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

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248071]whoa there whats with the personal attacks mate?? i came here to argue not to get flamed![/QUOTE] You're not even arguing mate. You're just repeating the same words and not even reading or responding to most peoples points.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39247816]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] Just today, in Minnesota, a felon had legally bought 13 firearms because the background check wasnt deep enough.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39248091][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] ok so now you're admitting to it being "somewhat" impersonal, but won't budge all the way and say it's "totally" impersonal?? well that's cool, because i never said it was totally impersonal, i said it was more impersonal than most other forms of murder (which i still said was obviously a personal act!)

Any source that is strongly biased towards or against something is never a good source. I wouldn't go to the NRA for gun violence facts, just like I wouldn't go to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving site for drunk driving facts. The point is the government can't even stop murder in federal prison, so how can they be expected to solve the country's problems? Hell they can't even run the damn DMV smoothly.

[QUOTE=areolop;39248109]Just today, in Minnesota, a felon had legally bought 13 firearms because the background check wasnt deep enough.[/QUOTE] What was he convicted of?

[QUOTE=Strider*;39248091][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] why are you arguing the semantics of "somewhat impersonal" vs. "impersonal"? he didn't try to quantify any sort of metric like that.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248119]ok so now you're admitting to it being "somewhat" impersonal, but won't budge all the way and say it's "totally" impersonal?? well that's cool, because i never said it was totally impersonal, i said it was more impersonal than most other forms of murder (which i still said was obviously a personal act!)[/QUOTE] Get this. Things are different from person to person. Shocker.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248119]ok so now you're admitting to it being "somewhat" impersonal, but won't budge all the way and say it's "totally" impersonal?? well that's cool, because i never said it was totally impersonal, i said it was more impersonal than most other forms of murder (which i still said was obviously a personal act!)[/QUOTE] Honestly, I agree with you on that point. Blowing away another human being definitely isn't nearly as personal as using a melee weapon or your bare hands. That being said, the same thing applies to bows, crossbows, thrown weapons, blow-guns, darts, etc etc.

Lol just skimmed through the study he referenced. Literally nothing in there that has anything to do with guns being "impersonal".

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39248128]why are you arguing the semantics of "somewhat impersonal" vs. "impersonal"? he didn't try to quantify any sort of metric like that.[/QUOTE] Because qualifying it as impersonal is a load of bullshit. Killing a person is a traumatic experience and no one line of a study can change that.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39248128]why are you arguing the semantics of "somewhat impersonal" vs. "impersonal"? he didn't try to quantify any sort of metric like that.[/QUOTE] Somewhat impersonal is very different. It doesn't matter because his support is shit regardless.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248107]You're not even arguing mate. You're just repeating the same words and not even reading or responding to most peoples points.[/QUOTE] ive made many many different points, responded to many many people, i dont know where you're basing these accusations anyway, if we were in the gmf you could flame me all i want, but we are in sensationalist headlines, and flaming is bannable! i dont see why you need to shift the focus of the argument off of gun-laws, and on to me, that's called a logical fallacy!

But yes I'll avoid semantics if he can show me something of substance

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248126]What was he convicted of?[/QUOTE] Murder in 1995

[QUOTE=Strider*;39248091][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] ok dude just because youre bad at reading doesn't mean im gonna do this every time [img]http://i.imgur.com/AQHFd.png[/img] youre welcome to go ahead and look up whatever source #8 is...

