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

[QUOTE=areolop;39242268]newsflash, your tax money goes to a lot of shit. shut up about spending tax money to do a study.[/QUOTE] That tax money would be better spent on improving mental health care instead of feeding a scapegoat used to divert blame AWAY from the country's FAILING mental health care system. That's all this violence in video games argument is. A scapegoat.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242431]If everyone was responsible and knowledgeable I'd have nothing against selling guns, but sadly we live in reality.[/QUOTE] Why should we ban semi-automatics for everyone when only a microscopic percentage of people are irresponsible?

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242431]If everyone was responsible and knowledgeable I'd have nothing against selling guns, but sadly we live in reality.[/QUOTE] Well then good luck to you in trying to get rid of something that is scattered throughout the US in the attempt of curbing violence. As long as they exist, guns will be used for violence. And as it stands right now it's literally impossible to get rid of every gun in the U.S. So welcome to reality I guess

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39242450]nor will someone realistically shoot up a school with a 100 round magazine. The only 2 shootings I can recal that used hi cap mags were the LA shooting in the 90's, and the Aurora shooting. and in BOTH incidents, their hi cap mags jammed their weapons because they are notoriously unreliable. High capacity magazines are not a danger to the public, they're just a scapegoat to make the unifmored feel safe.[/QUOTE] And what if they had used belt-fed weapons instead? Do you think someone should really be able to carry around 100 rounds for ANY weapon? You don't need 100 rounds at all for self defense, it is purely for recreation or harming others.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242407]Guns aren't harmful when they're in the hands of responsible, knowledgeable people either.[/QUOTE] Okay, but some people also complain about the attempts to get guns into more responsible and knowledgeable hands too, people are so stubborn about guns, going all "muh 2nd ammendment" whenever a law comes out that tries to change the way guns are, even though the laws should've always been pretty damn strict considering what guns are.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39242462]That tax money would be better spent on improving mental health care instead of feeding a scapegoat used to divert blame AWAY from the country's FAILING mental health care system. That's all this violence in video games argument is. A scapegoat.[/QUOTE] Studies never hurt though. It might give us insight on how video games affect people with mental problems, and give us more insight on early warning signs.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39242462]That tax money would be better spent on improving mental health care instead of feeding a scapegoat used to divert blame AWAY from the country's FAILING mental health care system. That's all this violence in video games argument is. A scapegoat.[/QUOTE] stop. complaining. about. where your money goes. its out of your control

My problem is [B]not[/B] that's he or anyone else supports a ban on armor-piercing ammunition. It's that they choose now to ban them, capitalizing on these tragedies to push agenda. To my knowledge, AP ammunition was not used in a single one of these recent tragedies, yet now all of a sudden it's a huge issue?

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;39242473]Why should we ban semi-automatics for everyone when only a microscopic percentage of people are irresponsible?[/QUOTE] Because that microscopic percentage is more than enough to cause the deaths of a disturbing amount of innocent people, and put even more in danger.

im pretty happy with the background check changes, we really do need to change that but the AWB will accomplish nothing when the majority of murders are committed with handguns and shotguns rather than rifles also i can't believe obama brought up gun industry influencing congress when it's in part due to him that the gun industry has been making record profits classic move with bringing up "the children" constantly though

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39242462]That's all this violence in video games argument is. A scapegoat.[/QUOTE] You know this, because?

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242478]it is purely for recreation or harming others[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]harming others[/QUOTE] Yet I've never heard of a crime committed with a belt-fed gun.

WELP there goes his approval rating

Obama is uninformed.

Any Republican who votes for this can expect to be trounced by a "real" conservative Tea Party primary challenger backed by unlimited money. This will never get anywhere. Hell, Republicans won't even allow someone to be nominated to run the ATF.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242478]And what if they had used belt-fed weapons instead? Do you think someone should really be able to carry around 100 rounds for ANY weapon? You don't need 100 rounds at all for self defense, it is purely for recreation or harming others.[/QUOTE] Well, to begin with a beltfeld would have been insanely unwieldy, and unless they acquired it through illegal means, it would have been semi automatic, so he'd have been pumping out just as many rounds whether he had a 250 round belt or a 30 round magazine. It makes literally no difference and it's pure scapegoating. The reason our military doesn't use high capacity magazines like the one Mr. lanza used, is because they are incredibly unreliable. They jam all the fucking time like you wouldn't believe.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242478]And what if they had used belt-fed weapons instead? Do you think someone should really be able to carry around 100 rounds for ANY weapon? You don't need 100 rounds at all for self defense, it is purely for recreation or harming others.[/QUOTE] Again, not needing something does not warrant a ban on it. That argument is stupid as fuck.

