Colorado Theater Shooting Victims and Relatives Demand Guns Be Discussed In Upcoming Presidential De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]gun owners are the most level headed people you will meet.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bqT6-RoGhU&feature=related[/media]

@Xeno: I'm confused. What caused the sudden spike in crime in Mid-92'. Possibly the LA Riots?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37890240]What would you say if for example, somebody did some studies and experiments, loads of work on the subject, and found out with conclusive evidence (Not saying they did) that gun control was ultimately good at reducing crime in the long term? Would gun control be justified in that case?[/QUOTE] Sort of but there is more to it than just crime. It's an industry, people use it for sport, or to get food. A gun is a tool, just like most tools it has many uses. Destroying an industry around a tool just because of 1 thing it can be used for isn't grounds to ban them. There are laws in place to keep people that should not have guns from getting them legally. However they can still get them illegally, hell even from our own government. You do have to fill out some paperwork to get a firearm to check for people that shouldn't get them. The guy in the aurora incident had a clean background. The feds can't dig through personal medical records to see if you went to a psych ward. That is what the media was bitching about.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]99.999999999999999999999999999999998% of gun owners are the most level headed people you will meet[/QUOTE] I want to know what kind of respectable person put a number like that on anything. You know, so I can reasonably and level-headedly shoot them.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890348]Sort of but there is more to it than just crime. It's an industry, people use it for sport, or to get food. A gun is a tool, just like most tools it has many uses. Destroying an industry around a tool just because of 1 thing it can be used for isn't grounds to ban them. There are laws in place to keep people that should not have guns from getting them legally. However they can still get them illegally, hell even from our own government. You do have to fill out some paperwork to get a firearm to check for people that shouldn't get them. The guy in the aurora incident had a clean background. The feds can't dig through personal medical records to see if you went to placed in a psych ward. That is what the media was bitching about.[/QUOTE] Except I was talking about gun control, not outright banning. Also where's my source on that near 100% certainty?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37890367]I want to know what kind of respectable person put a number like that on anything. You know, so I can reasonably and level-headedly shoot them.[/QUOTE] Well a know .9 repeating is actually just 1 so he's pulling it out his ass.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37890383]Except I was talking about gun control, not outright banning. Also where's my source on that near 100% certainty?[/QUOTE] What would you want to control? That is my issue. I can understand keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals the best you can but realistically no matter what if the person wants a gun to commit a crime they will get one. Also there is no source, I was using that number to emphasize that the vast majority of gun owners are sane. But if you say vast then people want a number. Whatever. The only gun control I would really like to see is a mandatory safety class to purchase. Educating people on firearms is more helpful than making people afraid of them.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]So you are saying I should not be able to have my new gun because I could possibly maybe do something in the future.[/QUOTE] I didn't argue anything, I said you were being overly simplistic in your thinking. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't constitute an argument, it constitutes me saying you're wrong. [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]What the hell is wrong with you?[/QUOTE] Probably nothing, since you apparently can't read. [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]Besides most gun crime is carried out with illegally obtain weapons.[/QUOTE] So now that I know I'm lecturing a child, I'll put this slow and simple. If [URL="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt"]70% of violent felons have prior criminal records[/URL], that means 30% of them [I]don't.[/I] That means [B]30% of violent felons could have legally obtained guns.[/B] If [I]most[/I] gun crime [I]now[/I] is carried out with [i]illegally obtained guns,[/i] and you make it [i]easier to legally obtain a gun[/i], you might [b]increase the number of gun crimes with legally obtained guns.[/b] Remember, [URL="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2579303?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101100744773"]firearm availability in an absolute sense increases homicide rates,[/URL] something observable in not just cities but [URL="https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157152"]entire countries.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890522][B]What would you want to control?[/B] That is my issue. I can understand keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals the best you can but realistically no matter what if the person wants a gun to commit a crime they will get get one.[/QUOTE] because a bit of regulation here and there is good? [QUOTE]But if you say vast then people want a number. Whatever.[/QUOTE] what are you saying and why are you being rude

