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

If you want to talk about impersonal killing, point your finger at the people in aircrafts. Not at the guys with assault rifles. Seriously, it's disrespectful.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247748]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] 100 feet is pretty far away in my opinion. and yeah soldiers and police officers do, that's part of why they get so fucked up about it, but normal people don't have to do that... [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247819]If you want to talk about impersonal killing, point your finger at the people in aircrafts. Not at the guys with assault rifles.[/QUOTE] literally an entirely different argument for an entirely different thread

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247802]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] Holy shit ahhahaha Do you think mortars and tanks aren't guns?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247815]oh sorry you're every canadian including myself[/QUOTE] not even, he just moved there recently for college iirc.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247806][img]http://puu.sh/1OEcI[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/1OEds[/img][/QUOTE] did you forget that the original point was mine, the one about guns being impersonal? [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;39247833]not even, he just moved there recently for college iirc.[/QUOTE] ok youre right i felt a little odd posting that, but my point was that just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you have a "feel" for how "easy" it is to get an illegal weapon him saying "I live in canada, its easy to get illegal guns!" means nothing

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39247820]100 feet is pretty far away in my opinion. and yeah soldiers and police officers do, that's part of why they get so fucked up about it, but normal people don't have to do that... [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] literally an entirely different argument for an entirely different thread[/QUOTE] [img]http://puu.sh/1OEif[/img] No it isn't. And Normal people don't fucking kill each other dude. Who said they did?

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39247832]Holy shit ahhahaha Do you think mortars and tanks aren't guns?[/QUOTE] Holy shit ahahahahahaha Was that defined in the arguemnt? They're scaled up versions sure, but they're different and weren't defined. How about you fucking contribute to this thread than snidely posting what you believe to be witty comments?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247802]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] Okay, you can continue with your stubbornness, you haven't changed over the years anyway. Funny actually. So if there were mortars as a threat people would simply not let their positions known, or be better prepared against mortars, or just not fucking having a war when everyone is just going to camp in the middle of a desert, or hey, everyone else is going to camp in the middle of a desert, therefore making mortars ineffective because they won't have many people to hit. With tanks there will simply be less people capable of utilizing tanks, probably like 3 people per tank, and there are only so many possible tanks in the world, casualties would be much slower because of the less options of high amounts of death. Why would people go to war with anyone if they knew their enemy would just be terrible and use chemical weapons? Everyone would probably be too afraid to actually fight at that point, thus still lessening death rates. Regardless all of those things are still around now, but they are in less usage for whatever reason, so I don't really think they are too big of a problem.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247814]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] The gravity of taking someones life isn't really alleviated through the use of a firearm. To argue such is pretty childish and naive.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247806][img]http://puu.sh/1OEcI[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/1OEds[/img][/QUOTE] so did you not even look at the post i made before that? i mean you clearly did because you quoted it. why else would i have said "again"

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247837]did you forget that the original point was mine, the one about guns being impersonal? [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] ok youre right i felt a little odd posting that, but my point was that just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you have a "feel" for how "easy" it is to get an illegal weapon him saying "I live in canada, its easy to get illegal guns!" means nothing[/QUOTE] Dude yeah it is. An illegal weapon in canada is an Unregistered weapon. You could fucking cross the border and get a gun and bring it back.

anyway, illegal guns in canada are on the decrease, and would be MUCH lower overall if the US made guns illegal, seeing as most of them come directly from the us [url]http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247869]Okay, you can continue with your stubbornness, you haven't changed over the years anyway. Funny actually. So if there were mortars as a threat people would simply not let their positions known, or be better prepared against mortars, or just not fucking having a war when everyone is just going to camp in the middle of a desert, or hey, everyone else is going to camp in the middle of a desert, therefore making mortars ineffective because they won't have many people to hit. With tanks there will simply be less people capable of utilizing tanks, probably like 3 people per tank, and there are only so many possible tanks in the world, casualties would be much slower because of the less options of high amounts of death. Why would people go to war with anyone if they knew their enemy would just be terrible and use chemical weapons? Everyone would probably be too afraid to actually fight at that point, thus still lessening death rates. Regardless all of those things are still around now, but they are in less usage for whatever reason, so I don't really think they are too big of a problem.[/QUOTE] That's because the only people who are having wars right now, are poor as shit african nations, and citizens against dictatorial regimes in the middle east. Course top of the line hardware won't be used.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247874]Dude yeah it is. An illegal weapon in canada is an Unregistered weapon. You could fucking cross the border and get a gun and bring it back.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, Joe Biden thinks he can crack down on unregistered firearms in the United States. Wait, how does one locate an unregistered firearm? You can't, which is why the President and Vice President are full of shit and just say things that sound good and pray no one actually thinks about it.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247837] ok youre right i felt a little odd posting that, but my point was that just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you have a "feel" for how "easy" it is to get an illegal weapon[/QUOTE] That wasn't your point at all. You literally just argued the opposite with the same erroneous foundation.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247837]did you forget that the original point was mine, the one about guns being impersonal? [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] ok youre right i felt a little odd posting that, but my point was that just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you have a "feel" for how "easy" it is to get an illegal weapon him saying "I live in canada, its easy to get illegal guns!" means nothing[/QUOTE] Okay then, how about this. I, a canadian citizen, live in an area that has gun laws that I find to be ineffective and ridiculous. I, as a citizen here, know people who work in the drug trade, due to their dangerous life style, they have guns to defend themselves(Canada's sooooo safe). They, on top of being drug dealers and growers or makers, will sell guns for a profit if it suits them. I can buy an illegal gun with no serial numbers if it was a desired goal of mine, it's not. Legally, I'd have to go through a background check which wouldn't be an issue, but I'd then be limited to what kind of guns I can get based on silly aesthetic laws, and not FUNCTIONAL laws because our laws are defined by fearmongering.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39247870]The gravity of taking someones life isn't really alleviated through the use of a firearm. To argue such is pretty childish and naive.[/QUOTE] If you can tell me that people have a better time beating people to death (a personal endeavor indeed) than just simply shooting them, then I'll be surprised.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247887]anyway, illegal guns in canada are on the decrease, and would be MUCH lower overall if the US made guns illegal, seeing as most of them come directly from the us [url]http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Where are the guns going? They don't just disappear into thin air.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247887]anyway, illegal guns in canada are on the decrease, and would be MUCH lower overall if the US made guns illegal, seeing as most of them come directly from the us [url]http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm[/url][/QUOTE] And yet criminal organizations still have them and are still threatening because of them. Despite regulation to stop them and me, they're ignoring those laws i mean, who woulda guessed!?!

