Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


View Poll Results: Firearms!
FOR! (The only right answer) 21 38.18%
Against (Insert random joke) 32 58.18%
Undecided (too weak to have your own opinion?) 2 3.64%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

For or against?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
lordjames
Carob Nut


Member 1690

Level 5.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 01:47 AM #101 of 276
The possibility of a corrupt government taking power today or in the future in the U.S. is still possible, and therefore citizens should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves against any corrupt government that could potentially arise or a potential breakdown in civil order.

How ya doing, buddy?

Last edited by lordjames; Mar 30, 2006 at 01:52 AM.
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 01:53 AM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 12:53 AM #102 of 276
lordjames, i completely agree with you. the 2nd amendment is the most important right in my book cause it's the only one that allows you protect yourself and your freedoms on an individual level. you're preaching to the choir with me, but the thing is.... this is the gff pp. nobody changes their minds or really listens to anything anybody says! they just keep rambling on and on, trying to be "right." nobody in here will change their opinion on the subject despite how many different angles are shown.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 02:06 AM #103 of 276
Originally Posted by lordjames
I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder.
That's just the thing. Neither side of the debate can really prove a correlation. The anti-gun camp believes that logically guns=greater potential for agravated violence. And the pro-gun camp believes that guns don't hurt people, and that they would be constantly victimized by criminals, invaders, government, etc. if they didn't have 'em.

Neither side can prove their case. And to those who have picked a side, it seems entirely logical and common sense to stick to their assumptions. Then they get to play with the numbers and statistics to make themselves appear right.

MetheGelfling, are you suggesting that the PP be closed? Sure debates are not 'won', and sure people just repeat themselves 'till they are blue in the face, but it still provides some insight (and entertainment) as to what people think of an issue. That for the most part one's bottom line beliefs are already established doesn't mean that additional information and comment isn't warranted.

FELIPE NO
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 02:30 AM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 01:30 AM #104 of 276
oh no, of course not. I don't mean the political palace as a whole. i just meant this thread. this could go on for like 14 pages of posts of nothing but the same old rehash arguments that people have been regurgitating for forever.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
"if we didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot."
"you wanna get capped sucka?!"

now if somebody wants to come in and blow my mind with something new then go for it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
David4516
Second Child


Member 2016

Level 8.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 03:34 AM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 12:34 AM #105 of 276
I know what you mean about not changing anyone's mind. However, it's still interesting to hear what people have to say. This is an important issue to me, and so I hope that the thread remains open...

I believe that a someones views on this issue say alot about what kind of person they are.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
jsphweid
Chocobo


Member 691

Level 10.88

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 07:36 AM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 06:36 AM #106 of 276
(Christian-head is an inside joke that our history teacher said. He uses it to get everyone's attention. For example, baseball-heads/music-heads/etc.)


Originally Posted by MetheGelfling
oh no, of course not. I don't mean the political palace as a whole. i just meant this thread. this could go on for like 14 pages of posts of nothing but the same old rehash arguments that people have been regurgitating for forever.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
"if we didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot."
"you wanna get capped sucka?!"

now if somebody wants to come in and blow my mind with something new then go for it.
See? The last line tells it all...

Controlling all weapons is overdoing it. Controlling (not eliminating) guns designed to kill other people might help the problem. If your worried about getting shot at night, well, try not to piss people off and if that can't be helped, use a shotgun (you don't have to aim as much anyway...).

Perhaps there is an alternative to controlling weapons to reduce crime. I think it was Rudy Giuliani (mayor, NYC) who reduced crime rates alot. What means did he go by?

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 06:28 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 05:28 PM #107 of 276
oh yeah, "controlling" guns is a new argument. gimme a break. "controlling" guns in the way you suggest is basically registering them with the federal gov't. the only people that this keeps in check are law abiding citizens.

here's a figure for you. as of 1986, there were 150,000 fully automatic firearms legally civillian owned in the US. How many of them were used in crimes? "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins.

