Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I read this on one of Cracked.com's lists and I think it's hilarious. Basically there are absolutely no restrictions on buying mini-guns in America. Why? Because only an idiot would buy one. There are only 11 civilian units on the market (that's eleven guns total, not models). They cost around $400 grand each, and considering the rate of fire, it'll cost you around $3,600 per minute to fire one. I'm sure maintenance is a pain in the ass too!

the really odd thing is that people can actually legaly buy guns.

why is that odd to you?

He's probably European.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's probably European. HEY!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's probably European.

probably, i am used to going to the quicky mart buying some beer, smokes and head out go around the corner get some shrooms cause i work for the government and i need to pass my drug test.. i am responsible that way....be offored a gun along with my purchase. its no real biggy for me especially when gun shows come around my city three times a year

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's probably European.

Sounds like the correct assumption to me.

Only someone who was bitter about not fighting for his rights would say something like that.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I read this on one of Cracked.com's lists and I think it's hilarious. Basically there are absolutely no restrictions on buying mini-guns in America. Why? Because only an idiot would buy one. There are only 11 civilian units on the market (that's eleven guns total, not models). They cost around $400 grand each, and considering the rate of fire, it'll cost you around $3,600 per minute to fire one. I'm sure maintenance is a pain in the ass too!

You can also rent one.

Like the Mythbusters did!

America has gun control?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
America has gun control?

Not yet!

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
America has gun control?

According to a lot of Americans it has too much gun control.

What the hell....,According to the world news, everyone has their problems.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
why is that odd to you?

Because guns are made generally for killing people, and that isn't very nice is it ?

Sporting reason I can understand and yes it is fun firing weapons, I enjoyed it when I was in the Military.

But civilians don't need guns do they, especially in countries like the US where a lot of people are insane lunatics.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Because guns are made generally for killing people, and that isn't very nice is it ?

Sporting reason I can understand and yes it is fun firing weapons, I enjoyed it when I was in the Military.

But civilians don't need guns do they, especially in countries like the US where a lot of people are insane lunatics. Actually, I'd almost argue that in countries with a lot of insane lunatics (like the US, for example) civilians do need guns more.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Because guns are made generally for killing people, and that isn't very nice is it ?

Sporting reason I can understand and yes it is fun firing weapons, I enjoyed it when I was in the Military.

But civilians don't need guns do they, especially in countries like the US where a lot of people are insane lunatics.

The right to own a gun was not intended to be so you can protect yourself from other people, it was to protect your nation from the government.

Originally posted by KidRock
The right to own a gun was not intended to be so you can protect yourself from other people, it was to protect your nation from the government.

Sounds like someone hates America.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sounds like someone hates America.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3511591165_031ba41138.jpg

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Because guns are made generally for killing people, and that isn't very nice is it ?

Self-defensive and hunting. Protecting the Republic.



Well, isn't that nice coming from a citizen of "Mars."

There are many responsible gun owners.

Originally posted by KidRock
The right to own a gun was not intended to be so you can protect yourself from other people, it was to protect your nation from the government.


Well, that and self-defense and hunting.

Originally posted by KidRock
The right to own a gun was not intended to be so you can protect yourself from other people, it was to protect your nation from the government. Well that went in the shitter right about the point where the government got better weapons and made money off the weapons.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, I'd almost argue that in countries with a lot of insane lunatics (like the US, for example) civilians do need guns more. Oh don't be stupid. If there's a lunatic in the room, the gun is most likely to make the situation worse. Stop jerking off P&T.

Originally posted by lord xyz


Oh don't be stupid. If there's a lunatic in the room, the gun is most likely to make the situation worse. Stop jerking off P&T.

You need to stop telling people to stop being stupid...unless, of course, you know how to handle and dismantle a firearm. Properly trained gun owners never...,NEVER draw their weapon unless they intend to use it and if they intend to use it, well, just like the military, they will rarely miss. It is the illegally owned guns that you need to worry about. I guarantee you that if you were stuck in a room with five strangers and a lunatic with a big ass weapon, you would feel a whole lot better once that person hit the floor from a fellow citizen carrying a concealed handgun.

