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

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126373]'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] If you're attacking people with a bow and arrow and some dude pulls out his own bow and arrow and shoots back at you then what are you going to do?

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126390]Will crime rates increase if you regulate firearms?[/QUOTE] ...No? And how about the fact that drunk driving injuries outnumber gun crimes 2:1? Firearm crimes aren't even the biggest problem we have.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37126407]If you're attacking people with a bow and arrow and some dude pulls out his own bow and arrow and shoots back at you then what are you going to do?[/QUOTE] so what you're telling me is because archery is legal in the UK, we should all carry arrow bows and arrows so that if someone does decide to attempt to kill a load of people with a bow and arrow, we can all play robin hood and shoot him do you realise how stupid this sounds. once again "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=Protocol7;37126427]...No? And how about the fact that drunk driving injuries outnumber gun crimes 2:1? Firearm crimes aren't even the biggest problem we have.[/QUOTE] the fact you have larger problems is absolutely not a reason for inaction on the smaller ones.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126449]So there's really no practical reason to have firearms then if they actually don't achieve anything.[/QUOTE] Just like there's no practical reason to have beer, marijuana, video games... [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126454]the fact you have larger problems is absolutely not a reason for inaction on the smaller ones.[/QUOTE] Or instead of bandaiding problems with legislation you can tackle the source of the problems (poor education, poverty) and reduce [I]all[/I] crimes.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126454]the fact you have larger problems is absolutely not a reason for inaction on the smaller ones.[/QUOTE] It just shwos that there isn't reason to mess with the system we have in place with firearms because they aren't as big of a problem as they're being made out to be. The problem is not firearms, it's crime. Fix crime instead of trying to fix guns. Create jobs, improve education, increase the standard of living and crime will decrease and as a result gun crime will decrease.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126359]You're right, they can't just make illegal just like that, they have to do it slowly. Like starting by banning assault rifles.[/QUOTE] So what [I]is[/I] an assault rifle? And what makes them more dangerous?

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126492]Exactly, but those aren't tools of killing.[/QUOTE] The only firearm whose purpose is to kill people is the pistol. Rifles were used for hunting long before we adapted them to kill people, and are still used to hunt in place of murder. Educated, knowledgeable firearm owners are much less likely to commit firearm crimes. Also [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126464]Just like there's no practical reason to have beer, marijuana, video games... [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Or instead of bandaiding problems with legislation you can tackle the source of the problems (poor education, poverty) and reduce [I]all[/I] crimes.[/QUOTE] or instead of making excuses to keep legal something that you probably consider traditional or enjoy personally, you should begin to regulate a weapon that kills innocent people, and leads to this ridiculous paranoia culture you have where you believe you need to have a firearm in the streets or at home to be safe. that is the true victim of gun legality in the US, you have been made paranoid and scared by it, and it's utterly horrible.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126540]or instead of making excuses to keep legal something that you probably consider traditional or enjoy personally, you should begin to regulate a weapon that kills innocent people, and leads to this ridiculous paranoia culture you have where you believe you need to have a firearm in the streets or at home to be safe. that is the true victim of gun legality in the US, you have been made paranoid and scared by it, and it's utterly horrible.[/QUOTE] ...You don't actually believe this, do you? Because I know plenty of people who own guns that don't kill innocent people, myself included. The actions of the few should not be a detriment to the majority.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126651]...You don't actually believe this, do you? Because I know plenty of people who own guns that don't kill innocent people, myself included. The actions of the few should not be a detriment to the majority.[/QUOTE] the desires of the few should not come to endanger the many. I'm sure there are people who own guns that don't kill innocent people, obviously this is true. this isn't a reason for everyone to be able to own a gun, and it says nothing of the danger presented by guns. your desire for gun ownership is not a reason that someone who doesn't own a gun in your country, should now have to use one for self defence.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126437]so what you're telling me is because archery is legal in the UK, we should all carry arrow bows and arrows so that if someone does decide to attempt to kill a load of people with a bow and arrow, we can all play robin hood and shoot him do you realise how stupid this sounds. once again "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] The point isn't being that we should all arm ourselves, the point is what would an attacker do in a situation where he is being met with equal force. Stop picking apart my statements and belittling them.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126676]the desires of the few should not come to endanger the many.[/QUOTE] But again, guns are not what pose a threat to society. Guns do not desire to kill people. The problem with gun crime is people who abuse the right to own a gun, not the fact that guns are readily available to the population. Admittedly the current form of regulation isn't free of problems, but the answer to the problem is not to take guns away from the people. Like I said, it doesn't get rid of the illegal guns. Sure, you've said we've dug ourselves into a circle, but it's not the circle you claim - it's the fact that we do not put enough emphasis on increasing quality of life in America as a whole. Look at Africa, where genocides are rampant. Is it because they have guns? No. Sure, the guns have played a part in the problem, but the guns did not walk into the hands of the drug lords to start a genocide. Look at Syria, where the people have access to guns and are fighting against the tyrannical government.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37126755]The point isn't being that we should all arm ourselves, the point is what would an attacker do in a situation where he is being met with equal force. Stop picking apart my statements and belittling them.[/QUOTE] I'll stop belittling them when you actually present me with an argument that is actually valid. you seem to think bows and arrows are just as dangerous as guns, which I find hilarious. you know what the best part of bows and arrows is. you don't have to meet the attacker with equal force to stop them. a guy in a public place with a bow and arrow could probably get rugby tackled by the guy he was trying to draw an arrow at and shoot. why am I even arguing this with you, this is a retarded argument. bows and arrows vs guns, bahaha [QUOTE=Protocol7;37126775]But again, guns are not what pose a threat to society. Guns do not desire to kill people. The problem with gun crime is people who abuse the right to own a gun, not the fact that guns are readily available to the population. Admittedly the current form of regulation isn't free of problems, but the answer to the problem is not to take guns away from the people. Like I said, it doesn't get rid of the illegal guns. Sure, you've said we've dug ourselves into a circle, but it's not the circle you claim - it's the fact that we do not put enough emphasis on increasing quality of life in America as a whole. Look at Africa, where genocides are rampant. Is it because they have guns? No. Sure, the guns have played a part in the problem, but the guns did not walk into the hands of the drug lords to start a genocide. Look at Syria, where the people have access to guns and are fighting against the tyrannical government.[/QUOTE] Guns do not create a desire to kill people, that's true. However, when there is a desire, guns make it oh so much easier to fulfil. The fact that guns are readily available certainly contributes to the amount of illegal weapons in your country, and over time regulation will come to reduce the amount of illegal weapons almost certainly. syria is a bad example, because syria actually had quite a bit of gun regulation before the revolution

