Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696574]what a noble justification. my hobby is stockpiling and routinely detonating nuclear weapons, why cant i have them just because some whackjobs cant control themselves?[/QUOTE] And here we go with [I]this[/I] argument.

[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39696561]oh my god just shut up both sides of this argument need to stop flinging childish "hurr hurr this is how the opposing side sounds like they're so dumb" arguments and sit down and have a sensible fucking debate. ugh, it's like a bunch of kindergarten kids arguing whether pokemon or digimon is better[/QUOTE] Perhaps even more annoying are posts like yours seeming to act very above-it-all.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696459]im sorry remind me again what these "vast reforms" are and how they are somehow more realistic than you just registering your gun? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] because gun control proponents have a nice juicy list of detailed solutions to the gun violence problem in america yet for some reason all i hear is a vague reference to "vast reform" and passing mentions of poverty and mental health in america [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] in fact its almost as if you guys are just latching on to the first counter-solution that doesn't involve your hobby being inconvenienced without actually thinking about what your solution would entail realistically![/QUOTE] Once again, your justification for criminalizing millions of innocent people is that it's the easiest thing to do. I'm not going to pretend I know the entire solution. That's something that requires years of study, professional experts, and review boards. The thing it requires most is effort, effort to actually admit that the problem is more complex than something that can be solved by banning inanimate objects and start tackling the larger issues at hand. To actually help people, and improve the nation, instead of alienating your people because it's the easier thing to do and might please a select few.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696588]And here we go with [I]this[/I] argument.[/QUOTE] Well surely you've seen arguments in favour of more lax gun regulations that go somewhere along the lines of "you can't tell me I don't need this" or "it doesn't matter if I don't need them".

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39696401]That has never done anything and never will do anything to help stop crime or murder. The idea that removing guns from the hands of civilians will somehow magically reduce crime has been shattered in scientific studies and analysis of crime rates over and over again[/QUOTE] Except in Australia removing guns from the hands of civilians did decrease the crime rate substantially, plus there hasn't been a mass shooting in the country since

[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39696561]oh my god just shut up both sides of this argument need to stop flinging childish "hurr hurr this is how the opposing side sounds like they're so dumb" arguments and sit down and have a sensible fucking debate. ugh, it's like a bunch of kindergarten kids arguing whether pokemon or digimon is better[/QUOTE] What's the point of internet forums if we don't discuss our opinions about a thread? By that logic all SH threads would be postless.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696586]When anyone argues against any gun control period you are always there to call them rednecks blindly clinging to a hobby[/QUOTE] nope [QUOTE=teh pirate;39696586]If a registry is enacted, it will inevitably be used in that manner and you know it because it serves no other purpose[/QUOTE] shoot you've figured it all out, how did you know registries being used to solve crimes after the fact and serve as a deterrent against possible crimes by way of increased convictions was all just a clever ruse so i could steal your guns and forfeit mine directly to obama as well??

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696603]Well surely you've seen arguments in favour of more lax gun regulations that go somewhere along the lines of "you can't tell me I don't need this" or "it doesn't matter if I don't need them".[/QUOTE] There's a large leap between arguing against when a government is allowed to choose what decisions you make and the detonation of WMDs. Just saying. [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39696609] shoot you've figured it all out, how did you know registries being used to solve crimes after the fact and serve as a deterrent against possible crimes by way of increased convictions was all just a clever ruse so i could steal your guns and forfeit mine directly to obama as well??[/QUOTE] Where has a registry worked.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696591]Perhaps even more annoying are posts like yours seeming to act very above-it-all.[/QUOTE] I'm already guilty of shitflinging too many times on FP. I've done it so many times, I'm sick and tired of it. Why shouldn't I be able to point it out? We practically have the same thread countless times. First few posts start okay, then one person starts the sarcastic "herp derp", then the other person goes "no, you're herp derp". I know this isn't debates, it's SH, but god [I]damn.[/I] Even if it's the internet I'm sure we can get some discussion where people just sit down and take the time to listen to the opposing side.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39696600][B]Once again, your justification for criminalizing millions of innocent people is that it's the easiest thing to do[/B]. I'm not going to pretend I know the entire solution. That's something that requires years of study, professional experts, and review boards. The thing it requires most is effort, effort to actually admit that the problem is more complex than something that can be solved by banning inanimate objects and start tackling the larger issues at hand. To actually help people, and improve the nation, instead of alienating your people because it's the easier thing to do and might please a select few.[/QUOTE] what a shallow attempt at a meaningful argument. ignoring that i'm not "criminalizing" anyone no matter how many times you desperately throw out this emotionally charged term, my reason isn't because its "easy" its because its "realistic" and "obvious". thanks again for making another post where you just say "we need to fix poverty" and offer literally no solutions as to how we should do so