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890522]What would you want to control? That is my issue. I can understand keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals the best you can but realistically no matter what if the person wants a gun to commit a crime they will get one.[/QUOTE] I think controls on handguns and military weaponry might be actually wise. [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890522]Also there is no source, I was using that number to emphasize that the vast majority of gun owners are sane. But if you say vast then people want a number. Whatever.[/QUOTE] I still need a source stating this: [quote]At least 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of gun owners are sane.[/quote] i.e prove most people who own guns aren't nutters if you own a gun you've already disproven your statement anyways tho [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890522]I was using that number to emphasize that the vast majority of gun owners are sane.[/QUOTE] this prove it

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37890338]@Xeno: I'm confused. What caused the sudden spike in crime in Mid-92'. Possibly the LA Riots?[/QUOTE] nah the crack epidemic i think

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37890545]because a bit of regulation here and there is good?[/QUOTE] Well, there is a bit of regulation here and there. Civilians can't just walk in and purchase automatic weapons and to purchase any firearm they have to pass the NICS check. The check determines whether or not the person in question has any sort of criminal record, and if he does then he fails the check. If he fails the check he can't buy a gun. But here's the thing: Criminals still get guns, and that's because they don't give a damn about the law. Increasing restrictions on law-abiding citizens won't cut down on crime, but the misconception that it will has the potential to rob ordinary people of their ability to defend themselves.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37890561]I think controls on handguns and military weaponry might be actually wise. I still need a source stating this: i.e prove most people who own guns aren't nutters if you own a gun you've already disproven your statement anyways tho [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] this prove it[/QUOTE] Sigh. There is no need to restrict handguns or military rifles. It's a constitutional right in the United States to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed. This changes if you commit a felony and do not have your rights restored. There are restrictions on gun sales on the groups of people that shouldn't have them including the insane, felons, domestic violence offenders, illegal aliens. However taking them away from everyone is not right. Nor is restricting them to things like long rifles with 10 shot mags or taking away semi autos. By the way calling me crazy doesn't help your argument. But yes I do own a gun, a handgun, semi auto striker fired handgun. Figured I would use my right before people like yourself try to take it away. Got to say I am glad I did. It's a lot of fun. Expensive but fun.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890900]It's a constitutional right in the United States to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE] That's not a good enough reason.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37890940]That's not a good enough reason.[/QUOTE] Stop right there, just stop. It's a right, that is a good enough reason whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37890984]Stop right there, just stop. It's a right, that is a good enough reason whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] It's certainly not on here: [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] So why is it not on there? I won't be convinced guns are even remotely necessary unless you provide the following: Conclusive evidence that most claims made in this thread are true and can be certified.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37890940]That's not a good enough reason.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. The rights we are granted in our constitution are of great importance. Trampling on them is a horrible idea.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890900]Sigh. There is no need to restrict handguns or military rifles. It's a constitutional right in the United States to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed. This changes if you commit a felony and do not have your rights restored. There are restrictions on gun sales on the groups of people that shouldn't have them including the insane, felons, domestic violence offenders, illegal aliens. However taking them away from everyone is not right. Nor is restricting them to things like long rifles with 10 shot mags or taking away semi autos. By the way calling me crazy doesn't help your argument. But yes I do own a gun, a handgun, semi auto striker fired handgun. Figured I would use my right before people like yourself try to take it away. Got to say I am glad I did. It's a lot of fun. Expensive but fun.[/QUOTE] i've always felt like the second amendment gave the right to bear arms in the context of being part of a WELL-REGULATED militia. i mean, that is kinda what it says [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37890984]Stop right there, just stop. It's a right, that is a good enough reason whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] no, if constitutional rights were infallible then they wouldn't have amendments and shit. it's a document that was written hundreds of years ago it's not magic

