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

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37128478]ban all guns[/QUOTE] Best course of action obviously.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37128484][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] [QUOTE=reedbo;37126352]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] actually reedbo brought it up.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128509]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] I'm not arguing about bows, stop bringing them up. If you're going to point out that a weapon is deadly at least make sure it's one that an average joe has a chance of legally acquiring in any reasonable amount of time.

All these people against gun control. I am so proud of Facepunch. [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] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre[/url] Not a katana, but still a bladed weapon. I am sure if it were a katana however that those 15 injured would be 15 dead in reality. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre[/url] Same situation Kinda ironic how it's in Japan

Holmes shot up a theater because it's a no gun zone meaning that people can't fight back, obviously he knew this or else he wouldn't have done it at a theater. Same thing for columbine, no gun zone means no one to attack back making it easier for a high score. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128526]actually reedbo brought it up.[/QUOTE] My focus not being on the weapon but on the fact that no one with the means to defend themselves makes a bow more lethal. At least we know you're reading what you want to read.

[QUOTE=Echo 199;37128300]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] Thanks for completely missing my point. My point, and it was even in that fucking post, was that if someone doesn't have a particular weapon, they'll find a replacement. Don't have a gun? Use a sword. Don't have that? How about a knife? Not even that? Well, it's possible to just use your bare hands.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37128584]Thanks for completely missing my point. My point, and it was even in that fucking post, was that if someone doesn't have a particular weapon, they'll find a replacement. Don't have a gun? Use a sword. Don't have that? How about a knife? Not even that? Well, it's possible to just use your bare hands.[/QUOTE] AAAAAAAAA THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SO MANY TIMES. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE LESS EFFECTIVE (IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE LESS EFFECTIVE YOU ARE THICK) FORMS OF KILLING DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE MORE EFFECTIVE FORM SHOULD JUST BE KEPT LEGAL. Knives being legal is not a goddamned reason to have guns legal.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128482]gun crime won't ever disappear.[/QUOTE] That is a more accurate statement. It's not going to disappear. Ever. Guns will always be available, so it's pointless to ban something that will still be available on the black market, or even built from scratch. This is why we should keep guns so that the law abiding citizens can at least have a chance. [QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128239]Even a small chance is better than no chance.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=reedbo;37128547]Holmes shot up a theater because it's a no gun zone meaning that people can't fight back, obviously he knew this or else he wouldn't have done it at a theater. Same thing for columbine, no gun zone means no one to attack back making it easier for a high score. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] My focus not being on the weapon but on the fact that no one with the means to defend themselves makes a bow more lethal. At least we know you're reading what you want to read.[/QUOTE] But that still doesn't make a bow as lethal as gun. continue to insult me and believe otherwise though.

I think you're starting to lose it Cloak Raider. Are you going to self destruct like that other guy?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128612]But that still doesn't make a bow as lethal as gun. continue to insult me and believe otherwise though.[/QUOTE] Stop bringing up bows. Or have you run out of other things to say?

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128606]That is a more accurate statement. It's not going to disappear. Ever. Guns will always be available, so it's pointless to ban something that will still be available on the black market, or even built from scratch. This is why we should keep guns so that the law abiding citizens can at least have a chance.[/QUOTE] But it's not that simple. Jesus. It's not just a case of every criminal is armed, so we might as well make them legal. I'm sure you'd love to believe it's that black and white, but it isn't. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dogmachines;37128624]Stop bringing up bows. Or have you run out of other things to say?[/QUOTE] sorry if I keep bringing up what has been the most retarded argument against gun control I've ever heard

