Talk:Gun control

Gun control/victim complex indoctrination in schools

I have no idea where this should go. JohnathanNiggers 21:16, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Temporarily removed sections

Am noting content that I've removed from the article to prepare it for AOTN. This content may be put back at a later date or immediately if someone wishes to fill out these sections.

==What Others Think of Gun Control==

{{expand}}

==How to Kill Without Guns==

{{expand}}

==Gun Con[[TROLL]]: How to Troll Supporters of Gun Control==

{{expand}}

13:31, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Article of the now

Strictly professional, if you intend to do anything with this article before it is Article of the Now, then please let me know. Once you're finished, I can do my thing. Edit wars are entertaining but I prefer some level of collaboration when it comes to everything else. Appreciated, 14:11, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm mostly just going to removing duplicate images (images used in the article don't need to be in the gallery) and adding new image content. The "overreactions" mini-gallery can go in the "aftermath" section. Also planning to make a section regarding the statistics/articles about how gun ownership/concealed weapons always equates to saved lives and how new gun laws always equate to a direct increase in shootings/death. I'll probably take some material from John Lott's book too (this is an exerpt that someone else wrote about him):

In his book More Guns Less Crime, Yale law professor John Lott ran the numbers every which way possible. He set out to write a book about guns being bad, and found that every gun law ever enacted in this country has resulted in more violent crime. I saw him on TV recently, debating a gun control advocate. Lott cited numbers and anecdotes. His opponent, in essence, said "but guns kill."

And that's basically it for now. --Onideus 14:25, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

John Lott is pretty well known as a fraud...

Richard harder 22:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Oh I'm quite certain most gun control nuts go ~well~ out of their way to try and support that delusion. Unfortunately reality soundly bitch slaps them otherwise in 38 different directions. --Onideus 22:26, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

No, actually it just makes Lott look like even more of a fraud. Who uses sock puppets...

Randomly accusing people of being his "sock puppets"...yeah...really not helping your case. In fact you're pretty well proving mine. LOL --Onideus 00:23, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Speaking of reality, Mao didn't ban guns in China in 1935 and the Nazis relaxed gun laws when they took power. I think that Mao was still hauling ass for Yan'an back then. I don't think he was even in charge of the communists.

Richard harder 23:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

See, this is what gun control nuts do, they try and present HALF TRUTHS as "facts" in order to pretend to have some valid point. In this particular case, yes, for "trusted Germans" and "German citizens" gun restrictions ~were~ relaxed...HOWEVER, the part our gun control nut FAILS to mention is the fact that CITIZENSHIP LAWS were altered simultaneously, which basically restricted those lax gun laws ONLY to those in line with the Nazi party and in fact for others, such as Jews living in Germany, their citizenship status was effectively revoked and as such were not able to purchase, own, or have any firearms in ANY capacity.

With Mao, it's ANOTHER half truth. While he himself didn't introduce any real ~new~ gun control laws (that I'm aware of), the country ~already~ had tight restrictions on guns, dating all the way back to early British and Portuguese rule. So Mao didn't exactly ~need~ to introduce any *NEW* gun laws given how impossibly restrictive the gun laws had ALREADY BEEN! And, subsequently, in the 60s, China went and effectively banned *ALL* guns outright. --Onideus 00:23, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

How do you know that I'm for gun control? Maybe I'm just a concerned second amendment patriot trying to convince you to quit talking out of your asshole. You might want to start with not corroborating the guy you're trying to call out as an uninformed nutjob. Also with learning some Chinese history...try googling "Cultural Revolution". The only weapons ban they have on the books doesn't even come close to banning all guns. It even has a nice little loophole to let you keep assault weapons.

Richard harder 04:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

WOW YOU'RE STUPID! I mean, not even like ~ordinary~ stupid, you're like trans stupid. Meta stupid. TRANS META STUPID! Quasar stupid! Stupid so stupid it's collapsed in on itself to form a quantum singularity of stupid. Some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid so completely uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics we know! I-I'm sorry, I don't know if I can go on...this is jut an epiphany of stupid for me! --Onideus 05:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

What, because three short paragraphs of a Wikipedia article say that you're supposed to apply for license from the government to own a gun in PRC? Even if it were categorically illegal it's the damned PRC. What the hell do you think goes on in that country, anyways?

Richard harder 15:56, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Oh, wait, also going to add a section on 3D printed guns, talk about Defense Distributed and how the entire concept of "gun control" is effectively a moot point. I'll probably also make mention of "improvised firearms" and borrow/steal some material from the Wikipedia article:

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

--Onideus 14:29, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Sounds good. I will hold off until tomorrow. 14:31, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

This Article Is *REALLY* Awesome Now

Leftard buttmad vandalism from at least *ONE* genuine gun control advocate/nutjub (the other two are probably just bandwagon humping cause they've got personal problems). This article is probably going to get molested with vandalism pretty often now that's directly shitting all over Nigger Jesus's gun control platform. LOL --Onideus 21:32, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Yeah you were actually right. This is actually going to make lulz happen. I should've listened to you but was acting more retarded than a user who forgets to sign their own post.