Originally posted by KidRock
The right to own a gun was not intended to be so you can protect yourself from other people, it was to protect your nation from the government.

It's not about violence or cock fighting. It is about freedom.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You need to stop telling people to stop being stupid...unless, of course, you know how to handle and dismantle a firearm. Properly trained gun owners never...,NEVER draw their weapon unless they intend to use it and if they intend to use it, well, just like the military, they will rarely miss. It is the illegally owned guns that you need to worry about. I guarantee you that if you were stuck in a room with five strangers and a lunatic with a big ass weapon, you would feel a whole lot better once that person hit the floor from a fellow citizen carrying a concealed handgun.

How do you make sure guns are in the hands of properly trained people?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do you make sure guns are in the hands of properly trained people?

Gun Laws and licensing.

Yay....Another gun control argument thread.

I'm with Patton, we should have taken over Russia when we had the chance tank

Bill Murray thinks it's all going to work out though thumbsup

Personally, i have my doubts...,but, dude was right about Broken Flowers, so you never can tell.

wow, all this and all I did was start a thread about a hilarious example of market forces regulating something instead of government...

Originally posted by lord xyz

Oh don't be stupid. If there's a lunatic in the room, the gun is most likely to make the situation worse. Stop jerking off P&T.

That, is ridiculous. If there is a real crazy person determined to kill as many people as they can in the room, a gun on the people in the room, won't make the situation worse.

I would agree that in a standard armed robbery odds are it might, but that doesn't really matter...

Though it is hardly the point regardless, the actually innocent people should have the right to protect themselves as good as they can, if they so choose. Police officers are also just people, and people that can't always be where you are at to protect you.

And your implications are silly, if you can't argue with facts, maybe you shouldn't argue at all.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Gun Laws and licensing.

That would only hurt law abiding citizens.
Criminals don't care about the laws.

Also, it would infringe on our second amendment rights.

Originally posted by The Scribe
That would only hurt law abiding citizens.
Criminals don't care about the laws.

Also, it would infringe on our second amendment rights.

The constitution is just a piece of paper, not the ultimate word of some God or other.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The constitution is just a piece of paper, not the ultimate word of some God or other.

Thanks for that George Bush.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of America.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Thanks for that George Bush.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of America.


Written 200+ years ago, maybe some things are indeed a bit outdated, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Written 200+ years ago, maybe some things are indeed a bit outdated, eh?

Nope, it is just fine the way it is.

That's why you don't live here and have no say.
Also, anyone who has a problem can move.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Nope, it is just fine the way it is.

That's why you don't live here and have no say.
Also, anyone who has a problem can move. No, I think my belief that the constitution might be outdated is not the cause of me not living in the US, the other way around maybe...

And, you know those people who don't like it also can just try to change it, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And, you know those people who don't like it also can just try to change it, eh?

Nope, they can move.

Trying to change it will start anothe war in this country.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I'm with Patton, we should have taken over Russia when we had the chance tank





Yeah right like the US could.

And I don't really understand the need for guns anyway.
There's Police isn't there? I mean it's legal to buy a gun ( an instrument whose only purpose is killing) but illegal to smoke pot in the US? Way to go!

And yeah I'm from Europe, where people can smoke pot, gays can marry, socialist isn't an insult and people don't own guns.

Originally posted by Funkadelic
And yeah I'm from Europe, where people can smoke pot, gays can marry, socialist isn't an insult and people don't own guns.

How do you live without freedom?

One day at a time I'm afraid.



(I'm also from Europe)

Originally posted by The Scribe
Nope, they can move.

Trying to change it will start anothe war in this country. Then...maybe you should move? If you don't want to change and don't want a war....yeah...you put up with war or **** off, King George!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then...maybe you should move? If you don't want to change and don't want a war....yeah...you put up with war or **** off, King George!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do you live without freedom?

No, I don't want to live without freedom.

America doesn't need to change.

