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

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941703]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![/QUOTE] The thing is that you don't need a scary-looking "assault weapon" to kill lots of people. Charles Whitman went on a rampage and killed 16 people with hunting weapons (a bolt-action rifle, a pump-action rifle, and an illegally sawed-off semi-auto hunting shotgun). With some thinking, a nutjob could do lots of damage with just something like a .30-06 bolt-action hunting rifle.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941717] If I can find ONE other person who uses a gun for ANY purpose besides killing someone, your argument is fundamentally flawed.[/QUOTE] TO BE FAIR, he said made. i could use an assault weapon for mixing martini's but you wouldn't say guns were made for mixing martini's.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941743]TO BE FAIR, he said made. i could use an assault weapon for mixing martini's but you wouldn't say guns were made for mixing martini's.[/QUOTE] Mixing martinis slightly more practical than cutting down trees.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif[/img] Nearly 50% of American households own at least one firearm. Just because you have some moral opposition to firearms doesn't mean you should ban them. They're used, as a gigantic majority, for sport and self-defense. Firearm assault, and assault in general, is on a steady decrease (something like 18-19% since 2009). [url]http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_22.html[/url] Firearms do not even consist of a majority in assault cases in most states. Hell, they're usually the third or second largest, sometimes fourth. Not to even mention, it's a constitutional right. The outright banning of firearms is as ridiculous a case to argue as banning porn or video games. Even more ridiculous, as it's a constitutional right and the other two are merely entertainment. You can argue banning firearms next to banning the freedom of speech or the freedom of press - as that's the level where it is placed. They're rights - you don't take them away.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941717]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] like i've said earlier, i could use a rifle butt to hammer nails, doesn't mean a gun is for hammering nails.

gin and vermouth garnished with metallurgy

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941743]TO BE FAIR, he said made. i could use an assault weapon for mixing martini's but you wouldn't say guns were made for mixing martini's.[/QUOTE] They aren't even made with the purpose of killing people. Guns are often marketed for recreational use. Gun collecting is a huge hobby in the United States. Shooting competitions are fucking prolific. Hunting is a national pastime. Gun makers sell these primarily to people who want to shoot targets and look at a cool looking machine. If you want to start talking about military grade weapons, then we can have that conversation. However, civilian models are made and marketed to people who don't need them to kill.

The only thing you'd ever need guns for is to either kill humans or kill animals. For everything else there are better suited tools available, that pose less danger to the rest of the community.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941734]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.[/QUOTE] The numbers are staggering. Total number of gun homicides in 2009 in Denmark? 79. United States? [B]9,146[/B]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941762]like i've said earlier, i could use a rifle butt to hammer nails, doesn't mean a gun is for hammering nails.[/QUOTE] You said made SOLELY to kill people. Come on, let's see if 100% of gun owners kill people. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jack Trades;36941766]The only thing you'd ever need guns for is to either kill humans or kill animals. For everything else there are better suited tools available, that pose less danger to the rest of the community.[/QUOTE] What is a better tool for shooting watermelons or going to a shooting competition?

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941738]The thing is that you don't need a scary-looking "assault weapon" to kill lots of people. Charles Whitman went on a rampage and killed 16 people with hunting weapons (a bolt-action rifle, a pump-action rifle, and an illegally sawed-off semi-auto hunting shotgun). With some thinking, a nutjob could do lots of damage with just something like a .30-06 bolt-action hunting rifle.[/QUOTE] alright but a scary looking assault weapon makes it a shitton easier AND has no practical use like a hunting rifle does

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941680]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] nothing like shooting running targets either; have you ever fired a gun? I find your arguments focusing on the damage a firearm can cause despite the fact if the bullet misses, the worst that can happen is a ricochet in an urban enviroment. I do not think firearms are as dangerous as many percieve them to be (however, a weapon is a weapon and I do not ignore the fact that it has the potential to be used to kill or harm another person) mainly because they are a 5+lbs weight, depending on the weapon, that puts stress and fatigue after prolonged shooting, not to mention the adrenaline and other conditions affecting the shooter's accuracy; if the shooter cannot hit his targets at short distances, then the danger of victims becoming hurt diminishes greatly. When you have something that propells multiple projectiles in rapid succession... now that is where assault weapons come into play, example of features being the high capacity magazine and fully automatic feature (which thankfully) has been regulated

[QUOTE=.Isak.;36941754][img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif[/img] Nearly 50% of American households own at least one firearm. Just because you have some moral opposition to firearms doesn't mean you should ban them. They're used, as a gigantic majority, for sport and self-defense. Firearm assault, and assault in general, is on a steady decrease (something like 18-19% since 2009). [url]http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_22.html[/url] Firearms do not even consist of a majority in assault cases in most states. Hell, they're usually the third or second largest, sometimes fourth. Not to even mention, it's a constitutional right. The outright banning of firearms is as ridiculous a case to argue as banning porn or video games. Even more ridiculous, as it's a constitutional right and the other two are merely entertainment. You can argue banning firearms next to banning the freedom of speech or the freedom of press - as that's the level where it is placed. They're rights - you don't take them away.[/QUOTE] Good thing no one is talking about banning guns though right?

