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

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941118]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] Then why ban them? [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;36941123]i'm pretty sure using a plane as a weapon is illegal[/QUOTE] Quick! BAN THEM IMMEDIATELY!

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941116]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] CARS AND PLANES HAVE PRACTICAL USES. AN ASSAULT WEAPON DOES NOT.

[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]Actually, it's perfectly legal to own a tank but you can't drive it on the road without going through a lot of bullshit. You can, however, tear your yard the fuck up all you want with a 55 ton armored fighting vehicle, of which, you need sophisticated anti-armor weapons to actually disable or destroy. As for the main gun, it needs to either be registered with the ATF as a destructive device (since it's caliber is greater than half an inch) or deactivated in some way.[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36941071]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]Actually, one guy did steal a tank from a vehicle depot and drove it around, fucking shit up. The concrete dividers on a highway finally stopped him. So tanks have been used to commit crimes.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941109]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] freak occurances that happen with frightening regularity in the US.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941130]CARS AND PLANES HAVE PRACTICAL USES. AN ASSAULT WEAPON DOES NOT.[/QUOTE]Shooting things is a practical use, it's not like it's extremely difficult and complicated to shoot watermelons and deer and shit.

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941109]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] except if it wasn't so easy for james holmes to get his guns then it wouldn't have been so easy for him to commit his massacre. seriously, what you're bringing up is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941124]Then why ban them? [/QUOTE] Nobody is talking about banning guns [B]holy shit.[/B]

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941124] Quick! BAN THEM IMMEDIATELY![/QUOTE] no because our economy relies on planes. our economy doesn't rely on assault weapons. your weird analogies are just making it harder for me to read your posts without sighing.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941130]CARS AND PLANES HAVE PRACTICAL USES. AN ASSAULT WEAPON DOES NOT.[/QUOTE] So, does that mean we can ban military simulators now? Or video games that in detail show the function of a firearm or devices that may render someone the knowledge on how to use these weapons or devices? Or tactics? Video games have no practical use beyond entertainment.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941145]Shooting things is a practical use, it's not like it's extremely difficult and complicated to shoot watermelons and deer and shit.[/QUOTE] there is no practical reason to shoot shit with an assault weapon.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941145]Shooting things is a practical use, it's not like it's extremely difficult and complicated to shoot watermelons and deer and shit.[/QUOTE] I don't think I would consider shooting watermelons as practical but okay.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941151]Nobody is talking about banning guns [B]holy shit.[/B][/QUOTE] I see plenty of talking about banning firearms. Where have you been?

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941153]So, does that mean we can ban military simulators now? Or video games that in detail show the function of a firearm or devices that may render someone the knowledge on how to use these weapons or devices? Or tactics? Video games have no practical use beyond entertainment.[/QUOTE] I remember the last time I beat somebody to death with some software.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941153]So, does that mean we can ban military simulators now? Or video games that in detail show the function of a firearm or devices that may render someone the knowledge on how to use these weapons or devices? Or tactics? Video games have no practical use beyond entertainment.[/QUOTE] jesus christ you are bad at this whole arguments-that-make-sense thing. i can't kill a theater full of people with a video game can i? so why the fuck are you trying to compare them jeepers creepers

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941161]I see plenty of talking about banning firearms. Where have you been?[/QUOTE] Not in crazy persecution complex Gunland.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941153]So, does that mean we can ban military simulators now? Or video games that in detail show the function of a firearm or devices that may render someone the knowledge on how to use these weapons or devices? Or tactics? Video games have no practical use beyond entertainment.[/QUOTE] like i said you're not gonna convince anyone using these contrived and inane metaphors. unless you actually think this is a good way to argue

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941169]jesus christ you are bad at this whole arguments-that-make-sense thing. i can't kill a theater full of people with a video game can i? so why the fuck are you trying to compare them jeepers creepers[/QUOTE] Now you are starting to get the picture.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941148]except if it wasn't so easy for james holmes to get his guns then it wouldn't have been so easy for him to commit his massacre. seriously, what you're bringing up is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing[/QUOTE] I'm saying james homes would've killed no matter what. he already had knowledge on how to make IEDs, if his apartment was any indication. i don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he would've tried to toss pipe-bombs into the crowd if your magical assault weapon ban went through.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941057]pretty sure most assault weapons are designed to be better at killing people rather than animals. noones arguing about making hunting rifles illegal[/QUOTE] "Assault" weapons (dumb definition, since it's not really an assault rifle we're talking about, just a semi-automatic one that looks evil and scary to those who know little about firearms) are designed to kill all sorts of shit, just like any other firearm. And again, these kinds of massacre happen once in a blue moon, despite the majority of american gun owners (and a rather large slice of gun owners from other countries) having at least an AR, an AK or whatever in their collection. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941105]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] Then tell me, how come this isn't a daily occurance? These guns have always been considered in the same category as any other weapon (because pretty much they are) and regulated as such, yet cases like this are a very fucking rare sighting.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941176]Now you are starting to get the picture.[/QUOTE] what? i can't kill a theater full of people with a video game, but james holmes could with a fucking ar15 or whatever the fuck he used. what picture am i getting? the picture that you make the worst analogies and the most nonsensical arguments to justify your pointless gun fetish? [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziron;36941179]I'm saying james homes would've killed no matter what. he already had knowledge on how to make IEDs, if his apartment was any indication. i don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he would've tried to toss pipe-bombs into the crowd if your magical assault weapon ban went through.[/QUOTE] and like i said, it's a lot harder and a lot more dangerous and has a higher chance of being caught building homemade bombs than it is legally purchasing a gun

