[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225288]but not as effectively as if they had guns
Is it hard to understand that it's mad easier to kill large amounts of people with a gun than with wicked karate kicks, in the same way that you can kill more people with a bomb than with a gun?[/QUOTE]
You realize how easy it is for someone to just make a gun right?
Just look up the fucking Khyber Pass. That entire culture is built around illegally manufacturing firearms, and they do it with ease.
Just like how banning heroin didn't keep it out of the hands of people who wanted it, banning firearms of any sort will not stop anyone from getting their hands on them, except for people who don't want to break the law. If you're going to harm someone, then you don't care about breaking the law.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39225305]bush wasn't impeached after he dragged the US to iraq on false pretentions, you all really believe that obama will be impeached for doing something similiar to what clinton did with his assault weapon ban on 1999?[/QUOTE]
AWB was enacted in 1994, and if I remember from what Bill said, the Democrats lost a great deal of ground/support in the house/senate thanks to it being passed.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225317]You realize how easy it is for someone to just make a gun right?
Just look up the fucking Khyber Pass. That entire culture is built around illegally manufacturing firearms, and they do it with ease.[/QUOTE]
youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
Civilians cannot own Assault Rifles (to an extent.)
What's depressing is that I can bet SigmaLambda comes out of all these FP gun arguments thinking he's the victor.
I'm abandoning the thread for now, this New York shit is beyond ridiculous and I got to read about it
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-epZcIxwneVw/T_cnc714CrI/AAAAAAAAApc/ewdOU1DveMc/s1600/Australian+gun.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/tradie-charged-over-homemade-guns-for-gang/4111600]ABC Australia[/url]
Honestly... I would prefer the gangs capping each other with semi-autos or revolvers over them blasting at each other with automatics.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
You still haven't proposed a way to remove all 270,000,000 registered firearms from circulation in the US. Nor manage to find a way to get rid of the X number of [I]unregistered[/I] firearms, of which there is likely an incredible volume.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225309]it's almost as if individual examples don't mean anything and instead we should legislate based on ideals instead?
I have not heard a good reason why an object whose DESIGN AND FUNCTION is to increase the lethality of a deadly weapon should be legal when the only counterargument is "i like to feel like a badass on the range"[/QUOTE]
Whose wanting to legislating anything based on ideals? You wanted to argue that magazine capacity makes a firearm more deadly, I'm trying to refute that by citing examples where limited magazine capacity did not affect the outcome.
No one's even said anything about wanting to feel badass or even mentioned firing ranges.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225342]What's depressing is that I can bet SigmaLambda comes out of all these FP gun arguments thinking he's the victor.
I'm abandoning the thread for now, this New York shit is beyond ridiculous and I got to read about it[/QUOTE]
these types of posts are the most annoying because they feel like half-assed jabs at people that only say something with no actual reasoning behind it
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39225351]You still haven't proposed a way to remove all 270,000,000 registered firearms from circulation in the US. Nor manage to find a way to get rid of the X number of [I]unregistered[/I] firearms, of which there is likely an incredible volume.[/QUOTE]
what made you draw the conclusion that he wants the [I]absolute[/I] ban of firearms
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225292]correction: you don't care enough to do anything besides write angry letters[/QUOTE]
And what else can he do? Almost nobody outside of California cares about Oakland specifically enough to either a) try to organize a public protest about it in their locale or b) fly there to make change directly through involvement in the community there. This means that on the topic of Oakland, essentially all one can do if they're not there is write angry letters.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225317]
Just like how banning heroin didn't keep it out of the hands of people who wanted it, banning firearms of any sort will not stop anyone from getting their hands on them, except for people who don't want to break the law. If you're going to harm someone, then you don't care about breaking the law.[/QUOTE]
Well then I guess we just shouldn't ban anything ever
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
Last I checked Great Britain helped to win the largest war in Human history with a submachine gun that was often built by school children out of lengths of tubing, a couple springs and a few chunks of steel.
Guns are not complicated nor are they hard to make effective.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39225351]You still haven't proposed a way to remove all 270,000,000 registered firearms from circulation in the US. Nor manage to find a way to get rid of the X number of [I]unregistered[/I] firearms, of which there is likely an incredible volume.[/QUOTE]
jesus fucking christ how the hell do you people always think that anyone who argues in favor of any sort of gun control wants to ban all the guns?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225368]jesus fucking christ how the hell do you people always think that anyone who argues in favor of any sort of gun control wants to ban all the guns?[/QUOTE]
Paranoia will do that.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225362]Well then I guess we just shouldn't ban anything ever[/QUOTE]
Prohibition does not work.
It did not work with alcohol, it did not work with any other drug, it will not work with guns.