There are many other countries for people to move to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then...maybe you should move? If you don't want to change and don't want a war....yeah...you put up with war or **** off, King George!

Wait why shouldn't people move to a place that gives them what they want?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait why shouldn't people move to a place that gives them what they want?

Oh if there is one, then I'd agree, they probably should.

But the "If you don't like it, why don't you **** off", usually refers to only one issue, and though there may be a place that does it different on this issue, that doesn't mean there's a perfect place, and obviously changing the government and society is an option that one can and should possibly pursue, especially in the US, a country founded on civil disobedience.

I love my country. It's not perfect and has TONS of room for improvement. Doesn't change the fact that I love it. On the same token, I'd probably be quite happy living in France.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to a lot of Americans it has too much gun control. Right, thats why there are so many illegal firearms floating around.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Right, thats why there are so many illegal firearms floating around.


the problem is it is harder for your law abiding citizen to buy a gun then it is for a violent criminal to get one.


besides most of the guns come from other parts of the world. you guys really think that warehouses and pallets of guns are stolen from gun factories?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
the problem is it is harder for your law abiding citizen to buy a gun then it is for a violent criminal to get one.


besides most of the guns come from other parts of the world. you guys really think that warehouses and pallets of guns are stolen from gun factories? I don't know about all that, I am no expert in the field, not even a novice.

i was in iraq in 06/07 we found a cache of weapons over 5000, we had to catalog them all get serial numbers model ect ect... most of them were german, chinese and russian weapon systems a few scattered ones were american in origin. we destroyed all but the ak47's that were functional and had serial numbers if they didnt we assigned one to them. any who by order of a high ranking government official of a certain powerful country we were ordered to arm the iraqi army with those weapons a few months later we found a few hundred of the same weapons inside a couple of insurgence homes that were being used to store them. we were later ordered not to talk about it which really pissed me off since most of my officers/Nco's thought it was a bad idea to begin with.


not sure if it ever made it to the news probably not.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i was in iraq in 06/07 we found a cache of weapons over 5000, we had to catalog them all get serial numbers model ect ect... most of them were german, chinese and russian weapon systems a few scattered ones were american in origin. we destroyed all but the ak47's that were functional and had serial numbers if they didnt we assigned one to them. any who by order of a high ranking government official of a certain powerful country we were ordered to arm the iraqi army with those weapons a few months later we found a few hundred of the same weapons inside a couple of insurgence homes that were being used to store them. we were later ordered not to talk about it which really pissed me off since most of my officers/Nco's thought it was a bad idea to begin with.


not sure if it ever made it to the news probably not.

I'm almost certain it came up in the news or either in some book I read about Iraq.

I feel like an ass cause I can't find it and I would have to scramble through some stuff but it sounded like something I heard before.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
besides most of the guns come from other parts of the world. you guys really think that warehouses and pallets of guns are stolen from gun factories?

actually, there is a problem with the smuggling of American made assault weapons into mexico right now...

really interesting story about the AKs!

Maybe if tons of speculators bought shares in Lead this could be solved the Chris Rock way. Not that I started this thread to make any commentary on gun control in general.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, there is a problem with the smuggling of American made assault weapons into mexico right now...

really interesting story about the AKs!

i know that their are many american assault rifles that are smuggled into mexico, but they are mostly bought legally through gun shows ect ect.. and then they are transported to mexico where they mark up the prize.

hell i know a smuggler or used to be one till his wife turned him in and the border patrol was on the look out for him and his vehicle when he was crossing. all i can say dont piss off women or cheat on them or try to take your kids from her in the divorce cause they will screw you over. man my uncle was pissed when they confiscated all his electronics and torn the insides out to pull weapons hidden inside tv's vcrs.. ect ect.. poor guy.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i know that their are many american assault rifles that are smuggled into mexico, but they are mostly bought legally through gun shows ect ect.. and then they are transported to mexico where they mark up the prize.

hell i know a smuggler or used to be one till his wife turned him in and the border patrol was on the look out for him and his vehicle when he was crossing. all i can say dont piss off women or cheat on them or try to take your kids from her in the divorce cause they will screw you over. man my uncle was pissed when they confiscated all his electronics and torn the insides out to pull weapons hidden inside tv's vcrs.. ect ect.. poor guy.
...your incoherence amuses me.

