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

I would love for a police buyback to happen in my area. I'd just trying to one up the police by ~$25 dollars for any guns that looked neat, pretty sure like $125 for most guns would be a good deal. Could add to my collection really quick. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;49212674] you bring a gun they bring a tank[/QUOTE] Tanks can't go door to door for domestic policing drones can't patrol a street corner etc etc. Occupation would require soldiers or officers of the occupying force to be on the ground, the guns are to fight back against them, since you don't really need to fight the tanks with guns (see, uh, the last 30 years in the middle east). [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;49210413]p. sure we have more than enough examples of that particular model of gun in exhibitions or storage to preserve it for generations to come. History isn't vanishing just because someone destroyed an old gun. If the gun was something that was actually used in a pivotal event or was the first of that model or something and had documentation to go along with it, it would have ended up in a museum or something so you could gawk at it until closing time. Otherwise, it's just a gun. No real historical significance. It's a piece of metal.[/QUOTE] This is dumb. It's a big lost whenever something that is definitive of its period and place is lost. It's why it's such a shame to see rusted out Chrysler E-Bodies sitting in a barn, parts that used to belong to a model T sitting in grandpas shed collecting rust, old documents being destroyed or lost in a fire. Information and memorabilia of the past is incredibly limited and more or less degrading all by itself- that's why it's sad to see it go, especially for no reason. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;49210492]I get what you're completely saying, but what you're saying at the same time is also recognizing a problem of sorts. Or, it may be worth looking into, might just save some [I]"statistically insignificant number"[/I] of human lives per year. Like a health problem, no matter how significant or insignificant. Which is only insignificant or normal if you.. want to see it that way? I mean you can, and the number isn't just magically going to drop by making public letters (but it actually helps btw! bringing awareness and shit), but there also must be some simple measures that could be taken to bring these types of shootings to an even smaller minimum, without leaving your freedom of gun ownership too badly violated. *Gasp* Don't want that.[/QUOTE] Sacrifice rights and freedoms for safety. I'm pretty sure if we applied the same logic to online privacy and etc. FP would be jumping down my throat even at the thought. But hey, as long as it's only for the rights I use, right?

[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] In Australia due to some idiot doing a 160 down the main avenue in Canberra it's actually illegal to possess a high profermance vehicle under 25, and you must have a special license for it.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;49212900]In Australia due to some idiot doing a 160 down the main avenue in Canberra it's actually illegal to possess a high profermance vehicle under 25, and you must have a special license for it.[/QUOTE] This is completely false and is just a smear attack. For one, car licences depend on which state or territory you're in. Two, yes, driving a car in most states is determined by licence, for instance a provisional driver in NSW can only drive (but they can own any) most cars below a 130kW/tonne power to weight ratio. However, full licence holders are not restricted at all, and you can be as young as 20 in many states to hold a full licence. Three, what you're probably thinking of is insurers refusing to provide a comprehensive insurance quote for younger drivers in high performance cars. It's why, instead of choosing a Honda Integra Type S or Nissan Skyline 350GT, I chose a Ford Falcon XR6.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210289]Haha your joking right? NO ONE WOULD PLASMA CUT[B] AN STG-44[/B], RIGHT? RIGHT? RIGHT? [sp] That boils my fucking blood that someone would do that to an STG-44, good lord[/sp][/QUOTE] Apparently US Forces in the Middle East often found what we consider rare and antique weaponry and were ordered to burn it / blow it up. Such a disappointment. [editline]30th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210321]Yep, and this is the number one thing that pisses me off that some who is anti-gun can do, DESTROY A FUCKING PIECE OF HISTORY THAT IS WORTH A SHIT TON OF MONEY. Reminds me of that lady who wanted to PAINTED A PAK-40 PINK TO TRY AND TURN IT INTO AN 'ART' PIECE. [I]triggered[/I][/QUOTE] A Pak 40? The Anti-Tank gun? That's not so bad, just paint on metal. Grab a bucket of feldgrau and it's an easy fix. On the other hand, You can't incinerate an antique rifle.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49210518]Damn right I don't want that, guns have already been molested by things like 922r compliance, N.F.A laws, 1986 bans, etc. It does nothing but hurts law abiding citizens, in order to get a fully automatic, as said before, you need a Class 3 license ( takes a shit ton of time and money) and about $35,000 to drop on a functional full auto M-16. (Only about 5 full autos registered in the entire registry of 135,000 guns have been used in a crime since 1986, by the way) It isn't helping in Chicago or detroit, yet they have some of the highest restrictions in the country, but at the same time the highest crime rate in the country. Does not help a thing. Please stop recommending more gun control.[/QUOTE] Oh I wasn't suggesting more gun control. Or less gun control. I wasn't really suggesting anything.. In fact, I find that it's pretty hard to come up with a logical and reasonable way to "bring down the mass-shooting incidents" even more from the current norm. Without badly violating the freedom of gun ownership, which no one wants either.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49213526]Apparently US Forces in the Middle East often found what we consider rare and antique weaponry and were ordered to burn it / blow it up. Such a disappointment.[/QUOTE] Yep! There was a 17th century duck foot flintlock pistol recovered from some insurgent that wound up being destroyed, among other ridiculously historic pieces.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205488]We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;49205429]It really is past the time for better gun control[/QUOTE] you guys all get so passionate about defending your view that you don't recognize you're both right. this isn't JUST a gun problem and it isn't JUST a people problem. it's a people with guns problem.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49207155]In most of these threads it's inbetween fighting between Americans and then a couple of UK and Australian people going "ya dumb yanks and your guns!" flapping their fat cheeto stained fingers on the keyboard with half-arguments, it's only fair that there's a European here and there who actually looks into this stuff a little deeper than "lol americans and guns xDD hamburger xDD" Not to mention that someone's arguments aren't more or less valid based solely on where they live PS. let me tell you that getting a handgun license (B1) here in Portugal isn't as complicated as you probably think it is.[/QUOTE] And yet not a lot of people have one, or a gun.

