stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[EvilMallet]

founding fathers were profiteers who wanted to break off from the british to avoid taxes, and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself and getting food.

Those men supported your right to bear arms because it meant you were very likely to kill some redcoats.

[Hasbinlulz]

Fuck all that, what does The Bible say?

[Hailto]

Fuck all that, what does The Bible say?

I thought you were leaving?

[Hitchens]

The Founding Fathers were a monolithic group of Agrarian Holy Men who should be worshiped as saints. Their supernatural abilities as God-Men allowed them to understand the complexities of an urban society.

[philbertpk]

You must be reading some lib-tard BS man.

True, the founding fathers were land owning-slave owning white guys who re-wrote John Locke's Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Land to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because they obviously wanted to keep the class structure intact which would be viewed as oligarchical today.

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.

Im not saying we should hold those men up on a pedestal and call them Gods, but damn. Im a damn moderate but I Know better than this BS your spewing. Go get an education.

[Hitchens]

Hook, line and sinker.

[patriot1776]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

[EvilMallet]

Hook, line and sinker.

[EvilMallet]

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.


You fucking retard.

The people at large wanted to revolt because they didn't want to pay taxes for a war that had no part of (The Seven Years War, maybe you've heard of it?). They wanted people to have guns to increase the power of their militias, because that pretty much was the only military force we had. We don't have a militia now. We have military. You don't need guns , unless you plan on fighting our own soldiers, in which case:

Go back to commie land Pinky

[patriot1776]

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
- James Madison

[Strifer]

Guys for real if Jesus had guns he wouldn't have died, or at least that is what southern evangelicals want you to believe....hmmmm

[Daldolma]

You fucking retard.

The people at large wanted to revolt because they didn't want to pay taxes for a war that had no part of (The Seven Years War, maybe you've heard of it?). They wanted people to have guns to increase the power of their militias, because that pretty much was the only military force we had. We don't have a militia now. We have military. You don't need guns , unless you plan on fighting our own soldiers, in which case:

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Revolutionary War ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The Second Amendment is wholly unrelated to the needs of the Revolutionary War. They didn't want an armed populace in order to defeat the British -- they already had defeated them. By 1784, the US had already established Regular Army infantry regiments. By 1791, the US had established a trained standing army.

Militia and armed populace was seen as a defense against tyranny and a guarantor of liberty. That may or may not be accurate, but that was the vision.

[Itap]

Postin in a troll thread

[Itap]

Guys for real if Jesus had guns he wouldn't have died, or at least that is what southern evangelicals want you to believe....hmmmm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/tripoli/family-guy-4.jpg

[Hitchens]

High speed internet is a human right.

Prove me wrong.

[EvilMallet]

High speed internet is a human right.

Prove me wrong.

i cant

[Alarti0001]

You must be reading some lib-tard BS man.

True, the founding fathers were land owning-slave owning white guys who re-wrote John Locke's Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Land to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because they obviously wanted to keep the class structure intact which would be viewed as oligarchical today.

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.

Im not saying we should hold those men up on a pedestal and call them Gods, but damn. Im a damn moderate but I Know better than this BS your spewing. Go get an education.


So you think some redneck with a ar-15 is going to take on an Abrams tank? The real power of revolt is our volunteer military not our firearms.

The founding fathers imaginings have no place in modern society. Its time to be our own people.

[Knuckle]

diggles lives in a troll cave in alaska, his opinion is biased that his mom is gonna put that 44 to the back of his head one day when hes in his 30s still masterbating to hentai in the living room

[EvilMallet]

^mad

[patriot1776]

:rolleyes:

So you think some redneck with a ar-15 is going to take on an Abrams tank? The real power of revolt is our volunteer military not our firearms.

The founding fathers imaginings have no place in modern society. Its time to be our own people.

http://i.imgur.com/WJ6S8.jpg

[EvilMallet]

french helped us with a large amount of our battles in the revolution naez

[patriot1776]

nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_the_American_Revolutiona ry_War_by_country

[EvilMallet]

also gave us supplies etc

[patriot1776]

Haha they lost 3 of the 4 naval battles and the other 1 was indecisive.


REAL BIG HELP

[Hitchens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

[Vadd]

You fucking retard.

WE don't have a militia now. The Government has a military. You don't need guns , unless you plan on fighting for what's yours in the event they try to take it.

[Vadd]

Oh yeah, and also.....

Cops/Soldiers sleep over at all of our houses every night to make sure no one breaks in to rob/kill/rape our sisters/mothers/wives/kids/grandmothers....

LOL

[EvilMallet]

????? god you're fucking retarded.

[patriot1776]

Oh yeah, and also.....

Cops/Soldiers sleep over at all of our houses every night to make sure no one breaks in to rob/kill/rape our sisters/mothers/wives/kids/grandmothers....

LOL

3rd amendment

[Faron]

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Revolutionary War ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The Second Amendment is wholly unrelated to the needs of the Revolutionary War. They didn't want an armed populace in order to defeat the British -- they already had defeated them. By 1784, the US had already established Regular Army infantry regiments. By 1791, the US had established a trained standing army.

Militia and armed populace was seen as a defense against tyranny and a guarantor of liberty. That may or may not be accurate, but that was the vision.

A+ Good post would read again. Whenever this topic pops up on any forum, it is filled with untrue nonsense that ill informed people regurgitate because they like the sound of it. The reality is that the Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport. It was not written with fine print saying to toss it out once firearms technology reached a certain threshold. It was 100% a statement of trust between the people and the government - as you said, a defense against tyranny and guarantor of liberty.

[Tarathiel]

except that like if the government ever did get tyrannical(more tyrannical i should say, if ever there was a time for revolution its now, but what ev). your guns would mean jack shit, they would bend you over with a predator missile and shove it right up your ass.

[Hitchens]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

[vaylorie]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

You. Are. A. Moron. Thanks.

[Hitchens]

You. Are. A. Moron. Thanks.

I appreciate your reasonable rebuttal and hope to engage with you again in the future.

[Faron]

except that like if the government ever did get tyrannical(more tyrannical i should say, if ever there was a time for revolution its now, but what ev). your guns would mean jack shit, they would bend you over with a predator missile and shove it right up your ass.

Ok, but the transition from a peaceful government/people relationship to having the government launch predator missiles at the people doesn't happen over night. An armed public means that it will never even get close to that. The other cutesy response I see a lot on here is that guns won't help when they are banned and an Abrams tank shows up at my front doorstep - also a scenario that's not realistic.

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.


What makes you think they had no concept of urban society?

I can't speak for others, but I don't think it's sacrosanct either. If it must be changed it should be done through the proper channels - large majority of Congress + ratification by a large majority of the states - not by executive decrees as VP Biden has threatened.

[patriot1776]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

There were still major cities and the founders vision of America wasn't for every neighborhood to look the same.

[Daldolma]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

They've certainly been deified by some, but that doesn't mean the other extreme is valid, either. The vision of the Founding Fathers has set a foundation for American government for over two hundred years; it is not irrelevant today.

The point of the matter doesn't really change with time, with technology, or with society. The point of the Second Amendment is that a person has a fundamental right to defend himself, and the government does not have the right to revoke that capability. It's a matter of independence, of self-determination, and yes -- of thwarting tyrannical government. Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.

Does that mean that everyone should be allowed to purchase napalm at Walgreens? Of course not. The specifics are very much an open discussion, one that has unfortunately been dominated mostly by extremists.

But it's far too simplistic to point to murder rates and say 'hey, they're doing it right, lower murder rate'. We could decrease our murder rate by banning guns, sure. We could also increase our life expectancy by banning soda -- and motorcycles. The question becomes one of liberty and the scope of government.

[Tarathiel]

where do you think the big bad army would get an army to shoot at american civilian's anyways, i know quite a few people in the military and im pretty confident that if shit hit the fan they wouldnt be siding with the government

[Tarathiel]

big bad government* stupid fucking rnf and its stupid fucking no editing, at least gimme 30 secs to check my grammar and spelling fuck

[Rikimeru]

founding fathers were profiteers who wanted to break off from the british to avoid taxes, and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself and getting food.

Those men supported your right to bear arms because it meant you were very likely to kill some redcoats.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas jefferson

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. -Thomas Jefferson

one of the key founding fathers of our nation would disagree with you.

[Daldolma]

Is that directed at me? I hardly think the US government has an interest in mass executing American civilians. Hopefully that never changes. But to act like it could never happen is naive. It has happened, and recently, in Europe.

It's not like every Stalinist or Nazi was a deranged murderer intent on killing civilians. Governments find their reasons, shovel their propaganda, and atrocities are committed. The US isn't any more immune to this than Germany or the Soviet Union were.

[Daldolma]

^ @ tara

[Rikimeru]

where do you think the big bad army would get an army to shoot at american civilian's anyways, i know quite a few people in the military and im pretty confident that if shit hit the fan they wouldnt be siding with the government

its called "private contractors". if you haven't noticed there has been a large private contractor force building in this country over the last 10 years. those guys dont give a shit who they shoot as long as their large paychecks keep rolling in.

[Tecmos Deception]

and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself

This argument has swayed me. I now realize that because I have an armed cop watching my 6 24/7/365, who cares about my life more than his own and who is trained physically and mentally to protect me, I now realize that I don't need a gun anymore. Thank you, EvilMallet. I'm going out tomorrow to give all my guns to Feinstein for destruction!

[hatelore]

P-1999 is infested with sad Liberals who sit in there basement's worrying about my gun's. Lol . I love it. Don't worry... I will give up my gun's.

They will be given to my kids when I die, along with the rest of my estate. =P

[hatelore]

I appreciate your reasonable rebuttal and hope to engage with you again in the future.

LOL, That really did make me laugh in real life :)

[Hitchens]

Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

[Portsche]

big bad government* stupid fucking rnf and its stupid fucking no editing, at least gimme 30 secs to check my grammar and spelling fuck

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc493/Portsche/Derp.png

[EvilMallet]

This argument has swayed me. I now realize that because I have an armed cop watching my 6 24/7/365, who cares about my life more than his own and who is trained physically and mentally to protect me, I now realize that I don't need a gun anymore. Thank you, EvilMallet. I'm going out tomorrow to give all my guns to Feinstein for destruction!

god DAMN you are stupid

[Rikimeru]

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

banning guns doesnt solve anything. your just trading shootings for other forms of murder/violent crimes(and even completely banning guns will not stop gun violence, because gun bans dont effect criminals). instead of school shootings we will have school bombings(ya that sounds a lot better!!!) radical gun control is the equivalent of treating the symptoms of an illness and ignoring the illness itself. that gets you nowhere.