If someone wants something badly enough, they will do anything in their power to get it.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39225359]And what else can he do? Almost nobody outside of California cares about Oakland specifically enough to either a) try to organize a public protest about it in their locale or b) fly there to make change directly through involvement in the community there. This means that on the topic of Oakland, essentially all one can do if they're not there is write angry letters.[/QUOTE]
it's better to contribute something instead of doing diddley-squat
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225288]but not as effectively as if they had guns
Is it hard to understand that it's mad easier to kill large amounts of people with a gun than with wicked karate kicks, in the same way that you can kill more people with a bomb than with a gun?[/QUOTE]
Because the gun ban you're suggesting wouldn't take away criminals guns...
I don't know where you got the idea it would.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225309]it's almost as if individual examples don't mean anything and instead we should legislate based on ideals instead?
I have not heard a good reason why an object whose DESIGN AND FUNCTION is to increase the lethality of a deadly weapon should be legal when the only counterargument is "i like to feel like a badass on the range"[/QUOTE]
Because it is innocent until proven guilty, and I have not committed a crime with one.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225365]Last I checked Great Britain helped to win the largest war in Human history with a submachine gun that was often built by school children out of lengths of tubing, a couple springs and a few chunks of steel.
Guns are not complicated nor are they hard to make effective.[/QUOTE]
the existence of illicitly produced alternatives isn't an argument for the legality of professionally produced items of the same type
The fact that you can make a pipe bomb in your basement isn't an argument in favor of being allowed to buy factory made bombs
People still got alcohol during prohibition. Marijuana is illegal and people still can get it. Think this will make any difference if there is a ban? Criminals do NOT follow laws, and they can and will find ways to harm people.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225368]jesus fucking christ how the hell do you people always think that anyone who argues in favor of any sort of gun control wants to ban all the guns?[/QUOTE]
Okay then, how will you manage to get the tens of millions of "assault weapons" then? It is still an absolutely impossible goal.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
A bullet is a bullet. The gun doesn't make it less effective.
If the effectiveness you're talking about is raw fire rate; then just maybe you have a point. Except that there have been numerous examples (maybe not in the states, per se) of home-made automatic weapons with fully functional magazines. It's not like a military scenario where accuracy is at a premium, it just has to shoot. :v:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225368]jesus fucking christ how the hell do you people always think that anyone who argues in favor of any sort of gun control wants to ban all the guns?[/QUOTE]
but a high cap magazine ban, an assault weapon ban, a semi automatic rifle or handgun ban, it doesn't do much to take any of those weapons out of the hands of criminals. What are you suggesting a ban for? What good will it have?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225372]Prohibition does not work.[/QUOTE]
Ok...what exactly did that have to do with anything? I'm just saying your logic says that we shouldn't ban anything ever because if someone wants it they'll get it. Which isn't true because there are plenty of people who would like to try things but don't simply because its illegal. The war on drugs is a good example because its another pointless thing the Repubs have a boner about
And yes alcohol because legal again but it was regulated...and then it was re-regulated when people were still dying due to it. Unlike what we've done with guns
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225384]the existence of illicitly produced alternatives isn't an argument for the legality of professionally produced items of the same type
The fact that you can make a pipe bomb in your basement isn't an argument in favor of being allowed to buy factory made bombs[/QUOTE]
But what is this gun ban doing if it's not taking their guns away
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225357]what made you draw the conclusion that he wants the [I]absolute[/I] ban of firearms[/QUOTE]
Generally the numerous posts he makes that seem to outline theoretical principles of a seemingly gun-free society.
[quote]but not as effectively as if they had guns
Is it hard to understand that it's mad easier to kill large amounts of people with a gun than with wicked karate kicks, in the same way that you can kill more people with a bomb than with a gun? [/quote]
Maybe I'm just reading into it too much but most of his arguments seem to imply that he's referring to a fictional society that has absolutely no legal or illegal access to guns.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225395]Ok...what exactly did that have to do with anything? I'm just saying your logic says that we shouldn't ban anything ever because if someone wants it they'll get it. Which isn't true because there are plenty of people who would like to try things but don't simply because its illegal. The war on drugs is a good example because its another pointless thing the Repubs have a boner about[/QUOTE]
I think the point soared over your head.
Banning guns is very similar to banning drugs. We can easily see, as you pointed out, a pointless thing not worth pursuing any further.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225327]youre not honestly going to argue that a basement pipe rifle is as effective as a professionally produced assault rifle[/QUOTE]
uh any assault rifle made after 1986 cannot be owned by a private citizen, what are you talking about?
I'll assume you mean an assault weapon, in which case I counter the top 3 deadliest shooting sprees in US history were committed with either: rifles, handguns, or shotguns. No assault weapons were used.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39225382]Because it is innocent until proven guilty, and I have not committed a crime with one.[/QUOTE]
i don't think that the ability to own a tool whose only designed purpose is to kill people very rapidly and in large numbers is a natural right. sorry bro.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39225409]I think the point soared over your head.
Banning guns is very similar to banning drugs. We can easily see, as you pointed out, a pointless thing not worth pursuing any further.[/QUOTE]
Then if we aren't gonna ban/regulate more or guns/clips/whatever lets save ourselves some money (yet another thing repubs have a boner about) and unban drugs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