[QUOTE=Borndeadman;49205574][URL="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html"]Except with just a quick google search you can find out that 21,175 of those deaths were suicide and not homicide. It's really only 11,208 firearm homicides. Sure it's still a big number but if you really want that 30k number to go down maybe increase efforts into suicide prevention?[/URL][/QUOTE] Or maybe, here's a thought, WORRY ABOUT BOTH!? The most wealthy nation in the world surely has the resources to combat both the problems of firearm suicide and homicide, or really all forms of suicide or homicide. The fact that so many people, even on here, are firmly against gun regulation is just absurd. People are dying. I fear for my life many times just doing normal things like going to the store or going on campus, all because you people don't want the government to infringe on "your hobby" or whatever. Guess what, your hobby is based around a good only made to kill. It can only kill and destroy. Sure, sometimes that can be helpful (hunting is actually a necessity here to keep the ecology in check) but you don't need AR-15s or even a glock to go hunting. Other countries have already figured this out. Unfortunately, because gun violence deniers and gun control opposition have already won, we are far past the event horizon for effectively solving this issue. Although gun ownership is down, we have already allowed the most irresponsible and unstable people to get them, so regulating them will be near impossible.

"I live in fear because I'm a paranoid lunatic and I just know everyone wants to murder me just because so I want guns banned to partially satisfy my phobia of other human beings"

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]The fact that so many people, even on here, are firmly against gun regulation is just absurd.[/QUOTE] Because every single bit of gun regulation they've tried to pass so far has been utter horseshit. [QUOTE]Guess what, your hobby is based around a good only made to kill. It can only kill and destroy.[/QUOTE] My guns so far have only killed paper and destroyed clay pigeons. Does it mean they're defective? [QUOTE]Sure, sometimes that can be helpful (hunting is actually a necessity here to keep the ecology in check) but you don't need AR-15s or even a glock to go hunting. Other countries have already figured this out.[/QUOTE] a) which "other countries" are you talking about, exactly? Because here we can get glocks and AR-15s just fine, and the law treats them just the same as any other firearm. This is fairly common in a big chunk of Europe. b) the Second Amendment has jack shit to do with hunting. If you think gun laws should only be written in regards to hunting, the lawmaking business is not for you. [QUOTE]Although gun ownership is down[/QUOTE] [citaion needed] [QUOTE]we have already allowed the most irresponsible and unstable people to get them, so regulating them will be near impossible.[/QUOTE] Guess what, the US already has in place several laws that should disallow the most irresponsible and unstable people from purchasing firearms, and they're already poorly enforced, mostly due to government workers' incompetence. What makes you think more laws, perhaps even harder to enforce, would solve anything?

Honestly, I'm afraid of what will happen when you force these lunatics to use alternative methods for attacks. Remember those nightclub fire ACCIDENTS that caused hundreds of deaths? Imagine the casualties intentionally set fires could have if even slightly thought out. A few molotovs or fuses using an accelerant (Gas/Fuel) to start simultaneous fires near multiple exit points on multi-level buildings, now THAT's a horrific scenario. Ontop of that, the perpetrator could just walk off to commit repeated such arson attacks. Guns are a tame in comparison to the potential damage arson could inflict, IMO. Please don't force lunatics to actually think out these kinds of attacks with alternative methods, they'll use more effective ones. edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_nightclub_fire[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire[/url] These were ACCIDENTS.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49215551]Honestly, I'm afraid of what will happen when you force these lunatics to use alternative methods for attacks. Remember those nightclub fire ACCIDENTS that caused hundreds of deaths? Imagine the casualties intentionally set fires could have if even slightly thought out. A few molotovs or fuses using an accelerant (Gas/Fuel) to start simultaneous fires near multiple exit points on multi-level buildings, now THAT's a horrific scenario. Ontop of that, the perpetrator could just walk off to commit repeated such arson attacks. Guns are a tame in comparison to the potential damage arson could inflict, IMO. Please don't force lunatics to actually think out these kinds of attacks with alternative methods, they'll use more effective ones. edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_nightclub_fire[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire[/url] These were ACCIDENTS.[/QUOTE] Australia has had several fire-based mass killings since its gun ban.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49215551]Honestly, I'm afraid of what will happen when you force these lunatics to use alternative methods for attacks. [/QUOTE] You mean like the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]worst massacre in recent US history, which involved no firearms at all[/url]?

