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

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36942345]I don't really know how to respond to this, but let's just say that I was [I]slightly[/I] sarcastic. The fact that I said cutting meat with a rifle was a practical application should've made it at least somewhat clear. It was a jab at his argument about [b]knifes and axes - they're not just designed to kill.[/b][/QUOTE] Somebody doesn't watch enough coldsteel videos... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe39OLzVy5Y[/media] all they do is hit dead pigs with knives and shit

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36942523]Yeah, this kind of ignorance and misinformation always pisses me off. I know some guys here with military-config Saigas, various AR-15s, and one with five FN-FALs from various countries. They're some of the nicest people I've ever talked to, not to mention they'd never even dream of harming another human being. Heck, Romanian AK variants are really popular among hunters here, they work wonders against small-medium game.[/QUOTE] He didn't say that everyone who buys an automatic weapons wants to use it to harm others. He said that it has no other use but to harm others more effective and as a collector item, and if you think it's a good idea to have assault weapons as collector items then: [QUOTE=Jack Trades;36942145]I think that everyone should get the right to own any kind of weaponry they want. AM-47? Sure. M60? Go ahead. C4? Yeah, sell that shit in every gun store. I also think that there should be laws that allow me to indulge in my fetish of collecting poisons, explosives and radioactive materials. It's a violation of my rights if I'm not allowed to buy and own those stuff. Also I have addiction to drugs, IMO, I should be able to buy those where ever I want.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36942579]I dunno statistics so you're probably right, a 40 times higher figure for the US must means that tight legislation does not work in the UK and germany.[/QUOTE] US 4.8 ranked 35th UK 1.23 ranked 48th DE 0.84 ranked 57th

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36942627]He didn't say that everyone who buys an automatic weapons wants to use it to harm others. He said that it has no other use but to harm others more effective and as a collector item, and if you think it's a good idea to have assault weapons as collector items then: [quote]I think that everyone should get the right to own any kind of weaponry they want. AM-47? Sure. M60? Go ahead. C4? Yeah, sell that shit in every gun store. I also think that there should be laws that allow me to indulge in my fetish of collecting poisons, explosives and radioactive materials. It's a violation of my rights if I'm not allowed to buy and own those stuff. Also I have addiction to drugs, IMO, I should be able to buy those where ever I want.[/quote][/QUOTE] Except that's not a good argument at all. Not to mention, an ACTUAL automatic weapon (not just semi-auto) is already a very restricted item. Weapons mimicking them still have a place in the civilian world, among hunters, sportsmen and the like, while on the other hand poisons and radioactive stuff DO have no other purpose than well... poisoning and irradiating. Explosives are different. The ones that can't be produced with common household chemicals are too seriously restricted, requiring you to wait some months while the ATF checks everything about you, much like what you have to go through when buying any NFA item. Drugs are another whole story.

