Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

A lot of people in this thread don't understand the 2nd amendment very well.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124849][I]nobody[/I] knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say... "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates#data[/url] You know there's figures compiled by the police right?

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124849][I]nobody[/I] knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say... "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.[/QUOTE] I... what. First of all, on the immature arguments point, you are a fucking hypocrite. Secondly, if [I]nobody[/I] knows how many people owned guns, then how is the guy who "told him his point is entirely wrong" right, if nobody knows the facts for sure? And how is what you're doing not "talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it"?

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119597] Well, good luck finding that black market, it's not like they are waving their arms and shouting "GET YOUR ILLEGAL FIREARMS HERE" No, you'd have to get into a lot of shit to get to them.[/QUOTE] Except for all the black market websites, like silkroad.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37124849][I]nobody[/I] knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say... "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.[/QUOTE] You always tend to leave when people prove [I]you[/I] wrong.

maybe we should ban people the number one cause of the death of people

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37124913]A lot of people in this thread don't understand the 2nd amendment very well.[/QUOTE] A lot of people don't understand the Bill of Rights period.

[QUOTE=markg06;37124926][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates#data[/url] You know there's figures compiled by the police right?[/QUOTE] One last fucking post.. Guns were banned over [B]a hundred years ago[/B]. He was talking about [B]before guns were banned[/B]. Do you people even read the thread before you bounce in here?

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37125027]One last fucking post.. Guns were banned over [B]a hundred years ago[/B]. He was talking about [B]before guns were banned[/B]. Do you people even read the thread before you bounce in here?[/QUOTE] I didn't know this thread was about UK gun bans from a hundred years ago.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37125046]I didn't know this thread was about UK gun bans from a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] I also love how he completely dodges legitimate counterpoints to nitpick on some random's inability to read, then counts the actions of one person against the entire thread. A+ posting AngryChair.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;37124779]Also why do people think that gunowners need more training before they can own a firearm? To me that just sounds silly, most people take training courses, and if I'm correct many states require some form of training first. Plus, don't you want a shooter to be as inefficient with a weapon as possible? Look at James Holmes, his rifle jammed and didn't know how to properly clear it which spared quite a few lives that might have otherwise been lost if he knew the few simple steps it takes to clear a jam. Unskilled gangbanging criminals handling weapons is scary, but I think I'd be even more afraid of a rampage killer who knew exactly what he was doing.[/QUOTE] I think it's not just training. The main issue is that there are people who just shouldn't own guns. People with deep psychological issues, or idiots who don't know how to handle them and could get someone hurt or killed. The gangbangers are getting their guns through black market dealers or straw purchases so it wouldn't even apply to them, but for a legitimate owner demonstrating a basic understanding of firearm use, as well as demonstrating that you aren't about to turn into a raging psychopath and murder a bunch of people, seems reasonable. The problem with this is that second amendment culture isn't just about self defense, it's also about keeping the government in check by preventing the government from disarming its citizens. Giving the government the right to selectively deny its citizens the right to bear arms based on constructed criteria would be a huge blow to this concept, and would make it much easier to eliminate gun ownership entirely. I guess what I'm saying is that there are some gun control ideas that make perfect sense even for a gun advocate like myself, but the side effects might be too costly and groups like the NRA are too firmly entrenched in their position to allow it.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37125046]I didn't know this thread was about UK gun bans from a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=markg06's idiotic uninformed post;37124455]Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.[/QUOTE] ??? EDIT: I'm actually done now.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37125102]???[/QUOTE] The thread is about Obama's thoughts on renewing the the Assault Weapons ban. [I][U]NOT[/U][/I] the UK's ban that's over 100 years old.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37125027]One last fucking post..[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AngryChairR;37125102]-more idiocy-[/QUOTE] Isn't this bannable

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37125153]Isn't this bannable[/QUOTE] iirc it's considered spam, but I'm sure he jumped ship in time.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;37120769]Brosepha Stalinya, comrade Elecbullet is being satirical.[/QUOTE] what no I'm not an expert on this subject but that's what gun rights advocates have been saying: that the assault weapons ban is named as such misleadingly to play on the public's fears.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37125470]what no I'm not an expert on this subject but that's what gun rights advocates have been saying: that the assault weapons ban is named as such misleadingly to play on the public's fears.[/QUOTE] Basically this. And besides, who says if assault weapons were banned that Holmes would have still shot with a "non-assault" weapon, or an illegal assault weapon? He started the shooting with a shotgun for christ's sake. Regulation is not the solution.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;37125027]One last fucking post.. Guns were banned over [B]a hundred years ago[/B]. He was talking about [B]before guns were banned[/B]. Do you people even read the thread before you bounce in here?[/QUOTE] Actually, most guns in the UK weren't banned until the '80s, and handguns not until Dunblane in the mid '90s, a fair bit short of "Over 100 years ago."

Question, if regulation is not the solution to your gun crime problem, what is. because education doesn't work when someone has the intent of committing a crime with it, and doesn't work when someone is emotionally deranged and murders someone.

