Obama's re-election drives gun sales... again - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE] you're not that smart are you

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405351]Yes but guns need to come from somewhere. And usually, that's from legit manufacturers.[/QUOTE] The issue is that guns are a lucrative business.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405351]Yes but guns need to come from somewhere. And usually, that's from legit manufacturers.[/QUOTE] There's such an incredible market for guns that are even 100 years old that even if all gun manufacturers just left town right now there would still be a huge market, legal or otherwise.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404673]That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.[/QUOTE] I bet people in country's that ban guns buy knives out of fear, or stun guns(which have killed quite a few people.) People will always do rash things if they are afraid, and will buy a weapon to protect themselves, no matter if its a gun, knife, hatchet, stun gun, pipe, ect, people will always kill each other with something, banning guns doesn't help, as most gun crimes are committed illegally anyway.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;38405385]I bet people in country's that ban guns buy knives out of fear, or stun guns(which have killed quite a few people.) People will always do rash things if they are afraid, and will buy a weapon to protect themselves, no matter if its a gun, knife, hatchet, stun gun, pipe, ect, people will always kill each other with someone, banning guns doesn't help, as most gun crimes are committed illegally anyway.[/QUOTE] It really depends though. At my homecountry only gangs that look for trouble buy such things. You average person has nothing on him and tries to cope with the situation by their whit. Besides when you walk around with a knife, you are more likely to be the victim of it, it is quite easy to turn the weapon against yourself. I would be happy though if it would be legal to own tazers, they would come in handy quite well. I see no harm in this at all.

Many people here are viewing the US/whatever country in isolation, which is silly to do, If you outright ban guns in one place there are still a) the surrounding countries that might have laxer regulations b) the guns that already exist in that country c) people with the ability to make more guns on their own Because of these factors, it's nonsensical to attempt a full scale ban of firearms because it is impracticable. In addition, guns are a legitimate tool for self defense, and attempting to decrease the amount of guns by legal means would (surprise!) only decrease the amount of legal guns, which are used by citizens rather than criminals. This is not to say that overly lax laws are desirable either. In the US especially, we have insufficient mental care, and having psychotic/schizophrenic people with easy access to guns is not a good thing. Again, to reiterate, neither extreme is desirable or feasible here, and instead of trying settle this in black and white terms, the discussion would be better served by trying to settle on an approriate shade of grey.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404905]it's nice to know you're running your country and arguments on a 250 year old document[/QUOTE] Oh like the constitution document of Argentina? That got reformed a number of times throughout it's history, just like ours. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Constitution[/url] Guess you're still following a 152 year old document.

[QUOTE=The Letter Q;38405442]and having psychotic/schizophrenic people with easy access to guns is not a good thing. [/QUOTE] Don't tell anyone, it's a secret, but these are the kinds of people who commit firearm homicide, not average gun owners!

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405476]Don't tell anyone, it's a secret, but these are the kinds of people who commit firearm homicide, not average gun owners![/QUOTE] Yes, which is why I singled them out, instead of equating them to average gun owners.:v: Edit: I was trying to make the point that it's silly to expect that everyone having any gun they please is a good thing either.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE] Yeah, legal ones. Are you really this dense?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405321]Except the criminals wouldn't have guns either.[/QUOTE] Ban guns and criminals won't have guns? Oh, I get it. Kind of like the way the government trashed Mega Upload and it stopped piracy.

[QUOTE=Ridge;38404859]They're right next to each other in the Constitution. One has just as much right to be there as the other. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ecuox.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] While the US constitution was pretty darn modern for its time, I don't know why anyone [I]ever[/I] would say a document just holds infinite truth. Yes, we should have a paper making sure everybody has rights, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't change such once in a while. It's funny, because the bill of rights is really just an amendment to the constitution because they found it lacking in that department. It's not like "the founding fathers" were infallible or smarter than people today - why should a couple of guys from 220 years ago know what's good for people more than we do now? I mean, they had slavery at that time, which wasn't unconstitutional simply because slaves weren't considered people. Now, I'm not saying that we should abolish all guns or even lay restrictions on them - because I don't even want to take part in that discussion - but saying that free speech and guns are equally important, and then using the argument that "they're next to each other in this 220 year old document" is so retarded that I can't even spell it out. Did you even read the document? If you did, you'll know why the right to bear arms is in there. It's to protect the other fucking rights you have. Now, if you are at no risk of having those rights taken away from you (because you damn well fucking aren't), is the right to bear arms [I]really[/I] as important as fucking free speech, the right to say whatever you damn well please. No, it isn't. Not in any fucking way. What would you rather be able to do? Go around voicing your opinion and elect the president you want, or have no influence but lots of guns? Now, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying whether you should ban guns or not, but the fact that you guys apparently think that it's dumb to say that free speech is more important than the right to bear arms, is downright laughable, and even more so with the fact that you rate this guy "Zinger" like he was real smart when he posted this. And before you rate me dumb, try once more to remember why the right to bear arms is in there, because it's not because "the founding fathers" were concerned about fucking recreational shooting.

