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

[QUOTE=Lanopo;39248421]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] But cigarettes aren't scary they're just little pieces of paper with crushed plants in them.

[QUOTE=Lanopo;39248421]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] Cigarettes are a choice people make to get killed by, more or less.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39248438]But cigarettes aren't scary they're just little pieces of paper with crushed plants in them.[/QUOTE] Well apparently paper with plants in them kill more than brandished steel. [QUOTE=ducklingqt;39248464]Cigarettes are a choice people make to get killed by, more or less.[/QUOTE] Can be debated.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39248438]But cigarettes aren't scary they're just little pieces of paper with crushed plants in them.[/QUOTE] Yeah. But if a person is smoking a cigarette, they look more scary than a person without one.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39248464]Cigarettes are a choice people make to get killed by, more or less.[/QUOTE] Secondhand smoke

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39248464]Cigarettes are a choice people make to get killed by, more or less.[/QUOTE] So is suicide, when these crazy people go and shoot up a public place with the intention of killing themselves.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39248438]But cigarettes aren't scary they're just little pieces of paper with crushed plants in them.[/QUOTE] Not according to D.A.R.E. They are concentrated essence of evil and turn you into a racist just by inhaling second hand smoke.

[QUOTE=areolop;39246602]A [I]School resource officer[/I] is not an armed guard. Hes a liaison to the PD.[/QUOTE] you can argue semantics all you want but he's armed and guards the students.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39248553]you can argue semantics all you want but he's armed and guards the students.[/QUOTE] Agreed. The resource officers we had when I was in middle and high school was armed.

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;39242075]Ow my second admendment[/QUOTE] Your Second Amendment is just an old piece of paper written during a time when weapons were still useful for daily life, stop using it as though it were a valid counter-argument.

It begins. I fundamentally disagree with Obama on this one, Assault Rifles are not the issue. The next massacre will be with pistols, and the next with sticks and stones, and the next with one's bare hands.

[QUOTE=Haloscott3;39248635]Your Second Amendment is just an old piece of paper written during a time when weapons were still useful for daily life, stop using it as though it were a valid counter-argument.[/QUOTE] Weapons are useful now. Stop trying to say that our rights have expired.

[QUOTE=Haloscott3;39248635]Your Second Amendment is just an old piece of paper written during a time when weapons were still useful for daily life, stop using it as though it were a valid counter-argument.[/QUOTE] How thoughtful and intellectual, I look forward to more of your well-formed thoughts in the future

[QUOTE=Haloscott3;39248635]Your Second Amendment is just an old piece of paper written during a time when weapons were still useful for daily life, stop using it as though it were a valid counter-argument.[/QUOTE] You know. It's fine to have an opinion. But you can right fuck off saying shit like that.

Where is the petition for the white house to overthrow this bullshit?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39248636]It begins. I fundamentally disagree with Obama on this one, Assault Rifles are not the issue. The next massacre will be with pistols, and the next with sticks and stones, and the next with one's bare hands.[/QUOTE] Nah man. The natural order is rifles, pistols, then nukes, then sticks and stones. Einstein said so.

[QUOTE=Haloscott3;39248635]Your Second Amendment is just an old piece of paper written during a time when weapons were still useful for daily life, stop using it as though it were a valid counter-argument.[/QUOTE] piss off, we've debunked that a billion times

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39248636]It begins. I fundamentally disagree with Obama on this one, Assault Rifles are not the issue. The next massacre will be with pistols, and the next with sticks and stones, and the next with one's bare hands.[/QUOTE] I wonder how one with bare hands would go? Would the guy be running around the school strangling people until the police dragged him away?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39248731]I wonder how one with bare hands would go? Would the guy be running around the school strangling people until the police dragged him away?[/QUOTE] Well. He got the natural order wrong. It's sticks and stones, then with bronze phalanx, etc. Mankind is destined to repeat itself yada yada.

