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

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944394]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] But youre wrong. Those things ARENT safe EVER unluss fully neutralized chemical, ly. Even when they are inside a container, they are still dangerous within the container. An unloaded gun in a container is just as safe inside the contqiner as it is outside the container. Im an environmental engineer, we have to deal with dangerous substances all the time, and we never EVER treat a chemical as safe. Obviously you always treat guns as "unsafe" as well, but the difference is that an unloaded gun really is completely safe unless you bludgeon something with it.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944535]But youre wrong. Those things ARENT safe EVER unluss fully neutralized chemical, ly. Even when they are inside a container, they are still dangerous within the container. An unloaded gun in a container is just as safe inside the contqiner as it is outside the container. Im an environmental engineer, we have to deal with dangerous substances all the time, and we never EVER treat a chemical as safe. Obviously you always treat guns as "unsafe" as well, but the difference is that an unloaded gun really is completely safe unless you bludgeon something with it.[/QUOTE] Unless you have a whatever it's called that starts the fucking explosion in the C4, it's not gonna blow up. And taking Uranium into this discussion was weird decision by whoever did it anyway.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36944502]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.[/QUOTE] I think guns should be heavily regulated, it is an integral part of our culture; and as much of a cop out as this may sound you really need to be an American to understand it. I've never been the paranoid type but as soon as I turn 21 and move back home to the United States I am purchasing a concealable handgun and I will acquire my carry and conceal permit. I will also continue my firearm safety and use training so that I am not only effective with firearms but also can use them in a safe manner. Buying a gun is already a fairly lengthy process of waiting, getting background checks, filling out paperwork, etc; massacres like this are bound to happen, just like other crimes. The only thing you can do is improve upon these steps as well as other preventative measures. Another thing to improve is first responder times and how law enforcement reacts to situations like this; a lot has even improved since Columbine high school's massacre in 1999. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944535]But youre wrong. Those things ARENT safe EVER unluss fully neutralized chemical, ly. Even when they are inside a container, they are still dangerous within the container. An unloaded gun in a container is just as safe inside the contqiner as it is outside the container. Im an environmental engineer, we have to deal with dangerous substances all the time, and we never EVER treat a chemical as safe. Obviously you always treat guns as "unsafe" as well, but the difference is that an unloaded gun really is completely safe unless you bludgeon something with it.[/QUOTE] I agree with you; I mean, I could take a table leg and bludgeon you with it, that makes it just as dangerous as the stock of any rifle. The problem with guns though is that there is a certain stigmata surrounding them. People look at a gun whether it be loaded or unloaded and are scared regardless for no reason. If you handle weapons correctly then they are inherently less dangerous. Of course, you should always treat a firearm with great caution, but you should also drive with caution as well as a thousand other tasks that involve dangerous tools.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36944535]But youre wrong. Those things ARENT safe EVER unluss fully neutralized chemical, ly. Even when they are inside a container, they are still dangerous within the container. An unloaded gun in a container is just as safe inside the contqiner as it is outside the container. Im an environmental engineer, we have to deal with dangerous substances all the time, and we never EVER treat a chemical as safe. Obviously you always treat guns as "unsafe" as well, but the difference is that an unloaded gun really is completely safe unless you bludgeon something with it.[/QUOTE] So you're allowed to unload the gun and call it a safe tool, but I'm not allowed to shield a poison and call it safe? If you want to compare poison to a weapon in THAT way, the weapon has to be loaded for the comparison to be correct. It IS safe to have the poison on a shelf when it is properly contained in a container that does not open unless it's supposed to just as it's safe to keep a gun on a shelf when it's not loaded.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944647]So you're allowed to unload the gun and call it a safe tool, but I'm not allowed to shield a poison and call it safe? If you want to compare poison to a weapon in THAT way, the weapon has to be loaded for the comparison to be correct. It IS safe to have the poison on a shelf when it is properly contained in a container that does not open unless it's supposed to just as it's safe to keep a gun on a shelf when it's not loaded.[/QUOTE] I honestly think this debate is kind of stupid, but I'll play jackass for a second and say that you can knock an unloaded gun off a shelf and it not discharge a round; however, if you knock a container of lethal chemicals/poison off of a shelf and it breaks open you might have a serious problem...Either way though, comparing unloaded guns to C4, Uranium, and hazardous chemicals is kind of silly and pointless.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944698]I honestly think this debate is kind of stupid, but I'll play jackass for a second and say that you can knock an unloaded gun off a shelf and it not discharge a round; however, if you knock a container of lethal chemicals/poison off of a shelf and it breaks open you might have a serious problem...Either way though, comparing unloaded guns to C4, Uranium, and hazardous chemicals is kind of silly and pointless.[/QUOTE] My point was that he said those are always dangerous where's an unloaded gun is not, which is not fair because they can all be made not-dangerous as well. I don't see how he can't accept that if he's allowed to change the gun to an unloaded one and call it safe, I can put the poison/uranium in a container that makes it safe to keep on a shelf and call it safe. And calling c4 dangerous is just completely ridiculous, it will not, ever, detonate without an electronic detonator or an explosion (at which point it won't matter because something else has exploded already).