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]Or maybe, here's a thought, WORRY ABOUT BOTH!?[/QUOTE]No, I don't really worry about either one since they're statistically insignificant. I come from one of the least violent states (that is to say our per capita murder rate isn't even a whole integer) and we're not going to be getting any more violent aside from immigrant-related stuff. (mostly Somali gangs) We're actually less-violent as an entire state than a great deal of European cities who seem to have a problem with motherfuckers stabbing everyone. [QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]The most wealthy nation in the world surely has the resources to combat both the problems of firearm suicide and homicide, or really all forms of suicide or homicide.[/QUOTE]You said the magic words, "most wealthy nation" and that's precisely why we've fallen behind other nations in so many areas. Our champion heavyweight economy is based on a system that is absolutely hostile to anyone who needs help, yeah we have social programs out there but they're just simple bandages to fix a massive, massive problem. So you either start going after the tip-top elites in this country and start taking away their wealth, which is morally questionable and also nearly impossible, or you slow down our economy and lower our collective prosperity by going after everyone else. (also morally questionable) [QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]The fact that so many people, even on here, are firmly against gun regulation is just absurd. People are dying.[/QUOTE]The fact that you're so concerned with people dying from gun-related deaths is concerning. You know what's more deadly than guns? Alcohol. Another deadly thing? The fact that we're all fat fucks. You're more likely to get your guts blasted out of your asshole from some dumbshit texting while driving than getting shot. Where's your outrage there? Traffic deaths resulting from pure human stupidity kill more people [I]every day[/I] across the country than guns do, accidental or intentional. [QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]I fear for my life many times just doing normal things like going to the store or going on campus, all because you people don't want the government to infringe on "your hobby" or whatever.[/QUOTE]Get a gun, go to the range and train on it if you're so afraid. Statistically you will never, ever use it and if you take it seriously you will be more trained than your local police force. That last part should be what truly scares you, not some invisible threat that doesn't exist because you're paranoid. [QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]Guess what, your hobby is based around a good only made to kill. It can only kill and destroy. Sure, sometimes that can be helpful (hunting is actually a necessity here to keep the ecology in check) but you don't need AR-15s or even a glock to go hunting.[/QUOTE]Tough shit, it's more than a hobby to me: it's my civic responsibility. I don't have an AR, I've always been partial to the bigger and more badass HK91, but who are you to tell me what I do or do not need? I'm certain you do all sorts of hazardous things that you don't need or shouldn't do. Here's a tip: life's dangerous, get a fucking helmet. [QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]Unfortunately, because gun violence deniers and gun control opposition have already won, we are far past the event horizon for effectively solving this issue.[/QUOTE]"gun violence deniers" lol give me a fucking break We haven't won, if we had I wouldn't be replying to this shit. We're refusing to concede more of our rights though, and I'm sure that pisses you off but frankly I don't give a shit.

Well of course the thread has now been overrun with the Facepunch Gun Club. This is the big problem with any attempt at trying to talk about this. You fucking assholes just jump on anybody who dares to oppose you to effectively silence any criticism, deny that any problem is even occurring (it is), and turn FP into your own twisted little version of /k/. If you were "responsible gun owners" you would realize the damage your supposed hobby can do, and don't give me this "it's my right" bullshit. It's MY right to live in a safe country where gun violence isn't fucking supported by the government because of some bullshit 200 year old document written in a time where the best firearms were inaccurate pea shooters that fired at a rate of 2 rounds a minute. Ahem: [quote=dumbass]ecause every single bit of gun regulation they've tried to pass so far has been utter horseshit.[/quote] So the NICS is horseshit? Should we just get rid of it and allow anybody with a shady criminal background to buy weapons? I fail to see how that piece of legislation is "horseshit". The only thing that is horseshit is this argument that somehow regulation is bad because "muh freedoms". [quote=dumbass] a) which "other countries" are you talking about, exactly? Because here we can get glocks and AR-15s just fine, and the law treats them just the same as any other firearm. This is fairly common in a big chunk of Europe. b) the Second Amendment has jack shit to do with hunting. If you think gun laws should only be written in regards to hunting, the lawmaking business is not for you.[/quote] A.)The countries I'm referring too include: Australia, Britain, Germany, and essentially any member of the European Union. Most of those countries don't have outright bans, but they do have stricter licensing for certain classifications of weapons like semi-automatic or military grade weapons. Nobody is "taking away" the guns; even I said it is unfeasible at this point. But the US can effectively regulate what types of guns are available to the civilian market. Even in the US you can buy what are essentially military-grade weapons. B.)I never said it did. I think I know the Constitution of the country I live in better than you, but regardless the Second Amendment is hardly a shield to hide behind. The Constitution is not an infallible document and the "Founding Fathers" were certainly not infallible people. The idea that our laws should be based on a 200 year old document written in a time where people didn't even bathe regularly is just as absurd as the fuckers in the Middle East attempting to assert Sharia law. Laws change and are revised with time, and gun ownership is not exempt from that just because some guys said so a few hundred years ago. [quote=dumbass] [citaion needed] [/quote] The most frequently cited source comes from a study by the University of Chicago which has found that the number of households with firearms has dropped significantly in the last decade to [URL="http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf"]a record low of 32% in 2014[/URL], meaning about 1/3 of American households own guns. Ergo, gun ownership is declining. [quote=] Guess what, the US already has in place several laws that should disallow the most irresponsible and unstable people from purchasing firearms, and they're already poorly enforced, mostly due to government workers' incompetence. What makes you think more laws, perhaps even harder to enforce, would solve anything?