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128629]But it's not that simple. Jesus. It's not just a case of every criminal is armed, so we might as well make them legal. I'm sure you'd love to believe it's that black and white, but it isn't.[/QUOTE] You're right. Not every criminal is armed. But they should always be considered a threat, and if I feel like my life is in danger from a perceived threat being near by, I'm going to defend myself. And to defend myself, I'd rather have a gun.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128599]AAAAAAAAA THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SO MANY TIMES. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE LESS EFFECTIVE (IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE LESS EFFECTIVE YOU ARE THICK) FORMS OF KILLING DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE MORE EFFECTIVE FORM SHOULD JUST BE KEPT LEGAL. Knives being legal is not a goddamned reason to have guns legal.[/QUOTE] THAT'S NOT MY FUCKING POINT, EITHER. I'm trying to say that if someone wants a weapon, what type he uses is not going to matter. Maybe we should switch the focus from banning weapons to decreasing the need for criminals to use such weapons. Let me repost what I first said when I first came into the thread: [quote]If you want to decrease the amount of firearms-related crimes, the LAST thing you do is go after the legitimate suppliers. If you do that first, not only does that leave innocent citizens defenseless, it gives criminals the motivation to commit more crimes because nobody can defend themselves anymore. No, instead of that, the first thing you do is give criminals less reasons to commit crimes. Most crimes are crimes of desperation, the criminal needs something that they, for some reason (usually poverty), cannot gain through legitimate means. If you decrease their need for these things, then they won't need to commit crimes, and therefore decreases their need to acquire firearms to aid in committing these crimes. That weakens the illegal gun suppliers (remember, most criminals don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means) to the point where they can be driven away so they can't sell any more guns. THAT'S when you start putting restrictions and shit on the legitimate suppliers, since civilians have less of a need to carry a gun for self-defense (since crime rates have lowered and now they feel safer). This will also prevent crazies like the Aurora Shooter who actually did purchase their guns legally. In a way, it's like internet piracy. You don't fight back by placing restrictions that only serve to hurt the innocent people while having no effect on the bad guys, you have to give the bad guys less of a reason to do the shit they do so they eventually stop doing that shit themselves. Unfortunately, to do all this would require a LOT of time and money, and nobody would be willing to pay, which is the worst thing about all this. Everyone wants things to be better, but they don't want to pay for it. They expect things to get better because they want it to get better without realizing how expensive and time-consuming it would be. And if they DO realize they'll immediately demand that a better, cheaper, quicker way is discovered, which is why people think that simply banning the sale of firearms will make everything better instantaneously. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at Washington, D.C. and you'll see why. Strictest firearms regulations in the country, highest firearms-related crime-rates in the country. Obviously something went wrong there. [/quote] There. Can everyone shut the fuck up, now?

Australia has the most restrictive gun laws and you're far less likely to be murdered in Australia than in the US.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128651]You're right. Not every criminal is armed. But they should always be considered a threat, and if I feel like my life is in danger from a perceived threat being near by, I'm going to defend myself. And to defend myself, I'd rather have a gun.[/QUOTE] Then that is entirely your opinion, you'd rather have a gun. I wouldn't, because I do not like the connotations that easier gun ownership brings.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128629]sorry if I keep bringing up what has been the most retarded argument against gun control I've ever heard[/QUOTE] Ad Hominem. Your argument has a logical fallacy.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128665]Then that is entirely your opinion, you'd rather have a gun. I wouldn't, because I do not like the connotations that easier gun ownership brings.[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying you should or have to carry a gun, that's your choice. But don't go getting pissed at me for carrying mine, I'm not one of the people you have to worry about.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37128664]Australia has the most restrictive gun laws and you're far less likely to be murdered in Australia than in the US.[/QUOTE] And Illinois has restrictive gun laws that are modeled after Australia's and it's the most dangerous state in the union.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128665]Then that is entirely your opinion, you'd rather have a gun. I wouldn't, because I do not like the connotations that easier gun ownership brings.[/QUOTE] And what are those connotations exactly? That law abiding citizens will have guns? Because believe me, if you are in an area without guns, that does not make you automatically safe. If someone wants to harm you, they can (and will) still harm you. The only difference is that there are no guns for viable self defense.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37128653]THAT'S NOT MY FUCKING POINT, EITHER. I'm trying to say that if someone wants a weapon, what type he uses is not going to matter. Maybe we should switch the focus from banning weapons to decreasing the need for criminals to use such weapons. Let me repost what I first said when I first came into the thread: If you want to decrease the amount of firearms-related crimes, the LAST thing you do is go after the legitimate suppliers. If you do that first, not only does that leave innocent citizens defenseless [B]Untrue. [/B], it gives criminals the motivation to commit more crimes because nobody can defend themselves anymore. No, instead of that, the first thing you do is give criminals less reasons to commit crimes. Most crimes are crimes of desperation, the criminal needs something that they, for some reason (usually poverty), cannot gain through legitimate means. If you decrease their need for these things, then they won't need to commit crimes, and therefore decreases their need to acquire firearms to aid in committing these crimes. That weakens the illegal gun suppliers (remember, most criminals don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means) to the point where they can be driven away so they can't sell any more guns. THAT'S when you start putting restrictions and shit on the legitimate suppliers, since civilians have less of a need to carry a gun for self-defense (since crime rates have lowered and now they feel safer). This will also prevent crazies like the Aurora Shooter who actually did purchase their guns legally. In a way, it's like internet piracy. You don't fight back by placing restrictions that only serve to hurt the innocent people while having no effect on the bad guys, you have to give the bad guys less of a reason to do the shit they do so they eventually stop doing that shit themselves. Unfortunately, to do all this would require a LOT of time and money, and nobody would be willing to pay, which is the worst thing about all this. Everyone wants things to be better, but they don't want to pay for it. They expect things to get better because they want it to get better without realizing how expensive and time-consuming it would be. And if they DO realize they'll immediately demand that a better, cheaper, quicker way is discovered, which is why people think that simply banning the sale of firearms will make everything better instantaneously. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at Washington, D.C. and you'll see why. Strictest firearms regulations in the country, highest firearms-related crime-rates in the country. Obviously something went wrong there. There. Can everyone shut the fuck up, now?[/QUOTE] Tell me then. If criminals are more motivated to commit crime when the average citizen doesn't have access to guns, then why does the US have a higher crime rate than countries where access to guns is rare. You're gonna tell me that the statistics prove nothing, but you have absolutely nothing to back up this view. This argument of "Less citizens with legal guns = More crime" is constantly parroted, but never backed up with anything.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128599]AAAAAAAAA THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SO MANY TIMES. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE LESS EFFECTIVE (IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE LESS EFFECTIVE YOU ARE THICK) FORMS OF KILLING DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE MORE EFFECTIVE FORM SHOULD JUST BE KEPT LEGAL. Knives being legal is not a goddamned reason to have guns legal.[/QUOTE] I think you need to calm down bro, it seems you have caught a case of caps lock