 — Preceding comment added by Satanist (talk • contribs), who is too much of a fucking retard to sign their own posts. IT'S FOUR TILDES (~~~~), NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! -- HAHAH DISREGARD THAT NIGGA

RED LORD THE SATAN LUCIFER 21:40, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Edit war

So as much as I don't want to admit it, I learned a lesson when I was editing the article about Onideus. The section about him using bots I rewrote and made sure I backed up with facts. At the moment I am working on a section about NAMBLA accusations. Because I cannot prove one way or the other, I have made sure I state these are accusations.

That brings us to this article. It is nice to see Onideus writing even if I don't agree with all of it. However in the past I have stated this is a wiki so it would by hypocritical to revert his edits without any kind of discussion. My goal is to find some middle ground. Onideus, any thoughts? 01:35, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Hey, Dumbfuck, my edits were already rewritten/revised by that Satanist guy. Also, stop breaking the site's rules, you non-contributing butt-pirate. Zaiger's site, Zaiger's rules, don't remove, improve! If you don't like something, edit it to make it "funnier" (whatever your definition of that is). Also don't be butthurt if someone else comes along and ~re-edits~ your edits to other edits. Like I said before, you really do need to read ED:101, because you obviously haven't. --Onideus 01:39, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

I had a complaint from other users and am attempting to resolve it in a constructive manner. If you're not interested in a civil discussion, just say so. Also if that is the case, why did you remove my contributions to the article about you instead of improving them? 01:59, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

It's already been resolved you doorknob. The person who made that complaint on your talk page is the one whose edits you just reverted! Hurr de durr! *epic face palm* Seriously ~why~ the hell are you an admin? I mean, who the fuck actually ~made~ that decision? It sure the fuck wasn't Zaiger, I know that much!

PS - Because the original edits you made to my article (before Jonzz re-edited them) were BLATANT VANITY EDITS, which, again, as per the site's fucking rules (which you haven't read) are *NOT* allowed! Tha'fawk! --Onideus 02:08, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

You've been here for years and should have set the example by improving the content instead of just removing it. Fortunately someone else did assist me and we ended up with a decent contribution to your article.

It's not my job to babysit you or your buttmad vanity edits. You were blatantly removing content, adding personal content to the top of the page and generally using the page as a platform to express your pent up, tweenage muppet fuck level, butt rage, that's against the site's rules, that's why it was reverted, you should be thankful that Jonzz even took the ~bother~ to edit your blatant vanity crap. --Onideus 02:38, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

So you claim this is resolved. Earlier several users were banned due to an edit war over this article. Are you saying the concerns of these users have been resolved? I am attempting to make sure I am not overlooking anything. Your feedback is appreciated. 02:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Two users were banned for one day (and technically only for a half hour), one (CrackRabbit) because he started copying the initial user who complained and kept reverting edits simply out of buttmad spite (basically jumping on the bandwagon, he didn't even bother trying to make up a reason for it, he just cracked jokes about how much fun it was). And the other user, (name starts with a D I think), he basically saw what CrackRabbit was doing and then started imitating him, which is why he was banned, again, for a day (30 minutes technically).

--Onideus 02:38, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, so it sounds like CrackRabbit and Dbaggins might have legitimate concerns. We both know it is impossible to please everyone but I wanted to establish where everyone stands. At this point, it is up to them to add any feedback.

Each of us contribute to Encyclopedia Dramatica in our own way. My concern was that you bragged about being a good writer but never used that skill to improve any articles. So I am attempting to acknowledge your contribution. 03:04, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

You of all people should ~really~ not be whining about ~other~ people's contributions. Have you ~looked~ at your contributions history? You've got pretty much nothing but continual stalking edits of my article, an endless slew of talk page posturing and a lot of uber basic, overly simplistic formatting edits...and that's pretty well the fuck it. You ~talk~ a lot about contributing...but you hardly ever (if ever) actually do. I on the other hand have edited and contributed to DOZENS of articles just within the past week as well as uploaded countless DOZENS of new images for a whole slew of different pages, not to mention have about a half dozen personal requests to edit/look over other articles to improve upon them. You on the other hand really need to stop dicking around and make yourself useful for a change.

