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

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941528]well actually militias ran with machetes because they were on drugs and believed in weird superstitions involving immortality.[/QUOTE] it was also because they could buy crateloads of machetes for dollars [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36941452]You don't know how to respond because you literally have no rebuttal. Keep telling yourself its a stupid argument so you can feel intellectually superior, if you want, but don't try and tell everyone else that you have any shred of logical consistency when you are unable to apply the same logic to an issue that goes against your party ideology.[/QUOTE] my party ideology? what are you talking about. spouting pointless shit that has nothing to do with this issue isn't an argument. are you saying you apply the same logic to every single situation?

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941504]why do you think during the Rwandan conflict, militias ran with machetes along with rifles?[/QUOTE] [url=http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/43/1/5.abstract]Most didn't have rifles or firearms at all, actually[/url]. The reason why they used them was because they were cheaper than firearms. More than 580,000 in all were imported from China in preparation for the ensuing genocide.

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941542]people also need to stop basing their bias off of counterstrike and modern warfare; there's a reason why professional militaries train continuously with rifles and there's a reason why they have marksmanship courses - firearms are not easy to use as people assume them to be[/QUOTE] dude i'm not basing anything off of games. i'm basing off the fact that if you have a weapon that works you can likely hit whatever is front of you in a 20 meter radius. people who train with rifles train to shoot other people with guns in horrible conditions stretching out over hours and likely involving long distances. you're pulling in factors that aren't applicable.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941497]if by "much like" you mean "much less" the skill required to fire a gun at a mansized target is [B]hugely [/B]less than with a bow and arrow. I wish people would stop submitting their Skyrim experience as actual facts.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know how to swing a blade, actually, and I can do it rather well. (really, I do, as in there's years and years of experience and practice backing up that statement and not how many hours I spent posing bodies in sexually suggestive ways in Skyrim) I also know how to shoot a rifle [i]extremely[/i] well. Picking up a firearm and randomly shooting can fuck your aim up at mere tens of feet, even less than that, just like being slightly off-balance can entirely spoil a strike with a sword. The amount of training needed to use both proficiently is the same, in my opinion. In Colorado, the shooter took his time with his shots accurately drilling his targets as best he could in a smoky (he did lay down some smoke) and dark environment. He, unfortunately, knew how to use a rifle well, but things go to hell in a handbasket pretty quick when you have a skilled opponent, this is a fact with any weapon. If somebody who had taken their CCW permit course was also armed in that theater, things might have turned out quite differently.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941510]i don't even understand how the metaphor relates to your argument. i don't really want to strip anyone of liberty, i just think people who sell guns are more interested in selling guns and get people scared about violence so they can buy more guns. i don't even care about the people on this forum and their guns, they are so not even the issue and they can keep them.[/QUOTE] I'm assuming you are in support of an AWB. If not, then I apologize. And by the way, of course people who sell guns are interested in selling more guns. That's their livelihood, it's their profit. It goes without saying that someone who profits off of selling guns will want to cash in and sell more guns.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941558]it was also because they could buy crateloads of machetes for dollars [/QUOTE] I believe one other reason is the amount of fear it caused, for me it never really sunk in how horrific it was until I saw the documentary Triage.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941580]If somebody who had taken their CCW permit course was also armed in that theater, things might have turned out quite differently.[/QUOTE] Blaming the victims, classy. But hey maybe you are right. Maybe more guns in a crowded, dark, smoke filled theater would have ended with less bloodshed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941582]I'm assuming you are in support of an AWB.[/QUOTE] fuck no AWB was a terrible law and people pro-gun control would say the same thing if they read what the law did. it didn't do anything except limit some random-ass factors in guns nobody used to kill each other anyway. Columbine happened while the AWB was active. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36941582]And by the way, of course people who sell guns are interested in selling more guns. That's their livelihood, it's their profit. It goes without saying that someone who profits off of selling guns will want to cash in and sell more guns.[/QUOTE] yeah it's just i'm a bit of a commie scumbag and think that people are more important than profits. i mean if you need to sell guns, you can sell them in a positive way, not in a way where you sell them to people you know shouldn't have them and not in a way where you manipulate media and lobbyists in order to sell more of them.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941558] my party ideology?[/quote] You are an ideologue. It's easy to tell from your arguments made here that you hold the "stereotypical liberal" ideology of restricting freedoms when those freedoms are scary, but supporting freedom when expedient. [quote]are you saying you apply the same logic to every single situation?[/QUOTE] I definitely make the attempt.

my misinformation, however does that explain the few individuals who run with both melee implements as well as other African conflicts in which machetes are used alongside firearms? Back on topic, how does banning assault weapons relate to Holmes' shooting? Of course firearms are dangerous, especially AR-15s with a detachable high capacity magazine, but does banning that really prevent this from happenning again with, for example a handgun?

