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

If you are talking about full auto weapons, those are classified as machine guns and are currently heavily restricted to the point it costs well over 10 grand for one.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941305]It was. Semi automatic long rifles are considered assault weapons by federal law.[/QUOTE] Depends on the rifle.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;36941227]the dude had body armor on[/QUOTE] And so therefore we assume that out in the world, there is a high chance that random people with guns are going to be wearing body armour, thereby justifying the need to carry say a shotgun around with them at all times?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941306]HOW DOES A GUN MAKE IT MORE EASY TO KILL A THEATER FULL OF PEOPLE THAN A AXE OR A SWORD HMMM LET ME THINK YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT LIKE THE WHOLE REASON GUNS WERE INVENTED WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE MORE EFFECTIVE AT KILLING PEOPLE THAN SWORDS HUH[/QUOTE] They are both capable of mass casualties, why ban one over the other? What makes a firearm more powerful than an axe? An axe causes much more serious injuries than a single shot from a firearm. Multiple axe strikes cause more damage than multiple gunshot wounds. Axes do not need to be reloaded, firearms do. Hm.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941311]no because we're not comparing software to guns[/QUOTE] That's fairly arbitrary. Utorrent was designed to download files in an efficient manner. It, by design, makes copyright infringement easier. Ban Utorrent, by your logic.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36941318]And so therefore we assume that out in the world, there is a high chance that random people with guns are going to be wearing body armour, thereby justifying the need to carry say a shotgun around with them at all times?[/QUOTE]That literally does not make any sense.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941321] What makes a firearm more powerful than an axe? [/QUOTE] Are you actually serious right now?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941340]Are you actually serious right now?[/QUOTE] Yes. I am. What makes a firearm more powerful than an axe when it comes to damage dealt upon a successful hit?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941332]That's fairly arbitrary. Utorrent was designed to download files in an efficient manner. It, by design, makes copyright infringement easier. Ban Utorrent, by your logic.[/QUOTE] no because utorrent isn't a gun. they aren't comparable. i'm not making a blanket statement of 'if this does that then blah blah' i'm talking specifically about guns

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941343]Yes. I am. What makes a firearm more powerful than an axe when it comes to damage dealt upon a successful hit?[/QUOTE] Range. Rate of fire. Ease of use. Can we get back to relevant arguments now

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941302]Guns could've easily been substituted if something like the AWB that people here support was passed.[/QUOTE] yeah but not really, there's a reason why people around the world pick up guns and not swords, axes, or bombs when they want to kill another group of people. the most important thing when it comes to a weapon like that in a situation like that is how much possible injury can i cause within a short span of time. a gun easily could kill several people in a matter of minutes as it did in this case because that's what they are made for.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941344]no because utorrent isn't a gun. they aren't comparable. i'm not making a blanket statement of 'if this does that then blah blah' i'm talking specifically about guns[/QUOTE]Then you should be more concerned with what type of ammo is used, because a fully-automatic M60 general purpose machine gun firing simunitions (bullets that are paintballs at the same time) is perfectly safe, as long as everyone has eye protection.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941337]That literally does not make any sense.[/QUOTE] The guy is saying that because the dude had body armour on, it somehow justifies people carrying powerful weapons around all the time.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941344]no because utorrent isn't a gun. they aren't comparable. i'm not making a blanket statement of 'if this does that then blah blah' i'm talking specifically about guns[/QUOTE] Again, that's incredibly arbitrary and illogical. Your argument falls apart as soon as its contested because you aren't willing to apply your logic consistently to other comparable issues. I really thought this was going to be a lot harder.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941343]Yes. I am. What makes a firearm more powerful than an axe?[/QUOTE] Range, weight, relative ease of use, ease of transport, easier to acquire (depending on the firearm). The fact that militaries have been using firearms exclusively for the past 100 years should go to show how effective bladed weapons are in comparison. I honestly don't understand how you could possibly think an axe is "more powerful" than really any firearm.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941344]no because utorrent isn't a gun. they aren't comparable. i'm not making a blanket statement of 'if this does that then blah blah' i'm talking specifically about guns[/QUOTE] But the majority of people do not use guns to kill people, even if that is what a gun was designed to do. You may not see your argument as comparable but others could argue it is, meaning that limiting gun rights could set precedence for limiting other rights for "the greater good".

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36941352]Range. Rate of fire. Ease of use. Can we get back to relevant arguments now[/QUOTE] So the guy in the theater shooting was sniping people from far distances? An axe is VERY easy to use. You need no training. It also is more reliable. No moving parts to jam. No trying to put a fresh mag in during stressful situations. Just swing...swing...swing.

