Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696696]i feel like youre trying to be clever but its just so not funny i feel like i'm missing something here?[/QUOTE] He's using the exact same way of 'debating' you are.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696574] so it wont even accomplish their goal of disarming police it'll just raise the cost of running a police department (while many are already struggling with funding) and forcing the taxpayer to pay more to fund the departments? oh wow that makes it all much better![/QUOTE] "Oh no, a protest causing inconvenience?" Why doesn't everyone just send the police gift baskets and polite notes saying "pretty please don't enforce gun control"?

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696697]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] So again, assuming we're not talking about WMDs necessarily, what about rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives?

[QUOTE=Birdman101;39696701]"Oh no, a protest causing inconvenience?" Why doesn't everyone just send the police gift baskets and polite notes saying "pretty please don't enforce gun control"?[/QUOTE] not at all what i said

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696688]can you elaborate[/QUOTE] Scale. Nuclear weapons destroy and kill on a massive scale. Guns kill too. On a much much smaller scale and can easily be stopped by another person. So do knives. On again a smaller scale, and can be stopped as well. And so do blunt objects. You can't stop a nuclear weapon once a person blows it up. You can however stop a man with a gun. So comparing guns to nuclear weapons isn't a valid comparison. Same applies to pretty much any other explosive device, not just WMDs.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696699]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.[/QUOTE] Well yeah. I'd, personally, set the limit at fully automatic stuff. I'd dearly love to go out to a range and cut loose on a Prius with an M2 Browning HMG, but there's no reason I should personally own that thing. But a semi-auto AK47 with a 30 round box mag? That's A-OK. [QUOTE=Kopimi;39696696]i feel like youre trying to be clever but its just so not funny i feel like i'm missing something here?[/QUOTE] I'm saying your logic is complete and utter bullshit, roughly on par with something I would expect out of my cats or a three year old.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696711]not at all what i said[/QUOTE] Really now

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696707]So again, assuming we're not talking about WMDs necessarily, what about rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives?[/QUOTE] That's already OK if you can adequately prove to the proper government channels that you are not a villain and have sufficient room to use them without disturbing other people

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696699]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.[/QUOTE] Okay. You want to argue semantics? Fine, let's. An RPG has the ability to puncture the armor of, well, [I]armored[/I] vehicles, such as APCs and some light tanks. An AR-15 has the ability to, at most, puncture some forms of weaker/less-sturdy body armor. There should be a limit when it comes to Destructive Device--- OH WAIT, HOLY SHIT! There [I]IS[/I] a limit on Destructive Devices! You have to be (gasp) [I]a licensed[/I] manufacturer.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696718]Scale. Nuclear weapons destroy and kill on a massive scale. Guns kill too. On a much much smaller scale and can easily be stopped by another person. So do knives. On again a smaller scale, and can be stopped as well. And so do blunt objects. You can't stop a nuclear weapon once a person blows it up. You can however stop a man with a gun. So comparing guns to nuclear weapons isn't a valid comparison.[/QUOTE] Again, where do you draw this line? You can scale back from nuclear weapons to larger bombs, then rocket launchers, and perhaps then grenade launchers. How are you going to define this? Any explosive force launched by a firearm of any type?

[QUOTE=TestECull;39696719]Well yeah. I'd, personally, set the limit at fully automatic stuff. I'd dearly love to go out to a range and cut loose on a Prius with an M2 Browning HMG, but there's no reason I should personally own that thing. But a semi-auto AK47 with a 30 round box mag? That's A-OK. I'm saying your logic is complete and utter bullshit, roughly on par with something I would expect out of my cats or a three year old.[/QUOTE] The few legal civilian owners of M2 Brownings would never even consider opening up on civilians with them, there's no point in restricting them further or banning them outright because they're not a threat

[QUOTE=TestECull;39696719]Well yeah. I'd, personally, set the limit at fully automatic stuff. I'd dearly love to go out to a range and cut loose on a Prius with an M2 Browning HMG, but there's no reason I should personally own that thing. But a semi-auto AK47 with a 30 round box mag? That's A-OK.[/QUOTE] Right, so what's the logic for drawing that line and how is it any better or worse than arguing that we should draw the line at semi-automatic rifles or hunting rifles/shotguns?

[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] Mass shootings are anecdotal to overall murder, and there's more to crime rates than homicide, which was not affected by the gun control laws. The only thing I can concede about Australia is that there appears to be enough evidence that it helped reduce suicide. [url]http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847[/url] [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html[/url] Notably, sexual assault and Assault have both risen in Australia, and while this following video is from the NRA, it claims that breaking and entering also rose in Australia following the buyback: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA[/url] The video also shows you the opinion of those who had been forced by threat of prison time to hand in property they've owned for years, sometimes decades, without any issue.

Doesnt assault rifles make up less than 1% of gun crime?

