Fox News: Guns = Freedom and Australians have no Freedom. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48844632]Wow okay, so almost 10,000 people have died so far this year, so let's have a debate about banning guns for over 300 million people. If we spent half the time talking about heart disease and cancer as we did about some bullshit unnecessary gun control a lot less people would be dead.[/QUOTE] In all fairness heart disease is something most people in America bring on themselves and are responsible for, and cancer is genetic or also brought on by themselves. Guns are a different category because they can act upon you, without your involvement. Someone can shoot you, no one is going to give you cancer or heart disease. Someone can infringe on your life with a gun, nobody can infringe upon you with cancer. Which is exactly why there's a massively public discussion about guns. There were also public discussions about the flu, or swine flu, or vaccines, or ebola- y'know, other things that can infringe on your life (or are perceived to). If everybody who was a victim of gun violence were just killing themselves, then we wouldn't have this conversation either. But that's not the case. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=beanhead;48844528] People buy fast cars, and the majority of the responsible ones take to the right place to use them, race tracks.[/QUOTE] You can't drive a race car on the road, though, which is why there are regulations on cars- y'know, speed limits and such. But talk about limitations on fire rate or magazine size to gun owners well shucks that's insane!

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844294']Devil's advocate here, but that's what they're for. Either killing people or killing animals, really. Either way, killing.[/QUOTE] Not really. People collect guns for all kinds of purposes. Some people collect them for sports (and not [I]that[/I] sport) or just like shooting guns. I'm sure I can go out and buy something awesome like a functioning historical gun, something like a musket, but I doubt the people making that musket were doing it so people could kill each other with old timey muskets still. Does Albion, a sword maker who makes as I understand it fully functional swords, intend for me to go medieval on a fucker? No. And it wouldn't matter anyway, the designer's intent does not control or matter over the user's intent. This is why blow dart guns are sold the vast majority of the time as a souvenir and used more for a sport than for drive by blowings and mass blowings. Can you kill someone with a blow gun? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Are blow guns for killing? Not anymore. They've been pretty much entirely repurposed. And if you do have a problem with guns being for 'killing animals' then I'm assuming you would also want all tools used to kill animals banned. Something used to kill a cow is going to be used way more than a regular gun, so why should guns get the focus on that front? Skallagrim, who for the record is a pacifist who has a large collection of guns (which I guess must be a contradiction since if he didn't intend to kill someone he obviously wouldn't have it?), has so many good videos about this kind of shit but if I had to post just one, I'd say this is my favorite [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyy1ZaddXM&index=39&list=PL10FBD272FF468E8E[/media]

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48844632]Wow okay, so almost 10,000 people have died so far this year, so let's have a debate about banning guns for over 300 million people. If we spent half the time talking about heart disease and cancer as we did about some bullshit unnecessary gun control a lot less people would be dead.[/QUOTE] Guess what: we already do. Public health campaigns already exist to encourage people to exercise and eat healthily. Even if we weren't doing anything about said diseases, this is the laziest argument you could bring to the table; just because something "only" causes a small percentage of deaths annually doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Furthermore, deaths aren't the only thing that matters, getting shot sucks pretty hard even if you don't die.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48842333]Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?[/QUOTE] If not explicitly to kill people, a gun has one purpose and one purpose only: To send a slug of metal (or perhaps multiple objects in the case of shot) as fast as it can into a (usually living) target and putting a big/not-so-big/shit ton of holes in it. That's literally all it's designed to do. It's not designed to send a nail into concrete like a Ram-set is, nor is it intended to remove stains, a gun's only purpose is to kill something. Honestly, considering the fact that dumb shit concerning guns happens all the time in this country (and most of it the result of absolutely stupid bullshit like accidental discharge), the "we need more guns" argument falls just barely short of pants-on-head retarded, and the illusion that more guns will make people safe is just as idealist as the notion that gun-control people have, in that wishing really, really hard will make all the bad guns go away and nobody will ever have one again.

