Obama Continues to Ineffectively Restate his Opinions on Gun Control - Polidicks

"oh no officer, I lost all my hunting rifles and my home defense pistol in a tragic boating accident in the North Atlantic" Welp, that sure was an effective blanket ban when every gun owner just buried their weapons under a tree somewhere. I hope you'll be protected from all those illegal guns still out there by 15m+ police response times.

gun control is impossible what we need is blanket, large and poorly defined improvements to social ills in the entire country to sort this problem out far more achievable goal

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49207125]I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.[/QUOTE] full auto tec 9s are more of a movie gun than a real thing. the controversy surrounding that gun was due to it's open bolt design which meant any idiot with a hacksaw could convert it to fully automatic, not that it was a common gun. they only made a few thousand open bolt versions before the ATF said no bueno and had them redesign the entire firing mechanism, and I don't know of a single instance of a tec9 auto conversion being used in a crime. miami vice made that gun famous, not gangbangers besides that, I've shot a few of the things and every one of them stovepiped or light striked every other round. if there's any gun I want a gang banger to have, it's a tec-9

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49208499]Welp, that sure was an effective blanket ban when every gun owner just buried their weapons under a tree somewhere. I hope you'll be protected from all those illegal guns still out there by 15m+ police response times.[/QUOTE] My sister accidentally did a 911 hang-up at around 1am. My town is no more than a couple square miles in diameter max and there was no traffic because it was 1am. Took the police 15 minutes to arrive. I dread to imagine what it's like in a much larger town with active night-life.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49208573]gun control is impossible what we need is blanket, large and poorly defined improvements to social ills in the entire country to sort this problem out far more achievable goal[/QUOTE] For one thing, the people committing the majority of murders in this country won't respond to a mandatory buyback, no-comp confiscation, mandatory registration or any such retroactive control. The only people who will are the people who weren't breaking the law with theirs to begin with.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;49207930]A knee-jerk reaction is an 'automatic and unthinking' reaction to something, i.e., a reaction in which the reactor is not properly considering the situation and is instead relying on (often fallacious) preconceived biases. [B]I think we've all been watching this situation for long enough and have enough other countries to compare the US to in terms of gun ownership v. shootings that our opinions are pretty well though out and considered.[/B][/QUOTE] I wish that were true but evidently it's not. An all-out ban is precisely what you described in the first sentence. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49208573]gun control is impossible what we need is blanket, large and poorly defined improvements to social ills in the entire country to sort this problem out far more achievable goal[/QUOTE] You can't exactly try to call people out on being vague when you yourself just said "gun control" knowing fully well how broad that term can be, from knee-jerk "assault ban" type-measures, to enforcement of existing laws, to addition of new laws regarding purchases and ownership of guns, to improvements to the monitoring systems, all the way up to a completely unachievable "blanket ban", and also while probably being completely aware that most people you're referencing aren't really against [I]everything[/I] I just mentioned

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49207125]I'm primarily referring to automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. The Tec-9, for example, which is a common and popular weapon for gangbangers due to its availability, affordability, large magazine, and high rate of fire.[/QUOTE] Automatic pistols are illegal, semi-automatic pistols that can be converted to automatic are illegal, you can get extended magazines for pretty much any modern handgun, they all have the same rate of fire, I don't know where you get the idea that the Tec-9 is common or popular as it's neither widely available nor affordable. A Hi-Point handgun does the same thing for a third the cost. You know, speaking of magazine sizes, the Virginia Tech and Navy Yard shooters were both using ten-round low-capacity magazines as per the assault weapon bans in place. Banning standard-capacity magazines isn't just misguided, it's demonstrably ineffective. A restrictive magazine capacity means a lot more to someone trying to defend their home than to a shooter who knows all their victims are unarmed. [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49205450]If we didn't have the entire American South holding back any form of progress, we should just ban any guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns altogether. Look at Australia, it worked for them.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205461]There we go with this nonsense argument again. "It worked for Australia so it'll work in the USA".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49205473]‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens[/QUOTE] 'let's do this sweeping massive change that nobody will support' 'I don't think that will work' 'hah hah look at this redneck opposing progress' Have you guys considered that maybe the reason we keep making no progress whatsoever is because you keep suggesting the same ineffective ideas over and over again? Us saying that an Australia-style ban wouldn't work isn't fucking saying there's no way to address the problem, it's us saying you are not giving a viable solution. The guns available on the civilian market today are largely identical to the ones available [B]fifty[/B] years ago. The laws have only grown [B]more[/B] restrictive, not less. Stop telling us military-style assault weapons that have been around since the 60s are causing a bloodbath on the streets and start looking at what the fuck has changed since then. If we need to change our firearm regulation to help address the issue while we tackle the root problem then that's an option, but just repeating over and over that we need to copy Australia isn't addressing the problem, it's at best addressing a symptom by assuming that America's situation is closer to Australia's than, say, Mexico's. I notice that none of the people who call for an Australia-style gun ban mention New Zealand, a country with much more lax gun laws than Australia but similarly low violent crime. Why shouldn't we emulate New Zealand instead? Could it be that New Zealand's social, geographic, and economic situation makes it sufficiently different from America that what worked for one country won't necessarily work for another? Imagine that. If you people were in charge of the war on drugs we'd just ban needles and declare victory against crack. Stop trying to regurgitate the same tired ideas, come up with something new, and try to listen to people when they tell you what the issues are with your proposal.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;49207869]There's no state law against discharge of a firearm within city limits, and we get open carry in a month. Also we don't have a State Police. Per 2011 figures, in Arizona, if you are murdered, you are 3% less likely to have been murdered with a firearm than in California.[/QUOTE] california has a much larger population, many more urban center and has had a gang violence problem that arizona doesn't have