[QUOTE=Ziron;36941681]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]I disagree on the point that it would be a bad idea, but I agree with everything else. In the situation, it would be very likely that I'd attempt to stop Holmes, but most likely die in doing so. If I survived, yes I would be arrested but if I maybe-kinda-sorta saved even [i]one[/i] life, all that hassle would be worth it.[QUOTE=thisispain;36941743]TO BE FAIR, he said made. i could use an assault weapon for mixing martini's but you wouldn't say guns were made for mixing martini's.[/QUOTE]Well, that was my point earlier. A lot of firearms manufactured today are not made with killing people in mind, quite a few of them fit into the nifty "assault weapon" category. Bringing up the argument against practicality of them, while falsely claiming they were made (as in manufactured) to kill humans, is a bit silly. Do you see what I'm saying, or am I only making sense in my head? (I hope that's not the case)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941765]They aren't even made with the purpose of killing people. Guns are often marketed for recreational use. Gun collecting is a huge hobby in the United States. Shooting competitions are fucking prolific. Hunting is a national pastime. Gun makers sell these primarily to people who want to shoot targets and look at a cool looking machine. If you want to start talking about military grade weapons, then we can have that conversation. However, civilian models are made and marketed to people who don't need them to kill.[/QUOTE] okay i can understand where you are coming from, but the base function of it is shoot deadly projectile thingy at something. the intent purpose of a gun is to injure, damage, or kill whatever is at the other side. the fact that it happens to be a piece of paper or a deer on the other side doesn't change its basic intent.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941772]What is a better tool for shooting watermelons or going to a shooting competition?[/QUOTE] Did you know that there are *gasp* guns that can still shoot stuff but don't have the capacity to (effectively) kill people?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941772]You said made SOLELY to kill people. Come on, let's see if 100% of gun owners kill people. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] What is a better tool for shooting watermelons or going to a shooting competition?[/QUOTE] yes i did say that, because that is what guns (especially the kind we're discussing in this thread) were made for. they can have other applications (like mixing drinks or hammering nails) but that is not what they were made for. and lol, where did i say that 100% of gun owners kill people? and AGAIN maybe you should read the part where literally NOONE is saying we should ban ALL guns

Yawmwen is wearing some hefty logic armor right there.

[QUOTE=Kill001;36941783]nothing like shooting running targets either; have you ever fired a gun? [/QUOTE] yes and i'm a very good shot. [QUOTE=Kill001;36941783]I find your arguments focusing on the damage a firearm can cause despite the fact if the bullet misses, the worst that can happen is a ricochet in an urban enviroment.[/QUOTE] a miss doesn't stop the gun from continuing to do damage. sure the bullet is gone, but if it's semi-automatic it's not a big deal because at the pull of a finger there's another bullet coming right out of it. [QUOTE=Kill001;36941783] I do not think firearms are as dangerous as many percieve them to be (however, a weapon is a weapon andI do not ognore the fact that ot has the potential to be used to kill or harm another person) mainly because they are a 5+lbs weight, depending on the weapon, that puts stress and fatigue after prolonged shooting, not to mention the adrenaline and other conditions affecting the shooter's accuracy; if the shooter cannot hit his targets at short distances, then the danger of victims becoming hurt diminishes greatly. When you have something that propells multiple projectiles in rapid succession... now that is where assault weapons come into play, example of features being the high capacity magazine and fully automatic feature (which thankfully) has been regulated[/QUOTE] sure sure sure, but in a small timeframe of shooting unarmed targets, that's not relevant.

