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

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39242555]theres already backround checks when you buy a firearm.[/QUOTE] I thought gun shows and private sales were exempt.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242538]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] Your idea of the penultimate problem differs from the next man's The thing is - As the president you have to push on [I]all[/I] issues, not just this supposed one big one

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242563]not from private sellers (gun show loophole)[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure noone is arguing we shouldn't close that loophole At least I hope not

[QUOTE=areolop;39242562]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] People using AR15's to kill people is very rare. Most of this is done with handguns.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39242508]Yet I've never heard of a crime committed with a belt-fed gun.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout[/url]

So all he is doing is reinstating expired gun laws, passing executive orders that ensure they are enforced properly this time and implementing reforms to mental health and school wellness? Why all the hate then, seems like a pretty reasonable reaction to the past few months of violence. All this talk about "assault weapons" being different from "assault rifles" - wars have been fought for decades with semi-automatic rifles, they are just as effective at killing people as fully automatic weapons. Ask any soldier who uses "weapons of war" which setting they use on their M16 most often and they'll say semi. It isn't even that outlandish to call a semi-automatic weapon that fires 7.62x51 a "battle rifle" - after all, that is what they used to be called. I'd say gun advocates are getting off lightly.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39242565]I thought gun shows and private sales were exempt.[/QUOTE] They're actually not. Most states you have to go through the FFL paperwork and waiting period for any restricted gun sales or transfers.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39242565]I thought gun shows and private sales were exempt.[/QUOTE] thats true they are. But the majority of sales still go through an FFL. I agree with the backround check for private sales though, would be hard to implement though.

[QUOTE=Sableye;39242552] how many thousand have died of the flu? should we make flu shots manditory now?[/QUOTE] [B]YES[/B] Herd immunity, read up on it [QUOTE=Sableye;39242552]how many tens of thousands have died in car crashes[/QUOTE] This may come as a surprise to you but seatbelts and certain safety systems are mandatory for a car to be legally owned, sold, etc.

[QUOTE=areolop;39242562]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] Why are you only sick of people using "military-like rifles" to kill people? What about the fact that the vast majority of gun-murder is committed with handguns? Feel-good legislation 101.

[QUOTE=scout1;39242569]Your idea of the penultimate problem differs from the next man's The thing is - As the president you have to push on [I]all[/I] issues, not just this supposed one big one[/QUOTE] That's not what penultimate means. The [I]real[/I] thing is that the AWB is a kneejerk reaction. Everything else that he's doing I'm totally okay with, but 10 round magazines don't stop mass murder. Bayonet lugs don't cause mass murder. Pistol grips don't cause mass murder.

[QUOTE=areolop;39242562]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] How long have we had a ban on murder? Sure as fuck hasn't stopped murder

Just gonna'....toss my two cents in here. I'm not entirely sure the average Citizen NEEDS assault weapons, and AP bullets. But on the flip side, I don't think making the weapons/AP ammunition is really going to prevent criminal shits from acquiring said weapons/ammunition if they really want it. Perhaps we should be looking at the causes of the mental illnesses and criminality that led to them murderfacing a bunch of people or commiting crimes. Maybe then we can prevent it without causing the gunfucks to freak out. (So I didn't word this very well, but I think I got my point across.)

[QUOTE=TheTalon;39242593]How long have we had a ban on murder? Sure as fuck hasn't stopped murder[/QUOTE] Drugs are banned too. That is sure working well.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242582][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout[/url][/QUOTE] None of the firearms there are beltfelds.

[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] The controversy isn't around background checks, its around the AWB.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242426]You are basically saying accidents never happen and people never act irrationally then, especially around guns?[/QUOTE] It really amuses me how everyone is trying to play dumb just for the sake of retaining previous gun laws. Just a FYI, decent folk never act irrationally and go on a rampage, especially around guns.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;39242542]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] That's a crazy comparison. There's limited actual evidence that the video games actually 'caused' that tragedy, but this sort of shooting would obviously be very difficult to pull off without access to guns.

[QUOTE=Inplabth;39242591]None of the guns used were belt fed.[/QUOTE] The point still stands, they had 100 round beta-c mags and were able to hold their ground against dozens of police officers, who had glocks.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39242275]I don't recall hearing that armor-piercing bullets were used in these shootings anyway, let alone having some sort of effect on the outcome of such shootings.[/QUOTE] it's dangerous for cops, I can perfectly understand restricting AP bullets. They were used against police in northern ireland.

[QUOTE=faze;39242579]People using AR15's to kill people is very rare. Most of this is done with handguns.[/QUOTE] I know that, WE know that. They're looking at the [I]ability[/I] to kill. Rifles simply have more ability to kill mass amounts of people than handguns.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;39242593]How long have we had a ban on murder? Sure as fuck hasn't stopped murder[/QUOTE] Legalize murder 2013

[QUOTE=areolop;39242614]I know that, WE know that. They're looking at the [I]ability[/I] to kill. Rifles simply have more ability to kill mass amounts of people than handguns.[/QUOTE] No, they really don't.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242592]That's not what penultimate means. The [I]real[/I] thing is that the AWB is a kneejerk reaction. Everything else that he's doing I'm totally okay with, but 10 round magazines don't stop mass murder. Bayonet lugs don't cause mass murder. Pistol grips don't cause mass murder.[/QUOTE] With a bit of practice you can reload your weapon quick, I know I can have my gun re-loaded in under 3 seconds. So a three second break every 10 rounds is practically No different than a guy also taking 3 seconds every 15. Some people will argue that it's enough time for someone to be a hero like it's fucking Hollywood, except real life and Hollywood aren't even fucking [b]close[/b] to one another

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39242544]Funny thing is, 97-99% of those "shoot outs" were with handguns, not "assault weapons" or rifles.[/QUOTE] I never pointed out that background check shouldn't be needed for handguns, per se.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242609]The point still stands, they had 100 round beta-c mags and were able to hold their ground against dozens of police officers, who had glocks.[/QUOTE] More than dozens. This shooting is the reason that cops have AR15's in their cars now. Criminals get more lethal weapons, cops get more lethal weapons.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39242609]The point still stands, they had 100 round beta-c mags and were able to hold their ground against dozens of police officers, who had glocks.[/QUOTE] Lol, you seriously don't know what you're talking about. A beta C mag is used in an AR-15, they had illegally modified norinco AK clones. They were using 75-100 round chinese drums, and as I stated earlier they constantly jammed up and got one of the perpetrators killed. Another thing to note is that no police officers were killed in the incident, only the 2 suspects.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;39242620]With a bit of practice you can reload your weapon quick, I know I can have my gun re-loaded in under 3 seconds. So a three second break every 10 rounds is practically No different than a guy also taking 3 seconds every 15. Some people will argue that it's enough time for someone to be a hero like it's fucking Hollywood, except real life and Hollywood aren't even fucking [b]close[/b] to one another[/QUOTE] Because obviously you will be calm and adequate enough to do so in the middle of a shootout.

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves"

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;39242627]I never pointed out that background check shouldn't be needed for handguns, per se.[/QUOTE] my point is banning "assault weapons" is fucking pointless.