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;39242110]What were you all using the fucking machine guns for anyway. At least you still get handguns.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we still get our hand guns! Which are used in 97% of the gun crimes in this country, NOT these so called 'weapons of war' which is another fear mongering buzzword. Hey wasn't every shooter involving these 'weapons of war' also packing pistols? So what good is this ban, then? And you think I'm giving up my hand gun if they were to ban those? Nope, and neither is anyone else And I love how he singled out violent video games. As if there wasn't any violence before Pong, or rap music, or TV. There was more gun related violence in the 1920's in our country than there is now

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;39242117]The point is if the government goes tyrannical, which has happened before in other countries, we can fight back. That's one of the reasons that the second amendment was made for.[/QUOTE] Most retarded reason ever to preserve that right nowadays. I say yes to handguns and no to everything else. Want a boom boom stick? Get a fucking background check. Lately there's been so many shootouts its not even funny.

Holy shit, people are getting mad at this. Is this really that much of an inconvenience? Even if the reasons for the ban are a bit eh, it's not like it's going to increase gun crime, or effect the average person in a major way.

[QUOTE=JerryK;39242501]also i can't believe obama brought up gun industry influencing congress when it's in part due to him that the gun industry has been making record profits [/QUOTE] It's not like Obama can stop all the racists and birthers inciting a furor over his very existence and whipping his image into some sort of demon

[QUOTE=Apache249;39242495]My problem is [B]not[/B] that's he or anyone else supports a ban on armor-piercing ammunition. It's that they choose now to ban them, capitalizing on these tragedies to push agenda. To my knowledge, AP ammunition was not used in a single one of these recent tragedies, yet now all of a sudden it's a huge issue?[/QUOTE] More importantly [B]violence is not a problem in the U.S.[/B] Over the past 5 years we have seen an overall decline in homicide, and only 4% of firearm homicide had been committed with rifles. And less than 1% of all firearm homicide is considered mass murder (more than 5 people shot in a short span of time by one shooter.) Okay, so sure, we don't need high-capacity magazines. We don't need AR-15s. But [I]are they really the problem?[/I] And is there really a problem to begin with? What about rampant poverty issues? Isn't the 15% of the entire U.S. population being impoverished a bigger problem?

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242500]Because that microscopic percentage is more than enough to cause the deaths of a disturbing amount of innocent people, and put even more in danger.[/QUOTE] The exact same argument when people tried to ban video games after the Columbine massacre. It didn't make sense then, doesn't now.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;39242525]Most retarded reason ever to preserve that right nowadays. I say yes to handguns and no to everything else. Want a boom boom stick? Get a fucking background check. Lately there's been so many shootouts its not even funny.[/QUOTE] Funny thing is, 97-99% of those "shoot outs" were with handguns, not "assault weapons" or rifles.

Don't really feel like jumping in on the gun debate here... But I will say that I completely agree with the background checks. This whole pissing about with the 'assault' weapons ban is total crap though. If they really are serious about a gun ban, ban ALL guns or none at all. (Not that I believe guns should be banned, but they way they are picking and choosing is ridiculous.)

[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39242254]I'm somewhat confused as to what will happen next.[/QUOTE] not much, he cant solve this through executive order, he can sign a ban, but as long as congress doesn't pass anything, (which lets face it... they dont have a good track record already), the states can ignore all of his pretentiousness, im sorry but his numbers, 900 dead from gun related crimes in the last 2 months, how many thousand have died of the flu? should we make flu shots manditory now?, how many tens of thousands have died in car crashes, how many hundred thousands have died of cancer or heart related illnesses in the last 3 months.... what im saying is nothing proposed so far has even a chance of going into affect or solving anything

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;39242525]Most retarded reason ever to preserve that right nowadays. I say yes to handguns and no to everything else. Want a boom boom stick? Get a fucking background check. Lately there's been so many shootouts its not even funny.[/QUOTE] When the vast majority of firearms used in gun crimes are in fact handguns.

[QUOTE=gman_freeman;39242535]Holy shit, people are getting mad at this. Is this really that much of an inconvenience? I live in England so I can't really relate, but If I were to buy a gun, which I'd imagine would be a one time thing for the average person, I would expect a background check. Even if It's not effective, it's not like it's going to increase gun crime.[/QUOTE] theres already backround checks when you buy a firearm.

[QUOTE=faze;39242521]Again, not needing something does not warrant a ban on it. That argument is stupid as fuck.[/QUOTE] You dont need a reason to NOT have a ban on something, you need a reason TO ban something. This whole gun case stuff's reason is that we're sick of people using military-like rifles to kill people. How many lives did it take before we banned drinking and driving. Is it stupid? Absolutely.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39242555]theres already backround checks when you buy a firearm.[/QUOTE] not from private sellers (gun show loophole)