The objective truth is that firearms make it VERY easy to take someone's life; not much thought has to go behind pulling a trigger to end someone. Why is it such a bad thing to do what we can do to make sure the person with their finger on the trigger isnt a criminal or mentally sound? Like the argument is always all or nothing. "Well criminals will find a way to get guns anyways!" Well no shit but can't we make it more difficult for them to acquire it? Where did the Oregon shooters cone from? They were legally purchased. Where did the Sands hook shooters guns come from etc etc

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48844658][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole[/url][/QUOTE] That doesn't happen... like it's highly fucking illegal to sell an automatic to anyone without the proper things. That's not even part of the gun show loophole bs. Your point is not valid at all.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48844724]Not really. People collect guns for all kinds of purposes. Some people collect them for sports (and not [I]that[/I] sport) or just like shooting guns. I'm sure I can go out and buy something awesome like a functioning historical gun, something like a musket, but I doubt the people making that musket were doing it so people could kill each other with old timey muskets still. Does Albion, a sword maker who makes as I understand it fully functional swords, intend for me to go medieval on a fucker? No. And it wouldn't matter anyway, the designer's intent does not control or matter over the user's intent. This is why blow dart guns are sold the vast majority of the time as a souvenir and used more for a sport than for drive by blowings and mass blowings. Can you kill someone with a blow gun? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Are blow guns for killing? Not anymore. They've been pretty much entirely repurposed. And if you do have a problem with guns being for 'killing animals' then I'm assuming you would also want all tools used to kill animals banned. Something used to kill a cow is going to be used way more than a regular gun, so why should guns get the focus on that front? Skallagrim has so many good videos about this kind of shit but if I had to post just one, I'd say this is my favorite [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyy1ZaddXM&index=39&list=PL10FBD272FF468E8E[/media][/QUOTE] Still gonna make the argument here that the primary function of guns is still to be effective killing machines, to be weapons. That is the primary function. Old and outdated guns are one thing, because they are relatively inefficient at that. However, collecting and sports shooting are secondary markets and secondary purposes- the weapons were not made or designed for the sake of sports shooting or collection, they were made for the sake of being weapons. This could be applicable to swords, but they're archaic and inefficient. It's one thing to produce something that's useless, functionally inefficient, or relatively without impact, but it's another thing to produce something capable, effective, and potentially dangerous relative to any other option. But let's assume that you're right. Guns aren't for killing people, or the primary function as a lethal weapon is no longer the case. Then limit the weapons within reason for those purposes. Limit magazine size, concealed carry permits, fire rates, all around effectiveness. They don't have to be functional to be collected. They don't have to be functionally capable of killing to be in sport. If this is what most people want guns for, then fine, limit them to bolt action rifles and low-capability semi-autos. There's no excuse. Either their primary function is to be lethal and effective at it, or it's not and therefore there's no reason not to place reasonable limitations on them.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48844745]If not explicitly to kill people, a gun has one purpose and one purpose only: To send a slug of metal (or perhaps multiple objects in the case of shot) as fast as it can into a (usually living) target and putting a big/not-so-big/shit ton of holes in it. That's literally all it's designed to do. It's not designed to send a nail into concrete like a Ram-set is, nor is it intended to remove stains, a gun's only purpose is to kill something. Honestly, considering the fact that dumb shit concerning guns happens all the time in this country (and most of it the result of absolutely stupid bullshit like accidental discharge), the "we need more guns" argument falls just barely short of pants-on-head retarded, and the illusion that more guns will make people safe is just as idealist as the notion that gun-control people have, in that wishing really, really hard will make all the bad guns go away and nobody will ever have one again.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't see why this is a problem. Guns are far from the only thing that might be designed 'wholly to kill people', and they're far from the only thing designed to kill people that are used for several purposes that have nothing to do with killing people. When you talk about the first guns, I doubt they were used for much other than killing people. You could define it as this; a gun's only purpose is [I]not[/I] to kill something. A gun's basic purpose is to fire a projectile and penetrate whatever it's fired at. What that projectile is fired at is entirely up to the user, naturally often used for killing for military, hunting, or murderous purposes, but also often times not. In fact, I'd wager that the use of it for sports and target practice and general [I]fun[/I] is far more common than the use of it for murder. And then look at starting pistols. Starting pistols have nothing to do with killing people, hell, starting pistols aren't even loaded with live ammunition. But it's still a gun so it has to be banned, right? Because it's designed to kill? But if we're going to declare that what it's designed to do is all that matters and the only valid belief on what it's designed to do is yours, then why aren't you campaigning to get rid of bow and arrows? Ban bows, ban swords. Why not?

