Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics - Polidicks

There isn't some inherent flaw with gun control. The reason gun control doesn't work for America is because you have a fetishistic gun culture [I]already[/I].

[QUOTE=deanpfr;36870609]Ugh. Making guns illegal is useless because criminals will still get a hold of them because they don't care about the law. Why is this so hard to follow?[/QUOTE] most illegal guns are from gun stores that do under the table deals

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36873128]There isn't some inherent flaw with gun control. The reason gun control doesn't work for America is because you have a fetishistic gun culture [I]already[/I].[/QUOTE] There's absolutely no part played by simply having a better argument?

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36873128]There isn't some inherent flaw with gun control. The reason gun control doesn't work for America is because you have a fetishistic gun culture [I]already[/I].[/QUOTE] And the fact that it borders Mexico making it easy for people to illegally import guns.

I personally think America would be better if nobody had guns. I also believe that is unrealistic as fuck. Even if you can outlaw guns in America (you can't) you still won't be able to get rid of them. Like others have said, we need better mental care in America. That is what will prevent things like this from happening.

[QUOTE=KigJow;36872764]In America, even if guns were banned, don't we still have the right to bear arms against the nation should the government step out of line for whatever reason (This is just an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment)? I'm just looking at things at a grander scale is all.[/QUOTE] Even if the right still existed, people would be back in the iron age, fighting with bows and swords and whatever number of illegal guns they could scrounge. Maybe another nation would be willing to lend a hand again and send us some weapons, maybe Iran, they don't like the US after all. There's already a huge disparity between the government and Americans, and that's not what was intended. But you have to keep in mind, the seizure of privately owned weapons was the final straw that sparked the American Revolution in 1775. But it was just one of a very long list of offenses that drove people over the edge and into armed conflict. But things were simple back then too, there were muskets and rifles, hand guns and cannons of various types, full field pieces, howitzers and mortars and it's still legal to have them even to this day. Today we've got a huge variety of rifles which all do different things, some you can buy at will and some fall under one restriction or another, submachine guns, machine guns and anti-tank weaponry which are inaccessible to the average person due to their artificially high cost, and without those last three a Revolution would go rather badly until people were able to get enough to offset the disparity in armament.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36873128]There isn't some inherent flaw with gun control. The reason gun control doesn't work for America is because you have a fetishistic gun culture [I]already[/I].[/QUOTE] This, really. America is flooded with guns, both physically and culturally. Gun control, however, does work in some places in the world. Firearm offences are uncommon here in the UK, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world (although it wouldn't be massively difficult for me to get a shotgun licence), and we have a lower murder rate (an unarmed person would stand a better chance against someone armed with a knife as opposed to a gun), although admittedly a higher assault rate in contrast. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36873211]And the fact that it borders Mexico making it easy for people to illegally import guns.[/QUOTE] Or they can just steal them from people who own them legally.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36873244]I personally think America would be better if nobody had guns. I also believe that is unrealistic as fuck. Even if you can outlaw guns in America (you can't) you still won't be able to get rid of them. Like others have said, we need better mental care in America. That is what will prevent things like this from happening.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the original colonists would of had a grand time fighting the British with only bayonets.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36870897]I think the reason there's no viable solution to gun violence is because it's generally punishing the law abiding consumer with penalties when a criminal who doesn't care about law to begin with commits a gun crime. Go after the criminals, not make stricter laws on those who have done nothing.[/QUOTE] In Chicago they banned firearms - there are shootings everyday, and noone except for the police can shoot back.

I hate the partisan cookie cutter politics in my country. The conservatives are insane but I disagree with the democrats stance on 'gun control'. Why can't I have both...

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36873298]This, really. America is flooded with guns, both physically and culturally. Gun control, however, does work in some places in the world. Firearm offences are uncommon here in the UK, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world (although it wouldn't be massively difficult for me to get a shotgun licence), and we have a lower murder rate (an unarmed person would stand a better chance against someone armed with a knife as opposed to a gun), although admittedly a higher assault rate in contrast. [/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, Britain never had much in terms of guns everywhere to begin with. A "gun culture" never had the chance to be developed. (Probably to avoid something what the American colonies did in the 1700s :v: ) And also if I recall right, Switzerland has tons of guns and a very low murder/assault rate as well.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36873363]I hate the partisan cookie cutter politics in my country. The conservatives are insane but I disagree with the democrats stance on 'gun control'. Why can't I have both...[/QUOTE] I typically side with the Libertarians on these things

[QUOTE=KigJow;36872764]In America, even if guns were banned, don't we still have the right to bear arms against the nation should the government step out of line for whatever reason (This is just an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment)? I'm just looking at things at a grander scale is all.[/QUOTE] Good luck overthrowing a corrupt modern goverment with knives and rocks. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UnknownDude;36872960]While I am not really for strict gun control, I still think shooting burglars and trespassers to kill, unless they are also armed, is rather excessive. That being said, I have never fired a gun myself, and I live in Norway, where the best you can get is a hunting rifle, and getting a pistol legally requires a lot of time and patience.[/QUOTE] That is the misconception. You don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. So you can only shoot at them until they are no longer a danger to you.

Gun control totally stopped that guy from having an [I]automatic weapon[/I] in that shooting yesterday, huh?