By the by, here's some text from my talk page regarding the specific additions (although technically they've been heavily edited by Satanist since):

ED is about documenting and inciting DRAMA! It's actually most of the ~rest~ of the article that's unfunny and has nothing to do with ED, mostly in that's all "random access funny" Uncyclopedia shit. A large part of any article on ED is about making people angry, ~especially~ people who are prone to spastic shit-fests of uncontrollable rage (like left-wing nutjobs). The article as it stands now is like a direct nail to the fucking head to every last gun-control nut on the planet, hence, it's directly fueling DRAMA! Your blatant attempts at article vandalism are solid proof of that fact.

And:

You mean make the sections smaller because you're a Ritalin deficient tweenage muppet fuck who equates "big/long" with "unfunny" and "Wikipedia/learning/education". I get that, I do, but you're still wrong. I worded those sections *VERY* carefully and they're specifically designed using high level psychology and social engineering forms in order to maximize emotional infliction and butthurt. And I ~know~ just how effective they are because several of those sections are "cut and paste" material I've used before on various gun control groups/forums, each time/rendition caused an ever increasing cascade of buttrage and drama, several times inciting threads cascading into the HUNDREDS of replies.

Do you want me to post screen caps of the relevant threads? I'm sure I've got them archived. And while we're discussing this article, why don't we cover all the blatantly SHIT grammar littered throughout it. Most of the article reads like it was written by a spastic 1st grader. It should also be noted that ED is not entirely about "funny", ED ~is~ like Wikipedia in that our job is to DOCUMENT SHIT, specifically anything pertaining to DRAMAZ! Most of the initial edits I added (before they were edited) were largely about providing that DOCUMENTATION...and yes, yes it ~is~ like Wikipedia to an extent in that particular respect. The DIFFERENCE is that we document material that Wikipedia CAN'T or WON'T, usually ~because~ of it's highly volatile and drama inducing nature. If you tried adding my initial edits to Wikipedia it would create a literal epic fucking shit storm and they would be burned off the server completely within an hour, likely followed by numerous death threats. Largely because they're specifically designed for trolling purposes, documenting and inciting lulz/drama. In this case targeting the greater group and the one most prone to kookplosions (radical left-wing gun control nuts). --Onideus 03:33, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Too bad. For a moment I thought we were getting somewhere. 04:08, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Personal input

I feel that every recent addition made -- with the exception of the The Effective End Of Gun Control subsection -- is both unfunny and a painful ramble. It appears to be less of a report and more of a rant by some guy frustrated about things not going his way. Since it is Zaiger's wish that we only change/edit things we don't like (rather than deleting it), I propose we change the entirety of that section by replacing it with a single blank character. That's not deleting. Just a heavy edit. ~ Dbaggins aka Dildo B. 03:40, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Translation: He's incredibly pissed off and buttmad because he initially complained about the sections being "tl;dr", which I then responded with a quip about his particular Ritalin deficiency and lack of intelligence...he then got all enraged and at that point attempted to Delete fucking everything. Since he's already openly admitted that he DID NOT READ the sections in question, his "opinion" (or lack thereof) is pretty well moot. --Onideus 03:47, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Forgot to mention, the fact that he hasn't even read it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS given that there are now technically TWO different versions (my initial and Satanist's rewrite). His lack of intelligence is also PAINFULLY OBVIOUS given that he wants to strip off ALL the text and replace it with it with nothing (apparently that's the extent of what his limited brain capacity can handle). Anything over a few words and it's a "rant" to his level of perception. My guess is that he's either still in high school or a high school dropout (which would explain why doesn't like reading). Also easily noted by the fact that he has no problem with the ~rest~ of the article, even though it pretty well reads like a retard ate a bowl of alphabet soup and shit all over the page in a spastic fury. --Onideus 04:02, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

LOL. He also accused me of taking Ritalin. 04:05, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Onideus, my opinion is based how I felt about the article (Which I have read). Who are you even talking about and how does this have anything to do with me? You're completely derailing what I'm saying and pointing this discussion in completely random directions. ~ Dbaggins aka Dildo B. 04:07, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Since you're so completely fucking stupid that you can't even remember what you, yourself, wrote, I'll include it here in handy image form:

Hurr de durr! --Onideus 04:14, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Have a look at his article and do that Google search. Keep that in mind at all times. He thrives on hatred, literally. Anyways, my attempt at getting somewhere with this has been unsuccessful so moving along. 04:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

And, as predicted, Schnookums breaks down and attempts to use the discussion to try and attack me...but is anyone really surprised? Yeah...probably not so much (considering he's a Hatter Addict and all). --Onideus 04:25, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Yeah. I am really sorry for calling you names the other day. 04:27, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Also, as you say, you've only provided an OPINION, you have not provided ANY facts, arguments or relevant, coherent, sensible reasons for why the sections should be removed (other than they're "tl:dr"). Saying that you think something is a "rant" is a completely subjective OPINION, one which holds zero relevance. --Onideus 04:25, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Remember, this man cannot be reasoned with. 04:27, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Says the buttmad Hatter Addict who has ~still~ not actually provided any reasoning ~at all~ for why the sections should be removed (other than he's wearing a tin foil diaper and thinks I'm a member of NAMBLA). I guess when you have NOTHING, Poisoning The Well fallacies are really the only means you have to fall back on. --Onideus 04:35, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Schnookums|Schnookums]] likes this. 04:37, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

ED User Dbaggins EXPOSED!!!