It's debatable as to whether or not Giuliani's policies in NYC really had much to do with the reduced crime rates. Before his election there was a reduction in crime already taking place on a national level. It was a bit of smooth politicking to take credit for that. After he received credit for reduction in crime in NYC, other cities around the country attempted similar methods but with very mixed results.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
jsphweid
Chocobo


Member 691

Level 10.88

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 07:12 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 06:12 PM #108 of 276
Good lord, why would someone ever need a fully automatic weapon?!?!?!?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 07:13 PM #109 of 276
Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?

I was speaking idiomatically.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 08:05 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 08:05 PM #110 of 276
5 infantry could take down a tank in Red Alert. Why lie.

The point about law abiding citizens following a registry is because registering a weapon signifies intent to use it. If you register your weapon, chances are you bought it for personal protection, hunting, whatever else people go gaga for.

If, however, you bought a weapon and didn't register it, then the assumtion is that it would be used for some nefarious purpose.

Here's the problem, though. In a national gun registry, how are we supposed to know who has unregistered weapons?

Quote:
Good lord, why would someone ever need a fully automatic weapon?!?!?!?
I need a fully automatic weapon like I need a triple bypass surgery. Just because I don't need it doesn't mean that I don't want it, nor does it mean that I have no good reason for doing so.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
jsphweid
Chocobo


Member 691

Level 10.88

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 10:43 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 09:43 PM #111 of 276
Originally Posted by Bradylama
I need a fully automatic weapon like I need a triple bypass surgery. Just because I don't need it doesn't mean that I don't want it, nor does it mean that I have no good reason for doing so.
All of my life my parents have raised me to be not stingy, but just careful on what we buy. I tend to be so different because I talk to people all the time and I don't understand them. What you said makes no sense in my mind (it's actually kind of funny, don't take it offensively). I don't understand human WANT. Sure I want things here and there, but I say to myself all the time, "You don't NEED that so why buy it?" When people I know say, "I just had to buy it, it was 60% off and just cool." I reply sometimes, "I got a better deal than you. I saved 100% by not buying it!"
O dear, I'm getting off subject...

Most amazing jew boots
lordjames
Carob Nut


Member 1690

Level 5.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 10:48 PM #112 of 276
Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis
Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?
Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?

People that don't obey laws couldn't be deemed law-abiding citizens, could they? Most of the time, depending on the seriousness of the law and in the sphere of certain types of laws (criminal, for example), people that ignore the law are criminals.

Secondly, yes, you do need to prove the correlation. Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there, and we could just as easily posit that the presence of those things is the culprit behind the increase in murders (string, knives, cars, etc.).

Just look at the absurdity of this example: The presence of cars is the source of so many drive-by shootings.

Yes, it may have been a material accessory in the shootings, but the source, or even a negligible factor? Comeon.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Last edited by lordjames; Mar 30, 2006 at 10:51 PM.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2006, 11:00 PM Local time: Mar 30, 2006, 11:00 PM #113 of 276
Quote:
Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often?
No, however, you do need to prove that taking such devices away from law-abiding citizens will result in people getting hurt less often. When you meet that burden, feel free to respond. If you can't or won't, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 12:11 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 12:11 AM #114 of 276
Quote:
Sure I want things here and there, but I say to myself all the time, "You don't NEED that so why buy it?" When people I know say, "I just had to buy it, it was 60% off and just cool." I reply sometimes, "I got a better deal than you. I saved 100% by not buying it!"
And I suppose I saved 100% by not buying Sabrina the Teenaged Witch DVDs. But I suppose that's where I don't understand your want.

It's like Lil' Abner found an AppleII.

Most amazing jew boots
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 03:51 AM #115 of 276
Originally Posted by Night Phoenix
No, however, you do need to prove that taking such devices away from law-abiding citizens will result in people getting hurt less often. When you meet that burden, feel free to respond. If you can't or won't, then we have nothing further to discuss.
Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often. What the argument should be, is if it would reduce such numbers by an acceptable amount to justify the loss of 'freedom' or 'fun'. To argue that it *wouldn't* result in less injuries/deaths is just an exageration.