[/quote] Then perhaps the answer is too take the enforcement of said laws far more seriously. The reason they are poorly enforced is because private institutions are the ones selling the guns, and often the sellers are gun owners themselves. Therefore, they are most assuredly sympathetic too the buyers and less cooperative with the restrictions, or simply too apathetic to care about said legislation. How about cracking down on illegal firearms sales? It is incredibly easy to get access to a second-hand weapon in the states. We have the resources. The NSA is supposed to be monitoring input like that 24/7 to stop crime. The police should be able to stop and question civilians on the weapon they are carrying. We can expend the resources to help make enforcement less problematic, if we'd only bother to try and get past obstructionist assholes (like you). [quote=dumbass 2] No, I don't really worry about either one since they're statistically insignificant. I come from one of the least violent states (that is to say our per capita murder rate isn't even a whole integer) and we're not going to be getting any more violent aside from immigrant-related stuff. (mostly Somali gangs) We're actually less-violent as an entire state than a great deal of European cities who seem to have a problem with motherfuckers stabbing everyone.[/quote] 11,000 people being murdered, along with the 13th highest gun violence rate in the world, is "statistically insignificant" to you? [B]PEOPLE ARE DYING,[/B] and it would be entirely preventable if pricks like you weren't standing in the way. And I don't particularly give a fuck about your anecdotal shit concerning your state because it doesn't hold any relevance to the discussion. [quote=dumbass 2] You said the magic words, "most wealthy nation" and that's precisely why we've fallen behind other nations in so many areas. Our champion heavyweight economy is based on a system that is absolutely hostile to anyone who needs help, yeah we have social programs out there but they're just simple bandages to fix a massive, massive problem. So you either start going after the tip-top elites in this country and start taking away their wealth, which is morally questionable and also nearly impossible, or you slow down our economy and lower our collective prosperity by going after everyone else. (also morally questionable)[/quote] What the fuck are you even talking about? How does this pertain to anything in the discussion? Now you are talking about wealth distribution? I don't see how this paragraph in any way contributes to the discussion. [quote=dumbass 2] The fact that you're so concerned with people dying from gun-related deaths is concerning. You know what's more deadly than guns? Alcohol. Another deadly thing? The fact that we're all fat fucks. You're more likely to get your guts blasted out of your asshole from some dumbshit texting while driving than getting shot. Where's your outrage there? Traffic deaths resulting from pure human stupidity kill more people every day across the country than guns do, accidental or intentional.[/quote] Oh believe me, those issues aren't being ignored, but this is a thread about gun violence. It's a fallacy to deflect from this issue by saying "but there is something worse". We can easily focus on multiple issues at once. All of those things are problematic but as I said this is a discussion on gun violence. When the time comes we can talk about automobile accidents or heart attacks. [quote=]Get a gun, go to the range and train on it if you're so afraid. Statistically you will never, ever use it and if you take it seriously you will be more trained than your local police force. That last part should be what truly scares you, not some invisible threat that doesn't exist because you're paranoid.[/quote] Or maybe we could make a greater effort to restrict guns, especially from falling into the hands of the mentally ill instead of everybody getting a gun and turning the US into the Wild West. [quote=dumbass 2]Tough shit, it's more than a hobby to me: it's my civic responsibility.[/quote] HAHAHAHA Really? Responsibility? You make it sound like it is some kind of duty or enforcement to own a gun? Get over yourself. Nobody should [I]need[/I] a gun and I can assure you that it is not your "civic responsibility", it is definitely your hobby. Stop acting all high-and-mighty like this is some kind of necessity for the world because I guarantee your ownership of a firearm had contributed nothing to the lives of others in your community. What a fucking joke. [quote=dumbass 2]I don't have an AR, I've always been partial to the bigger and more badass HK91[/quote] Nobody gives a shit. This is a prime example of what is wrong with this forum. If you really owned a gun for a "civic responsibility" you wouldn't feel the need to cover your impotence by spouting off what kind of "badass" gun you have. Once again, get over yourself. [quote=dumbass 2]but who are you to tell me what I do or do not need? I'm certain you do all sorts of hazardous things that you don't need or shouldn't do. Here's a tip: life's dangerous, get a fucking helmet.[/quote] I don't give a single fuck if what you do endangers yourself. In fact I'd fucking encourage it in your case. But when your hobby, or [B]"[/B]civic responsibility[B]"[/B] enables others to commit violent actions against others than it's a little bit more than just endangerment. [quote=dumbass 2]We haven't won, if we had I wouldn't be replying to this shit. We're refusing to concede more of our rights though, and I'm sure that pisses you off but frankly I don't give a shit.[/quote] Your rights? How about my right as a citizen to live in a country where I don't have to wake up and see 20 more people shot over the weekend on the news? How about my right to wake up in a country that is safe and where some Alex Jones-type nutter can't get a fucking armory of military grade weapons. How about my right to not have to argue with fuckwits like you over an issue that the rest of the civilized world has already managed to solve while you continue to drag the United States backwards into some kind of hell to fulfill your needless Rambo fantasies. How about my right to live in a country that actually responds to intensifying problems and makes some attempt to fix them instead of fearing about treading on "rights" that some old stuffy assholes made up 200 years into the past. How about my right to live in a country where people, including the FUCKING POTUS, can actually propose some kind of regulation on guns without being dogpiled by a bunch of gun-nut crazies who don't want to lose their "civic responsibility" of going and shooting clay pigeons to feel masculine. Basically I'm saying fuck whatever rights you think you have. You don't have the right to own a deadly weapon for fun, nor should anybody ever have that right. If that pisses you off, well, it isn't the end of the world. Find a new hobby or source of entertainment that doesn't involve deadly weapons. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