Eugh, why the fuck does 'Merica have to be so damn touchy on gun regulation? [I]"HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BUY AN EFFICIENT COMBAT FIREARM AT THE LOCAL WALMART DAMN TERRORIST GAY COMMIES TAKING OUR FREEDOMS!"[/I]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126540]or instead of making excuses to keep legal something that you probably consider traditional or enjoy personally, you should begin to regulate a weapon that kills innocent people, and leads to this ridiculous paranoia culture you have where you believe you need to have a firearm in the streets or at home to be safe. that is the true victim of gun legality in the US, you have been made paranoid and scared by it, and it's utterly horrible.[/QUOTE] Again, the weapon is merely a tool. A gun isn't going to go around shooting people unless there's someone on the other end pulling the trigger. Removing the tool from the equation only prevents people from adequately defending themselves in a situation where it's needed. Even if guns we're completely legal to own not everyone would be interested in owning one. Needlessly regulating something only makes it harder for citizens to equally protect themselves in case a situation arose. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about what you would do in a scenario where your attacker has a gun and you don't. Would you prefer the ability to fire back with the possibility of successfully disarming him or would you rather be running around without a way to defend yourself? My life is invaluable.

The 'collector' argument is just adorable. [I]"I collect nuclear warheads, gib nukes pls"[/I]

[QUOTE=matrix_1995;37126817]Eugh, why the fuck does 'Merica have to be so damn touchy on gun regulation? [I]"HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BUY AN EFFICIENT COMBAT FIREARM AT THE LOCAL WALMART DAMN TERRORIST GAY COMMIES TAKING OUR FREEDOMS!"[/I][/QUOTE] Well I don't speak for the majority of people but I'm fine just owning a Mosin Nagant. I would like to build an AR15 at one point in time but it's not on my bucket list. I'm a sort of in the middle guy. We don't need to take away guns, as that still won't solve anything. But at the same time leaving the door wide open won't solve anything either.

[QUOTE=matrix_1995;37126829]The 'collector' argument is just adorable. [I]"I collect nuclear warheads, gib nukes pls"[/I][/QUOTE] At the very least contribute to the discussion in a meaningful fashion.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126802]I'll stop belittling them when you actually present me with an argument that is actually valid. you seem to think bows and arrows are just as dangerous as guns, which I find hilarious. you know what the best part of bows and arrows is. you don't have to meet the attacker with equal force to stop them. a guy in a public place with a bow and arrow could probably get rugby tackled by the guy he was trying to draw an arrow at and shoot. why am I even arguing this with you, this is a retarded argument. bows and arrows vs guns, bahaha[/QUOTE] See, you're reading into it. I'm not saying bows vs guns. I'm saying bows vs bows vs nothing. Which person would you rather be, the one attacking back or the one with no means of defense?

I do think gun regulation is one step forward, two steps back though. As has been said, remove the cause of the crime, not the tool.

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;37118508']So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars? What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help. You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.[/QUOTE] Except that criminals don't get their weapons legally. Unlike the UK, which is an island, it is next to impossible to stop guns from coming up from South America into the U.S. even if sales were completely banned. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37126831]Well I don't speak for the majority of people but I'm fine just owning a Mosin Nagant. I would like to build an AR15 at one point in time but it's not on my bucket list. I'm a sort of in the middle guy. We don't need to take away guns, as that still won't solve anything. But at the same time leaving the door wide open won't solve anything either.[/QUOTE] How dare you have a reasonable point of view! Preposterous!

