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

[QUOTE=Ridge;36949872]It would depend on many things, for sure. The link is irrelevant, because they still have guns, despite the ban. And that was your argument.[/QUOTE] Drug related crimes. Not regular people getting robbed/broken into their house. Drug related crimes with firearms are within their own group, criminals. My argument was that burglars do not carry firearms when they do not need to (home owners do not carry).

[QUOTE=Ridge;36949704]Because nobody having a gun last year when the Norway killer struck made the place much safer.[/QUOTE] If other people were armed, it could have went a whole lot better, or a whole lot worse. I hate these arguments because they dodge the point of gun rights. These tragedies will happen. People will shoot places up and kill dozens or hundreds of people. It fucking happens. That doesn't mean innocent people should be punished.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949912]My argument was that burglars do not carry firearms when they do not need to (home owners do not carry).[/QUOTE] Guns are just about outlawed in New York City. Yet [URL]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8618265[/URL] [QUOTE]In it you see uniformed officers confronting one of the suspects as he exits the RX Pharmacy on First Avenue. He's got his hands up and they move him off to the side. Then, suspect number two comes out. According to police he's 23-year-old Rudy Wyatt. He's armed and investigators say he was pulling the trigger of his 32-caliber gun. ... He was shot and killed by a retired NYPD lieutenant who was pumping his gas at the BP gas station.[/QUOTE]

Supporting the legal status of firearms only because you believe that guns help the public protect themselves is silly imo. They just cause the death of too many innocent people for that to be a good justification. The death penalty in itself is bad enough for similar reasons...

[QUOTE=RobbL;36950019]Supporting the legal status of firearms only because you believe that guns help the public protect themselves is silly imo. They just cause the death of too many innocent people for that to be a good justification. The death penalty in itself is bad enough for similar reasons...[/QUOTE] The reason they're allowed isn't even for self defense so it's a ridiculous argument to begin with.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36950019]Supporting the legal status of firearms only because you believe that guns help the public protect themselves is silly imo. They just cause the death of too many innocent people for that to be a good justification. The death penalty in itself is bad enough for similar reasons...[/QUOTE] That's not the justification.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36950051]That's not the justification.[/QUOTE] It seems many people use it as one

I hate all the fear-mongering associated with "military-style" and "assault weapons." Just because something looks sleek and black and the military happens to use it doesn't make it some futuristic death machine. The 5.56 round is actually quite less powerful than 7.62 (either x39 or x54) which are just as readily available. Under this train of thought you could call the Beretta M9 a "military-style pistol" yet nobody flips the fuck out over those. And the AR-15 is a civilian model anyway so it's not even right to call a military rifle. Not to mention that these so called "assault weapons" account for something like 2% of all gun crime. Rifles are cumbersome and hard to keep hidden. The only reason to roll up with one is if you know you aren't coming back (or don't care, ie the batman killer), or have some serious shit planned. The real problem are pistols, which most everyone uses due to concealability.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36950077]It seems many people use it as one[/QUOTE] There are a lot of dumb people in the world.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36940723]really because here in arizona you can buy a decked out assault rifle at the gunshow without any paperwork at all, its legal too[/QUOTE] I am amazed you can live in Arizona and have such a lack of knowledge about firearms, that just comes naturally with living here. Also why do people even respond to Kopimi anyways?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36950131] Under this train of thought you could call the Beretta M9 a "military-style pistol" yet nobody flips the fuck out over those. And the AR-15 is a civilian model anyway so it's not even right to call a military rifle. [/QUOTE] You're implying that the media knows that the Beretta M92 isn't a large caliber automatic Glock pistol.

[QUOTE=imptastick;36940160]Actually a surprising amount of illegal assault rifles are shipped out of Europe, just looking at sites that sell illegal items will show you that. [thumb]http://i47.tinypic.com/2a7ycs3.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] Damn one day I'm gonna use silkroad store such great selection of drugs and guns.

[QUOTE=imptastick;36940160]Actually a surprising amount of illegal assault rifles are shipped out of Europe, just looking at sites that sell illegal items will show you that. [thumb]http://i47.tinypic.com/2a7ycs3.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] Colt Thompson Submachine Gun Tommy Gun :| [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;36940723]really because here in arizona you can buy a decked out assault rifle at the gunshow without any paperwork at all, its legal too[/QUOTE] No, you cannot. You must pass a federal background check to buy a semi auto rifle. To buy an assault rifle, you will need many thousands of dollars and waiting 8 months or more for your federal enhanced background check to complete.

