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

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36943998]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.[/QUOTE] Oh come on. This is clasping at straws, you know what the answer is. Get this right, knives are legal in the UK, we have an industry for creating knives, and thus illegal knives and knife crime are large problems. Guns however, are illegal in the UK, thus we don't have large businesses dedicated to creating firearms, we don't have large supplies of firearms in circulation in the first place, we don't have as many people filing serial numbers off firearms because they are illegal in the first place. This is so simple. I'm not saying you guys should ban assault rifles, it's your country. What I am saying is that you have to be absolutely thick if you don't think the fact you have an enormous firearms industry contributes to the number of illegal weapons in your country.

That's debatable. Here in Italy we too have big firearms industries, yet a fuckton of illegal weapons are imported from elsewhere. And as far as I remembered, there are a lot of restrictions on the sales and carrying of knives in the UK...

[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] They're tools designed for killing. Any device made with a specific intention to kill a human being should not be a legal right to possess.

[QUOTE=Aide;36943702]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] I'm so sorry, I did not notice the sarcasm in your first post /facepalm

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36944021]Oh come on. This is clasping at straws, you know what the answer is. Get this right, knives are legal in the UK, we have an industry for creating knives, and thus illegal knives and knife crime are large problems. Guns however, are illegal in the UK, thus we don't have large businesses dedicated to creating firearms, we don't have large supplies of firearms in circulation in the first place, we don't have as many people filing serial numbers off firearms because they are illegal in the first place. This is so simple. I'm not saying you guys should ban assault rifles, it's your country. What I am saying is that you have to be absolutely thick if you don't think the fact you have an enormous firearms industry contributes to the number of illegal weapons in your country.[/QUOTE] Explain then, why switzerland, a country massively saturated with assualt rifles provided to civilians [i]by thier government[/i] doesnt have tons of assualt rifle crime?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36944021]Oh come on. This is clasping at straws, you know what the answer is. Get this right, knives are legal in the UK, we have an industry for creating knives, and thus illegal knives and knife crime are large problems. Guns however, are illegal in the UK, thus we don't have large businesses dedicated to creating firearms, we don't have large supplies of firearms in circulation in the first place, we don't have as many people filing serial numbers off firearms because they are illegal in the first place. This is so simple. I'm not saying you guys should ban assault rifles, it's your country. What I am saying is that you have to be absolutely thick if you don't think the fact you have an enormous firearms industry contributes to the number of illegal weapons in your country.[/QUOTE] Afaik guns aren't completely illegal in the UK, you can still get them for hunting and sports and stuff. Also the netherlands has strict gun control too, but we do have a large firearms industry so I dunno what you meant with that.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36944099]They're tools designed for killing. Any device made with a specific intention to kill a human being should not be a legal right to possess.[/QUOTE] What about guns designed specifically for civilian sporting use? Like semi-auto sporter rifles?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944104]Explain then, why switzerland, a country massively saturated with assualt rifles provided to civilians [i]by thier government[/i] doesnt have tons of assualt rifle crime?[/QUOTE] Well for one thing its a landlocked country of people that has strict controls on who gets in the country. You do realise that the place is fairly wealthy as well and is somewhat a tax haven too. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944123]What about guns designed specifically for civilian sporting use? Like semi-auto sporter rifles?[/QUOTE] Have a system whereby you need a gun license for one.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944104]Explain then, why switzerland, a country massively saturated with assualt rifles provided to civilians [i]by thier government[/i] doesnt have tons of assualt rifle crime?[/QUOTE] Because they are trained in the army to safely use them before they get them. Simple as that.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944104]Explain then, why switzerland, a country massively saturated with assualt rifles provided to civilians [i]by thier government[/i] doesnt have tons of assualt rifle crime?[/QUOTE] because isn't every citizen with an assault rifle trained by the government

