.

In order to fortify this propaganda they implant into your head, they cover other shootings, and other issues related to gun control as a whole in a certain way to preserve it.

If there's a shooting in America, one of the first things you see on your ridiculous media is "OMG we told them so! Americans and their guns! Damn them!". Then there's a shooting in Germany "Oh, this is awful..." with no mention of the fact that Germany has strict gun control and yet the shooting still took place.

The Amish school shooting had such large coverage because they were Amish!
V-tech because it was so massive.
Dunblane, because it was in Britain and it caused the Ban on handguns.
Germany and Finland because they were in europe.

You're lying. You're saying you've heard of other shootings after you just recently learned about them after looking up the list of school shootings for this argument, just so you can pretend like British media actually covered them appropriately.

There are many many more American school shootings. Many more There are so many which basically don't make it to our media. Even some fairly large ones. Were as European ones will nearly always make it to British media.

Emphasizing school shootings anyway a evidence of bad gun control is completely illogical. I guess to you, you'd rather have more people die as a whole, as long as there is less school shootings.

I already showed you that guns prevent more crime than they cause in the US. You ignored it, so you emphasize tragic, large cases of school shootings so you can exploit the emotion of it rather than the rational behind your underlying point about gun control.

You're assuming that banning guns in the US will make things better. I showed you it won't, you ignored it. I also showed you how gun problems have got progressively worse in your own country since your draconian gun laws were enforced, you ignored that as well. I showed you that the areas of your country that had the most legally owned guns had the least crime, and the areas where there were the least amount of guns there was the most crime, you ignored that.

So instead you focus on school shootings.

Funny.

I can't speak for European media, but British media really isn't that biased, I would say from what I've seen, not nearly as biased as the US media, but I couldn't make much of a jugement!

You're in absolutely no position to determine what is biased given the fact you've shown time and time again that what you believe about the world, about any political issue involving the US and the UK, is complete and utterly bullshit. You British people have been brainwashed your whole life into swallowing British media, that even though it's so outrageously biased, you're used to it and consider it to be the norm. Since British people are used to your British false propaganda, you think US media is more biased only because you're not used to anything pro-US. You think that anti-American views and idiotic British perceptions of America are status quo and undeniable fact.

So even if you saw the most unbiased, factual coverage of an issue, you'd think it was biased anyway because you're used to having your British pride and your inferiority complex stroked by like-minded British imbeciles. Anything that doesn't feed that ignorant aspect of your collective national psyche has to be condemned as biased.

You know there have been several cases of you getting completely disproved, and yet you keep arguing your point anyway. You epitomize bias. You're so biased that even when what you say gets literally proved wrong without a shadow of doubt, you start swearing compulsively, run away from the thread, only to argue the very same thing again that was previously disproved.

This gun control issue is another good example. I already obliterated the premise of your argument, but you didn't even attempt to respond to it. You just diverted attention by bringing up irrelevant crap.

At 4/15/08 04:19 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.

Well there ya go, end of thread. People who do this type of shit will do it with whatever they can get their hands on.

no, he stabbed one person with a knife, but openly admitted that if he had a gun, he would of shot up a school.

At 4/16/08 12:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/15/08 02:55 PM, tawc wrote:

At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.

Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.

lol, I would love to see some fucking American coverage of the German killings compared to the British coverate, American media is so focused on inside America and news to do with America.

You jump to conclusions, that British media is biased, when there are simple reasons why columbine got more attention than the german one.

Besides the amount of people the Erfurt massacre killed, it wasn't paticulaly anything new. And anyway... were you actually in Britain at the time to witness this terrible media bias? Did you read the British newspapers and watch the British News?

Because I was in Britain and allthough I was young and didn't really pay much attention to news. You may not belive me but The German shooting, along with 9/11 (and war against terrorism), A massacre in a hall in Russia or Eastern Europe and various other events, I remember being major news items. And that had alot of talking about afterwoodss by adults, in school assemblys and by parents.