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;36944698]I honestly think this debate is kind of stupid, but I'll play jackass for a second and say that you can knock an unloaded gun off a shelf and it not discharge a round[/QUOTE] I might add, most guns are built with all sorts of internal safeties to prevent accidental discharges. This trend started in the early 1900's, and technology has only progressed since then. So yeah, even if a loaded gun falls off a table, chances are you'll only hear a "clunk".

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36944749]My point was that he said those are always dangerous where's an unloaded gun is not, which is not fair because they can all be made not-dangerous as well. I don't see how he can't accept that if he's allowed to change the gun to an unloaded one and call it safe, I can put the poison/uranium in a container that makes it safe to keep on a shelf and call it safe. And calling c4 dangerous is just completely ridiculous, it will not, ever, detonate without an electronic detonator or an explosion (at which point it won't matter because something else has exploded already).[/QUOTE] Im not sure what you arent getting here. A gun can be made completely safe from its intended purpose. If there is no ammo for the gun, the gun is as dangerous as any heavy object. You cannot make C4, Cyanide, or Uranium safe without chemically neutralizing them ( at which point they are no longer C4 or Cyanide, chemically) or waiting for a radioactive substance to decay completely. Until then they are ALWAYS dangerous. Even in a container, they are still dangerous chemicals. An unloaded gun is just a pile of wood and metal that is completely mechanically and chemically safe. If you had any sort of chemistry or health and saftey education you would understand this.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945067]Im not sure what you arent getting here. A gun can be made completely safe from its intended purpose. If there is no ammo for the gun, the gun is as dangerous as any heavy object. You cannot make C4, Cyanide, or Uranium safe without chemically neutralizing them ( at which point they are no longer C4 or Cyanide, chemically) or waiting for a radioactive substance to decay completely. Until then they are ALWAYS dangerous. Even in a container, they are still dangerous chemicals. An unloaded gun is just a pile of wood and metal that is completely mechanically and chemically safe. If you had any sort of chemistry or health and saftey education you would understand this.[/QUOTE] Even if that were true for uranium and cyanide (no one even specified the poison but whatever), which I don't think it is, C4 is not dangerous when there is no electric detonator attached. Just as when a gun is not loaded, when C4 isn't "loaded", or "armed", it will not explode. Unless you load it with a detonator, it is perfectly safe from it's intended purposes. It will NOT blow up.

I skipped over the last ten pages, but this topic has greatly improved in the last 8 hours.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;36944441]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] C4 can be used for blasting rock, demolition, controlled detonation of disused munitions and landmines. Poisons can be used for pest control. You consider both weapons, but they have alternate uses. Much like guns. Why? Because weapons are tools that we use to harm living things. You calling a gun a tool isn't somehow making it more friendly, you're still admitting that it's a weapon.

Its surprising how difficult it is to actually obtain an "Assault Weapon" today. First, you obviously have to have a license for said type of weapon, which costs a pretty penny, then you have to live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons, then you have to find a licensed dealer, and the gun has to have been made before 1986.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36945285]Even if that were true for uranium and cyanide (no one even specified the poison but whatever), which I don't think it is[/quote] No, its true. Any OSHA chemical/radiological hazard catalog would confirm it. Hell, a basic science education would tell you that. [Quote] C4 is not dangerous when there is no electric detonator attached. Just as when a gun is not loaded, when C4 isn't "loaded", or "armed", it will not explode. Unless you load it with a detonator, it is perfectly safe from it's intended purposes. It will NOT blow up.[/QUOTE] Again you are wrong. Any sort of explosion (or sufficient pressure wave) will set C4 off, even without a detonator ( in fact all a detonator is, is a small explosive charge.) You could set off C4 with a small gunpowder blasting cap. Stop talking out your ass about things you clearly know nothing about.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945436]No, its true. Any OSHA chemical/radiological hazard catalog would confirm it. Hell, a basic science education would tell you that. Again you are wrong. Any sort of explosion (or sufficient pressure wave) will set C4 off, even without a detonator ( in fact all a detonator is, is a small explosive charge.) You could set off C4 with a small gunpowder blasting cap. Stop talking out your ass about things you clearly know nothing about.[/QUOTE] what are you even arguing about if you're honestly arguing that stuff is made a weapon or "more harmful than a gun" by "if something explodes near it then it also explodes" then what are you talking about that's the most ridiculous argument

