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

[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. 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.[/QUOTE] A fellow walks into a movie theater with a Mosin. He has to fire off rounds, cycling the bolt after each round, and manually reload the rounds after the magazine is empty. This significantly slows down his rate of fire compared to a modern semi-auto rifle or handgun, and allows people more time to intervene if necessary. Only need one bullet to kill a person, but you need lots of bullets to kill lots of people. Further, a hand weapons like an axe or knife could easily kill several people in the right conditions. However, these weapons are notable less capable against law enforcement or an open area. In reality, all guns should simply be banned. Enfield? AR? Ban em. You're right. Dangerous. I don't care. They serve no purpose that outweighs their potential as killing machines. The alternative is that we don't make it easier to kill people. Rather than focusing on increasing the ability to kill people, we should be limiting that. You don't need a higher capacity magazine to defend your home. You don't need to carry a handgun. And honestly the idea of the people defending themselves from the state with what weapons are available regardless of regulation is pretty ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, the only reason why I support guns as is is because it empowers the people and provides self defense. But from a practical level, you have to suck it up and admit that currently there are real issues with allowing people access to efficient killing machines that were designed to be as effective and lethal as possible. Where that line is- bolt actions or no guns at all- I don't know, but it ought to be drawn because clearly guns are doing their jobs at killing people. There's no reason not to have these regulations and every reason to. Even if they are ineffective at stopping deaths, then there's still no reason not to have the restrictions. If they have no effect on deaths, then there's no harm in doing it anyway, right? If the guns are just for sports and hunting and self defense, then reasonable regulations won't hurt that. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48844932]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] That's my point?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48845030]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?[/QUOTE] We have, we have passed laws in the past, and continue to do so. Problem is, those laws are sometimes unenforceable in a country like the US. Universal background checks are a good example of a law that has no enforcing mechanism.

[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] Stop embarrassing me as a Canadian. Were not all this clueless. You didn't even read the link you regurgitated or understand it at all, Way to go.

[QUOTE=Aman;48845055]Stop embarrassing me as a Canadian. Were not all this clueless. You didn't even read the link you regurgitated or understand it at all, Way to go.[/QUOTE] This, so much. Just read it please for fucks sake.

[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. 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?[/quote] Items not designed to be good at killing. Items whose primary function isn't killing. Items which have reasonable restrictions to prevent massive amounts of deaths by the hands of relatively few individuals. Everything is a cost-risk analysis. There is no cost to limiting, regulating, or banning guns, whose sole purpose is to kill people. There is a cost to limiting cooking knives, or razor blades. There is no risk in allowing lethal fighters- the number of effectively lethal fighters is low and your average joe can't be limited without massive cost. This isn't hard to figure out. [quote]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] I'd be for limitations on wielding knives in public, or carrying them on your person, or limitations on their size, etc. Doesn't effect their ability to chop food, potentially could effect their ability to harm. Sure, you're absolutely right!

Well by that metric Somalia is the freest place in the world, since they have more guns than people and food combined

[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 guns aren't hard to acquire illegally.[/QUOTE] If your concern was to just shoot a projectile then buy an airsoft or pellet gun, or a slingshot instead. Quit kidding yourselves. Here's an idea: Ban guns from the public Confiscate guns Stop manufacturing guns tah dah

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48845074]This, so much. Just read it please for fucks sake.[/QUOTE] So you're fine with private individuals just selling weapons to anybody without a background check?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48845100']If your concern was to just shoot a projectile then buy an airsoft or pellet gun, or a slingshot instead. Quit kidding yourselves. Here's an idea: Ban guns from the public Confiscate guns Stop manufacturing guns tah dah[/QUOTE] This is done in areas where open carry isn't allowed. Concealed guns could be included, but I like carrying my 9mm. So, you wanna kill a lot of people then? You want people with guns to forcefully confiscate guns from gun owners. Congrats, you support murder, and starting another civil war. Never going to happen. Done. Done. Done. Tah dah!