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48844805]The objective truth is that firearms make it VERY easy to take someone's life; not much thought has to go behind pulling a trigger to end someone. Why is it such a bad thing to do what we can do to make sure the person with their finger on the trigger isnt a criminal or mentally sound? Like the argument is always all or nothing. "Well criminals will find a way to get guns anyways!" Well no shit but can't we make it more difficult for them to acquire it? Where did the Oregon shooters cone from? They were legally purchased. Where did the Sands hook shooters guns come from etc etc[/QUOTE] Yeah. The "Well criminals will find a way to get guns anyways!" argument makes no sense. Other countries that regulate guns more seem to be doing well with keeping the guns out of the mentally ill, homicidal and criminal. They do have less violent crime.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48844820] But if we're going to declare that what it's designed to do is all that matters and the only valid belief on what it's designed to do is yours, then why aren't you campaigning to get rid of bow and arrows? Ban bows, ban swords. Why not?[/QUOTE] Then don't design it to do that, design it to do the other things. The fact that they have the capability at all is the problem. If everyone used guns to target shoot and hunt, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the fact is that they don't. 10,000 people are dead by guns this year. But nah your right to collect them and do sports with them supersedes the safety risk and ease of imposing death and serious injury on someone else. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844865']Then don't design it to do that, design it to do the other things. The fact that they have the capability at all is the problem. If everyone used guns to target shoot and hunt, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the fact is that they don't. 10,000 people are dead by guns this year. But nah your right to collect them and do sports with them supersedes the safety risk and ease of imposing death and serious injury on someone else. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Cars have the capability to kill, and kill more than guns do.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48844820]I honestly don't see why this is a problem. Guns are far from the only thing that might be designed 'wholly to kill people', and they're far from the only thing designed to kill people that are used for several purposes that have nothing to do with killing people. When you talk about the first guns, I doubt they were used for much other than killing people. You could define it as this; a gun's only purpose is [I]not[/I] to kill something. A gun's basic purpose is to fire a projectile and penetrate whatever it's fired at. What that projectile is fired at is entirely up to the user, naturally often used for killing for military, hunting, or murderous purposes, but also often times not. In fact, I'd wager that the use of it for sports and target practice and general [I]fun[/I] is far more common than the use of it for murder. And then look at starting pistols. Starting pistols have nothing to do with killing people, hell, starting pistols aren't even loaded with live ammunition. But it's still a gun so it has to be banned, right? Because it's designed to kill? But if we're going to declare that what it's designed to do is all that matters and the only valid belief on what it's designed to do is yours, then why aren't you campaigning to get rid of bow and arrows? Ban bows, ban swords. Why not?[/QUOTE] No, they're obviously not the only weapon designed to kill people. But they are unique in that they are very capable of inflicting a lot of harm to many people in a short amount of time, yet still so freely available to all, to the extent that ownership of firearms is viewed as a right. No other weapon comes close to being as efficient as a gun when it comes to killing or injuring others.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844815']Still gonna make the argument here that the primary function of guns is still to be effective killing machines, to be weapons. That is the primary function. Old and outdated guns are one thing, because they are relatively inefficient at that. However, collecting and sports shooting are secondary markets and secondary purposes- the weapons were not made or designed for the sake of sports shooting or collection, they were made for the sake of being weapons. This could be applicable to swords, but they're archaic and inefficient. It's one thing to produce something that's useless, functionally inefficient, or relatively without impact, but it's another thing to produce something capable, effective, and potentially dangerous relative to any other option. But let's assume that you're right. Guns aren't for killing people, or the primary function as a lethal weapon is no longer the case. Then limit the weapons within reason for those purposes. Limit magazine size, concealed carry permits, fire rates, all around effectiveness. They don't have to be functional to be collected. They don't have to be functionally capable of killing to be in sport. If this is what most people want guns for, then fine, limit them to bolt action rifles and low-capability semi-autos. There's no excuse. Either their primary function is to be lethal and effective at it, or it's not and therefore there's no reason not to place reasonable limitations on them.[/QUOTE] But these weapons are fully dangerous. I can, in fact, kill someone with a Lee Enfield just as much as I can, or a sword. In fact I wager anyone could walk on to a school campus and kill several people with a sword or an axe. And I don't see the purpose of 'reasonable limitations' when those limitations don't really do anything to stop them from being lethal objects. Limit magazine size? Buy more magazines. Fire rates? You only need one bullet to kill a person. And that's not even talking about the fact that you throw self defense right out the door with that, and the idea that if the government were to turn tyrannical the only defense people would have is a bolt action rifle.