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36945409]Its surprising how difficult it is to actually obtain an "Assault Weapon" today. First, you obviously have to have a license for said type of weapon, which costs a pretty penny, then you have to live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons, then you have to find a licensed dealer, and the gun has to have been made before 1986.[/QUOTE] This may be so with automatic assault rifles. Though an assault rifle can be limited to semiautomatic functions and still be classified as an assault rifle. It's just as easy to obtain an semiautomatic AR-15 or AK-47 variant as it is to obtain a handgun. At least this is the case in the state of Georgia.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939816]p sure your little collectors item is a worthy sacrifice for less gun violence[/QUOTE] "assault" weapons are used in less than 1% of firearm crime and killing sprees are a complete statistical anomaly. Banning them won't do a thing other than make people feel good and curb-stomp an industry. [quote]First, you obviously have to have a license for said type of weapon, which costs a pretty penny, then you have to live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons, then you have to find a licensed dealer, and the gun has to have been made before 1986.[/QUOTE] That's not true. You need a $200 tax stamp, registration, and an in-depth background check to purchase an automatic weapon. They're incredibly expensive though.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945436]No, its true. Any OSHA chemical/radiological hazard catalog would confirm it. Hell, a basic science education would tell you that. Again you are wrong. Any sort of explosion (or sufficient pressure wave) will set C4 off, even without a detonator ( in fact all a detonator is, is a small explosive charge.) You could set off C4 with a small gunpowder blasting cap. Stop talking out your ass about things you clearly know nothing about.[/QUOTE] A gunpowder blasting cap will not generate enough pressure to set off c4. Also what the fuck does it matter if c4 explodes when another explosive detonates near it? At that point it matters fuck all if it explodes or not because there already is a fucking explosion nearby. The whole point is that when there is nothing present to make it unsafe, it is safe. Just as when there's nothing present with a gun to make it unsafe (bullets), it is safe.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945436]No, its true. Any OSHA chemical/radiological hazard catalog would confirm it. Hell, a basic science education would tell you that. Again you are wrong. Any sort of explosion (or sufficient pressure wave) will set C4 off, even without a detonator ( in fact all a detonator is, is a small explosive charge.) You could set off C4 with a small gunpowder blasting cap. Stop talking out your ass about things you clearly know nothing about.[/QUOTE] C4 is actually quite stable, it was made to be. Mythbusters actually tested this in an episode. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_2tmSOCsk[/media]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36945483]what are you even arguing about if you're honestly arguing that stuff is made a weapon or "more harmful than a gun" by "if something explodes near it then it also explodes" then what are you talking about that's the most ridiculous argument[/QUOTE] At this point its not really even relevant, its probably smarter to ignore it :v: He was saying that an gun is as inherent dangerous as C4, uranium, and cyanide are, and I was arguing against that.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;36945522]"assault" weapons are used in less than 1% of firearm crime and killing sprees are a complete statistical anomaly. Banning them won't do a thing other than make people feel good and curb-stomp an industry.[/QUOTE] Precisely. And yet politicians always try and ban them for some reason.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945560]At this point its not really even relevant, its probably smarter to ignore it :v: He was saying that an gun is as inherent dangerous as C4, uranium, and cyanide are, and I was arguing against that.[/QUOTE] My point is that each of those are just as safe to have around when handled correctly, including the gun.

[QUOTE=Clementine;36939887]When people say assault weapons do they mean automatic, or things that look militaristic? because I don't know why people would be against banning automatic guns, those have no hunting usage, and for defending yourself...you don't need that, all I can imagine them being used for is bad things...so...do people mean they want automatic guns to exist?[/QUOTE] This is possibly one of the more stupid arguments that liberals commonly use. Less than 1% of weapons used in crimes are legally obtained automatic weapons or machine guns. That's because it's incredibly difficult for morons to obtain these things as several background checks are run, tax stamps, registration with the police department, etcetra. The same can be said for legal short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Banning weapons will not fix anything nor does it even matter. The only thing that [i]might[/i] be purposeful in doing would be creating more restrictions on who can purchase a weapon, which will again not fix anything because the government insists on making stupid age bans rather than mental restrictions. Since increasing the age of purchasing an assault rifle from 18 to 21, or eventually to ~30, would ever limit criminals from purchasing a weapon illegally.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36945531]A gunpowder blasting cap will not generate enough pressure to set off c4. Also what the fuck does it matter if c4 explodes when another explosive detonates near it? At that point it matters fuck all if it explodes or not because there already is a fucking explosion nearby. The whole point is that when there is nothing present to make it unsafe, it is safe. Just as when there's nothing present with a gun to make it unsafe (bullets), it is safe.[/QUOTE] Its still an [i]inherently dangerous[/i] compound. Its a health and saftey hazard in its own right, in the raw. A gun isnt.

