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

[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] you know criminals can't obtain guns legally right

[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] There are terrible people in EVERY country. Simply saying it's easier to defend yourself when you have a likewise means of defense. Even in countries with stricter gun control criminals will still have guns. If you ask me I'd rather be able to defend myself here and now instead of waiting on the police to show up whenever they feel like it.

[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 of all the other fucking problems this country has, like poverty, unemployment, poor mental health care, inefficient (and sometimes even corrupt) police forces, all of that. This is not a case where One Thing causes One Thing. There are a shit ton of factors that lead into high crime rates, it is not just "guns are available, therefore crime exists". It is just ONE FACTOR of the problem. Jesus Christ, did you even bother to read the whole post?

[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] Why wouldn't you use a gun if you had to defend yourself? Any logical reason why? It's not hard to point and shoot nor does it require extensive training. Basic knowledge of firearms can be picked up from television and games.

[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] Dosn't matter what kills you, you're dead either way. So yes, since a bow has the capacity to kill, and a gun has the capacity to kill, they are both just as lethal. You're not more dead if you're shot by a gun versus a bow, and actually, some could argue that while a bow may not kill as fast, it may kill better depending on the arrow heads used. Broadheads would fuck somebody up. And historically I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of people a bow's killed is comparable to the amount a gun has killed.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128792]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] Yeah, we should disarm the law abiding because that makes so much sense.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the UK is one of the most violent nations in Europe, and yet our intentional homicide rate is still not even close to the US's. Sure the district of columbia might have had some of the restrictive gun laws in the country, but what about the neighbouring states/areas

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37128725]sorry about you being wrong [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url][/QUOTE] They don't have total murders/violent crime per capita. How is this an accurate representation of violent crime when they cherry pick their numbers like that?

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;37128842]Because of all the other fucking problems this country has, like poverty, unemployment, poor mental health care, inefficient (and sometimes even corrupt) police forces, all of that. This is not a case where One Thing causes One Thing. There are a shit ton of factors that lead into high crime rates, it is not just "guns are available, therefore crime exists". It is just ONE FACTOR of the problem. Jesus Christ, did you even bother to read the whole post?[/QUOTE] So because your country is shit, you are willing to say I am wrong for not wanting to live with guns? You'll insult me for having a dislike of guns, when you are basing your accusations from living somewhere you admit to be shit.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37127595]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] everybody take notes it's not often you get to read the genuine ramblings of an insane person

[QUOTE=reedbo;37128860]Why wouldn't you use a gun if you had to defend yourself? Any logical reason why? It's not hard to point and shoot nor does it require extensive training. Basic knowledge of firearms can be picked up from television and games.[/QUOTE] Because I would not trust myself not to kill someone. With guns, it's entirely possible that they will die as a result of my actions, and I would not be able to live with myself having done that. feel free to call me a pussy because of this, but I will not kill someone.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37128725]sorry about you being wrong [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url][/QUOTE] Turns out, you're wrong [url]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm[/url] 706 murders in 2010, compared to your source of only 453. I live here, I should know how dangerous it is.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128868]They don't have total murders/violent crime per capita. How is this an accurate representation of violent crime when they cherry pick their numbers like that?[/QUOTE] Idk maybe you should try reading the table.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37128883]everybody take notes it's not often you get to read the genuine ramblings of an insane person[/QUOTE] Why did you just post if you're only going to call someone out?

[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.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of areas in this country where people need to break the law to survive. Granted, I was being a little sarcastic when generalizing it by saying that "we have terrible people" (I probably should have added :v:). People will do what they need to in order to survive. It's instinct. But there are people who become desperate. Desperate people do stupid things, and they may let this become a habit. Regardless of what happens, these people add to the crime rate. Then there is another group of people who simply like to see others suffer. They also add to the crime rate. Then you get into personal reasons, mental illness, and all of that stuff which add to the crime rate further. All in all, because of our diverse population and economy, we've got a bunch of fucked up people who do a bunch of fucked up shit. But bear in mind, the United States is in no way the crime central of the world. There are countries way worse than us, some with very harsh gun laws. Also, there when you compare the rate of violent crimes to the percentage of gun ownership, you'll find that gun ownership and crime rates [i]are not related.[/i]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128894]Because I would not trust myself not to kill someone. With guns, it's entirely possible that they will die as a result of my actions, and I would not be able to live with myself having done that.[/QUOTE] So you would rather lose your own life to someone with ill intentions than defend it in the off case that you MIGHT kill the guy trying to bring harm to you? Well, there we have it guys. Cloak Raider doesn't think his life is worth saving just in case he might kill someone that has bad intentions.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37128929]Idk maybe you should try reading the table.[/QUOTE] It has the number of murders, yes, but the only statistic it bothers showing per 100k people is firearm-related crime.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128906]Turns out, you're wrong [url]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm[/url] 706 murders in 2010, compared to your source of only 453. I live here, I should know how dangerous it is.[/QUOTE] your source is total murders his is gun crime

