Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247630]Well if guns somehow stopped existing altogether, then it would be much less practical and cost effective to wage war, so yes, they would lessen.[/QUOTE] no please think this through for a moment

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247581]so fuck over everyone in hopes it helps when logic and reason tell me there's no way that's going to happen in america just because other countries did it...[/QUOTE] how is making guns illegal fucking over everyone? your life will still be the same, you can still find a family, or maybe travel if you want to, get a job, you know, live life

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247649]how is making guns illegal fucking over everyone? your life will still be the same, you can still find a family, or maybe travel if you want to, get a job, you know, live life[/QUOTE] Because if you allow the government to do what ever they want and outlaw what ever they want, what is stopping them from imposing on our lives more and more?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39247599]Is this post serious or is it meant to be sarcastic? I honestly can't tell. Anecdotal, but my (canadian) highschool narrowly avoided a potential school shooting scenario in my graduating year. The idiot kid in question actually acquired his gun illegally. [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/01/bc-templeton-hit-list-guns.html[/url] So frankly I'm not sure what bearing the legality of firearms has on scenarios involving the mentally unstable, because apparently it's pretty easy to get guns illegally; even in places that already have fairly strict gun control.[/QUOTE] of course bad things will happen, but statistically, canada has an FRACTION of the gun-related violence that the us does, and it's a relatively similar country and culture overall [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;39247674]Because if you allow the government to do what ever they want and outlaw what ever they want, what is stopping them from imposing on our lives more and more?[/QUOTE] the "slippery-slope" argument is one of the worst logical fallacies out there

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247589]you are purposely refusing to think on anything more than a superficial level about any statement presented to you. stop it. it's embarrassing to watch.[/QUOTE] How is it a superficial argument? Their fucking jobs are going places and killing people on a daily basis.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247630]Well if guns somehow stopped existing altogether, then it would be much less practical and cost effective to wage war, so yes, they would lessen.[/QUOTE] Actually the majority of casualties in modern warfare are generated by high explosives, not guns. And it's a moot point anyways because [URL="http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/118-2.jpg"]people were killing each other just fine before the advent of firearms.[/URL]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247610]No, I'm saying that most economists only look at post WW2 events. I.E ignoring the great depression. And you're not correct, the 1980s was the largets expansion of wealth the United States ever saw. I could go into that if you want me to.[/QUOTE] Ah, now I see what you are saying. I'd disagree with you on that other statement but this is not the time or place for that.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247649]how is making guns illegal fucking over everyone? your life will still be the same, you can still find a family, or maybe travel if you want to, get a job, you know, live life[/QUOTE] Unless I enjoy shooting, then a small part of my life is damaged. Unless my house gets robbed by methheads(I live in a town affect badly by the drug wars and has a high meth use level) who are unlikely to be predictable enough to be sure of my safety even if I just let them have my shit Unless I enjoy hunting to supplement my budget in food

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247632]no you just enjoy being a condescending ass incapable of seeing another persons point of view. if it were true, and it is true, that guns are the easiest method to kill people in a one on one sense, and used through out wars and combat, that many people who do shoot people end up struggling with the act of killing someone? oh wait everyone who's ever killed anyone with a gun was a remorseless heartless fucking murder[/QUOTE] is it really that difficult to look at the context and discern what "impersonal" means? killing someone is a heavy moral act no matter what you do it with, but guns make it far easier. you can kill people from far away. you can kill numerous people in a short timespan. there's a difference between shooting someone in the back down a hallway and stabbing someone in the stomach up close.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39247635]But weapons aren't banned here, I wish people would stop the proliferation of this untruth.[/QUOTE] They aren't banned, but they're heavily restricted and semi automatic rifles are set to fire in a single shot mode and have to be cycled individually and are limited to magazine size, and you also have to keep it at a range. That's not banned, but it's laughably restrictive.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247694]of course bad things will happen, but statistically, canada has an FRACTION of the gun-related violence that the us does, and it's a relatively similar country and culture overall [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] the "slippery-slope" argument is one of the worst logical fallacies out there[/QUOTE] And as a canadian, I can tell you it's STILL fucking easy to get an illegal gun. It's easier to do that than buy a legal one due to some of the ridiculous and ineffective legislation here.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247704]How is it a superficial argument? Their fucking jobs are going places and killing people on a daily basis.[/QUOTE] again, is it really that difficult to figure out what he meant?

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247719]is it really that difficult to look at the context and discern what "impersonal" means? killing someone is a heavy moral act no matter what you do it with, but guns make it far easier. you can kill people from far away. you can kill numerous people in a short timespan. there's a difference between shooting someone in the back down a hallway and stabbing someone in the stomach up close.[/QUOTE] Only snipers can kill people from far away. Most of the time, far away is about 100 feet. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] Oh and also. Get this. They have to investigate the body and gather evidence for an after action report.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247719]is it really that difficult to look at the context and discern what "impersonal" means? killing someone is a heavy moral act no matter what you do it with, but guns make it far easier. you can kill people from far away. you can kill numerous people in a short timespan. there's a difference between shooting someone in the back down a hallway and stabbing someone in the stomach up close.[/QUOTE] Yes did you not read the part of my post where I said this oh you mustn't have.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247744]again, is it really that difficult to figure out what he meant?[/QUOTE] Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247719]is it really that difficult to look at the context and discern what "impersonal" means? killing someone is a heavy moral act no matter what you do it with, but guns make it far easier. you can kill people from far away. you can kill numerous people in a short timespan. there's a difference between shooting someone in the back down a hallway and stabbing someone in the stomach up close.[/QUOTE] The question still isn't "do guns make it easier to kill" the question is "does making guns illegal reduce the number of criminal killing sprees"

