Obama says fight for gun laws 'ought to obsess us' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Explosions;42293387]Lol nobody says anything about gun control on the T.V. because the next step that could have possibly avoided this would be to ban shotguns and nobody has the balls to say it. As long as it's just "assault weapons" then it's fine but nope, can't say shit about pistols or shotguns because too many people think they're "normal" weapons.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court considers them normal weapons. Which then they'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to ban shotguns. Even the so-called "assault weapons ban" only targets certain characteristics that are banned for their cosmetic look. They seriously wanted to ban pistol grips because they supposedly made it easier to fire from the hip. Of course, this is entirely false, the traditional wood grip on shotguns are much easier to fire from the hip than pistol grips. Pistol grips on shotguns and rifles are designed to make aiming easier when firing from the shoulder. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision[/url] See 1-3.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42277612]Media is the only reason why there is such a backlash against current gun laws. Stop giving gunmen attention or more people will copycat the shootings.[/QUOTE] I thought what'd I do was I'd pretend to be one of those deafmutes...

[QUOTE=Explosions;42293387]Lol nobody says anything about gun control on the T.V. because the next step that could have possibly avoided this would be to ban shotguns and nobody has the balls to say it. As long as it's just "assault weapons" then it's fine but nope, can't say shit about pistols or shotguns because too many people think they're "normal" weapons.[/QUOTE] Nobody would say something like that out loud, let alone on national television, because it's a fucking stupid idea. Gun bans, and cosmetic feature bans like the most recent bill a certain California geezer tried to pass, do not work.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42291816]the numbers mattered when you you made your post but they don't matter when I destroy your main point? I mean, I agree that mass killings are a statistical drop in the bucket but why even bother?[/QUOTE] I never said anything about numbers before, you're the first one who mentioned numbers

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;42279842]I really don't understand why so many people are against gun control[/QUOTE] Freddom

[QUOTE=skyms2663;42291165]Can't wait to see how many boxes I get but this might provide some of you with a bit of a wider perspective. Continue to suggest how gun control doesn't work (you know, from your vast source of highly credible studies on the subject), but Australia has been doing pretty well without guns for quite some time now. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA[/media][/QUOTE]Why doesn't Europe just move to Australia then? :downs:

[QUOTE=Kigen;42294778]The Supreme Court considers them normal weapons. Which then they'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to ban shotguns. Even the so-called "assault weapons ban" only targets certain characteristics that are banned for their cosmetic look. They seriously wanted to ban pistol grips because they supposedly made it easier to fire from the hip. Of course, this is entirely false, the traditional wood grip on shotguns are much easier to fire from the hip than pistol grips. Pistol grips on shotguns and rifles are designed to make aiming easier when firing from the shoulder. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision[/url] See 1-3.[/QUOTE] As someone who advocates gun control, I don't care about the Assault Weapons ban because it's about cosmetic things. It doesn't do a damn thing and is hardly gun control, more cosmetic control.

[QUOTE=Zally13;42298634]As someone who advocates gun control, I don't care about the Assault Weapons ban because it's about cosmetic things. It doesn't do a damn thing and is hardly gun control, more cosmetic control.[/QUOTE] But if you were confronted with it on a ballot, would you let it through?

[QUOTE=skyms2663;42291165]Can't wait to see how many boxes I get but this might provide some of you with a bit of a wider perspective. Continue to suggest how gun control doesn't work (you know, from your vast source of highly credible studies on the subject), but Australia has been doing pretty well without guns for quite some time now.[/QUOTE] My problem with the current statistics for Australia is that it only supports the fact that a gun without ammo is a useless gun. The last numbers released by the Australian government is that for every smuggled or homemade gun in Australia, you could arm every soldier in the Australian army with eight weapons. In speaking of the whole, "homemade gun" before I give half a damn to look at statistics, I would love to see statistics on weapons by the reloading action as well as the determined area of where it originates[ex. Homemade / Smuggled / Pre-Ban]. This type of study would have to be done over a five year period and from the gathered evidence you would be able to truly tell if gun control has actually done anything outside of disarming people, and pushing gangs and mafia groups from hiring out-of-work gunsmiths. edit: Another thing in the regards to "ban this weapon" "no this weapon!" the unorganized militia cannot react without at least some form of military grade weapon. Yes. The AR-15 can be seen as "military grade" and by that decree we need them in the name of keeping a regulated militia that is on standard/par with the standard infantryman in the United States Military.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42301574]My problem with the current statistics for Australia is that it only supports the fact that a gun without ammo is a useless gun. The last numbers released by the Australian government is that for every smuggled or homemade gun in Australia, you could arm every soldier in the Australian army with eight weapons. In speaking of the whole, "homemade gun" before I give half a damn to look at statistics, I would love to see statistics on weapons by the reloading action as well as the determined area of where it originates[ex. Homemade / Smuggled / Pre-Ban]. This type of study would have to be done over a five year period and from the gathered evidence you would be able to truly tell if gun control has actually done anything outside of disarming people, and pushing gangs and mafia groups from hiring out-of-work gunsmiths. edit: Another thing in the regards to "ban this weapon" "no this weapon!" the unorganized militia cannot react without at least some form of military grade weapon. Yes. The AR-15 can be seen as "military grade" and by that decree we need them in the name of keeping a regulated militia that is on standard/par with the standard infantryman in the United States Military.[/QUOTE] the absolute simplest firearm is the four winds shotgun, which is a piece of pipe and an endcap with a nail in it. I wager those are the most common, followed by open-bolt submachine guns, which are only marginally more complicated