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941616]yeah it's just i'm a bit of a commie scumbag and think that people are more important than profits. i mean if you need to sell guns, you can sell them in a positive way, not in a way where you sell them to people you know shouldn't have them and not in a way where you manipulate media and lobbyists in order to sell more of them.[/QUOTE] That's a flaw in the system, not necessarily something unique about the gun industry. However, it tends to have more tragic consequences in this particular industry.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941603]Blaming the victims, classy. But hey maybe you are right. Maybe more guns in a crowded, dark, smoke filled theater would have ended with less bloodshed.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that's not blaming the victims. That is me literally saying things might have turned out differently if something in the situation was different. You've been reasonable so far, if you want to go down that route and shitpost, go right ahead but it isn't going to prove your point any better.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941618]You are an ideologue. It's easy to tell from your arguments made here that you hold the "stereotypical liberal" ideology of restricting freedoms when those freedoms are scary, but supporting freedom when expedient. I definitely make the attempt.[/QUOTE] what a load of shit, i'm against people owning dangerous ass weapons that they really have no logical point in owning because shit like this happens. you can just fuck up if your only contribution is gonna be 'YOU'RE A STEREOTYPICAL LIBERAL'

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941579]dude i'm not basing anything off of games. i'm basing off the fact that if you have a weapon that works you can likely hit whatever is front of you in a 20 meter radius.[/QUOTE] I missed 40% of my shots from a 20 meter distance at a man-sized torso using a 9mm handgun even when being knowledgable in firearm usage; I stress this again but it takes [i]practice and skill[/i]

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941627]my misinformation, however does that explain the few individuals who run with both melee implements as well as other African conflicts in which machetes are used alongside firearms? Back on topic, how does banning assault weapons relate to Holmes' shooting? Of course firearms are dangerous, especially AR-15s with a detachable high capacity magazine, but does banning that really prevent this from happenning again with, for example a handgun?[/QUOTE] The Virginia Tech shooter managed to kill 32 people with a .22 pistol with 10 rounds in it's magazine and a 9mm pistol that could hold 17 rounds in it's magazine. The AWP would've limited him to 10 rounds for the 9mm, but he'd still have plenty of firepower.

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941627]but does banning that really prevent this from happenning again with, for example a handgun?[/QUOTE] no but if it was up to me a lot more than just "assault weapons" would be banned. but in the spirit of democracy and liberty (cringe) there has to be a balance. i don't think the AWB was it, but i do think that there are some people doing horrible things while breaking the law. this of course doesn't extend at all to people on this forum who only use their guns to shoot paper targets, livestock, or assorted fruit. however a lot of the people who sold you guys guns also sell guns to people that shouldn't have them in a completely illicit way. guns don't randomly go from manufacturer to criminal using magic. people sold those rebels guns and they knew very well those rebels would massacre civilians.

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941627]my misinformation, however does that explain the few individuals who run with both melee implements as well as other African conflicts in which machetes are used alongside firearms? [/QUOTE] Machetes are often used for show. Capture some people, chop them up, and it scares people. Not to mention a machete is a great tool for clearing vegetation.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36941641]Yeah, that's not blaming the victims. That is me literally saying things might have turned out differently if something in the situation was different. You've been reasonable so far, if you want to go down that route and shitpost, go right ahead but it isn't going to prove your point any better.[/QUOTE] Thats blaming the victims for not having the foresight to get a license and a weapon before going to a movie theater. I guess those guys shouldn't have walked into the WTC on 9/11 either.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941642]what a load of shit, i'm against people owning dangerous ass weapons that they really have no logical point in owning because shit like this happens. you can just fuck up if your only contribution is gonna be 'YOU'RE A STEREOTYPICAL LIBERAL'[/QUOTE] How does one fuck up? Also, what logical point does someone have to own a video game, or to own a sword, or to own a boat? They are recreational items. You are taking a recreational item away from a law abiding citizen because you feel that they could use it to commit a crime.