It sounds like he's approaching this very thoroughly. He's not only making assault weapons illegal, but throwing in several sweeping changes across the board to ensure that guns purchased legally are done so by safe and competent people, while simultaneously cracking down on illegal arms trade, making it more difficult to acquire weapons illegally, and instilling much harsher punishments for those involved with illegal gun trafficking. Combining the policy changes with the new appointment he's made, and we've got a pretty comprehensive system in place that both upholds the second amendment, and helps to create safer environments for those who do not exercise that right. All in all, I'm pretty much on board with this course of action. You can't keep [I]all[/I] weapons out of the wrong hands, not as long as weapons exist, but it will at least help to create a marked scarcity of the most potentially catastrophic firearms.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247637]no please think this through for a moment[/QUOTE] Sorry, I don't think your condescending tone is going to work this time, sorry you won't be getting your way through being a dick. You mean to tell me that if all guns (this is hypothetical, so it's an extreme example that is, of course, unrealistic, I don't support banning guns for legal citizens because I know the problems there etc) just poofed out of existence, guns, being a prime method of killing people in war, wars would not have a harder time being waged? Or, at the very least, there wouldn't be less people actually dying? 1. It would be much harder for specific individuals to actually participate in the wars, it would require greater physical prowess, something that a small amount of people possess, and it would also be much more difficult on the mind, even further reducing the amount of people willing the take part, reducing the amount of people that can KILL and, by extension, be killed. 2. Simply put, the KD ratio back then (without guns) was likely much lower than the KD ratio now (with guns). If we take away guns people can less efficiently kill people, and with lack of efficiency comes lower speed and actual death rates. So yes, I have thought this through, if all guns poofed out of existence, that'd be a + for mankind, no question about it. Yes people will find an alternative, but unless everyone just starts using bombs (which they could do now, and don't for good reason), people could not possibly die any faster.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247760]Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?[/QUOTE] i didn't realize my username was jo the shmo

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39247600]It's actually a 100 dollar gift card for the Jerk Store, which might be a problem because they'll probably run out you pretty quickly, considering that you're their biggest seller.[/QUOTE] This is an example of how not to post. This wasn't even a snarky burn, but rather a variant of an overused shitty joke.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247741]And as a canadian, I can tell you it's STILL fucking easy to get an illegal gun. It's easier to do that than buy a legal one due to some of the ridiculous and ineffective legislation here.[/QUOTE] yo i live in canada too its simply not

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247719]is it really that difficult to look at the context and discern what "impersonal" means? killing someone is a heavy moral act no matter what you do it with, but guns make it far easier. you can kill people from far away. you can kill numerous people in a short timespan. there's a difference between shooting someone in the back down a hallway and stabbing someone in the stomach up close.[/QUOTE] Shooting someone isn't just like it is in an FPS. You have to make sure your aim is on target and on the person, taking upwards to a second, and fire the trigger. You get a good look at them and the image stays. It's not just fucking pewpew on to the next.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247758]Yes did you not read the part of my post where I said this oh you mustn't have.[/QUOTE] if we're in agreement then what was even the point of your post

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247768]Sorry, I don't think your condescending tone is going to work this time, sorry you won't be getting your way through being a dick. You mean to tell me that if all guns (this is hypothetical, so it's an extreme example that is, of course, unrealistic, I don't support banning guns for legal citizens because I know the problems there etc) just poofed out of existence, guns, being a[B] prime method of killing people in war,[/B] wars would not have a harder time being waged? Or, at the very least, there wouldn't be less people actually dying? 1. It would be much harder for specific individuals to actually participate in the wars, it would require greater physical prowess, something that a small amount of people possess, and it would also be much more difficult on the mind, even further reducing the amount of people willing the take part, reducing the amount of people that can KILL and, by extension, be killed. 2. Simply put, the KD ratio back then (without guns) was likely much lower than the KD ratio now (with guns). If we take away guns people can less efficiently kill people, and with lack of efficiency comes lower speed and actual death rates. So yes, I have thought this through, if all guns poofed out of existence, that'd be a + for mankind, no question about it. Yes people will find an alternative, but unless everyone just starts using bombs (which they could do now, and don't for good reason), people could not possibly die any faster.[/QUOTE] wrong artillery. Do you think that nations with wars going on right now wouldn't just see the absence of guns as an excuse to roll out the mortars, the tanks, the chemical weapons. if you want to be this idealistically naive, then at least go far enough and wish every form of weapon on earth out of existence as well as the people who have a desire to commit and keep violence going on because until then, you're not going to dramatically stop wars or death.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247771]i didn't realize my username was jo the shmo[/QUOTE] [img]http://puu.sh/1OEcI[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/1OEds[/img]

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247800]if we're in agreement then what was even the point of your post[/QUOTE] That even though it's an impersonal method of killing, many, many people still suffer the moral consequences of the act on their concious? I mean seriously dude, it's not a fucking binary equation here.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247779]Shooting someone isn't just like it is in an FPS. You have to make sure your aim is on target and on the person, taking upwards to a second, and fire the trigger. You get a good look at them and the image stays. It's not just fucking pewpew on to the next.[/QUOTE] jesus christ why are you still arguing about this? you're literally saying "no its not THAT far if you dont have a sniper rifle.... no you still have to LOOK at the person..." yeah i get it you're still committing murder, but its a whole hell of a lot less personal then beating someone to death with your fists and feeling their flesh as they scream in pain and beg for mercy

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247777]yo i live in canada too its simply not[/QUOTE] oh sorry you're every canadian including myself

Can someone explain to me how strengthening the background checking system is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Does anyone honestly think for one second that a criminal is going to fill out paper work that is submitted to law enforcement to try and get a firearm?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247777]yo i live in canada too its simply not[/QUOTE] Yes it is, especially for unbalanced people who would get screened out by the background checks.