I think I remeber my parents talking about Columbine and Dunblane, but I was very young then.#

Columbine Is the most significant school shooting, It showed huge amounts of things. Like I have said before but you chose to ignore. There was two of them, They were into the gothic lifestyle and music, COMPUTER GAMES, TRENCH COATS, they had a fucking arsenal of guns and explosive, it was planned out to very small details, these details were shown to the public. Along with video footage from them videoing themselves before hand, and CCTV. The Police stand off hand massive coverage. There was glimpse at the lives of the two shooters.

The Erfurt massacre had some of these things as well. And because of that, they were already known because of columbine. Violent music/video games and lifestyles were already being accused because of columbine. That is why Columbine has a more lasting effect. It was the first to shed light.
You are the one who is biased, be it because of biased american media or what. The Reason Columbine, Amish and V tech are more covered and now more remembered than European shootings is obvious.

Columbine because of what I have stated.
Amish shooting because of the terrible irony and the fact that it was young children. Much like Dunblane.
V-tech, because it was only last year and the shear number of casulties.

There are a number of shootings between all these, which I have never hered of. That Red lake school shooting I only know of because the cunt had a newgrounds account. And people talk about him on here.

Do I need to remind you of our previous encounters again...?

Please do, you sad little cunt, showing other threads completly irrelivant to this one, does not in any circumstance make me give a shit.
Pathetic. Post away.

Not only did it get a lot of coverage due to bias at large, but also because people in European and British media wanted to use it for a specific political point. They were using it as ammunition (pun) to take gun control out of context and attack America.

hahahaa, Listen to your self, whos the one whos being brainwashed? I hope these are your own little ideas and conspiracys, because if it's the american media feeding you this, then they are bodering on totatlarian lol which even me the brainwashed british prick knows isn't true.

In order to fortify this propaganda they implant into your head, they cover other shootings, and other issues related to gun control as a whole in a certain way to preserve it.

lol

If there's a shooting in America, one of the first things you see on your ridiculous media is "OMG we told them so! Americans and their guns! Damn them!". Then there's a shooting in Germany "Oh, this is awful..." with no mention of the fact that Germany has strict gun control and yet the shooting still took place.

Complete bullshit

The German shooting you mentioned, and were talking about....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th e Erfurt shooting was carried out with legally owned firearms. The German goverment then decided to bring more Gun control. I don't even know if it's paticulaly outlawed now.

The Amish school shooting had such large coverage because they were Amish!
V-tech because it was so massive.
Dunblane, because it was in Britain and it caused the Ban on handguns.
Germany and Finland because they were in europe.

Emphasizing school shootings anyway a evidence of bad gun control is completely illogical. I guess to you, you'd rather have more people die as a whole, as long as there is less school shootings.

In my responding post to start of, I just stated that you give me a load of statistics showing how gun crime has gone up since the ban on guns. And I don't belive that it's because of the gun ban. I belive it's because of the rise of gang culture. That was it, I wasn't asking you to show me the same statistics and basically the same post you show everytime, which I was responding against.

My main point was a question about school shootings, I was asking why there was a huge amount of school shootings in the US compared to elsewere. And of course, when you openly admitted that you thought of commiting homocide :)

You're assuming that banning guns in the US will make things better. I showed you it won't, you ignored it. I also showed you how gun problems have got progressively worse in your own country since your draconian gun laws were enforced, you ignored that as well. I showed you that the areas of your country that had the most legally owned guns had the least crime, and the areas where there were the least amount of guns there was the most crime, you ignored that.

So instead you focus on school shootings.

Funny.

You know there have been several cases of you getting completely disproved, and yet you keep arguing your point anyway. You epitomize bias. You're so biased that even when what you say gets literally proved wrong without a shadow of doubt, you start swearing compulsively, run away from the thread, only to argue the very same thing again that was previously disproved.

At 4/16/08 03:45 PM, tawc wrote:

My main point was a question about school shootings, I was asking why there was a huge amount of school shootings in the US compared to elsewere. And of course, when you openly admitted that you thought of commiting homocide :)

lol,
I mean that my other main point was when you. Openly admitted, that you considered volountry manslaughter/second degree murder, or whatever.