How are you going to protect the republic, especially from its own government which someone mentioned. They have a slight military advantage. Some citizen with a few pistols and rifles and them with apaches's, F16's and SEAL's


You've obviously never been to Mars then


There are many responsible gun owners.

But it only takes 1 irresponsible gun owner to cause the death of some folk

Originally posted by Bicnarok
How are you going to protect the republic, especially from its own government which someone mentioned. They have a slight military advantage. Some citizen with a few pistols and rifles and them with apaches's, F16's and SEAL's

The military can't be used against the citizens of America.
Well, they aren't supposed to be used.



No one or anything has ever been to Mars.
Not even a space rover.



Even with Germany's stringent gun laws there was a recent shooting.
Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons.

Originally posted by The Scribe
The military can't be used against the citizens of America.
Well, they aren't supposed to be used.


But potentially they could.

i screwed up posted in the thread.

Originally posted by The Scribe
The military can't be used against the citizens of America.
Well, they aren't supposed to be used.




only if they declare martial law best bet is to wait it out till some american soldiers decide to disobey their commands.

you would definitely be safe from the marines since our standing orders are to be used only over seas and "not" on american soil and i am sure many would not obey an order to harm civilians.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But potentially they could.

If they did that would be unconstitutional and make them traitors.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
only if they declare martial law best bet is to wait it out till some american soldiers decide to disobey their commands.

you would definitely be safe from the marines since our standing orders are to be used only over seas and "not" on american soil and i am sure many would not obey an order to harm civilians.

That would be their best bet, not to follow orders.

Originally posted by The Scribe
If they did that would be unconstitutional and make them traitors.


Again, piece of paper.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, piece of paper.

No, get it right.

Originally posted by The Scribe
No, get it right. Really, if the military would turn on the population...how would the Constitution protect you?

Who would enforce it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Really, if the military would turn on the population...how would the Constitution protect you?

Who would enforce it?

The US Constitution is self enforcing, obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Really, if the military would turn on the population...how would the Constitution protect you?

Who would enforce it?


the marines, pretty sure our commandant would back the ppl regardless of his orders from some insane president a little thing called honor ingrained in him would make him make right choice.


besides most marines would obey our commandant over the president even though we swore to obey the president, the loophole states "to obey only all lawful and legal orders."

besides most military ppl would have a hard time enforcing their power to relatives and towns, cities from where they originated especially if friends and relatives were injured. the army would be split in the middle.

besides i doubt you can get all branches to obey some insane president or military general commander. you got the air force, navy, army and marines.


you also have cops, fbi cia the whole scenario is very unlikely.

You realize that certain military higher ups have used their popularity to secure the military's allegiance and then use it to dispose of the current elected government and install their own regime, and so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Fear not though, if we listen to Repcon/Conserv talking heads, Obama is going to make himself King (or is it Sultan?) of America, just a matter of time.

Originally posted by Robtard
You realize that certain military higher ups have used their popularity to secure the military's allegiance and then use it to dispose of the current elected government and install their own regime, and so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Fear not though, if we listen to Repcon/Conserv talking heads, Obama is going to make himself King (or is it Sultan?) of America, just a matter of time.


i was stating that it is very unlikely that military would follow some insane american president against his own ppl or let him put himself in power for life or something stupid like that.

now if it were a military commandant then yes they have a better chance to secure their mens loyalty, i know i would follow my commandant for the right reasons to overthrow our government most likely i side with him out of a sense of loyalty and superiority from the common man.

And so? Big deal!

I've got like 1 back in Chicago and 5 in the Philippines, all legal.
Heck, it's even easier to buy guns in the Phils.
No need for training. If you're past the legal age of 18, you can get a license lol. And guns there are a lot cheaper than in the US.