[Tarathiel]

how come black people couldnt own guns back then? was thomas jefferson afraid his slaves might revolt against him?

[Hitchens]

banning guns doesnt solve anything. your just trading shootings for other forms of murder/violent crimes(and even completely banning guns will not stop gun violence, because gun bans dont effect criminals). instead of school shootings we will have school bombings(ya that sounds a lot better!!!) radical gun control is the equivalent of treating the symptoms of an illness and ignoring the illness itself. that gets you nowhere.

No one said anything about banning guns. Australia banned certain types and hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.

This isn't an all or nothing discussion unless you want it to be.

[Daldolma]

I don't see any Fourth Reich rising in Australia after they banned automatic weapons in 1996.

I don't think concern about a possible future trumps concern about present day issues. I understand some do, and that's fine. I just don't see it that way.

inb4movetoaustralia

I'm not defending automatic weaponry. Like I said, the specifics are open for discussion. I'm speaking in generalities -- the right to bear arms. The right to own a gun. I'm not breaking down what types of guns, in particular. That's a different debate.

But aside from that, it's not really evidence of anything that one country has managed to avoid catastrophic tyranny for 16 years without an armed populace. Tyranny isn't an inevitability with an unarmed populace, and certainly not within a timeframe of a decade or two. It's merely a possibility, which is too much for some.

I'd also quibble with the notion that this is a matter of possible future issues vs. present day issues. Many people would disagree that there is an issue in America. Committing a violent act with a gun is illegal. Violators are prosecuted. Law abiding citizens are free to own firearms. To many, that is perfectly acceptable and the fact that murder rates are higher in the United States is an unfortunate side effect of greater degrees of liberty. Many Americans would see it as a bigger issue that citizens of other countries are legally incapable of defending themselves -- whether from crime or government.

[Hitchens]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Happyfeet]

You fucking retard.

The people at large wanted to revolt because they didn't want to pay taxes for a war that had no part of (The Seven Years War, maybe you've heard of it?). They wanted people to have guns to increase the power of their militias, because that pretty much was the only military force we had. We don't have a militia now. We have military. You don't need guns , unless you plan on fighting our own soldiers, in which case:

Who the fuck is going to save us from criminals with guns? You think we should disarm every citizen? GTFO.
Hello 911, there's someone in my house with a gun. BRT in 6 minutes! Oh, too late.

[Daldolma]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

[Hitchens]

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

So I don't have to move to Australia after all?

Sweet!

[Rikimeru]

No one said anything about banning guns. Australia banned certain types and hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.

This isn't an all or nothing discussion unless you want it to be.

there were mass shootings in the united states before there were self loading firearms, so i dont see how the ban of any semi automatic weapon will help. hell the first documented school shooting in the united states happened in 1764 where a teacher and 10 students were shot to death(3 students survived).

[patriot1776]

any one for the banning of any gun is either a big fat vagina, communist, or tyrant

[patriot1776]

the or is not mutually exclusive (xor) see: our pal barry

[Hasbinlulz]

the right to bear arms
http://i.imgur.com/ePv7Q.jpg

[EvilMallet]

Who the fuck is going to save us from criminals with guns? You think we should disarm every citizen? GTFO.
Hello 911, there's someone in my house with a gun. BRT in 6 minutes! Oh, too late.

I'm not advocating the ban of small handguns. Just assault weapons. You don't need an M16 to fight off a criminal

[Rikimeru]

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?

[Hasbinlulz]

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?
You've never been to a city, have you Country Mouse?

[Daldolma]

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?

Yes. You also can't just go out and buy landmines. I was demonstrating what is and isn't an example of sufficient weaponry to defend oneself.

[patriot1776]

America going to hell in a handbasket

http://i.imgur.com/wfuK3.jpg

[patriot1776]

Assault rifles are rarely used in crime. Banning them is silly.

[Recycled Children]

Jesus fuck. It's the same god damn nonsense with you fuckin' bleeding heart hippie commie scum Liberals. ::whiny Obama worshipping voice:: "...slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes!" Almost every country in the world endorsed slavery during this time, slave owning wasn't exclusive to the Founding Fathers. Who the fuck wants to pay taxes? Everything the government does can be done in the private sector, taxes and your overlords are fuckin' absurd and advocating for them is even more insane.

Please buy a gun and then perform fellatio on the barrel finish off with a lead money shot to your throat.

[Hasbinlulz]

^ Please kill yourself or at least cut off your balls.

[Hitchens]

Jesus fuck. It's the same god damn nonsense with you fuckin' bleeding heart hippie commie scum Liberals. ::whiny Obama worshipping voice:: "...slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes!" Almost every country in the world endorsed slavery during this time, slave owning wasn't exclusive to the Founding Fathers. Who the fuck wants to pay taxes? Everything the government does can be done in the private sector, taxes and your overlords are fuckin' absurd and advocating for them is even more insane.

Please buy a gun and then perform fellatio on the barrel finish off with a lead money shot to your throat.

Is this you?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

[Recycled Children]

^ Please kill yourself or at least cut off your balls.

Nope.



Is this you?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...s-gun-control/


Nope.

[Hitchens]

Oh, sorry. Hard to tell the un-hinged apart sometimes.

[Arclyte]

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/58/566bb48a70b1957208e70fa265ceeddf/l.png

[Recycled Children]

http://4umf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Obama-Cries.jpg

[purist 4.0]

1. right-click recycled children's avatar
2. go to 'AdBlocK Plus: Block image...'
3. change it to 'Custom' radio button on the bottom
4. click 'filter'

avatar is now blocked, yw

[purist 4.0]

take that back just put him on ignore completely since he's never said anything funny or interesting just chimps out like a raging baboon

[Recycled Children]

take that back just put him on ignore completely since he's never said anything funny or interesting just chimps out like a raging baboon

No one on RnF is funny. It's just filled with sad losers that's the punchline.

[hatelore]

Hasbeenamoronpostersincedayone... Your overweight girlfriend called again. She told me to tell you to stfu please and find a new hobby. Har~

[Lexical]

I am posting in a troll thread and against my better judgement, I feel like I should share my view on the matter(for god knows what fucking reason).

Any who, let's take an aggregate of the arguments portrayed and then rationally think about it.

1). An armed populace will protect us from the government.
---okay yes/no. It will be a speed bump, and a very minor one at that, in the grand scheme of things since an unarmed person is easier to overcome physically than an armed person. Governments don't work in a physical way anymore, but even if they did, if you think your 50 cal machine gun(which you do not have) can do jack against a fucking A-10 warthog(decommissioned fighter jet) than you are fucking retarded, that is all.

2). Lack of gun laws increases crime and therefore should be illegal.
----Yes lack of gun control will lead to more crimes being committed since the average person is stupid and therefore will shoot first without thinking it through, but that increase would be marginal. If you don't believe me, then look how it is now. The only good that gun laws do is give the right/ability of the average person to protect themselves and that is it and until you can promise me that the police will show up right when I am in trouble and need to defend myself, I will take my gun. To get a concealed carrying license is ridiculous enough already. You added increase to the bureaucracy only subtracts from that while making the black market stronger so if you vote for it you are stupid. I am all for controlling unnecessarily high powered guns to the general populace, but if you are arguing for current politics that isn't what you are arguing. You are arguing for increase control on a glock or some other shitty 9m pistol.

But onto the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin is the only one worth listening to since he was from the future.

[Lexical]

I stopped caring halfway through that post so I didn't hit every topic. You are all morons in my eyes.

[patriot1776]

But onto the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin is the only one worth listening to since he was from the future.

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o92/quipfan/the-theory-of-duh.gif

[Hasbinlulz]

1. right-click recycled children's avatar
2. go to 'AdBlocK Plus: Block image...'
3. change it to 'Custom' radio button on the bottom
4. click 'filter'

avatar is now blocked, yw
http://i.imgur.com/uF33j.jpg

[Hasbinlulz]

the right to bear arms
http://i.imgur.com/ePv7Q.jpg

[EvilMallet]

"cyber defense field"

[HIYO]

If the founding fathers where around today, I believe they would ratify their position that every american has the right to own gun in the current level of society. They would do this so it would be easy for them to acquire a fire arm to blow their fucking brains out due to the steaming pile of shit America has turned into.

[OforOppression]

And I can believe that if the founding fathers were around today, they'd be godmen with cocks that shot laser beams. lets not bring fantasy into this, dickwad

[OforOppression]

I'm ignoring the second part of your post because you're a retard

[Hailto]

1. right-click recycled children's avatar
2. go to 'AdBlocK Plus: Block image...'
3. change it to 'Custom' radio button on the bottom
4. click 'filter'

avatar is now blocked, yw

so good

[Twoberries]

ITT: More than a dozen reasons that the rest of the world thinks that Americans are fucking retarded.

[Hailto]

ITT: More than a dozen reasons that the rest of the world thinks that Americans are fucking retarded.

The best part is we still don't care what you think. You live in a watered down version of the US anyway.

[patriot1776]

More art, wealth, technology, and science in the history of the world happened here for a reason.

[Hailto]

More art, wealth, technology, and science in the history of the world happened here for a reason.

QFT. Deal with it faggots.

[Daldolma]

ITT: More than a dozen reasons that the rest of the world thinks that Americans are fucking retarded.

... while living at the mercy of American hegemony.

Bitching about America is passé. Highest GDP, prohibitive military might, world hegemon, and top 5 in human development. America's not perfect, no country ever has been. But a good portion of "the rest of the world" is still trying to crack the code of mass literacy and end starvation. The Middle East is riddled with regimes trying to return to sharia law. Africa is a mess. Multiple European countries aren't even a lifetime removed from dragging unarmed civilians out of their homes to be shot and buried in unmarked mass graves.

Let's not act like the rest of the world has got it all figured out.

[OforOppression]

yall jelly of america

[quido]

I'm afraid of Americans.

[Hasbinlulz]

I'm afraid of Americans.
K Dave.

[SkippyTime]

His name is Jeremy, dumbass - it says it right there.

[Arclyte]

i am so angry right now

[Arclyte]

i must let the Project: 1999 Rants and Flames forum know how I FEEL

[hatelore]

I just find it funny that people sit in there moms basement thinking all the bad shit in America is happening because of a lack of gun laws. Statistics clearly show different, places with more restrictive gun laws have more crime.

