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

[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] YES. Making katanas readily available made it easier for criminals to get them and use them in criminal attacks, so katanas had to be banned. Therefore, guns should be readily available and shouldn't be bann--wait.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128284]And then you both pull out shovels and dig your trenches.[/QUOTE] Let the war begin! :v:

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128264]ever tried to fire a bow bro sorry if you're using legolas from lord of the rings as a reference for how easy it is to kill people with them AND THEN HE SLID DOWN A SHIELD IN A SHOPPING CENTRE AND PUT 3 ARROWS THROUGH HEADS[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37127595]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.[/QUOTE]

Let me set this straight. Again. The fact that there are gun deaths is not the fault of the nature of gun control in the US. The existence of guns does not make people more violent. There are factors that lead to violence that are what need to be addressed. If you are regulating firearms in order to curb the amount of firearm related deaths, and firearm related deaths go down, you did not solve the problem. Do you know why? Because the same people with violent tendencies are still going to commit violent crimes. This is not a problem with weaponry. This is a problem of people's tendency to become violent. If you want to reduce the amount of homicides, then start having parents do their job right. Stop bullying. Encourage people to have emotional release on occasion so they don't bottle up anger and explode. It's not the gun that caused the crime, it's the hands they're in. The existence of homicide in the first place only proves that there is an inherent problem with society that nobody has yet to address. Yanking guns out of people's hands prevents death but it doesn't solve the problem in the first place.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128264]ever tried to fire a bow bro sorry if you're using legolas from lord of the rings as a reference for how easy it is to kill people with them AND THEN HE SLID DOWN A SHIELD IN A SHOPPING CENTRE AND PUT 3 ARROWS THROUGH HEADS[/QUOTE] Ever tried bum fucking rushing someone trying to kill you from a great distance with a bow? Sorry if you're using the god damned Flash as a reference for how much more efficient bareknuckle boxing is for defending yourself at 20 meters.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37128304][/QUOTE] excellent. so you're going to enter a stadium with a longbow without being noticed. and even then, you're going to tell me that if you didn't have a gun, that you could do more damage with your bow.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37128307]Let me set this straight. Again. The fact that there are gun deaths is not the fault of the nature of gun control in the US. The existence of guns does not make people more violent. There are factors that lead to violence that are what need to be addressed. If you are regulating firearms in order to curb the amount of firearm related deaths, and firearm related deaths go down, you did not solve the problem. Do you know why? Because the same people with violent tendencies are still going to commit violent crimes. This is not a problem with weaponry. This is a problem of people's tendency to become violent. If you want to reduce the amount of homicides, then start having parents do their job right. Stop bullying. Encourage people to have emotional release on occasion so they don't bottle up anger and explode. It's not the gun that caused the crime, it's the hands they're in. The existence of homicide in the first place only proves that there is an inherent problem with society that nobody has yet to address. Yanking guns out of people's hands prevents death but it doesn't solve the problem in the first place.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Gun Control is just a kneejerk reaction which sounds like "But we have to do SOMETHING!" at best and disarmament of people to make it easier to control them at worst.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128342]excellent. so you're going to enter a stadium with a longbow without being noticed. and even then, you're going to tell me that if you didn't have a gun, that you could do more damage with your bow.[/QUOTE] If you can enter a theater with weapons and not be stopped even though it's a "gun free zone", then you can get into a stadium with a bow.

[QUOTE=FZE;37128316]Ever tried bum fucking rushing someone trying to kill you from a great distance with a bow? Sorry if you're using the god damned Flash as a reference for how much more efficient bareknuckle boxing is for defending yourself at 20 meters.[/QUOTE] in this fantasy land that we're creating this pointless thought experiment, are you alone, with exactly 20 metres between you or what what are you even trying to prove with this

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128342]excellent. so you're going to enter a stadium with a longbow without being noticed. and even then, you're going to tell me that if you didn't have a gun, that you could do more damage with your bow.[/QUOTE] Seriously, this isn't about gun vs bow, laser beam vs sword, or dick versus asshole. Stop trying to go down that road. If someone wants to go kill a number of people in a public place they will find a way. How about instead of taking their weapon away you [B]address their reasons for being violent in the first place?[/B]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128342]excellent. so you're going to enter a stadium with a longbow without being noticed. and even then, you're going to tell me that if you didn't have a gun, that you could do more damage with your bow.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's a composite bow (These are the sort of bows the Mongols used from Horseback), could fit one of those in a backpack and it'd still be just as dangerous and effective as the longbow. Or maybe you arrived early and stashed it somewhere. However you managed it, you've got a bow in there and there are plenty of victims to shoot.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37128367]Seriously, this isn't about gun vs bow, laser beam vs sword, or dick versus asshole. Stop trying to go down that road. If someone wants to go kill a number of people in a public place they will find a way. How about instead of taking their weapon away you [B]address their reasons for being violent in the first place?[/B][/QUOTE] It's retarded. I don't know why people are trying to convince me that a bow is as deadly as a gun. But in any case, there will always be crimes of passion, and yes if you address poverty crime will fall, but gun crime will never completely disappear.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37128251]That is if you didn't have your own gun. Are you guys seriously insisting that it's better to have an unfair fight because guns are dangerous?[/QUOTE] Many on Facepunch believe it is more honorable to be killed in a basic crime than to defend yourself and kill or injure your attacker.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37128386]Maybe it's a composite bow (These are the sort of bows the Mongols used from Horseback), could fit one of those in a backpack and it'd still be just as dangerous and effective as the longbow. Or maybe you arrived early and stashed it somewhere. However you managed it, you've got a bow in there and there are plenty of victims to shoot.[/QUOTE] fucking brilliant. so what are you trying to prove. Maybe you've got a composite bow. maybe I've walked into the stadium with a machine gun [B]what are you trying to prove[/B]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128364]in this fantasy land that we're creating this pointless thought experiment, are you alone, with exactly 20 metres between you or what what are you even trying to prove with this[/QUOTE] That you should probably make up your mind between "I'll run up and punch the blighter if we're both armed with bows" and "LOLOLOL GOOD JOB FIGURING OUT THAT HAVING A WEAPON WOULD BE BETTER THAN NOT"

