Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/27/08 06:06 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote: Linked to Bullshit by Penn & Teller...

What I thought was great in this link was the bumper-sticker sequence. If you look at the "Ted Kennedy's Car..." bumper sticker (on the pro-gun van), just underneath it you'll see a Masonic symbol. :)

At 4/27/08 06:01 PM, bobomajo wrote: ...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, ...

Bobo,

Thank you for the kind words. I think the difference between myself and Cellar is experience not intelligence. He is a good guy but lets his passion get the better of his delivery.

The gun show loophole is difficult. The vast majority are fully licensed gun dealers who sell exclusively at gun shows to save money on overhead. These people submit potential buyers to background checks and everything else a storefront gun dealer would have to do. However, there are some people who are not dealers but individuals selling personal firearms. So there is a problem here that is larger than gun shows. How does a person sell his personal property...in this case a firearm. I don't have a ready answer to that.

As for halting illicit gun trafficking...the drug war has not been a paragon of success. Part of that is the porous border. We have to secure that before we can limit illicit trade of all types (guns, drugs & human).

At 4/28/08 01:45 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/27/08 06:06 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote: Linked to Bullshit by Penn & Teller...

Quote: "Gang members like me love gun control laws because they are joke..."

If Canada's people where allowed to carry Gus in public, it would be the end of Niagra falls(on their side)
as we know it.

yes they should that like imposing a law like no ging to the toilet between 4 am and 6 pm it just isnt right!

hey, i know ive entered this debate a bit late.. but heres my two cents.
In england, where i live, (the northeast) its common to carry a knife. for protection or otherwise. i mean i was stabbed going on 4 months ago now and have been threatened with them since.. i think its a massive problem which needs sortin out tbh i mean up you could run across a 10 year old off his face on pills and suddenly wondering where theres a steak knife in your leg.. its ridiculous. so no i dont really think guns or knifes should be allowed to be carried. but thats just my opinion..

At 4/28/08 06:50 AM, bleakserka wrote: so no i dont really think guns or knifes should be allowed to be carried. but thats just my opinion..

Your two cents are even worth one cent. If you truly believe what you wrote, then you definitely deserve any ill fate that may be directed toward you in the future.

I've thought about the question: "Why do you need semi-automatics?" And I think I'm ready to present a more definitive answer. I focus on handguns because in terms of "assault rifles" I've argued that horse to the point that there really isn't any logical rejoinder.

But what about handguns?

First of all let's look at the "advantages" of the semi-auto handgun:

1) Rapid fire
2) Quick re-load time
3) Increased ammo capacity

Rapid fire: Rapid fire is not really that effective, as demonstrated by the discussions on assault rifles. Rapid fire in pistols are even less effective. Ease of control is diminished because they are not fired from the shoulder and are lighter.

Quick re-load time: This is not necessarily the case. Use of a speed loader makes re-loading a revolver about as fast as re-loading a mag-fed firearm. Furthermore, a person is quickly going to run out of pre-loaded mags. At this point re-loading a revolver is faster than re-loading a mag-fed pistol.

Increased ammo capacity: Most civilian semi-auto handguns only hold seven rounds. The vast majority of revolvers only hold six rounds. Wow! That one round really makes a difference!

Now for the advantages.

Recently I went shooting with female friends. They fired a .45 Colt handgun, something that would be more than a little intimidating in a revolver. This is not a gender bias either. Higher caliber handguns are more intimidating for small people of both sexes. The recoil absorbtion of a semi-auto allows people who are disadvantaged physically to use a higher calibur handgun to effectively defend themselves.

The recoil absorbtion also helps accuracy by making the gun easier to control.

So while there are relatively few advantages over other types of actions...there is no reason to believe that they are any more lethal/effective/potent than non-automatic actions. Thus there is no justification to single them out as requiring any special legislation/restrictions...

Something struck me about this story that was discussed in Penn & Teller's Bullshit.

This latest shooting in a school happened in a gun free zone in a gun free city. This demonstrates the reality that in the US people with criminal intent will not be deterred by gun control measures.

At 4/27/08 06:06 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

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".

You're aware that P&T admit they're biased, right? Or that they don't encourage any form of debate AT ALL? Just a little nugget of information for you...

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.

As I keep saying, this may work as a general rule of thumb, but it just doesn't cover that X Factor between the one moment where an area may be violent, and where it suddenly tips into gun crime - there's still a gap in there.

It is patently simplistic, but some people seem to be more trigger happy than others: South African whites display a cold logic that dictates it's fine to own a gun and use it when necessary. Farmers/landowners are the obvious example, but under Apathaid there was a law that stated that you could shoot anyone you saw fleeing from a scene - a law that saw Louis van Schoor kill 39 blacks and/or coloured (mixed race) in a three year spree, which a blind eye was turned to until it got so obvious what he was doing they had to act. As I've repeatedly shown, South Africa has the highest gun murder rate in the world and second highest murder rate.

