The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Demented Tigers]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers.

It was your taxes payed for that school-yard. You should be allowed to take a short-cut through there. It's public land, right?

Damn right! Not just school yards. Military installations, court buildings, the White House, Nixon's grave.

Military weapons? Who says you shouldn't be able to detonate 'your part' of a nuke?

[Galloism]

Military weapons? Who say you can't detonate 'your part' of a nuke?

Don't think that's a good idea, but I think there should be a "drive your own tank" day.

You know, civilian gets to go out on the field with the tank, shoot the gun at targets, has a tank instructor with him.

I feel the same way about F-18s.

[Demented Tigers]

Military weapons? Who say you can't detonate 'your part' of a nuke?

Don't think that's a good idea, but I think there should be a "drive your own tank" day.

You know, civilian gets to go out on the field with the tank, shoot the gun at targets, has a tank instructor with him.

I feel the same way about F-18s.

I think you should have a 'ride a cruise missile day' too!

[Galloism]

Military weapons? Who say you can't detonate 'your part' of a nuke?

Don't think that's a good idea, but I think there should be a "drive your own tank" day.

You know, civilian gets to go out on the field with the tank, shoot the gun at targets, has a tank instructor with him.

I feel the same way about F-18s.

I think you should have a 'ride a cruise missile day' too!

That sounds deadly for the participant.

[Jocabia]

Military weapons? Who say you can't detonate 'your part' of a nuke?

Don't think that's a good idea, but I think there should be a "drive your own tank" day.

You know, civilian gets to go out on the field with the tank, shoot the gun at targets, has a tank instructor with him.

I feel the same way about F-18s.

I think you should have a 'ride a cruise missile day' too!

That sounds deadly for the participant.

And how could that not be a benefit. I mean, if people want to commit suicide then nothing will stop them. I learned that by reading the thread. Let's let them go out with a bang (that isn't provided by a gun).

[Gravlen]

Same reason they don't let me fly planes, pilot submarines, or conduct the London Symphony Orchestra.

Because you tend to remove your pants while doing so?

[Galloism]

And how could that not be a benefit. I mean, if people want to commit suicide then nothing will stop them. I learned that by reading the thread. Let's let them go out with a bang (that isn't provided by a gun).

Okie dokie. We have to test the weapons anyway.

[Gravlen]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine in Atlanta, Georgia. I know it looks shooped, but it's legit. It's a small picture from a crappy camera.

Discuss?

You're being silly. If that was the best argument against gun control, the debate would have been over and done with a long time ago, with the pro-gun control advocates dancing on the grave of the debate every tuesday.

[Ifreann]

Same reason they don't let me fly planes, pilot submarines, or conduct the London Symphony Orchestra.

Because you tend to remove your pants while doing so?

Yes

[Jocabia]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine in Atlanta, Georgia. I know it looks shooped, but it's legit. It's a small picture from a crappy camera.

Discuss?

You're being silly. If that was the best argument against gun control, the debate would have been over and done with a long time ago, with the pro-gun control advocates dancing on the grave of the debate every tuesday.

The funny bit is that apparently his "friend" managed to get that picture out to the whole world so well that it's been circulating for a while. Pretty impressive that it just so happens that there is just this ONE picture that is always the one circulated and it was taken by his "friend". I know I totally fell for... I mean I totally believe him.

[Zoharland]

Only someone with a mental deficiency would think that gun control can work...

Ah, the old "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron" argument. That never gets old.

Or good.

Don't the liberals on this site regularly engage in this type of thinking?

I'm sure even you've done it.

If you're 'sure' then it will be easy for you to show me doing so. I'll wait, shall I?

I said I'm sure even you've done it, not that I have a specific example in mind. As in, its probable that you've engaged in said behavior as well.

You guys take this place too seriously...

[Jocabia]

I said I'm sure even you've done it, not that I have a specific example in mind. As in, its probable that you've engaged in said behavior as well.

You guys take this place too seriously...

Nah, mostly people just give you a hard time when you make up arguments wholesale.

"A lot of conservatives molest animals. I'm sure even you've done it."

Yeah, can't see why someone might protest if I suddenly said the above and then admitted I didn't actually have any reasoning behind it.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm sure plenty of people have said that in the past; it's never futile to fight for your freedom.

Sure. Being wrong wasn't invented this century.

So, basically, your now backing my own argument why gun control is wrong? Alright, looks like we're on the same page now.

I don't know - what do you think your argument is, and how do you think I was previously disagreeing with it?

[Grave_n_idle]

Because everybody can defiantly afford to carry around a guard with them everywhere they go, and everyone lives next door to a police station where the police can be there in 30 seconds flat.

If you shoot like you argue, you need your license revoked.

You missed a clear target by a clear mile.

[Grave_n_idle]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers.

It was your taxes payed for that school-yard. You should be allowed to take a short-cut through there. It's public land, right?