[QUOTE=NightmareXx;36873159]most illegal guns are from gun stores that do under the table deals[/QUOTE] Absolutely incorrect. Almost all guns used in crimes are acquired through illegal means, such as from dealers or stolen from the legal owner.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36873390]If I remember correctly, Britain never had much in terms of guns everywhere to begin with. A "gun culture" never had the chance to be developed. (Probably to avoid something what the American colonies did in the 1700s :v: ) And also if I recall right, Switzerland has tons of guns and a very low murder/assault rate as well.[/QUOTE] Everyone who has a gun in Switzerland has had military training from the official Militia though, which I would imagine would go a long way to instilling firearms discipline and safety. Firearms and the UK have had a interesting relationship. The first real police force, Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police Force, were intentionally not issued with firearms to make sure the force wouldn't be seen as a paramilitary force or similar by the general populace.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;36873449]Gun control totally stopped that guy from having an [I]automatic weapon[/I] in that shooting yesterday, huh?[/QUOTE] He didn't have an automatic weapon. He had a[URL="http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_786006_-1_757785_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y"] semi auto Smith & Wesson AR-15[/URL] and a [URL="http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model-870/model-870-express-synthetic-7-round.aspx"]pump action shotgun[/URL]

[QUOTE=Ridge;36873504]He didn't have an automatic weapon. He had a semi auto Smith & Wesson AR-15 and a pump action shotgun[/QUOTE] Semi-auto weapons are still automatic bro

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873521]Semi-auto weapons are still automatic bro[/QUOTE] No, they are not. Semi auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet is fired. Automatic means you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting bullets until you let off.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;36873449]Gun control totally stopped that guy from having an [I]automatic weapon[/I] in that shooting yesterday, huh?[/QUOTE] He didn't have an automatic weapon. Unless there's been a development of some kind that I haven't heard about.

the problem with the gun control debate is that both sides are full of shit "strict gun control will prevent shootings" - huge pile of bullshit "looser gun control will prevent shootings" - equally huge pile of bullshit the two sides fling these steaming wads of shit at one another, and then they wonder why the entire debate stinks like ass

[QUOTE=Ridge;36873424] That is the misconception. You don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. So you can only shoot at them until they are no longer a danger to you.[/QUOTE] you only draw your gun if you intend to kill. shooting to incapacitate only works in movies and will not hold up in court

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36873211]And the fact that it borders Mexico making it easy for people to illegally import guns.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's whats scary. Who knows how many firearms come through the border along with the usual drugs. If the first step of gun control was the forceful removal of weapons from every household, the second would have to be making those guns into a 12 foot high wall covering our southern border. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36873556]the problem with the gun control debate is that both sides are full of shit "strict gun control will prevent shootings" - huge pile of bullshit "looser gun control will prevent shootings" - equally huge pile of bullshit the two sides fling these steaming wads of shit at one another, and then they wonder why the entire debate stinks like ass[/QUOTE] And then there's people like you in every thread that say something dumb like that while trying to look neutral and you add literally nothing to the argument whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;36873550]He didn't have an automatic weapon. Unless there's been a development of some kind that I haven't heard about.[/QUOTE] oh, sorry. I saw his weapon and assumed it was automatic.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36873549]No, they are not. Semi auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet is fired. Automatic means you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting bullets until you let off.[/QUOTE] You clearly don't understand the term. "An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired. The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed."

[QUOTE=Dori;36873557]you only draw your gun if you intend to kill. shooting to incapacitate only works in movies and will not hold up in court[/QUOTE] No. You draw your gun to protect yourself from a threat. If you keep shooting at the guy after he is no longer a threat, the prosecution will tear you apart. [URL="http://gawker.com/5806220/where-does-self-defense-end-killer-of-robber-convicted-of-murder"]Just like what happened to this store owner convicted of murder[/URL] [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873595]You clearly don't understand the term. "An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired. The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed."[/QUOTE] It was implied he had a full auto weapon. Which he did not. And I know what I'm talking about. I've owned a few AR-15s myself. [IMG]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/Shooting/IMAG0063.jpg[/IMG]

The reason for the 2nd amendment is so the people can revolt against the government in case they start getting power hungry/making dumb decisions. If there's a gun ban and we end up like Canada or Australia, I will not have second thoughts about forming a militia group to protect our freedoms.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36873601]No. You draw your gun to protect yourself from a threat. If you keep shooting at the guy after he is no longer a threat, the prosecution will tear you apart. [url=http://gawker.com/5806220/where-does-self-defense-end-killer-of-robber-convicted-of-murder]Just like what happened to this store owner convicted of murder[/url] [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] It was implied he had a full auto weapon. Which he did not. And I know what the hell I'm talking about. I've owned a few AR-15s myself.[/QUOTE] Either way the term he originally used is right. He never said it was fully-automatic.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873628]Either way the term he originally used is right. He never said it was fully-automatic.[/QUOTE] Nowadays automatic is used to refer to select fire weapons.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;36873572]And then there's people like you in every thread that say something dumb like that while trying to look neutral and you add literally nothing to the argument whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I'm adding to the argument. Adding the perspective that you people are defending invalid points with even more invalid points. "making guns illegal will prevent dangerous people from acquiring guns" - ridiculous fairy tale logic "crossfire will make shooting situations less dangerous" - also ridiculous fairy tale logic why bother putting forth an actual, earnest opinion in a debate characterized by shit like this? edit: especially if you're a politician. I mean, holy shit!