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

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39263493]how about instead of knives we handle handguns instead[/QUOTE] I like how you think! You're hired! [sp]but in all seriousness until the NRA is no longer the top lobbying firm in the US we can't even dream of passing any really effective gun legislation[/sp]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39263514]Is everyone down with concealed carry classes being required for handguns..?[/QUOTE] Why not? The more education the better.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39263493]how about instead of knives we handle handguns instead[/QUOTE] How about we do nothing.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39263514]Is everyone down with concealed carry classes being required for handguns..?[/QUOTE] I'd honestly be happy if every state would at least require a permit.

[QUOTE=Jagur;39263528]How about we do nothing.[/QUOTE] good idea! fuck murder victims haha! the fact that we aren't doing everything we can to prevent violent crime and murder means we have an issue, when you have an issue you solve it. whether you're for or against gun control nobody in their right mind can try to assert that our laws regarding the most popular medium of committing murder in this country are perfect right now

[QUOTE=Jagur;39263528]How about we do nothing.[/QUOTE] When a nation faces extremely high gun violence and murder rates as ours does, when people, innocent children are dying, the solution isn't to "Do nothing". I think both sides can agree on this. We may not agree on what action to take but we agree that doing nothing simply isn't an option.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263540]When a nation faces extremely high gun violence and murder rates as ours does, when people, innocent children are dying, the solution isn't to "Do nothing". I think both sides can agree on this. We may not agree on what action to take but we agree that doing nothing simply isn't an option.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's a matter of priorities. Mental health > pistol grips and 30-round magazines

The AWB is stupid, but we definitely need to do something about firearms homicide. I, for one, favor universal background checks. Oh and more SRO's.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39263550]I'd say it's a matter of priorities. Mental health > pistol grips and 30-round magazines[/QUOTE] I think both should be examined equally, hell I think everything that plays a role in these violent shootings should be examined. Mental health, poverty, accessibility of firearms, domestic security, etc.

Firearm Education as of the moment is privatized for the most part, and to ensure less accidental deaths we should open up government hosted firearm safety programs/campaigns which allow adults and children a like to have a greater understanding of firearms and safe handling of them.

I take it your avatar is from the 'what not to do' section

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39263615]I take it your avatar is from the 'what not to do' section[/QUOTE] You know, I now wonder if they sell confetti rounds in 7.62

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39263625]You know, I now wonder if they sell confetti rounds in 7.62[/QUOTE] There are confetti shotgun shells :v:

[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] Your chart isn't wrong, but you're looking at it in the wrong way. Take Sweden for example: [url]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.235797-Crimes-Guns-Sweden[/url] Your chart doesn't support guns. It supports [I]gun control[/I]. What we should be saying here is not "Why does these countries have many guns and low homicide rates?" but rather "Why is the US different, then?" - the point clearly goes to the post I posted a link to. Sweden manages its guns in a [I]very[/I] good way, while the US does not. This clearly calls for better gun control, not necessarily a gun ban. Also, your chart shows no correlation [I]at best[/I], not "no correlation at all." If you could procure a chart with more countries - with governments that actually work - I'd be more willing to say something about it. And I'm not talking about a ban, just more control - like in Sweden or Denmark.

Yeah that's basically the point I was trying to make on the last page except you're far more articulate about it than I was. Well done

[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] country-wide (and worldwide, for that matter) trend, it's gone down in places where gun control has gotten more lax as well

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39263683]country-wide (and worldwide, for that matter) trend, it's gone down in places where gun control has gotten more lax as well[/QUOTE] Can you post a source on this? Not saying youre wrong just would like a source because I thought statistics showed that areas with higher rates of gun ownership had higher murder rates.

I think everyone is forgetting the number one reason why its been dropping: the prison population has been skyrocketing since the late 80s early 90s. Of course crime is going to go down if you put all the bad guys away in a hole.

Can we really narrow it down to one factor, prison population increase? I don't think so, the same way we can't attribute fluctuating violent crime rates to just firearms availability.