Guns are strictly prohibited here in Dubai, though.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You need to stop telling people to stop being stupid...unless, of course, you know how to handle and dismantle a firearm. Properly trained gun owners never...,NEVER draw their weapon unless they intend to use it and if they intend to use it, well, just like the military, they will rarely miss. It is the illegally owned guns that you need to worry about. I guarantee you that if you were stuck in a room with five strangers and a lunatic with a big ass weapon, you would feel a whole lot better once that person hit the floor from a fellow citizen carrying a concealed handgun. Originally posted by Bardock42
That, is ridiculous. If there is a real crazy person determined to kill as many people as they can in the room, a gun on the people in the room, won't make the situation worse.

I would agree that in a standard armed robbery odds are it might, but that doesn't really matter...

Though it is hardly the point regardless, the actually innocent people should have the right to protect themselves as good as they can, if they so choose. Police officers are also just people, and people that can't always be where you are at to protect you.

And your implications are silly, if you can't argue with facts, maybe you shouldn't argue at all. If not fired, the gun would threaten the lunatic and cause him to panic and go more crazy. If fired, you have the potential to kill a human being.

Much more reasonable approach is to **** firearms. Whenever someone is armed, disarm him. *You know, sneaking up behind, pulling his arm back and letting him drop the heavy mother ****er on his foot.* Infact, don't they have classes to teach you this stuff? If not, they should.

And what if the lunatic doesn't have a gun, which you seem to both assume he does. Striking fear into a crazy person is a pretty inane idea.

*Due to your past redardations, Bardock, I feel it mandatory to point this out.

That was a hyperthetical example, not a suggestion.

Guns are ****ing stupid anyway. To willingly carry something as dangerous as that means one thing. You're willing to risk harming and killing another person.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Much more reasonable approach is to **** firearms. Whenever someone is armed, disarm him. *You know, sneaking up behind, pulling his arm back and letting him drop the heavy mother ****er on his foot.* Infact, don't they have classes to teach you this stuff? If not, they should.

How do sneak up behind someone who pointing a weapon at you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I think my belief that the constitution might be outdated is not the cause of me not living in the US, the other way around maybe...
lol

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do sneak up behind someone who pointing a weapon at you? Distraction? Gas? Fear? When he's looking away?

Not really the point or to be taken seriously. It was merely an idea of stopping guns without guns.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do sneak up behind someone who pointing a weapon at you? You obviously haven't seen Dragonball.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Distraction? Gas? Fear? When he's looking away?

Not really the point or to be taken seriously. It was merely an idea of stopping guns without guns.
Yes, because it's less dangerous to try and make some look the other way than putting a gun to their head telling them to leave.

civlians shudnt be able to own firearms PERIOD. they dont protect against government opressions, they are not effective as self defence weapons, they are not necessary. they only bring death/greif/escalation in violence for the greater part. this is proven by statistics.

mini guns are ugly.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
civlians shudnt be able to own firearms PERIOD. they dont protect against government opressions, they are not effective as self defence weapons, they are not necessary. they only bring death/greif/escalation in violence for the greater part. this is proven by statistics.

mini guns are ugly.

People should definitely be allowed to own guns. Requirements that you have some training in how to use them properly would be nice.

^no. most definately not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
civlians shudnt be able to own firearms PERIOD. they dont protect against government opressions, they are not effective as self defence weapons, they are not necessary. they only bring death/greif/escalation in violence for the greater part. this is proven by statistics.

mini guns are ugly.

The only truthful "statistic" is that criminals will have guns whether there are laws against guns or not.

Citizens should have weapons if they so desire.
American's do have guns and will fight to keep that right.

^not with effective government. and its a moot point since non criminals having guns does not makes them safer from the criminals with guns. citizens shud never have weapons. and stupid people have always fought for stupid things, like protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^not with effective government. and its a moot point since non criminals having guns does not makes them safer from the criminals with guns. citizens shud never have weapons. and stupid people have always fought for stupid things, like protecting the sanctity of marriage.


Back up your facts.



Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.









I am not swayed by words.



As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Back up your facts.



Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.









I am not swayed by words.