I mean, what if someone with a mounted weapon were to pull up behind me and start firing? And I'm in a school zone. How am I supposed to protect myself. And what if I'm also drunk? Must I just sit there and be shot? They'll pry my vehicle from my cold dead fingers (most likely dead from hitting tree while I'm speeding and plowed, but ignore that bit).

Plowed, you say?

Obviously everyone gives way to a main battle tank, but if some weenie in a Hummer disputes your right to use the intersection, roll him. With your snowplow.

I think you make me laugh at least once a day on average.

I like you.

[Grave_n_idle]

Only someone with a mental deficiency would think that gun control can work...

Ah, the old "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron" argument. That never gets old.

Or good.

Don't the liberals on this site regularly engage in this type of thinking?

I'm sure even you've done it.

If you're 'sure' then it will be easy for you to show me doing so. I'll wait, shall I?

I said I'm sure even you've done it, not that I have a specific example in mind. As in, its probable that you've engaged in said behavior as well.

You guys take this place too seriously...

So - what you mean when you say "I'm sure" is "I'm talking through my arse".

And, when you say "You guys take this place too seriously", what you really mean is "Jesus, I didn't expect to be called on my bullshit, already".


Sound about right?

[JJ Place]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

So you'll never be able to defend your house if you have a gun? You don't even a chance, right? And crime is just as pervasive in areas with a lot of guns as those that do not have a lot of guns?

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

Yet, when your a criminal, you have a few less expenses to pay then if your a law abiding citizens, and you can usually find the funds to pay for something that helps you steal more things. It's like an investment for a criminal.

[JJ Place]

Cars have to be registered too. And drivers have to be licensed and insured. Alcohol and cigarettes, among other things are restricted to those over a certain age. You can only get certain medicines with a prescription from a doctor.

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'. Also, cars are a bit more of an investment for the owner, being that an inexpensive $10,000.00 cars costs just a tad more than an expensive $200.00 gun. Not to mention that the car is an everyday use item, while a gun is a last resort item for defense. Second, using that logic, why don't we also register knives? Knives can kill just as easily as guns, and they're easier to conceal, as well as quieter than guns; they can be just as much of a threat as guns can. Also, what about muscular people? You've seen some of these huge, muscular people; they look like they could do some serious damage; must they register to be so strong? The answer is no. Also, prescription medicines are different; and, if you can pay for them, I say that you should be able to buy them whether or not you need them.

[New Amerik]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

So you'll never be able to defend your house if you have a gun? You don't even a chance, right? And crime is just as pervasive in areas with a lot of guns as those that do not have a lot of guns?

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

Yet, when your a criminal, you have a few less expenses to pay then if your a law abiding citizens, and you can usually find the funds to pay for something that helps you steal more things. It's like an investment for a criminal.

You're absolutely right. I think the only good way to keep up with the Jones's in this day and age is to become a criminal. We should all become criminals! Who's with me?

[JJ Place]

Because everybody can defiantly afford to carry around a guard with them everywhere they go, and everyone lives next door to a police station where the police can be there in 30 seconds flat.

If you shoot like you argue, you need your license revoked.

You missed a clear target by a clear mile.

I shoot pretty well, if I do say so myself. If I didn't give you a response that you like, please give me your side to the story and why you find a problem with my valid points.

[Jocabia]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

I have. First of all, you should actually examine how criminals get guns. Now, you might not have an issue with them either stealing them from gun owners or acquiring through legal dealers, but I view that as a bad thing. I generally don't want to find out that people are intentionally putting guns in the hands of criminals and I'm not doing something about it. It's interesting how you claim you want to own guns to protect yourself but you'd rather make it easier for criminals to acquire guns (the majority of guns criminals get were originally properly registered) just so it doesn't inconvenience you.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

So you'll never be able to defend your house if you have a gun? You don't even a chance, right? And crime is just as pervasive in areas with a lot of guns as those that do not have a lot of guns?

Who said never? I didn't. What I said is that it's much more likely your gun will harm someone who is not a criminal or arm a criminal than it will ever help you avoid deadly force being used against you. You have a chance, but that chance is much less than the chance your daughter will be harmed by your gun.

As for that last bit, no. Sometimes it's more pervasive. Sometimes less pervasive. And because we don't actually have state and city border patrols, it's impossible to attribute local gun control to the cause of the problem one way or the other. What can be said is that criminals are acquiring their guns from legal owners. I'd like to stop that. So you should you.

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

Yet, when your a criminal, you have a few less expenses to pay then if your a law abiding citizens, and you can usually find the funds to pay for something that helps you steal more things. It's like an investment for a criminal.

Ah, yes, that's totally how it works. Seriously, you're just pulling this out of your pants as you think of it, aren't you? You've had at least one economics course, right? If say, you have a limited amount you can produce of a product. Let's call that product, stolen goods. And I increase the cost of the core items you need in order to produce stolen goods, how does that affect your profits? HINT: They go down. If you profit less from some type of work what does that do to the likelihood someone will enter that type of work. HINT: It goes down.