Yes, accusing your opponents of bandwagoning, labeling them dumbasses, saying fuck a lot, and then spouting off a bunch of very paranoid nonsense. That's not arguing, that's being childish. Also, I think it needs to be made clear: [quote] You don't have the right to own a deadly weapon for fun[/quote] Yes, we do. And, well, we probably always will, despite you guy's best efforts. If you can't stand that, I don't know what to tell you.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;49216672]Yes, accusing your opponents of bandwagoning, labeling them dumbasses, saying fuck a lot, and then spouting off a bunch of very paranoid nonsense. That's not arguing, that's being childish..[/QUOTE] better argument than "ughhh it wont work" and "fucking euros..." like we see from a good fucking number of pro-gun people around here. Very few of us are talking about 100% confiscation because [I]our own fucking countries don't even do that[/I]. The fact that any attempt at even talking about gun control is perceived as "THE FUCKING REDS WANT ALL OUR GUNS AGAIN!!!!!!" is atrociously dishonest and makes actually discussing this shit nigh impossible.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596] Long drawn out rant full of cussing[/QUOTE] Ok, now let's be a calm rational person. Stop acting likea 5 year old over the fact we own guns and know way more than you do about the problems in this country. You refuse to listen to a single thing anyone says, and then go off on a rant. Take a deep breath, drink a few shots, and come back and let's talk like grown adults.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596]Well of course the thread has now been overrun with the Facepunch Gun Club. This is the big problem with any attempt at trying to talk about this. You fucking assholes just jump on anybody who dares to oppose you to effectively silence any criticism, deny that any problem is even occurring (it is), and turn FP into your own twisted little version of /k/. If you were "responsible gun owners" you would realize the damage your supposed hobby can do, and don't give me this "it's my right" bullshit. It's MY right to live in a safe country where gun violence isn't fucking supported by the government because of some bullshit 200 year old document written in a time where the best firearms were inaccurate pea shooters that fired at a rate of 2 rounds a minute. Ahem: So the NICS is horseshit? Should we just get rid of it and allow anybody with a shady criminal background to buy weapons? I fail to see how that piece of legislation is "horseshit". The only thing that is horseshit is this argument that somehow regulation is bad because "muh freedoms". A.)The countries I'm referring too include: Australia, Britain, Germany, and essentially any member of the European Union. Most of those countries don't have outright bans, but they do have stricter licensing for certain classifications of weapons like semi-automatic or military grade weapons. Nobody is "taking away" the guns; even I said it is unfeasible at this point. But the US can effectively regulate what types of guns are available to the civilian market. Even in the US you can buy what are essentially military-grade weapons. B.)I never said it did. I think I know the Constitution of the country I live in better than you, but regardless the Second Amendment is hardly a shield to hide behind. The Constitution is not an infallible document and the "Founding Fathers" were certainly not infallible people. The idea that our laws should be based on a 200 year old document written in a time where people didn't even bathe regularly is just as absurd as the fuckers in the Middle East attempting to assert Sharia law. Laws change and are revised with time, and gun ownership is not exempt from that just because some guys said so a few hundred years ago. The most frequently cited source comes from a study by the University of Chicago which has found that the number of households with firearms has dropped significantly in the last decade to [URL="http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf"]a record low of 32% in 2014[/URL], meaning about 1/3 of American households own guns. Ergo, gun ownership is declining. Then perhaps the answer is too take the enforcement of said laws far more seriously. The reason they are poorly enforced is because private institutions are the ones selling the guns, and often the sellers are gun owners themselves. Therefore, they are most assuredly sympathetic too the buyers and less cooperative with the restrictions, or simply too apathetic to care about said legislation. How about cracking down on illegal firearms sales? It is incredibly easy to get access to a second-hand weapon in the states. We have the resources. The NSA is supposed to be monitoring input like that 24/7 to stop crime. The police should be able to stop and question civilians on the weapon they are carrying. We can expend the resources to help make enforcement less problematic, if we'd only bother to try and get past obstructionist assholes (like you). 11,000 people being murdered, along with the 13th highest gun violence rate in the world, is "statistically insignificant" to you? [B]PEOPLE ARE DYING,[/B] and it would be entirely preventable if pricks like you weren't standing in the way. And I don't particularly give a fuck about your anecdotal shit concerning your state because it doesn't hold any relevance to the discussion. What the fuck are you even talking about? How does this pertain to anything in the discussion? Now you are talking about wealth distribution? I don't see how this paragraph in any way contributes to the discussion. Oh believe me, those issues aren't being ignored, but this is a thread about gun violence. It's a fallacy to deflect from this issue by saying "but there is something worse". We can easily focus on multiple issues at once. All of those things are problematic but as I said this is a discussion on gun violence. When the time comes we can talk about automobile accidents or heart attacks. Or maybe we could make a greater effort to restrict guns, especially from falling into the hands of the mentally ill instead of everybody getting a gun and turning the US into the Wild West. HAHAHAHA Really? Responsibility? You make it sound like it is some kind of duty or enforcement to own a gun? Get over yourself. Nobody should [I]need[/I] a gun and I can assure you that it is not your "civic responsibility", it is definitely your hobby. Stop acting all high-and-mighty like this is some kind of necessity for the world because I guarantee your ownership of a firearm had contributed nothing to the lives of others in your community. What a fucking joke. Nobody gives a shit. This is a prime example of what is wrong with this forum. If you really owned a gun for a "civic responsibility" you wouldn't feel the need to cover your impotence by spouting off what kind of "badass" gun you have. Once again, get over yourself. I don't give a single fuck if what you do endangers yourself. In fact I'd fucking encourage it in your case. But when your hobby, or [B]"[/B]civic responsibility[B]"[/B] enables others to commit violent actions against others than it's a little bit more than just endangerment. Your