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48845116]So you're fine with private individuals just selling weapons to anybody without a background check?[/QUOTE] No. I just know they aren't selling "automatic" rifles like you're going off about. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48845100']Here's an idea: Ban guns from the public Confiscate guns Stop manufacturing guns tah dah[/QUOTE] Yeah lets remove all individuals the right to property because a few asshats abused their right to that property. Are you for real?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48845177] Yeah lets remove all individuals the right to property because a few asshats abused their right to that property. Are you for real?[/QUOTE] Oh please. The right to property excuse is so bullshit. EPA regulates old cars can't have below a certain level of emissions MY PROPERTY Government bans a certain substance or drug MY PROPERTY No, you can't have a home made nuclear reactor BUT MY PROPERTY Actually owning 400 cats is illegal ITS MY PROPERTY Owning people is not legal anymore BUT THAT'S MY PROPERTY And so on. It's a pathetic excuse because when the "right to property" is stacked against the right to relative safety, then property always loses, as it should.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48845252']Oh please. The right to property excuse is so bullshit. EPA regulates old cars can't have below a certain level of emissions MY PROPERTY Government bans a certain substance or drug MY PROPERTY No, you can't have a home made nuclear reactor BUT MY PROPERTY Actually owning 400 cats is illegal ITS MY PROPERTY Owning people is not legal anymore BUT THAT'S MY PROPERTY And so on. It's a pathetic excuse because when the "right to property" is stacked against the right to relative safety, then property always loses, as it should.[/QUOTE] Even with the number of shootings, you are still highly unlikely to be shot... So yea, my right to property supersedes your idea to want to use guns to force me to lose some of my property.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48845135]This is done in areas where open carry isn't allowed. Concealed guns could be included, but I like carrying my 9mm. So, you wanna kill a lot of people then? You want people with guns to forcefully confiscate guns from gun owners. Congrats, you support murder, and starting another civil war. Never going to happen. Done. Done. Done. Tah dah![/QUOTE] Nah, you're right, because gun nuts are fucking crazy and would do exactly that. They'd rather murder someone than give up their protection to own a lethal weapon. Just shows you what sort of people we're dealing with. But yeah, it's not practical, it's ideal. Too bad we have this ridiculous gun culture so any real progress is impossible. Please don't get me wrong, what I'm proposing is a practical and ideal solution to the gun issue, but by no way do I think it would be effective, and in absence of any completely effective methods then there are times when guns can be appropriately used and there's an argument to be made for those uses. But it's a feedback loop that needs to be broken at some point.

Could you at least use less bullshit excuses, because it's only in your relative safety. Old cars past 1975 don't need to be smogged. Drugs go bad. Nuclear energy is highly regulated because it's fucking nuclear energy. Having 400 cats is a legitimate health issue. And just interjecting FUCKING SLAVERY into the topic of ownership of property, let alone guns? Again, are you for real?

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48845286]Even with the number of shootings, you are still highly unlikely to be shot... So yea, my right to property supersedes your idea to want to use guns to force me to lose some of my property.[/QUOTE] Your right to property counts for jack when limitations are set on that. It's incredibly unlikely that I'll even be irradiated by a home made reactor, but that's still illegal and no one is saying it should be otherwise. The purpose and capability to do harm is worthy of the limitation on owning it. Frankly, the decent life of even one person supersedes the right to own guns imo. It's not like not owning a gun would in any way decrease your quality of life in any meaningful way. Your poor hobby!

Just saying "Your poor hobby" shows how disconnected you are. You're literally that type of person that finds someone's slice of fun and tries to get rid of it for no other reason than you just want it gone.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48845343]Just saying "Your poor hobby" shows how disconnected you are. You're literally that type of person that finds someone's slice of fun and tries to get rid of it for no other reason than you just want it gone.[/QUOTE] Plenty of countries that regulate guns more than the US does have people that collect guns and use them for hunting/sport. They also have less gun crime, less mass shootings, etc.

seed eater I don't think you meant it when you said you were playing devil's advocate