As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

with you challenging my point, the burden of proof is on you to prove that HAVING guns lowers the effectiveness of armed crime and saves lives and does not contribute to armed crime rates.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
with you challenging my point, the burden of proof is on you to prove that HAVING guns lowers the effectiveness of armed crime and saves lives and does not contribute to armed crime rates.

No, sorry, proof is on you.



You are challenging the point, not I. The point being the already legal gun rights.



In other words, you don't have proof and it's empty rhetoric. More to the point, you are just another ignorant fool who believes something out of ignorance.







Prove that removing guns from America would make it safer. If you prove that, I will back you up. I will switch sides. How hard is that? Is it REALLY that difficult to do? If you believe so strongly in something, don't you think you'd know more about it?


Prove it, prove it, prove it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, sorry, proof is on you.



You are challenging the point, not I. The point being the already legal gun rights.



In other words, you don't have proof and it's empty rhetoric. More to the point, you are just another ignorant fool who believes something out of ignorance.







Prove that removing guns from America would make it safer. If you prove that, I will back you up. I will switch sides. How hard is that? Is it REALLY that difficult to do? If you believe so strongly in something, don't you think you'd know more about it?


Prove it, prove it, prove it.

recap.

my claim to which you replied

"criminals wont have illegal guns with proper government control. and people who HAVE legals firearms are not noticeably safer from criminals with illegal firearms then an unarmed person would be"

you: Back up your facts.



Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.









I am not swayed by words.



As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

...............................................................................................


not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.

do you have any idea how silly and rude you sound? or is this random babbling and feining incoeherence another one of KMC's idiotic debating tactics which among other things tries to veil itself by the sheer amount of random and strawman bullshit it spews which makes it troublesome not only to keep track of the conversationg, but get lost in justifying one'self againt the number of idiotic allegations and strawmen being made, which continually mutates from post to post? orrrr. r u just drunk?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
recap.

my claim to which you replied

"criminals wont have illegal guns with proper government control. and people who HAVE legals firearms are not noticeably safer from criminals with illegal firearms then an unarmed person would be"

you: Back up your facts.



Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.









I am not swayed by words.



As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.

...............................................................................................


not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.

do you have any idea how silly and rude you sound? or is this random babbling and feining incoeherence another one of KMC's idiotic debating tactics which among other things tries to veil itself by the sheer amount of random and strawman bullshit it spews which makes it troublesome not only to keep track of the conversationg, but get lost in justifying one'self againt the number of idiotic allegations and strawmen being made, which continually mutates from post to post? orrrr. r u just drunk?




Seems like one massive dodge of a post.

Edit - Notice I didn't respond to any of your words in the above post? It contains too much ignorance and "I have no clue what's going on" to warrant a response."

Let me recap:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.



No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.


Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like one massive dodge of a post.



Let me recap:

and thats my cue to stop wasting time by humouring you. honestly, grow up and learn to debate instead of showing empty bravado.


{try answering my post that you so conveniently pushed away for starters}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and thats my cue to stop wasting time by humouring you. honestly, grow up and learn to debate instead of showing empty bravado.


{try answering my post that you so conveniently pushed away for starters}

So why O' why, sir, can you not provide data. You are so good at "a-level" course work, yet you can't approach the subject scientifically.


Here, let me restate my post:




Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.



No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.


Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.




So, please, sway me with your data.


Ever heard the phrase, "put up or shutup"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So why O' why, sir, can you not provide data. You are so good at "a-level" course work, yet you can't approach the subject scientifically.


Here, let me restate my post:









So, please, sway me with your data.


Ever heard the phrase, "put up or shutup"?

i did, all the many types of deaths which legal firearms are responsible for wud be gone. data doesnt always have to be statistics. and it seems like you have more a bone to pick with me personally than anything else.

and you dont need to restate the extant of your stupidity, it has already been demonstrated ad nauseum. you only have to reply to the post you conveniently avoided and stop the persona undertones. theyr pathetic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i did, all the many types of deaths which legal firearms are responsible for wud be gone.

