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

Gosh. It's a laugh how quickly gun control debates turn petty and stupid.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39247832]Holy shit ahhahaha Do you think mortars and tanks aren't guns?[/QUOTE] They aren't really. Mortars and Tank armaments fall under the "smoothbore cannon" category. Whereas guns tends to refer specifically to small arms, or at best a recoilless rifle which are incorrectly referred to as "rocket launchers." (which they aren't)

[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] not really, there are tons of studies and papers proving that guns make it less personal i could link you to more than just this, but i dont really feel like spending my time on such a basic point [url]http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/the-truth-about-guns.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247966]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] Not to mention that if you carry a firearm, you're less likely to be confrontational because you understand the consequences of having to defend yourself. (Note that this only applies to rational individuals)

I have a question. When was the last time our president gave us a freedom?

[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] Dude. Do you even look at history? There were way more fucking wars before guns. Hell. In Africa and many other places, they don't even use guns. They just straight up get a bunch of guys together and arm them with machetes.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39247975]Gosh. It's a laugh how quickly gun control debates turn petty and stupid.[/QUOTE] Hey, there are a few of us in here trying to keep it as rational as possible :v:

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39247972]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] do you think they're not throwing grenades while they use their guns...? Okay then they'll do whatever it takes to win. It's also not efficient from a waring stand point so why bother.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;39247941]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] The point is, why should we sacrifice 11,000 lives every year just to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government that may or may not form in hundreds of years from now?

[QUOTE=Strider*;39247967]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] When something is a ridiculously high degree of anything it starts to become hard to differentiate between the different degrees of that thing. Point is, yes, of course any normal person will hate killing other people, but if you had the choice to shoot someone from a mile away, or even 50 feet, to beating them to death with your bare hands...which would you choose, which would be more destructive to your psyche?

[QUOTE=Strider*;39247967]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] Amen. The problem is, is people don't realize that murderers are crazies who have no compasion, where as the majority of legal firearm owners are some of the most responsible people on the planet.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39247966]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] killing someone is a personal act, yes. we can both agree on this. the point of contention seems to be whether or not guns make it less personal. i believe they do. you mentioned weapons on aircraft, which are an extreme variant of gun that make killing even less personal, and that was a point you brought up.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39247917]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] ok so at first you were arguing that gun control laws are fine as it is, and that gun crime isn't a problem (stated by many people many times in this thread) and now you're saying canada of all places, is overridden with crime?? even though it has much less than the US?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247980]not really, there are tons of studies and papers proving that guns make it less personal i could link you to more than just this, but i dont really feel like spending my time on such a basic point [url]http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/the-truth-about-guns.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Why don't you try reading the page you just linked me and then point out where it supports that claim.

Try harder than just googling anti-gun studies or however the fuck you got to that website.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39248023]Why don't you try reading the page you just linked me and then point out where it supports that claim.[/QUOTE] ok i will literally spoon-feed you [img]http://i.imgur.com/hQJAS.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/yrbj5.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39247980]not really, there are tons of studies and papers proving that guns make it less personal i could link you to more than just this, but i dont really feel like spending my time on such a basic point [url]http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/the-truth-about-guns.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] You're just dense. You're not even addressing anything people are saying, you're just repeating what you've said and stating your opinion. Killing people isn't just this simple not so big of a deal thing. Unless you're like, a drone operator.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39248006]The point is, should we sacrifice 11,000 lives every year just to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government that may or may not form in hundreds of years from now?[/QUOTE] If your going to bring up that argument, should we sacrifice baseball in order to save 600 lives a year from baseball bat homicides?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39248006]The point is, should we sacrifice 11,000 lives every year just to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government that may or may not form in hundreds of years from now?[/QUOTE] That's a fair point, and that being said, why must we completely ban certain forms of firearms altogether? I realize that the popular argument for banning semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine capacity or are in the fashion of "assault weapons" is that it will dry up the well for criminals and psychopaths, but consider this: Is that actually true? I mean, you have war-lords in Africa fighting with weapons manufactured in the mid-20th Century. Hell, they've come across guns from WWII and before in the possession of criminals, and if you ban things now, how long is it going to take for things to "dry up"? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248022]ok so at first you were arguing that gun control laws are fine as it is, and that gun crime isn't a problem (stated by many people many times in this thread) and now you're saying canada of all places, is overridden with crime?? even though it has much less than the US?[/QUOTE] Who the fuck said "over ridden"? Do you want to point that out bud No, but there ARE shootings here. I guess you're none too aware of the drug wars in BC and what not, but I don't see why you feel the need to be so fucking condescending and so apt to put words in my mouth just for your own benefit. and though you're NO doubt missing the point here The hefty regulation here HAS. NOT. STOPPED. CRIMINALS. Why do you have the logic that more will just continue to effect them over anyone else?