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941653]I missed 40% of my shots from a 20 meter distance at a man-sized torso using a 9mm handgun even when being knowledgable in firearm usage; I stress this again but it takes [i]practice and skill[/i][/QUOTE] well i meant to say rifle because that's the specific context of this argument. but still, 40% of your shots can do plenty of damage. just hit someone's spinal column and they'll be paralyzed. just hit someone's lung and their lung will collapse. just hit someone's major artery and they'll bleed out very quickly. of course this is nothing like games, [b]but it's also nothing like target practice[/b]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941673]Thats blaming the victims for not having the foresight to get a license and a weapon before going to a movie theater. I guess those guys shouldn't have walked into the WTC on 9/11 either.[/QUOTE] Someone trying to use a CCW would not only make himself a bigger target for Holmes, but would make things even more chaotic in the theatre to the point where people might think the CCW guy would be the shooter, even if he took the original gunman down. Taking out a weapon in a situation like what happened with holmes is never, ever a good idea.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36940756]Knives are deadly weapons. Designed to kill. Swords are deadly weapons. Designed to kill. Axes are deadly weapons. Designed to kill. Bows are deadly weapons. Designed to kill. Crossbows are deadly weapons. Designed to kill. Your point? Should we ban all of those also?[/QUOTE] I once watched a Mythbusters episode where they cut down a tree with a minigun - didn't know that was only one of the many practical applications of a gun, like cutting meat. Here in Denmark you need a pretty hefty background check before you can buy a sword or anything like that. You can't have a knife on you with a blade longer than 7cm, unless you have a valid reason (this law should be revised, though, as false positives have been a problem), and crossbows are banned on the same scale as guns. You can get one if you can get a hunting license, but as a basis they're illegal. Bows are entirely legal, though you'd have a problem hurting 60 people with one of those without getting taken down.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941673]Thats blaming the victims for not having the foresight to get a license and a weapon before going to a movie theater. I guess those guys shouldn't have walked into the WTC on 9/11 either.[/QUOTE]No, because I don't expect your average human being to expect to get shot at while going to a movie and I never said I did. Here's an example, since you're having trouble understanding: "It's their fault they got shot, they should have been armed and shot back, so they deserved to die."

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36941687]I once watched a Mythbusters episode where they cut down a tree with a minigun - didn't know that was only one of the many practical applications[/QUOTE] do you know the definition of practical? it's not "chop down a tree with a minigun".

And alright, I'll give it to you that guns are easier to kill people? But how much easier? Give me a percentage number. Tell me where the threshold is where the ease of use outweighs the freedom to own the item. Give me something objective, not this vague "Well, it's different because it's different!" bullshit, because that's not going to fly.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941679]How does one fuck up? Also, what logical point does someone have to own a video game, or to own a sword, or to own a boat? They are recreational items. You are taking a recreational item away from a law abiding citizen because you feel that they could use it to commit a crime.[/QUOTE] it means shut up. sorry but your argument makes no sense, you can't compare video games or boats or even swords to guns. you can call a gun a recreational item all you want but i will still see it as a weapon made solely for the purpose of killing people, and in the case of the weapons this thread is discussing, to kill more people more effectively. notice how i've said i'm not arguing to ban hunting rifles or shit like that!

I personally think that there's no fucking way a civilian would need or should have a militaty-grade weapon. Ever. A hunting weapon, something of .22 caliber or one of those old hunting shotguns, sure if America has such a need to fullfil desires of guncrazy rednecks, but not something like AK47 that can penetrate through a fucking train rail and fire full-auto.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36941687]I once watched a Mythbusters episode where they cut down a tree with a minigun - didn't know that was only one of the many practical applications of a gun, like cutting meat. Here in Denmark you need a pretty hefty background check before you can buy a sword or anything like that. You can't have a knife on you with a blade longer than 7cm, unless you have a valid reason (this law should be revised, though, as false positives have been a problem), and crossbows are banned on the same scale as guns. You can get one if you can get a hunting license, but as a basis they're illegal. Bows are entirely legal, though you'd have a problem hurting 60 people with one of those without getting taken down.[/QUOTE] Denmark also has a vastly less gun death and gun homicide rate than the United States. What a coincidence.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941703] you can call a gun a recreational item all you want but i will still see it as a weapon made solely for the purpose of killing people,[/QUOTE] Well then you are objectively wrong. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] If I can find ONE other person who uses a gun for ANY purpose besides killing someone, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36941715]Denmark also has a vastly less gun death and gun homicide rate than the United States. What a coincidence.[/QUOTE] well Denmark also very very strictly manages their trade so no-one with the will to profit from selling guns will have any reliable supply. not having a metric fuck-ton of local gun manufacturers also helps.