rights? How about my right as a citizen to live in a country where I don't have to wake up and see 20 more people shot over the weekend on the news? How about my right to wake up in a country that is safe and where some Alex Jones-type nutter can't get a fucking armory of military grade weapons. How about my right to not have to argue with fuckwits like you over an issue that the rest of the civilized world has already managed to solve while you continue to drag the United States backwards into some kind of hell to fulfill your needless Rambo fantasies. How about my right to live in a country that actually responds to intensifying problems and makes some attempt to fix them instead of fearing about treading on "rights" that some old stuffy assholes made up 200 years into the past. How about my right to live in a country where people, including the FUCKING POTUS, can actually propose some kind of regulation on guns without being dogpiled by a bunch of gun-nut crazies who don't want to lose their "civic responsibility" of going and shooting clay pigeons to feel masculine. Basically I'm saying fuck whatever rights you think you have. You don't have the right to own a deadly weapon for fun, nor should anybody ever have that right. If that pisses you off, well, it isn't the end of the world. Find a new hobby or source of entertainment that doesn't involve deadly weapons.[/QUOTE] lmfao you have no idea who you're arguing with or even what you're arguing about you're scared of guns and assume anyone who owns one or supports the right to own them is a mass murderer in the making you didn't read the thread, you didn't read the opinions of the people you're arguing with, you don't know and you don't care because you're so blinded by your delusional fear of all things shootbangy that you enter a blood rage and fight with anyone who isn't entirely ignorant on the subject [t]http://i.imgur.com/h5Ivo0r.jpg[/t] i own this it qualifies as an assault weapon under the AWB it's 100 years old and is one of the trial batch that mauser sent to the prussian navy for service weapon trials in 1915 it's historic and you want me to chuck it in a furnace because it meets some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon"??? no. [t]http://i.imgur.com/0gZqCQA.jpg[/t] 1906. 12 gauge - one of the cartridges recommended for a ban on the basis that it's used in military shotguns. this gun was purchased by a local bank to ride on a stagecoach and protect it from highwaymen. it's historic. [t]http://i.imgur.com/PpQ7uLp.jpg[/t] 1924. 12 gauge. remington model 10 - one of our trench guns of ww1, though this one was used by the FBI. it's historic. and the idea that i - or anyone else - can own, preserve and enjoy these little slices of history for what they are... scares you? you wake up in cold sweats, whispering to yourself; "grenadiac owns guns! [i]he could come for me at any time![/I]" i think you need to see a psychiatrist for your paranoid schizophrenia. these things aren't threatening anyone - and neither is my AR-15. know why? it's just an object. all i do with it is clean it and shoot paper with it - because it's fun. i enjoy blowing off steam and honing my aim. i enjoy preserving little bits of history - old guns among them. it's a hobby. you know what is threatening? a maniac with an AR-15. a maniac with a mauser c96. a maniac with a 1772 brown bess. a maniac with a machete. a maniac with a truck. a maniac with a box of matches. but you aren't trying to ban machetes, trucks or matches. the common denominator here is the maniac, not a gun. i'm 100% behind any measure that approaches the actual issue. [I]you[/I] aren't. because they don't "do enough." lmao. you know what i did on monday? i decided i wanted this, so i bought it. no questions asked. no paperwork. it'll arrive on my doorstep on thursday. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gWtOcNo.png[/img] i'm sorry. the very concept must have you shaking in your fuzzy slippers. i didn't mean to scare you. you'll probably get over it, though, since i'm not going to murder you or anyone else with it. because i'm not a maniac. and because the odds of you being murdered are so ridiculously low it's actually comical that you're afraid to wake up in the morning.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596]It's MY right to live in a safe country where gun violence isn't fucking supported by the government[/QUOTE] You're right, you DO have the right to live in any of the countries that fit your fucking criteria, so MOVE to one, there's plenty to fucking choose from.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596] Basically I'm saying fuck whatever rights you think you have. You don't have the right to own a deadly weapon for fun, nor should anybody ever have that right. If that pisses you off, well, it isn't the end of the world. Find a new hobby or source of entertainment that doesn't involve deadly weapons.[/QUOTE] Never read this part. You own a knife? Better trash it. I don't care about your rights either, including your right to free speech, the very right protected by the second. Anything can be a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, and plenty of common mundane things once were designed as deadly weapons. You have such a horrible argument. Oh, also, in your long rant, I'm fairly certain you said you encouraged someone harming themselves. Congrats, reading this, I am glad you do not own a firearm, you are clearly a loose cannon. You act like we are children who want to feel more manly, yet pretty much tell someone to hurt themselves. Good job, hypocrite.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596]all dat shit[/QUOTE] So you instantly labeled people who disagree with you as "dumbass", real classy. I'm going to treat you and your ideals with the same regard while finding some other gems... [quote=ass bandit]You fucking assholes just jump on anybody who dares to oppose you to effectively silence any criticism[/quote] Because the other side (and the Left in general) has totally never done the same. Nope, it's always those smelly right-wing pro-gunners. Also you should consider the difference between ~dogpiling to silence criticism~ and multiple people from different countries offering a rebuttal to your uninformed opinions. [quote=butt pirate]So the NICS is horseshit? Should we just get rid of it and allow anybody with a shady criminal background to buy weapons? I fail to see how that piece of legislation is "horseshit". The only thing that is horseshit is this argument that somehow regulation is bad because "muh freedoms".[/quote] Well aren't you a little fucking genius. I said laws they [I]tried to pass[/I], not already existing ones. Nobody's complaining about the NICS, just the AWBs and other useless shit most anti-gun politicians have so desperately tried to pass in the last years. Learn to read before you start calling other people dumbasses because they have a different opinion on a subject you seem to know jack shit about. [quote=invader of the chocolate runway]Or maybe we could make a greater effort to restrict guns, especially from falling into the hands of the mentally ill instead of everybody getting a gun and turning the US into the Wild West.