Why not address the real issue America is having? The issue of a degradation of society. A loss of morals and respect for your fellow Americans? That's the real fucking issues . :) have a nice day and suck it easy~

[Alarti0001]

I just find it funny that people sit in there moms basement thinking all the bad shit in America is happening because of a lack of gun laws. Statistics clearly show different, places with more restrictive gun laws have more crime.

Why not address the real issue America is having? The issue of a degradation of society. A loss of morals and respect for your fellow Americans? That's the real fucking issues . :) have a nice day and suck it easy~

Show me these statistics and I can find you the reverse in many many many cases.

[hatelore]

alarti I love you, really
but go read a fucking Chicago newspaper sometime when your done choking the chicken :)

[hatelore]

The government loves control, and a lot of you guppies would love to just hand that control over to them. I won't be one of those people. You talk about Abram a-1 tanks and shit. Pshhaw, your fellow American's would be operating those tanks. And I'm sure a lot would turn when they see there fellow Americans being slaughtered. Besides a good portion in the military are gun advocates.

Either way this is a silly discussion. The real truth that no one wants to address in the news or government is a loss of morals, a loss of respect for one another. A degradation of society. You think shits bad now? Give it 20 more years.

[Vadd]

I am posting in a troll thread and against my better judgement, I feel like I should share my view on the matter:


1). An armed populace will protect us from the government.
---okay yes/no. It will be a speed bump, and a very minor one at that, in the grand scheme of things since an unarmed person is easier to overcome physically than an armed person. Governments don't work in a physical way anymore, but even if they did, if you think your 50 cal machine gun(which you do not have) can do jack against a fucking A-10 warthog(decommissioned fighter jet) than you are fucking retarded, that is all.

Another "just lay down and accept rape when it's heading my way" asshole....

I'm sorry to hear that you don't love your remaining freedoms enough to fight for them.

And I'm not speaking particularly of our right to bear arms... Go look in the mirror and ask yourself, "When the time comes, do I have what it takes to put my foot down and say 'enough is enough!' ?"

[hatelore]

Another "just lay down and accept rape when it's heading my way" asshole....

I'm sorry to hear that you don't love your remaining freedoms enough to fight for them.

And I'm not speaking particularly of our right to bear arms... Go look in the mirror and ask yourself, "When the time comes, do I have what it takes to put my foot down and say 'enough is enough!' ?"
^QFT.

[Alarti0001]

The government loves control, and a lot of you guppies would love to just hand that control over to them. I won't be one of those people. You talk about Abram a-1 tanks and shit. Pshhaw, your fellow American's would be operating those tanks. And I'm sure a lot would turn when they see there fellow Americans being slaughtered. Besides a good portion in the military are gun advocates.

Either way this is a silly discussion. The real truth that no one wants to address in the news or government is a loss of morals, a loss of respect for one another. A degradation of society. You think shits bad now? Give it 20 more years.

If you read my post past Abrams tank you would have noticed that I said the true power of revolt is in the volunteer military. To decipher for you small-minded types, it was an implication that the US military would not slaughter American citizens.
Also, why would I read a Chicago newspaper? Just show your statistics if they came from a reputable source. Most likely they came out of your ass, which is known to be a very biased source.

[hatelore]

If you read my post past Abrams tank you would have noticed that I said the true power of revolt is in the volunteer military. To decipher for you small-minded types, it was an implication that the US military would not slaughter American citizens.
Also, why would I read a Chicago newspaper? Just show your statistics if they came from a reputable source. Most likely they came out of your ass, which is known to be a very biased source.

You sound upset. /hug, I will look them up for you good sir.

[Alarti0001]

You sound upset. /hug, I will look them up for you good sir.

Gross ignorance upsets me greatly. The voluntary idiocy that your spout constantly defiles the human brain and all its capabilities.

[hatelore]

Haha, this ^ coming from Alarti. One of the biggest mental midgets this forum has to offer to offer to the general public lol :)

This is why I love you :p

[purist 4.0]

I'm too scared to post my retarded political opinions on my real forum account so I use this sock puppet account.

[Alarti0001]

Haha, this ^ coming from hatelores. One of the biggest mental midgets this forum has to offer(sic) to offer to the general public lol :)



Please prove me wrong some time. If you can? The only thing you seem capable of is name-calling while you flounder for understanding.

[Tarathiel]

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc493/Portsche/Derp.png

psh i cant be bothered with such conveniences, i post first proof read later, its how i keep my rage honed

[Tarathiel]

how come black people couldnt own guns back then? was thomas jefferson afraid his slaves might revolt against him?

[OforOppression]

they were too concerned about giving freedom to middle and upper class white males

[Humerox]

I'm not defending automatic weaponry. Like I said, the specifics are open for discussion. I'm speaking in generalities -- the right to bear arms. The right to own a gun. I'm not breaking down what types of guns, in particular. That's a different debate.

But aside from that, it's not really evidence of anything that one country has managed to avoid catastrophic tyranny for 16 years without an armed populace. Tyranny isn't an inevitability with an unarmed populace, and certainly not within a timeframe of a decade or two. It's merely a possibility, which is too much for some.

I'd also quibble with the notion that this is a matter of possible future issues vs. present day issues. Many people would disagree that there is an issue in America. Committing a violent act with a gun is illegal. Violators are prosecuted. Law abiding citizens are free to own firearms. To many, that is perfectly acceptable and the fact that murder rates are higher in the United States is an unfortunate side effect of greater degrees of liberty. Many Americans would see it as a bigger issue that citizens of other countries are legally incapable of defending themselves -- whether from crime or government.

/best in thread

Some thoughts:

The two greatest expansions of personal liberty in American history, the abolition of slavery and desegregation, were enforced by the armed forces, over the objections of state governments and in the face of violence by certain armed citizens fond of gray uniforms or white hoods.

As long as we are writing science fiction, in the event that a Hitler, Stalin or Mao seized control in Washington, D.C., this American tyrant would worry far more about being murdered by the praetorian guard or overthrown by the military than about the near-impossibility of defeat of the U.S. armed forces by ordinary armed citizens, particularly the kind of pathetic right-wing militia members who would have trouble taking over a trailer park.

Many democratic nations of western Europe and east Asia have more civil liberties protections for their citizens than the U.S., and few have political systems as corrupted by gerrymandering and big money as the U.S. (Italy is a prominent exception). No other advanced industrial democracy is in imminent danger of becoming a tyranny because of gun control regulations and the lack of an American-style gun culture among Brits or Swedes or Japanese.


Last but not least...


BAN BOOBIES BECAUSE THEY'RE MURDER WEAPONS (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337511)

Can't believe I missed this whole troll thread.

[patriot1776]

how come black people couldnt own guns back then? was thomas jefferson afraid his slaves might revolt against him?

Throughout history only slaves have been disarmed.

[Humerox]

I think you missed the subtlety behind the subtlety.

Or...that TJ was actually a representative of tyranny and feared revolt from armed slaves.

You know, the same freedom-loving FF's we're all so crazy about.

[patriot1776]

http://libertarianchristians.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/image5.png

[Tarathiel]

is that supposed to be some kind of justification?

[Humerox]

No...I missed the innuendo in your reply to it...
:)

[Alarti0001]

You know free people don't own guns too... right? Free people also own coffee makers.

[OforOppression]

fight for your right to make shitty homebrew coffee

[Alarti0001]

fight for your right to make shitty homebrew coffee

With guns!

[Resheph]

I know I shouldn't, but wanted to weigh in on this topic anyway.

I think we should be allowed to own guns. I think there should be limits on this ownership. Automatic weapons are a grey area for me... no reasonable person has a real need for one, but in a worst-case scenario, they would be useful. Anything beyond automatic weapons (rocket launchers, high-powered sniper rifles, etc) should be flat-out illegal. No excuses, no exceptions.

I also think weapons should be required to be left at home unless the carrier is both licensed to carry one (for work/military purposes) and has a REQUIRED reason to carry (such as a police officer being on the job). A middle ground for this is allowing ONLY handguns to be carried by civilians outside of work.

There is no reason for anyone to carry anything bigger than a handgun. None. Automatic weapons should never be used outside of a gun range or military applications. In fact, the only reason I support gun ownership at all is because I accept that a revolt, while unlikely, could be needed in a worst-case situation.

Also, I'm in favor of preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse.

[patriot1776]

if you are a gunaphobe you are part of the pussification and domestication of the american male that is turning us into a nation of fluoridated zombies

[Alarti0001]

if you are a gunaphobe you are part of the pussification and domestication of the american male that is turning us into a nation of fluoridated zombies

Oh? Do explain. Also, describe pussification. Are you talking about people able to apply reason to a subject rather than force? If so zombies are generally seen as mindless, so zombies would be more applicable to meatheads who can only use force to solve their disputes. BRAINNNNSSSSSS

[Resheph]

if you are a gunaphobe you are part of the pussification and domestication of the american male that is turning us into a nation of fluoridated zombies

I'm not a gunaphobe, I simply have a brain and know how to use it. I'm also much more fond of bladed weapons, largely because they require some sort of skill to use. Anyone can shoot a gun, even a sniper rifle. Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2013/smartgun-computerized-scope-perfect-shot-everytime/

Now if you wanna get in a fight with a knife, you're going to have to be a lot closer and take a lot more risk. Guns have uses, but there is no reason for someone to carry one outside their home unless they are on the job and said job includes great personal risk.

I also agree with Alarti... if you're THAT hard-up for guns, you're one of the meatheads that shouldn't be carrying anyway. The people that are reasonable enough to carry at least acknowledge the fact gun control should be in place, even if they don't agree with the specifics.

[patriot1776]

Its not about being a tough guy, mr knife faggot. It's about life or death when a gaggle of naggers beats your fucking door down

[vaylorie]

Oh? Do explain. Also, describe pussification. Are you talking about people able to apply reason to a subject rather than force? If so zombies are generally seen as mindless, so zombies would be more applicable to meatheads who can only use force to solve their disputes. BRAINNNNSSSSSS

Define reason. Are you talking about the statistics that show that gun controls do not decrease violent crime or perhaps the statistics that show that excessive gun restrictions / prohibition actually increases violent crime as seen in England and other countries? Or perhaps you are talking about the 'reason' that it takes to be afraid of mass killings even though the actual chance of being involved in one is close to the chance of being struck by lightning? Alternatively, the 'reason' that you apply could have something to do with deaths by rifles being less than people that kill others with their bare hands or that get beaten to death by rocks and clubs? Please shed some light on the 'reason' that you apply instead of force?

