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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36964188]The idea that a few million people with handguns and semi-automatic rifles are going to take down the tyrannical United States government wielding the most sophisticated fighting force the world has ever seen on it's own territory is insane.[/QUOTE] Hasn't that been what has been happening to the US military in Afghanistan?

Let's not forget that if you miss with a taser you're pretty much done for

[QUOTE=wraithcat;36966255]The bigger problem really is the US and the sheer gun culture in it. There's just so many guns outside in the country, that it's very tough to actually have oversigh or control over them. In countries with less of a gun culture, less gun ownership overall, you tend to have less issues. For instance, it's not much harder for me to get a weapon license and a weapon here than in the US. But because there's not the same cutlure here, I can expect that hardly anyone has a gun.[/QUOTE] That's another thing that would take a lot of time and money to reverse, if it's at all possible to do so. Old habits are hard to break, you know.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;36967335] Let me know if you want more, I've got about 100.[/QUOTE] Plus the times where it actually causes hearts to stop and DOES kill people, it's pretty flaky results tbh

Why not make it so that guns used for self defence use say rubber or plastic bullets? That's not as dangerous as lead.

Why not have people stop burglarizing homes by introducing opportunities for education and employment no that's too reasonable what was I thinking

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36969572]Why not make it so that guns used for self defence use say rubber or plastic bullets? That's not as dangerous as lead.[/QUOTE] Because then they'd be useless? Less-lethal never stands up when the other guy doesn't oblige you and give up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36969572]Why not make it so that guns used for self defence use say rubber or plastic bullets? That's not as dangerous as lead.[/QUOTE] Any gun can be used for self defense. And while rubber or plastic bullets are indeed going to hurt bare skin, they're not going to slow the guy down much. If he's wearing thick or heavy clothing, it's barely going to phase him. And then he WILL kill you.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36969808]Why not have people stop burglarizing homes by introducing opportunities for education and employment no that's too reasonable what was I thinking[/QUOTE] Because people would still complain about guns. [QUOTE=Ridge;36969989]Any gun can be used for self defense. And while rubber or plastic bullets are indeed going to hurt bare skin, they're not going to slow the guy down much. If he's wearing thick or heavy clothing, it's barely going to phase him. And then he WILL kill you.[/QUOTE] Rubber bullets can still kill and permanently injure people though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36970008]Because people would still complain about guns. Rubber bullets can still kill and permanently injure people though.[/QUOTE] Not consistently however There are people who can shot multiple times by real rounds and still get to their target, you think rubber bullets will somehow do more?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;36967335][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWR8wxhUxXo&feature=related[/media] Let me know if you want more, I've got about 100.[/QUOTE] If the Incredible Hulk wants you dead you'll probably end up dead.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36970008]Because people would still complain about guns.[/QUOTE] That's fine because guns are cool and fun and banning things is dumb and stupid

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966656]Citizens in the US are have to be licensed to take their firearm off their property[/QUOTE] There's really no other way to say this: Your statement is entirely false.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36970008]Rubber bullets can still kill and permanently injure people though.[/QUOTE] Then why should I use less lethal ammo, if it's best to hope my attacker dies or at least gets crippled?

I too wish everything that could potentially harm me was banned immediately. I wish my house was made of soft plastic rubber and my food was delivered by intravenous injection to my permanently rubber and foam encased body and all my decisions were made for me by third parties since I'm a complete retard

