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

[QUOTE=T3hW1nn3r;39249218][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[/QUOTE] repel

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39249257]repel[/QUOTE] re·pel (r-pl) v. re·pelled, re·pel·ling, re·pels v.tr. 1. To ward off or keep away; drive back: Yes, repel any action to ban assault rifles or "hi-cap" mags.

[QUOTE=T3hW1nn3r;39249218][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[/QUOTE] Wow, I see they raised the threshold from 25,000 signatures to 100,000 signatures. My guess is because there are so many issues being brought up that the whitehosue is against or doesn't like to respond to.

Sweet fuck, Americans and their guns. It'd be funny if it wasn't more than a little concerning.

[QUOTE=GlobbaStubba;39249309]Sweet fuck, Americans and their guns. It'd be funny if it wasn't more than a little concerning.[/QUOTE] Are you an alt?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39249344]Are you an alt?[/QUOTE] It should be a bannable offense to make an alt for the purpose of shitty debating.

Yes. I have a million alts and I use each and every one of them when I want to express my opinion on different things. This one is for guns, I've got another for when I want to say something about carrots and another for when I want to discuss proper dog-walking etiquette and many other alts for many other topics. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;39249365]It should be a bannable offense to make an alt for the purpose of shitty debating.[/QUOTE] I'm not debating anything, I'm just saying something about the subject at hand. I'm sorry, but to an outsider(well, to me at least) America's obsession with guns looks a bit sick and creepy. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Apache249;39249365]It should be a bannable offense to make an alt for the purpose of shitty debating.[/QUOTE] I thought it was.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39249410]I thought it was.[/QUOTE] If it is, good.

[QUOTE=NoaJM;39248435]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?[/QUOTE] That's not how Facepunch works. It's expected of it's members to make blind generalizations about other countries they've never visited regarding things we have no concept of back home.

Ban spoilers on cars, they make the car look fast, so that means the owner is going to street race it in traffic.

[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] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/[/url] Actually it is more like 440,000 yearly.

[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate?roundtwo]A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense[/url] Just thought it was worth putting in here The self-defense argument kind of crumbles when you realize people are killing themselves and each other 43 times as much as using them in defense

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39249767][url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate?roundtwo]A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense[/url] Just thought it was worth putting in here The self-defense argument kind of crumbles when you realize people are killing themselves and each other 43 times as much as using them in defense[/QUOTE] I fucking hate statistics like that. I always feel they are bullshit to begin with. How do you properly quantify something like that? [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] and it doesn't crumble when guns are used in self defense practically everyday throughout the US and when I'm not retarded and let my kids shoot themselves with my guns or some other crap

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39242156]Did obama seriously mention that one of the executive orders will spend MY tax money on studying whether or not violent video games make people go and kill people IRL? Yup, [url=http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/16/obama-congress-should-fund-research-into-the-effects-violent-video-games-have-on-young-minds/]that's what he said.[/url] Fuck these "feelgood" bills. Demonizing gun owners wasn't enough, now he has to go and demonize gamers?[/QUOTE] Hopefully this will set the precedent when they find literally nothing and people will shut up about it. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=T3hW1nn3r;39249218][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[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2013-01/2013-01-16_21-44-32.png[/img] Jesus.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;39249815]Hopefully this will set the precedent when they find literally nothing and people will shut up about it. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2013-01/2013-01-16_21-44-06.png[/img] Jesus.[/QUOTE] it never had has it? the previous AWB set the precedent that laws like this do fuck all but yet here we are again