In the UK we manage perfectly well not being able to own firearms... America isn't still some unconquered land of wild frontiers and angry natives, so what is the huge need for them? The sole purpose of guns is to kill. Killing is both legally and morally wrong. Here in the UK the main reason so many people are against capital punishment (as am I) is it has the potential to cause the death of innocents, but allowing the public to own guns does cause the death of innocents and much more than capital punishment could ever do. I hear people say "guns are good because it gives the public a means to protect themselves" You're giving individuals the ability to take their own idea of justice into their own hands without endorsement from any others. It's pretty obvious how dangerous that is. Yeah it might infringe on your personal freedoms, but aren't peoples lives more important than strictly adhering to your ideologies? Imo if you're against capital punishment it doesn't make much sense to be against the illegalisation of firearms. In one instance the authorities (and the public to an extent) come to a conclusion on whether to take someone's life or not through a comprehensive justice system, and in the other someone can just decide whether to take someone's life just off the cuff. And i'm even strongly against capital punishment. And btw, if you're a gun collecter just get deactivated weapons. I don't know too much about the situation in the US especially regarding the potential effects of the prohibition of firearms, but this is just my two cents from my point of view

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36945718]Its still an [i]inherently dangerous[/i] compound. Its a health and saftey hazard in its own right, in the raw. A gun isnt.[/QUOTE] A gun is inherently still a device meant for killing, making it unhealthy and a safety hazard. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] You will not set C4 off by accident, unless you're a moron and keep it attached to a blasting cap/detonator in storage. Period.

[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[/QUOTE] C4 is actually quite safe. You can do basically anything you want to it, short of inserting a blasting cap, and it won't go off. Even intentionally setting it on fire only results in it burning, not detonating. A simple propane tank is going to be several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36945817]C4 is actually quite safe. You can do basically anything you want to it, short of inserting a blasting cap, and it won't go off. Even intentionally setting it on fire only results in it burning, not detonating. A simple propane tank is going to be several orders of magnitude more dangerous.[/QUOTE] Personal posession of C4 is illegal anyway so why are you arguing about this?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36945745]In the UK we manage perfectly well not being able to own firearms... America isn't still some unconquered land of wild frontiers and angry natives, so what is the huge need for them? The sole purpose of guns is to kill. Killing is both legally and morally wrong. Here in the UK the main reason so many people are against the capital punishment is it has the potential to cause the death of innocents, but allowing the public to own guns does cause the death of innocents and much more than capital punishment could ever do. I hear people say "guns are good because it gives the public a means to protect themselves" You're giving individuals the ability to take their own idea of justice into their own hands without endorsement from any others. It's pretty obvious how dangerous that is. Yeah it might infringe on your personal freedoms, but aren't peoples lives more important than strictly adhering to your ideologies? Imo if you're against capital punishment it doesn't make much sense to be against the illegalisation of firearms. In one instance the authorities (and the public to an extent) come to a conclusion on whether to take someone's life or not through a comprehensive justice system, and in the other someone can just decide whether to take someone's life just off the cuff. And i'm even strongly against capital punishment. And btw, if you're a gun collecter just get deactivated weapons. I don't know too much about the situation in the US especially regarding the potential effects of the prohibition of firearms, but this is just my two cents from my point of view[/QUOTE] You talk about people being able to take justice into their own hands without the endorsement of the people. That is the entire point of American gun laws, you are just coming at it from the wrong side. People taking justice into their own hands is certainly not pleasant, but it is small potatoes compared to a government taking justice into its own hands without the consent of the people. Hence the presence of firearms in America. At no point in time are the people left completely without recourse in the event of a total disconnect from our government and the people. Our country is designed from the ground up to avoid devolving into tyranny completely. We are a drastically different culture from your own. Applying British values to Americans is a wildly flawed course of action. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;36945860]Personal posession of C4 is illegal anyway so why are you arguing about this?[/QUOTE] No practical reason. C4 is just a neat substance that people don't really understand. Though no, it isn't actually illegal in all states within the US. You do however need a tax stamp from the federal government in order to own it.

[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] No no no no no that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to ensure that regular citizens can have parity with the armed forces in case an oppressive tyranny is established.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;36945522]"assault" weapons are used in less than 1% of firearm crime and killing sprees are a complete statistical anomaly. Banning them won't do a thing other than make people feel good and curb-stomp an industry.[/QUOTE] Fucking this.