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128934]Why did you just post if you're only going to call someone out?[/QUOTE] Careful, he can only see you if you reply.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37128868]They don't have total murders/violent crime per capita. How is this an accurate representation of violent crime when they cherry pick their numbers like that?[/QUOTE] because the point of the article is to highlight the severity of [B]gun crime[/B]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37128952]your source is total murders his is gun crime[/QUOTE] Total murders is more relevant.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37128952]your source is total murders his is gun crime[/QUOTE] [B]Illinois, Total Murders[/B] [U]453[/U] That is from his source

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37128975]because the point of the article is to highlight the severity of [B]gun crime[/B][/QUOTE] If you get gun murders to zero and they are replaced by stabbings/intentional hit and run/Popsicle stick murders then you haven't solved the problem.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128894]Because I would not trust myself not to kill someone. With guns, it's entirely possible that they will die as a result of my actions, and I would not be able to live with myself having done that. feel free to call me a pussy because of this, but I will not kill someone.[/QUOTE] It appears that this argument is caused by the kind of people we are, in some respects. I myself, if I had to make the choice, would choose to live. If my actions end the life of another person, so be it. They knew the risks, they made the choice. I'm not going to hold that against them, but more importantly, I'm not going to hold it against myself. If someone busts into my house at night, or tries to mug me in the street, I'm not going to think. I will kill them. Better them than me. My only regret would be that they were stupid enough to attempt it.

[QUOTE=reedbo;37128944]So you would rather lose your own life to someone with ill intentions than defend it in the off case that you MIGHT kill the guy trying to bring harm to you? Well, there we have it guys. Cloak Raider doesn't think his life is worth saving just in case he might kill someone that has bad intentions.[/QUOTE] Why are you so melodramatic. WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, CURTAIN CLOSED I CHOOSE TO DEFEND MYSELF USING MEANS THAT DON'T HAVE SUCH A HIGH CHANCE OF KILLING SOMEONE. What's your point.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129004]Why are you so melodramatic. WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, CURTAIN CLOSED I CHOOSE TO DEFEND MYSELF USING MEANS THAT DON'T HAVE SUCH A HIGH CHANCE OF KILLING SOMEONE. What's your point.[/QUOTE] WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO MOCK SOMEONE IN CAPS? Seriously, it's quite annoying and only succeeds in making you look like an ass.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37128997]It appears that this argument is caused by the kind of people we are, in some respects. I myself, if I had to make the choice, would choose to live. If my actions end the life of another person, so be it. They knew the risks, they made the choice. I'm not going to hold that against them, but more importantly, I'm not going to hold it against myself. If someone busts into my house at night, or tries to mug me in the street, I'm not going to think. I will kill them. Better them than me.[/QUOTE] I couldn't bring myself to kill someone. Perhaps I have an enormous guilt complex, but I would never do it. I'm not going to insult you for what you are willing to do, you're probably more reasonable than me. But I will not use something like a gun to defend myself on these grounds.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37128874]So because your country is shit, you are willing to say I am wrong for not wanting to live with guns?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that there's more than one reason why the US has such a high crime rate. The availability of guns is just one part of it. One tiny part of it. I'm all for the restriction of fire-arms, but I'm realistic enough to admit that simply banning all the weapons is not going to achieve that goal, because most criminals do not get their guns legally. There is a long process involved in making places crime-free. I mean, did you ever notice that all those countries that have no guns and no crime also have higher standards of living as well? Do you think that also has something to do with why there isn't any crime there?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;37129004]Why are you so melodramatic. WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, CURTAIN CLOSED I CHOOSE TO DEFEND MYSELF USING MEANS THAT DON'T HAVE SUCH A HIGH CHANCE OF KILLING SOMEONE. What's your point.[/QUOTE] Just out of curiosity, is your caps lock key broken? I keep telling myself that it's intentional, but I have to wonder... :v:

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37129022]WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO MOCK SOMEONE IN CAPS? Seriously, it's quite annoying and only succeeds in making you look like an ass.[/QUOTE] Because I'm trying to embody how annoying it is when one of you folks makes a post at me which is so disingenuous and stage-show-esque that it's tempting to ignore it. If you're going to insult me, insult me. Parading around makes you look like buffoons.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37128906]Turns out, you're wrong [url]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm[/url] 706 murders in 2010, compared to your source of only 453. I live here, I should know how dangerous it is.[/QUOTE] Surprise, I live in Illinois too and I don't feel like I need a gun. Even in your own source, the table at the bottom shows that Illinois is pretty middle of the road in crime compared to other states. Nowhere near the "most dangerous"