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

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36940918]or we could do both???[/QUOTE] gun ownership is a very, very volatile political issue in the usa right now. a decent-sized chunk of the population owns at least one gun. it's easier to ignore the issue entirely than try to implant gun control that's based entirely on huge misinterpretations of guns, which just pisses off both extremists and moderates. i know some pseudo-intellectual liberal types think that only racist rednecks own guns so who gives a shit if they're banned, but you can find that gun ownership is pretty common across the USA. the sheer amount of guns out there suggests that gun ownership is not restricted to paranoid and racist rednecks that just want to shoot black people.

[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] aye, it's not just about gun control but creating a society in which shooters like Holmes are less likely to happen I was actually surprised though, that Holmes managed to get inside the theater, open an alternative exit of the theater (which in my opinion shouldn't be opened so carelessly by non-theater employees) drive his car near the exit, and managed to acquire all weapons without so having an employee or security notice his preperation

[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;36940954]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] thanks for proving his point for him, it's more dangerous, therefore it should be regulated more or outright banned. assault weapons are more dangerous than hunting rifles/pistols/whatever and therefore should be treated differently

[QUOTE=imptastick;36940942]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.[/QUOTE] because your entire argument revolves around us having to prove to you why you DONT need a machine with the capacity to kill tons of people, and something that has and is still being used daily to kill people. i cant drive a tank around because the risk of me and everyone else driving around in a fucking tank greatly outweighs whatever stupid personal joy we get from taking our tanks out to the range every week. in the end no matter what competitive or recreational value you place on the item, it has a massive capacity to kill and cause harm, and it contributes [B]massively[/B] to violent crime in the country, and for what? so you can have something cool and fun despite the reality of it being a machine designed to kill shit

ill just leave this here [QUOTE=Harry3;36911458]Anyone buying that amount of weapons in such a short space of time in most other countries would be deemed a terrorist or out to cause serious harm, its brilliant that someone does it in America and its perfectly normal because its a right, and he might just want to have fun with 6000 bullets and an AR-15. Its insane someone can have such simple and easy access to deadly weapons. I probably sound like a liberal anti-gun hippie, but thats my opinion.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36940963]because the crimes that assault weapons ARE used in are the massacres like this[/QUOTE] yes, because crimes with ar-15s and other scary-looking guns happen so often that we need to clamp down on guns that have accessories that make me frown.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940964] i know some pseudo-intellectual liberal types[/QUOTE] yeah cut the bullshit dude, insulting people using the word liberal will put you on the fast track of being completely ignored and won't accomplish anything else.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940997]yes, because crimes with ar-15s and other scary-looking guns happen so often that we need to clamp down on guns that have accessories that make me frown.[/QUOTE] yes pretty much

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940970]because your entire argument revolves around us having to prove to you why you DONT need a machine with the capacity to kill tons of people, and something that has and is still being used daily to kill people. i cant drive a tank around because the risk of me and everyone else driving around in a fucking tank greatly outweighs whatever stupid personal joy we get from taking our tanks out to the range every week. in the end no matter what competitive or recreational value you place on the item, it has a massive capacity to kill and cause harm, and it contributes [B]massively[/B] to violent crime in the country, and for what? so you can have something cool and fun despite the reality of it being a machine designed to kill shit[/QUOTE] No, you are either misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that it is wrong to take away the rights of the many out of fear of possible actions of the few. I am not arguing to make all firearms legal, I am arguing to not make guns which thousands of law abiding citizens own illegal.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36940999]yeah cut the bullshit dude, insulting people using the word liberal will put you on the fast track of being completely ignored and won't accomplish anything else.[/QUOTE] im a liberal myself. im just making fun of the dumb ones that don't really realize the deeper parts of issues and are hypocritical in how they treat the lower classes (those that claim to want to help the lower classes but constantly stereotype them as dumbass hillbillies that should be left to rot).

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36940963]because the crimes that assault weapons ARE used in are the massacres like this[/QUOTE] And don't happen often, at all. Most crimes happen with tiny handguns bought from some dude in the street, rather than a big, unwieldy rifle. This kind of weapons is mostly used by target shooters and small-medium game hunters, or hikers/backpackers in remote areas to avoid getting mauled by mountain lions. They already tried banning them, and it did precisely bugger all. The infamous North Hollywood shootout happened right in the middle of the AWB.