At 4/16/08 02:30 PM, tawc wrote:

At 4/15/08 04:19 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.

Well there ya go, end of thread. People who do this type of shit will do it with whatever they can get their hands on.

no, he stabbed one person with a knife, but openly admitted that if he had a gun, he would of shot up a school.

Tawc,

This happened in England right? There is a difference here between the US and UK that is muy significant. One is an island located near a continent where gun prohibition is the norm. On the other hand the US is a continental landmass that shares a long, pourous border with Mexico which borders a continent where there is a proliferation of firearms.

It would be much easier for that kid to obtain a firearm in the US even if we had UK style firearm prohibitions. One chilling example is Venezuala. Recently the Chavez administration purchased AK-47s for their army. Two things make this suspicious:
1) He bought 3x the number of rifles as he has soldiers.
2) While other armies have opted for AK series rifles in the 5.46 caliber, Chavez purchased them in the old 7.62x39 caliber which is favored not only by local narcotics trafficers but also the American AK community.

Thus there is a serious concern that people with malicious intent will be able to get their hands on anything they want in the US even if we were to repeal the second amendment.

Something doesn't add up here, in this firearm rights thread, and it isn't just your allele count, cuppa. What are you arguing in favor of anyways?

In DC you can't own a loaded gun, even in your home, DC should be the only place police have an obligation to physically protect the populace; the populace isn't allowed to protect itself.

In many cases, restraining order issuers are free from obligation to protect because law enforcement merely needs to advise the person to arm themselves. Since it's a constitional right for individuals to keep and BEAR arms, and DC effectively bans the use of them, everyone is encapsuled in DC is in a public danger area, where cops can expect violence. The district of Columbia has created a special relationship between populace and law enforcement by depriving the people of the best way to defend themselves. They ARE obligated in DC to protect, since citizens are stripped of their right to protect themselves.

At 4/12/08 05:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/12/08 04:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The thread is now over.

Okay.

How is it you dodge bans?

At 4/14/08 12:06 PM, waw460 wrote: In the United States people have the right to bear arms. Combine the number of firearm-related injuries or Columbine-style events in the US to, for example, european countries.
I think you shall soon see the difference.

Columbine was a "gun-free zone". Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone". A "gun-free zone" is a place where it is 'illegal' to carry a firearm.

So here's a pop quiz: what do we call a person regularly engages in illegal activities?

At 4/22/08 07:52 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

So here's a pop quiz: what do we call a person regularly engages in illegal activities?

A politician?

Ba-da, bing.

At 4/22/08 11:01 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 4/22/08 07:52 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

So here's a pop quiz: what do we call a person regularly engages in illegal activities?

A politician?

Ba-da, bing.

Actually the answer I was looking for was 'criminal'; then again, most politicians are criminals.

I live in Australia.
Its illegal to have guns.
:[

At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Of course, they ignore that school shootings in Europe and elsewhere in the world happened in countries where gun control is way, way tighter than in the US. They also ignore the facts that I proved which you conveniently refused to respond to: 1) Guns prevent more crime than they cause in the US 2) Gun control in the UK failed to help, and probably made things much worse, making universal calls for gun control unfounded.

God, still on that one are we, cellar?

The only thing closeto a school shooting in the UK was Dunblaine - by a disgruntled paedophile who was a member of a gun club, when handguns were free to purchase. This does not fit in with the scenario you always describe in the face of proof.

And perhaps you shoudl read this. Notice the word "drop" used regularly, not "increase."

Meanwhile, you also remain beligerantly ignorant of the difference in UK and US gun crime: in the UK, it's use of converted replicas, and the crime remains almost entirely based within the criminal fraternity (gang member vs gang member), and within very few areas: a handful of London boroughs (Hackney, Streatham and Peckham - the latter two next to each other), as well as districts of Manchester and Liverpool. Not nationwide, as in the US.

That's where the media comes in with Europeans, it's to appeal to their sensibilities rather than provide them with facts. Media in Europe will be more successful if they stroke the delusional anti-Americanism that Europeans have developed over the years to help cope with their inferiority.

