• Obama to ban assault weapons.
    1,785 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bobie;38880935]the best form of self defense is a high standard of living, not a firearm.[/QUOTE] What the fuck does that even mean. Guess what he means is if your rich build a fucking castle with a moat around it to protect yourself. If your poor then you can just go get fucked.
[QUOTE=Bobie;38880935]the best form of self defense is a high standard of living, not a firearm.[/QUOTE] That isn't how capitalism works, there will always be criminals and gangs.
[QUOTE=Bobie;38880935]the best form of self defense is a high standard of living, not a firearm.[/QUOTE] The way I live will not affect how a robber lives. I don't necessarily enjoy demonizing people, but if they're going to break into my house with a weapon, I'm not going to rely on my high standard of living to help me.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38880872]A car requires knowing how instruments work and a basic knowledge of how to drive. A gun is literally pulling a trigger and having it loaded.[/QUOTE] Believe me, even trying to load a gun without knowing [I]how[/I] will result in some serious amount of "oh god what the fuck am I doing, did my hands get replaced by bananas or something", and aiming is another planet entirely. Heck, it took me a couple hours of practice just to remove my AK's magazine without the release lever trying to murder my finger, and insert a new one without fumbling. And don't get me started on inserting cartridges into the magazine, much "why the fuck won't it enter, god dammit" was had.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38880827]An assault weapon is described as having TWO OR MORE of the following for rifles: [quote] Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).[/quote] [/QUOTE] Uh oh, looks like my Saiga is an assault rifle! I'm such a rebel! Lock me up! :v:
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38880827] Note how it says [h2]Two or more[/h2], so if you happen to have a bayonet on your rifle, you're fine as long as you don't have a folding stock too.[/QUOTE] Actually no you're not because you left out detachable mags as a feature 90% of "assault weapons" use up their two features with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine
-snippo, automerge is not in town today-
If people were really that bothered about self defence then they oughta get off their arses and take classes.
Banning cannot be the right solution. Harder rules for un-stable people would be the proper answer but education costs. The question is, does it really cost more than banning? Look at Norway, Breivik managed to get rifles that aren't available for anyone but the military.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;38880697]There's always laser tag if you want to run around with guns.[/QUOTE] Hey, just came to tell you that we're banning modern computers due to rampant piracy. Want to play on a computer? Get an IBM DOS.
Guns don't need to be banned completely, but a lot more regulated. It won't "solve all of our problems" obviously, but it's undoubtedly a factor - one of many - which just like all other shouldn't be ignored.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38880951]So how about those who don't live in high-standards, or can't afford it? Not everyone in America is rich, you know.[/QUOTE] I think reducing income inequalities and implementing things like a national health service and subsidizing post-secondary education would work better.
[QUOTE=Bobie;38880935]the best form of self defense is a high standard of living, not a firearm.[/QUOTE] And we don't have class separation, so it's not a foreign concept to be forced to deal with those who are desperate and without such a high standard of living.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38880951]So how about those who don't live in high-standards, or can't afford it? Not everyone in America is rich, you know.[/QUOTE] are you taking the piss [QUOTE=MR-X;38880955]What the fuck does that even mean. Guess what he means is if your rich build a fucking castle with a moat around it to protect yourself. If your poor then you can just go get fucked.[/QUOTE] ok this is it im done im out of here
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38880966]Actually no you're not because you left out detachable mags as a feature 90% of "assault weapons" use up their two features with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine[/QUOTE] well shit i guess I did miss that. :v: either way i mean you do get some decent leeway with this ban, they give you a chance at least
[QUOTE=laserguided;38880959]That isn't how capitalism works, there will always be criminals and gangs.[/QUOTE] Except some governments have policies which practically eliminate criminal activity and/or gangs on a large scale.