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941179]I'm saying james homes would've killed no matter what. he already had knowledge on how to make IEDs, if his apartment was any indication. i don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he would've tried to toss pipe-bombs into the crowd if your magical assault weapon ban went through.[/QUOTE] home made pipe-bombs are incredibly ineffective at killing people in a movie theater. they are big and there's plenty of seats to absorb shrapnel, and that is if they blew up which they usually don't because most homemade pipe-bombs in assaults tend to completely fault. if a pipe-bomb was an acceptable alternative to an assault weapon, they'd be used instead of them a lot more.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941155]there is no practical reason to shoot shit with an assault weapon.[/QUOTE]I hunt to sustain myself, that's pretty practical. I also like the option of being able to quickly deploy a weapon in the rather rare, but quite possible chance that my home is assaulted by crystal meth tweakers. Assault weapons (specifically the AR10A1) improve my chances of successfully resolving the conflict in my favor.[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941160]I don't think I would consider shooting watermelons as practical but okay.[/QUOTE]Clearly, you've never had one of [i]those[/i] days.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36941118]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] Then why punish them all for the actions of the few? I would suggest focusing on making it more difficult to get assault rifles through regulations rather than banning them.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941190]what? i can't kill a theater full of people with a video game, but james holmes could with a fucking ar15 or whatever the fuck he used. what picture am i getting? the picture that you make the worst analogies and the most nonsensical arguments to justify your pointless gun fetish?[/QUOTE] I have a gun fetish? When did I say that? No, you are getting it when someone comes with a stupid reason to ban something. You think it's stupid that I say ban video games because it can 'teach' someone how to kill, use firearms, set up ambushes, and teach tactics. Just as those who are supportive of firearms thinks it is dumb to ban a firearm because of certain 'features' it has. A firearm is that. A firearm. Regardless of what features it has - it has the capability of killing no matter what. Banning certain firearms will not stop anything from occurring.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36941189]"Assault" weapons (dumb definition, since it's not really an assault rifle we're talking about, just a semi-automatic one that looks evil and scary to those who know little about firearms) are designed to kill all sorts of shit, just like any other firearm. And again, these kinds of massacre happen once in a blue moon, despite the majority of american gun owners (and a rather large slice of gun owners from other countries) having at least an AR, an AK or whatever in their collection. Then tell me, how come this isn't a daily occurance? These guns have always been considered in the same category as any other weapon (because pretty much they are) and regulated as such, yet cases like this are a very fucking rare sighting.[/QUOTE] i'm not gonna bother reiterating what i and others have also said multiple times just because you haven't read the thread

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941190]and like i said, it's a lot harder and a lot more dangerous and has a higher chance of being caught building homemade bombs than it is legally purchasing a gun[/QUOTE] Is that why authorities didn't know he had explosives at his house until he was arrested and told them?

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941206]I have a gun fetish? When did I say that? No, you are getting it when someone comes with a stupid reason to ban something. You think it's stupid that I say ban video games because it can 'teach' someone how to kill, use firearms, set up ambushes, and teach tactics. Just as those who are supportive of firearms thinks it is dumb to ban a firearm because of certain 'features' it has. A firearm is that. A firearm. Regardless of what features it has - it has the capability of killing no matter what. Banning certain firearms will not stop anything from occurring.[/QUOTE] it was stupid because, even though we get the analogy, video games can't kill people, guns can, it's not even a "certain feature" of the firearm, it's the only purpose it has

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941202]I hunt to sustain myself.[/QUOTE] uh now i'm not a master-hunter, but if you hunt to sustain yourself you'd probably be using weapons that are made to cause as little damage to the animal as possible while still causing death.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36941215]Is that why authorities didn't know he had explosives at his house until he was arrested and told them?[/QUOTE] you can't use your houses booby traps in a theater can you

[QUOTE=Chrille;36941216]it was stupid because, even though we get the analogy, video games can't kill people, guns can, it's not even a "certain feature" of the firearm, it's the only purpose it has[/QUOTE] Numerous objects can kill people. Your point?