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

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127027]Do anyone really need those kind of weapons for anything practical? Firearms are after all weapons, and should be treated as such. Not as a collectors item or a toy.[/QUOTE] What about trap and target shooting? Some people use semi-auto weapons in those sports or for certain kinds of hunting (bird and varmint), so why does it matter what the exterior of the firearm. Also, it is not called a weapon when owned by civilians, the military has weapons, civilians have firearms, this is one of the first things learned in a gun safety course.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127027]Do anyone really need those kind of weapons for anything practical? Firearms are after all weapons, and should be treated as such. Not as a collectors item or a toy.[/QUOTE] Sports car vs economic car statement, honestly. Why would you want a Lamborghini if a Civic gets you from point A to point B all the same? And don't even go down the road of "because guns are designed to kill." Congratulations. They don't kill people if they're in the right hands, just like how sober drivers are less likely to run you over. And you're still more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than you are to get shot.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37126979]but if smaller magazines mean less deaths, I'm all for it.[/QUOTE] Except it won't. Changing magazines isn't some hard feat. [video=youtube;3z_864nrs-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z_864nrs-E[/video]

[QUOTE=Ridge;37127139]Except it won't. Changing magazines isn't some hard feat.[/QUOTE] If you're like Holmes and don't know how to clear a jam, chances are you aren't a speedy reloader either. I mean, the magazine argument goes both ways really. There are honestly too many variables to pin down in a mass murder.

I've been around guns since age 6. Am I some evil baby-killing terrorist now, 10 years later? Back in 2003, a young boy in my hometown was abducted from his front yard, and was later found murdered. Were hammers banned because this young boy lost his life to a criminal with a hammer? Also, look at how well Prohibition worked.

[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 I honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove with these scenarios[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to use these scenarios as evidence only as a practical explanation why having a gun would be better than not having a gun in a situation like that. Thank you for proving that being armed is better than being unarmed.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37127139]Except it won't. Changing magazines isn't some hard feat. [video=youtube;3z_864nrs-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z_864nrs-E[/video][/QUOTE] Neither is cycling the bolt on a hunting rifle, so what's your point

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127207]Well then have a special license for people who do those sports so that they can use those kinds of weapons. And does it really matter what you call it? It's still a weapon by definition: "An instrument of attack or defense in combat" [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon[/url] .[/QUOTE] I think most people own guns for sport, not for "attack or defense in combat."

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127207]Well then have a special license for people who do those sports so that they can use those kinds of weapons. And does it really matter what you call it? It's still a weapon by definition: "An instrument of attack or defense in combat" [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon[/url] .[/QUOTE] It becomes a weapon when used in combat. A dildo can become a weapon if you beat someone to death with it too.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127207]Well then have a special license for people who do those sports so that they can use those kinds of weapons. And does it really matter what you call it? It's still a weapon by definition: "An instrument of attack or defense in combat" [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapon[/url] .[/QUOTE] So having a license for sportsmen instantly eliminates the illegal gun trade? Everybody, call your senators, we need to let them know about this!

[QUOTE=Marbalo;37127264]No, most people own them for defense. It's actually pretty damn evident.[/QUOTE] And so what if they do? As long as they use it [I]for defense[/I], store it [I]properly[/I] and don't use it unless they're forced to, I don't see a problem.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127272]That's the worst argument, people need hammers, for construction etc. But people don't need firearms for anything practical but hunting and maybe sports, so just give them to those people and no one else. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] And we can stop crimes either, but we can make it harder to do crimes.[/QUOTE] People don't need hammers. A rock works just as well.

A machete isn't in and of itself a weapon. It's a tool used to cut through heavy brush. And you see how well it works for the Cartels.

[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 [/QUOTE] This is maybe the worst thing I've ever read.