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36941790]Did you know that there are *gasp* guns that can still shoot stuff but don't have the capacity to (effectively) kill people?[/QUOTE] You know those guns are used more often in homicide cases in the USA than Assault Weapons? [QUOTE=thisispain;36941789]okay i can understand where you are coming from, but the base function of it is shoot deadly projectile thingy at something. the intent purpose of a gun is to injure, damage, or kill whatever is at the other side. the fact that it happens to be a piece of paper or a deer on the other side doesn't change its basic intent.[/QUOTE] But the basic intent is different depending on the user. Most people don't buy an assault weapon with the intent to kill someone. They are poor home defense weapons and harder to use than a handgun. You buy these weapons because you want to shoot something. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941796]yes i did say that, because that is what guns (especially the kind we're discussing in this thread) were made for. they can have other applications (like mixing drinks or hammering nails) but that is not what they were made for. and lol, where did i say that 100% of gun owners kill people? and AGAIN maybe you should read the part where literally NOONE is saying we should ban ALL guns[/QUOTE] You said it when you said that a guns only purpose was to kill. So I'm still waiting on your evidence that every single gun owner kills people. Unless you want to concede that guns have other uses and intents in their manufacture than killing someone, you have to find me that evidence.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941779]alright but a scary looking assault weapon makes it a shitton easier AND has no practical use like a hunting rifle does[/QUOTE] Plenty of massacres have been committed without "assault weapons". For every Holmes, there have been plenty of massacres with stock pistols or hunting shotguns that have no scary-looking features on them. You're just projecting your bias against them and are completely unwilling to see that they have legitimate uses.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941823] But the basic intent is different depending on the user.[/QUOTE] no that's exactly what i'm saying. the basic intent is when they get made, IE the idea of a gun. just because you do something else with them, IE mix drinks, doesn't change the intent and inherent function.

Jack Trades, you know that during the AWB that assault weapons made up 1.61% of all gun crime? Did you know that the United States Department of Justice said that the AWB had a negligible effect on gun crime because most gun crime is committed with other firearms?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941823]You know those guns are used more often in homicide cases in the USA than Assault Weapons?[/QUOTE] If your first though was "hunting weapons" then you're wrong and it definitely says something about your level of bias in this discussion. EDIT: Forcing .22 LR rounds on civilian weapons would make it much harder for anyone to go on murder rampages.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36941823]You know those guns are used more often in homicide cases in the USA than Assault Weapons? But the basic intent is different depending on the user. Most people don't buy an assault weapon with the intent to kill someone. They are poor home defense weapons and harder to use than a handgun. You buy these weapons because you want to shoot something. You said it when you said that a guns only purpose was to kill. So I'm still waiting on your evidence that every single gun owner kills people. Unless you want to concede that guns have other uses and intents in their manufacture than killing someone, you have to find me that evidence.[/QUOTE] i was referring to the guns this thread is about, not hunting rifles or olympic shooting pistols or any of that kinda shit and you know that so you can shove that argument back up your ass where you pulled it from. and lol, your claim that i'm trying to say all gun owners kill people is so stupid i'm not gonna bother with it and again you know this. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziron;36941825]Plenty of massacres have been committed without "assault weapons". For every Holmes, there have been plenty of massacres with stock pistols or hunting shotguns that have no scary-looking features on them. You're just projecting your bias against them and are completely unwilling to see that they have legitimate uses.[/QUOTE] this whole thread and obamas legislative plans and all that shit is based purely around stopping massacres with these kinds of weapons, these kinds of weapons that you can get legally and make these kinds of massacres so easy to cause. what legitimate uses do these weapons possibly have that safer alternatives (safer as in, harder to kill shitloads of people in a small amount of time) can't be used?

[QUOTE=thisispain;36941837]no that's exactly what i'm saying. the basic intent is when they get made, IE the idea of a gun. just because you do something else with them, IE mix drinks, doesn't change the intent and inherent function.[/QUOTE] But this isn't mixing drinks! Guns are most used for sport and hunting. The intent is that some hunter or shooting enthusiast will buy it. These aren't fringe uses of the gun, these are the majority of what guns are used for. To say they are solely made for killing is ignoring every other popular usage for guns.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941779]has no practical use like a hunting rifle does[/QUOTE] You have no fucking clue

stop making random assumptions, yawmwen

My personal opinion is that you shouldn't give crazy people guns.

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36941844]If your first though was "hunting weapons" then you're wrong and it definitely says something about your level of bias in this discussion.[/QUOTE] I was talking about any weapon other than an assault weapon. Handguns, bolt action long rifles, shotguns, whatever. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;36941845] this whole thread and obamas legislative plans and all that shit is based purely around stopping massacres with these kinds of weapons, these kinds of weapons that you can get legally and make these kinds of massacres so easy to cause. what legitimate uses do these weapons possibly have that safer alternatives (safer as in, harder to kill shitloads of people in a small amount of time) can't be used?[/QUOTE] So then tell me why these massacres are so rare. Tell me why hardly any gun crime is committed with these types of firearms.