As a gun enthusiast, I can safely say that Assault weapons, in my state of all states (Illinois), aren't the biggest threat. A lack of proper checks on a person are. I have a firearms safety license, a FOID card, and I own 2 shotguns and a revolver. I have a friend who owns an AR-15, an AK-47, multiple handguns, and various military-grade knives. I have held a $200,000 sniper rifle with a rail that only exists on 3 guns in the world, 2 of which are owned by Navy SEALs. Assault weapons are fun as hell to shoot, and banning them would do absolutely nothing. If people want something badly enough, they can find channels to get it. Also, if you were to ban assault weapons, what would you do with the vast amount of people who own them? Take their guns that they spent hard money on away? That'd be an asshole move and make the mass majority of gun owners quite upset. [quote=Jack Trades]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] Because guns aren't inherently harmful, those are. A gun sitting on a shelf that falls over won't go off unless the owner is fucking retarded and doesn't clear the chamber. Which, in case you don't know this, is taught PRETTY FUCKING HARD in gun safety courses. If uranium, various types of explosives, or poison fall off a shelf, chances are someone somewhere is going to get hurt somehow.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36944143]because isn't every citizen with an assault rifle trained by the government[/QUOTE] Yeah, they are. I never said I had a problem with mandatory training, I have a problem with banning assault rifles. Plus training has nothing to do with crime, soldiers can become criminals too. Training would just make the number of accidental deaths smaller

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36944143]because isn't every citizen with an assault rifle trained by the government[/QUOTE] Yes, and this is the whole point. They first have to go trough psych exams and shit to see if they're fit for duty, and then supervised and trained in using a weapon for over one and a half years, the mandatory 3-day gun safety class you're required to take in some states in the us to get a cc license is just, nothing, compared to that.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36944124]Well for one thing its a landlocked country of people that has strict controls on who gets in the country. You do realise that the place is fairly wealthy as well and is somewhat a tax haven too. Have a system whereby you need a gun license for one.[/QUOTE] I agree on both points. If we tackled poverty we wouldnt have these issues, and a licensing system wokld be good as well, my point is that outright banning assualt rifles is not the solution.