I've never understood Americans and Guns, we have them banned to a certain extent here (baring hunting rifles which are hard to get a licence for) and we cope perfectly fine. The armed police here can deal with the odd fool waiving a gun around, and that's usually a replica. Just my thoughts and our "cultural" differences from one of your friends across the ocean.

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;36951481]I've never understood Americans and Guns, we have them banned to a certain extent here (baring hunting rifles which are hard to get a licence for) and we cope perfectly fine. The armed police here can deal with the odd fool waiving a gun around, and that's usually a replica. Just my thoughts and our "cultural" differences from one of your friends across the ocean.[/QUOTE] There are definitely differences. I think our gun culture comes from fighting for our own country in the Revolution. Our leaders saw a potential need for it to happen again in the future, and wanted to make it as hard for the opponents as possible, whether they be foreign or from within.

Also I am quite appalled an Italian(jimhowl33t) is more in favor of protecting the rights of United States citizens then its own citizens.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36950864]No, you cannot. You must pass a federal background check to buy a semi auto rifle. To buy an assault rifle, you will need many thousands of dollars and waiting 8 months or more for your federal enhanced background check to complete.[/QUOTE] no, you don't private sales are entirely legal and take place every day and i've stood next to people and watched them make these sales at the show with no paperwork at all. FFL purchases from actual gun dealers require that you fill out paperwork and perform a background check. private sales however are completely legal, the only requirement being that both parties are at least 18 and they consent to the deal. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Carnage2323;36950488]I am amazed you can live in Arizona and have such a lack of knowledge about firearms, that just comes naturally with living here. Also why do people even respond to Kopimi anyways?[/QUOTE] lol i already corrected my statement, i meant to say "assault weapon" not "assault rifle" i imagine people reply because that's what you do when someone is disagreeing with you and providing points to back up that disagreement

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36951847]no, you don't private sales are entirely legal and take place every day and i've stood next to people and watched them make these sales at the show with no paperwork at all. FFL purchases from actual gun dealers require that you fill out paperwork and perform a background check. private sales however are completely legal, the only requirement being that both parties are at least 18 and they consent to the deal. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] lol i already corrected my statement, i meant to say "assault weapon" not "assault rifle" i imagine people reply because that's what you do when someone is disagreeing with you and providing points to back up that disagreement[/QUOTE] o cool I got you to come back <3

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36951896]o cool I got you to come back <3[/QUOTE] no idea how you figure that but i guess its a bit unreasonable to expect a sane response from you after what you've posted thus far

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36951908]no idea how you figure that but i guess its a bit unreasonable to expect a sane response from you after what you've posted thus far[/QUOTE] I'm sure there is quite a few posters here would find that hypocritical