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696732]The few legal civilian owners of M2 Brownings would never even consider opening up on civilians with them, there's no point in restricting them further or banning them outright because they're not a threat[/QUOTE] Tell that to the media who have done an amazing job doing research and letting people know what actual types of firearms are used in crimes. Seriously, the amount of people who have no idea what they're talking about is staggering.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696729]Okay. You want to argue semantics? Fine, let's. An RPG has the ability to puncture the armor of, well, [I]armored[/I] vehicles, such as APCs and some light tanks. An AR-15 has the ability to, at most, puncture some forms of weaker/less-sturdy body armor. There should be a limit when it comes to Destructive Device--- OH WAIT, HOLY SHIT! There [I]IS[/I] a limit on Destructive Devices! You have to be (gasp) [I]a licensed[/I] manufacturer.[/QUOTE] Don't get sarcastic with me, I'm trying to follow the logical train here. So you too acknowledge that there [I]is[/I] a limit of some kind?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696730]Again, where do you draw this line? You can scale back from nuclear weapons to larger bombs, then rocket launchers, and perhaps then grenade launchers. How are you going to define this? Any explosive force launched by a firearm of any type?[/QUOTE] With the time to deal out the full capacity of damage. Nukes, rocket launchers, grenade launchers all can do quite a lot of damage in a very short amount of time. But guns though take time and can be stopped before they are fully spent (the amount of ammunition one has on him running out*) Now i'm not debating where we draw the line, I am just pointing out that comparing guns to fully exposive devices isn't a fair comparison.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;39696123]Looking at your previous posts in this subforum's gun threads, I'm assuming you're an extremist (for the lack of a better word) on the anti-gun side. If I'm right, do you not believe that all these gun control laws lessen crime rates? If so, then your post would contradict your previous statements because there would be nothing to "shoot these police officers" with.[/QUOTE] He has actually said that he lives in a gated community and his multi ethnic security force, combined with thousands of CCTV cameras will protect him, or at least help identify the people who killed him.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696730] How are you going to define this? Any explosive force launched by a firearm of any type?[/QUOTE] [quote]The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows: (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device. (2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter (.50 inches or 12.7mm), except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary[clarification needed] finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.[/quote] I don't define them. The government does.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696718]Scale. Nuclear weapons destroy and kill on a massive scale. Guns kill too. On a much much smaller scale and can easily be stopped by another person. So do knives. On again a smaller scale, and can be stopped as well. And so do blunt objects. [B]You can't stop a nuclear weapon once a person blows it up. You can however stop a man with a gun. [/B] So comparing guns to nuclear weapons isn't a valid comparison. Same applies to pretty much any other explosive device, not just WMDs.[/QUOTE] which is meaningless because you could stop him from blowing it up, you also could not stop a man AFTER he's fired his gun and killed someone, so there's no reason to bring this "point" up as ridiculous as the nuclear argument is, the point is that you all complain about the constitution and your right to have weaponry and how registering your gun is such a burden and its an encroachment on your rights, but still accept what you consider to be "common sense" lines in the sand regarding what weaponry you really can and cannot own or have to register. we register fully automatics, why not semis? you draw these arbitrary lines and say "THIS IS MY RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE INFRINGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.. unless i'm a felon, its fully automatic, its an explosive compound etc.." then cry about how you wont even consider the most common sense gun control legislation possible [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696746]I don't define them. The government does.[/QUOTE] so if the government defined semi auto firearms as destructive devices would you be ok with gun control?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696736]Right, so what's the logic for drawing that line and how is it any better or worse than arguing that we should draw the line at semi-automatic rifles or hunting rifles/shotguns?[/QUOTE] I don't know, you'll have to ask the person that already drew that line decades ago. My line is really just the current restriction point, which I see no issue with. [QUOTE=teh pirate;39696732]The few legal civilian owners of M2 Brownings would never even consider opening up on civilians with them, there's no point in restricting them further or banning them outright because they're not a threat[/QUOTE] Exactly. The lines we have now are plenty sufficient. It is, with enough money in my pocket, already possible for me to go buy a junky worn out Prius, a few hundred rounds of 50BMG, and arrange for an M2 owner to meet me at a range and take turns carving the yuppiemobile up like a thanksgiving turkey from 500 yards away. :v:

[QUOTE=Ridge;39696745]He has actually said that he lives in a gated community and his multi ethnic security force, combined with thousands of CCTV cameras will protect him, or at least help identify the people who killed him.[/QUOTE] ummmmmmm are you mistaking me for somebody else because i never said this and why do you bring up multi ethnic? what does that have to do with anything "hah, i bet he thinks his BLACK buddies will protect him... he'll learn.."

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696744]With the time to deal out the full capacity of damage. Nukes, rocket launchers, grenade launchers all can do quite a lot of damage in a very short amount of time. But guns though take time and can be stopped before they are fully spent (the magazine running dry). Now i'm not debating where we draw the line, I am just pointing out that comparing guns to fully exposive devices isn't a fair comparison.[/QUOTE] So it's the amount of damage then? Is it because a bullet can realistically hit only one or two people at a time? By that thinking it seems there should be a distinction between weapons that fire different types of bullets at different rates, because that too is a difference in the 'time to deal out the full capacity of damage'.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696749] so if the government defined semi auto firearms as destructive devices would you be ok with gun control?[/QUOTE] No, because AR-15s don't blow up [I]tanks[/I].

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696746]I don't define them. The government does.[/QUOTE] I'm not asking what the law says, I'm asking what you think should be the case, and the logical basis for that.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696764]No, because AR-15s don't blow up [I]tanks[/I].[/QUOTE] i know you think youre being clever but youve just abandoned your whole argument about the definition of a destructive device by drawing an arbitrary line of what you consider a destructive device if youre going to make a shitty point stand by it

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696764]No, because AR-15s don't blow up [I]tanks[/I].[/QUOTE] That's really very arbitrary.

"haha! i dont define what a destructive device is, stupid, the government does! take THAT!" "oh an ar15 a destructive device? the government says so? no thats ridiculous, of course not!"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696772]i know you think youre being clever but youve just abandoned your whole argument about the definition of a destructive device by drawing an arbitrary line of what you consider a destructive device[/QUOTE] I've never drawn my own line, congratulations on the deduction there, I've drawn my line on DDs in conformation with the NFA.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696778]"haha! i dont define what a destructive device is, stupid, the government does! take THAT!" "oh an ar15 a destructive device? the government says so? no thats ridiculous, of course not!"[/QUOTE] How about instead of sarcastic sniveling you give everyone your definition of destructive device?