Yes, there's mass poverty - but not amongst the whites. The highest proportion of gun users aren't blacks or coloured, either - it's the Asian and White population, and it's Coloured that are on the receiving end of them by a large margin, followed by blacks (coloured also use guns the least). This doesn't add up to the theory of poverty = gun crime.

In the UK, again it doesn't add up - Northern Ireland is the poorest region of the UK, and whilst Belfast has the highest murder rate, again they don't use guns like the (habitually) specified areas of London or Manchester.

This is what I'm getting at - why do some areas pick gun crime whilst others don't? It doesn't follow the logic of "They're black/Latino" cellar constantly spouits like a racist idiot, and it doesn't follow the socio-economic lines, either. Yes, the argument of availability obviously comes into it - guns are easily available in the US, in the UK you have to pay a hell of a lot over the odds for a converted replica (thus you would need to know where to get one, and not have any problem in breaking at least three laws in order to get one).

If there's a theory worth putting into practice, it's considering the gated communities/council estates/tenements, which could be argued to be the breeding grounds for a lot of these problems - Hackney has gated communities, Peckham, Streatham and Moss Side have a lot of council estates as oppsoed to regular districts - indeed, in South Africa it's argued gated communites aren't helping the crime problems one iota, whilst council estates in the UK (and tenement buildings in Scotland) can often be the sort of place you wouldn't walk after dark on your own - unless you happened to be a Fifth Dan in Thai boxing, wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying several canisters of teargas. It should also be added that these areas have a mostly white population (although the media constantly reinforce the stereotype of blacks inhabiting the areas and turning them into Boyz n The Hood, of course).

Yet why do council blocks near Croydon seem happy to stick with GBH and stabibngs (in fact, this time last year there were three fatal stabbings in a half mile radius of each other), yet in Moss Side they graduated to shooting each other? I may as well blame the Irish element of the community if I wanted to simplify it to that level.

There are places you can just say X = The Reason, such as the drug trades in Columbia or Thailand, but it doesn't count. Although what would be interesting is if the Chinese statistics were released - comparing Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing would be interesting, although if Kowloon bay put Hong Kong way over the top it would back up the poverty theory if it was by a large margin.

Ok, the right to bear arms is in the Amedment #2 in the Bill Of Rights. You shouldn't change that. Yes, people are getting killed by guns, but if we take them away, they will resort to knifes and stuff like that.
Also, it means no hunting, no game shooting (whichis what I like to do), no nothing. Do you people what that??

At 4/28/08 03:54 AM, Haloya wrote: If Canada's people where allowed to carry Gus in public, it would be the end of Niagra falls(on their side)
as we know it.

i don't get it.

should i have read previous posts?

Pic related.

;

At 5/4/08 02:52 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 4/27/08 06:06 PM, Leistungsfahigsten wrote:

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:

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.

As I keep saying, this may work as a general rule of thumb, but it just doesn't cover that X Factor between the one moment where an area may be violent, and where it suddenly tips into gun crime - there's still a gap in there.

Very sneaky not addressing your response to me...to me.

In statistics you get two values, p and r. The p value tells you what the chance is you'll get a correlation between two variables by chance. The p value for gun crime and SEC (Socio-Economic Class) is about 1% of the time this correlation is by chance. The r value is variance explained...or rather how well a variable causes or effects the dependent variable. I've seen values as high as .85 (85%).

So you kinda have a point...SEC does not explain everything but it is a strong correlation that explains the majority of gun crime.

Availability is an issue. However, it is not the availability of legal firearms. The majority of guns used in crime in the US are obtained through illegal means. Yes theft of legal guns provides a source. However, it is not the only source as smuggling will only increase to fill the void if we banned guns and confiscated legally owned guns.

But an r of .85 tells me that the answer is not in reducing availability but rather increasing educational and occupational opportunities.

I say that the possibility for using concealed weapons for bad far outweighs the benefits of carrying one around. We don't need as many gun murders as the United States has, it's a waste of lives.

At 4/1/08 12:28 PM, highschooldude wrote: In the U.S.A they have a "seconed amenedment" that alows them to bear arms. What dose that mean it mean they can carry a loaded hand gun with them on the sreets. In canada we can't even carry knifves unless ther with in plane veiw (or at least in the 70's that was the law)

Ok so let me know what you think. should canadins be alowed to carry guns and or knifevs?

No. The right to bear arms enables everyone to get a gun, and use it. That means people are more likely to protect their own property using that fire-arm instead of calling the police. Result is more people will be shot or even killed. And think about this: a criminal is certainly more likely to shoot you when he knows you bear a fire-arm, if you don't, you're less of a threat.