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696611]There's a large leap between arguing against when a government is allowed to choose what decisions you make and the detonation of WMDs. Just saying.[/QUOTE] Okay, well what is the principle difference? Is it destructive force? Is it the same for an RPG-7, or AT-4, or other weapon? Either way you are going to be drawing some arbitrary line, whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39696621]I'm already guilty of shitflinging too many times on FP. I've done it so many times, I'm sick and tired of it. Why shouldn't I be able to point it out? We practically have the same thread countless times. First few posts start okay, then one person starts the sarcastic "herp derp", then the other person goes "no, you're herp derp". I know this isn't debates, it's SH, but god [I]damn.[/I] Even if it's the internet I'm sure we can get some discussion where people just sit down and take the time to listen to the opposing side.[/QUOTE] because pointing it out is basically shitflinging for a 3rd team

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696603]Well surely you've seen arguments in favour of more lax gun regulations that go somewhere along the lines of "you can't tell me I don't need this" or "it doesn't matter if I don't need them".[/QUOTE] Guns can be used to hunt animals, shoot at ranges, and look good on walls, among other things (I myself don't own any guns). Nuclear weapons mass destruct. Comparing nuclear weapons to guns isn't exactly the best comparison.

[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39696621]I'm already guilty of shitflinging too many times on FP. I've done it so many times, I'm sick and tired of it. Why shouldn't I be able to point it out? We practically have the same thread countless times. First few posts start okay, then one person starts the sarcastic "herp derp", then the other person goes "no, you're herp derp". I know this isn't debates, it's SH, but god [I]damn.[/I] Even if it's the internet I'm sure we can get some discussion where people just sit down and take the time to listen to the opposing side.[/QUOTE] Well if you over-simplify down to caricatures, of course it's going to sound stupid.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696636]Guns can be used to hunt animals, shoot at ranges, and look good on walls, among other things (I myself don't own any guns). Nuclear weapons mass destruct. Comparing nuclear weapons to guns isn't exactly the best comparison.[/QUOTE] nuclear weapons could do all of those things ranges would have to be adjusted for size tho

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696239]fp conservatives in a gun thread: instead of registering my arsenal that could arm a small militia, we should just make poverty go away and help treat mentally ill people! fp conservatives in any other thread: fucking poor motherfuckers my dad lived in a house that was only two stories with NO POOL and he worked hard and grew up to be the CEO of Tide Washing Machines international so if my white male dad from Seattles suburbs could make it why can't an inner city kid in the middle of chicago who works 3 jobs to support his oversized family while trying to get a basic high school education from a school that is lacking funding while his friends get killed in gang wars??[/QUOTE] ignoring the overly sensationalist and just plain wrong diatribe you wrote here, Its no secret both sides of the political spectrum agree that poverty and mental illness contribute to gun violence, and thus need to be addressed but they disagree on how to go about it. That's the political road block right now. I mean you could have just wrote something much more reasonable, but ok, I guess you're determined to wage a one man war against ronald reagan's ghost. and idk why you cal gun ownership a hobby, as if the Constitution doesn't exist in your little world. [QUOTE=Zeke129;39696606]Except in Australia removing guns from the hands of civilians did decrease the crime rate substantially, plus there hasn't been a mass shooting in the country since[/QUOTE] no, suicides decreased, but crime rate was already decreasing and the gun ban had no discernible effect on the crime rate. this is ignoring the fact that a gun buyback similar to Australia's isn't possible in the USA.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696609]nope shoot you've figured it all out, how did you know registries being used to solve crimes after the fact and serve as a deterrent against possible crimes by way of increased convictions was all just a clever ruse so i could steal your guns and forfeit mine directly to obama as well??[/QUOTE] That's a great sentiment Kopimi and I support any measures that [I]actually decrease crime[/I] This isn't one of them, it doesn't work like that, a list of people who own guns isn't going to help name the villain in Grove Street's latest drive-by

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696646]nuclear weapons could do all of those things ranges would have to be adjusted for size tho[/QUOTE] So would you compare knives to guns? Blunt objects to knives? Because the same argument can be made about those things, and the argument is equally as ridiculous.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696636]Guns can be used to hunt animals, shoot at ranges, and look good on walls, among other things (I myself don't own any guns). Nuclear weapons mass destruct. Comparing nuclear weapons to guns isn't exactly the best comparison.[/QUOTE] Theoretically I could use a nuclear weapon to just blow it up in a desert with relatively little impact on other things, fallout/debris/etc. notwithstanding. Similarly I've heard proponents of gun ownership argue that you can't set "legitimate uses" of objects. That is to say, if nuclear weapons or other high-yield explosives can only be used for harm, then so too do fully automatic weapons or high-caliber handguns.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696603]Well surely you've seen arguments in favour of more lax gun regulations that go somewhere along the lines of "you can't tell me I don't need this" or "it doesn't matter if I don't need them".[/QUOTE] There's got to be limits somewhere, sure. But there's absolutely no logical reason to punish the law-abiding majority over the actions of a few wackjobs with no self control. There's absolutely no reason I should be disallowed to own a semi-automatic AK47 with a 30rd mag because gangbangers use such things in crimes. There's no logical reason I should be disallowed from owning an AR15 because someone thought it a great idea to shoot up a school with one. I an a responsible gun owner. My hardware is kept safely and is operated safely. There's no reason to deny me my hobby because someone [i]else[/i] can't follow the rules. [QUOTE=Kopimi;39696574]what a noble justification. my hobby is stockpiling and routinely detonating nuclear weapons, why cant i have them just because some whackjobs cant control themselves? [/QUOTE] What a wonderful piece of logic you're using. Where'd you find it, the planet Zog?