So, the media is against America, rather than the fact over 15,000 Americans are filed under "firearm-related homicide", whilst over here 73 are filed under "gun murder"?

It sounds to me like:
a.) Journalists're doing their job.
b.) Maybe if there wasn't so many case of gun murder in the US, there wouldn't be a template for any news story to follow - especially in relation to school shootings.

I remember it on the news, and I remember them saying that the the kid who did it listened to Slipknot, and my mum then got pissed of because I was listening to Slipknot.

Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.

Actually, I'll step in here: the British media is pretty much bioased. The BBC toe the party line (so hasn't had a "liberal bias" since the 1970s, as various levels of conservatism have reigned), the highest-selling newspapers (The Times, The Daily Mail) are right wing, ahead of the left-wing ones (The Guardian, The Independent) by a clear margin - also, the tabloids (The Sun, The Mirror) are all right-wing and have the highest readerships of all.

So, yes, there is a bias - but not anti-Americanism, but merely sdimilar scapegoating to the US media (hell, the coverage of video games is cut & paste between the two), albeit with slightly better journalism.

At 4/26/08 06:50 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Meanwhile, you also remain beligerantly ignorant of the difference in UK and US gun crime: in the UK, it's use of converted replicas, and the crime remains almost entirely based within the criminal fraternity (gang member vs gang member), and within very few areas: a handful of London boroughs (Hackney, Streatham and Peckham - the latter two next to each other), as well as districts of Manchester and Liverpool. Not nationwide, as in the US.

So, the media is against America, rather than the fact over 15,000 Americans are filed under "firearm-related homicide", whilst over here 73 are filed under "gun murder"?

The thing is the US and UK is not so different in that the vast majority of gun crime is gang v gang or related to the drug trade. Even with the highly sensationalizied trend in school shootings. And again the violence is not as widespread as you think in the US. Most crime is done in specific locales that tend to be the lowest socio-economic classes. Furthermore, the majority of guns are obtained illegally.

Therefore, if you look at the history of prohibition in the US you'll see a history of failure. Booze & drugs are wars we are not winning. What makes you think a prohibition on guns would be effective? I mean we're not an island...

At 4/26/08 06:50 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Of course, they ignore that school shootings in Europe and elsewhere in the world happened in countries where gun control is way, way tighter than in the US. They also ignore the facts that I proved which you conveniently refused to respond to: 1) Guns prevent more crime than they cause in the US 2) Gun control in the UK failed to help, and probably made things much worse, making universal calls for gun control unfounded.

God, still on that one are we, cellar?

Yes, I'm still on the facts. And apparently you're still basing your arguments on lies.

The only thing closeto a school shooting in the UK was Dunblaine

And yet, the reaction to Dunblane (gun bans) by your Parliament either caused, or failed to prevent an exponential increase in the very crimes it was supposed stop. Firearm crimes have DOUBLED in the UK since the gun ban.

And perhaps you shoudl read this. Notice the word "drop" used regularly, not "increase."

Once again, you use a link that means precisely nothing.

- First off, your parliament LIED about gun crimes decreasing. Those stats you are swallowing are a result of a political ploy, trying to brainwash British people into ignoring the fact that gun crime has only gotten progressively worse since the gun ban in 1997. So let's get that lie you love out of the way.

- Secondly, that talks about only a decrease in ONE year to the NEXT year. Even if it did drop by 13% in the space of one year (WHICH IT DIDN'T) that wouldn't even come close to negating the previous 100% increase that occurred since the gun ban in 1997.

Meanwhile, you also remain beligerantly ignorant of the difference in UK and US gun crime: in the UK, it's use of converted replicas

LOL first off, wouldn't the fact that converted replicas are being used in the UK, VALIDATE the point that gun crime doesn't work even more? Yep, I think so.

It's so hilarious that we've been through this so many times, and every single time you get proved wrong. You willfully keep claiming things that have been shown to be untrue. You can never provide proof for what you say, ever. You keep regurgitating the ignorant crap that has been forced into your head, and you remain mindlessly oblivious to simple facts, such as the fact that the areas of England and Wales that have the highest gun ownership have the lowest crime, while the areas that have the lowest gun ownership have the highest crime:

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

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.