I don't believe that automatic weapons are result of majority of the deaths. How ever the 2nd amendment was written over 200+ years ago. While the automatic weapon ban that was passed in 2004 expired may have done something it didn't do enough. Own a gun is a right all it takes is one action to cause a reaction. The federal government should at minimum do the following. Increase ATF budget by 2-3%. Intact a federal new aid program to local governments(cities, towns, village, counties) who have trouble with weapon crimes. Adopt background check to include a medical ill(for the mentally ill). Close loophole that allows private citizens to sell guns with background checks. Baby steps would be the best approach. Not all gun related deaths are result of large caliber or automatic.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36942811]Except that's not a good argument at all. Not to mention, an ACTUAL automatic weapon (not just semi-auto) is already a very restricted item. Weapons mimicking them still have a place in the civilian world, among hunters, sportsmen and the like, while on the other hand poisons and radioactive stuff DO have no other purpose than well... poisoning and irradiating. Explosives are different. The ones that can't be produced with common household chemicals are too seriously restricted, requiring you to wait some months while the ATF checks everything about you, much like what you have to go through when buying any NFA item. Drugs are another whole story.[/QUOTE] Why would a hunter need an automatic weapon? You don't need more than one shot to kill any kind of animal and if you miss, it'll run off either way. As far as I know there's no actualy sport that uses any kind of automatic weapon. Anything else? Alrigtht let's compare weapons and poisons. Both can be used to harm others oin purpose or if use improperly. Guns can be used for recreational use (you named hunting, sport and collecting). Poisoins and radioactive materials can be used for recreational use as well. Some people enjoy collecting guns and maybe I enjoy collecting vials of poison, or led boxes of uranium? How am I any different than weapon collectors in that case? Same with explosives. So bying weapons to shoot watermelons is fine but bying explosives to blow them up is not? I can cause as much damage to other people both with automatic weapons and with explosives. I agree, drugs are whole different story...in that they're much MUCH less dangerous to everyone. Unlike weapons, it's much harder to cause damage to others with drugs. "but what if you sell someone drugs and they start using them?" But what if you sell someone guns and they stick them up their nose and pull the trigger? "but drugs have no other use other than getting people high and making them addicted." Some people get their jollies by shooting weapons at watermelons or collecting weapons, how come I can't get mine by stuffing some coke up my nose or collecting vials of drugs?

[QUOTE=Aide;36942707]US 4.8 ranked 35th UK 1.23 ranked 48th DE 0.84 ranked 57th[/QUOTE] You do know the lower the number the better, right? Those stats mean that the US has 4.8 gun related crimes per 100,000 people, the UK has 1.23 and germany has 0.84 per 100,000. And of these 3.0 are intended homicides in the[FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333] US, 0.07 in the UK and 0.2 in germany.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36942999]Why would a hunter need an automatic weapon? You don't need more than one shot to kill any kind of animal and if you miss, it'll run off either way. As far as I know there's no actualy sport that uses any kind of automatic weapon. Anything else?[/QUOTE] Define automatic. Full or semi? If full, yep. They're kind of pointless. If semi, then you know fuck all about hunting and/or dealing with aggressive animals while deep in some rural location. In many cases a quick follow-up shot is needed. Either because the first one struck a non-vital part and it's best to end the animal's life quickly to spare it from bleeding out painfully, or because the shot missed or wasn't effective, and now that angry coyote/bear/mountain lion/200+lbs feral pig is charging your ass. Or you missed but can still hit a runaway deer, but having to reload a non-automatic would mean no venison for you. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jack Trades;36942999]Alrigtht let's compare weapons and poisons. Both can be used to harm others oin purpose or if use improperly. Guns can be used for recreational use (you named hunting, sport and collecting). Poisoins and radioactive materials can be used for recreational use as well. Some people enjoy collecting guns and maybe I enjoy collecting vials of poison, or led boxes of uranium? How am I any different than weapon collectors in that case?[/QUOTE] As I already said, I'd support gun control in the US if most of the proposals so far weren't asinine garbage written by people who know nothing about, or just plainly fear all kinds of firearms and gun owners in an irrational manner. [quote]Unlike weapons, it's much harder to cause damage to others with drugs.[/quote] Tell that to those who risked their lives at the hands of enraged meth-heads (and possibly had to use a weapon in self-defense). Now, I support legalization on certain harmless drugs, say marijuana and the likes, but I think it's best to still regulate the more "aggressivity-inducing" ones.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36943111]Define automatic. Full or semi? If full, yep. They're kind of pointless. [/QUOTE] I meant full-auto. [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36943111] Tell that to those who risked their lives at the hands of enraged meth-heads (and possibly had to use a weapon in self-defense). Now, I support legalization on certain harmless drugs, say marijuana and the likes, but I think it's best to still regulate the more "aggressivity-inducing" ones.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that everyone should be able to buy everything. I just think that giving civilians free access to most (not all, just most) weapons is just as stupid as allowing civilians access to poisons, explosive, radioactive materials and strong drugs.