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37128386]Maybe it's a composite bow (These are the sort of bows the Mongols used from Horseback), could fit one of those in a backpack and it'd still be just as dangerous and effective as the longbow. Or maybe you arrived early and stashed it somewhere. However you managed it, you've got a bow in there and there are plenty of victims to shoot.[/QUOTE] Can we stop talking about bows as compared to guns? There are so many better points against gun control than "bows kill people too".

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37128367]Seriously, this isn't about gun vs bow, laser beam vs sword, or dick versus asshole. Stop trying to go down that road. If someone wants to go kill a number of people in a public place they will find a way. How about instead of taking their weapon away you [B]address their reasons for being violent in the first place?[/B][/QUOTE] Agreed, guns are just another means of killing people. Addressing the issues causing people to want to kill others is the only way you can prevent it. In the mean time, removing guns from legal gun owners only prevents themselves from adequately defending themselves in a situation where they need to. I don't feel it's right for the government to make the decision on whether I should be able to efficiently defend my own life. There's nothing more precious to me than being alive.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128392]It's retarded. I don't know why people are trying to convince me that a bow is as deadly as a gun. But in any case, there will always be crimes of passion, and yes if you address poverty crime will fall, but gun crime will never completely disappear.[/QUOTE] [I]Crime[/I] will never disappear. People are people. Don't put restrictions on one type of crime (especially restrictions that can be circumvented with a black market), instead try to address them all. In the end you will see a higher net reduction of overall crime.

[QUOTE=FZE;37128406]That you should probably make up your mind between "I'll run up and punch the blighter if we're both armed with bows" and "LOLOLOL GOOD JOB FIGURING OUT THAT HAVING A WEAPON WOULD BE BETTER THAN NOT"[/QUOTE] rewind. what is the argument of bow vs bow trying to prove what are you people even arguing here seriously. if I was armed with a bow, I would drop it, because I have very basic archery training, and I'd probably run. but what are you trying to prove here.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128405]fucking brilliant. so what are you trying to prove. Maybe you've got a composite bow. maybe I've walked into the stadium with a machine gun [B]what are you trying to prove[/B][/QUOTE] Machine guns are extremely tightly regulated and expensive, require special permits, and have to have been registered before a certain date. Not a great example.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128356]If you can enter a theater with weapons and not be stopped even though it's a "gun free zone", then you can get into a stadium with a bow.[/QUOTE] It is probably even easier, since a stadium is much larger than a theater.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128392]It's retarded. I don't know why people are trying to convince me that a bow is as deadly as a gun. But in any case, there will always be crimes of passion, and yes if you address poverty crime will fall, but gun crime will never completely disappear.[/QUOTE] Then why are you trying to completely remove it by removing guns altogether? You even say so yourself that gun crime won't ever disappear.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128434]rewind. what is the argument of bow vs bow trying to prove what are you people even arguing here seriously. if I was armed with a bow, I would drop it, because I have very basic archery training, and I'd probably run. but what are you trying to prove here.[/QUOTE] Time for a gun-joke! You're shooting yourself in the foot with bad examples.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37128425][I]Crime[/I] will never disappear. People are people. Don't put restrictions on one type of crime (especially restrictions that can be circumvented with a black market), instead try to address them all. In the end you will see a higher net reduction of overall crime.[/QUOTE] That's true, I agree with you there. But I guess I don't value guns in the same way you do.

ban all guns

[QUOTE=reedbo;37128450]Then why are you trying to completely remove it by removing guns altogether? You even say so yourself that gun crime won't ever disappear.[/QUOTE] gun crime won't ever disappear if you have guns as prevalent in your society as you do.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128392][B]It's retarded. I don't know why people are trying to convince me that a bow is as deadly as a gun.[/B] But in any case, there will always be crimes of passion, and yes if you address poverty crime will fall, but gun crime will never completely disappear.[/QUOTE] [B]You brought it up.[/B] In this day and age someone could carry a Gatling gun stowed in a duffle bag into where ever they damn well please. Who stops a suspicious person with a heavy bag and goes "Uh, what's that, what are you doing?" these days? The point is they'll do it if they want to and they'll do it where they face as little opposition as possible while giving themselves plenty of victims to kill.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128463]That's true, I agree with you there. But I guess I don't value guns in the same way you do.[/QUOTE] It's not even about valuing them. If banning them won't cut down on crime, then what point is there in banning them?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128436]Machine guns are extremely tightly regulated and expensive, require special permits, and have to have been registered before a certain date. Not a great example.[/QUOTE] I'm going to keep saying this. What are you trying to prove here. It's irrelevant if machine guns are tightly regulated because this is total forum wank. If you're trying to argue that bows are as deadly as guns, then you know what isn't true, because common sense ans history. so what are you trying to argue.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128482]gun crime won't ever disappear if you have guns as prevalent in your society as you do.[/QUOTE] Our problem isn't guns, it's issues with society. Poverty and thriving gangs are just a few things leading to greater crime rates. There's a reason urban areas have so much more crime.