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;37118508']So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars? What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help. You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.[/QUOTE] Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you from crime. Their purpose is to investigate the crime after it has occured.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37126847]See, you're reading into it. I'm not saying bows vs guns. I'm saying bows vs bows vs nothing. Which person would you rather be, the one attacking back or the one with no means of defense?[/QUOTE] Holy shit it is very very simple. I would rather have nothing, because I have no exceptional training with a bow and arrow, he's probably better at it than me, and all I'd do if I had to try and stop him, is drop the bow and arrow and try and run at him, because wielding a bow and arrow is actually fucking impractical if you're using one that actually have the force to kill someone what are you even arguing at this point I honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove with these scenarios

[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;37126860]How dare you have a reasonable point of view! Preposterous![/QUOTE] what I meant to say is "I WILL NOT REST UNTIL I CAN HOLD A FULLY AUTOMATIC RED, WHITE AND BLUE M4A1 ASSAULT RIFLE IN EACH HAND TO DEFEND AGAINST CRIMINALS." Also, fun fact, rape is at least 10 times more common than gun related crimes. Again, the root of the problem is the root of gun violence. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126907]Holy shit it is very very simple. I would rather have nothing, because I have no exceptional training with a bow and arrow, he's probably better at it than me, and all I'd do if I had to try and stop him, is drop the bow and arrow and try and run at him, because wielding a bow and arrow is actually fucking impractical if you're using one that actually have the force to kill someone what are you even arguing at this point[/QUOTE] This is an anecdote and is terrible evidence for anything.

[QUOTE=matrix_1995;37126829]The 'collector' argument is just adorable. [I]"I collect nuclear warheads, gib nukes pls"[/I][/QUOTE] No its really not, the reason being that a brand new semi-auto rifle that looks like the full-auto military counterpart is just as dangerous as a 50 year old wooden semi-auto rifle. Banning magazines over 10 rounds is IMO the only feasible solution in the U.S. Actually no, make a test for owning semi-auto rifles, hand guns, and hi-cap magazines that is similar to the concealed-carry test and includes a psychological evaluation. Then you get a license for those firearms and magazines, and if you give them to anyone without a license you face penalties.

[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;37126959]No its really not, the reason being that a brand new semi-auto rifle that looks like the full-auto military counterpart is just as dangerous as a 50 year old wooden semi-auto rifle. Banning magazines over 10 rounds is IMO the only feasible solution in the U.S.[/QUOTE] That's actually something I agree with. I mean, as a firearm hobbyist (wow that sounds pretentious) I can see why people want drum magazines and extended magazines for whatever reason, but if smaller magazines mean less deaths, I'm all for it. It still won't stop the problem, but it could help tremendously.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126979]That's actually something I agree with. I mean, as a firearm hobbyist (wow that sounds pretentious) I can see why people want drum magazines and extended magazines for whatever reason, but if smaller magazines mean less deaths, I'm all for it. It still won't stop the problem, but it could help tremendously.[/QUOTE] Exactly, gun ownership won't change, but there are safety measures that can be taken. For example, there are next to none incidents of concealed carry permit holders using their guns to commit murder. That shows that the safety and technique training and testing is working, but there is still room for improvement of course. Mandatory psych tests really need to become the norm, and waiting periods should probably be increased as well.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;37118365]crime is pretty bad in america, i know 2 people personally who have been shot with a gun in plain sight and killed[/QUOTE] Really? Must be all those fucking guns. EDIT: Anyone want to help me build a Deathstar? Just because we're not at war with any of those pesky rebels, doesn't mean we won't be one day!

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37126676]the desires of the few should not come to endanger the many. I'm sure there are people who own guns that don't kill innocent people, obviously this is true. this isn't a reason for everyone to be able to own a gun, and it says nothing of the danger presented by guns. your desire for gun ownership is not a reason that someone who doesn't own a gun in your country, should now have to use one for self defence.[/QUOTE] The actions of the few should not hamper the freedoms of the many. 2 men here commit mass murders, 2 gun owners of ~75 million, and all of a sudden the other 75 million are also somehow to blame? You seem to act like responsible gun ownership is some kind of rarity, it's not, murder with a firearm is. Compare approximately 8000 murders with firearms to the 75 million firearm owners, and you find that less than one tenth of a percent of American gun owners commit crimes with their guns. At that point, that number should be considered statistically insignificant. Why should millions of people suffer unneccesary, useless regulation that was already proven to do absolutely nothing the last time it was instated because of 2 people? If it were people calling for a ban on Islam because 4 Muslims flew some planes into buildings you'd be up in arms against it, "You can't judge all of Islam on the actions of 4 people!" you'd likely say, so then why is it okay to discriminate against 75 million people because 2 people who were associated with their hobby did something atrocious? Irresponsible and/or murderous gun owners are such a huge irregularity that if people were to actually base their gun laws on fact rather than the emotion that is always used to push these laws immediately after a shooting, these individuals and their actions would be considered statistically insignificant in the larger picture of gun violence and/or violent crime.