-------

This of course validates the fact that guns prevent crime, but you choose not to accept it.

It's beyond obvious that you are completely and entirely incorrect. You keep saying that converted replicas and airguns are causing the increase yet it has already been established time and time again that regardless, gun crimes are only getting worse in the UK in every aspect OTHER than the use of air guns.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACTS (page 36)

Not only has the use of REAL guns in crimes doubled since 1997 but now it's clear that since that gun ban several things have happened that prove that it DID NOT WORK:

- 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 59 in 2006/2007)

Your argument is moot. It's not a matter of opinion anymore, because it's a literal fact that you are completely wrong. The fact that you choose to intentionally take an incorrect stance shows how strong the propaganda is with anti-gun people in the UK.

At 4/26/08 01:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/26/08 06:50 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Meanwhile, you also remain beligerantly ignorant of the difference in UK and US gun crime: in the UK, it's use of converted replicas, and the crime remains almost entirely based within the criminal fraternity (gang member vs gang member), and within very few areas: a handful of London boroughs (Hackney, Streatham and Peckham - the latter two next to each other), as well as districts of Manchester and Liverpool. Not nationwide, as in the US.

So, the media is against America, rather than the fact over 15,000 Americans are filed under "firearm-related homicide", whilst over here 73 are filed under "gun murder"?

The thing is the US and UK is not so different in that the vast majority of gun crime is gang v gang or related to the drug trade. Even with the highly sensationalizied trend in school shootings. And again the violence is not as widespread as you think in the US. Most crime is done in specific locales that tend to be the lowest socio-economic classes. Furthermore, the majority of guns are obtained illegally.

The legality issue is always disputible - saying all guns used are illegal doesn't work, simply because not all gun murders in the US are committed by gang members, for example the amount of times one family member shoots another with the household's legally purchased gun and other such fatalities. Even Columbine was committed with legally-purchased firearms.

Whilst school shootings get the most coverage because the event is now a media template (look at the coverage of Columbine and VT - they are almost identical, with the only new additions being trying to blame video games instead of Marilyn Manson in the eight years inbetween), they do not make up the majority of the statistics.

Meanwhile, the locales aren't so specific - whilst California is disproportionatly ahead of the rest of the country with the fatality rate (ahead of Texas), New York and Florida are near identical, and Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all close (Louisiana, North Carolina, Maryland and Ohio are another cluster) - of that list, only Florida and California rank in the Top 10 for poverty.

On the flip side, Detroit, El Paso and Miami are the three cities with the most families below the poverty line (which indicates there's reason to link poverty to gun crime in Miami - before we get a little bit Scarface - as well as Detroit), but on the other hand El Paso (#70 - apologies for the Wiki link) is behind Houston (#15), Dallas (#23), San Antonio (#40), Fort Worth (#47), Corpus Christi (#52), Arlington (#63), and Austin (#69) in the murder ranks (and just ahead of Plano at #72).

Also, the US ranks 16th on the Human Poverty Index (the UK at 15), so why isn't there a higher crime rate in, for the sake of argument, Japan, Sweden or Switzerland? The best comparison would be Ireland: o.5% less live below the median income, but 0.9% more are long-term unemployed, with 2.26% lacking in basic literacy skills.

You can attribute the drug trade to the high gun homicide rates in Columbia and Thailand, and poverty to that in South Africa and Zimbabwe, but gun crime in the US doesn't fit into such simple patterns - there are too many cases that break from the pattern to simplify it to that point (let alone cellar's standard - coincidentally, as you spent a year ignoring valid points tyhat shatter yours to pieces, I'll just ignore your response, since I've disproven it about 16 times by now and I really cannot be fucking bothered anymore).

Therefore, if you look at the history of prohibition in the US you'll see a history of failure. Booze & drugs are wars we are not winning. What makes you think a prohibition on guns would be effective? I mean we're not an island...