Realistically by 'reason' you mean that you don't use guns and in all likelihood are afraid of guns (you won't admit it certainly). It's strange how history seems to repeat itself and that some American's value their liberty. Some of these 'foolish' 'backwoods' American's can look at history and see that almost every tyrannical government and outrageous act by a governing body started with the disarming of the people.

But you are correct, we should 'reason' our way into turning over our personal protection to the government since that was in the past and our government would never do that. Besides, the police are there to protect us moments after it counts and notify your loved ones anyways. You have opened my eyes.

[Alarti0001]

Define reason. Are you talking about the statistics that show that gun controls do not decrease violent crime or perhaps the statistics that show that excessive gun restrictions / prohibition actually increases violent crime as seen in England and other countries? Or perhaps you are talking about the 'reason' that it takes to be afraid of mass killings even though the actual chance of being involved in one is close to the chance of being struck by lightning? Alternatively, the 'reason' that you apply could have something to do with deaths by rifles being less than people that kill others with their bare hands or that get beaten to death by rocks and clubs? Please shed some light on the 'reason' that you apply instead of force?





Show me these statistics please. Because scientifically gathered stats speak to the opposite. If you actually have "statistics". I'll link mine after you show me yours. Then I will teach you how to validate the authenticity of the stats gathering.

[gotrocks]

brrrraaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnsssssssss

just thought id weigh in.

[Hitchens]

i need my gun in a house
i need my gun i fear a mouse
i need my gun here and there
i need my gun everywhere
i do like a gun in my hand

thank you thank you

scared i am

[Thulack]

if you are a gunaphobe you are part of the pussification and domestication of the american male that is turning us into a nation of fluoridated zombies

Pretty sure using a gun in anything other then a military/job/sporting application is a pussification. You know that half the punks that carry around guns nowadays wouldnt say half they shit they do if they didnt have a gun. Ive had plenty of people talk shit and have a gun pulled on me before by a punk talking shit. In every instance including the punk with the gun when i stepped face to face with them and told them let's throw down like men to settle this they all went the other direction.

[patriot1776]

youre an idiot

[hatelore]

i need my gun in a house
i need my gun i fear a mouse
i need my gun here and there
i need my gun everywhere
i do like a gun in my hand

thank you thank you

scared i am

Lol man... I don't agree with a damn thing you say but I must admit I love your sense of humor lol.
And I mean that in a good way :p

[hatelore]

Please prove me wrong some time. If you can? The only thing you seem capable of is name-calling while you flounder for understanding.

lol, son.. I'm a grown man with kids and a wife and a very well protected house. I don't flounder for shit hah. I just don't buy into your pussified weak ass liberal agenda that's all ;) your statistics you ask for will come soon, i just got off work.

[vaylorie]

Show me these statistics please. Because scientifically gathered stats speak to the opposite. If you actually have "statistics". I'll link mine after you show me yours. Then I will teach you how to validate the authenticity of the stats gathering.

I know I bucked your CNN talking points, but here is some info for you. Please let me know when I can receive my education on validating the authenticity of officially reported crime statistics and stats gathering. I look forward to your expert guidance. Thanks.

Crime rates and details for England:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

Changes in the way England reports crime statistics to baseline the numbers:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02607

More Parliament Crime Stats:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940

General Commentary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/136561/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade-under-Labour
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning. I'll let you review the extensive credentials of the expert cited. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2HiK5uz1n


US Crime Stats by Weapon Type / Circumstance:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

[Harmonium]

This ones easy. I promise to stop bringing up the founding fathers when you stop trying to steal my guns.

[Alarti0001]

lol, son.. I'm a grown man with kids and a wife and a very well protected house. I don't flounder for shit hah. I just don't buy into your pussified weak ass liberal agenda that's all ;) your statistics you ask for will come soon, i just got off work.

Define weak ass liberal agenda? I have a gun, I was in the military and am trained from pistols to grenade launchers.

I also realize there is no need for a civilian to have a weapon designed for warfare. (Especially ones prone to mental illness, like you)

[Alarti0001]

This ones easy. I promise to stop bringing up the founding fathers when you stop trying to steal my guns.

Dey took errr gerrrnsss

[patriot1776]

Define weak ass liberal agenda? I have a gun, I was in the military and am trained from pistols to grenade launchers.

I also realize there is no need for a civilian to have a weapon designed for warfare. (Especially ones prone to mental illness, like you)

Americans have always flocked to the military's choice of weapon. AR style and its variants are great home defense weapons. Easier to handle and more accurate than a pistol, less spray than a shotgun.

[patriot1776]

And most civilian ammo is hollow point so shooting through the wall and hitting the neighbors dog is liberal propaganda.

[Alarti0001]

And most civilian ammo is hollow point so shooting through the wall and hitting the neighbors dog is liberal propaganda.

So the neighbors dog or child would only be hit uncommonly? Derp

[Alarti0001]

Americans have always flocked to the military's choice of weapon. AR style and its variants are great home defense weapons. Easier to handle and more accurate than a pistol, less spray than a shotgun.

Unless you home contains 50m hallways you don't need a rifle for accuracy. A rifle is also less maneuverable in tight quarters. Even the military uses SMG's or extremele shortened designs for urban engagements.

If you need more than a few rounds from a pistol or a couple blasts from a shotgun to defend your home. You should probably get out of the business you are in.

In addition you claimed the most common civilian round is a hollowpoint and then went on to talk about AR-15's. The most common civilian round is a hollow 9mm. Last I checked an ar-15 uses .223 or 5.56(nato). Ar-15's do not commonly use hollow point bullets.

[patriot1776]

Rifle accuracy is unmatched when firing multiple shots due to the stock, even for 9mm rounds, so even under 50m its ideal. The quarters realistically aren't that tight in your house, and if anything it's stupid liberal laws that make minimal overall lengths that are the cock block.

Just because the military 5.56 nato is full metal doesnt mean most civilian ammo chambered at .223 are not.

AR-15 are also one of the most popular hunting rifles. What's hilarious though is there are .50 magazine fed hunting rifles that no1 give a hoot about cuz they are scary looking like an AR or AK. There are plenty of justifications for allowing 'assault weapons'.

[Faron]

Lots of folks sure do think they know what I need. I'll be the judge of that, thanks. I don't need big brother or anyone else to tell me.

[Alarti0001]

Rifle accuracy is unmatched when firing multiple shots due to the stock, even for 9mm rounds, so even under 50m its ideal. The quarters realistically aren't that tight in your house, and if anything it's stupid liberal laws that make minimal overall lengths that are the cock block.

Just because the military 5.56 nato is full metal doesnt mean most civilian ammo chambered at .223 are not.

AR-15 are also one of the most popular hunting rifles. What's hilarious though is there are .50 magazine fed hunting rifles that no1 give a hoot about cuz they are scary looking like an AR or AK. There are plenty of justifications for allowing 'assault weapons'.

Im curious as too how many invaders are coming to your house?

[Hailto]

Lots of folks sure do think they know what I need. I'll be the judge of that, thanks. I don't need big brother or anyone else to tell me.

[Hitchens]

It's Naez, he's ready for anything. Whether it be ATF agents, a confused elderly woman or a burglar. They're all goin' down.

[patriot1776]

Im curious as too how many invaders are coming to your house?

Most incidents are more than 1 assailant.

[Hitchens]

Most incidents are more than 1 assailant.

The JFK shooting was only one assailant.

[patriot1776]

h0h0h0

[OforOppression]

ITT: lots of people think they're going to be the target of a government funded assault on their homes.

[OforOppression]

you're all a bunch of shithouses

[Alarti0001]

Lots of folks sure do think they know what I need. I'll be the judge of that, thanks. I don't need big brother or anyone else to tell me.

I agree citizens should be allowed to control RPG's Anti-tank weapons and Nuclear bombs!

[Faron]

I agree citizens should be allowed to control RPG's Anti-tank weapons and Nuclear bombs!

Clever stuff! We already went down that road.

[Hitchens]

The Second Amendment wasn't intended for arming citizens to protect them against the government. It was to protect the government from standing armies by maintaining a well regulated militia that would fight for said government.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2144ha0.jpg

[OforOppression]

The Second Amendment wasn't intended for arming citizens to protect them against the government. It was to protect the government from standing armies by maintaining a well regulated militia that would fight for said government.



Amen.

[vaylorie]

The Second Amendment wasn't intended for arming citizens to protect them against the government. It was to protect the government from standing armies by maintaining a well regulated militia that would fight for said government.

This is just blatantly incorrect based both on a tremendous number of documentation outlining the original intent and the supreme courts interpretation of the second amendment through the years.

The 'A well regulated militia' is considered a preface and not operative or limiting to the actual right to bear arms. Also of note in the courts ruling was the fact that the founding fathers feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizen militia. Effectively, the 'citizen militia' was to be beyond and outside of the governments control.

I fear you have accidentally made yourself appear ignorant like a child. How embarrassing. To educate yourself on the topic, please review the Supreme Court decision of D.C. v Heller.

[purist 4.0]

^ This guy posts from a sock puppet forum account cause he's too scared to on his real one.

[OforOppression]

^dumb manchild

[OforOppression]

To vaylorie, not my ***** purist

[hatelore]

Unless you home contains 50m hallways you don't need a rifle for accuracy. A rifle is also less maneuverable in tight quarters. Even the military uses SMG's or extremele shortened designs for urban engagements.

If you need more than a few rounds from a pistol or a couple blasts from a shotgun to defend your home. You should probably get out of the business you are in.

In addition you claimed the most common civilian round is a hollowpoint and then went on to talk about AR-15's. The most common civilian round is a hollow 9mm. Last I checked an ar-15 uses .223 or 5.56(nato). Ar-15's do not commonly use hollow point bullets.