I wish that starting threads like these, that are by nature a bait for starting shit flinging by retards, was a bannable offence.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;48844894]I wish that starting threads like these, that are by nature a bait for starting shit flinging by retards, was a bannable offence.[/QUOTE] Most of the posts in here have been pretty civilised so far, until you came and started complaining about people being "retards" and "shit flinging".

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48844881]Cars have the capability to kill, and kill more than guns do.[/QUOTE] Are cars' primary function to kill? Is there a reasonable way to limit car deaths without causing public harm? Are cars particularly effective at intentionally killing people? Hint: No No Not really, and further there are continuing efforts by regulators and companies to limit that further. Safety is a selling feature of vehicles. Lethality is a selling feature of guns.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48844831]Yeah. The "Well criminals will find a way to get guns anyways!" argument makes no sense. Other countries that regulate guns more seem to be doing well with keeping the guns out of the mentally ill, homicidal and criminal. They do have less violent crime.[/QUOTE] mexico would disagree

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48844893]But these weapons are fully dangerous. I can, in fact, kill someone with a Lee Enfield just as much as I can, or a sword. In fact I wager anyone could walk on to a school campus and kill several people with a sword or an axe.[/QUOTE] Some idiot with a sword is hardly comparable to a guy in full kevlar with an automatic rifle.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844912']Are cars' primary function to kill? Is there a reasonable way to limit car deaths without causing public harm? Are cars particularly effective at intentionally killing people? Hint: No No Not really, and further there are continuing efforts by regulators and companies to limit that further. Safety is a selling feature of vehicles. Lethality is a selling feature of guns.[/QUOTE] Actually, given how things like drink driving and speeding are heavily policed, it is in fact true that we do try to limit car deaths while minimising public inconvenience.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844865']Then don't design it to do that, design it to do the other things. The fact that they have the capability at all is the problem. If everyone used guns to target shoot and hunt, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the fact is that they don't. 10,000 people are dead by guns this year. But nah your right to collect them and do sports with them supersedes the safety risk and ease of imposing death and serious injury on someone else. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] So them having the capability to kill is the problem? Well I guarantee you have several items in your house that you could use to kill someone. I bet you've used one in the last 5 hours. A UFC fighter or martial artist has the capability to kill someone with their bare hands. And you can argue that martial arts are just as much 'designed to kill' as guns are. So now what? Do we chop off their hands for the good of society? If everyone used knives to cut their food, I couldn't be making this point. But the fact is they don't. [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls]They kill more people than rifles.[/url] But our right to collect them and cut food with them supersedes the safety risk and ease of imposing death and serious injury on someone else?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48844658][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole[/url][/QUOTE] You can't buy automatic weaponry in the United States without ATFE approval. Do you know what you're talking about?

[QUOTE=Judas;48844918]mexico would disagree[/QUOTE] A poor country with widespread corruption and a complete inability to really regulate anything at all?