To take the ever popular car example. If there were no cars, people would not be run over, or crash into each other, or drive off the road killing themselves etc. So it would obviously result in less injuries, but it's not something that is practical, or worth the cost.

... Unless of course someone can argue that criminals would still get cars (true), and that they would make up the difference in automotive related injuries.

This whole topic really seems to be argued by the pro-gun camp a little wrong from my point of view. Instead of arguing that guns don't kill people. Hell, they actually help people, and are the most important liberty ever dreamed of. It'd be a whole lot easier to handle the argument that yeah, they kill some people, yeah, it makes killing people easier, but it's worthwhile despite that cost. At least it'd be honest.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Aardark
Combustion or something and so on, fuck it


Member 10

Level 40.02

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 05:49 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 12:49 PM #116 of 276
Originally Posted by lordjames
Secondly, yes, you do need to prove the correlation. Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there, and we could just as easily posit that the presence of those things is the culprit behind the increase in murders (string, knives, cars, etc.).

Just look at the absurdity of this example: The presence of cars is the source of so many drive-by shootings.
What kind of analogy is that. Cars aren't designed with the specific single purpose of harming people.

I mean, what, if there were no guns, would gang members throw pieces of 'string' at one another? Or maybe there'd be a rapid increase in the number of deaths by drive-by knife-throwings; probably, probably.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Nothing wrong with not being strong
Nothing says we need to beat what's wrong
Nothing manmade remains made long
That's a debt we can't back out of
Rock
Rock me


Member 66

Level 29.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:06 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 01:06 PM #117 of 276
I like how in the wonderful world of pro-firearm, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens and criminals are criminals.

[capslock]THE WORLD IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.[/capslock]

I was speaking idiomatically.
Dr. Uzuki
Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman shall be allowed to participate in the film


Member 1753

Level 37.97

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:52 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 03:52 AM #118 of 276
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Jesus Christ, why don't I just close the fucking thread?
Pull the trigger, I'm begging you. At least dump the poll.

Also, it's going to happen anyways isn't a valid argument. If something is worth being outlawed, the scale to which the law will be broken is not a factor.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

so they may learn the glorious craft of acting from the dear leader
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 08:32 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 08:32 AM #119 of 276
Quote:
I like how in the wonderful world of pro-firearm, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens and criminals are criminals.

[capslock]THE WORLD IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.[/capslock]
From a legal standpoint, it is that simple. If you break a law, you're a criminal. I'm fairly sure I break the law every day in some way or another, however the argument in the context of Gun Control refers to people that adhere to gun code laws, and not necessarily the speed limit, or drug usage, or internet piracy, or whatever other laws people break every day.

FELIPE NO
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 09:57 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 09:57 AM #120 of 276
Quote:
Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often.
You don't know that at all. You assume that because you strip the right to bear arms from regular citizens that people will get hurt less often, but in truth, you have nothing to back up that claim. If you do, feel free to offer it up.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 10:14 AM #121 of 276
Is it just me, or weren't we a hell of a lot more brutal toward each other when we only had sharp things to kill each other with?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Rock
Rock me


Member 66

Level 29.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 10:45 AM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 05:45 PM #122 of 276
Originally Posted by Bradylama
From a legal standpoint, it is that simple. If you break a law, you're a criminal. I'm fairly sure I break the law every day in some way or another, however the argument in the context of Gun Control refers to people that adhere to gun code laws, and not necessarily the speed limit, or drug usage, or internet piracy, or whatever other laws people break every day.
That's totally not what I meant to imply in my post.

I was criticizing the argument that "law-abiding citizens" should have a right to bear firearms. Of course, every criminal was a law-abiding citizen before he became a criminal. Because frankly, if a firearm is used to inflict lethal injury, it's usually a crime; thus the perpetrator becomes a criminal. I might also add that "criminals" are usually kept in prisons and don't even have a chance to fire a gun in the first place.

However, this seems to be a concept unfamiliar with people living in a black and white world with no color inbetween.