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48845321]Could you at least use less bullshit excuses, because it's only in your relative safety. Old cars past 1975 don't need to be smogged. Drugs go bad. Nuclear energy is highly regulated because it's fucking nuclear energy. Having 400 cats is a legitimate health issue. And just interjecting FUCKING SLAVERY into the topic of ownership of property, let alone guns? Again, are you for real?[/QUOTE] What's your point? Seriously. All the above are truly equal on the property topic. Any limitation on property and ownership at any level is infringing on your right to property. The actual pro-slavery argument was literally about the right to property. There are lines. Society draws them. Property is never an excuse when put against the public interest, when the public decides it.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48845300']Nah, you're right, because gun nuts are fucking crazy and would do exactly that. They'd rather murder someone than give up their protection to own a lethal weapon. Just shows you what sort of people we're dealing with. But yeah, it's not practical, it's ideal. Too bad we have this ridiculous gun culture so any real progress is impossible. Please don't get me wrong, what I'm proposing is a practical and ideal solution to the gun issue, but by no way do I think it would be effective, and in absence of any completely effective methods then there are times when guns can be appropriately used and there's an argument to be made for those uses. But it's a feedback loop that needs to be broken at some point.[/QUOTE] Actually, government officials with guns would be sent to disarm regular folks with guns. The people that refuse or fight back will either be jailed or killed for standing up for their rights. Plus the fact you want to disarm close to 100 million people because of a fraction of a percent... It's clear you lack rational thought, and argue with emotion, and could care less about peoples rights, those rights I myself swore and Oath to protect and defend. But, please, keep telling us how you wish guns would be taken, rights would be trampled, etc.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48845350]Plenty of countries that regulate guns more than the US does have people that collect guns and use them for hunting/sport. They also have less gun crime, less mass shootings, etc.[/QUOTE] Fix mental healthcare and make it so states don't withhold that information to the federal gun background check system. It's a crucial step that needs to be taken. Not "Hurr durr take the guns away."

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48845382]"Hurr durr take the guns away."[/QUOTE] Regulating guns doesn't mean stripping people of all of their firearms.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48845400]Regulating guns doesn't mean stripping people of all of their firearms.[/QUOTE] Actually, it can. Guns are regulated, and depending on gun controls laws passed, they can strip people of legal firearms.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48845409]Guns are already regulated to a point though.[/QUOTE] They are. And when you fill out FFL paperwork, it's documented with the FBI, ATF and so on. "Gun control" is bullshit that makes soccer moms feel "secure" when in fact we have TONS of gun laws (thousands) but Facepunch will never agree that it's enough. So I'm not sure why these threads are allowed to be posted.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48845356]seed eater I don't think you meant it when you said you were playing devil's advocate[/QUOTE] Actually I did, kind of. I'm generally against gun regulations and generally pro-gun. I don't own one yet but I will own a rifle in not too long. I support the ability to self defense and community self defense. I support the ability of the people to own guns and to operate them against the state or other actors when it's necessary. Guns can server an important purpose and can be used as a force of good when wielded for that, which is rarely the case in America. I am arguing from a practical standpoint though. Guns cause problems in the current society. The solutions are straightforward. There are ways to limit those problems but the arguments you people use are atrocious and rarely center on anything other than your hobby or property, which when compared to the capacity to take human lives is a bullshit argument. If you want to do something about it then do it, if you'd rather it just continue, then be my guest and shrug off any responsibility that distributing finely crafted lethal weapons to the general populace has. There is an underlying argument worth making too, which is what drives people to use guns in a publicly harmful way, but people are even less receptive to that argument. Rather than looking at the roots of crime or public massacres or murders, that's ignored and instead those people grouped as either criminals or mentally ill even though neither is typically the case. But whatever. It's all about your property and the right to your hobby. Honestly, I don't actually support confiscating guns or banning them, that is just argument. But it is the actual conclusion to ending the problem. Yes, I'm aware of how bloody and terrible that would be. Yes, I'm aware of the positive impact guns can have. Much of that is devils advocacy too. But I do also support certain regulations and a rethinking of gun culture and the purpose of guns in our society.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844412']It's bunk. The way that people argue that's it's all people with mental health issues makes you think that every person with depression or whatever is walking around armed and we need to stop that. They can't possibly come to figure that people are driven to act based on situational awareness or lucid moral judgment, but instead have to assign unprovable aspects to these people, like they have "mental health problems". Mental health problems don't make people shoot other people- anger, social dysfunction and marginalization do. People who are alienated and experiencing anger. Some people have mental health issues and then do these things, yes, absolutely, but much of mental health deals with one's place in society. Depression, anxiety, whatever, these sorts of things can sometimes as much be products of social position, and even then the actual push to act has to come from somewhere else. Most mass shootings aren't done by crazy people, they're done by angry people, or people who are pushed out of hopelessness. That's why the stereotypes of the loner weirdo shooting up the school, or the disgruntled postal worker shooting up the office predate the buzzword "mental health" explanation. Angry social rejects kill people. That's not a mental health issue, that's a society issue.[/QUOTE] People claim that we have a mental health issue because suicides make up a huge portion of firearm deaths. According to the CDC, they're nearly twice the amount of homicides. It figuratively screams, "mental health issue". [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm[/url]