I see Fox News is maintaining their proud history of spouting absolute nonsense. I also want to point out that it's legal to own firearms in Australia - it's just a very stringent procedure to get one and all legal firearms have to fall within a certain set of criteria. It is estimated that Australia has roughly 5.5 million firearms.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48844935]So them having the capability to kill is the problem? Well I guarantee you have several items in your house that you could use to kill someone. I bet you've used one in the last 5 hours. A UFC fighter or martial artist has the capability to kill someone with their bare hands. Now what? Do we chop off their hands for the good of society? If everyone used knives to cut their food, I couldn't be making this point. But the fact is they don't. [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls]They kill more people than rifles.[/url] But our right to collect them and cut food with them supersedes the safety risk and ease of imposing death and serious injury on someone else?[/QUOTE] You conveniently glossed over the fact that handguns kill more people each year than all other weapons combined. And yes, considering how knives have a variety of uses apart from killing people, the utility they bring to society does outweigh the drawbacks in terms of increased knife crime. The sole utility of guns, on the other hand, is to kill people. While they do bring utility to society in the form of recreation and hunting, they also carry a host of problems when criminals start getting their hands on them.

[QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] I can tell over here in Nebraska that is false, everyone over here owns a rifle to pop a few rounds in a coyote.

[QUOTE=Judas;48844918]mexico would disagree[/QUOTE] To be fair we screwed the pooch and let Mexican cartels straw purchase semi-auto AK and AR rifles from stores in Arizona during Operation Fast and Furious. Dumb mother fuckers thought putting GPS beacons with a battery life of I think it was 3 weeks tops in them thinking "We can find the bad guys now!" Well the cartels found the beacons and waited for them to die, or removed them. Who would have thought they inspect their weaponry?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844912']Are cars' primary function to kill? Is there a reasonable way to limit car deaths without causing public harm? Are cars particularly effective at intentionally killing people? Hint: No No Not really, and further there are continuing efforts by regulators and companies to limit that further. Safety is a selling feature of vehicles. Lethality is a selling feature of guns.[/QUOTE] What would be a reasonable way to stop gun deaths that hasn't already been disproven? Cars are very effective at killing people. People are weak flesh filled bags with semi brittle bones, while cars generally weigh in at over a ton... Cars primary functions are not to kill, while a guns primary function is to shoot a projectile, not always to kill. Guns may be effective at killing people, but so are so many other mundane things. Guns themselves are merely a tool, something a lot of people get enjoyment out of. 99% of gun owners don't kill people, but you want to restrict us for the small percentage who do, who skirt around laws people like you passed, and will continue to do so. They don't follow laws, and guns aren't hard to acquire illegally.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48844939]You can't buy automatic weaponry in the United States without ATFE approval. Do you know what you're talking about?[/QUOTE] The "loophole" allows for people to see rifles, pistols and from what I under automatic rifles. Regardless, most people killed or wounded are killed/wounded by pistols or rifles.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48845010]The "loophole" allows for people to see rifles, pistols and from what I under automatic rifles. Regardless, most people killed or wounded are killed/wounded by pistols or rifles.[/QUOTE] No it does not. The gun show loophole is about buying regular guns without a background check, not NFA items. When I mention it's impossible, it's damn near impossible. And most people are killed by pistols. In 2011 a little over 300 were killed by rifles, more were actually killed by hammers.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48844983]What would be a reasonable way to stop gun deaths that hasn't already been disproven? Cars are very effective at killing people. People are weak flesh filled bags with semi brittle bones, while cars generally weigh in at over a ton... Cars primary functions are not to kill, while a guns primary function is to shoot a projectile, not always to kill. Guns may be effective at killing people, but so are so many other mundane things. Guns themselves are merely a tool, something a lot of people get enjoyment out of. 99% of gun owners don't kill people, but you want to restrict us for the small percentage who do, who skirt around laws people like you passed, and will continue to do so. They don't follow laws, and [b]guns aren't hard to acquire illegally[/b].[/QUOTE] Why do you accept this as some kind of unchangeable truth? Plenty of countries have managed to make it such that criminals have a hard time getting their hands on guns while still allowing citizens to own them. Why can't the US?