[QUOTE=junker|154;38404256]. Guns only lead to deaths. It is statistically proven that countries with more guns in the households have more deaths due to use of lethal weapons. .[/QUOTE] This is kind of dumb. Deaths from motor vehicle accidents far far outnumber firearm deaths. Owning and operating a car makes you statistically more likely to die. Cars only lead to death? Ban cars???

[QUOTE=RudeMcRude;38404047]Americans are to damn gun crazy. It's not a big deal if guns get banned. You'll be just like pretty much every other country. I say this not because having the right to bare arms causes nut jobs and shootings. That's just stupid. I say it because American's get to obsessed with them. Who gives a rats ass if they make you have a license to own one. Oh no you won't be allowed to carry your beloved 44 Magnum with you to a nice family dinner in case that .0001% chance someone tries to mug you and your family. It's just dumb.[/QUOTE]They're a hobby. You'd be pissed if your government attacked your right to play video games because stupid people do stupid, violent things involving video games, right? Just because gangbangers don't know how to stop shooting people doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to have a Kalashnikov of my own.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38406774]This is kind of dumb. Deaths from motor vehicle accidents far far outnumber firearm deaths. Owning and operating a car makes you statistically more likely to die. Cars only lead to death? Ban cars???[/QUOTE] I say we only ban certain types of cars based on how scary they look and not how dangerous they are.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;38406774]This is kind of dumb. Deaths from motor vehicle accidents far far outnumber firearm deaths. Owning and operating a car makes you statistically more likely to die. Cars only lead to death? Ban cars???[/QUOTE] I didn't know you could drive around in guns. The problem is that you guys use these kind of arguments a lot - I don't think Junker is necessarily right regarding that firearms only lead to death, but it can't really be argued that it isn't the main purpose. Sure, you can go shoot cans in your backyard, but I think it can be debated whether that can be "a purpose". Sure, guns aren't the only thing commonly used to kill people, knives are very widely used, and we don't ban them. But without knives, how would we cook food? We use knives for crucial tasks; guns, not so much. So please stop using this argument (it's almost so stupid that it's not worthy of that title), because it's always brought up, and it never makes sense.