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;36944179]As a gun enthusiast, I can safely say that Assault weapons, in my state of all states (Illinois), aren't the biggest threat. A lack of proper checks on a person are. I have a firearms safety license, a FOID card, and I own 2 shotguns and a revolver. I have a friend who owns an AR-15, an AK-47, multiple handguns, and various military-grade knives. I have held a $200,000 sniper rifle with a rail that only exists on 3 guns in the world, 2 of which are owned by Navy SEALs. Assault weapons are fun as hell to shoot, and banning them would do absolutely nothing. If people want something badly enough, they can find channels to get it. Also, if you were to ban assault weapons, what would you do with the vast amount of people who own them? Take their guns that they spent hard money on away? That'd be an asshole move and make the mass majority of gun owners quite upset. Because guns aren't inherently harmful, those are. A gun sitting on a shelf that falls over won't go off unless the owner is fucking retarded and doesn't clear the chamber. Which, in case you don't know this, is taught PRETTY FUCKING HARD in gun safety courses. If uranium, various types of explosives, or poison fall off a shelf, chances are someone somewhere is going to get hurt somehow.[/QUOTE] C4 can be set on fire and not explode, uranium doesn't explode out of itself, it's radioactive but that's it, and poison doesn't explode either. Nothing bad would happen if any or all of those were to fell off a shelf.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944219]C4 can be set on fire and not explode, uranium doesn't explode out of itself, it's radioactive but that's it, and poison doesn't explode either. Nothing bad would happen if any or all of those were to fell off a shelf.[/QUOTE] I think his point was more that a gun isnt dangerous inherently. A gun sitting on a table with no ammo in it isnt a danger whereas all of those things sitting on a table are still inherently dangerous, all the time.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939885]what? sorry if your emotions are fogging up your glasses and preventing you from understanding simple sentence structure but my point was that if a weapon is particularly lethal, the mere fact that it's cool and can be collected isn't a justification for keeping it legal, ie what the whole "ak47 belong on battlefields" quote was all about. if you want to collect them for the mere sake of collecting them have the firing mechanism removed and enjoy the sight of your now-inept ak47 on your mantle[/QUOTE] You obviously are completely ignorant to any gun related culture; I personally recommend pulling your head out of your ass. People collect guns to shoot them; hence why there are gunclubs and such at shooting ranges. People enjoy coming together to talk about their latest purchase, socialize, and shoot their guns. It's fun, casual, and in no way dangerous if you are responsible with a firearm. Banning the purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles doesn't do much in terms of stopping future massacres. A 9mm glock does just about the same damage as a semiautomatic AR-15. Look at Virginia Tech you dolt; that guy massacred a lot more people and he mostly used a 9mm pistol. The point is that all guns are lethal, and by passing stupid legislation that restricts our rights as US citizens only does just that.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944252]I think his point was more that a gun isnt dangerous inherently. A gun sitting on a table with no ammo in it isnt a danger whereas all of those things sitting on a table are still inherently dangerous, all the time.[/QUOTE] I can hit you in the head with the gun, which is about as dangerous as all those other things just sitting on a table provided they're properly shielded/contained. C4 which isn't armed won't explode, uranium won't just explode, and the radiation would be blocked by the container it is in, and the poison would be in a proper container as well. How are any of these more dangerous than an unloaded gun?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944180]Yeah, they are. I never said I had a problem with mandatory training, I have a problem with banning assault rifles. Plus training has nothing to do with crime, soldiers can become criminals too. Training would just make the number of accidental deaths smaller[/QUOTE] Well that's the thing, even if we had mandatory training anti-gun nuts would blame that formal training only makes insane murders more prepared to commit massacres such as the one in Aurora. Look at the Ft. Hood shooting, that man was a fully trained soldier. My position on this topic is that just because something like this happens doesn't mean everyone needs to be punished for it. Yes, it is bad when lives are lost due to such violent acts, but regardless of what laws you pass people will still find a way to commit vicious acts of murder.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944273]I can hit you in the head with the gun, which is about as dangerous as all those other things just sitting on a table provided they're properly shielded/contained. C4 which isn't armed won't explode, uranium won't just explode, and the radiation would be blocked by the container it is in, and the poison would be in a proper container as well. How are any of these more dangerous than an unloaded gun?[/QUOTE] I could hit you on the head with the table too, thats not the point. C4 is ALWAYS dangerous. You donr "arm" it, its a chemical compound, it just needs a stimuli to set off, unshielded uranium is ALWAY radioactive (for all intents and purposes), even in its case, same thing with cyanide, its always a health hazard. You cant make chemicals safe. Even when contained, they are still just as dangerous within their containers. A unloaded gun no more dangerous than any heavy object in any senario.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944258]You obviously are completely ignorant to any gun related culture; I personally recommend pulling your head out of your ass. People collect guns to shoot them; hence why there are gunclubs and such at shooting ranges. People enjoy coming together to talk about their latest purchase, socialize, and shoot their guns. It's fun, casual, and in no way dangerous if you are responsible with a firearm. Banning the purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles doesn't do much in terms of stopping future massacres. A 9mm glock does just about the same damage as a semiautomatic AR-15. Look at Virginia Tech you dolt; that guy massacred a lot more people and he mostly used a 9mm pistol. The point is that all guns are lethal, and by passing stupid legislation that restricts our rights as US citizens only does just that.[/QUOTE] While I won't say you're completely wrong, you're thoroughly missing his point.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944353]I could hit you on the head with the table too, thats not the point. C4 is ALWAYS dangerous. You donr "arm" it, its a chemical compound, it just needs a stimuli to set off, unshielded uranium is ALWAY radioactive (for all intents and purposes), even in its case, same thing with cyanide, its always a health hazard. You cant make chemicals safe. Even when contained, they are still just as dangerous within their containers. A unloaded gun no more dangerous than any heavy object in any senario.[/QUOTE] I think a good point to mention is that just because something is inherently dangerous doesn't mean we need to regulate the sale or even ban it. Knives are just as lethal if not more lethal than firearms but they haven't been banned; yeah I know it's kind of a silly argument to make, but look at how many murders have been committed by knives alone. Hell you could even say the same about cars; just because there are laws in place that are meant to prevent certain actions doesn't mean everyone will fall in line. Laws only act as mere warnings of possible consequences; it doesn't stop some people from boozing up and going for a drive.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944353]I could hit you on the head with the table too, thats not the point. C4 is ALWAYS dangerous. You donr "arm" it, its a chemical compound, it just needs a stimuli to set off, unshielded uranium is ALWAY radioactive (for all intents and purposes), even in its case, same thing with cyanide, its always a health hazard. You cant make chemicals safe. Even when contained, they are still just as dangerous within their containers. A unloaded gun no more dangerous than any heavy object in any senario.[/QUOTE] Chemicals are safe as long as they are in their container, uranium is safe as long as it's shielded, c4 is safe as long as there is no detonator rod thingy attached, a gun is safe as long as it's not loaded. How can you not see what I'm saying.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36944378]While I won't say you're completely wrong, you're thoroughly missing his point.[/QUOTE] I don't see how I have. Most of his posts have stated that citizens shouldn't own assault rifles because they are somehow more lethal than handguns and other smaller firearms. The point I am making is that all guns are lethal...that is their purpose. Simply banning assault rifles or the ability to purchase hi-cap magazines doesn't prevent future massacres it only restricts the rights of US Citizens.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944414]I don't see how I have. Most of his posts have stated that citizens shouldn't own assault rifles because they are somehow more lethal than handguns and other smaller firearms. The point I am making is that all guns are lethal...that is their purpose. Simply banning assault rifles or the ability to purchase hi-cap magazines doesn't prevent future massacres it only restricts the rights of US Citizens.[/QUOTE] I think the point is that you can kill more people with an assault rifle simply because it can fire more bullets before reloading thus being more lethal (in number of people shot) than a smaller firearm.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944273]I can hit you in the head with the gun, which is about as dangerous as all those other things just sitting on a table provided they're properly shielded/contained. C4 which isn't armed won't explode, uranium won't just explode, and the radiation would be blocked by the container it is in, and the poison would be in a proper container as well. How are any of these more dangerous than an unloaded gun?[/QUOTE] Your argument is flawed. You can't compare things that are radioactive, poisons, and C4 to "assault" weapons. Like Timebomb said, those items are inherently dangerous. C4's and poisons main and only purpose is to destroy and kill things. Uranium is only used in 2 things, nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons. It's very radioactive and not safe at all to handle. A rifle is only a weapon when it's used as one, otherwise it's just a tool.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944391]I think a good point to mention is that just because something is inherently dangerous doesn't mean we need to regulate the sale or even ban it. Knives are just as lethal if not more lethal than firearms but they haven't been banned; yeah I know it's kind of a silly argument to make, but look at how many murders have been committed by knives alone. Hell you could even say the same about cars; just because there are laws in place that are meant to prevent certain actions doesn't mean everyone will fall in line. Laws only act as mere warnings of possible consequences; it doesn't stop some people from boozing up and going for a drive.[/QUOTE] I agree with you on banning them, though I do believe regulation is important. Im fine with sane, well adjusted individuals using assault rifles and even exploding stuff like tannerite for recreation. I think these things should heavily regulated ( Fair licensing, waiting periods, things like that), but not banned outright for civilian use.

