Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36940796][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre[/url][/QUOTE] haha i knew you would link this so can you find anything else apart from this single japanese fluke? or are you seriously expecting a one-off japanese killing spree to be comparable to decades of massacres performed via firearm

Am I allowed to keep a small artillery battery for self defence?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;36940766]people in the audience could have had a means to defend themselves had assault rifles been legal[/QUOTE] This statement blows my mind, SERIOUSLY?!

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36940796][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre[/url] You were saying?[/QUOTE] a man crashing a truck into a crowd and a grown man stabbing primary school kids is hardly comparable

the gubernment wont let me fire my howitzer recreationally so uh i guess not!!!!!

[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;36940810]I did not say that, I said that regardless of the laws, bad things will still happen.[/QUOTE] yes that is true, but with laws we can at least make sure that less bad things happen, or that the bad things that DO happen are slightly less horrific

guns are evil and everyone who owns one is a psychopath in the making true fact

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;36940851]guns are evil and everyone who owns one is a psychopath in the making true fact[/QUOTE] this but unironically

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940790]so then, minus the sarcasm that was completely unnecessary and just served to ignore the fucking point, what is your answer[/QUOTE] My belief is that we need stricter regulations and not outright banning, by stating that your hypothetical tank was somehow equivalent to a gun seems ridiculous to me. Your argument (seemed to me at least) to be that if I think assault rifles should be legal all weaponry should be.

[QUOTE=imptastick;36940874]My belief is that we need stricter regulations and not outright banning, by stating that your hypothetical tank was somehow equivalent to a gun seems ridiculous to me. Your argument (seemed to me at least) to be that if I think assault rifles should be legal all weaponry should be.[/QUOTE] is it possible for you to just tell me why i'm not allowed to own a working, loaded tank or would that be too much effort

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36940776]What defines an assault weapon?[/QUOTE] How about reading the fucking thread you are posting in. We covered this already.

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;36940851]guns are evil and everyone who owns one is a psychopath in the making true fact[/QUOTE]

dunno if you've noticed but i'm trying to get a point across here and you telling me it's unrealistic to own a tank doesn't really cut it

[QUOTE=dogmachines;36940329]Here is what happens when guns are made illegal[/QUOTE] guns are not illegal in england, if you wanna talk "Facts" then you should know that they are heavily regulated, not illegal. [QUOTE=dogmachines;36940329][img]http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.png[/img][/QUOTE] and this graph is stupid because: [quote]A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.[49] At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates to be seen for both large-calibre and .22 handguns bans (because certificates remained valid even if the holder had disposed of all their firearms). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year.[50] This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[51] making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005.[/quote] [quote][b]At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates to be seen for both large-calibre and .22 handguns bans (because certificates remained valid even if the holder had disposed of all their firearms).[/b][/quote] so from 1997 you'd have to wait till 2002 to see the results, and there is an obvious dip in 2002. stop using the UK gun control act in your arguments because you obviously only took a graph that someone put together on the basis of nothing; you haven't done actually bloody research. not to mention as you can see from the FAC certificate count, not that many people lost their guns.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36940848]yes that is true, but with laws we can at least make sure that less bad things happen, or that the bad things that DO happen are slightly less horrific[/QUOTE] a better way to deal with it would be to do things such as improve mental health care, education and remove things such as prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs, which encourage the creation of a permanent underclass that can only use violence to succeed. you're always going to have freak accidents like james holmes. instead of building your system around people like him (which is ridiculous and still makes it impossible to stop people like him), it's better to improve society so that there's no need to run around and shoot your neighbors in for personal benefit because of how bad your situation is. Those deaths can be prevented and are much more common than "schizo man that's hidden from getting treatment kills 14 people at once".

[QUOTE=Harry3;36940828]This statement blows my mind, SERIOUSLY?![/QUOTE] yes?

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940897]a better way to deal with it would be to do things such as improve mental health care, education and remove things such as prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs, which encourage the creation of a permanent underclass that can only use violence to succeed. you're always going to have freak accidents like james holmes. instead of building your system around people like him (which is ridiculous and still makes it impossible to stop people like him), it's better to improve society so that there's no need to run around and shoot your neighbors in for personal benefit because of how bad your situation is. Those deaths can be prevented and are much more common than "schizo man that's hidden from getting treatment kills 14 people at once".[/QUOTE] im gonna quote this so you dont remove it because its probably the worst thing ive ever read

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;36940905]yes?[/QUOTE] If they were legal I wonder who the hell would carry one into a cinema for self defence?

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940897]a better way to deal with it would be to do things such as improve mental health care, education and remove things such as prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs, which encourage the creation of a permanent underclass that can only use violence to succeed.[/QUOTE] or we could do both???

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940890]dunno if you've noticed but i'm trying to get a point across here and you telling me it's unrealistic to own a tank doesn't really cut it[/QUOTE] Your question is as loaded as your hypothetical tank's gun, obviously enough that nobody will take the bait. If given an answer you'll respond with general concepts that liken tanks to guns in a manner unimportant to the actual discussion but enough for you to make yet another snide reply.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940818]haha i knew you would link this so can you find anything else apart from this single japanese fluke? or are you seriously expecting a one-off japanese killing spree to be comparable to decades of massacres performed via firearm[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Unek[/url] Easy to find. Just a quick search about Google for them. There are also a lot of crimes and sprees where there were a mixture of a bladed or blunt force weapon along with the firearm, but I did not bother posting those because it was not the only weapon involved.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940897]a better way to deal with it would be to do things such as improve mental health care, education and remove things such as prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs, which encourage the creation of a permanent underclass that can only use violence to succeed. you're always going to have freak accidents like james holmes. instead of building your system around people like him (which is ridiculous and still makes it impossible to stop people like him), it's better to improve society so that there's no need to run around and shoot your neighbors in for personal benefit because of how bad your situation is. Those deaths can be prevented and are much more common than "schizo man that's hidden from getting treatment kills 14 people at once".[/QUOTE] except this has nothing to do with crime caused by poverty. as it's been pointed out numerous times, the majority of guns used in violent crime are hand guns. we're talking about assault weapons that are used in these massacres

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;36940851]guns are evil and everyone who owns one is a psychopath in the making true fact[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gambIieBNe0[/media]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36940916]If they were legal I wonder who the hell would carry one into a cinema for self defence?[/QUOTE] I def wood

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940883]is it possible for you to just tell me why i'm not allowed to own a working, loaded tank or would that be too much effort[/QUOTE] Why are you so caught up on tanks? It is nearly impossible to use a tank without causing damage. Comparing a gun to a tank is like comparing fireworks to dynamite.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0[/media]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36940928]as it's been pointed out numerous times, the majority of guns used in violent crime are hand guns.[/QUOTE] If this is the case why are you even arguing against assault weapons?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;36940935]I def wood[/QUOTE] I could possibly understand a pistol for self defence, but it perplexes me as to how anyone can justify a weapon that's more powerful.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940883]is it possible for you to just tell me why i'm not allowed to own a working, loaded tank or would that be too much effort[/QUOTE] An AR can be a bit more dangerous that a pistol or hunting rifle in the wrong hands, sure, a fully armed tank though, can be about a million times more dangerous. You'll find it much harder to rampage through the streets or a city killing hundreds of people with just an AR, as you'll be gunned down. In a tank, well the police probably don't have much in the way of anti tank weaponry. That might be a reason.

[QUOTE=Pig;36940950]If this is the case why are you even arguing against assault weapons?[/QUOTE] because the crimes that assault weapons ARE used in are the massacres like this