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

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127795]People would fight back, maybe you could kill one person. Then the other people would react and probably would start throwing heavy objects like chairs and book towards the attacker until he/she is unconscious or stopped in an other way, and if there are several exits it would be possible to flee the room quite easily And about the masscres, I'm just trying to tell you that firearms makes it a lot easier to kill a large number of people.[/QUOTE] You could easily kill at least 3-4 people before everyone else in the room knew what was happening. One slash is all it takes. Then they're either too wounded to do anything or already dead. Gun deaths wouldn't go staggeringly down if you get get them out of massacre situations.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37127759]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] There is an even better reason why the gun is now the master of the battlefield. There is a much higher level of difficulty in killing with a blade and killing with a gun. Edit: fuck me guns are easier.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127843]You can't chase down 10 people with a sword, they will probably run in different directions and will easily be able to get away. And people will use anything around them to defend themselves. Be realistic, I'm not talking about 10 people in an empty room with only one exit and no windows.[/QUOTE] Well if the killer doesn't plan his attack for maximum effect then he's clearly going to fail

are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun fucking exceptional

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127795]People would fight back, maybe you could kill one person. Then the other people would react and probably would start throwing heavy objects like chairs and book towards the attacker until he/she is unconscious or stopped in an other way, and if there are several exits it would be possible to flee the room quite easily And about the masscres, I'm just trying to tell you that firearms makes it a lot easier to kill a large number of people.[/QUOTE] Throwing chairs and books at someone isn't going to stop them or magically knock them unconscious, this isn't Hollywood where the Vulcan Bop On The Head knocks people out. It will piss them off while they're busy swatting the chairs and books out of the way with their free hand though.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127869]are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun fucking exceptional[/QUOTE] We get it. Guns make it easier to kill people. Here's a real zinger - they only kill people when put in the wrong hands.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37127884]We get it. Guns make it easier to kill people. Here's a real zinger - they only kill people when put in the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands. everything in the world only kills when put into the 'wrong hands' when you define wrong as you would

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127832]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[/QUOTE] Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier: [B]SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN[/B]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127903]the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] The real question is why are there even wrong hands to begin with.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127903]the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands. everything in the world only kills when put into the 'wrong hands' when you define wrong as you would[/QUOTE] You're argument assumes that banning guns will remove them from the hands of criminals(which it won't) and overlooks the fact that gun crime isn't all crime. The US may have more firearm homicides, for example, but it has fewer total homicides than places like Australia with tight gun laws.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127933]And that's why everyone all weapons shouldn't be available for almost everyone like they are now.[/QUOTE] This doesn't change the fact drunk drivers kill more people than there are vehicle related homicides, especially drunk driving incidents. And that rape outnumbers murder 10:1. This is a problem with society and not with guns.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127869]are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun fucking exceptional[/QUOTE] Hey, you brought it up. Mass killing take place in setting where the shooter has two things; security and victims. For a gun, a school or a theater provide both, and while the setting may change for other weapons the formula remains the same.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37127924]Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier: [B]SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN[/B][/QUOTE] in what context. your point is so meaningless. what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun now it's not easier, it's no different.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37127924]Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier: [B]SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN[/B][/QUOTE] Since people love to play the mass murder card, I'll play it too. If anyone in that theater in Aurora had a concealed firearm, they could have used it to quickly end the shooting. They didn't, because it was a "gun free zone".