Do you realize just how stupid you sound? Whether you were in the military or not you sound like a moron. You do realize that a 223 round or a 5.56 round is not a HUGE round. I am not debating its worth, it is an amazing round that any solid shooter would want in his arsenal. Its a high velocity round but impact damage is minimal compared to lets say a 7.62 or a 30-06. So should we outlaw 30-06 rifles? That is my favorite round when it comes to hunting unless I want a brush rifle, then I usually go with a lever action 30-30 since its a shorter gun. My father was a gun smith and I carry on his trade as a hobby of mine. A 223 round is designed for rapid expansion and usually doesn't stay together to well on impact of larger targets like lets say a 45 acp round does. And I am not trying to so much compare a pistol round to a rifle round, since there is no comparison really. But a person carrying an assault rifle is a pretty big give away since its such a large gun. With a pistol? I can easily stuff it in my back pocket.

I can say that a 7.62 round is a pretty heavy round that does some serious damage, but in some respects a 16 round 40 caliber pistol could produce better results when you factor in concealment, maneuverability, and the learning curve involved in shooting a pistol compared to an assault rifle. So should we ban pistols too Alarti?
You come on these forums and act as if you know what you are talking about , but I am doubting you really do.

Now look at the .30 caliber round, the damage from impact and blood loss is tremendous. So should we also ban .30 caliber rifles? I mean how fucking far does this have to go? Ban every gun? A gun is nothing more then a tool, it has no feelings, its made to kill. Anyone trying to argue guns should knows this much before opening there mouths. More people died last year from blunt force trauma from hammers and bats then they did from rifles. So should we ban a fucking hammer?

Now if we were arguing distance? Yes a 223 round is great since the energy produced is so great, You are looking at on average of 1150 fps or so from a 223, which means trajectory and distance are great. Now a 45 acp round is what? 450 fps? But the size and momentum behind the round are great, same with a 40 caliber.

The problem we have here with our Liberals in congress is the definition of an assault rifle. Diane Fuckstien if she had her way would consider any rifle with a magazine that can carry a capacity of over 1 bullet, an assault rifle. Have you looked at her past bills she has tried to pass through congress regarding assault rifles and there definitions?

And what brought the topic of guns up in the news lately? The school massacre.... That was a mental health issue, the liberals will use any excuse they can to argue gun laws. As I said before the problem is not Assault rifles, or any gun in general. The problem is, our society has degraded to a point that nasty things like this are going to happen. They always do in a shitty society.

[patriot1776]

tl;dr but agree 100% after 1st sentence

[Alarti0001]

Do you realize just how stupid you sound? Whether you were in the military or not you sound like a moron. You do realize that a 223 round or a 5.56 round is not a HUGE round. I am not debating its worth, it is an amazing round that any solid shooter would want in his arsenal. Its a high velocity round but impact damage is minimal compared to lets say a 7.62 or a 30-06. So should we outlaw 30-06 rifles? That is my favorite round when it comes to hunting unless I want a brush rifle, then I usually go with a lever action 30-30 since its a shorter gun. My father was a gun smith and I carry on his trade as a hobby of mine. A 223 round is designed for rapid expansion and usually doesn't stay together to well on impact of larger targets like lets say a 45 acp round does. And I am not trying to so much compare a pistol round to a rifle round, since there is no comparison really. But a person carrying an assault rifle is a pretty big give away since its such a large gun. With a pistol? I can easily stuff it in my back pocket.

I can say that a 7.62 round is a pretty heavy round that does some serious damage, but in some respects a 16 round 40 caliber pistol could produce better results when you factor in concealment, maneuverability, and the learning curve involved in shooting a pistol compared to an assault rifle. So should we ban pistols too Alarti?
You come on these forums and act as if you know what you are talking about , but I am doubting you really do.

Now look at the .30 caliber round, the damage from impact and blood loss is tremendous. So should we also ban .30 caliber rifles? I mean how fucking far does this have to go? Ban every gun? A gun is nothing more then a tool, it has no feelings, its made to kill. Anyone trying to argue guns should knows this much before opening there mouths. More people died last year from blunt force trauma from hammers and bats then they did from rifles. So should we ban a fucking hammer?

Now if we were arguing distance? Yes a 223 round is great since the energy produced is so great, You are looking at on average of 1150 fps or so from a 223, which means trajectory and distance are great. Now a 45 acp round is what? 450 fps? But the size and momentum behind the round are great, same with a 40 caliber.

The problem we have here with our Liberals in congress is the definition of an assault rifle. Diane Fuckstien if she had her way would consider any rifle with a magazine that can carry a capacity of over 1 bullet, an assault rifle. Have you looked at her past bills she has tried to pass through congress regarding assault rifles and there definitions?

And what brought the topic of guns up in the news lately? The school massacre.... That was a mental health issue, the liberals will use any excuse they can to argue gun laws. As I said before the problem is not Assault rifles, or any gun in general. The problem is, our society has degraded to a point that nasty things like this are going to happen. They always do in a shitty society.

I am still waiting for those statistics.


Do you realize how stupid you sound? The reason we use 5.56 is because the human body is extremely fragile compare to lets say a boar or deer.

Also, if you knew a thing about how the High Velocity round from an AR-15 works you know that due to its velocity and the small weight of the round it fragments on impact very easily.

Either way it wasn't about the shell it fires its about the capacity to cause death in quantity. Pistols are limited by 7-14 round clips. Assault weapons generally have 30+.


The massacre's arent the problem For every massacre there are many more gun deaths in singles.


You also listed more statistics in your post. Please find the source for all these deranged ideas you pull out of your ass.

CroMagnum much?

[Alarti0001]

your statistics you ask for will come soon, i just got off work.

Still waiting......

[hatelore]

And honestly, you want someone as fucking retarded as Joe Biden to tell you what guns you should and should not have? Joe Biden needs to go fucking watch cartoons and drink his chocolate milk and quit trying to tell me what guns I can and cannot own.

If you seriously think our government wants to ban certain guns to protect us, you are delusional. Our Government would love to have complete control. That's why the founding fathers put these amendments in place, to protect us from something like that happening. You can argue about things being different back then or whatnot, but they obviously were wise enough to see what the future COULD bring with a tyrannical government.

Just my 2 cents...

[hatelore]

I am still waiting for those statistics.


Do you realize how stupid you sound? The reason we use 5.56 is because the human body is extremely fragile compare to lets say a boar or deer.

Also, if you knew a thing about how the High Velocity round from an AR-15 works you know that due to its velocity and the small weight of the round it fragments on impact very easily.

Either way it wasn't about the shell it fires its about the capacity to cause death in quantity. Pistols are limited by 7-14 round clips. Assault weapons generally have 30+.


The massacre's arent the problem For every massacre there are many more gun deaths in singles.


You also listed more statistics in your post. Please find the source for all these deranged ideas you pull out of your ass.

CroMagnum much?


are you fucking stupid? limited to 14 round magazines in a pistol? You have seriously never seen a 16 round magazine in a pistol? Dude I fucking reload bullets lol, You aren't going to sit here and tell me about velocity, or trajectory, or anything when it comes to bullets. And a 7.62 round would do a hell of a lot better in lets say iraq compared to a 5.56 in my opinion. The Terrorists are usually wearing cloth, the 5.56 round is for armor piercing. The 7.62 round is for decent distance and impact.

[vaylorie]

Still waiting......

Don't be foolish Alarti, I gave you statistics earlier and due to your inability to carry on an actual debate of facts instead of alarmist assertions, you ignored them and moved on. You use the 'I'm still waiting on those statistics' game to try and change the subject without admitting that you pull 'facts' out of your ass.

[hatelore]

And I know very well about fragmentation of a 5.56 round , I am not debating its worth. What I am saying is, there are a TON more powerful rounds out there that could do a hell of a lot more damage then a 5.56 round.

[hatelore]

Omg is this a fucking 16 round pistol? Wow Alarti, I never knew these existed either! Dude your a fucking nut job, do the world a favor and go play in traffic or something.

http://recordsetter.com/world-record/empty-40-16-round-pistol-clip-xdm/17831#contentsection

[OforOppression]

Hatelore's location is "eskimo land", which I'm assuming means either northern Canada or Alaska, and as an Alaskan resident myself, I can therefore confirm that he's an inbred white trash motherfucker who shoots moving things for fun and rapes small children.

[hatelore]

Hatelore's location is "eskimo land", which I'm assuming means either northern Canada or Alaska, and as an Alaskan resident myself, I can therefore confirm that he's an inbred white trash motherfucker who shoots moving things for fun and rapes small children.

I am actually from and live in Texas, but you were close! I am actually skinning a animal in my kitchen right now too, and watching gun smoke on my 1980's tv and listening to Merl Haggard. You got a problem with that you yellow belly yuppy? =P

I am sorry that I made sense, I will try harder to just troll.

[OforOppression]

Hatelore lies about statistics AND his location, motherfucker cannot be trusted at ALL.

[hatelore]

hahahah This be truths! I play a troll too in game, so you better watch out!

[OforOppression]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406769_490412637667962_1347766475_n.jpg

[Hitchens]

http://i47.tinypic.com/2eq5ahd.jpg

[OforOppression]

HELP ZYKLON BEE LISTEN FOR JUDEN

[Alarti0001]

If you seriously think our government wants to ban certain guns to protect us, you are delusional.

Our Government would love to have complete control.



I thought these 2 statements back to back were fucking hilarious.

Are you delusional? Followed by delusional statement.

Classic hatelores

[Alarti0001]

are you fucking stupid? limited to 14 round magazines in a pistol? You have seriously never seen a 16 round magazine in a pistol? Dude I fucking reload bullets lol, You aren't going to sit here and tell me about velocity, or trajectory, or anything when it comes to bullets. And a 7.62 round would do a hell of a lot better in lets say iraq compared to a 5.56 in my opinion. The Terrorists are usually wearing cloth, the 5.56 round is for armor piercing. The 7.62 round is for decent distance and impact.

You call me stupid then debate over 2 rounds when the issue was high capacity magazines in the 30's. Also small caliber pistols will have larger magazines due to round size. I'm not sure why you are debating caliber size when I think a 30 round AK (which uses 7.62) shouldnt be a civilian weapon also.

5.56 is designed as a (more humane) round for flesh piercing not armor piercing.(NATO).

Also, still waiting on those statistics you promised.

[Alarti0001]

Don't be foolish Alarti, I gave you statistics earlier and due to your inability to carry on an actual debate of facts instead of alarmist assertions, you ignored them and moved on. You use the 'I'm still waiting on those statistics' game to try and change the subject without admitting that you pull 'facts' out of your ass.

No... you gave me an opinion without the support of statistics. Just because you say something is true.... doesn't make it so.

99% of the world's population agrees with me (I.E.)