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42301574]My problem with the current statistics for Australia is that it only supports the fact that a gun without ammo is a useless gun. The last numbers released by the Australian government is that for every smuggled or homemade gun in Australia, you could arm every soldier in the Australian army with eight weapons. In speaking of the whole, "homemade gun" before I give half a damn to look at statistics, I would love to see statistics on weapons by the reloading action as well as the determined area of where it originates[ex. Homemade / Smuggled / Pre-Ban]. This type of study would have to be done over a five year period and from the gathered evidence you would be able to truly tell if gun control has actually done anything outside of disarming people, and pushing gangs and mafia groups from hiring out-of-work gunsmiths. edit: Another thing in the regards to "ban this weapon" "no this weapon!" the unorganized militia cannot react without at least some form of military grade weapon. Yes. The AR-15 can be seen as "military grade" and by that decree we need them in the name of keeping a regulated militia that is on standard/par with the standard infantryman in the United States Military.[/QUOTE] Even then, the military still has far more equipment at their disposal, so really AWBtards should be glad that RPGs and .50 caliber Brownings are only obtainable through high-level licenses by civilians

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42295211]Nobody would say something like that out loud, let alone on national television, because it's a fucking stupid idea. Gun bans, and cosmetic feature bans like the most recent bill a certain California geezer tried to pass, do not work.[/QUOTE] Well at least banning all shotguns or banning all pistols will do [b]something[/b]. A total gun ban would do [b]something[/b]. I can sympathize with those who do not try and fool themselves and go for total gun bans because they are correct in that such measures would undoubtedly have a great effect on crime in general. What that effect would be is still up for debate in many cases, though most likely crime rates would lower, perhaps substantially but perhaps not. What is the most annoying this to me is that instead of focusing on any relevant legislation, people waste their fucking time on the aassault weapons. It is so baffling and ridiculous that I almost laugh out loud when hearing these arguments nowadays. I cannot take anyone seriously who wants an assault weapons ban. The [i]only way[/i] that you could justify an assault weapons ban is if you were so dead set on a total gun ban that you believe any gun ban is a victory, and that it would serve as a stepping stone for further legislation. In my opinion, such a stance would be deceitful and would actually serve to work against your own interests, as many people would believe that a problem has been solved and thus you would lose support. But at least it has a logical idea behind it. The vast majority of people who support an assault weapons ban have [b]literally[/b] no idea what an assault weapon is and usually have no background or experience with guns. And when I saw literally I mean it in the old definition and not the new one. The best way to win a debate about assault weapons is to ask your opponent what an assault weapon is. You will win instantly. I would give my firstborn child to get on [i]The Daily Show[/i] and ask John Stewart what an assault weapon in in front of his audience. It would be shameful. He, along with so many other pundits and personalities, have willfully admitted that they know absolutely nothing about guns in general let alone what this specific ban is even going to accomplish. I always postulate this question: would you ask a plumber about his opinion on astrophysics equations and expect an answer? Or would you expect him to reply that his is not informed enough to give his opinion? I would hope that the latter is true.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42301828]Even then, the military still has far more equipment at their disposal, so really AWBtards should be glad that RPGs and .50 caliber Brownings are only obtainable through high-level licenses by civilians[/QUOTE] No, RPGs and M2s are only accessible to those with enough money to afford a weapon which artificially costs as much as a house. The only real requirements to own something like those is to have a clean criminal record and have a Police chief that will sign off on it, you do not need a license to own one, just a $200 tax stamp from the ATF and a mountain of cash to buy the gun itself. Oh and you have to find one for sale in the first place, there's only about 200,000 transferable MGs in the US.