Holy fuck I always forget why I make an effort to stay away from threads like this. My 2c has pretty much already been said, its people that decide to do the killing, not the gun itself. There already is a redundant at this point amount of gun laws regulating them, and criminals tend to go around them. Also I have tended to notice that anti gun people get more violent and backpedal and deny their own arguments as facts get pointed out to them. Jim Jefferies makes a great point that like most anti gun people goes against his own argument, "There's always one asshole who ruins everything". Gun people and owners are some of the nicest, most welcoming and helpful people I've talked to. But its when someone murders someone or a bunch of people that all of them are branded and stereotyped as evil and paranoid. One more thing, there needs to be far more coverage of positive usage than negative. I understand the story of someone actually protecting themselves with one or someone stopping a potential shooting doesn't sell as well as fear mongering but like I already said, it sheds a negative, harmful and extremely marginalized light on gun owners.

[QUOTE=Govna;48842363]Well yeah, they would say that. Fox News is full of retards and panders to retards; this is a pretty tame statement for them to make honestly. Considering how many murders are committed with them here, a lot of people evidently do own them for that, yeah. Oh well.[/QUOTE] Considering we have 42% of the planet's firearms, 9 in every 10 houses owns at least one... Having 3 homicides per 100,000 people isn't that bad The real problem with gun control is 1) Mental health records aren't required by law to be released to the NICS database, and 99% of the time aren't. 2) People go crazy every day so it won't really help anyway, 3) People who own guns don't own them responsibly enough to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't be near them

[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',[/quote] No shit, but this doesn't reduce their lethal capabilities nor their intended purposes. [quote]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.[/quote] I don't see where you're trying to go with this statement. Please elaborate further, with examples. [quote]When you talk about the first guns, I doubt they were used for much other than killing people.[/quote] Again, no shit. Their purpose was to circumvent plate armor, they were invented as such because nothing could do the job effectively, and even then they were so unwieldy and inaccurate that it was, no pun intended, hit-or-miss. This does nothing to disregard their primary purpose. [quote]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.[/quote] That's a pretty biased way of defining it, on top of being completely circumventing their intended purpose. That's like arguing that hammers were meant to break glass but just happen to be useful for pounding nails into shit and forming metal. [quote]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.[/quote] A solid position... Because if the opposite were true we'd be hearing about a fuck-ton more murders. Again, no shit. [quote]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?[/quote] A starting pistol is solely intended to fire blanks. How many fire-arms purchased by people are marketed solely as "it'll fire blanks all day long, reliably!"? Even then, a lot of places use whistles anymore rather than starting pistols, because they can do the same exact job as a starting pistol with the added bonus of not having to buy blanks, effectively making starting pistols obsolete. Some people insist on using them, though. I halfway expect you to argue against flare guns next, something that took technology from guns for a good cause, but can still cause a good amount of damage if mis-used. However, as stated, considering the majority of fire-arms are manufactured with no other intent than putting metal slugs and shit into things and making watermelons/bad people explode, it's hard to argue that they're being used outside their intended purpose. And before you bring up explosives, there are plenty of people who build bombs and rockets and shit for the hell of it as a hobby, so keep that in mind before you make that sort of comparison. [quote]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] After arguing the inefficacy of swords and ancient musket designs granting them some amnesty, I'm honestly surprised the first example you try to come up with for "other things lil' Timmy could poke his eye out with" was a bow and arrow. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48844965]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. [b]The sole utility of guns, on the other hand, is to kill people[/b]. 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] Not 100% accurate, their sole utility is destroy a target. In the cases of hunting/target shooting, this is not "killing people". But in the case of self-defense or out-right murder? Killing people. Either way, a gun's only truest-to-the-core intention is to destroy their target, though it is important to note what the target was designed for. If your firearm was intended for defense, military, or hunting, then congratulations, its intention is to kill.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48845428]They are. And when you fill out FFL paperwork, it's documented with the FBI, ATF and so on. "Gun control" is bullshit that makes soccer moms feel "secure" when in fact we have TONS of gun laws (thousands) but Facepunch will never agree that it's enough. So I'm not sure why these threads are allowed to be posted.[/QUOTE] Couldn't agree more, people act like you can just walk into any gunshop and buy a "FULLY AUTO KILLING MACHINE DESIGNED TO KILL BABIES, WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND CHECK"