[QUOTE=slamex;38880877]It's designed for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. With that logic why would the local population need them then?[/QUOTE] The 'Need' argument was stated before, and it will be again. As far as an answer goes, I don't need a semi-automatic M-14 or an AK, I could do just as good with a bolt action Remington, However, the capability for me to put more rounds on target until the entity that threatens my well-being is neutralized is what makes me want one. In a situation where my life is at risk I'm not going to fuck around, I'm going to empty my magazine until I'm safe and thats why i want a semi automatic. Maybe that's not a concern for someone who lives in a gated community with security officers and cameras, but for me it is.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38881001]And we don't have class separation, so it's not a foreign concept to be forced to deal with those who are desperate and without such a high standard of living.[/QUOTE] uh classes exist in most societies I can think of
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38880827]An assault weapon is described as having TWO OR MORE of the following for rifles: Pistols: Shotguns: Note how it says [h2]Two or more[/h2], so if you happen to have a bayonet on your rifle, you're fine as long as you don't have a folding stock too.[/QUOTE] Most of those are so fucking dumb. Yes, because having a pistol grip instantly makes a gun 500% more deadly. It's like whoever wrote this shit played way to many video games. I mean, when was the last time bayonet's were used while attached to gun in combat?
People that want weapons will find them. Banning guns will do nothing. Prohibition does not work. If you try to ban something the majority of people want, they will find it someway somehow.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38880993]I think reducing income inequalities and implementing things like a national health service and subsidizing post-secondary education would work better.[/QUOTE] It's different for the States and it's more complicated than that. The UK is the size of Florida, and frankly, we have a lot more population and landspace, so reform is a really fucking complicated issue.
Something I've noticed is that people compare the US to other countries a lot of the time as far as their gun control goes. That is a flawed example for one simple fact: The US is not a European country. From what I understand, the majority of Europeans are from one cultural group within their own country. The US is full of hundreds of different cultures from around the world. What works in European countries won't necessarily work in ours, and the previous AWB is evidence of that. The problem here is not guns, but our society. People used to be able to settle things without the need for violence, but people here have steadily become more violent. You can see it in the high schools! When I was a senior in high school, the fights among freshmen drastically increased from the previous years!
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881025]uh classes exist in most societies I can think of[/QUOTE] I never said they didn't? I must have worded that wrong. I meant that we don't have segregation based on class.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38881045]Something I've noticed is that people compare the US to other countries a lot of the time as far as their gun control goes. That is a flawed example for one simple fact: The US is not a European country. From what I understand, the majority of Europeans are from one cultural group within their own country. The US is full of hundreds of different cultures from around the world. What works in European countries won't necessarily work in ours, and the previous AWB is evidence of that. The problem here is not guns, but our society. People used to be able to settle things without the need for violence, but people here have steadily become more violent. You can see it in the high schools! When I was a senior in high school, the fights among freshmen drastically increased from the previous years![/QUOTE] if the problem is rooted in education, then improve the education system it's not that difficult to make the connection
[QUOTE=DaMastez;38881026]Most of those are so fucking dumb. Yes, because having a pistol grip instantly makes a gun 500% more deadly. It's like whoever wrote this shit played way to many video games. I mean, when was the last time bayonet's were used while attached to gun in combat?[/QUOTE] It's arguably a more efficient way to hold a gun, I know that I find pistols substantially more comfortable than a straight stock weapon.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38881013]well shit i guess I did miss that. :v: either way i mean you do get some decent leeway with this ban, they give you a chance at least[/QUOTE] the ban is dumb and pointless though, literally NONE of those features have any sort of effect on someone ability to commit mass murder I mean I really dont think any more damage would have been done if the shooters rifle had a fucking barrel shroud on it
Welp, looks like I'll be using my Christmas money to buy some cool looking guns before it's too late.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;38881026] I mean, when was the last time bayonet's were used while attached to gun in combat?[/QUOTE] Afghanistan, Falklands
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38879574]This is retarded. We don't need weapon bans. We need weapon education.[/QUOTE] I don't think a lack of weapon education is what caused shootings.
[QUOTE=slamex;38880947]I'm going out on a limb here and saying you've never shot a bow and arrow.[/QUOTE] They're the precursor to firearms. A ranged weapon designed to kill. This is the same logic you applied to guns, so I guess a local populace doesn't need them and it would be justified to ban bows and arrows?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.