And I understand the Americans, it must suck to feel helpless or even feel like a sitting duck without a gun. But if you do own a gun, the risk of getting killed is much higher. Besides that, guns shouldn't be available to the public, especially not criminals. And I know they'll get them anyway, but at least its a lot harder when guns are illegal; and there is no doubt for the criminal that maybe the shopkeeper has a gun, because he hasn't: so no need to shoot him.

At 5/5/08 02:01 AM, LedgendGamer wrote: I say that the possibility for using concealed weapons for bad far outweighs the benefits of carrying one around. We don't need as many gun murders as the United States has, it's a waste of lives.

"As many"? So, we just need fewer murders? A couple of people dead is okay?

But anyway, if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The criminals know with almost certainty that their victims are unarmed. Crime would increase, not decrease.

At 5/5/08 02:01 AM, LedgendGamer wrote: I say that the possibility for using concealed weapons for bad far outweighs the benefits of carrying one around. We don't need as many gun murders as the United States has, it's a waste of lives.

I hate to break it to you, but you're using superficial bumper-sticker logic that does not reflect reality. We have had concealed carry for decades now in some states and thus far there has been a decrease in violent crime in those states. Therefore it has a positive effect.

Thus your logic is illogical. You are talking about possibilities rather than observed facts.

And finally, some prosecutors are starting to charge drunk drivers with murder. 16-18,000 people a year die from drunk driving accidents (39% of all automobile fatalities). That is the same number as all firearm homicides. Thus the car is used just as often to murder people as guns. So by your logic we need to keep people from owning cars.

At 5/5/08 05:28 AM, Diederick wrote: No. The right to bear arms enables everyone to get a gun, and use it. That means people are more likely to protect their own property using that fire-arm instead of calling the police. Result is more people will be shot or even killed. And think about this: a criminal is certainly more likely to shoot you when he knows you bear a fire-arm, if you don't, you're less of a threat.

Actually Diederick this is not indicative of reality. The US is a large country in terms of land mass and for a great many people who live in rural counties...there is no police to call. In rural counties there are two maybe three deputies who are patrolling 600-1,000 miles of road. For these people police help is hours away. These are some of the most legally heavily armed areas in the US with lower crime rates. Furthermore, I had someone attempting to break into my house when I lived in the city. My then wife called the cops...who told her they had higher priorities. The cops in the US are not able to stop crime...just clean-up.

Also, it is stupid to confront someone over your TV. I sleep with my bedroom door locked. If someone breaks in I'm calling the cops but I'm also pulling a firearm and warning the person not to come into my bedroom. If he comes in knowing I'm armed this indicates he is there specifically to do me harm. At that point I will shoot him whether or not the police are on their way. But the reality is not more people getting shot as you claim, the reality is 9 times out of 10 the homeowner or concealed carry holder only needs to pull the gun. The criminal then runs away.

Finally you make the claim that people are more likely to get hurt by criminals because they are armed. This is not true. As I mentioned above, the crook after a quick buck is not there to do you violence and will run away. But also more importantly, he is not looking for harm to come to himself. In a home invasion the home owner has the tactical advantage so even if the crook is armed himself...their best option is to run away and they do. However, if they are looking to harm you then the only chance you've got is a firearm.

And I understand the Americans, it must suck to feel helpless or even feel like a sitting duck without a gun. But if you do own a gun, the risk of getting killed is much higher. Besides that, guns shouldn't be available to the public, especially not criminals. And I know they'll get them anyway, but at least its a lot harder when guns are illegal; and there is no doubt for the criminal that maybe the shopkeeper has a gun, because he hasn't: so no need to shoot him.

1) I do not feel like a sitting duck without a gun.

2) The statistics regarding "more likely to be shot w/your own gun" suffers some serious methodolgical problems. Of course there are going to be higher incidence of people who guns having accidents than people who do not. If you don't own a car your chances of getting hurt or killed in an auto accident are significantly smaller than those who do own a car. What those stats don't tell you is that the number of people who get hurt or killed by their own firearm are so low that in a country with our population and amount of privately owned guns...the number of these incidents are insignificant.

3) It is not harder for criminals to get guns in the US if guns are illegal. The most violent places in this country are actually gun-free zones where it is illegal for people to own guns (Washington DC, Chicago, California). The reason? Most violent crime in the US is related to the drug trade. Smuggling lines for cocaine, pot and even humans are well established. It would take no effort for these smugglers to bring in weapons. Thus it may seem counter-intuitive but gun bans make the streets less safe and more regulated. Black market forces are keeping heavier firearms (ie: rocket launchers) unprofitable when it is cheaper to get stuff that has been stolen or bought illegally (straw man purchases). So while a gun ban will reduce so-called crimes of passion...the gang wars would become more violent resulting in an increase in murder.