[QUOTE=Sableye;49210070]california has a much larger population, many more urban center and has had a gang violence problem that arizona doesn't have[/QUOTE] That's exactly the point.

my two cents: guns are bad. but until we value life more then money keep your guns to protect yourself from the government. yeah people are killing each other in this country. but you know what... 200k - 1000k civilians died in Iraq. we have it easy in this country. chances are you will never be involved in one of situations. but honestly gun culture extremism is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time, why don't we start by addressing that?

What is "gun culture extremism"? Lmao

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49210133]What is "gun culture extremism"? Lmao[/QUOTE] There are large part of this country that will defend guns against all else, against all logical thought.

Are you talking about owning multiple guns or something? e: automerge Yeah those people aredumb but what are you gonna do?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49210136]Are you talking about owning multiple guns or something?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. But if a large part of your entire life revolves around guns, I'm saying that is a problem. You cannot have both respect and obsession. I think that we can focus on more education - but education is fucked anyway. Then we just end up doing nothing in the end. I guess the only thing we can do is change the government.

Old guns are part of my main hobby (antique preservation/restoration) so most of my money goes into them, so I guess a large part of my life revolves around them in that sense??? I don't consider myself an extremist but I think the current laws (NFA) are misguided and address the wrong issues entirely.

[QUOTE=valkery;49205266][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-obama-responds-to-gun-violence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur[/URL] Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months. Either way, it's not like him getting angry about it is going to change public opinion or provide Congress with impetus, so why choose this shooting?[/QUOTE] Yes because Gun restrictions helped so much in Paris. EDIT: A large problem in this thread is that people don't know gun laws, literally everyone is thinking I can go down to the gun store, and buy a FULLY AUTOMATIC MILITARY "ASSAULT" RIFLE, A FULL AUTOMATIC TEC-9, BECAUSE 'Murica. When that simply is not the case, I wish I could go down and buy a Full auto rifle, because that would be a sick addition to my collection, but we can't. Every since the 86 bans, and the Bans in the 60's, you can't just go out and buy an "ASSAULT" rifle, at least not a modern one unless you owned a gun store, and were making one for LEA purposes, and if I wanted to buy a machine gun that was made before 1986, I would have to go through a shit ton of loops that take a lot of time and money (An fully transferable M16 will set you back about $30,000, do you think that a gangbanger will try and go through those hoops to get one? No, even if he wanted to, he would likely be denied a Class 3 license, so he is going to go to Jamal's house and buy some home made full auto conversion of a Tec-9 for $1,500) You people REALLY need to look up the gun laws in this country, because in EVERY SINGLE THREAD there is always that one guy who says that U.S gun laws are absolutely ridiculous, when he himself knows nothing about firearms or firearm laws. I personally think we should REPEAL the NFA laws, the 1986 Bans, etc, SINCE IT INFRINGES ON LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S RIGHTS! /rant

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49210164]Old guns are part of my main hobby (antique preservation/restoration) so most of my money goes into them, so I guess a large part of my life revolves around them in that sense??? I don't consider myself an extremist but I think the current laws (NFA) are misguided and address the wrong issues entirely.[/QUOTE] yeah I mean, I've met some people who if you take their guns away, it would be the equivalent of stealing their soul. not too unlike video game addiction, tv, cell phones, etc... I'm sure there are better examples. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210172]Yes because Gun restrictions helped so much in Paris.[/QUOTE] this argument is so ridiculous it needs to stop. chances are nothing could have helped.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210172]Yes because Gun restrictions helped so much in Paris.[/QUOTE] I don't think it would've changed much if Paris' gun situation was more like ours. The victims would've been disarmed anyway and the weapons used were brought in from outside.