I love how you want to trumpet how people will be deterred from the expense of gun ownership except the super amazing don't have to follow the rules of economics and don't have bills criminals. Those magical beings that aren't subject to the same financial forces as everyone else.

[JJ Place]

I'm sure plenty of people have said that in the past; it's never futile to fight for your freedom.

Sure. Being wrong wasn't invented this century.

That's correct; it was around at least 200 years ago, and, due to the fact the U.S. is still a nation, I have proof.

So, basically, your now backing my own argument why gun control is wrong? Alright, looks like we're on the same page now.

I don't know - what do you think your argument is, and how do you think I was previously disagreeing with it?

I know your anti-choice on this issue, Grave_n_idle; however, I might ask you your interpretation of the 2nd amendment; you've said that it doesn't cover hobbies, and it doesn't cover hunting, so what does the 2nd amendment cover in your opinion?

Incidentally the reason for licensing and insuring cars is much the same reason as licensing gun owners. There is a societal interest in limiting dangerous people's access to things that have the potential to kill a lot of people when used improperly.

Same reason they don't let me fly planes, pilot submarines, or conduct the London Symphony Orchestra.[/quote]

Again, because criminals and insane people are really stopped by laws on paper. People are going to do what they are going to do no matter what you do; and having an unarmed populous when a disaster strikes really isn't going to help you.

You are honestly saying that what bad neighbourhoods need is more and cheaper guns ?

The more the merrier, eh ?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. But, hey, if you want to be completely unarmed without a chance in the world, I believe that to be your choice.

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security.

And you should, right ? This was what I asked you, and which you haven't answered.

You should do everything you can to prevent a gun you leave in your house WHEN YOU ARE NOT THERE, from being stolen. Correct ? Gun-safes ... or preferably a gun-bank, a location which is more secure than an unattended residence, in which permanent security protects a large number of guns from theft. A bank.

What say you to that ?

Should you? That's kind of your personal choice, it's kind of like asking a person if exercise is better for they're health and if they do it; it should not be mandatory; yet owning a gun will make you safer and it makes everyone safer. An armed society is a happy society. Also, you've never yet until this point asked me that exact question.

A gun bank.. very useful in case a disaster should occur, one of the reasons to own a gun. If your house is under attack, I'd rather have the gun with me at my residence so I could at least hold my ground until I could escape or until back-up could arrive to aid me.

[Ifreann]

Cars have to be registered too. And drivers have to be licensed and insured. Alcohol and cigarettes, among other things are restricted to those over a certain age. You can only get certain medicines with a prescription from a doctor.

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'.

Guns are more complicated than "Don't kill anyone".

Also, cars are a bit more of an investment for the owner, being that an inexpensive $10,000.00 cars costs just a tad more than an expensive $200.00 gun. Not to mention that the car is an everyday use item, while a gun is a last resort item for defense.

Yes, cars cost more. But cars improve people's lives and they are regulated by the government. Further, guns aren't "buy and forget" items. Guns must be maintained, as must one's marksmanship. I've heard tell on NSG that hobby shooters are more accurate the the police because police have less time to spend on training, given their occupation with solving crimes.

Second, using that logic, why don't we also register knives? Knives can kill just as easily as guns, and they're easier to conceal, as well as quieter than guns; they can be just as much of a threat as guns can. Also, what about muscular people? You've seen some of these huge, muscular people; they look like they could do some serious damage; must they register to be so strong? The answer is no.

Logic? I have not put forth logic, I have simply refuted your point that guns should be like other products by pointing out that other products are also regulated and controlled.

Also, prescription medicines are different; and, if you can pay for them, I say that you should be able to buy them whether or not you need them.

How are they different?

[Grave_n_idle]

Because everybody can defiantly afford to carry around a guard with them everywhere they go, and everyone lives next door to a police station where the police can be there in 30 seconds flat.

If you shoot like you argue, you need your license revoked.

You missed a clear target by a clear mile.

I shoot pretty well, if I do say so myself. If I didn't give you a response that you like, please give me your side to the story and why you find a problem with my valid points.

It's not a matter of responses 'I like' - it's a matter of you clearly missing the point of what was being discussed, and so weighing in with some irrevelevant nonsense.

Blind side of a barn, point blank range. Fail.

[Grave_n_idle]

I know your anti-choice on this issue, Grave_n_idle; however, I might ask you your interpretation of the 2nd amendment; you've said that it doesn't cover hobbies, and it doesn't cover hunting, so what does the 2nd amendment cover in your opinion?

You know I'm anti-choice?

I don't even understand what you mean by that - you're going to have to explain.

Preferably, in fact, you can show me the posts that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion, also.

The second amendment is pretty clear in exactly what it covers - well-regulated militias.