At 5/4/08 02:52 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: As I keep saying, this may work as a general rule of thumb, but it just doesn't cover that X Factor between the one moment where an area may be violent, and where it suddenly tips into gun crime - there's still a gap in there.

After reading your entire post something struck me; you're using other countries to justify why the facts in the US are wrong. As I've told you before, I am not going to get into an argument with you about other countries. I do NOT care. The stats I am looking at are for the US only. My only concern is US gun laws and crime problems.

So when you debate me, do not use the same arguments you use against Cellar. They are not relevant nor are they damaging to what I am saying.

Thus in the US violent crime's roots are:

1) Directly correlated with a high degree of causality in low SEC and places where people's ability to rise above SEC are limited if not non-existant.
2) Most violent crime is also related to drug crime; which is also related to SEC.
3) There is a gang culture in the US that reinforces violent crime and focuses more on resolving disputes with guns rather than diplomacy.
4) Most of the violent crime tends to be intra-racial (black on black or white on white, etc) than racially motivated.

In conclusion the roots of violent crime may very well be different from country to country. I will happily concede you this point. But what that means is the solution is not the same for the US as it is for the UK, Hong Kong or S. Africa.

At 5/5/08 10:24 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/5/08 02:01 AM, LedgendGamer wrote: I say that the possibility for using concealed weapons for bad far outweighs the benefits of carrying one around. We don't need as many gun murders as the United States has, it's a waste of lives.

I hate to break it to you, but you're using superficial bumper-sticker logic that does not reflect reality. We have had concealed carry for decades now in some states and thus far there has been a decrease in violent crime in those states. Therefore it has a positive effect.

Thus your logic is illogical. You are talking about possibilities rather than observed facts.

And finally, some prosecutors are starting to charge drunk drivers with murder. 16-18,000 people a year die from drunk driving accidents (39% of all automobile fatalities). That is the same number as all firearm homicides. Thus the car is used just as often to murder people as guns. So by your logic we need to keep people from owning cars.

You're right, I should have thought that through. I was extremely tired last night, I should have just ignored the forums and slept >_<

If concealed weapons actually help reduce crime, then I suppose I could support it. As you said, it opens up a lot of possibilities, but does not guarantee that we'll all die from it.

At 5/5/08 11:32 AM, TheMason wrote: (Everything)

Okay, I understand the differences between our countries, and you are right in your point when the American police is really that useless in emergencies. However, I don't agree with your statement that making fire arms illegal increases crime and death rates. Yes, criminals would still get the guns, they would even be more likely to succeed in getting what they want. But there is less need to use the gun, thus less deaths will occur (on both sides).

At 5/6/08 08:06 AM, Diederick wrote:

At 5/5/08 11:32 AM, TheMason wrote: (Everything)

However, I don't agree with your statement that making fire arms illegal increases crime and death rates. Yes, criminals would still get the guns, they would even be more likely to succeed in getting what they want. But there is less need to use the gun, thus less deaths will occur (on both sides).

The thing here friend, is that regardless of whether or not you agree with me...that is what is happening in the US. New York, California, Chicago and Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control policies in the country. In Chicago & DC it is illegal to own guns. But look at the past few weekends, violence has skyrocketed to the point where police feel they have to arm themselves w/military weapons as a show of force.

So yes your view is intuitive and logical...but that does not make it right. What we see in gun-free zones is that violence and murders go up...not down.

Here is a short list of why we MUST support gun control.

At 5/6/08 03:57 PM, MattBlackguard wrote: Here is a short list of why we MUST support gun control.

Attrition [dot] org? Are you serious?

At 5/6/08 06:14 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 5/6/08 03:57 PM, MattBlackguard wrote: Here is a short list of why we MUST support gun control.

Attrition [dot] org? Are you serious?

The thing is, that is pretty much the same level as gun control supporters best arguments. At least things like Washington's low murder rate of 86/100,000 being due to strick gun control measures compared to cities with low gun control policies suffer under a high murder rate of 1-2/100,000 is based upon real world statistics.

Rather than: "Oh I (or Sarah Brady) just had this thought and it seems to make sense therefore it must be true..."

you see my smiley face pic, thats me without a gun. nuf sed

I think Canadians should get an amendment that says all citizens of Canada need to take two extra years of grammar and spelling courses.

what so bad about owning a gun. its not like people are walking around with them under their shirts. and the people who do would have guns whether it is legal or not. people are retarted. you illegalize guns, the only people you are taking them away from is the good people, people who obey laws, not the ones who go around shooting people. atleast keep it even.

what they need to do is have people take an IQ test before they can buy them. that way the stupid people who would shoot them in their yards or some crap dont get them. that or have them take a mandatory gun saftey test, like the one you have to take to drive a car. alteast then it would probably keep some away from gangsters and other stupid people.