[QUOTE=Chrille;36941255]holy fuck it's designed to kill people like, it's literally the only thing it's made for[/QUOTE] so were swords... bow and arrows... until they found a more sporting and recreational purpose I think the issue here is the features found on assault weapons that can lead a firearm to get banned because it serves no other purpose than to make the weapon operate more effeciently and with less drawbacks - which in turn can help target practice... or for more nefarious purposes such as shooting incidents. The main issue here is not about banning guns in itself (as some guns can be used for sporting purposes in prestigeous events or for hunting) but banning the specific firearms that contain features that go beyond user friendliness and pose a potential problem if it falls into the wrong hands don't move the topic too much from Holmes' shooting incident and assault weapons because I don't think banning is much of an issue, but tighter regulations on assault weapons to be more likely

Obongo is once again trying to steal our guns and turn United States of America(God bless!) to some filthy Godless Commie states. Romney 2012.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941365]So the guy in the theater shooting was sniping people from far distances? An axe is VERY easy to use. You need no training. It also is more reliable. No moving parts to jam. No trying to put a fresh mag in during stressful situations. Just swing...swing...swing.[/QUOTE] Axes tend to get stuck in people and are cumbersome weapons.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36941357]The guy is saying that because the dude had body armour on, it somehow justifies people carrying powerful weapons around all the time.[/QUOTE]Shotguns would be even less effective against body armor than any other type of firearm. You would literally be better off with a knife, which can pierce kevlar body armor almost as easily as rifle rounds. [editline]Clarifying[/editline] I get your point, but I was saying that your statement literally made no sense. Just pointing that out.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941365]So the guy in the theater shooting was sniping people from far distances? An axe is VERY easy to use. You need no training. It also is more reliable. No moving parts to jam. No trying to put a fresh mag in during stressful situations. Just swing...swing...swing.[/QUOTE] 'not right next to someone' is plenty of range. And while I've never axe-murdered someone, I imagine the blade would get stuck fairly easily. Back to Lach, I can't get why you're so hung up on original purpose. Things get re-purposed all the time. Also body armor is a big messy argument all its own

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941365]So the guy in the theater shooting was sniping people from far distances? An axe is VERY easy to use. You need no training. It also is more reliable. No moving parts to jam. No trying to put a fresh mag in during stressful situations. Just swing...swing...swing.[/QUOTE] Skyrim is not a realistic portrayal of combat. You need a LOT more training to effectively use weapons like axes and swords over firearms.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36941376]Axes tend to get stuck in people and are cumbersome weapons.[/QUOTE] So is an AR-15 in a crowded theater. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;36941387]Skyrim is not a realistic portrayal of combat. You need a LOT more training to effectively use weapons like axes and swords over firearms.[/QUOTE] I need training to swing a bladed weapon around? Really?

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941353]yeah but not really, there's a reason why people around the world pick up guns and not swords, axes, or bombs when they want to kill another group of people. the most important thing when it comes to a weapon like that in a situation like that is how much possible injury can i cause within a short span of time. a gun easily could kill several people in a matter of minutes as it did in this case because that's what they are made for.[/QUOTE] what im saying is that is if you remove guns, you'll still have someone trying to go nuts and kill others. homles probably wouldn't have killed as many people if he went on an axe or knife rampage in the movie theater, but he's still cause the same amount of chaos and upset citizens across the country. any kind of massacre will make the perpetrator notorious and briefly put people in a panic, no matter the weapon.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941394]So is an AR-15 in a crowded theater.[/QUOTE] How the fuck does an AR-15 get stuck inside a human body?

By the way, the arguments made against assault weapon bans are very similar in essence to arguments against shutting down TPB. The arguments for are also startlingly similar in essence. For: Takes away the ease for people to commit crime Against: Treats law abiding citizens like criminals and doesn't actually stop real criminals. Why isn't copyright infringement and gun law a comparable issue in your mind, when they are objectively comparable?

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36941394]So is an AR-15 in a crowded theater. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] I need training to swing a bladed weapon around? Really?[/QUOTE] More training than is required to turn a rifled tube towards a man-sized target and pull the trigger.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36941402]How the fuck does an AR-15 get stuck inside a human body?[/QUOTE] It's cumbersome, genius. Now you are really grasping at straws.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36941385]'not right next to someone' is plenty of range. And while I've never axe-murdered someone, I imagine the blade would get stuck fairly easily. Back to Lach, I can't get why you're so hung up on original purpose. Things get re-purposed all the time. Also body armor is a big messy argument all its own[/QUOTE] Haha, an axe doesn't take training to use? Which is exactly why soldiers had to train for months or years to use them effectively in combat?