[/quote] Well then. Which laws would you pass and how would you enforce them. Be constructive instead of whining about [I]muh muh too many guns SOMEONE should do SOMETHING and you ASSHOLES are just as bad as MURDERERS[/I] ...fuck it, I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post, considering most of what you wrote either has already been discussed in great depth in past times (and mostly disproved), or just a pile of soccermom-tier bullshit. But what do I know, am I not just one of those crazy gun-toting dumbasses? :^) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49215487]"I live in fear because I'm a paranoid lunatic and I just know everyone wants to murder me just because [B]so I want guns[/B] to partially satisfy my phobia of other human beings"[/QUOTE] fix'd for you. its not the regulation side thats paranoid about being murdered by everybody around them, nor are they the ones who believe they need to have overwhelming firepower at the ready just to get groceries

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49216596]Well of course the thread has now been overrun with the Facepunch Gun Club. This is the big problem with any attempt at trying to talk about this. You fucking assholes just jump on anybody who dares to oppose you to effectively silence any criticism, deny that any problem is even occurring (it is), and turn FP into your own twisted little version of /k/.[/QUOTE] Let's turn back the clock a little to the first page of this thread. [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] You [i]really[/i] want to pull that 'you can't handle criticism!!!' card? Because I see a thread full of gun owners and sympathizers who can give you [b]coherent, specific reasons and examples[/b] for why the proposed bans are a bad idea, and the most anyone seems able to muster in return is 'but australia! and gun homicides! ban guns!' If anti-gun activists could muster the intellectual fortitude to give a comprehensive approach to gun control that addresses the kinds of guns used in crime rather than ones that look scary, and acknowledges the underlying problems rather than tout this stupid 'ban guns and everything will be fixed because Australia' then yeah I'd actually listen. Give us a real argument and we'll argue. Tell us we're just circlejerking because we point out that simplistic two-sentence soundbites do [b]fuck all[/b] to address the problem, and we'll give you equally flippant and dismissive answers.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49217251]fix'd for you. its not the regulation side thats paranoid about being murdered by everybody around them, nor are they the ones who believe they need to have overwhelming firepower at the ready just to get groceries[/QUOTE] did you look at any other part of any of my other posts or just decide to talk out of your ass because why not e: because i take a 100 year old c96 and an 1851 navy revolver to walmart to buy lettuce lmao yeah i'm gonna cc. why? because a) it's my right and i don't owe you an explanation beyond that but because part of me still stupidly believes you can be reasoned with i'm going to offer one b) i already own a suitable carry pistol because of hobby interests c) yes, anything can happen. my father was in a bar when a guy walked in blasting away with a shotgun and got put down by a guy with a CCW. ("anecdotal!!!!!") gun crime is uncommon and the chance of being a victim is really exceptionally low (in our most violent city, [I]0.00045%[/I] of people are murder victims, less are firearms victims) but as a hobbyist i already have the gun and a right to carry it so why not? can't hurt to be prepared if something [I]does[/I] happen, no matter how unlikely. i feel perfectly safe unarmed and have basically everywhere i've been. d) i live in a pretty country area and threats from wild animals are not uncommon (certainly more likely than a firearms threat from another human) i'm not calling to deprive millions of people of millions of dollars in property and immeasurable sentimental value and importance to their livelihoods because i'm scared that anyone standing around me could whip out a gun and shoot me so to accuse me of paranoia for having a hobby interest in shooting is rich to say the least. first and foremost i like to shoot paper and enjoy doing the maintenance, marveling at the engineering that goes into them, and the immense historic value some of them hold. self defense is a secondary priority.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49217251]fix'd for you. its not the regulation side thats paranoid about being murdered by everybody around them, nor are they the ones who believe they need to have overwhelming firepower at the ready just to get groceries[/QUOTE] I'd CC not because I think I will get murdered at any moment, but because, well, I can. I know there's literally something in the one thousandths of a percent chance that I'd ever need to use a CC gun, but still, I'd like to because I can. And there is literally no down side to me carrying it, aside from having an extra step to go through before I leave the house. I don't think I should lose the right to do what I want to over something arbitrary as what basically amounts to presuming my guilt and instability. I don't think I should have to undergo any additional testing, or paper work, to do something that is my right as a citizen. I pass a NICS check, that already looks for anything that's dangerous. Expecting me to go to a doctor or something to get a mental check because I want to use my rights is, well, excessive, in my eyes. In short, it's the principle of the thing, I suppose.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49215365]The fact that so many people, even on here, are firmly against gun regulation is just absurd. People are dying. I fear for my life many times just doing normal things like going to the store or going on campus, all because you people don't want the government to infringe on "your hobby" or whatever.[/QUOTE] Where do you live that you fear for your life just leaving your home? I live in rural Pennsylvania, we have no gun laws other than pistol registration and of course Federal laws. I go to the store and I don't feel threatened, I go to the mall and I don't feel threatened, I go to Popeye's or Shell or Taco Bell and I don't feel threatened. In the summer I regularly hear distant shots from target shooters and hunters, but I don't feel like they're coming to kill me. The only time I've heard of someone being shot around here, it was a drug dealer with an illegal handgun. [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49215612]You mean like the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]worst massacre in recent US history, which involved no firearms at all[/url]?[/QUOTE] The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster#Farm_bombs]worst school attack[/url] was also a bombing by a disgruntled board member and farmer, although the events leading up to this incident would not be possible today (including detonating test bombs, which neighbors ignored).