[QUOTE]this argument is so ridiculous it needs to stop. [B]chances are nothing could have helped[/B].[/QUOTE] Same thing in America, if someone doesn't have access to a firearm, they will get ahold of one, or make a bomb and kill 300 or so people. EDIT: Another thing is people are blaming "assault" rifles for the killings, when the largest mass murder in the U.S in the 21st century was commited with a Pistol. A PISTOL. See Virginia Tech shootings.

as with most things, enforcement without education is oppression. and the same will hold true with guns as was the war on drugs

[QUOTE=old_hag12;49210184]yeah I mean, I've met some people who if you take their guns away, it would be the equivalent of stealing their soul. not too unlike video game addiction, tv, cell phones, etc... I'm sure there are better examples. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] this argument is so ridiculous it needs to stop. chances are nothing could have helped.[/QUOTE] I would be pissed if the government took anything of mine away.

[QUOTE=OvB;49210223]I would be pissed if the government took anything of mine away.[/QUOTE] which is why no one will ever do that. gun buyback programs are pretty sweet though

[QUOTE=OvB;49210223]I would be pissed if the government took anything of mine away.[/QUOTE] Yep, and as a Firearm owner, I have a MASSIVE passion for firearms, I am already pissed that in order for me to get a "REAL" AK-47/AKM I would need to get a Class 3 license, and about $35,000. Now trust me, if I ever do get money, that is one of the first things I am going to do. Imagine telling a car enthusiast, that he cannot own any car with a V8 engine without paying $200,000, going through about a year of paperwork and letters, and photographs and fingerprints. Also, if he is in California, he can only drive a hybrid with a 1.2 litre engine, because V8s can go to fast and KILL someone!

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210240]Yep, and as a Firearm owner, I have a MASSIVE passion for firearms, I am already pissed that in order for me to get a "REAL" AK-47/AKM I would need to get a Class 3 license, and about $35,000. Now trust me, if I ever do get money, that is one of the first things I am going to do. Imagine telling a car enthusiast, that he cannot own any car with a V8 engine without paying $200,000, going through about a year of paperwork and letters, and photographs and fingerprints. Also, if he is in California, he can only drive a hybrid with a 1.2 litre engine, because V8s can go to fast and KILL someone![/QUOTE] Nobody NEEDS fast cars.

[QUOTE=old_hag12;49210184]yeah I mean, I've met some people who if you take their guns away, it would be the equivalent of stealing their soul. not too unlike video game addiction, tv, cell phones, etc... I'm sure there are better examples. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] this argument is so ridiculous it needs to stop. chances are nothing could have helped.[/QUOTE] a lot of why people would be willing to defend their guns to the death is because they don't see it as just their guns being taken away, they see it as the government turning tyrannical. to them, taking the guns is only the first step in eroding away the rest of their rights guaranteed to them in the bill of rights.

[QUOTE=OvB;49210249]Nobody NEEDS fast cars.[/QUOTE] let us all drive Lada's like Lenin would have wanted

[QUOTE=OvB;49210249]Nobody NEEDS fast cars.[/QUOTE] no one needs anything but food, water, and a roof...

[QUOTE=old_hag12;49210228]which is why no one will ever do that. [B]gun buyback programs are pretty sweet though[/B][/QUOTE] I don't want to sell my pieces of history, or any of my firearms really except my shitty .22 that jams every 5 seconds. I am not selling my firearms, I am not giving away my firearms, no one is going to take my guns away from me, I have spent a lot of money and time investing myself into them.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49210256]a lot of why people would be willing to defend their guns to the death is because they don't see it as just their guns being taken away, they see it as the government turning tyrannical. to them, taking the guns is only the first step in eroding away the rest of their rights guaranteed to them in the bill of rights.[/QUOTE] yeah like I said - keep your guns. the worst possible scenario is the government takes all the guns away, and takes the internet (the ability to fight back against tyranny, and the last form of freedom of speech, free of media brainwashing)

The amount of world history carelessly chucked into the incinerator during buybacks is inexcusable. They are careless and horrible. Images of buckets full of plasma cut StG-44s come to mind.