[vaylorie]

No... you gave me an opinion without the support of statistics. Just because you say something is true.... doesn't make it so.

99% of the world's population agrees with me (I.E.)

I know I bucked your CNN talking points, but here is some info for you. Please let me know when I can receive my education on validating the authenticity of officially reported crime statistics and stats gathering. I look forward to your expert guidance. Thanks.

Crime rates and details for England:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

Changes in the way England reports crime statistics to baseline the numbers:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02607

More Parliament Crime Stats:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940

General Commentary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/136561/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade-under-Labour
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning. I'll let you review the extensive credentials of the expert cited. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2HiK5uz1n


US Crime Stats by Weapon Type / Circumstance:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

[Alarti0001]

Nice must have missed these ill peruse them for you real quick

[vaylorie]

Now this is what I expect when debating a 15 year old McDonalds worker on a 1999 game forum. Good work Hitchens, you met and nearly exceeded expectations! I don't expect your hear that very often.

[Humerox]

From: Home Office Statistical Bulletin (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary)

Homicides are relatively rare events, and year-on-year variations need to be interpreted with some caution. A statistical analysis of trends (discussed in Section 1.6) indicates a significant reduction in homicides since 2007/08.


Next:



Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

[Alarti0001]

Lol did you even read these stats? Most of them refute your own claim. The one time over the course of many years the gun violence went up isnt an indication of your claim. That is what as known as an outlier.


Violent crime should be measure at the rate of crime incidents based on total population.

Example if you have a population of 100 with 1 violent crime that year and the next year you have 200 people with 2 crimes. That is not an increase in the crime rate. Even though it is a doubling of the total crime.

I'd suggest learning a bit about statistics before you let sensational media fool you.

First step is to verify the data collection process http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html

Second step look for the length of the data to make your comparison. Throw away outliers.

Third step Statistics!



Per 100k deaths the UK with stricter gun control laws has about 1 death, where the US has about 5 per 100k. The same goes for the other gun control laws in western europe. Compare first world countries for more accurate results as obvious developing and third world countries will have more violent crime by nature, (also more access to machine and assault weapons.

[Hitchens]

Now this is what I expect when debating a 15 year old McDonalds worker on a 1999 game forum. Good work Hitchens, you met and nearly exceeded expectations! I don't expect your hear that very often.

I went and got some tacos because I figured your reply would be terrible and not worth putting off tacos to read.

I was right.

[OforOppression]

hitchens doubles that age and mows lawns, not mcdonalds

[vaylorie]

From: Home Office Statistical Bulletin (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary)

Homicides are relatively rare events, and year-on-year variations need to be interpreted with some caution. A statistical analysis of trends (discussed in Section 1.6) indicates a significant reduction in homicides since 2007/08.


Next:



Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)


Nobody is arguing if there is not more violent crime in the US vs. Britain, that proves nothing. They are different cultures and America is more of a violent culture by nature. None of this has anything to do with the impact on implemented gun regulations as was the previous question.

As per the actual conversation, isolated to Britain what was the impact on violent crime and murder as a result of a gun ban and increased gun regulation? The result, as shown in the data, is that violent crime increased as the population became unarmed. Hence, gun regulation does not solve a violent crime problem as I originally stated.

Learn to apply data to a conversation and not try to create a false argument with convenient facts.

[hatelore]

Lol did you even read these stats? Most of them refute your own claim. The one time over the course of many years the gun violence went up isnt an indication of your claim. That is what as known as an outlier.


Violent crime should be measure at the rate of crime incidents based on total population.

Example if you have a population of 100 with 1 violent crime that year and the next year you have 200 people with 2 crimes. That is not an increase in the crime rate. Even though it is a doubling of the total crime.

I'd suggest learning a bit about statistics before you let sensational media fool you.

First step is to verify the data collection process http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html

Second step look for the length of the data to make your comparison. Throw away outliers.

Third step Statistics!



Per 100k deaths the UK with stricter gun control laws has about 1 death, where the US has about 5 per 100k. The same goes for the other gun control laws in western europe. Compare first world countries for more accurate results as obvious developing and third world countries will have more violent crime by nature, (also more access to machine and assault weapons.

Alarti... You just called this guy dumb. Let me tell you what is dumb, and sad.

its dumb that you never cease to shut your mouth, you live for and love arguing.

Now let me tell you what's sad... Lol. You just spent your Friday night reading a ton of statistics on a fucking Friday night just to further your argument. Dude fuckin pm me your address please, I want to send you a 100.00 bill so you can go out and get a piece of ass. Seriously I'm not kidding, I want to make your life happier dude, I got much love for you. Please pm me when you get a minute.

[hatelore]

Also here's a hug dude. I want to see a happy alarti.

/hug I wuv joo alarti :) :) :)

[vaylorie]

Lol did you even read these stats? Most of them refute your own claim. The one time over the course of many years the gun violence went up isnt an indication of your claim. That is what as known as an outlier.


Violent crime should be measure at the rate of crime incidents based on total population.

Example if you have a population of 100 with 1 violent crime that year and the next year you have 200 people with 2 crimes. That is not an increase in the crime rate. Even though it is a doubling of the total crime.

I'd suggest learning a bit about statistics before you let sensational media fool you.

First step is to verify the data collection process http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html

Second step look for the length of the data to make your comparison. Throw away outliers.

Third step Statistics!



Per 100k deaths the UK with stricter gun control laws has about 1 death, where the US has about 5 per 100k. The same goes for the other gun control laws in western europe. Compare first world countries for more accurate results as obvious developing and third world countries will have more violent crime by nature, (also more access to machine and assault weapons.

Thanks for getting out your elementary statistics books and posting the intro to chapter 1, it was very helpful and I appreciate the lesson in statistics and data analysis. Please refer to Humerox's reply for more information. I appreciate the guidance that a seasoned hand like yours provides.

While you have the statistics book out, please see if there is anything in there regarding being able to apply data and analysis to a conversation that we are actually having and not some arbitrary facts about a comparison between overall violence between two cultures as opposed to an identifiable effect that gun controls has on a population either positive or negative. Since you've already looked at the data once and can't seem to find the answer, I will give you a hint. Restrictive gun laws, when implemented in Britain, increased the rate of murder and violent crime. Alternatively, you can go back about 6 pages, read my post, and then shit your pants for having realized that you are nothing and you know nothing.

For additional steps, please google video search glengary glen ross. Thank you.

[hatelore]

I really wish you would not have posted so what I had to say would have maybe sunk in a little bit to Alarti :*( The poor guy needs a woman in his life, this is redic.

:(

[Humerox]

Nobody is arguing if there is not more violent crime in the US vs. Britain, that proves nothing. They are different cultures and America is more of a violent culture by nature. None of this has anything to do with the impact on implemented gun regulations as was the previous question.

As per the actual conversation, isolated to Britain what was the impact on violent crime and murder as a result of a gun ban and increased gun regulation? The result, as shown in the data, is that violent crime increased as the population became unarmed. Hence, gun regulation does not solve a violent crime problem as I originally stated.

Learn to apply data to a conversation and not try to create a false argument with convenient facts.


It remains to be seen whether comprehensive - and properly enforced - gun legislation will improve the problem.

As a society we are not responsible with our guns. It makes no sense at all to do nothing. Our culture seems to be the least qualified to have such easy access to weaponry specifically designed to kill lots of people very quickly. My argument has always been that mass killings can be controlled and the statistics do back that up.

The White House seems to be taking the approach I want to see. Compromise is in order. Extremism on either side is right out.

[Hailto]

Also here's a hug dude. I want to see a happy alarti.

/hug I wuv joo alarti :) :) :)

Alarti does seem like a pretty likeable guy, even though i disagree with his political stances. I think its the George Clooney avatar.

[Humerox]

I am actually from and live in Texas, but you were close! I am actually skinning a animal in my kitchen right now too, and watching gun smoke on my 1980's tv and listening to Merl Haggard. You got a problem with that you yellow belly yuppy? =P

I am sorry that I made sense, I will try harder to just troll.

Everybody knows it's MERLE.

You gotta have a Lone Star while watching the love triangle between Matt, Kitty, and Festus. And Festus ain't after Miss Kitty.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-o0XadizD2XgNTcYDY7PeLxef7oI6q4pU3JFx119vEeOP3qLO

[gotrocks]

its for sure the clooney avatar.

as much as i'd like to actually weigh in here, instead of just trolling with another 'braaaiiinss', there is simply no point to trying to convince anyone on here that gun control is good or bad. It's just not going to happen. People who think everyone should have guns are not going to suddenly think its a good idea to give them up, and people who think no one should have a gun or not going to suddenly think there should be no restrictions. it's silly to think otherwise. Especially online.

that being said, hatelore, if I start acting like alarti, will you send me a 100.00 bill to a p.o. box? for real. ill turn it into a rock and some dope and have an awesome night =P

[Hailto]

its for sure the clooney avatar.

as much as i'd like to actually weigh in here, instead of just trolling with another 'braaaiiinss', there is simply no point to trying to convince anyone on here that gun control is good or bad. It's just not going to happen. People who think everyone should have guns are not going to suddenly think its a good idea to give them up, and people who think no one should have a gun or not going to suddenly think there should be no restrictions. it's silly to think otherwise. Especially online.

that being said, hatelore, if I start acting like alarti, will you send me a 100.00 bill to a p.o. box? for real. ill turn it into a rock and some dope and have an awesome night =P

I think you need to hit those NA meetings more often bro, smoking rock and playing EQ aren't the best use of time.

[gotrocks]

oh, also.


brraaiiiinnnssss. uuurrrrnnngghhh.

[gotrocks]

I think you need to hit those NA meetings more often bro, smoking rock and playing EQ aren't the best use of time.

its only at night, i swear :(

also, crack is wack. i may or may not have be a functioning opiate addict.

[gotrocks]

fucking rnf. delete "have" from that sentence.

[Hailto]

its only at night, i swear :(

also, crack is wack. i may or may not have be a functioning opiate addict.

Did oxy like 3 times before I realized it is too good to be trifled with.

[OforOppression]

all i need is weed

[OforOppression]

and copious amounts of bloody marys

[gotrocks]

pot makes me far too lethargic, and makes me feel like a retard.

also makes me clam up in social situations, or talking to people in general (something that can NOT happen in the industry im in).

Ill smoke every once in a while if im with close friends, or by myself with a good movie/video game. Used to smoke far, far too much for many years and I think it ruined it for me forever. Used to not have any problems.

