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

[QUOTE=Pig;37125990]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] -For self defense. Why do you require firearms for self defence. Probably because your criminals also have firearms, so you have to even it up. you have created a circle, where you require firearms because your criminals have easier access to firearms. Not to mention your desire for self-defence could also be the result of an incompetent police force. -Collecting. Deactivated firearms, we also have collectors in britain but we have permits for this, with police checks on containment. -Shooting at the range. This isn't an argument for personal use of firearms. Once again, permits, storing firearms at the range in secure containment., etc. the only legitimate argument of those three is the first one, and even that is tenuous. do not argue that 'I don't understand', because I wasn't born in the same place as you.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37125999]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] I disagree with the current regulation on concealed carry handguns because it makes it harder for law abiding citizens to aquire their own firearm. An armed populace is scarier to a criminal than an unarmed populace. Put yourself in a scenario where a criminal opens up on a group of people, would you rather have a form of defense that is formidable or would you rather be running around frantically for your life? You're already in the position of being killed so why not fire back upon your attacker? You would have a better chance of disabling him or at least persuading him to take cover and stop shooting. Now imagine if even two or three others had a firearm? Would there be any motivation to mow down people if they're armed and could attack back with equal force?

How is shooting at the range not an argument for the personal use of firearms? It's a designated place to discharge firearms, which, in case you didn't know, is half the fun in owning one. Shooting at targets, watermelons, trap shooting with a shotgun... trap and target shooting are sports, so you know. Usually done with personal firearms.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37126068]I disagree with the current regulation on concealed carry handguns because it makes it harder for law abiding citizens to aquire their own firearm. An armed populace is scarier to a criminal than an unarmed populace. Put yourself in a scenario where a criminal opens up on a group of people, would you rather have a form of defense that is formidable or would you rather be running around frantically for your life? You're already in the position of being killed so why not fire back upon your attacker? You would have a better chance of disabling him or at least persuading him to take cover and stop shooting. Now imagine if even two or three others had a firearm? Would there be any motivation to mow down people if they're armed and could attack back with equal force?[/QUOTE] me, with no experience with a firearm, attempting to shoot a person in a crowd of screaming people. I'm probably under duress, terrified and shaking massively and you trust me to shoot the right person. no, someone innocent would die as a result.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37118285]I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] If I had a gun and got robbed, I'd still probably cooperate. I'm not fucking John Wayne, not about to risk my life for my wallet.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126097]me, with no experience with a firearm, attempting to shoot a person in a crowd of screaming people. I'm probably under duress, terrified and shaking massively and you trust me to shoot the right person. no, someone innocent would die as a result.[/QUOTE] You have to pass a shooting test in order to get a CCW license in most states.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126077]How is shooting at the range not an argument for the personal use of firearms? It's a designated place to discharge firearms, which, in case you didn't know, is half the fun in owning one. Shooting at targets, watermelons, trap shooting with a shotgun... trap and target shooting are sports, so you know. Usually done with personal firearms.[/QUOTE] for the same reason that my desire to drive a tank does not justify me owning one. sure they are sports, that is not a reason for it to be legal to have a firearm on you or at home without secure containment.

[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] There is no gun crime problem, there is a violent crime problem. Cram people in with a sea of other people, add a dash of addicting and harmful drugs, simmer until they're all poor and you've got the perfect recipe for people to start beating, stabbing and shooting each other. Remove the incentive to commit the crime, not the tools. Course the downside is you won't have a surplus of criminals for the Alphabet Army to consume.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126117]You have to pass a shooting test in order to get a CCW license in most states.[/QUOTE] a shooting test will not prepare me for the stress and psychological pressure of being in an actual shooting.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126119]for the same reason that my desire to drive a tank does not justify me owning one. sure they are sports, that is not a reason for it to be legal to have a firearm on you or at home without secure containment.[/QUOTE] So what makes it alright to restrict firearms? Since they're lethal? So are sledgehammers, if you hit someone hard enough. Household items can be rigged into explosives. If you take away guns, criminals will still have guns and those who don't will find other ways to commit violent crimes.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126043]-For self defense. Why do you require firearms for self defence. Probably because your criminals also have firearms, so you have to even it up. you have created a circle, where you require firearms because your criminals have easier access to firearms. Not to mention your desire for self-defence could also be the result of an incompetent police force. -Collecting. Deactivated firearms, we also have collectors in britain but we have permits for this, with police checks on containment. -Shooting at the range. This isn't an argument for personal use of firearms. Once again, permits, storing firearms at the range in secure containment., etc. the only legitimate argument of those three is the first one, and even that is tenuous. do not argue that 'I don't understand', because I wasn't born in the same place as you.[/QUOTE] -Again, criminals will ALWAYS have access to whatever means of attack they need/want. Stricter regulations don't affect criminals, only people looking for a form of self defense. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. -Collecting firearms that work is half of the hobby and it goes hand in hand with range shooting. -Why is it not a valid reason for owning a firearm? Guns are only violent when they're used in a violent manner. I'd enjoy hearing your reasoning for hobby shooting not being a valid reason for owning a gun. Guns are fun to shoot and enjoyable to own and use.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126128]a shooting test will not prepare me for the stress and psychological pressure of being in an actual shooting.[/QUOTE] And how do you know what the stress and psychological pressure of a shooting feels like? Adrenaline is a hell of a boost.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37126123]There is no gun crime problem, there is a violent crime problem. Cram people in with a sea of other people, add a dash of addicting and harmful drugs, simmer until they're all poor and you've got the perfect recipe for people to start beating, stabbing and shooting each other. Remove the incentive to commit the crime, not the tools. Course the downside is you won't have a surplus of criminals for the Alphabet Army to consume.[/QUOTE] How do you not have a gun crime problem when of the ~13,000 murders every year in your country, 8775 of them are caused by firearms

