guns 101

[AlgyTaylor]

Something like this...What is the worst sin that the United States has committed:

1. Allowing its citizens to own guns
2. Cutting personal income taxes
3. Passing DOMA laws defining marriage as 1 man-1 woman
4. Electing George W. Bush
5. Defending itself against Islamic extremism
6. Not giving illegal immigrants free health care
7. Being patriotic
8. Allowing its citizens to worship Jesus, sometimes praying in public
9. Defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War
10. Celebrating Columbus Day
11. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag
12. The Boy Scouts
13. Allowing private companies to say Merry Christmas to customers
14. Believing in natural law/natural rights
15. Wal-Mart

I'm betting it will be #4

Unsurprisingly, out of that list I'd say number 4.

11 - I don't get this at all. Don't think it's "wrong", I just don't get why you should need to do this. Surely if you're unscrupilous enough to blow up the World Trade Centre (for example) then you're not going to care that much about lying in your pledge of allegiance.

[Snorri1234]

Huh? I am not part of the circus saying "well we don't have guns and lower crimerate so you shouldn't have guns", I try to show that more guns does not mean less violence. I know that Americans aren't going to give up their guns any time soon, but I just object to the propaganda they spread.

The USA should do something about their gun-problems. Not by outright banning them, but firstly doing something about their huge black market. And that black market can only be reduced by being more strict on the producing of guns and making sure gun-selling and ownership is even more heavily watched. Stricter gun control is seen as something bad by the republicans, but I believe they would certainly agree with the notion of putting guns in the hands of only law-abiding citizens. If they don't want to take more time to obtain the guns, then really the country is going down the drain anyway.

There are already over 20,000 laws on the books from the federal down to the local level concerning the production, sale and possession of firearms.
The answer is not to add more laws, its to enforce the ones that already exist.

Well obviously, I never said add more laws, but to be stricter.

[Snorri1234]

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

True, but I believe the USA first has to phase out the weapons. For them to be even consider banning, they first have to make sure the change will be less big.

[Napoleon Ier]

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

Yet...after the Dunblane ban, gun crime continues to rise in the UK...

I think I'll add a little quote, for what it's worth : A fear of weapons is a sign of retarted emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.

[heavycola]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarted emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.

I do realise you are nothing but a troll, and that even this reply you crave probably has you giggling into your ribena, but do try and f*ck off before you post your routine bilge again.
I am so bored of your dreary adjectival merry-go-round, the way you can't spell 'retarded', and i'm bored, too, of being moved to write angry replies every time you come out with something as mind-bogglingly stupid as this. Grow. The. f*ck. Up.

[Napoleon Ier]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarted emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.

I do realise you are nothing but a troll, and that even this reply you crave probably has you giggling into your ribena, but do try and f*ck off before you post your routine bilge again.
I am so bored of your dreary adjectival merry-go-round, the way you can't spell 'retarded', and i'm bored, too, of being moved to write angry replies every time you come out with something as mind-bogglingly stupid as this. Grow. The. f*ck. Up.

I see the pain of withdrawal is taking its toll on you.

Still...despite your apparent freedom from intoxication, you're only able to point to a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests, with bitter, venomous and frankly unnecessarily rude comments about my prose thrown in for flavour.

Try a little harder next time, would you?

[Snorri1234]

Still...despite your apparent freedom from intoxication, you're only able to point to a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests, with bitter, venomous and frankly unnecessarily rude comments about my prose thrown in for flavour.

You don't have an argument.

[Guiscard]

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

Yet...after the Dunblane ban, gun crime continues to rise in the UK...

Have you ever been threatened with a gun? Have you ever seen a criminal with a gun? Have any of your friends been shot?

[Napoleon Ier]

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

Yet...after the Dunblane ban, gun crime continues to rise in the UK...

Have you ever been threatened with a gun? Have you ever seen a criminal with a gun? Have any of your friends been shot?

Shall we ask our american friends that as well then, seeing as how taking a poll on an online gaming community somehow counts as a conclusive study on gun crime in a nation?