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949731]Yes. I believe there would be a high possibility that it could have turned out much worse if people were carrying.[/QUOTE] How the fly fucking shit do you think that? If someone had the means to stop him, he was FUCKING SHOOTING PEOPLE ANYWAYS, he wouldn't have "missed and killed more people" HE WAS GOING TO KILL THEM ANYWAYS. If the ONE police officer on that island had been allowed by his superior to have his service weapon there that day I can say with a confidence that there would have been significantly less people killed that day. A criminal is already breaking the law, he doesn't care about doing it farther. If you take away your means to defend yourself from a criminal and ADVOCATE IT then all you are doing is advocating your own victimization. You're advocating someone walking all over you, you're encouraging giving criminals more power. In states where concealed-carry is made more readily accessible, crime rates drop for a number of reasons, and one is effective deterrence. Criminals don't know who is carrying, therefore they're less likely to commit a crime if they feel their life will be taken from them doing so by that guy in the back of the convenience store, or if that old lady they're going to mug with a knife is going to pull out a snubnose .38 from her purse. You take away the means to defend oneself, and advocate such an action, and YOU are partially responsible for the rape of the young woman who couldn't stop the guy from attacking her in the park, YOU are partially responsible for the death of that teller at the bank who pushed the silent alarm in hopes that maybe they wouldn't be noticed, YOU are partially responsible for the deaths of the people from a mass shooting because you don't think they should be able to defend themselves from madmen, from criminals, from sociopaths. YOU make them into victims, and therefore YOU share responsibility for what happens to them when they can't defend themselves. A properly qualified and trained citizen who carries a gun is responsible and safe, they're some of the country's most upstanding citizens, and are often former military and/or police, men who've stood up for your freedom and you insult them like this, by calling them dangerous. You're ignorant, and the things you are saying are deplorable, because responsible, law-abiding gun owners don't commit crimes, yet in your ignorance you disgrace them by associating them with criminals. Absolutely disgusting.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36951970]I'm sure there is quite a few posters here would find that hypocritical[/QUOTE] yes what a stunning and witty reply, i definitely didn't see that coming lemme check my predictable response list to see what's next on your agenda for desperately trying to look clever in lieu of explaining your selfish and destructive beliefs: says here you'll say something about my title?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36952009]yes what a stunning and witty reply, i definitely didn't see that coming lemme check my predictable response list to see what's next on your agenda for desperately trying to look clever in lieu of explaining your selfish and destructive beliefs: says here you'll say something about my title?[/QUOTE] Here on my list it says you're going to challenge someones sentence structure. Also on the discussion, firearms should not be banned, and those who wish to acquire them legally should pass the background checks they already face. The problem isn't behind regulations and how they are banned, it is a direct result of the society these people are bred from that brings them to how they act. (People who go crazy and Criminals) Instead more effort should be going towards aiding with mental issues and awareness of such.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36939822] Because tight legislation works so well with keeping drugs out of the hands of people that want them, right?[/QUOTE] Britain is practically gun-less. Drugs are problem world-wide but guns here are unheard of pretty much, I've never been afraid of getting shot. Knives are part of gang culture in some places but it's not a country-wide thing.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36952080]Here on my list it says you're going to challenge someones sentence structure.[/QUOTE] a bit ironic that you would interpret "you suck at understanding sentence structure" to "your sentence structure is bad" isn't it lol

[QUOTE=spekter;36952111]Britain is practically gun-less. Drugs are problem world-wide but guns here are unheard of pretty much, I've never been afraid of getting shot. Knives are part of gang culture in some places but it's not a country-wide thing.[/QUOTE] [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url] Also, Gun(Man)chester, and the knives prove the theory of substitution, meaning crime overall will continue to operate at similar levels with other means. It's not the object that's the problem, and that's the biggest failure of gun control, they focus on the gun and not the crime, and therefore the crime will just, in the absence of a gun, move on to other means.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36952080]Here on my list it says you're going to challenge someones sentence structure. Also on the discussion, firearms should not be banned, and those who wish to acquire them legally should pass the background checks they already face. The problem isn't behind regulations and how they are banned, it is a direct result of the society these people are bred from that brings them to how they act. (People who go crazy and Criminals) Instead more effort should be going towards aiding with mental issues and awareness of such.[/QUOTE] yep i agree which is why i never said all guns should be banned

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36952187]yep i agree which is why i never said all guns should be banned[/QUOTE] I never implied you did. You however have shown you want semi-automatic rifles banned, which are firearms. Therefore there are firearms you want banned.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36952151][url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url] Also, Gun(Man)chester, and the knives prove the theory of substitution, meaning crime overall will continue to operate at similar levels with other means. It's not the object that's the problem, and that's the biggest failure of gun control, they focus on the gun and not the crime, and therefore the crime will just, in the absence of a gun, move on to other means.[/QUOTE] I'm certainly not denying substitution but it's just not a country-wide thing like it is in America. Practically anyone can own a gun over there whereas here it's concentrated in the bigger cities. I think if they actually did improve background checks enough that would help big time and to be honest I'm surprised they haven't already done that.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36952151][url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif[/img][/url] Also, Gun(Man)chester, and the knives prove the theory of substitution, meaning crime overall will continue to operate at similar levels with other means. It's not the object that's the problem, and that's the biggest failure of gun control, they focus on the gun and not the crime, and therefore the crime will just, in the absence of a gun, move on to other means.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]Crime is currently at a 23 year low in the UK, with firearm offences down 16% on the previous year.[/URL] Also, gun control has been in effect in the UK since 1824, and we seem to being doing rather well with it, so I don't see the issue here. The US is different issue, both for legal and cultural reasons.