I've come to hate these type of threads because people from nogunlands always come in and say that we shouldn't have "assault weapons" because their only purpose is to kill people. Same thing with the bow and arrow. Should we ban those because they are effective at killing people? No because not everyone or even a majority of people buy "assault weapons" with the intent of killing anyone or the hopes of killing someone. I guess it's a cultural thing, you guys can't understand American gun culture because your government restricts your ownership. Besides, having a pistol grip or a collapsible stock isn't going to exponentially increase your capacity to kill things. There isn't a defenitive solution for gun crime. That's like asking what the solution for crime is because that's all gun crime is; crime with a gun (wow i had no idea). Gun crime is solved when crime is solved.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125787]Question, if regulation is not the solution to your gun crime problem, what is. because education doesn't work when someone has the intent of committing a crime with it, and doesn't work when someone is emotionally deranged and murders someone.[/QUOTE] many excel charts will agree with me that the higher the living standards, the less crime.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125787]Question, if regulation is not the solution to your gun crime problem, what is. because education doesn't work when someone has the intent of committing a crime with it, and doesn't work when someone is emotionally deranged and murders someone.[/QUOTE] If someone's deranged it's likely they're going to commit a crime anyway, the tool doesn't change. Sure, a gun makes it easier to kill people, but if you give everyone the option to be armed, it's a deterrent for crime.

[QUOTE=Pig;37125825]I've come to hate these type of threads because people from nogunlands always come in and say that we shouldn't have "assault weapons" because their only purpose is to kill people. Same thing with the bow and arrow. Should we ban those because they are effective at killing people? No because not everyone or even a majority of people buy "assault weapons" with the intent of killing anyone or the hopes of killing someone. I guess it's a cultural thing, you guys can't understand American gun culture because your government restricts your ownership. Besides, having a pistol grip or a collapsible stock isn't going to exponentially increase your capacity to kill things.[/QUOTE] I dislike american exceptionalism argument because it always feels like the cop-out argument for when you can't legitimately argue that you should have firearms. 'oh you guys don't [I]understand[/I] because you come from somewhere else'. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37125866]If someone's deranged it's likely they're going to commit a crime anyway, the tool doesn't change. Sure, a gun makes it easier to kill people, but if you give everyone the option to be armed, it's a deterrent for crime.[/QUOTE] the tool most certainly changes the outcome of their desires. and if giving everyone the option to be armed reduces crime, then why do you have higher gun crime rates, than countries that restrict firearms.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125874]the tool most certainly changes the outcome of their desires. and if giving everyone the option to be armed reduces crime, then why do you have higher gun crime rates, and violent crime rates than countries that restrict firearms.[/QUOTE] We have lots of lower-income cities like Detroit, where crime is rampant. We also have a higher population. Also, I think somewhere near 70-80% of gun related crimes are done with an illegal firearm or caused by people who cannot legally own firearms. The fact that our gun regulation is more lax compared to other countries does not mean we have more gun crimes. Correlation is not causation.

Much of northern Illinois is extremely dangerous, though Illinois has the strictest gun laws when it comes to control.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37125928]We have lots of lower-income cities like Detroit, where crime is rampant. We also have a higher population. Also, I think somewhere near 70-80% of gun related crimes are done with an illegal firearm or caused by people who cannot legally own firearms. The fact that our gun regulation is more lax compared to other countries does not mean we have more gun crimes. Correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE] as I've said before, the fact that you have a system that makes it easier to legally acquire firearms, means that there are more illegal firearms in your country because you have the industry for it. it is not a stretch to see that because you have more firearms in your country, you have more firearm related crime, correlation is necessary for causation.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125787]Question, if regulation is not the solution to your gun crime problem, what is. because education doesn't work when someone has the intent of committing a crime with it, and doesn't work when someone is emotionally deranged and murders someone.[/QUOTE] Regulation doesn't work for criminals. How many times do we have to say this? If there was one citizen in that theater with a concealed weapon and returned fire on holmes do you think he would continue standing in the open? Not to mention all it takes is one hit and he would have stopped firing. I don't understand how anyone thinks it's a good idea to take away guns from law abiding citizens when they could be protecting themselves in a situation like that.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125874]I dislike american exceptionalism argument because it always feels like the cop-out argument for when you can't legitimately argue that you should have firearms. [/QUOTE] The argument is made time and time again. -For self defense -Collecting -Shooting at the range But you guys always come and say they aren't valid reasons to own them because, you just don't understand.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37125974]Regulation doesn't work for criminals. How many times do we have to say this? If there was one citizen in that theater with a concealed weapon and returned fire on holmes do you think he would continue standing in the open? Not to mention all it takes is one hit and he would have stopped firing. I don't understand how anyone thinks it's a good idea to take away guns from law abiding citizens when they could be protecting themselves in a situation like that.[/QUOTE] then why have any forms of regulation at all. if regulation doesn't work for criminals, why have any laws regarding weaponry at all? criminals won't follow the law, so it's utterly pointless right? no, because it isn't as black and white as you'd like to believe.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125971]as I've said before, the fact that you have a system that makes it easier to legally acquire firearms, means that there are more illegal firearms in your country because you have the industry for it. it is not a stretch to see that because you have more firearms in your country, you have more firearm related crime.[/QUOTE] Aren't most illegal firearms unregulated title 2 weapons? Which are hard to get for regular people.