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39696652]ignoring the overly sensationalist and just plain wrong diatribe you wrote here, Its no secret both sides of the political spectrum agree that poverty and mental illness contribute to gun violence, and thus need to be addressed but they disagree on how to go about it. That's the political road block right now. I mean you could have just wrote something much more reasonable, but ok, I guess you're determined to wage a one man war against ronald reagan's ghost. and idk why you cal gun ownership a hobby, as if the Constitution doesn't exist in your little world.[/QUOTE] Gun ownership [I]is[/I] a hobby, very few people seriously own guns today as a means of repelling the government

i know kopimi doesn't really think we should be allowed nuclear weapons for personal use but i wouldn't mind having one [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] it would certainly keep the govt. from treading on me

Kopimi you do know that they're not trying to disarm police right? They just stop selling weapons to protest unnecessary gun restrictions. The police still has the guns they already have, they're just not getting new ones. Which won't really change their effectiveness since the police are trained to only use guns as a last resort.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39696652]ignoring the overly sensationalist and just plain wrong diatribe you wrote here, Its no secret both sides of the political spectrum agree that poverty and mental illness contribute to gun violence, and thus need to be addressed but they disagree on how to go about it. That's the political road block right now. I mean you could have just wrote something much more reasonable, but ok, I guess you're determined to wage a one man war against ronald reagan's ghost. and idk why you cal gun ownership a hobby, as if the Constitution doesn't exist in your little world.[/QUOTE] the constitution is an aging document written in a time where the military matched the might of the people, it also was written by slave owners and forgot to give women and black people rights. not the kind of document i would hold to such a high standard. gun ownership i see largely as a hobby tho it does serve self defense purposes which is why ive never advocated a ban on guns, just registration

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696670]Gun ownership [I]is[/I] a hobby, very few people seriously own guns today as a means of repelling the government[/QUOTE] At most, a large portion of people have a few in case of a massive socio-economic collapse in their area. Even then, that's a tad extreme.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696660]So would you compare knives to guns? Blunt objects to knives? Because the same argument can be made about those things, and the argument is equally as ridiculous.[/QUOTE] can you elaborate

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696670]Gun ownership [I]is[/I] a hobby, very few people seriously own guns today as a means of repelling the government[/QUOTE] What about self defense against criminals?

[QUOTE=TestECull;39696667]What a wonderful piece of logic you're using. Where'd you find it, the planet Zog?[/QUOTE] i feel like youre trying to be clever but its just so not funny i feel like i'm missing something here?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696665]Theoretically I could use a nuclear weapon to just blow it up in a desert with relatively little impact on other things, fallout/debris/etc. notwithstanding. Similarly I've heard proponents of gun ownership argue that you can't set "legitimate uses" of objects. That is to say, if nuclear weapons or other high-yield explosives can only be used for harm, then so too do fully automatic weapons or high-caliber handguns.[/QUOTE] That's a bad comparison because nuclear weapons inevitably destroy a lot of stuff when you set them off and government testing had a marked impact on the desert ecosystem Small arms don't really have that drawback, neither do low-yield explosives which are already legal for civilians to own, and even large amounts of TNT are fine with the proper licensing

[QUOTE=TestECull;39696667]There's got to be limits somewhere, sure. But there's absolutely no logical reason to punish the law-abiding majority over the actions of a few wackjobs with no self control. There's absolutely no reason I should be disallowed to own a semi-automatic AK47 with a 30rd mag because gangbangers use such things in crimes. There's no logical reason I should be disallowed from owning an AR15 because someone thought it a great idea to shoot up a school with one. I an a responsible gun owner. My hardware is kept safely and is operated safely. There's no reason to deny me my hobby because someone [i]else[/i] can't follow the rules.[/QUOTE] But even assuming we're not talking about nuclear weapons, but simply high-yield explosives or rocket launchers, you acknowledge that we're setting a limit somewhere, yes? It is [I]possible[/I] to be safe with an RPG or something similar on a range with adequate space, but I think you'd agree that that's "too much", whatever sense of that you might mean.