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

[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] Sorry I'm not reading 5 pages so maybe it's been said, but he's made this speech many times. He makes this speech a lot but "MUH GUNS AND FREEDOM" happens so nobody dares allow gun control laws to pass, civilian or congress. [editline]30th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49217501]Where do you live that you fear for your life just leaving your home? I live in rural Pennsylvania.[/QUOTE] Go live in Philly for 6 months and you'll probably understand. Go live downtown anywhere in America and you'll understand. Where there are big crowds there are mass shootings and bombings. Obviously not everywhere nor always, but it happens and it happens frequently enough in America that it's a viable possibility anymore. But at the same time, if we adopt that mentality then terrorists win, if I may.

Doesn't the fact that (as a lot of people in this thread have stated) you're unlikely to ever need to use a gun to shoot somebody (i.e. self-defense) kinda demonstrate that their only real purpose is for recreation and for some crazy person to go on a school shooting every one and awhile? I mean, they serve no other purpose, why even keep them around? I mean sure it's a fun hobby, but other countries allow people to become sport shooters with a license and you can still collect historic guns and keep them locked up in a case. I reckon if it was anything else, like someone made a new type of escalator that was two times faster and someone died on it, people would just stop manufacturing it. That's not so much paranoia as it is pragmatism, you're creating a risk for very little reward. In this situation it's the same case, it's the choice between being able to keep doing what you're doing or being able to keep doing what you're doing but also having to sign some forms for the small chance that somebody might use the toy you bought to shoot somebody. It's the same thing as needing a license to drive and when you register your car. Or getting insurance.

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;49217844]Go live in Philly for 6 months and you'll probably understand. Go live downtown anywhere in America and you'll understand. Where there are big crowds there are mass shootings and bombings. Obviously not everywhere nor always, but it happens and it happens frequently enough in America that it's a viable possibility anymore.[/QUOTE] So, criminals armed with illegal weapons, the type unaffected by most proposed firearms regulation anyway?

[QUOTE=Zyler;49217972]Doesn't the fact that (as a lot of people in this thread have stated) you're unlikely to ever need to use a gun to shoot somebody (i.e. self-defense) kinda demonstrate that their only real purpose is for recreation and for some crazy person to go on a school shooting every one and awhile? I mean, they serve no other purpose, why even keep them around? I mean sure it's a fun hobby, but other countries allow people to become sport shooters with a license and you can still collect historic guns and keep them locked up in a case. I reckon if it was anything else, like someone made a new type of escalator that was two times faster and someone died on it, people would just stop manufacturing it. That's not so much paranoia as it is pragmatism, you're creating a risk for very little reward. In this situation it's the same case, it's the choice between being able to keep doing what you're doing or being able to keep doing what you're doing but also having to sign some forms for the small chance that somebody might use the toy you bought to shoot somebody. It's the same thing as needing a license to drive and when you register your car. Or getting insurance.[/QUOTE] Ban something because its only purpose is recreation? What? And that's not even true. The odds are in your favor as far as getting murdered goes but it doesn't hurt to have the ability to defend yourself. In an extreme example they are one of several deterrents against tyranny. They're good for more than recreation but most of that is all passive - things they do just by existing. Most people only actively use theirs for recreation or hunting, but they are there in case of more serious needs. I could make the same tired car analogy but I'm not going to because you've heard it. I just don't understand this logic. You cannot ban things just because they aren't a [I]necessity[/I]. If the government banned video games or strictly regulated the internet on the basis that you don't [I]need[/I] them, you'd be throwing a fit - and rightfully. As far as licensing goes, I don't think most gun owners would be opposed to a sane, grandfathered licensing system. But we're afraid of it turning out like Britain's licensing where it's virtually impossible to actually get/keep a firearm unless you're a deep rural farmer or rich - because there is living proof that governments will immediately abuse their ability to place restrictions, and in the US our voices can only stop them from getting that ability at all, not control how they use it. If our government wasn't so deranged and untrustworthy many more people would be behind controls. But just look what happened in California and NY - we gave an inch and they took a mile. Nobody is going to be happy if that occurs nationwide.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49217284]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] Honesty Alert: 0.00045% is a completely bullshitted figure. The per capita murder rate in Saint Louis, the leading city in violent crime, is 109/100,000, or ~.0011%, which is almost two and a half times greater than your given absolute highest number. Keep in mind that this statistic only includes actual murders, and not violent crimes that didn't result in death, such as assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc. If you're gonna use statistics, check them.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49218184]Honesty Alert: 0.00045% is a completely bullshitted figure. The per capita murder rate in Saint Louis, the leading city in violent crime, is 109/100,000, or ~.0011%, which is almost two and a half times greater than your given absolute highest number. Keep in mind that this statistic only includes actual murders, and not violent crimes that didn't result in death, such as assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.[/QUOTE] 0.00045% is Detroit. I was under the impression that it was the deadliest city from the most recent statistics that I've seen. If St. Louis is .0011% then I cede defeat on that statistic, but it sounds like St. Louis' problems run deeper than the fact that people there are allowed to own guns, and I'd still argue that it's an exceedingly low chance of being killed either way and still not evidence that guns are causing people to kill each other. This isn't an honesty issue, I don't mind admitting when I've made a mistake.