I would be perfectly fine with having to take an assessment from a psychiatrist maybe once a year to certify I am mentally sound, as long as it's free. I'm also okay with increased background checks. But don't you fucking dare start restricting what weapons we can buy. I do NOT agree that AK-47's only belong in the hands of soldiers. War surplus rifles are great fun for target shooting be it at an indoor range or at an outdoor range. It doesn't matter if it was built as a tool of war, a gun is only just that, a tool, and how it is used is defined by the person not the tool. If someone went on a rampage with a pickaxe and killed 50 people with that, no one would be clamouring to ban pickaxes. Cigarettes kill thousands each year, but no one has banned those. If you believe in the 2nd amendment right then believe in it for what it means. It's not about hunting, it's about self defence and keeping a militia prepared for times of crisis.

[QUOTE=Yersinia;36943247]I do NOT agree that AK-47's only belong in the hands of soldiers. War surplus rifles are great fun for target shooting be it at an indoor range or at an outdoor range. It doesn't matter if it was built as a tool of war, a gun is only just that, a tool, and how it is used is defined by the person not the tool.[/QUOTE] If you think you should have right to buy a military-grade weapon for recreational use then I think I should have right to buy explosives, poisons and radioactive materials for recreational use. After all, all of those things are tools, and how they're used are up to that person. Maybe I just like blowing up watermelons with C4 and looking at my collection of cyanide bottles and led boxes of uranium.

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36943297]If you think you should have right to buy a military-grade weapon for recreational use then I think I should have right to buy explosives, poisons and radioactive materials for recreational use. After all, all of those things are tools, and how they're used are up to that person. Maybe I just like blowing up watermelons with C4 and looking at my collection of cyanide bottles and led boxes of uranium.[/QUOTE] There are explosives and radioactive materials you can buy. Also, exactly, how ANYTHING is used is up to the person, in the same way that people in school with pencils can either do what the damn thing is meant for and write with it, or they can stab the closest person with it. Like many people said, I'm fine with increased background checks and whatnot. But outright restricting certain guns isn't the way to go about it.

[QUOTE=Yersinia;36943247]If you believe in the 2nd amendment right then believe in it for what it means. It's not about hunting, it's about self defence and keeping a militia prepared for times of crisis.[/QUOTE] The 2nd amendment isn't exactly meant to apply to a modern nation though. Lots of other countries kinda realise that it's outdated.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36943450]The 2nd amendment isn't exactly meant to apply to a modern nation though. Lots of other countries kinda realise that it's outdated.[/QUOTE] How long until all our other rights are "outdated"? If the government can discard one of the major principles of the constitution, what's to stop it from getting rid of others?

[QUOTE=Rebi;36943424]There are explosives and radioactive materials you can buy.[/QUOTE] Nope, just anything won't cut it. Some people insist that they need full-auto assault weapons that's why I require uranium, C4 and cyanide. Why should gun lovers get whatever they want but not explosion/poison lovers?

[quote]"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said[/quote] He makes it sound like anyone who owns an assault weapon is a terrorist or a criminal. Honestly, I'm afraid of what he's going to do to the second amendment in his second term.

[QUOTE=Aide;36942707]US 4.8 ranked 35th UK 1.23 ranked 48th DE 0.84 ranked 57th[/QUOTE] A quarter the US rate for the UK and less for Germany. Not what I'd call 'a lot of murders.'