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247856][img]http://puu.sh/1OEif[/img] No it isn't. And Normal people don't fucking kill each other dude. Who said they did?[/QUOTE] please excuse me for not saying "non-military non-police citizens who are armed with weapons"

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247896]That's because the only people who are having wars right now, are poor as shit african nations, and citizens against dictatorial regimes in the middle east. Course top of the line hardware won't be used.[/QUOTE] Well without guns those wars would be much less efficiently waged, instead of them running into civic centers, or whatever they do, they'll have to beat people up with spears, or use bombs (though, they could do that now anyway, but don't, so there's probably something stopping them)

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247907]Okay then, how about this. I, a canadian citizen, live in an area that has gun laws that I find to be ineffective and ridiculous. I, as a citizen here, know people who work in the drug trade, due to their dangerous life style, they have guns to defend themselves(Canada's sooooo safe). They, on top of being drug dealers and growers or makers, will sell guns for a profit if it suits them. I can buy an illegal gun with no serial numbers if it was a desired goal of mine, it's not. Legally, I'd have to go through a background check which wouldn't be an issue, but I'd then be limited to what kind of guns I can get based on silly aesthetic laws, and not FUNCTIONAL laws because our laws are defined by fearmongering.[/QUOTE] don't worry the war on drugs will save us and make our lives safer

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247432]lmao the reasons are as follows: its in the constitution <- amendments can be changed i like to hunt/shoot targets <- ok well i like to run around with chainsaws, but that's illegal because its dangerous [b]we need to rebel against the government (read as: might need to sometime in the eventual future) <- this isn't even based in reality[/b] why dont you ban sportscars huh??? <- ok im not really a sports car advocate, go ahead??[/QUOTE] Really? I'm a pretty sensible individual, and I used to laugh at a suggestion like this, but let's think for a second: Is there such thing as a government with enough checks and balances to [b]absolutely, positively[/b] prevent a hostile takeover, a rising of a corrupt government, or an instillation of an undemocratic government? Like, seriously? I doubt that anything like that will ever happen in my lifetime, but I find it hard to believe that the possibility of it [b]ever[/b] happening is non-existent. As long as it's a possibility, it's based in reality.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247923]Well without guns those wars would be much less efficiently waged, instead of them running into civic centers, or whatever they do, they'll have to beat people up with spears, or use bombs (though, they could do that now anyway, but don't, so there's probably something stopping them)[/QUOTE] there's the fact they have guns to use instead of bombs that's stopping them take those away, power vacuum pops up and now you've got bombs dropping as a primary method of warfare. you'll wonder why I think this because wars are going to be waged efficiently, not stupidly with "spears". That means bombs.

Misread that, hold on

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247737]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] That is all completely wrong. only rifles above a certain calibre must be (for lack of a better explanation) bolt action, anything under .22 can be semi automatic. Magazine size is not limited in the slightest, nor are anything else related to guns (tracers, supressors etc are all legal). Oh and no idea where you got the idea that guns have to be kept at ranges from.

My point still stands. Killing a person with a firearm is still an extremely personal thing. If you've handled a gun, you would know that it's not as simple as just waving it and shooting.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247909]If you can tell me that people have a better time beating people to death (a personal endeavor indeed) than just simply shooting them, then I'll be surprised.[/QUOTE] Please explain to me why someone would have a better time doing either? I'm pretty sure most non-psychotic people are about just opposed to doing both. The consequence of taking someone's life on your conscious is the same regardless of the method. I know someone who despite the passage of time (five years), hasn't gotten over killing a drunk driver in a head-on collision.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247943]there's the fact they have guns to use instead of bombs that's stopping them take those away, power vacuum pops up and now you've got bombs dropping as a primary method of warfare.[/QUOTE] Can you say that for sure? Why would they want to use guns now when they would have an easier time throwing grenades? They could easily go over to spears and clubs, beating people up to death, much slower than guns.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247869]Okay, you can continue with your stubbornness, you haven't changed over the years anyway. Funny actually. So if there were mortars as a threat people would simply not let their positions known, or be better prepared against mortars, or just not fucking having a war when everyone is just going to camp in the middle of a desert, or hey, everyone else is going to camp in the middle of a desert, therefore making mortars ineffective because they won't have many people to hit. With tanks there will simply be less people capable of utilizing tanks, probably like 3 people per tank, and there are only so many possible tanks in the world, casualties would be much slower because of the less options of high amounts of death. Why would people go to war with anyone if they knew their enemy would just be terrible and use chemical weapons? Everyone would probably be too afraid to actually fight at that point, thus still lessening death rates. Regardless all of those things are still around now, but they are in less usage for whatever reason, so I don't really think they are too big of a problem.[/QUOTE] In your world I guess no one is violent and warfaring Must be nice. Be as condescending as you want, it's no skin off my back.