"Just hand out guns to us fine folks. Only a criminal would abuse a gun." -__-

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Chibi Neko
The hell am I doing here?


Member 922

Level 27.65

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 01:38 PM Local time: Mar 31, 2006, 03:08 PM #123 of 276
I am not what you call 'anti-gun' but I find that a lot of them get into the wrong hands. In America, more people die from gun-related violence a year then a few hurricane seasons.
The media always has news of a gun murder here and there and it keeps people in fear that someone is gonna bust into their home and shoot them, so they take the right to bear arms seriously and get a gun. The shoot-first law in Florida is just creepy… real criminals now have a easy loop hole to jump through to get out of jail time, they can shoot a random person and say that he/she where attacking or threatening them.

I hardly ‘ever’ heard of someone getting shot here in my province. Everyone in my family have shot-guns. We keep them in a closet in the basement unloaded, and are only taken out in hunting seasons like moose or sealing. The same story can be heard across Canada.

I guess what I am trying to say is… why do Americans love guns so much and why are they always shooting each other? Gun murders are on the rise in Toronto, and most of the guns involved where smuggled from the states.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 04:05 PM #124 of 276
[QUOTE=lordjames]Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?[quote]

Well, sir, if you can't provide conclusive proof that my use of allcaps is harming anyone, I am compelled to continue. After all, asking someone to stop doing something just because it's stupid and pointless is a completely unreasonable way to behave.


Quote:
people that ignore the law are criminals.
Really? You're new to this critical-thinking thing, aren't you. See, to me, this is the awesome thing, the sticking point. To me, a criminal is somehow who commits a crime. I've committed crimes in my life; I am therefore by definition a criminal. Whereas for the gun-club crowd, a "criminal" is a separate class entirely, one which necessarily excludes them. Criminals are something vile, which lurks on the periphery of one's vision, stalking your every footstep. It's difficult for me to comprehend a worldview where criminality is viewed not as a behavior but as a racial trait, but there it is. The fun part comes along when your teenage kid steals the gun in order to mug somebody for drug money. Hey-ho, preventin' the criiiiiiimes.

I mean, are you nuts? Nearly everyone is a criminal of some kind. Police departments wouldn't be able to get their funding without the guarantee that most people will try to bypass the speed limit. All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand regarding which forms of criminality are more icky than others.

Quote:
Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there (bullshit examples snipped)
Cars have an intended nondangerous purpose. And do strings, and knives, and red balloons, and cuckoo clocks. The only nondangerous functions of a gun are "sport shooting" (AKA killing things you probably don't intend to eat, you know, for kicks) and target shooting, which is hard to fathom as anything beyond a kind of frustrated practice for the "real thing". I mean, if you guys really think it's so hot to make holes in things, I have this awesome new invention to show you! It's called the electric drill, and—

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 06:25 PM #125 of 276
Originally Posted by Night Phoenix
You don't know that at all. You assume that because you strip the right to bear arms from regular citizens that people will get hurt less often, but in truth, you have nothing to back up that claim. If you do, feel free to offer it up.
Of course I don't *know* that, neither side of the debate can prove a thing.

But you are honestly saying that less guns would not result in less people getting hurt, because it's just an asinine theory that it would reduce such incidents?

How many kids shoot themselves or someone else by accident each year, using a firearm which is owned by their upstanding citizen parent? Let's say this figure is 1. Is it really completely unreasonable, and ass-backwards to believe that the odds are lessend for this situation if there wasn't a gun in the house?

Would the kid instead be guaranteed to go out and find one of Manis Tricuspis' criminals. Have them sell a black market gun, and then accidentally shoot someone? Or would they make their own gun, then accidentally shoot someone? Which one of these scenarios is the one that would neccessarily occur in order to keep the number of incidents at least as high as the year before gun regulation?

You do see that both sides of the issue make their assumptions based on little-to-nothing, and then just tell the other side to put up or shut up right?

I was speaking idiomatically.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > For or against?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.