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

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39254797]I don't see how that's relevant at all. you can either agree or disagree with the point I'm making, which is that they very often use the wrong terms to legally classify weapons. you're actually helping prove my point, because now with the information you've added we know that they call it both a short barreled rifle AND a machine gun, and not only are these two completely different things but the M93R is neither of them. arguing that it would be illegal anyway bares no relevance to the topic.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what you are arguing about.

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;39254807]I don't even know what you are arguing about.[/QUOTE] first thing I said was that a crime has never been committed with a machine gun in the history of the united states, then someone linked me to a case where somebody committed a crime with a MAC-10. said weapon being a sub-machine gun, I informed them that they were mistaken about the definition of a machine gun. then someone brought up the fact that under united states law they're classified as a machine gun. using the M93R's SBR classification as an example, I stated that the terms used to classify weapons are often largely inaccurate.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39253970]you think police officers carry machine guns...... yeah, I remember just the other day a guy had a parking ticket so the cops lit up his house with an M249. you have no idea what you're talking about, silence. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] maching gun doesn't mean ''full auto''. it means machine gun. the MAC-10 is a hybrid between a machine pistol and a sub-machine gun. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] aaaaand the third guy in a row who doesn't even vaguely understand what a machine gun is.[/QUOTE] Actually I was referring to [url=http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html]the cop who murdered an informant with a MAC-11[/url]. [quote=The above link]One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.[/quote] Scroll down to "crime with legally-owned machine guns" for that and the other one. Patrol cops don't carry machine guns anywhere, but most departments keep automatic guns for their SWAT teams. I don't know the standards or specifics, but I'd assume the MAC-11 was kept around for such situations.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39255493]Actually I was referring to [url=http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html]the cop who murdered an informant with a MAC-11[/url]. Scroll down to "crime with legally-owned machine guns" for that and the other one. Patrol cops don't carry machine guns anywhere, but most departments keep automatic guns for their SWAT teams. I don't know the standards or specifics, but I'd assume the MAC-11 was kept around for such situations.[/QUOTE] oh boy. I don't know why I'm bothering since I've already explained this, but here goes. a Machine gun is a class of weapon characterized by the ability to fire Large caliber rounds at extreme rates of automatic fire from high capacity magazines (usually 100 and above). there are two types of Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns and Light Machine guns. Heavy Machine guns cannot be carried and are mounted. Light Machine Guns are extremely heavy and require extensive training to operate. they are not issued to any law enforcement and never have been. the MAC-11 is a Sub-Machine gun/Machine Pistol hybrid. under united states law it IS legally classified as a machine gun. that being said, united states weapon classification is flawed and inaccurate.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39255638]oh boy. I don't know why I'm bothering since I've already explained this, but here goes. a Machine gun is a class of weapon characterized by the ability to fire Large caliber rounds at extreme rates of automatic fire from high capacity magazines (usually 100 and above). there are two types of Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns and Light Machine guns. Heavy Machine guns cannot be carried and are mounted. Light Machine Guns are extremely heavy and require extensive training to operate. they are not issued to any law enforcement and never have been. the MAC-11 is a Sub-Machine gun/Machine Pistol hybrid. under united states law it IS legally classified as a machine gun. that being said, united states weapon classification is flawed and inaccurate.[/QUOTE] I wasn't disputing that. The NFA broadly classifies "automatic firearms" as "machine guns," which is incorrect and is almost certainly the result of an ignorant public. I see what you're saying, if you go by your definitions (which are correct) no criminal is even gonna be able to get his hands on a LMG, much less hold up a 7-11 with one.