Hahaha oh my god did some seriously argue the "WELL IF WE'RE BANNING GUNS WE SHOULD BAN SHARP THINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST AS EFFECTIVE" argument in this thread like, I think you have to have been dropped on your head as a child to think this was in any way convincing [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;36943498]How long until all our other rights are "outdated"? If the government can discard one of the major principles of the constitution, what's to stop it from getting rid of others?[/QUOTE] I'm gonna say that in the time period where the constitution was created, a gun in the house could probably protect you from corrupt officers bashing down your door or some shit like that, when the US army was little more than 4 angry guys with matching coats tell me you believe firearms in the house will stop the US government if it REALLY wanted you dead lie to me, please. incidentally, the US government has violated major parts of the constitution before, so I don't know why the second amendment is somehow the last straw

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;36943498]How long until all our other rights are "outdated"? If the government can discard one of the major principles of the constitution, what's to stop it from getting rid of others?[/QUOTE] You do realise that the UN wrote up a different list of human rights about half a century ago, and I don't think I see guns on there as one. Really, it's childish to say that gun ownership should be a human right.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36943096]You do know the lower the number the better, right? Those stats mean that the US has 4.8 gun related crimes per 100,000 people, the UK has 1.23 and germany has 0.84 per 100,000. And of these 3.0 are intended homicides in the[FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333] US, 0.07 in the UK and 0.2 in germany.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] Of course the lower number is better. Also those stats are only for intentional homicide. Not for suicide. I'm arguing that as a result of tighter regulation on guns UK and DE have lower deaths per capita. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate]Deaths as result of fire arms[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate]Homicide[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate]Suicide rates[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36943664]Really, it's childish to say that gun ownership should be a human right.[/QUOTE] But depriving an entire population of tools they enjoy because "someone might use them for crimes" is a violation of rights.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36943707]But depriving an entire population of tools they enjoy because "someone might use them for crimes" is a violation of rights.[/QUOTE] Jury isn't out on the "guns are tools" thing yet

[QUOTE=Looter;36942591]Somebody doesn't watch enough coldsteel videos... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe39OLzVy5Y[/media] all they do is hit dead pigs with knives and shit[/QUOTE] "Just" as in "only", as in "The only purpose is not just killing stuff" - you may say that people do target shooting and so on, but it's that's really not the kind of guns we're talking about. And guns made for hunting is still guns made for killing, and you'll still have to use a different tool to cut it out.

The assault rifle ban is stupid, criminals buy their AK 47's from illegal dealers not legit ones.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36943894]The assault rifle ban is stupid, criminals buy their AK 47's from illegal dealers not legit ones.[/QUOTE] You'd have to be insane not to think that it becomes easier for criminals to get a hold of them if they're legal

[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36943506]Nope, just anything won't cut it. Some people insist that they need full-auto assault weapons that's why I require uranium, C4 and cyanide. Why should gun lovers get whatever they want but not explosion/poison lovers?[/quote] You can buy explosives legally as a civilian without too much trouble, fireworks, gunpowder, tannerite, etc. Un-enriched uranium isnt really all that hard to get either, chemistry place sell it sometimes

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36943905]You'd have to be insane not to think that it becomes easier for criminals to get a hold of them if they're legal[/QUOTE] Yeah but they won't use them because they're easily traced back to them, were as illegal ones aren't traceable. Plus assault rifles aren't the problem since they're near impossible to conceal on a person, were as pistols are.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36943905]You'd have to be insane not to think that it becomes easier for criminals to get a hold of them if they're legal[/QUOTE] Call me insane then, because I seriously doubt a criminal will go and legally buy an AK for 400 bucks when he could get one for cheaper with the serial number filed off from a gang

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36943927]Yeah but they won't use them because they're easily traced back to them, were as illegal ones aren't traceable. Plus assault rifles aren't the problem since they're near impossible to conceal on a person, were as pistols are.[/QUOTE] So? When assault rifles are legal, and thus there is an industry that creates them, it becomes easier for criminals to get a hold of them, by virtue of the fact there will be more in your country. you actually have to be insane to not see the logic in this If this isn't true, explain to me why assault rifle crime isn't as large a problem in the UK. because if it isn't, then you're arguing that for some reason UK criminals are just opposed to using effective weaponry

Well, the UK is surrounded by sea. This makes smuggling quite harder. Meanwhile the US shares a large border with Mexico, where a lot of gun runners have cheap as fuck full-autos. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] And Brit criminals have always preferred knives, and still use them a lot.