Again with the people who think simply banning the use of firearms is going to fix everything. Like I said several pages ago (but with more words), you don't ban the weapon, you give the criminals less reasons to use said weapons. I'm telling you, increase the standard of living in problem areas and crime will be reduced to almost nothing. It would take a lot of time and money, but it'd do a lot more good than banning all the firearms forever.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37127148]If you're like Holmes and don't know how to clear a jam, chances are you aren't a speedy reloader either.[/QUOTE] True, quite possible. Same fate came to one of the North Hollywood bank robbers. His AK jammed and he was screwed. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;37127224]Neither is cycling the bolt on a hunting rifle, so what's your point[/QUOTE] I'm talking about limiting external magazines.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127417]No it doesn't, a bow or a sword can't kill a person as efficiently as a gun.[/QUOTE] That doesn't matter. Did you know the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK and Malaysia (where Firearms are harder to come by) is a Katana? It turns out that they're a common collectors item in those places, so it's easy for criminals to get their hands on them and use them for more malicious purposes. The UK had to [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7139724.stm"]ban the sale[/URL] of mass-produced Katanas because of their use in criminal attacks. My point? If a criminal wants a weapon, they will get their hands on a weapon. Banning firearms will not do anything because a criminal will find something else to use.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37127506]That doesn't matter. Did you know the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK and Malaysia (where Firearms are harder to come by) is a Katana? It turns out that they're a common collectors item in those places, so it's easy for criminals to get their hands on them and use them for more malicious purposes. The UK had to [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7139724.stm"]ban the sale[/URL] of mass-produced Katanas because of their use in criminal attacks. My point? If a criminal wants a weapon, they will get their hands on a weapon. Banning firearms will not do anything because a criminal will find something else to use.[/QUOTE] And yet people think this doesn't matter because firearms are more effective for killing people. Which, yes, it's true. But the source for violent crime still exists. Don't give people a reason to kill each other and your gun crime rate will plummet.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127550]So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?[/QUOTE] 15,000 firearm related homicides a year aren't the product of massacres.

[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 I honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove with these scenarios[/QUOTE] You sure want to go down this road? If I wanted to do a mass killing with a bow on par or better than the Aurora shooting I could do it easily. First I'd pick a sports stadium and take a position at the top away from everyone, maybe above an exit or something, and then I'd be shooting down on them with these: [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/PyhW[/img_thumb] No one is going to be able to 'rugby tackle' me while I still have arrows. You see I'm a very practiced archer with a Longbow, I've been doing it for most of my life, I am as close as you are going to get to a Medieval Longbowman and have practiced for speed and long range accuracy. I can nock and loose an arrow in one smooth fluid movement while compensating for range and windage, it's all done in about half a second and I am a very good shot even at the sort of range you would see someone using a rifle. The arrows I have will not wound you, they will [B]kill[/B] you, that's what they were designed to do almost 1,000 years ago and they're just as good at that job as they are today, if I were to use them for that purpose that is. Not only that, but unlike a gun the bow is practically silent, the only indicators anyone would have that something is wrong is if they heard the yell of someone being hit or saw the arrow flying or sticking out of someone. Now, say I have a sword instead, I have several of these myself and like my bow I've practiced with them too so I know how to use a sword. If I wanted to go on a mass killing with a sword, like the bow the setting would have to change, instead of a theater or a stadium I'd pick a bus, train or subway. Somewhere where people are cramped together and unable to escape. I'd take a seat at the rear of the train and proceed to turn the entire train into a butcher shop starting from the back. Oh right, the rugby tackle. Anyone who believes they can attack a swordsman with their bare hands is either a fool or Bruce Lee, and Bruce Lee is dead. The sword is practically an impassable wall between you and the person wielding it, attempting to cross that wall with your bare hands will cost you a limb or your life, to that swordsman you are just a fresh link of sausage waiting to be sliced into pepperoni. A sword is fully intended to be used in extremely close quarters, stepping up to a swordsman without a weapon of your own is stepping into the fire. Guns don't sound that bad now do they? Sure you can get shot, but you can also shoot back in an attempt to save your life and really, getting shot with a bullet is not nearly as bad as being sliced or run through by a sword. You don't need to spend years practicing with a bow, and you certainly don't have to go toe to toe against someone who may or may not be better or luckier with a sword than you are. No, a couple days on the range and you've learned everything you need to know to adequately defend yourself against someone using any other weapon, and then you can single handedly stop the stadium archer or the subway butcher. Medieval weapons like the sword and the bow are what created the disparity between the upper and the lower classes up until the end of the middle ages. Having soldiers experienced and capable of using those weapons made it extremely easy to oppress those who did not have the experience. That is until guns came around, and to a lesser extent crossbows. Notice how swords and bows and those that use them have a reputation of being brave and honorable while the crossbow and gun and those that use them have a reputation of being cowardly and dishonorable, it's leftover propaganda from the middle ages.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127550]So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?[/QUOTE] I think it's doable. Probably not in the US, where there are cops with guns present on campus. But in a country with strict gun control measures. Blades are sharp, and people aren't going to be able to grab onto it.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127550]So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?[/QUOTE] If there's a will, there's a way. Sure, it won't be as "efficient" but does that really matter when people are still going to get hurt or killed? And before you ask me how a guy could manage to hide a Katana without getting caught, I should remind you that the Columbine Shooters managed to hide a shotgun by wearing Trenchcoats.