[QUOTE=imptastick;36941028]No, you are either misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that it is wrong to take away the rights of the many out of fear of possible actions of the few. I am not arguing to make all firearms legal, I am arguing to not make guns which thousands of law abiding citizens own illegal.[/QUOTE] but i wont hurt anyone with my tank so why should you take away my precious armored cannon just because a few nutjobs go and blow up some office buildings?

[QUOTE=Ziron;36940964]gun ownership is a very, very volatile political issue in the usa right now. a decent-sized chunk of the population owns at least one gun. it's easier to ignore the issue entirely than try to implant gun control that's based entirely on huge misinterpretations of guns, which just pisses off both extremists and moderates.[/QUOTE] It's rather sad that guns are so ingrained in American culture. You can say XYZ but it still doesn't stop the fact that it's implied that guns are as important to Americans as oxygen mean that there isn't something wrong with that. Guns are purely a tool for ending lives.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36941035]And don't happen often, at all. Most crimes happen with tiny handguns bought from some dude in the street, rather than a big, unwieldy rifle. This kind of weapons is mostly used by target shooters and small-medium game hunters, or hikers/backpackers in remote areas to avoid getting mauled by mountain lions. They already tried banning them, and it did precisely bugger all. The infamous North Hollywood shootout happened right in the middle of the AWB.[/QUOTE] pretty sure most assault weapons are designed to be better at killing people rather than animals. noones arguing about making hunting rifles illegal

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36941035]And don't happen often, at all. Most crimes happen with tiny handguns bought from some dude in the street, rather than a big, unwieldy rifle. This kind of weapons is mostly used by target shooters and small-medium game hunters, or hikers/backpackers in remote areas to avoid getting mauled by mountain lions. They already tried banning them, and it did precisely bugger all. The infamous North Hollywood shootout happened right in the middle of the AWB.[/QUOTE] exactly. weapons like a cheap .38 special revolver or a knife are much more practical for robberies than some huge and unwieldly ar-15 that makes it obvious what you're going to do right before you enter the store.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941044]but i wont hurt anyone with my tank so why should you take away my precious armored cannon just because a few nutjobs go and blow up some office buildings?[/QUOTE] You are arguing with a straw man. By that logic an acceptable argument against fireworks is that C4 is dangerous and illegal.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941044]but i wont hurt anyone with my tank so why should you take away my precious armored cannon just because a few nutjobs go and blow up some office buildings?[/QUOTE] In the US and a few other countries you can buy armored vehicles and mount heavy weaponry on them. It's perfectly legal and always has been, yet nobody ever used these things to commit crimes.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940970]because your entire argument revolves around us having to prove to you why you DONT need a machine with the capacity to kill tons of people, and something that has and is still being used daily to kill people. i cant drive a tank around because the risk of me and everyone else driving around in a fucking tank greatly outweighs whatever stupid personal joy we get from taking our tanks out to the range every week. in the end no matter what competitive or recreational value you place on the item, it has a massive capacity to kill and cause harm, and it contributes [B]massively[/B] to violent crime in the country, and for what? so you can have something cool and fun despite the reality of it being a machine designed to kill shit[/QUOTE] A tank and firearm are two totally different things, and to make a comparison between the two in an effort to enhance your argument makes no sense. A several ton armored vehicle with a cannon firing high explosives, along with several high caliber machine guns is in no way comparable to a semi automatic, nine pound rifle. Oh, and people do own tanks. I have seen several during my times reenacting. Mind you, converted not to fire. But do you not think someone with the thought process to cause mass casualties would not be able to set one up? They could always mount semi-auto weapons inside of them. However, I have yet to see someone use a privately owned tank to massacre people.... odd. I own numerous firearms. I carry firearms for a living. Funny... I have yet to go on any massacre or even have the thought of ending an innocent life. But you would like to believe those of us who have firearms have this thought. Or those of us who own these "assault weapons".... Think of the millions of "assault weapons" in private ownership (legally) compared to how many mass shooting sprees we have. Hm... That's funny. Where are all the mass shooting sprees at? Yes. They happen. But they way you make it sound. They should be happening every single day. Oh, and people also own cannons. I see those a lot at reenactments as well. Privately owned and fully capable of firing. Yet... Wow! Oh my! I have yet to see one of THOSE show up in town square and blast away! So straaaaaaaange.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941044]but i wont hurt anyone with my tank so why should you take away my precious armored cannon just because a few nutjobs go and blow up some office buildings?[/QUOTE] The difference in ability is magnitudes of order. Like was said, you're trying to demonize firecrackers because of dynamite