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248040]ok i will literally spoon-feed you [img]http://i.imgur.com/hQJAS.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/yrbj5.png[/img][/QUOTE] It literally just claims that it makes it somewhat impersonal. If anything, it's good that guns kill more efficiently. Would you rather slowly bleed out or die quickly?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39248006]11,000 lives every year[/QUOTE] I'm willing to bet that the majority of those people dying are gangsters shooting eachother. Illegal aliens and felons who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.

[QUOTE=Lanopo;39248048]If your going to bring up that argument, should we sacrifice baseball in order to save 600 lives a year from baseball bat homicides?[/QUOTE] Alright, we've got to stop it with that shit, you [b]KNOW[/b] that a comparison like that is hardly applicable, and I'm on your side :v:

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248041]You're just dense. You're not even addressing anything people are saying, you're just repeating what you've said and stating your opinion. [B]Killing people isn't just this simple not so big of a deal thing.[/B] Unless you're like, a drone operator.[/QUOTE] no one is saying that. no one. not a single person. no one. absolutely no one at all. the only one saying anything remotely like that is actually you, who keeps bringing up the weird drone point.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248041]You're just dense. You're not even addressing anything people are saying, you're just repeating what you've said and stating your opinion. Killing people isn't just this simple not so big of a deal thing. Unless you're like, a drone operator.[/QUOTE] whoa there whats with the personal attacks mate?? i came here to argue not to get flamed!

[QUOTE=ewitwins;39248066]Alright, we've got to stop it with that shit, you [b]KNOW[/b] that a comparison like that is hardly applicable, and I'm on your side :v:[/QUOTE] That's kind of the point. These guys are making these outlandish statements as if it's just an easy to do thing. It's satire to highlight the stupidity.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248040]ok i will literally spoon-feed you [img]http://i.imgur.com/hQJAS.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/yrbj5.png[/img][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.finlay-online.org/FILE/20110120114656684.pdf[/url] Read through that study and point out where it verifies that guns make killing impersonal, and not just somewhat impersonal. As impersonal as you were implying before. 1 sentence on a website constructed by an anti-gun interest group doesn't prove your point in the slightest. Learn how to argue child.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39247978]They aren't really. Mortars and Tank armaments fall under the "smoothbore cannon" category. Whereas guns tends to refer specifically to small arms, or at best a recoilless rifle which are incorrectly referred to as "rocket launchers." (which they aren't)[/QUOTE] They're guns. They function the same way. The difference between cannons and guns is that "cannon" usually refers to a gun which fires a round which contains an explosive payload, while guns usually fire shot, except for in naval terms, in which a cannon is always referred to as a "gun." Tanks have a "main gun" not a "main cannon."

I'm not sure how you guys managed to argue about whether guns are more personal than guns that rely heavily on your physical input to be used. It's like the "conveyor factors" vs "hand built" shit, one is more personal than the other, even though they both get the same job done, and what makes one more personal than the other is the slow and tender usage of your appendages.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248071]whoa there whats with the personal attacks mate?? i came here to argue not to get flamed![/QUOTE] Welcome to Sensationalist Headlines, you survive here on the basis of your ability to argue rationally. You can always go back to the gmf where your cool buds will support you.