[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] You have the right to use lethal force if someone breaks in your home, and what if they are drugged up? Non-lethal measures wont do shit, then you might end up dead, or fucked up for life. The FBI estimates 11 of 13 firearms used in crimes are illegal. Gun trafficking is a huge business and a massive part of the problem. I do agree more criminal background checks should be in place for buying guns legally still, and psych evaluations.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127620]That wasn't my question, would a person be able to do a proper massacre (Say one person killing 5 others at location such a school) with nothing but a katana?[/QUOTE] That's not a valid point because you don't get to 15,000 firearm homicides in the US through school massacres. Holmes killed 12. Loughner, as well as the Sikh temple shooter, each killed 6. Columbine resulted in 13 deaths. Those were some of the more prominent massacres in the US - that doesn't get anywhere near even 100 deaths. So does it really matter if you can commit a massacre with a sword? Because the majority of firearm deaths aren't the result of a massacre. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lolkork;37127644]But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.[/QUOTE] Why not?

[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. 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] All you would be doing in this case is restricting the amount of firearms in the legal trade. This does NOTHING to stop criminals from owning an illegal firearm or magazines over 10 rounds. Also, anybody who knows anything about guns can tell you that having to reload wouldn't stop a murderer from continuing his rampage.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127620]That wasn't my question, would a person be able to do a proper massacre (Say one person killing 5 others at location such a school) with nothing but a katana?[/QUOTE] 5? Probably quite easily. Hell, corner one classroom and you've got 20 people.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127644]Most people would be able to run away. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.[/QUOTE] I fail to see why you wouldn't be able to. I could probably kill 10 unarmed civilians with a slingshot if I wanted.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127644]Most people would be able to run away.[/quote] The killer can run, too. [quote]But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.[/QUOTE] Blades are sharp and skin is weak. All one would really have to do is inflict a cut big and deep enough to incapacitate, and leave the victim to bleed to death. And the blade itself can make a decent barrier to prevent people from trying to fight back. If you block the only exit you could rack up a decent bodycount. There's a reason why the sword reigned supreme on the battlefield for thousands of years.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37127699]All you would be doing in this case is restricting the amount of firearms in the legal trade. This does NOTHING to stop criminals from owning an illegal firearm or magazines over 10 rounds. Also, anybody who knows anything about guns can tell you that having to reload wouldn't stop a murderer from continuing his rampage.[/QUOTE] actually it would, because then there will be a higher level of people properly storing their weapons where criminals would not be able to steal them, which is where a decent amount of illegal firearms originate from. And a shooter needing to reload could mean life or death for just one person, I think that's worth restricting them.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37127213]I'm not trying to use these scenarios as evidence only as a practical explanation why having a gun would be better than not having a gun in a situation like that. Thank you for proving that being armed is better than being unarmed.[/QUOTE] BAHAHAHAHA what What do you mean by better. What do you even mean. That's so irrelevant to the argument my mind is blown. Outstanding, you've ascertained that someone with a weapon has an advantage over someone without a weapon in terms of some childish MY IMAGINARY FRIEND CAN BEAT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND scenario. what relevance does that have to the legality argument