I'll leave this thought experiment in this shitthread before leaving. Practically ~illegal super criminal guns~ started their lives in a legitimate firearms made in US factories intended for civilian use. But over 500,000 of them go ~missing~ every year. What would happen if this horribly bloated institution called the civilian arms industry was scaled back dramatically? How many guns would go ~missing~ every year, more or less?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38404355]Neither is alcohol. Actually, that was never important, neither was tobacco, so why don't we ban those. Weed too, nothing good ever came out of it, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] I don't know if you can really put alcohol and tobacco on the same level as guns.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38407742]I didn't know you could drive around in guns. The problem is that you guys use these kind of arguments a lot - I don't think Junker is necessarily right regarding that firearms only lead to death, but it can't really be argued that it isn't the main purpose. Sure, you can go shoot cans in your backyard, but I think it can be debated whether that can be "a purpose". Sure, guns aren't the only thing commonly used to kill people, knives are very widely used, and we don't ban them. But without knives, how would we cook food? We use knives for crucial tasks; guns, not so much. So please stop using this argument (it's almost so stupid that it's not worthy of that title), because it's always brought up, and it never makes sense.[/QUOTE] A firearm's primary purpose is killing only if that is the reason the owner has it. For most armed Americans, guns are purely recreational. They're fun to look at, work on, handle, display, and shoot. It's no different than archery. I don't see anyone trying to ban bows or crossbows. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;38407894]I'll leave this thought experiment in this shitthread before leaving. Practically ~illegal super criminal guns~ started their lives in a legitimate firearms made in US factories intended for civilian use. But over 500,000 of them go ~missing~ every year. What would happen if this horribly bloated institution called the civilian arms industry was scaled back dramatically? How many guns would go ~missing~ every year, more or less?[/QUOTE] The same amount. They'd just be more expensive and less available on the civilian market. Limiting production isn't the answer. Factories need to be monitored better by the government.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;38407992]The same amount. They'd just be more expensive and less available on the civilian market. Limiting production isn't the answer. Factories need to be monitored better by the government.[/QUOTE] Then why is it more difficult, more time consuming, more expensive to acquire a firearm illegally in a country that doesn't have a massive arms industry. Take the UK for example, it still has a civilian arms industry. Yet many illegal firearms are either ancient, a converted replica which is just as likely to kill the user or a throwback from the IRA. Not to mention ammo is scarce and the ~criminals~ barely have enough to refil the magazine. It's simple, make less guns, less guns end up killing people through crime. Because there is [B]physically[/B] less guns.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38408047]Then why is it more difficult, more time consuming, more expensive to acquire a firearm illegally in a country that doesn't have a massive arms industry. Take the UK for example, it still has a civilian arms industry. Yet many illegal firearms are either ancient, a converted replica which is just as likely to kill the user or a throwback from the IRA. It's simple, make less guns, less guns end up killing people through crime. Because there is [B]physically[/B] less guns.[/QUOTE] We have enough guns in the country already to outfit entire armies. We would have to have "gun hunts" to get rid of the guns and you can look back on history to see that these sorts of weapon grabs can be incredibly ineffective and dangerous.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38408059]We have enough guns in the country already to outfit entire armies. We would have to have "gun hunts" to get rid of the guns and you can look back on history to see that these sorts of weapon grabs can be incredibly ineffective and dangerous.[/QUOTE] Amnesties and buy-backs have been proven to be effective. You should have seen the shit given in the UK. [img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/17/1276778052897/Lucy-Wood-installation-fe-006.jpg[/img] some one even turned some of it into an art instillation.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38408047]Then why is it more difficult, more time consuming, more expensive to acquire a firearm illegally in a country that doesn't have a massive arms industry. Take the UK for example, it still has a civilian arms industry. Yet many illegal firearms are either ancient, a converted replica which is just as likely to kill the user or a throwback from the IRA. Not to mention ammo is scarce and the ~criminals~ barely have enough to refil the magazine. It's simple, make less guns, less guns end up killing people through crime. Because there is [B]physically[/B] less guns.[/QUOTE] This is actually much the case with illegal firearms here. For example, a large amount of illegal weapons seized are actually vintage WW2 weapons. A Mexican arms seizure recently netted a couple of MG42s. (They were destroyed which I think is a fucking shame but whatever, a victory for anti-gun activists everywhere right) [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] Another arms seizure- [img]http://i.imgur.com/2IyrS.jpg[/img] Very few modern guns here (that's not an M4, it's a Vietnam-era M16 there). All of these were destroyed as well. Note the Civil War era percussion cap revolvers, Thompson '28, Luger P08, etc.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38408076]Amnesties and buy-backs have been proven to be effective. You should have seen the shit given in the UK. [img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/17/1276778052897/Lucy-Wood-installation-fe-006.jpg[/img] some one even turned some of it into an art instillation.[/QUOTE] They can be, but how effective would buy-backs be in a culture that places a lot of value on personal firearm ownership?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38408100]They can be, but how effective would buy-backs be in a culture that places a lot of value on personal firearm ownership?[/QUOTE] Cultures change over time. The america in 100 years time, won't be what it is today. It just depends if you can steer it in a better direction that it is currently. Think long term.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38408109]Cultures change over time. The america in 100 years time, won't be what it is today. It just depends if you can stir it in a better direction that it is currently. Think long term.[/QUOTE] Well yea but I'm talking about gun-grabs now.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38408128]Well yea but I'm talking about gun-grabs now.[/QUOTE] But I wasn't.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38404918]At least we have one.[/QUOTE] best post in the whole thread we will have scholars interpreting it for thousands of years at least we have a 200 year old document? Go you? [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;38404859]They're right next to each other in the Constitution. One has just as much right to be there as the other. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ecuox.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] a) "it's in the constitution" isn't an argument b) when your own government starts strictly following your constitution, then you might have an argument that works in the US

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;38408135]best post in the whole thread we will have scholars interpreting it for thousands of years at least we have a 200 year old document? Go you?[/QUOTE] Remember when the very same document banned alcohol. That was a laugh.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38408133]But I wasn't.[/QUOTE] Ok then. I still don't think that government(especially a federal or state government) should be in the business of taking guns away from people, but that's just my libertarian side talking.