I'm not exactly against this but I'd like to see him try and take them away.

[QUOTE=Diago21;39248764]I'm not exactly against this but I'd like to see him try and take them away.[/QUOTE] I'm not. I don't like seeing cops die for petty shit.

[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] Oh my lord it's the Kellerman study. This study has been debunked and failed peer review numerous times. [quote=Wikipedia]Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer M.D.[6], J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Ph.D.[7], Don Kates and others.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann[/url] And [url]http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html[/url] And Dr. John Lott debunked the assertion that having a gun in the home made you more likely to be shot in a debate on the CBC with Dr. Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, stating that when re-analyzed, in I believe it was over 90% of cases the firearm in the home had absolutely nothing to do with the homicide, and that the gun used to kill the individual was brought in to the home and was not owned by the home owner. Also, Dr. Cukier, who obviously has a vested interest in gun control being validated, was a contributor to that study, and at one point cited herself as a source for data.

whenever I die I'm having "THANKS OBAMA" chiseled on to my tombstone.

I personally want it to say my name, then : "This space has intentionally been left blank". Just to throw people off and make them do a double take.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248772]I'm not. I don't like seeing cops die for petty shit.[/QUOTE] Mind you that Australia managed to pull off a compulsory gun buyback in the past, it's not impossible to do but in America's case it could just wind up being ineffective since there's such a huge population and a nearly comparable number of guns. There's really no practical way for the American government to get all the registered guns out of circulation, it would cost billions of tax dollars just to organize the initiative, further billions of dollars to reimburse people for the guns themselves, and it's probable they'd only get about half of them, if even that. Just "taking" the guns is totally out of the question, no significant volume of people will turn in guns with no reimbursement and it would actively be dangerous for anybody to attempt it.

And the only way to find out if there's a gun in a home is by word of mouth or forced searches, which is illegal as hell.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39248854]Mind you that Australia managed to pull off a compulsory gun buyback in the past, it's not impossible to do but in America's case it could just wind up being ineffective since there's such a huge population and a nearly comparable number of guns. There's really no practical way for the American government to get all the registered guns out of circulation, it would cost billions of tax dollars just to organize the initiative, further billions of dollars to reimburse people for the guns themselves, and it's probable they'd only get about half of them, if even that. Just "taking" the guns is totally out of the question, no significant volume of people will turn in guns with no reimbursement and it would actively be dangerous for anybody to attempt it.[/QUOTE] Do you really think they managed to get [i]all[/i] the newly prohibited guns in Australia with that buyback? Of course not.

[QUOTE=scout1;39242229]FP is all for scientific progress but oh god any sort of scientific study into violent media back the fuck up, obama's out to get all us gamers[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I must have forgotten to plug in my hivemind cables today.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39248873]And the only way to find out if there's a gun in a home is by word of mouth or forced searches, which is illegal as hell.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that generally nobody ever "takes" your guns, it's just not possible. Even though there could be compulsory buybacks it's still ultimately an honor system. In Australia's case they just gave people a 1% income tax break (which could equate to the equivalent of 300-500 bucks for an average income) if they turned in their guns, but when it comes to the quantity of guns that exist in America, it'd easily be billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars in lost tax revenue to accomplish that. Even then I'm sure you'd still have lots of people willingly breaking the law and just keeping their now-illegal guns anyways. What I'm saying is "taking the guns" is entirely off the table. It's never going to happen because it's literally impossible to do in America's case, so you can stop worrying about it. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;39248884]Do you really think they managed to get [i]all[/i] the newly prohibited guns in Australia with that buyback? Of course not.[/QUOTE] No but they did get a great deal of them, if not the majority. Mind you when that happened there was a much greater percentage of support for the initiative, whereas it remains a strongly bipartisan issue in the US.

[url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repel-any-assault-weapons-bans-and-magazine-capacity-limits-are-imposed-which-violating-2nd/1nPMPp3X[/url] Lets do this