The problem with prohibition is that it creates the idea of the forbidden fruit (I include the legal drinking age of 21 in the US within these parameters), because there's something that is available to some but not to others, or something that was available but now is not. The issue here, of course, is how available guns should actually have been in the first place (commence three-week long discussion on the Second Amendment, again I just cannot be bothered).

But the US also has a fetishisation of guns wihich a majority of other countries doesn't have, simply because of the Second Amendment, meaning that their image can be twisted into being something that represents America, and something that made America (conveniently ignoring that over 600,000 Americans - 1/53 of the total population at the time - were killed in the Civil War with them, of course). The UK, in comparison, doesn't have an image of guns as part of the national psyche (ours usually involves fighting wars with the French, various England/Scotland wars, or gutting it out against Germany - getting stuck in with anything that isn't nailed down or uniting in the face of an enemy and never surrendering) - our national weapon of psyche is probably the broadsword or the cannon, if you consider Trafalgar (although it is the longbow for Wales).

The problem with America is they have the image of having the "right" to bear arms, but the problem is that when "rights" get involved they will be used to a person's own ends: hence you have 12 year olds spitting on you in the street, knowing that if you give them a well-deserved crack around the head you'll be charged for violating their children's rights over here (trust me, I'm pretty sick of it).

So, you have people saying they have the right to own a weapon, despite the fact they do not need one, and there are people who will use their excuse to say they have the right to violate others' basic human rights by sticking them in their face, or shooting them, or any other of the uses guns were created for.

Hypothetically, America would not have the problems with gun crime they do if the idea that people have the right to bear arms, therefore they have the right to own guns, therefore it is Unconstitutional to say otherwise was nipped in the bud early on and there were more safeguards in place when it came to who could own one other than what they could afford. Unfortunatly, that never happened because, just like with guns, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are also fetishised as examples of what is truly American, so the problems stem from there.

Not helped with pro-gun apologists lying and manipulating facts left and right to try and prove America doesn't have a problem, everyone else does...

At 4/27/08 10:41 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: the usual leftist tripe

Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore "logic".

At 4/27/08 10:41 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 4/26/08 01:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/26/08 06:50 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The legality issue is always disputible - saying all guns used are illegal doesn't work, simply because not all gun murders in the US are committed by gang members, for example the amount of times one family member shoots another with the household's legally purchased gun and other such fatalities. Even Columbine was committed with legally-purchased firearms.

D2K, I'm not saying ALL gun crime comitted in the US is related to illegal activity. However, I am saying that the trends are that the MAJORITY are committed by people related to the drug trade. For example in about 30% of federal inmates and 27% of state inmates convicted of murder were under the influence of drugs/booze. 18% of state inmates in jail for neglegent homicide were under the influence. 25% of federal and 22% of state inmates convicted of weapons violations were under the influence at the time of their arrest.

So am I correct in saying that people committing gun crime are engaged in other illegal activity? Yes. Am I even claiming that this is the entirety of gun crime? No. I am not an absolutist D2K so please do not paint me as one. At no time have I claimed that legally-purchased are never used in crime, nor am I claiming that all murders/gun crime is related to other illegal activity.

Furthermore, I am not saying that the middle-class or upper-class never murder anyone. I am saying that there is a strong correlation between violent crime and being in a lower socio-economic class. With the exception of "white-collar crime", crime rates across the board increases as income and education levels decrease.

Finally your mis-interpret my comment upon localization. I was not refering to a specific geographical region such as a state or city. So your discussion of poverty rates in the various states and municipalities is irrelevent. What I was getting at is that there is a correlation that in areas that are economically depressed and lower educational rates the crime rates increase. These places can be found in all states and all municipalities (big, small, urban, rural).

Sorry D2K you do not argue against what I said (or to give you the benefit of the doubt, what I did not say clearly). Nor does your argument buck the trend that a plurality of violent crime is related to other illegal activity.

Not helped with pro-gun apologists lying and manipulating facts left and right to try and prove America doesn't have a problem, everyone else does...