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128707]Tell me then. If criminals are more motivated to commit crime when the average citizen doesn't have access to guns, then why does the US have a higher crime rate than countries where access to guns is rare. You're gonna tell me that the statistics prove nothing, but you have absolutely nothing to back up this view.[/QUOTE] Because we have a bunch of terrible people. People terrible enough so that I could have a gun to defend myself again.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128699]And Illinois has restrictive gun laws that are modeled after Australia's and it's the most dangerous state in the union.[/QUOTE] sorry about you being wrong [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128703]And what are those connotations exactly? That law abiding citizens will have guns? Because believe me, if you are in an area without guns, that does not make you automatically safe. If someone wants to harm you, they can (and will) still harm you. The only difference is that there are no guns for viable self defense.[/QUOTE] Sure, they will harm me if they want to. But it's far easier for law enforcement if they have no access to guns, it's far better for my survival chances if they don't have a weapon. This coming from the perspective of someone who wouldn't use a gun.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;37128720]I think you need to calm down bro, it seems you have caught a case of caps lock[/QUOTE] He's gonna pull an AngryChairR. :v: [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128728]Sure, they will harm me if they want to. But it's far easier for law enforcement if they have no access to guns, it's far better for my survival chances if they don't have a weapon. This coming from the perspective of someone who wouldn't use a gun.[/QUOTE] Yes, but chances are, if they really wanted you dead, they would still be able to kill you. Bear in mind, criminals are not limited by the law because they break it. That's why they're criminals.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128707]Tell me then. If criminals are more motivated to commit crime when the average citizen doesn't have access to guns, then why does the US have a higher crime rate than countries where access to guns is rare.[/QUOTE] The same reason that has been brought up in earlier threads. The government does not focus on the roots of the problem, which are poverty, poor education, lack of jobs and continued racial and cultural divides. Once these are fixed or reduced, crime tends to go down.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128724]Because we have a bunch of terrible people. People terrible enough so that I could have a gun to defend myself again.[/QUOTE] So, what you're telling me is that there is something about America that means that your people are just worse than other countries. Is that what you're telling me. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128734]He's gonna pull an AngryChairR. :v: [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Yes, but chances are, if they really wanted you dead, they would still be able to kill you. Bear in mind, criminals are not limited by the law because they break it. That's why they're criminals.[/QUOTE] Exactly. But is the fact that they are criminals and they ignore the law, a reason not to have the law at all? Because people that want to break it will just break it right?

[QUOTE=Lolkork;37126449]So there's really no practical reason to have firearms then if they actually don't achieve anything.[/QUOTE] Do you think that criminals will follow whatever gun laws you have? Because they won't. You have the right to defend yourself.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128707]Tell me then. If criminals are more motivated to commit crime when the average citizen doesn't have access to guns, then why does the US have a higher crime rate than countries where access to guns is rare. You're gonna tell me that the statistics prove nothing, but you have absolutely nothing to back up this view. This argument of "Less citizens with legal guns = More crime" is constantly parroted, but never backed up with anything.[/QUOTE] The US violent crime rate is going down despite easy access to guns. Meanwhile the UK is one of the most violent nations in Europe. But lets not bother with the UK, lets look at an example within the US itself. The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, and in 2010 they had the highest violent crime and murder rate in the country, over double the next closest state. The murder rate was massively higher too, around double that of the next closest state, which itself was an outlier with double the average for the nation. [url]http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html[/url] [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128760]So, what you're telling me is that there is something about America that means that your people are just worse than other countries. Is that what you're telling me. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Exactly. But is the fact that they are criminals and they ignore the law, a reason not to have the law at all? Because people that want to break it will just break it right?[/QUOTE] Yeah, we should disarm the law abiding because that makes so much sense.