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126180]How do you not have a gun crime problem when of the ~13,000 murders every year in your country, 8775 of them are caused by firearms[/QUOTE] And people with violent tendencies will kill other people regardless of the tool. Firearms are not the problem. How do you think we murdered people before firearms?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126158]So what makes it alright to restrict firearms? Since they're lethal? So are sledgehammers, if you hit someone hard enough. Household items can be rigged into explosives. If you take away guns, criminals will still have guns and those who don't will find other ways to commit violent crimes.[/QUOTE] another form of the 'criminals will find another way' argument. this is not a valid argument. guns are far more effective at taking life than sledgehammers. you are far more likely to die from a man shooting a gun in a public place, than a man wielding a sledgehammer in a public place.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126097]me, with no experience with a firearm, attempting to shoot a person in a crowd of screaming people. I'm probably under duress, terrified and shaking massively and you trust me to shoot the right person. no, someone innocent would die as a result.[/QUOTE] Another reason for using guns at a firing range and practicing with your weapon. Becoming comfortable with your weapon means that you're more likely to hit your target and be calm in a situation that calls for it. You still didn't answer what you would do against an armed attacker without your own weapon. I fail to see the logic in not owning a weapon for self defense as you still haven't given me any legitimate reasons not to own a weapon.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126203]And people with violent tendencies will kill other people regardless of the tool. Firearms are not the problem. How do you think we murdered people before firearms?[/QUOTE] uh, much less effectively. Mass murder by a single deranged individual was much less common. Firearms aren't the problem, but they greatly multiply the problem.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126205]another form of the 'criminals will find another way' argument. this is not a valid argument. guns are far more effective at taking life than sledgehammers. you are far more likely to die from a man shooting a gun in a public place, than a man wielding a sledgehammer in a public place.[/QUOTE] Unless of course you fire back on your attacker. Holy shit, how dense can you be?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;37126228]uh, much less effectively. Mass murder by a single deranged individual was much less common. Firearms aren't the problem, but they greatly multiply the problem.[/QUOTE] I'll give you that, but they're an "irritant" and regulating them does not solve any problems.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126128]a shooting test will not prepare me for the stress and psychological pressure of being in an actual shooting.[/QUOTE] Then take up a sport like airsoft or paintball, or even try to find a way to train for that kind of stress.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126043]-For self defense. Why do you require firearms for self defence. Probably because your criminals also have firearms, so you have to even it up. you have created a circle, where you require firearms because your criminals have easier access to firearms. Not to mention your desire for self-defence could also be the result of an incompetent police force. -Collecting. Deactivated firearms, we also have collectors in britain but we have permits for this, with police checks on containment. -Shooting at the range. This isn't an argument for personal use of firearms. Once again, permits, storing firearms at the range in secure containment., etc. the only legitimate argument of those three is the first one, and even that is tenuous. do not argue that 'I don't understand', because I wasn't born in the same place as you.[/QUOTE] -A firearm is the most effective tool for self defense. Even if firearms were illegal, people would still have them, making firearms illegal wouldn't suddenly make them all disappear. Being on the border with Mexico, it would just create a new cash cow for the cartels. There's nothing wrong with letting law abiding citizens be armed and capable of defending themselves. You're an idiot if you expect the police to be able to help you in any situation, typically the police arrive after you're robbed or when you're already shot because it's difficult to alert them during the crime and they have to actually travel to the area of the crime. -Having to jump through hoops and paying extra to keep my collection. Pass. -Yes it is, we don't ban archery just because they have the capacity to kill someone and were created with the purpose of killing people. Not everyone is going to react the same in a situation, the presence of someone else simply shooting at an attacker, regardless of them getting hit or not, is probably going to make them stop shooting.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;37126250]Then take up a sport like airsoft or paintball, or even try to find a way to train for that kind of stress.[/QUOTE] I frequently do airsoft. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37126203]And people with violent tendencies will kill other people regardless of the tool. Firearms are not the problem. How do you think we murdered people before firearms?[/QUOTE] once again, refer to above post, this is not a valid argument. for the same reason that we ban high yield explosives from public use, just because there are less effective ways of taking life, does not mean the more effective ones have to be legal because 'criminals will merely use another way', this is retarded logic.