D2K, I kinda resent this insinuation here. I largely stay out of the US vs rest of the developed world arguments. I don't care what you think about the US' fetishization of firearms. I don't care what your laws are or how you live. Furthermore, I do not want to impose my country's values/rights on the UK. So I by and large stay out of that fray.

I only jump in when it relates to trends in the US as I did here. So I'm not lying and I'm not manipulating facts.

I leave the lying and manipulation to domestic anti-gun opinion leaders.

At 4/27/08 10:48 AM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

At 4/27/08 10:41 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: the usual leftist tripe

Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore "logic".

Spare me your intelligent response. Oh, wait, you did.

Furthermore, I am not saying that the middle-class or upper-class never murder anyone. I am saying that there is a strong correlation between violent crime and being in a lower socio-economic class. With the exception of "white-collar crime", crime rates across the board increases as income and education levels decrease.

What I'm saying is that this isn't 100% true - whilst Detroit may fulfill this, there are more violent places than El Paso. What I'm saying (before going off on tangients left and right) is that the "accepted" knowledge of gun crime can be applied to one area but not another, yet there never seems to be anyone willing to acknowledge this. It's like trying to blame blacks and Mexicans for all gun crime like out good friend cellar has repeatedly done - this kind of thinking fails as soon as you look at Florida, as it means the blacks are having to step up to fulfill the Mexicans' quota.

Finally your mis-interpret my comment upon localization. I was not refering to a specific geographical region such as a state or city. So your discussion of poverty rates in the various states and municipalities is irrelevent. What I was getting at is that there is a correlation that in areas that are economically depressed and lower educational rates the crime rates increase. These places can be found in all states and all municipalities (big, small, urban, rural).

This is true - however, how is it my neck of the woods (Croydon) seems to be an epicentre of illiteracy and does have both gang crime and knife crime (and has the most violent crime of all London railway stations), but no gun crime - whilst Hackney has similar conditions (in fact, it's worse for all to the point of schools closing down), and has been compared to Sowetto in the past? There's something else other than education and poverty that isn't accounted for.

What I'm saying is there can't be a sliding scale where if a subgroup passes a certain point of poverty/illiteracy/non-education a switch flicks and it becomes Compton, because that's the same logic applied to most Moral Panics (see: Cho Sueng-Hui being reported as watching Oldboy ten times, as if he was sane before watching it, and was putting together an arsenal by their eighth).

Sorry D2K you do not argue against what I said (or to give you the benefit of the doubt, what I did not say clearly). Nor does your argument buck the trend that a plurality of violent crime is related to other illegal activity.

I was talking of this idea of one moment there isn't gun crime, the next there is - in reference to gun homicides. Pro-gun apologists simplify it the worst to blacks/Mexicans/criminals, but there is this grey area that needs exploring about when an area goes from being poverty-ridden to a gun crime hotspot. Mainly because, as already mentioned, my neck of the woods fulfills many of the criteria listed by various people in this topic, yet hasn't graduated from assault and stabbings yet.

The same can be said for Glasgow - they have similar or worse conditions than Manchester, so should have similar crime - but whilst Manchester has some areas that are notorious for their gun crime, Glasgow isn't - they have the second highester murder rate in the UK (which goes Belfast - Glasgow - Manchester) but withou gun crime, which is bizarre - especially considering the poorest areas of both Manchester and Glasgow (and Liverpool, which has increasing gun-related incidents) are home to large Irish communities, yet the London areas are more reknowned for their black communities (albeit the criminals aren't always black - albeit they think they're Menace II Society - work that one out!).

D2K, I kinda resent this insinuation here. I largely stay out of the US vs rest of the developed world arguments. I don't care what you think about the US' fetishization of firearms. I don't care what your laws are or how you live. Furthermore, I do not want to impose my country's values/rights on the UK. So I by and large stay out of that fray.

I wasn't referring to you, merely the poster I said I was just sick and tired of having to shoot down the same argument repeatedly, only to see it copy & pasted out once again.