Does not compute. Your logic is so horrible it's rediculous. The use of "illegal firearms" automatically makes the entire idea of "gun control" a moot point.

(In Carlos Mencia's retard voice) They are called illegal firearms for a reason. Dee dee deeee.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
data doesnt always have to be statistics.

Show me where I said that it does.


And, in this particular case, it really does have to be statistics. Again, your logic is so horrible it's rediculous.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and it seems like you have more a bone to pick with me personally than anything else.

No, it seems you are incapable of proving to me why you hold the stance that you do on guns. It's more like empty rhetoric from you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you dont need to restate the extant of your stupidity,

No matter how many times you say or type that, it still won't make it true.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it has already been demonstrated ad nauseum.

Hmmm...no why would I repost it more than once? hmm

Hmmm.. hmm


Man..I just can't quite put my finger on why I keep reposting it. hmm

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you only have to reply to the post you conveniently avoided

I already replied to it. It is a dodge post and in no way addresses the topic correctly. Your fail of logic in that post is a waste of time to even address. I'd rather keep it on topic instead of you pretending to pretend like you can play word games.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and stop the persona undertones. theyr pathetic.

Nah. They are rather obvious, and no way subversive or hidden. And what's pathetic is your "logic."

empty claim, no reply, gotcha

not only did u again fail to elaborate HOW its a moot point, but u failed to convince me.



no it doesnt, you failed to reply. i think the reason you CHOOSE not to refer to actual points in the argument and are happy just waving them away is because if you did, ud actually have to DEBATE and let the line of questioning continue and develop. no no, its easy to just sidestep thing until they cant be kept a track of of.

the last part is to be blamed on ur intellect



u mean it wont make it any more true than it already is



because your stupid.



you didnt address a single point made, which makes you a liar.

so ur admitting to being a rude and personally offensive?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
empty claim, no reply, gotcha

not only did u again fail to elaborate HOW its a moot point, but u failed to convince me.

No sir. You lack the ability to understand what I just pointed out. I'm quite certain that everyone else understands the point I just illustrated.



Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it doesnt, you failed to reply. i think the reason you CHOOSE not to refer to actual points in the argument and are happy just waving them away is because if you did, ud actually have to DEBATE and let the line of questioning continue and develop. no no, its easy to just sidestep thing until they cant be kept a track of of.

the last part is to be blamed on ur intellect

Okay. In that case, you try to get a drug approved without any data (statistics) and only what you intend the drug to do. Let me know if it convinces anyone

Try to do anything in the professional world without some sort of evidence or data to back up your reasons and you'll be laughed at.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
u mean it wont make it any more true than it already is

I know you are but what am I.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
because your stupid.

I know you are but what am I.

Up your butt with a coconut.



Originally posted by leonheartmm
you didnt address a single point made, which makes you a liar.

Sir, you said I didn't reply to it.

I did reply to it, which makes you a doodoo stupid brain.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur admitting to being a rude and personally offensive?


No, I am indicating that your use of "undertones" is incorrect. It was what one might call an indirect insult or a witty comeback. And, your fail of logic makes itself apparent, yet again. I didn't admit to persona overtones. I admitted to blatant persona. Even thought this would not be the correct way to say it. Pompous, sarcastic, smartass...those would be better ways of saying it. Since I'm not a total jerk and realize that English isn't your first language, I don't point out those odd word combinations you make because the meaning can be derived in context. (BTW, that's how logic is SUPPOSED to be used. You're welcome.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No sir. You lack the ability to understand what I just pointed out. I'm quite certain that everyone else understands the point I just illustrated.





Okay. In that case, you try to get a drug approved without any data (statistics) and only what you intend the drug to do. Let me know if it convinces anyone

Try to do anything in the professional world without some sort of evidence or data to back up your reasons and you'll be laughed at.




I know you are but what am I.




I know you are but what am I.

Up your butt with a coconut.





Sir, you said I didn't reply to it.

I did reply to it, which makes you a doodoo stupid brain.