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39249826]it never had has it? the previous AWB set the precedent that laws like this do fuck all but yet here we are again[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the "video games kill" study.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39249767][url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate?roundtwo]A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense[/url] Just thought it was worth putting in here The self-defense argument kind of crumbles when you realize people are killing themselves and each other 43 times as much as using them in defense[/QUOTE] I already addressed this earlier: [quote] [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. [/quote] The Kellerman study is so flawed that Kellerman has backed down from the 43 times assertion, and the study has been debunked by his academic peers numerous times. In short, you are not 43 times more likely to be killed by the gun in your home, that's a load of shit.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;39249837]I'm talking about the "video games kill" study.[/QUOTE] already precedent on that too. People just don't want to see reality.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39249801]I fucking hate statistics like that. I always feel they are bullshit to begin with. How do you properly quantify something like that? [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] and it doesn't crumble when guns are used in self defense practically everyday throughout the US and when I'm not retarded and let my kids shoot themselves with my guns or some other crap[/QUOTE] [del]Also, what do they consider 'used'? I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't count deterrence as use.[/del] Guess it doesn't really matter anymore.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39249844]already precedent on that too. People just don't want to see reality.[/QUOTE] I just want to believe.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39249767][url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate?roundtwo]A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense[/url] Just thought it was worth putting in here The self-defense argument kind of crumbles when you realize people are killing themselves and each other 43 times as much as using them in defense[/QUOTE] It was only done in Seattle, the research is from 1986, and fails to take into consideration the number of times a firearm is used for defense WITHOUT taking life. He is a medical doctor, not a researcher. His method was shit and his data is functionally worthless. An MD makes you a mechanic for the human body. A PhD makes you a researcher. They both carry the title of Doctor, but are two very different jobs. EDIT: Oh looks like commie is on it.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39249871]It was only done in Seattle, the research is from 1986, and fails to take into consideration the number of times a firearm is used for defense WITHOUT taking life. He is a medical doctor, not a researcher. His method was shit and his data is functionally worthless. An MD makes you a mechanic for the human body. A PhD makes you a researcher. They both carry the title of Doctor, but are two very different jobs.[/QUOTE] Didn't he also refuse to release the raw data used for the study so that it could be properly peer-reviewed?

[QUOTE=GunFox;39249871]It was only done in Seattle, the research is from 1986, and fails to take into consideration the number of times a firearm is used for defense WITHOUT taking life. He is a medical doctor, not a researcher. His method was shit and his data is functionally worthless. An MD makes you a mechanic for the human body. A PhD makes you a researcher. They both carry the title of Doctor, but are two very different jobs.[/QUOTE] Actually, an MD is expected to be able to carry out and assess research like any other doctor - in fact their doing so is vitally important to their job. I'm not commenting on the research in question, but your statement is a complete falsehood.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;39249815]Hopefully this will set the precedent when they find literally nothing and people will shut up about it. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2013-01/2013-01-16_21-44-32.png[/img] Jesus.[/QUOTE] That website is hilarious. Ban Assault Drones Lower the petition count for taking us seriously back to 25,000 signatures. Get Rid of Petitions.WhiteHouse.Gov Remove "in God we trust" from money and "under God" from our money. Teach public school children the truth: ANTI-RACIST IS A CODE WORD FOR ANTI-WHITE! ban hammers and baseball bats.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39249841]I already addressed this earlier: The Kellerman study is so flawed that Kellerman has backed down from the 43 times assertion, and the study has been debunked by his academic peers numerous times. In short, you are not 43 times more likely to be killed by the gun in your home, that's a load of shit.[/QUOTE] Well I didn't know that. It's good to know that figure isn't accurate, and it's a shame that this is the only study we seem to have. So let's do new ones

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39249767][url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate?roundtwo]A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense[/url] Just thought it was worth putting in here The self-defense argument kind of crumbles when you realize people are killing themselves and each other 43 times as much as using them in defense[/QUOTE] But people should be allowed to kill themselves if they want right? You would know. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("History of trolling and terrible arguing, last chance." - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39250005]But people should be allowed to kill themselves if they want right? You would know.[/QUOTE] wow. was that fucking necessary?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39250005]But people should be allowed to kill themselves if they want right? You would know.[/QUOTE] If I had access to a gun I wouldn't even be posting right now, I'm inherently biased I suppose [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39250013]wow. was that fucking necessary?[/QUOTE] I think it's always necessary to present people with an example of how effective gun control saves lives

piers morgan won