LOL, looks like my theory was correct! Check this out:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Looks like we've managed to rack up ONE butthurt left-wing nut job already with this article! :D

Here's a link to the whole thread: http://www.fark.com/comments/7531252/

--Onideus 05:16, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Remember, Onideus is a 40 year old who wears diapers and is a baby fur. He is also a member of NAMBLA, allegedly. Someone hacked their site to slander him. 05:20, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

LOL, I think Schnookums might be a gun control nut as well (which is why he keeps trying to defend this guy, even ~after~ he just got exposed!)

--Onideus 05:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Schnookums|Schnookums]] likes this. 05:24, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Yep, because I'm the first person to ever use this incredibly witty and clever name.

http://happicuppa.tumblr.com/

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/DildoBagginsScreenshots

https://plus.google.com/117104029827915914920/posts

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dildo-Baggins/156243687770323

Have fun chasing wild geese Onideus. I'd warn you not to shit yourself out of excitement, but it sounds to me like your adult pampers and the NAMBLA has you covered. I've got editing and article creation I need to get back to ~ Dbaggins aka Dildo B. 05:26, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

If you focused the amount of time and energy you waste making arguments like this into improving the wiki, we'd thrive. ~Oblique 05:31, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Technically ~this~ is what the site is all about...DRAMAZ! I mean, here we have a GUN CONTROL NUT whose invaded ED and is attempting to WIPE OUT ENTIRE SECTIONS OF THE ARTICLE! This is just...freakin AWESOME dramaz! :D

LOL, and now he's trying to DENY it's him! Sorry kiddo, but those examples you posted are half-assed ones (although some might very well be you). In this particular case it's an EXACT MATCH, with TWO forms of the name.

I'll tell you what I'm going to do though...if you don't admit that you're the same user...then I'm going to post the DOX of that person from the FARK board (including their social security number) and I'll post them on Doxbin. If it's true that you're *NOT* that user, then you shouldn't have any problems at all with me doing so...if you ~are~ that user...well, sucks to be you! :D

If you ~admit~ that it was you though, then I'll refrain from posting any DOX at all. Ball's in your court! ^__^

--Onideus 05:34, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Dbaggins|Dbaggins]] likes this. aka Dildo B. 05:36, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

W00T! Okay, he's giving his thumbs up, so no crying/screaming/LOLsuit threats when I do. Now let's see, how best to target this...I think I'll poke around for any available EXIF data...there's a YouTube account with the name, I might be able to get some goods from there. I know he's in Seattle, Washington, so that certainly narrows it down. Oh, I guess first and foremost I should check to see if Fark (or any of those other sites/links) has ever been hacked. If they have and if the data has been publicly exposed then I can probably get some relevant usernames and passwords (which I can then test out on sites that would likely have ~all~ of his personal information.) Actually, I should just check *ALL* the publicly available haxored usernames/password combos I can find. Because it's very likely that he uses "Dbaggins" as his username on a multitude of sites...so if any of those sites has ever been hacked and so forth, then I just need to run a general search for the username and see if any passwords come out. Hee, this should be fun, I haven't had a good DOX "hunt" in awhile (and normally you don't get a person's direct permission to do it). --Onideus 06:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Mmmm, by the by, it should also be noted that every instance of that fairly unique username so far has only elicited results from a ~very~ strong left-wing perspective. ASSuming that they're different people you would ~expect~ to see some VARIETY in their perspectives/points of view...but not only do they share the SAME base perspectives they also share the SAME general writing/typing style and mannerisms, further solidifying the proof that our little gun nut did indeed try and purposefully vandalize the article...well, that and obviously his completely retarded "reasoning" (he says he wants it deleted because he thinks other users will find it "too long to read"). *rolls eyes*

Seriously, you would think a left-wing nut job could come up with a ~slightly~ more sane/less incomprehensible form of defense. --Onideus 06:24, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Schnookums|Schnookums]] likes this. 06:55, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

For those who didn't read ED:101 ...

Encyclopedia Dramatica vs. Wikipedia. 11:46, 9 June 2013 (EDT)