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127933]And that's why everyone all weapons shouldn't be available for almost everyone like they are now.[/QUOTE] Average people don't go and buy guns for the hell of it. Anyone I know who owns a gun practices with it regularly and knows how to use it properly. Even then this still doesn't affect criminals who don't go through legal means of acquiring weapons.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127967]in what context. your point is so meaningless. what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun now it's not easier, it's no different.[/QUOTE] It's sounds like you're saying it's harder to defend against an armed assailant when you are armed as well.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127967]in what context. your point is so meaningless. what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun now it's not easier, it's no different.[/QUOTE] But there are documented cases where people with CCWs have been able to take out a homicidal person before they can kill even more than 3-4 people. The point isn't to stop crimes, it's to lessen their impact. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop violent crimes, especially when avenues to illegally obtain a gun still exist.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37127961]This doesn't change the fact drunk drivers kill more people than there are vehicle related homicides, especially drunk driving incidents. And that rape outnumbers murder 10:1. This is a problem with society and not with guns.[/QUOTE] The best way counter all this is keeping track of everyone everywhere, through cameras and w/e high tech solutions you want. but then everyone would bitch about their privacy. We can't win I guess, let's just kill each other more.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37127967]in what context. your point is so meaningless. what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun now it's not easier, it's no different.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? It's now an equal playing field if both parties have a gun. Now you don't have to run covering your ass hoping the police get there in time, you can actually DEFEND yourself. You can't DEFEND against someone with a gun if you don't have one yourself. How can I make it any clearer?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37127945]You're argument assumes that banning guns will remove them from the hands of criminals(which it won't) and overlooks the fact that gun crime isn't all crime. The US may have more firearm homicides, for example, but it has fewer total homicides than places like Australia with tight gun laws.[/QUOTE] we've talked about your first point a page back. Your second point, source. Because looking at it, you have higher intentional homicides than australia. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=reedbo;37128014]Are you kidding me? It's now an equal playing field if both parties have a gun. Now you don't have to run covering your ass hoping the police get there in time, you can actually DEFEND yourself. You can't DEFEND against someone with a gun if you don't have one yourself. How can I make it any clearer?[/QUOTE] Right, and your demand for self defence by firearms is now the same process by which the man trying to kill you got his firearm. Is it worth it now.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127999]That's totally out of context, we're not talking about crime in general in this thread, we're talking about gun regulations. And rape doesn't kill people.[/QUOTE] That's entirely in context. It puts it into context that gun related incidents are not our foremost problem with crime in the U.S. and i don't know why people are so up in arms about getting rid of guns when they aren't even the problem.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37127991]It's sounds like you're saying it's harder to defend against an armed assailant when you are armed as well.[/QUOTE] i'm trying to say that what have you accomplished if the armed assailant is armed as a result of the laws that also give you the right to firearms.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37127973]Since people love to play the mass murder card, I'll play it too. If anyone in that theater in Aurora had a concealed firearm, they could have used it to quickly end the shooting. They didn't, because it was a "gun free zone".[/QUOTE] And if it wasn't a "gun free zone" and someone had a CCW then most likely Holmes would not have walked out of that theater.

[QUOTE=james0724;37118553]To be honest your house is [B]your[/B] house and you should have the right to protect that, not to mention using non-lethal weapons may just end up with you dead when the intruder brings a more dangerous weapon and let's not forgot it will take the police a good 10 to 15 minutes to get to your house[/QUOTE] try 30-90 minutes if you live anywhere but a large city. Or never, which happens a lot

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128019]we've talked about your first point a page back. Your second point, source. Because looking at it, you have higher intentional homicides than australia.[/QUOTE] Maybe because, woah, we have more people than Australia! [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128019]Right, and your demand for self defence by firearms is now the same process by which the man trying to kill you got his firearm. Is it worth it now.[/QUOTE] Is that always the case? The Columbine killers had illegal weapons.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37127973]Since people love to play the mass murder card, I'll play it too. If anyone in that theater in Aurora had a concealed firearm, they could have used it to quickly end the shooting. They didn't, because it was a "gun free zone".[/QUOTE] so you're saying that in a dark cinema with loads of people in, where it's very hard to work out where someone is, and everyone is running around and screaming, they would have instantly shot this guy who was shooting? no.

My sister constantly tells me that Gun Control is "hitting what you aim at". I can agree with that.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128054]i'm trying to say that what have you accomplished if the armed assailant is armed as a result of the laws that also give you the right to firearms.[/QUOTE] What?! You do understand that criminals with bad intentions aren't restricted by laws right? Even if all firearms were banned they would still have access to them. Look at drug prohibition for christ's sake.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128019]we've talked about your first point a page back. Your second point, source. Because looking at it, you have higher intentional homicides than australia. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Right, and your demand for self defence by firearms is now the same process by which the man trying to kill you got his firearm. Is it worth it now.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita[/url] The graph won't load properly for me right now, but Australia is ranked at number 18, while the US isn't even in the top 37(which is all it displays).

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37127920]It's not easy fighting of a lot of chairs, one chair isn't enough to take a person down a but maybe 7 would be enough, and it's probably a bit hard to hold a sword while being hit by chairs and shit.[/QUOTE] Not easy throwing a lot of chairs either, and for every chair thrown the killer is getting closer and fast. Ever heard of the 21 foot rule? That's the distance you have to be at to successfully draw and fire a gun at someone charging you with a knife and still have a chance of not being stabbed, much less get up off a chair and then throw 7 of them at someone. People are fucking fast when they want to be, a killer isn't going to shuffle into the room like your grandpa and announce "Hey guys I'm gonna turn you all into fresh steak with my sword!" And assuming you're all sitting down in your seats wishing you were at home watching TV instead, he's just gonna bust in there and start killing, and while killing your peers will slow him down slightly you're still not gonna get very far before you meet the same fate.