[QUOTE=slayer20;36939808]What about people who collect guns?[/QUOTE] what about people who collect nuclear missiles?

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944435]I think the point is that you can kill more people with an assault rifle simply because it can fire more bullets before reloading thus being more lethal (in number of people shot) than a smaller firearm.[/QUOTE] The amount of bullets in a magazine doesn't really matter if you bring multiple magazines to a massacre...With a few hours practice anyone can reload a pistol in less than 3-5 seconds and continue firing. Many firearm self defense classes teach skills like this. In terms of space, this guy had a tactical vest with what I assume also had molle pouches for magazines, a standard rifle magazine pouch can hold up to 2-4 pistol magazines or a standard 7.62 AK-47/5.56 30rnd Stanag which is used in the AR-15/M4 variants. So it doesn't matter if you use an Assault rifle or a 9mm handgun, if people want to really rack up a bodycount then they'll just bring lots of ammo. Also, didn't James Holmes' hi-cap AR mag jam anyways? This is pretty common with hi-cap magazines anyways; so essentially people have it in their heads that assault rifles are more lethal than pistols due to their size. Honestly, a gun at any caliber is deadly; if someone pointed a .22lr at me I'd be just as scared as if it were a .45ACP or 7.62.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944414]I don't see how I have. Most of his posts have stated that citizens shouldn't own assault rifles because they are somehow more lethal than handguns and other smaller firearms. The point I am making is that all guns are lethal...that is their purpose. Simply banning assault rifles or the ability to purchase hi-cap magazines doesn't prevent future massacres it only restricts the rights of US Citizens.[/QUOTE] His point was that no matter how fun some people might have with something, if it's something that is often used for murders and such, without being a quite integral part of the essential everyday life (like knives), it should be heavily restricted. I'm not saying gun owners are criminals, but the fact that many murders are done with stolen guns, guns given by friends, etc., shows that we you can't just have guns lying around either. The US has a hideously high murder rate, even compared to countries with similar social structure. There is a reason for this, and while it may not be guns, I don't think that it's because US citizens are inherently evil.