In conclusion, guns.

[OforOppression]

pot makes me not give a shit which clears up my crippling social anxiety.

or its a placebo effect

daves not here man

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/ynRmj.jpg?1

This made me lol.

[OforOppression]

man, you're worse than hasbinbad about reposting reddit you gigantic faggot

[Hasbinlulz]

man, you're worse than hasbinbad about reposting reddit you gigantic faggot
I must be slippin'

[Alarti0001]

Alarti... You just called this guy dumb. Let me tell you what is dumb, and sad.

its dumb that you never cease to shut your mouth, you live for and love arguing.

Now let me tell you what's sad... Lol. You just spent your Friday night reading a ton of statistics on a fucking Friday night just to further your argument. Dude fuckin pm me your address please, I want to send you a 100.00 bill so you can go out and get a piece of ass. Seriously I'm not kidding, I want to make your life happier dude, I got much love for you. Please pm me when you get a minute.

It took me 10 minutes after my workout and before my shower to look at those statistics. Also, I live with my g/f so she would probably frown on me going out to get a "piece of ass" as you call it. Also, my last post was at 7:37 pm, I don't really know that many people who go out before 8 to get "ass". I am sorry that you operate on geriatric hours but I guess the bingo parlor is only open for so long.


You want to comment on my intelligence yet the only arguments you can provide are, You dumb, You need get laid, and you sad. That is truly pathetic.

How about your "shut your mouth" unless you have viable information to provide. Like those statistics you mentioned? Right now it seems you are nothing more than a puffed up liar.

[Alarti0001]

Alarti does seem like a pretty likeable guy, even though i disagree with his political stances. I think its the George Clooney avatar.

See I don't care if you have different stances from me, as long as you have good reasons for them. Hatelores reason however is some insane conglomeration of fear and paranoia mixed with a dash of conspiracy.

[Alarti0001]

Thanks for getting out your elementary statistics books and posting the intro to chapter 1, it was very helpful and I appreciate the lesson in statistics and data analysis. Please refer to Humerox's reply for more information. I appreciate the guidance that a seasoned hand like yours provides.

While you have the statistics book out, please see if there is anything in there regarding being able to apply data and analysis to a conversation that we are actually having and not some arbitrary facts about a comparison between overall violence between two cultures as opposed to an identifiable effect that gun controls has on a population either positive or negative. Since you've already looked at the data once and can't seem to find the answer, I will give you a hint. Restrictive gun laws, when implemented in Britain, increased the rate of murder and violent crime. Alternatively, you can go back about 6 pages, read my post, and then shit your pants for having realized that you are nothing and you know nothing.

For additional steps, please google video search glengary glen ross. Thank you.

You should probably take your own advice. You need to learn to apply your statistics.

I guess I need to provide more elementary statistics since you still can't seem to understand the basics. You need a large enough sample size for a normal distribution. This is largely dependent on the population of your data but a accepted minimum is 30. You took 1 value and tried to make a claim on that value.
If you had any clue about what you were doing you would realize that isnt a responsible practice.You are basically cherry picking the information you want to serve your bias.

How dare you!



Also, please learn what statistics are and how to evaluate them, you are quite embarrassing.

[vaylorie]

You should probably take your own advice. You need to learn to apply your statistics.

I guess I need to provide more elementary statistics since you still can't seem to understand the basics. You need a large enough sample size for a normal distribution. This is largely dependent on the population of your data but a accepted minimum is 30. You took 1 value and tried to make a claim on that value.
If you had any clue about what you were doing you would realize that isnt a responsible practice.You are basically cherry picking the information you want to serve your bias.

How dare you!



Also, please learn what statistics are and how to evaluate them, you are quite embarrassing.

Sooo... Actual reported crime rates for a year by the entire population of Britain is not a large enough sample size to represent the population of Britain? Uhh.. What? Just give it up, admit you are wrong and then swallow a Frisbee man.

I must be 'cherry picking' the data that is applicable to the discussion we were having instead of quoting arbitrary data that may help support my cause but is not relevant to the discussion. I don't know how you guys do math down in western Florida or what they taught you in the Navy, but come on... You lose. It's ok to admit it.. It might actually feel good.

[Alarti0001]

Sooo... Actual reported crime rates for a year by the entire population of Britain is not a large enough sample size to represent the population of Britain? Uhh.. What? Just give it up, admit you are wrong and then swallow a Frisbee man.

I must be 'cherry picking' the data that is applicable to the discussion we were having instead of quoting arbitrary data that may help support my cause but is not relevant to the discussion. I don't know how you guys do math down in western Florida or what they taught you in the Navy, but come on... You lose. It's ok to admit it.. It might actually feel good.

You still don't understand statistics. It is enough information to show violent crime rates in Britain for one year. But not enough years to demonstrate a trend.

Do you even understand what statistic you are trying to represent? You are trying to link a law to the effect on violent crime. The fact that crime may or may not have increased for one year is not relevant.

How can you possibly not understand this. You lost the moment you started.

[Flamfives]

These statistics prove what? And the point is what? You guys get off on these dick waving 'WHAR I UR PROOFS followed by copy/pasted walls of stats' contests and the point gets lost quickly.

[vaylorie]

You still don't understand statistics. It is enough information to show violent crime rates in Britain for one year. But not enough years to demonstrate a trend.

Do you even understand what statistic you are trying to represent? You are trying to link a law to the effect on violent crime. The fact that crime may or may not have increased for one year is not relevant.

How can you possibly not understand this. You lost the moment you started.

Dude, you can't be serious. The statistics I gave you show official numbers, year over year, for a multi-year period. I realize you are trying to change the topic or divert attention away from your ignorance with the 'learn stats!!1!' stuff but you are only further proving out that you are out of your element.

Look, the reality is that you have a basic understanding of statistics and you must have just finished an intro to stats class based on what you posted so far. Call me back when you finish college or take a more advanced class that moves beyond sample sizes, distributions, binomials, correlations, etc. I understand that you think you are smart from the class you have taken but once you take some 300/500 level statistics and analysis classes and then learn how to apply it to be able to be on the same page, the conversation would be more fruitful.

In the meantime, you are still wrong from a raw-data perspective.

[hatelore]

its for sure the clooney avatar.

as much as i'd like to actually weigh in here, instead of just trolling with another 'braaaiiinss', there is simply no point to trying to convince anyone on here that gun control is good or bad. It's just not going to happen. People who think everyone should have guns are not going to suddenly think its a good idea to give them up, and people who think no one should have a gun or not going to suddenly think there should be no restrictions. it's silly to think otherwise. Especially online.

that being said, hatelore, if I start acting like alarti, will you send me a 100.00 bill to a p.o. box? for real. ill turn it into a rock and some dope and have an awesome night =P

hell yes I would man! You can bet your favorite rock on that! I care about people!

[hatelore]

It took me 10 minutes after my workout and before my shower to look at those statistics. Also, I live with my g/f so she would probably frown on me going out to get a "piece of ass" as you call it. Also, my last post was at 7:37 pm, I don't really know that many people who go out before 8 to get "ass". I am sorry that you operate on geriatric hours but I guess the bingo parlor is only open for so long.


You want to comment on my intelligence yet the only arguments you can provide are, You dumb, You need get laid, and you sad. That is truly pathetic.

How about your "shut your mouth" unless you have viable information to provide. Like those statistics you mentioned? Right now it seems you are nothing more than a puffed up liar.

sigh... I can see now that you are impervious to my caring sense of outreach. Your stage of denial scares me :( I have failed.

[Alarti0001]

Dude, you can't be serious. The statistics I gave you show official numbers, year over year, for a multi-year period. I realize you are trying to change the topic or divert attention away from your ignorance with the 'learn stats!!1!' stuff but you are only further proving out that you are out of your element.

Look, the reality is that you have a basic understanding of statistics and you must have just finished an intro to stats class based on what you posted so far. Call me back when you finish college or take a more advanced class that moves beyond sample sizes, distributions, binomials, correlations, etc. I understand that you think you are smart from the class you have taken but once you take some 300/500 level statistics and analysis classes and then learn how to apply it to be able to be on the same page, the conversation would be more fruitful.

In the meantime, you are still wrong from a raw-data perspective.

yes and those stats you presented for year after year shows a decrease in violent crime. derp

[Alarti0001]

Dude, you can't be serious. The statistics I gave you show official numbers, year over year, for a multi-year period. I realize you are trying to change the topic or divert attention away from your ignorance with the 'learn stats!!1!' stuff but you are only further proving out that you are out of your element.

Look, the reality is that you have a basic understanding of statistics and you must have just finished an intro to stats class based on what you posted so far. Call me back when you finish college or take a more advanced class that moves beyond sample sizes, distributions, binomials, correlations, etc. I understand that you think you are smart from the class you have taken but once you take some 300/500 level statistics and analysis classes and then learn how to apply it to be able to be on the same page, the conversation would be more fruitful.

In the meantime, you are still wrong from a raw-data perspective.



I had to look at the stats again because it was hard for me to believe you could be this dense. I actually was convinced I misread those stats somehow. After review, I have not. What I think is the problem is you seem to think that raw numbers somehow equate to rates. They do not. England has been on a steady decline in violent crime rates for over a decade. This is of course based on population. As the population of the country increases so might the violent crime but not necessarily the violent crime rate (violent crime per person).

Sorry you were so confused, if you need further instruction let me know.(I expect you will).

[Alarti0001]

sigh... I can see now that you are impervious to my caring sense of outreach. Your stage of denial scares me :( I have failed.

I see you have given up on trying to support your claims. I am not surprised.

[vaylorie]

I had to look at the stats again because it was hard for me to believe you could be this dense. I actually was convinced I misread those stats somehow. After review, I have not. What I think is the problem is you seem to think that raw numbers somehow equate to rates. They do not. England has been on a steady decline in violent crime rates for over a decade. This is of course based on population. As the population of the country increases so might the violent crime but not necessarily the violent crime rate (violent crime per person).

Sorry you were so confused, if you need further instruction let me know.(I expect you will).

Atari, your too smart for me. Your ability to read raw data and 'apply' them 'correctly' is astonishing. You could at least bring the argument to the level of causation vs. correlation since the data clearly depicts an increase in violent crime after a gun ban was enabled. By the way, did you happen to look up data from before and after the gun ban went into effect or are you talking about a 3 year reduction in overall crime that has nothing to do with a gun ban that was implemented in the 90s?