Im not saying its the only factor, just a massive one. During the late 80s i think there was around 600K prisoners in the US. Now its like 4 million.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242213]This argument is absurd. Yes, if you didn't have guns and all tried to rebel against the government you would probably lose, but if you [I]did[/I] have guns you would still almost certainly lose.[/QUOTE] Then why were we having such a hard time fighting goat-herders in the middle east with fully trained soldiers? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Apache249;39263800]Can we really narrow it down to one factor, prison population increase? I don't think so, the same way we can't attribute fluctuating violent crime rates to just firearms availability.[/QUOTE] Maybe the enormous economic growth we've had for the last 20 years? Financial crisis or not, we're doing pretty well. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=-1337-Omega;39263866]Then why were we having such a hard time fighting goat-herders in the middle east with fully trained soldiers? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Guerrilla warriors can do a lot of damage, but can they control the country without being on the inside of the government structure? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a difference in my opinion. Afghanistan is also more rural than the US, I think they'd have a harder time in the US. But I digress, I think this is [I]incredibly[/I] unlikely and I don't even see the point of discussing it.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39263912]Maybe the enormous economic growth we've had for the last 20 years? Financial crisis or not, we're doing pretty well. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Guerrilla warriors can do a lot of damage, but can they control the country without being on the inside of the government structure? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a difference in my opinion. Afghanistan is also more rural than the US, I think they'd have a harder time in the US. But I digress, I think this is [I]incredibly[/I] unlikely and I don't even see the point of discussing it.[/QUOTE] While that may be true, out of the 314,165,191+ people in America I'm sure there would be more Americans who would fight the government, not to mention the soldiers who would remember the oath they took to protect the constitution. And I don't know if it will seem as unlikely as it does now in the next 10 years or so if America continues down the road of spending the people's money that they don't have.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39263607]Firearm Education as of the moment is privatized for the most part, and to ensure less accidental deaths we should open up government hosted firearm safety programs/campaigns which allow adults and children a like to have a greater understanding of firearms and safe handling of them.[/QUOTE] they should teach basic firearms safety in schools. they didn't stop doing that until fairly recently for no obvious reason other than soccer moms

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263515]I like how you think! You're hired! [sp]but in all seriousness until the NRA is no longer the top lobbying firm in the US we can't even dream of passing any really effective gun legislation[/sp][/QUOTE] Implying that politicians have the mental capacity to come up with sensible gun control I say, if they really want to ban assault weapons, dont totally ban them. Make a system where people start off with handguns, then get the ability to buy ar15s and the like if they can prove them selves responsible and pass psyche evaluation tests after and during a year. I can already say that this will work better than the current proposal will in terms of barely curbing violence, and both sides win: antiguns get their feelgood feeling and gun nuts like me get their guns [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263701]Can you post a source on this? Not saying youre wrong just would like a source because I thought statistics showed that areas with [b]higher rates of gun ownership had higher murder rates[/b].[/QUOTE] Dear god what has Bloomberg been feeding you guys You poor, poor thing

can't he just ban gun violence?

[QUOTE=marcin1337;39264908]can't he just ban gun violence?[/QUOTE] I don't even know.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39263564]I think both should be examined equally, hell I think everything that plays a role in these violent shootings should be examined. Mental health, poverty, accessibility of firearms, domestic security, etc.[/QUOTE] you want to examine accessibility of firearms? a high capacity glock capable of killing 30 people without reloading can be purchased illegally within 2 hour's distance of any majorly populated areas in the united states. purchasing it illegally is cheaper, easier and faster than purchasing it legally. you start legislating gun ownership and less ordinary citizens are carrying firearms to defend themselves. that means if I wanted to right now I could go and buy a glock and kill 33 people point blank because none of them can defend themselves. and if you completely ban firearms, I'll still be able to do that. there, consider your so called assault weapons examined. FYI you don't need state of the art technology to kill school children.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39266778]you want to examine accessibility of firearms? a high capacity glock capable of killing 30 people without reloading can be purchased illegally within 2 hour's distance of any majorly populated areas in the united states. purchasing it illegally is cheaper, easier and faster than purchasing it legally. you start legislating gun ownership and less ordinary citizens are carrying firearms to defend themselves. that means if I wanted to right now I could go and buy a glock and kill 33 people point blank because none of them can defend themselves. and if you completely ban firearms, I'll still be able to do that. there, consider your so called assault weapons examined. FYI you don't need state of the art technology to kill school children.[/QUOTE] And guess how the government can make a huge dent on the amount of illegal guns on the black market. Considering most of them are stolen I'd say tighter regulation & rules are the answer, but also promoting alternatives that can temporarily inhibit whatever malicious person(s) there is. Obviously there should be special exceptions for people living in rural area's in the middle of nowhere.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39266932]And guess how the government can make a huge dent on the amount of illegal guns on the black market. Considering most of them are stolen I'd say tighter regulation & rules are the answer, but also promoting alternatives that can temporarily inhibit whatever malicious person(s) there is. Obviously there should be special exceptions for people living in rural area's in the middle of nowhere.[/QUOTE] except that the government has zero interest in doing that.