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248145]Because qualifying it as impersonal is a load of bullshit. [B]Killing a person is a traumatic experience and no one line of a study can change that.[/B][/QUOTE] NO ONE IS SAYING THAT [B]NO ONE IS SAYING THAT[/B] [B][I]NO ONE IS SAYING THAT[/I][/B] [B][I][U]NO ONE IS SAYING THAT[/U][/I][/B] the point being argued is that guns can make killing someone less personal than other forms. this is a point you're capable of agreeing with. you've brought up the impersonality of drones/aircraft twice now.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;39248128]why are you arguing the semantics of "somewhat impersonal" vs. "impersonal"? he didn't try to quantify any sort of metric like that.[/QUOTE] One of the lower levels of counter-argument is to counter the language used rather than the point made.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248181]ok dude just because youre bad at reading doesn't mean im gonna do this every time [img]http://i.imgur.com/AQHFd.png[/img] youre welcome to go ahead and look up whatever source #8 is...[/QUOTE] You read the fucking study and come back to me with it. It's not my job to read whatever random shit you want to link me. If you want to support your argument, then show me the evidence. Don't make me go around searching for it for you.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248154]ive made many many different points, responded to many many people, i dont know where you're basing these accusations anyway, if we were in the gmf you could flame me all i want, but we are in sensationalist headlines, and flaming is bannable! i dont see why you need to shift the focus of the argument off of gun-laws, and on to me, that's called a logical fallacy![/QUOTE] And how have I flamed you? I've just called you dense. A human by nature is dense. They contain liquids and fluids in a flesh container.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39248200]You read the fucking study and come back to me with it. It's not my job to read whatever random shit you want to link me. If you want to support your argument, then show me the evidence. Don't make me go around searching for it for you.[/QUOTE] i linked it to you and screenshotted the part i was talking about bro [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248201]And how have I flamed you? I've just called you dense. A human by nature is dense. They contain liquids and fluids in a flesh container.[/QUOTE] alright im done here, this is just getting silly

[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] 600 is a negligible statistic sadly. Don't get me wrong, I think its a shame 600 of those lives were lost, but homicides are an inevitable factor in society. Until baseball bats claim over 10,000 lives a year children and adult a like I don't think we should be seeking frivolous means to combat it.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248221]i linked it to you and screenshotted the part i was talking about bro alright im done here, this is just getting silly[/QUOTE] Lol, just try to argue properly .. it doesn't take that much effort. See ya bud

And the point were making is that something that makes it slightly quicker doesn't make it any less impersonal.

You know what Jo? I'm just gonna agree to disagree. I don't think violence is a problem in the U.S. and I don't think guns are at the center of it. You want them all gone - I don't. I'll just hope you never get into a seat of power and vice versa and I'll just leave it at that.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39247772]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] that's the joke [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ssh.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;39248181]ok dude just because youre bad at reading doesn't mean im gonna do this every time [img]http://i.imgur.com/AQHFd.png[/img] youre welcome to go ahead and look up whatever source #8 is...[/QUOTE] I don't see why people are contending that the lethality of crime is higher with firearms. That's been reasonably well established I thought. However, I've yet to ever see it shown that even assuming this is true, that it is better to heavily restrict firearms than to invest in better social services. Reducing the lethality of crime isn't a reduction in crime. It's a bandaid solution that doesn't get at the root cause of the problem, what causes the crime. Better healthcare, amongst other systems to help people, seems to not only be more cost effective than a ban, but more effective outright. Banning guns isn't magically going to improve the standard of living, but improving the standard of living does reduce the amount of crime.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39248238]600 is a negligible statistic sadly. Don't get me wrong, I think its a shame 600 of those lives were lost, but homicides are an inevitable factor in society. Until baseball bats claim over 10,000 lives a year children and adult a like I don't think we should be seeking frivolous means to combat it.[/QUOTE] Only 358 people were killed with rifles in 2010, and yet there are those who would ban them.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39248314]Only 358 people were killed with rifles in 2010, and yet there are those who would ban them.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, that's much less than bats.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39248238]600 is a negligible statistic sadly. Don't get me wrong, I think its a shame 600 of those lives were lost, but homicides are an inevitable factor in society. Until baseball bats claim over 10,000 lives a year children and adult a like I don't think we should be seeking frivolous means to combat it.[/QUOTE] Cigarettes kill 250,000 yearly, so if you want to combat homicide on a number based stand-point I'd say you'd want to take arms against tabaco rather than firearms.

[QUOTE=faze;39242309]Citizens don't need Ferrari's either. Not needing something doesn't warrant banning it. Go to Australia if you want that shit.[/QUOTE] I know this is extremely late, but why don't you actually live in Australia first before you go making claims that we're an oppressed country?