I've had I think about this, and admittedly some stuff i've said is sort of biased. Now I can understand issuing citizens firearms as a preventative measure against crime by putting off criminals, but you don't need to come up against the threat of guaranteed death to be put off doing something so why not have just low-powered and accurate handguns legal for regular citizens? Ideally you want to incapacitate criminals, not kill them. Because of this you don't really need automatic or high powered weaponry unless it's needed for your profession, for example hunters, body and security guards, ect. I think it should be illegal to shoot someone in head or chest, because shows that implies deliberately killed them. Obviously if you can prove that it was an accident then it doesn't matter so much Regarding self-defense rather than deterents I think tasers or even mace guns would be useful enough in most cases About carrying guns in public though i'm not sure what to think about that, maybe just make it illegal to carry guns around in public while intoxicated? And illegal to carry firearms on someone elses property unless you have their consent? And lastly imo, everyone who's looking to buy a firearm should undergo comprehensive psychological and criminal record checks Anyone fancy getting back to me on this? [editline]28th July 2012[/editline] Anyway, I still don't get how one guy here was comparing air rifles being used in the olympics to allowing all citizens to be armed with whatever they want [editline]28th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;36967418] You've obviously never shot a firearm or seriously talked to someone who has.[/QUOTE] I've shot a restored mg34 if that counts :v: But anyway, blowing stuff up with proper explosives is more fun than firework type shit but using that as a justification for regular citizens being allowed to use military grade explosives is stupid

[QUOTE=RobbL;36975826] I think it should be illegal to shoot someone in head or chest [editline]28th July 2012[/editline][/quote] if I'm in a fire fight with a guy and he's got everything below the waist in cover I have to let him kill me.

[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36972547]There's really no other way to say this: Your statement is entirely false.[/QUOTE] Not entirely. There are situations where you do have to be licensed to take firearms off your property, like if you're passing through a school zone and your weapon isn't secured somewhere. And even then, it depends on the state.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36973542]Then why should I use less lethal ammo, if it's best to hope my attacker dies or at least gets crippled?[/QUOTE] Because usually killing somebody is not something you hope for.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36975826]I think it should be illegal to shoot someone in head or chest, because shows that implies deliberately killed them.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Simply because you're aiming for one part of the body does not mean you're going to hit that part. There are other factors at play, such as movement by the target and, in intense situations, the shooter's hands shaking. If you made shooting people in these areas illegal, you would also have to be able to prove that the shooter was specifically aiming for the prohibited parts, which is incredibly difficult to do in all but a few cases (like executing a restrained target with a point-blank shot, which is already going to get you landed in prison.) Now, about shooting to disable instead of shooting at the torso. I'm not quite sure where else you'd expect someone to shoot. Other parts of the body (arms, legs, hands, the head, etc.) are much smaller targets, and much more difficult to hit. Even with a lot of practice and training, purposefully hitting something as small as an arm or a leg is a difficult feat, especially when in a high intensity situation. The other concern is overpenetration. Simply put, the torso is thicker than pretty much anything else on the human body, and so if a round hits soft tissue in the torso, it has more to plow through (thus losing momentum) than if a round hits soft tissue in, say, an arm. This increases the chance that the round won't come out the other side of your target (though it doesn't eliminate that risk, that's going to depend on your ammunition), meaning that your less likely to hit a bystander. Finally, 'shooting to disable' isn't as clean as you might thinkg If you try to 'disable' someone by shooting them in the leg and you actually manage to hit, there are a few things you have to think about. If you hit, the person will probably be disabled, but it will most likely be permanent. Knees that are shot will never, ever work right again. Shots to the leg, like shots anywhere else, will probably cause severe nerve damage, and in the leg, this can make walking difficult or impossible. In addition, the thickest part of the leg (the thigh) houses a very large artery called the femoral artery. If that artery is destroyed or punctured, you are going to die within minutes if you don't get medical help. Bascially, if you shoot at someone, you are very likely to [b]permanently maim[/b] them or kill them. Should you find yourself in a situation where this is necessary, you need to make sure as best you can that your target is the only person you are risking inflicting permanent disablement or death upon by shooting where you are most likely to hit, and where a round is least likely to pass through and wound or kill someone else.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36975826] I think it should be illegal to shoot someone in head or chest[/QUOTE] Okay, I'll just shoot them in their femoral artery and watch them bleed out in screaming pain on my carpet.