[QUOTE=Sableye;49217251]fix'd for you. its not the regulation side thats paranoid about being murdered by everybody around them, nor are they the ones who believe they need to have overwhelming firepower at the ready just to get groceries[/QUOTE] Most people carry because they want too, not because of a fear. The ONLY side I ever see people showing fear is from the anti gun side like our little friend up there ranting about precisely that. I am going to ask you a question. I own 7 firearms now, how many did I buy because I was afraid? Hint, It's smaller than 1.

Yeah, so far the guns I own are not out of fear. Why are some of you guys so afraid of the thought of someone owning a firearm? Do you really think you are going to get shot randomly in the street? The more likely thing that is going to happen is you are going to get stabbed. Some of you also really need to at least watch a 20 minute video on firearms 101, because I am getting a headache reading you guys talking about "ASALT WAPONS!" Every time someone says it I feel like I am in a starbucks in California or Portland. Anyways, back onto the issue, I am going to copy/paste an argument I wrote awhile back [QUOTE] "Often I am asked "Why are you against gun control? Why do you need a gun?" I look at other countries who have disarmed their people and think "Gee, that isn't a great idea" Look at Mexico, Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and now look, the civilians are disarmed and the cartels now have weapons. Or we look even farther back in history where governments disarmed their people and became tyrannical. Do I think "OBERMA GUN TAKE MUH GUNS"? No, but I worry for my future children. I am not going to give up the right to bear arms, because what if down the line in my grand children's lifetime our government starts to become tyrannical? I am not willing to risk that. I believe it is a fair trade off to ensure our security. Yes it is bad when about 120 people every year die from a mass shooting. But when you look at the numbers 120 out of 350,000,000, it REALLY isn't that much. I believe it is a fair trade off. You may say "120 is still 120 too many deaths!" Really, if someone wants to kill a large amount of people, even without a gun they can do it. They can hijack an airliner, make a bomb(fairly easy by the way), buy an actual fully auto weapon off the black market (albeit at a high price, but still), or even make their own weapon (Again, easy if you have a press, grinder, and some tools and metal you can get at any hardware store), or if you just want to kill a certain person, you can poison them, stab them, etc. Now we talk about gun violence, (which by the way most of them are committed with shotguns and pistols, not rifles.) many of those statistics INCLUDE SUICIDE. As well as gang violence and whatnot. If you look at the "7 deadly days" paper by the magazine in the 1980s, you will see many of those homicides including firearms were domestic, and it was usually a dispute between a couple or friends. Again, you might say "60,000 people is way too many!") Cars kill more people, Alcohol kills more people, Tobacco kills more people every year, but yet we don't look at that. (By the way, I believe all drugs should be legal, and the war on drugs should end because a lot of gun violence in america is related to the war on drugs) Now back to the tyrannical government thing, you may say "It doesn't even matter if you have guns, the government has tanks, drones, and a lot higher firepower than any civilians" That is correct, but do you really think EVERY single soldier in the U.S army would fight against it's own people? I guarantee that at least 40% of the armed forced would defect over time, because guess what, it kinda fucks with your head when you are killing fellow countrymen. Also, just because the government has tanks and drones doesn't mean we would lose, when you look at the Middle East wars, you see sheepherders with old AK-47s were able to hold off an EXTREMELY disrupt our forces for over 14 years. Also, when you look at vietnam, again farmers with SKSs and AK-47s were able to WIN the vietnam war against our superiority. It is very possible to win a war against a government through guerrilla warfare. Another thing I should mention, another reason I own a gun is to protect myself, my family, and my property. I am not going to stand someone potentially coming in my house at night, and stealing all my shit and maybe even trying to harm my family, that is NOT okay. "Why not a taser or bear mace or something not lethal? You don't NEED to kill someone" First of all, what if there is more than one robber or mugger or something. A taser is a one shot thing, and sometimes they don't even incapacitate people (you can look up videos on youtube of big guys being hit 2-3 times by multiple tasers and just shrugging it off and still running), also if they are armed with a knife or something to that extent, by the time they are incapacitated you are going to have a stab wound in you. One last thing I want to mention, people always talk about how easy it is to get an "assault rifle" in america. When actually that is extremely wrong, when the media says "assault rifle" they are really meaning a semi-automatic black scary looking gun. A real assault rifle would be select fire and fully automatic, which in order to get one you need to jump through a lot of hoops and cash, ie a Class 3 license, or maybe even a class 7 SOT if you want it after 1986. It will also cost you easily $25,000+ for one. So for the love of god stop calling them assault rifles, they are literally not assault rifles.[/QUOTE]