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37891020]Yes it is. The rights we are granted in our constitution are of great importance. Trampling on them is a horrible idea.[/QUOTE] It's a 230 year old document written to protect the rights of landowners. It wasn't written in mind with protecting YOUR rights TODAY.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37891002]It's certainly not on here: [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] So why is it not on there? I won't be convinced guns are even remotely necessary unless you provide the following: Conclusive evidence that most claims made in this thread are true and can be certified.[/QUOTE] It's not on there because the UN didn't write our goddamned constitution, that's why.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37891046]It's not on there because the UN didn't write our goddamned constitution, that's why.[/QUOTE] And why do you think that the privilege to bear arms isn't anywhere in it? It's somewhat implying the ridiculous claim that guns might not be necessary.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37891002]It's certainly not on here: [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] So why is it not on there? I won't be convinced guns are even remotely necessary unless you provide the following: Conclusive evidence that most claims made in this thread are true and can be certified.[/QUOTE] See here then: [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html[/url] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;37891025]i've always felt like the second amendment gave the right to bear arms in the context of being part of a WELL-REGULATED militia. i mean, that is kinda what it says [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] no, if constitutional rights were infallible then they wouldn't have amendments and shit. it's a document that was written hundreds of years ago it's not magic[/QUOTE] Ok then while we're at it well just 'amend' away the 1st Amendment, and then the 6th, then the 4th, in that order.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37891073]See here then: [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html[/url][/QUOTE] That's not empirical evidence for your insane claims. [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37891073]Ok then while we're at it well just 'amend' away the 1st Amendment, and then the 6th, then the 4th, in that order.[/QUOTE] How about we never add the 13th amendment?

Call me crazy but I agree with Romney. Laws won't stop massacres from happening. The root cause is mental health. Something seemingly untouched in this country.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37891045]It's a 230 year old document written to protect the rights of landowners. It wasn't written in mind with protecting YOUR rights TODAY.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. It protects everyone with certain freedoms and ways to protect themselves and their possessions, not just land.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37891098]That's not empirical evidence for your insane claims. It would be insane to claim it was a right for Americans to own guns if no such right existed, but it does, tough shit. How about we never add the 13th amendment?[/QUOTE] Notice the word add? The 13th Amendment gave [B]more [/B]rights to [B]more [/B]people. See how that works? One of the few good things that came out of that period. [QUOTE=faze;37891134]Call me crazy but I agree with Romney. Laws won't stop massacres from happening. The root cause is mental health. Something seemingly untouched in this country.[/QUOTE] Getting rid of the current 'justice' system and converting punishment into rehabilitation would be a great start.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37891145]Yes it does. It protects everyone with certain freedoms and ways to protect themselves and their possessions, not just land.[/QUOTE] When originally written, it did not protect the following: Women Blacks Indians Catholics Irish Socialists I can add more. For example, it says it all when the right to bear arms is more important than the right to universal healthcare. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37891161]Notice the word add? The 13th Amendment gave [B]more [/B]rights to [B]more [/B]people. See how that works? One of the few good things that came out of that period.[/QUOTE] Except you are still mostly sticking to a horribly inflexible piece of legislation.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37890530]I didn't argue anything, I said you were being overly simplistic in your thinking. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't constitute an argument, it constitutes me saying you're wrong. Probably nothing, since you apparently can't read. So now that I know I'm lecturing a child, I'll put this slow and simple. If [URL="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt"]70% of violent felons have prior criminal records[/URL], that means 30% of them [I]don't.[/I] That means [B]30% of violent felons could have legally obtained guns.[/B] If [I]most[/I] gun crime [I]now[/I] is carried out with [i]illegally obtained guns,[/i] and you make it [i]easier to legally obtain a gun[/i], you might [b]increase the number of gun crimes with legally obtained guns.[/b] Remember, [URL="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2579303?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101100744773"]firearm availability in an absolute sense increases homicide rates,[/URL] something observable in not just cities but [URL="https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157152"]entire countries.[/URL][/QUOTE] 0% of felons can legally own firearms.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37891287]0% of felons can legally own firearms.[/QUOTE] not picking a side, just wanna point out this: the key word here is "legally" felons who want a gun aren't gonna give a shit if they obtained it legally just saying

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37891171]When originally written, it did not protect the following: Women Blacks Indians Catholics Irish Socialists I can add more. For example, it says it all when the right to bear arms is more important than the right to universal healthcare. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] Except you are still mostly sticking to a horribly inflexible piece of legislation.[/QUOTE] You are so off the main argument now it is sad. This is typical behavior of someone who cannot come up with any more good counter arguments or points to add so they start going after things that mean something to people and try to get them to rage quit or call them a faggot. Taking things out of context too seriously. Arguing exact percentages. Rather than the point. Calling everyone who disagrees with them crazy etc. Once you get realistic you will see that gun control doesn't do any good. It creates the illusion of safety. As that is all safety really is, an illusion or an idea. Life will never be completely safe and if people want guns to feel safe they should be able to have them. Even if statistically it makes their life a fraction of a percent safer it is worth it. If not owning guns makes them feel safe then they don't have to buy one.