At 4/27/08 02:00 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: What I'm saying is that this isn't 100% true - whilst Detroit may fulfill this, there are more violent places than El Paso. What I'm saying (before going off on tangients left and right) is that the "accepted" knowledge of gun crime can be applied to one area but not another, yet there never seems to be anyone willing to acknowledge this. It's like trying to blame blacks and Mexicans for all gun crime like out good friend cellar has repeatedly done - this kind of thinking fails as soon as you look at Florida, as it means the blacks are having to step up to fulfill the Mexicans' quota.

Actually it is 100% true, BUT I think I see the disconnect here. You're looking at this from a geographic perspective while I am looking at this from a social science perspective.

In my PhD program we take stats courses and every methodology course we have crime rates are one of the things we look at because the correlation is so strong. As income/education goes down, crime rates go up. Everywhere this is true.

Now this is where the disconnect comes in. I'm comparing socio-economic classes in Florida between themselves. On the other hand you are comparing crime rates between municipalities. So lets say Detroit is more violent than El Paso...then what you are saying is correct. But that does not conflict with what I have said. What I am saying is if you look at the demographics of those cities you'll see that most violent crime in Detroit is done by the lowest income/education classes (themselves highly correlated with each other) in Detroit and you'll observe the same thing in El Paso.

Why are crime rates different in those cities? Who knows? Perhaps unemployment plays a role, or one has less drug traffic or something else that is undefined. But that does not change the fact that in those communities violent crime occurs at a higher rate/percentage among the poor & uneducated.

You can extrapolate this trend in race as well. Violent crime rates will go down as percentage of the population as income/education levels go up.

What I'm saying is there can't be a sliding scale where if a subgroup passes a certain point of poverty/illiteracy/non-education a switch flicks and it becomes Compton, because that's the same logic applied to most Moral Panics (see: Cho Sueng-Hui being reported as watching Oldboy ten times, as if he was sane before watching it, and was putting together an arsenal by their eighth).

I think I answered this above. :)

Pro-gun apologists simplify it the worst to blacks/Mexicans/criminals, but there is this grey area that needs exploring about when an area goes from being poverty-ridden to a gun crime hotspot. Mainly because, as already mentioned, my neck of the woods fulfills many of the criteria listed by various people in this topic, yet hasn't graduated from assault and stabbings yet.

I wasn't referring to you, merely the poster I said I was just sick and tired of having to shoot down the same argument repeatedly, only to see it copy & pasted out once again.

So here's a question for you. How do you classify me? Am I an apologist or something entirely different? While I see a strong link between socio-economic class (SEC) and crime (which is backed up by social science). Any correlation between Mexicans/Blacks is because of problems with access to education which leads to higher income and SEC...not a function of race/genetics.

And again I'm not saying that a community with X level of SEC will have Y level of violent crime. I am saying that as X decreases the rate of Y will increase, and will have variance across communities. Which is supported by social science.

Mason I think you have persuaded me to pro gun ownership (for US anyway). You are much more intelligent then cellardoor which he gives the political viewpoints he supports gives them no justice at all. I think if you don't need a gun then why have it, but if there are actually legitimate risk to which may cause you to defend your self then maybe owning a gun isn't such a bad idea after all. I would feel a bit uncomfortable if some of my neighbors were to buy guns though (irresponsible adults that have children buying guns to "protect" their homes in a low crime community doesn't exactly make me think we should have that right). I'm sure even pro gun people shouldn't have much of a reason to not want reform in gun control, maybe more red tape when it comes to obtaining a firearm and no more loopholes (like no background checks required if your buying a gun from a gun expo), that way if the "criminals" will have to resort to purely black market guns, that way your government officials can get tough on illegal guns much like drugs, thus they gain support and if pro gun people say is true then public safety is also increased. I also hope America can fix its problems, crime and police corruption sounds quite bad if pro gun ownership people aren't exaggerating.

Wow, what a coward.

At 4/27/08 02:00 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 4/27/08 10:48 AM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

At 4/27/08 10:41 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: the usual leftist tripe

Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore "logic".

Spare me your intelligent response. Oh, wait, you did.

Yes, because people should trust in their own government, never question it, and lean not to their own understanding, because "we don't know any better".