Saint Louis is fucked five ways from Sunday to be honest. The massive racial gap here is responsible for the bulk of our problems. Gun violence isn't the disease here, just an ugly symptom of it. Most people do immediately think Detroit or Chicago for couldn't cities, which is definitely fair because both cities have some troubling numbers in TOTAL amount of violent crimes committed, but once you start comparing populations to the totals? Yikes. East Saint Louis is 21 times the national average for violent crime. I still believe quite strongly in stricter regulation of weaponry, especially handguns, and a steady decrease in gun population over a long period of time through production and sale limits, but I definitely would agree that your chances of being randomly shot while walking down the street aren't very high, at least not in your average city under usual circumstances.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49218120]Ban something because its only purpose is recreation? What? And that's not even true. The odds are in your favor as far as getting murdered goes but it doesn't hurt to have the ability to defend yourself. In an extreme example they are one of several deterrents against tyranny. They're good for more than recreation but most of that is all passive - things they do just by existing. Most people only actively use theirs for recreation or hunting, but they are there in case of more serious needs. I could make the same tired car analogy but I'm not going to because you've heard it. I just don't understand this logic. You cannot ban things just because they aren't a [I]necessity[/I]. If the government banned video games or strictly regulated the internet on the basis that you don't [I]need[/I] them, you'd be throwing a fit - and rightfully. As far as licensing goes, I don't think most gun owners would be opposed to a sane, grandfathered licensing system. But we're afraid of it turning out like Britain's licensing where it's virtually impossible to actually get/keep a firearm unless you're a deep rural farmer or rich - because there is living proof that governments will immediately abuse their ability to place restrictions, and in the US our voices can only stop them from getting that ability at all, not control how they use it. If our government wasn't so deranged and untrustworthy many more people would be behind controls. But just look what happened in California and NY - we gave an inch and they took a mile. Nobody is going to be happy if that occurs nationwide.[/QUOTE] I think you've only read what you wanted to read from my comment, I didn't say that we should ban anything because it's used for recreation, I didn't even propose banning anything. I said that if the purpose of something is essentially to just be a dangerous toy, and it exists for no other reason than recreation, there's no reason to have em and so there's no reason not to regulate them for the sake of stopping the small number of people who do get injured or killed. [QUOTE] I could make the same tired car analogy but I'm not going to because you've heard it. I just don't understand this logic. You cannot ban things just because they aren't a necessity. If the government banned video games or strictly regulated the internet on the basis that you don't need them, you'd be throwing a fit - and rightfully.[/QUOTE] But you need a license to drive a car on a public road because you could (even accidently) run someone over or cause damage to public property. Keeping a car on your property is like keeping a gun in a locked case, it's not going to hurt anybody. Think of it like insurance, you pay a certain amount of money so that in the small chance that things do go wrong the powers that be can deal with it. I agree with you that a lot of the attempts at gun regulation in America have been badly implemented, but there are also instances where it's been done well like in New York. Ultimately it depends on how it's implemented, if done right you can make people safer while still allowing people who enjoy collecting guns and sports shooters to do what they like. Most gun deaths come from depressed people committing suicide or accidents because people are stupid. Both of which are completely preventable through regulating firearms in such a manner that people who do get them legally know how to use them safely and are screened through obtaining a license.