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/numberofhomicides_englandwales-450x3011.jpg

What about in D.C. when they banned handuns?
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh288/krispos42/DU/DChomiciderates1960-2006.jpg

[vaylorie]

... stupid stuff...
P.S. - I hope the graphs help since you weren't able to read the same data in the original form.

[patriot1776]

alarti isnt interested in facts hes a liberal

[Lexical]

There is a sudden spike in homicides in both those graphs you posted Vayloria, but they don't seem correlated to the gun bans as strongly as you insist since the spike in the DC one begins about 10 years apart and the UK graph has about a 5 year difference. What is actually very interesting about those graphs is the spikes are in the relatively same time period during which violent terrorism was on the rise and we had such terrible tragedies such as 9/11. Due to the similarities, I would place a stronger correlation between the rise of violent terrorism and the homicide rate than the handgun ban. It would also explain why there is only a spike in the number of homicides rather than a consistent rise and eventual plateau which would then lead me to side with you as it was a very clear and consistent rise. But to make a point, generally in statistics if there is a spike in the data there is an outside force that isn't being represented throughout the data. In this case, world events.

[patriot1776]

no proven correlation = causation

more guns = less crime

you slaves should thank those of us with firearms for keeping you safe cuz criminals dont know who has 1 behind the door

[OforOppression]

People who are afraid of their toys being taken are wing nuts like naez that need to be committed

[vaylorie]

they don't seem correlated to the gun bans as strongly as you insist.

Two points that I would represent from the graphs, as I mentioned to Alarti. 1) Gun restrictions or prohibitions do not result in less violent crime. 2) The conversation is around the correlation vs. causation of the increase in crime that may or may not be caused by gun restrictions.

While the gun control may or may not have led to an increase in violent crime, to posit that gun control has a marked reduction in crime is just incorrect/irresponsible and in no way can be verified with data. A blanket statement that taking away guns is a good way to reduce crime is a fallacy being used by the left. Looking at the actual data can lead to a reasonable discussion.

[patriot1776]

its not a toy, and you are a dirty liberal communist fuck. go 2 north korea, we'll keep our bill of rights

[Faron]

All these statistics... Are people really trying to prove a point that people are driven to commit violent crimes based on the availability of specific weapons? Barking up the wrong tree.

[vaylorie]

It would also explain why there is only a spike in the number of homicides rather than a consistent rise and eventual plateau which would then lead me to side with you as it was a very clear and consistent rise. But to make a point, generally in statistics if there is a spike in the data there is an outside force that isn't being represented throughout the data. In this case, world events.

If you remember in the 80's and 90's how crime in general was growing at an incredible pace and then later in the 90's is started suddenly, and almost inexplicably, dropping. This was across most of the US and is represented on the graph for DC. There are a ton of factors involved but none of those are gun restrictions. Increase in police force, increase in prison population, abortion legalization from years before, crack moving out of mainstream, etc.

Again, I get that there are literally hundreds of factors involved with crime rates on the up and down side, but the 'more guns cause more crime' component is just alarmist crap.

[Alarti0001]

Atari, your too smart for me. Your ability to read raw data and 'apply' them 'correctly' is astonishing. You could at least bring the argument to the level of causation vs. correlation since the data clearly depicts an increase in violent crime after a gun ban was enabled. By the way, did you happen to look up data from before and after the gun ban went into effect or are you talking about a 3 year reduction in overall crime that has nothing to do with a gun ban that was implemented in the 90s?

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/numberofhomicides_englandwales-450x3011.jpg

What about in D.C. when they banned handuns?
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh288/krispos42/DU/DChomiciderates1960-2006.jpg

This is the crime of Cherry picking. You picked a localized statistic. When you want to show trends you should broaden your scope.


Referring to DC charts you are trying to tell me that the effect of handguns being banned didnt start affecting the statistics for 10 years? Do you have a functioning brain?


Referring to the UK charts..... again it doesnt show the RATES. From 1991 to 2001 the population increased by 1.1million. From 2001-2004 the UK population increased by another 1million. That easily explains the # differences. Again you need rates not raw numbers


Honestly, I feel like I am arguing with children.

[OforOppression]

Here's an idea.

You say that hammers and such kill more than guns.

Why don't you use hammers and such to protect your homes, instead, if they're a more lethal weapon???

[vaylorie]

Here's an idea.

You say that hammers and such kill more than guns.

Why don't you use hammers and such to protect your homes, instead, if they're a more lethal weapon???

Moron, it's not that they are a more lethal weapon, it is that they are used to kill more people. If the logic is really 'guns kill so many people so lets get rid of them', then we should consider these items also. Your comprehension is top notch.

[vaylorie]

Referring to DC charts you are trying to tell me that the effect of handguns being banned didnt start affecting the statistics for 10 years? Do you have a functioning brain?

No, I'm telling you that gun bans don't reduce crime as is shown in the data. Thank you for making my point.


Referring to the UK charts..... again it doesnt show the RATES. From 1991 to 2001 the population increased by 1.1million. From 2001-2004 the UK population increased by another 1million. That easily explains the # differences. Again you need rates not raw numbers

So you wouldn't expect to see a significant / marked decrease in violent crimes if guns were indeed the problem?

Also, of course I used a localized statistic. If I wanted to show a trend of the entire US, I would use data representative of the entire US. If I wanted to show the effect that a local gun ban in D.C. had, should I use 1) D.C. data or 2) All US data? If you can't figure that out that you are even stupider than your posts make you seem.

One more. If I wanted to see the impact of a gun ban in Britain, would I use 1) official government crime statistics for the region in question (i.e. Britain), or 2) worldwide violent crime statistics.

Thank you for playing.

[patriot1776]

im not a wingnut im a single issue voter

[Alarti0001]

No, I'm telling you that gun bans don't reduce crime as is shown in the data. Thank you for making my point.




So you wouldn't expect to see a significant / marked decrease in violent crimes if guns were indeed the problem?

Also, of course I used a localized statistic. If I wanted to show a trend of the entire US, I would use data representative of the entire US. If I wanted to show the effect that a local gun ban in D.C. had, should I use 1) D.C. data or 2) All US data? If you can't figure that out that you are even stupider than your posts make you seem.

One more. If I wanted to see the impact of a gun ban in Britain, would I use 1) official government crime statistics for the region in question (i.e. Britain), or 2) worldwide violent crime statistics.

Thank you for playing.

Your data didn't actually show that.

So basically, you are completely lost, you have no point, and you are mad?

Your data wasn't representative of anything you were trying to prove. There was 0 correlation.

Good job you succeeded in demonstrating to the educated here that you are clueless. I am sure patriot and hatelores will eat up your pretty graphs though. Good company you keep haha.

[Hitchens]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

[Ahldagor]

who the fuck cares? so we won't have extended magazines or whatever or assault rifles. shit got jumped on quick as fuck by the media cause congress once again failed in doing something that would actually help the vast majority of people in the "insert stupid dramatic adjective" solution to the "fiscal cliff" which needs to happen. best way to reduce debt is to increase income and decrease spending, but can't take a 1% hit on growth even though most likely outcome is sustainable growth in two to three years, nope nope can't have people makin more money all around....i forgot where i was going with this.

[vaylorie]

Your data didn't actually show that.

So basically, you are completely lost, you have no point, and you are mad?

Your data wasn't representative of anything you were trying to prove. There was 0 correlation.

Good job you succeeded in demonstrating to the educated here that you are clueless. I am sure patriot and hatelores will eat up your pretty graphs though. Good company you keep haha.

So I take it this is your way of saying that I was right and you were wrong? How embarrassing for you. Good luck in your future endeavors, i wish you well.

[Ahldagor]

thank you hitchens. once again you win. /bow

[patriot1776]

Your data didn't actually show that.

So basically, you are completely lost, you have no point, and you are mad?

Your data wasn't representative of anything you were trying to prove. There was 0 correlation.

Good job you succeeded in demonstrating to the educated here that you are clueless. I am sure patriot and hatelores will eat up your pretty graphs though. Good company you keep haha.

actually he shut your case that gun ban would reduce crime down completely. thanks for playin

[Alarti0001]

So I take it this is your way of saying that I was right and you were wrong? How embarrassing for you. Good luck in your future endeavors, i wish you well.

Apparently, reading comprehension isn't your thing as well. Nothing you have said is backed up with evidence. None of the "evidence" you presented supported your arguments. So yes you win at being clueless, moronic, and delusional. Good job?

[Alarti0001]

actually he shut your case that gun ban would reduce crime down completely. thanks for playin

I never said anything about guns being the cause of all crime. Apparently, ignorance loves company too.

[vaylorie]

yes you win

Way to handle it like a gentleman. Bravo sir.

[Hitchens]

@vaylorie,

One should not misrepresent statistics just to make a philosophical point. I'm quite sure it isn't intentional, but that is what is going on here.

[vaylorie]

@vaylorie,

One should not misrepresent statistics just to make a philosophical point. I'm quite sure it isn't intentional, but that is what is going on here.

Instead of leaning on your philosophical point, please better evaluate the data or show any proof that gun controls do reduce violent crime. I'm made a fairly clear and evidence-based case whereas through 25 pages there has been absolutely no proof that gun controls reduce violent crime. There have, of course, been a tremendous number of juvenile opinions based on emotion, ignorance, and whatever you heard Chris Matthews or Piers Morgan say. If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you make a case, present some details, or move along to troll another day.

[Alarti0001]

Instead of leaning on your philosophical point, please better evaluate the data or show any proof that gun controls do reduce violent crime. I'm made a fairly clear and evidence-based case whereas through 25 pages there has been absolutely no proof that gun controls reduce violent crime. There have, of course, been a tremendous number of juvenile opinions based on emotion, ignorance, and whatever you heard Chris Matthews or Piers Morgan say. If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you make a case, present some details, or move along to troll another day.

You are deluded by your prejudice

Your intelligence is compromised by your emotion.

You are more worried about winning an argument then you are in being correct in your information.

Bad boy!

[patriot1776]

crime skyrockets in australia, DC, and britain when they took the guns

"show statistics"

statistics shown

"ur deluded"

[Alarti0001]

crime skyrockets in australia, DC, and britain when they took the guns

"show statistics"

statistics shown

"ur deluded"

Except those weren't stats that demonstrated a point. I could link nonrelates stats about the nfl here too