if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39256541]if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers[/QUOTE] No we're not. This is a statement that lacks any actual logical backing.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39256541]if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers[/QUOTE] This kind of disgusting, emotional slander is entirely unacceptable. This isn't debating, this is flaming, and it's completely, entirely false and slanderous. Such a statement could actually get you sued if it was broadcast on the television.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39256541]if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers[/QUOTE] What people don't understand is that people like Adam Lanza and Eric Harris were murderers, not responsible, legal, firearm owners. People who are responsible and own firearms are not the ones who murdered children.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39255747]I wasn't disputing that. The NFA broadly classifies "automatic firearms" as "machine guns," which is incorrect and is almost certainly the result of an ignorant public. I see what you're saying, if you go by your definitions (which are correct) no criminal is even gonna be able to get his hands on a LMG, much less hold up a 7-11 with one.[/QUOTE] well I'm glad SOMEONE understands that.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39257184]What people don't understand is that people like Adam Lanza and Eric Harris were murderers, not responsible, legal, firearm owners. People who are responsible and own firearms are not the ones who murdered children.[/QUOTE] The thing is that nobody seems to be able to look past the gun or guns used and see the triggerman as responsible. People around where I live are badmouthing Bushmaster like there's no tomorrow, but I haven't heard literally [i]anyone[/i] mention Lanza. A relative of mine went off on a tangent saying how "Bushmaster must be held accountable for the massacre [i]they perpetrated[/i]." Not Lanza, no talk of how he was very clearly insane. No talk of how to help mentally-ill people.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39255638]oh boy. I don't know why I'm bothering since I've already explained this, but here goes. a Machine gun is a class of weapon characterized by the ability to fire Large caliber rounds at extreme rates of automatic fire from high capacity magazines (usually 100 and above). there are two types of Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns and Light Machine guns. Heavy Machine guns cannot be carried and are mounted. Light Machine Guns are extremely heavy and require extensive training to operate. they are not issued to any law enforcement and never have been. the MAC-11 is a Sub-Machine gun/Machine Pistol hybrid. under united states law it IS legally classified as a machine gun. that being said, united states weapon classification is flawed and inaccurate.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't include the "large caliber rounds" part. 5.56mm NATO is not large caliber. I think "chambered for centerfire-rifle cartridges" is more accurate.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39256541]if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers[/QUOTE] Look mate, I support gun control, but this sort of sensationalist language and moral slandering isn't acceptable and doesn't get us anywhere. Facts are, both sides have reasonable arguments for their positions, hence why the country is so divided on this issue.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39262936]I wouldn't include the "large caliber rounds" part. 5.56mm NATO is not large caliber. I think "chambered for centerfire-rifle cartridges" is more accurate.[/QUOTE] yeah in more recent years they've started using smaller rounds. but up until like the 80s almost all of them were 7.62 or 7.92. the original concept was that they could put large amounts of high caliber rounds on an area and ''suppress'' the enemy with the fear of being hit by a giant bullet. still, 5.56 is a pretty large round compared to most rounds that are being fired from SMGs and Machine Pistols.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39262892]The thing is that nobody seems to be able to look past the gun or guns used and see the triggerman as responsible. People around where I live are badmouthing Bushmaster like there's no tomorrow, but I haven't heard literally [i]anyone[/i] mention Lanza. A relative of mine went off on a tangent saying how "Bushmaster must be held accountable for the massacre [i]they perpetrated[/i]." Not Lanza, no talk of how he was very clearly insane. No talk of how to help mentally-ill people.[/QUOTE] People should examine both the murderer and the murder weapon in cases like this. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been stronger support for mental health checks being part of a background check and easier access to mental healthcare, rather most of the support is only being focused on gun control. While gun control is an important part of the equation, it's not the only part and won't get the results we need on its own. Fact is we're a country where it's far easier to get a gun than to see a therapist or get mental health care. That's what needs to change.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39256541]if you don't support gun control you are endorsing murderers[/QUOTE] it's a statistical fact that gun control has never reduced crime in the united states in any of it's incarnations. not even by 0.01%. the crime rate increased after the clinton assault weapons ban. do you think criminals use legally obtained weapons to commit crimes? if you answered yes, you're an idiot. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263250]People should examine both the murderer and the murder weapon in cases like this. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been stronger support for mental health checks being part of a background check and easier access to mental healthcare, rather most of the support is only being focused on gun control. While gun control is an important part of the equation, it's not the only part and won't get the results we need on its own. Fact is we're a country where it's far easier to get a gun than to see a therapist or get mental health care. That's what needs to change.[/QUOTE] why would you examine the murder weapon? do you examine an auto-motive manufacturer when someone get's hit by a car? adam lanza could have set fire to the school, placed improvised explosives, stolen his mother's car and hit people with it etc. if there was an all out gun ban nation wide he still would have done what he intended to do. so why? why does an inanimate object take the heat for the crimes of a person?