Actually, mass stabings occur across Asian countries with heavy gun regulations on as regular a basis as mass shooting in places with easy gun access, and often result in the deaths of just as many people. I recall seeing a statistic, the average number of deaths at a mass shooting where a private citizen there had a gun for self defense was ~2, the average number when people has to wait for police to arrive was ~16.

[QUOTE=Pig;37126261]-A firearm is the most effective tool for self defense. Even if firearms were illegal, people would still have them, making firearms illegal wouldn't suddenly make them all disappear. Being on the border with Mexico, it would just create a new cash cow for the cartels. There's nothing wrong with letting law abiding citizens be armed and capable of defending themselves. You're an idiot if you expect the police to be able to help you in any situation, typically the police arrive after you're robbed or when you're already shot because it's difficult to alert them during the crime and they have to actually travel to the area of the crime. -Having to jump through hoops and paying extra to keep my collection. Pass. -Yes it is, we don't ban archery just because they have the capacity to kill someone and were created with the purpose of killing people.[/QUOTE] 'having to jump through hoops and pay extra'. so because you are inconvenienced, you decline a permit that might well save lives. okay. and once again, your third point is the 'there are less effective weapons that they will just use argument'. go into a public place and see how many people you can kill with a bow and arrow. please stop repeating yourselves. making guns illegal does not mean that we then ban fucking chairs because they can be used a weapon. the entire argument is over effectiveness. shitty one liners and half jokes like 'WE SHOULD BAN SHARP OBJECTS LOL!!!!1 are not arguments. if you cannot see why a firearm is more effective than a fucking bow and arrow, you are uneducated.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126265]once again, refer to above post, this is not a valid argument. for the same reason that we ban high yield explosives from public use, just because there are less effective ways of taking life, does not mean the more effective ones have to be legal because 'criminals will merely use another way', this is retarded logic.[/QUOTE] Instead of saying "this isn't a valid argument" like your word is law, why don't you actually explain how it isn't? It's not like violent crimes were nonexistent before firearms became available for civilian use. And how about this - if we start regulating firearms now like they do in the UK, well, the illegal firearm market already exists and there are plenty floating about. It won't solve your gun crime problem.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126317]Instead of saying "this isn't a valid argument" like your word is law, why don't you actually explain how it isn't? It's not like violent crimes were nonexistent before firearms became available for civilian use. And how about this - if we start regulating firearms now like they do in the UK, well, the illegal firearm market already exists and there are plenty floating about. It won't solve your gun crime problem.[/QUOTE] I've explained why it isn't a valid argument. because firearms are far more effective at taking life than goddamned sledgehammers. how many times must I repeat this. rome wasn't built in a day, and britain didn't ban guns overnight. it was a slow process of regulation and education until you required a permit or license to own them at all.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126314]'having to jump through hoops and pay extra'. so because you are inconvenienced, you decline a permit that might well save lives. okay. and once again, your third point is the 'there are less effective weapons that they will just use argument'. go into a public place and see how many people you can kill with a bow and arrow.[/QUOTE] I don't understand how a permit preventing a law abiding citizen is going to save lives. Guns don't kill people. People shooting the guns however do. The more you practice with your weapon the more efficient you will be at stopping an attacker. I'm sure if you practiced with a bow and arrow enough you could end quite a few lives, provided no one attacks back.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126348]I've explained why it isn't a valid argument. because firearms are far more effective at taking life than goddamned sledgehammers. how many times must I repeat this.[/QUOTE] But firearms aren't the source of the crime. Regulating firearms will not see a decline in violent crime. If you regulate firearms it doesn't get rid of illegal guns.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37126352]I don't understand how a permit preventing a law abiding citizen is going to save lives. Guns don't kill people. People shooting the guns however do. The more you practice with your weapon the more efficient you will be at stopping an attacker. I'm sure if you practiced with a bow and arrow enough you could end quite a few lives, provided no one attacks back.[/QUOTE] 'provided no one attacks back' compare attacking someone who is firing a firearm, to someone who is trying to shoot with you a bow and arrow, without a weapon of your own why this argument is flawed should be self evident to you.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126336]How is collecting guns a good argument? Just because someone enjoys it doesn't mean that it can stay legal. The same thing could be applied to drugs like PCP. I can see some valid pro-firearm arguments but that one is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Because they're already legal and apart of American culture, if they were illegal it wouldn't be an argument but it's been legal to own weapons since the creation of this country.