The way they were implemented in NY was a travesty and serious trust abuse and didn't fix the problem at all. Licensing is abused as a [I]de facto[/I] ban all over Europe and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen here, though I would be 100% OK with more in-depth background checks and mandatory safety classes - things that can't be denied or obstructed arbitrarily. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49218271]Saint Louis is fucked five ways from Sunday to be honest. The massive racial gap here is responsible for the bulk of our problems. Gun violence isn't the disease here, just an ugly symptom of it. Most people do immediately think Detroit or Chicago for couldn't cities, which is definitely fair because both cities have some troubling numbers in TOTAL amount of violent crimes committed, but once you start comparing populations to the totals? Yikes. East Saint Louis is 21 times the national average for violent crime. I still believe quite strongly in stricter regulation of weaponry, especially handguns, and a steady decrease in gun population over a long period of time through production and sale limits, but I definitely would agree that your chances of being randomly shot while walking down the street aren't very high, at least not in your average city under usual circumstances.[/QUOTE] Regulation is one thing, but using it to eventually cut off circulation is an abuse. One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is the complete end of manufacturing for "disposable" firearms that are designed to be as cheap as possible and destroyed as easily as possible, like Hi-Points, though that could certainly be abused if not carefully implemented - things like guns simply shouldn't be allowed to be made shittily. Existing ones would be grandfathered in I guess since there's definitely a strong current collector culture for shitty guns (Cobray...) but I wouldn't mind if no more were produced. No doubt that plenty of law abiding citizens own Hi-Points but they're literally marketed toward criminals and designed with criminal activities in mind, which is questionable to say the least.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49218536] No doubt that plenty of law abiding citizens own Hi-Points but they're literally marketed toward criminals and designed with criminal activities in mind, which is questionable to say the least.[/QUOTE] I own a Hi-Point, literally the only people who actually like these damn brick POS's are criminals, or those who have never fired anything else. I also have a Jennings J-22, those are self explanatory though.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49218736]I own a Hi-Point, literally the only people who actually like these damn brick POS's are criminals, or those who have never fired anything else. I also have a Jennings J-22, those are self explanatory though.[/QUOTE] And then criminals refer to them as "glocks" [IMG]http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Glock-40-Problem-Solver.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49218812]And then criminals refer to them as "glocks" [IMG]http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Glock-40-Problem-Solver.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Gotta say, out of all the fake Glocks I've seen, this just takes the cake... I mean, the two look nothing alike, function differently, plus the fact it says Hi Point on the side unless some crackhead engraved "Glock" into the side...

[QUOTE=sgman91;49205568]You have to remember that a massively huge percentage of gun homicide in the US is focused in urban areas where young men are shooting other young men, often who already have criminal backgrounds. If you take out some of these areas, the US lines up with the rest of the west when it comes to gun homicide. Over 60% of those are suicides. Are you now talking about all gun deaths instead of "wanton gun violence?" The number of gun homicides sits right around 10,000.[/QUOTE] 40% of 30,000 is still a fucking lot

[QUOTE=Araknid;49219005]40% of 30,000 is still a fucking lot[/QUOTE]Well yeah if you look at it by itself, 12,000 of anything is [I]a lot.[/I] Thing is though that 12,000 doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a part of a much bigger number: 310,000,000 That's not a lot anymore, is it? Plus, the really great part is that 12,000 isn't consistent, it's actually steadily decreasing along with the 30,000 that it's a part of while that 310,000,000 is increasing making the number even more statistically insignificant.

The actual amount of guns (both legal and illegal) in the US isn't the cause of violence, it's more of a symptom of the actual problem which is rampant poverty and a large gap between the rich and the poor as well as things like the prison industrial complex. These are the actual problems that lead to people committing violent crimes but politicians are quick to switch the blame to guns and mental health as well as things like violent video games/death metal/weed/whatever as a scapegoat so that they don't have to solve the actual problem, which would require going against their corporate interests.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49219110]The actual amount of guns (both legal and illegal) in the US isn't the cause of violence, it's more of a symptom of the actual problem which is [B]rampant poverty and a large gap between the rich and the poor[/B] as well as things like the prison industrial complex. These are the actual problems that lead to people committing violent crimes[B] but politicians are quick to switch the blame to guns and mental health[/B] as well as things like violent video games/death metal/weed/whatever as a scapegoat so that they don't have to solve the actual problem, which would require going against their corporate interests.[/QUOTE] But how do you explain then that other countries also suffer from rampant poverty and a large gap between the rich and the poor, but don't have nearly as much violent crimes? I mean, I'm not saying that poverty doesn't lead to violent crime but surely the abundance of guns is just giving everyone the tools to commit violent crimes?

[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49221577]But how do you explain then that other countries also suffer from rampant poverty and a large gap between the rich and the poor, but don't have nearly as much violent crimes? I mean, I'm not saying that poverty doesn't lead to violent crime but surely the abundance of guns is just giving everyone the tools to commit violent crimes?[/QUOTE] Many do, though. There are many countries with total or [I]de facto[/I] bans on firearms with higher violent crime rates than or similar to the US - such as the UK, where you can still find yourself on the wrong end of an illegal firearm.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49215620]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. 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) 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. 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. 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. "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.[/QUOTE] Fuckin' A man.

Anne Frank would disapprove of this thread.