[Neoteny]

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

Yet...after the Dunblane ban, gun crime continues to rise in the UK...

Have you ever been threatened with a gun? Have you ever seen a criminal with a gun? Have any of your friends been shot?

Shall we ask our american friends that as well then, seeing as how taking a poll on an online gaming community somehow counts as a conclusive study on gun crime in a nation?

Perhaps we shall... new thread, anyone?

[Napoleon Ier]

Even then you'd have to explain how that study was in any way reliable, and draw conclusions from a detailed analysis of your results, which could be easily contested.

No, the fact is the leftists are again to prisonner to their unfaltering belief in their own superiority to what they see as ignorant rednecks, leading them to simply ignore any and all evidence and reasoning used...

[Neoteny]

Even then you'd have to explain how that study was in any way reliable, and draw conclusions from a detailed analysis of your results, which could be easily contested.

No, the fact is the leftists are again to prisonner to their unfaltering belief in their own superiority to what they see as ignorant rednecks, leading them to simply ignore any and all evidence and reasoning used...

Who said anything about reliability. I think that regardless of the overall reliability, the honest responses would be clear, and might serve useful.

[heavycola]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarted emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.

I do realise you are nothing but a troll, and that even this reply you crave probably has you giggling into your ribena, but do try and f*ck off before you post your routine bilge again.
I am so bored of your dreary adjectival merry-go-round, the way you can't spell 'retarded', and i'm bored, too, of being moved to write angry replies every time you come out with something as mind-bogglingly stupid as this. Grow. The. f*ck. Up.

I see the pain of withdrawal is taking its toll on you.

Still...despite your apparent freedom from intoxication, you're only able to point to a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests, with bitter, venomous and frankly unnecessarily rude comments about my prose thrown in for flavour.

Try a little harder next time, would you?

See, now what the hell does that even mean? 'a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests'? WHAT THE f*ck DOES THAT MEAN?

Answer: not a great deal.
...and on it goes.

And don't flatter yourself that this tripe:
'A fear of weapons is a sign of retarted emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.'
..is an argument. It is nothing of the sort. It's trolling, it's bollocks, it means absolutely nothing. Coming from anyone else i could laugh at it, but when you srart puffing out your pigeon chest and calling that an argument... well, it's irritating.

I'm not bitter, nappy. I give a shit in as much as you insist on spouting this recycled bullshit at any opportunity and then stamping your little feet and killing us with your verbal diarrhea when anyone flags it up. And your infantilel ranting has been particularly irksome today.

That's all.

[Napoleon Ier]

See, now what the hell does that even mean? 'a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests'? WHAT THE f*ck DOES THAT MEAN?

Answer: not a great deal.
...and on it goes.

It means, my dear doped up chump, that rather than addressing the fact that I'd provided statistical evidence to counter Guiscard's bullheaded and dogmatic refusal to acknowledge the pseudo-intellectual pseudo-enlightened leftist mindset he takes his views from as Gospel may actually be incorrect.

And don't flatter yourself that this tripe:
'A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.'
..is an argument. It is nothing of the sort. It's trolling, it's bollocks, it means absolutely nothing. Coming from anyone else i could laugh at it, but when you srart puffing out your pigeon chest and calling that an argument... well, it's irritating.

It's also written by Freud.

I simply explained that knee-jerk leftist attitudes are governed by this particular aspect of their psychology : inability to take responsability for their own defence, despite it being a basic and natural human instinct.

I'm not bitter, nappy.

Ahhh...classic denial.

[heavycola]

See, now what the hell does that even mean? 'a typo as the flawed fulcrum upon which my argument rests'? WHAT THE f*ck DOES THAT MEAN?

Answer: not a great deal.
...and on it goes.