No, I am indicating that your use of "undertones" is incorrect. It was what one might call an indirect insult or a witty comeback. And, your fail of logic makes itself apparent, yet again. I didn't admit to persona overtones. I admitted to blatant persona. Even thought this would not be the correct way to say it. Pompous, sarcastic, smartass...those would be better ways of saying it. Since I'm not a total jerk and realize that English isn't your first language, I don't point out those odd word combinations you make because the meaning can be derived in context. (BTW, that's how logic is SUPPOSED to be used. You're welcome.)


nowhere in there do i see on topic sentence dealing in the least with the points i made. they seem to be ad hominem attacks anc cheap insults.

nice job on the subtle jab at my inability to work with english though, as if that wud say anything even if it were true.

quite pathetic. and you are ill equipped mentally, to lecture me on how logic is supposed to work. too many of your own posts work against you here.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nowhere in there do i see on topic sentence dealing in the least with the points i made. they seem to be ad hominem attacks anc cheap insults.


That's because you can barely read.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nice job on the subtle jab at my inability to work with english though, as if that wud say anything even if it were true.

Nah, I was just pointing out how nice I was being to you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
quite pathetic. and you are ill equipped mentally, to lecture me on how logic is supposed to work. too many of your own posts work against you here.

No matter how many times you say it or post it, it doesn't make it true.







Now, on with your evidence.


I'm ready to be convinced. Show me, sir, your evidence to sway me to the side of eliminating guns from America. If you show me the data and it's sound, I promise, I'll switch sides. That's all I want.

ad hominem

loving yourself

repeating the same idiotic debating tactic with a factually untrue statement and expecting a different result.

your a delusional narcissist sir.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ad hominem

loving yourself

repeating the same idiotic debating tactic with a factually untrue statement and expecting a different result.

your a delusional narcissist sir.


Untrue and off topic.


Can we get back on topic, please?


Here, I'll post again:





Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.



No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.


Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

ive dealt with that, now i see you have no intention of answering my post. so why dont you stop trolling?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ive dealt with that, now i see you have no intention of answering my post. so why dont you stop trolling?


You did not deal with that.



Let me put it this way:

I dealt with you refusing to back up your claims.

You dodged.

I reposted.


You dodged.



Etc. etc.


Now, I'v decided to be civil and give you another chance.



Where is your data on gun control?


Where is it, sir? And to take care of your next 10 posts.

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?



Now, either provide your evidence to make your case or concede that you're an idiot.

^but that isnt true at all. unfortunately, you avoid the post dealing with the real order of things that i posted.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is proven by statistics. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Lenka_falconer/2ba100.jpg?t=1244934011

Come on, even you would facepalm that comment.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Lenka_falconer/2ba100.jpg?t=1244934011

Come on, even you would facepalm that comment.

really, because i was under the mistaken impression that per capita ownership of guns showed no corellation with decrease in crime rate gunshot wounds. silly me.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^but that isnt true at all. unfortunately, you avoid the post dealing with the real order of things that i posted.




You are for removing guns from civilians hands in the US. Why? Cite your sources.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

not only was your post a non reply, but you were citing a post by me which you all but forgot about by your second reply. i already showed which types of deaths cud be avoided by not having gun ownership thus PROVING the second part{ofcourse u didnt even know what you were replying to so i dont know how much sense all this was making in your head}. and i asked you to give evidence to the contrary since you were CONTESTING my claim, and you go on to babble about the burden of proof being on me, while u talk about sumthing completely different from MY post that YOU quoted and go on to say that i have no proof{when i have showed which types of deaths area avoided by having no private gun ownership} and go on to say that the whole point is that i am an ignorant fool who beleives sumthing out of ignorance.
First, you're an idiot because making a baseless claim doesn't mean the another person has the burden of proof, second, here you go:

Gun Crime in China Up
UK gun crime up after handgun ban

Ownership of Guns Lowers Crime

2 years after New Jersey passed the most stringent gun control laws in the country in 1966, the murder rate went up 46% and robbery almost doubled
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/njcrimn.htm
UK gun crime keeps rising even with stringent bans