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941033]im a liberal myself[/QUOTE] You still sound pretty dumb when you use liberal as a general purpose insult.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941058]exactly. weapons like a cheap .38 special revolver or a knife are much more practical for robberies than some huge and unwieldly ar-15 that makes it obvious what you're going to do right before you enter the store.[/QUOTE] and yet these gun measures aren't being discussed due to robberies they're being discussed due to massacres so why is that relevant?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941081]and yet these gun measures aren't being discussed due to robberies they're being discussed due to massacres so why is that relevant?[/QUOTE] Because the massacres, while very visible, are of negligible impact compared to the whole of gun crime

[QUOTE=imptastick;36941059]You are arguing with a straw man. By that logic an acceptable argument against fireworks is that C4 is dangerous and illegal.[/QUOTE] you don't know what the term "straw man" means. fireworks aren't designed for killing and don't cause a significant amount of deaths in civilian life or war. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36941074]The difference in ability is magnitudes of order. Like was said, you're trying to demonize firecrackers because of dynamite[/QUOTE] "help i dont understand principle"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36941053]It's rather sad that guns are so ingrained in American culture. You can say XYZ but it still doesn't stop the fact that it's implied that guns are as important to Americans as oxygen mean that there isn't something wrong with that. Guns are purely a tool for ending lives.[/QUOTE] guns used to be ingrained in British culture as well, but that all changed when we started building up to the irish civil war.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36941085]Because the massacres, while very visible, are of negligible impact compared to the whole of gun crime[/QUOTE] we're not talking about the whole of gun crime though, we're talking specifically about massacres which are so much more likely to happen and easier to happen due to the ease in which people can legally obtain such weapons

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941091]you don't know what the term "straw man" means. fireworks aren't designed for killing and don't cause a significant amount of deaths in civilian life or war. [/QUOTE] Most gun owners do not by them to kill, you refuse to accept that most gun owners are not going to massacre people. [editline]edit[/editline] This is most certainly a "strawman" situation, you are acting as if I am arguing all weaponry should be legal knowing that that is not my argument. You are saying that my arguments do not apply to tanks, which has no bearing on my arguments for assault rifles.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941081]and yet these gun measures aren't being discussed due to robberies they're being discussed due to massacres so why is that relevant?[/QUOTE] massacres are freak occurrences. trying to prevent something that happens two or so times a year and itself is hard to predict until it's too late is ridiculous. if someone has mental health issues and thinks that killing is a practical method for whatever reason, they're gonna find a way to kill people no matter what. it's much more practical to focus on much more common reasons why guns are used to kill, such as turf wars and robberies gone bad. its easier to figure out and root out the such crimes and combat them than somehow try to detect a james holmes and stop him.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941105]we're not talking about the whole of gun crime though, we're talking specifically about massacres which are so much more likely to happen and easier to happen due to the ease in which people can legally obtain such weapons[/QUOTE] Cars, trucks, and other wheeled vehicles are easily obtainable and can cause massacres. Planes can be used as well. We have yet to ban planes as weapons.

[QUOTE=imptastick;36941108]Most gun owners do not by them to kill, you refuse to accept that most gun owners are not going to massacre people.[/QUOTE] i do accept that and once again (for probably the 5th time, no exaggeration), nobody has ever EVER implied that gun owners all buy their weapons with the intent to kill

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941116]We have yet to ban planes as weapons.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure using a plane as a weapon is illegal