It means, my dear doped up chump, that rather than addressing the fact that I'd provided statistical evidence to counter Guiscard's bullheaded and dogmatic refusal to acknowledge the pseudo-intellectual pseudo-enlightened leftist mindset he takes his views from as Gospel may actually be incorrect.

verbiage, berbiage, verbiage, blah blah blah. Yes, everyone else is dogmatic and refuses to listen. yes, everyone else is only pseudo-intellectual. Yes, no one else ever stops to consider if their pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-enlightened, pseudfest views are actually a pile of shite.

And don't flatter yourself that this tripe:
'A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity. Typical of nervous, jumpy knee-jerk leftists.'
..is an argument. It is nothing of the sort. It's trolling, it's bollocks, it means absolutely nothing. Coming from anyone else i could laugh at it, but when you srart puffing out your pigeon chest and calling that an argument... well, it's irritating.

It's also written by Freud.

I simply explained that knee-jerk leftist attitudes are governed by this particular aspect of their psychology : inability to take responsability for their own defence, despite it being a basic and natural human instinct.

'their' psychology? human instinct? Nappy i know you have a thesaurus (not a dictionary though, or was that another typo? Maybe it was a flawed fulcrum) but that doesn't actually invest your juvenile twaddle with any serious meaning.
Once again, you haven't argued anything. you have managed to waste server space and other peoples' time while letting us all know just how brightly the sun shines out of your arse. You're just a kid, and i was a precocious little bastard at your age too, but you should try listening once in a while.

.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hmmm...well much as I'm enjoying these little sporadic tantrums from you, which effectively consist of you growing gradually more frustrated at your inability to intelligently argue against someone you'd like to view as an ignorant little kid, I would nonetheless like a serious answer to my point. Can Guiscard or his expert team of analysts come up with an answer to the evidence which points to the Dunblane ban having no effect whatsoever.

[suggs]

There hasnt been another Dunblane.

[Guiscard]

Even then you'd have to explain how that study was in any way reliable, and draw conclusions from a detailed analysis of your results, which could be easily contested.

And where are these things in support of your argument, Nappy?

Once again class A hypocrisy spews forth from your keyboard.

[Napoleon Ier]

Just google UK crime rates

[heavycola]

Hmmm...well much as I'm enjoying these little sporadic tantrums from you, which effectively consist of you growing gradually more frustrated at your inability to intelligently argue against someone you'd like to view as an ignorant little kid, I would nonetheless like a serious answer to my point. Can Guiscard or his expert team of analysts come up with an answer to the evidence which points to the Dunblane ban having no effect whatsoever.

You got 'em there nappy. If those inhuman kneejerk leftists hadn't jerked their leftist knees when a bunch of kids got shot... They were failing at human instinct. if only those kids had been armed, but no.

But I don't really care about whatever topic had you beaming with misplaced smugness before you wrote all that guff about 'weapons', and i'm surprised you could get your head out of your arse far enough to see the keyboard, frankly. i don't want to view you as an ignorant kid - that is entirely your fault.

[suggs]

*muffled* I cant see my keyboard.

[Neutrino]

Sometimes it actually gets to the point where it's embarrasing to be seen on the same internet Forum as Napoleon...

Napoleon, if you want to be taken seriously anywhere, drop the blanket generalizations. "Leftists" form roughly half the population. How can you claim to know the character for the vast majority of them? You're taking a steriotype and applying it to the entire faction. You should have learnt not to do that in Grade 9.

If I started claiming those crazy Westboro Baptists, KKK or some other unsavory minority formed the character of the average Conservative you would be up in arms, probably with several lengthy slightly misspelled complaints involving extensive use of a thesaurus.

Leftists, on average, are just as intelligent as Conservatives. They looked at the same information and decided upon a worldview different to yours (or were idiots with no imagination and just blindly accepted what they parents taught). It is pointless and ultimately damaging to your credibility to steriotype millions of people negatively just because you can't cope with the idea that people who chose differently to you might be just as correct.

[Dekloren]

Neutrino's clitoris is so large, he thinks it's a penis.

[Guiscard]

Neutrino's clitoris is so large, he thinks it's a penis.

f*ck off, noob.

[Dekloren]

I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!