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39263275]it's a statistical fact that gun control has never reduced crime in the united states in any of it's incarnations. not even by 0.01%. the crime rate increased after the clinton assault weapons ban. do you think criminals use legally obtained weapons to commit crimes? if you answered yes, you're an idiot. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] why would you examine the murder weapon? do you examine an auto-motive manufacturer when someone get's hit by a car? adam lanza could have set fire to the school, placed improvised explosives, stolen his mother's car and hit people with it etc. if there was an all out gun ban nation wide he still would have done what he intended to do. so why? why does an inanimate object take the heat for the crimes of a person?[/QUOTE] Guns are the most common murder weapon in mass murders, they're the easiest to use. We need to re-examine their accessibility in society. I'm not saying the object takes the heat, I'm not arguing that guns alone kill people. I'm saying that we need to re-examine what guns we allow to be out on the streets and who we allow to have them.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263334]Guns are the most common murder weapon in mass murders, they're the easiest to use. We need to re-examine their accessibility in society. I'm not saying the object takes the heat, I'm not arguing that guns alone kill people. I'm saying that we need to re-examine what guns we allow to be out on the streets and who we allow to have them.[/QUOTE] What is your personal opinion on the "what guns" part of your statement?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263334]Guns are the most common murder weapon in mass murders, they're the easiest to use. We need to re-examine their accessibility in society.[/QUOTE] until we ban them and then cars become the most easy to use. what then? are you going to ban everything that isn't made out of cotton until you're completely safe and cozy in your dream land of peace? people will always find a way to do harm. history has shown that legislating firearms doesn't change anything.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39263349]What is your personal opinion on the "what guns" part of your statement?[/QUOTE] I'm not going to argue the semantics of "assault weapons" or whatever. I think this needs to be part of a larger discussion in government between both sides. Personally I'm flat out anti-guns period, but I realize this isn't reasonable legislation wise.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263386]I'm not going to argue the semantics of "assault weapons" or whatever. I think this needs to be part of a larger discussion in government between both sides. Personally I'm flat out anti-guns period, but I realize this isn't reasonable legislation wise.[/QUOTE] Oh I mistook you for someone else.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39263357]until we ban them and then cars become the most easy to use. what then? are you going to ban everything that isn't made out of cotton until you're completely safe and cozy in your dream land of peace? people will always find a way to do harm. history has shown that legislating firearms doesn't change anything.[/QUOTE] Murder rates go down when firearm legislation is enacted, proof of this has been shown by Mass., NJ, NY, etc. As a matter of fact NYC has had some of the lowest homicide numbers in years since passing gun legislation.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39263392]Oh I mistook you for someone else.[/QUOTE] I am someone else :v:

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263393]Murder rates go down when firearm legislation is enacted, proof of this has been shown by Mass., NJ, NY, etc. As a matter of fact NYC has had some of the lowest homicide numbers in years since passing gun legislation.[/QUOTE] this is completely false. every weapon ban in united states history has shown zero evidence of crime reduction and often alludes to a possible increase in crime.

Uh here's some old but true charts [IMG]http://www.investors.com/image/WEBiss0117_640.jpg.cms[/IMG] Since this thread it self is about 'assault weapons', (which fall under "Other Guns") wouldn't it be better to regulate knives and handguns using that logic? [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263393]Murder rates go down when firearm legislation is enacted, proof of this has been shown by Mass., NJ, NY, etc. As a matter of fact NYC has had some of the lowest homicide numbers in years since passing gun legislation.[/QUOTE] Funny you should mention NYC, the city has extremely tough gun control laws yet guns are still used in 70% of all homicides (2011)

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39263471]Funny you should mention NYC, the city has extremely tough gun control laws yet guns are still used in 70% of all homicides (2011)[/QUOTE] Yes but thats due to the high density of people and gang violence. Murder rates are still down, [url]http://gothamist.com/2012/12/28/nyc_hits_record_low_murder_rate_in.php[/url] I actually live in NY so I kinda hear about this shit everyday. Bloomberg (mayor) is pretty much basing his legacy on the gun laws and the low murder rates.

[QUOTE=Jagur;39263433]Uh here's some old but true charts [IMG]http://www.investors.com/image/WEBiss0117_640.jpg.cms[/IMG] Since this thread it self is about 'assault weapons', (which fall under "Other Guns") wouldn't it be better to regulate knives and handguns using that logic? [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] how about instead of knives we handle handguns instead

[QUOTE=Jagur;39263433]Uh here's some old but true charts [IMG]http://www.investors.com/image/WEBiss0117_640.jpg.cms[/IMG] [/quote] It's strange but theres charts that pretty much contradict that trend, especially when you add countries like Israel and the US [img]http://rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/resize/handgun-mortality-1-500x412.jpg[/img] Not saying your data is wrong just saying the numbers can be skewed for both sides.

Is everyone down with concealed carry classes being required for handguns..?