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

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36877331]You're a fool if you think 1. The U.N. would ever invade the U.S. because, yeah, it needs a U.S. vote to do anything militarily. 2. The U.S. could ever be invaded.[/QUOTE] It's a hypothetical worst-case scenario (and in said scenario, we're talking about a country where the majority of the citizens took up arms and a good portion of the military would have defected out of protest. That would severely weaken the US. Full scale invasion is still unlikely but I wouldn't rule out SOME amount of military aid given, even if it has to be done outside UN regulations). In all likelihood the most the UN would to is enact sanctions, which is pretty devastating for a country that relies on importing goods.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36877927]It's a hypothetical worst-case scenario (and in said scenario, we're talking about a country where the majority of the citizens took up arms and a good portion of the military would have defected out of protest. That would severely weaken the US. Full scale invasion is still unlikely but I wouldn't rule out SOME amount of military aid given, even if it has to be done outside UN regulations). In all likelihood the most the UN would to is enact sanctions, which is pretty devastating for a country that relies on importing goods.[/QUOTE] I don't know why you would be debating such an impractical scenario.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36878109]I don't know why you would be debating such an impractical scenario.[/QUOTE] To make a point. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think an actual revolution in America would end with a single Predator Drone. If America actually got itself into another civil war, I don't think it would end as quickly as everyone seems to think. And I don't think the rest of the UN would stand idly by while it all happened.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36878191]To make a point. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think an actual revolution in America would end with a single Predator Drone. If America actually got itself into another civil war, I don't think it would end as quickly as everyone seems to think. And I don't think the rest of the UN would stand idly by while it all happened.[/QUOTE] There will never be a revolution but OK.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;36878133]Only reason Romney campaign has [I]anything[/I] to grasp at for leverage is because Obama is 100x more transparent than Mittens.[/QUOTE] Ahahahaha you think Obama kept his transparency promise. That's funny!

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36878207]There will never be a revolution but OK.[/QUOTE] I know that, but for several pages people were talking about what would happen if one did happen, and I was just saying my opinion on the matter.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36875114]why not start a revolution right now, country is pretty messed up and clearly you've got the balls to participate in a revolution, you may as well start it. after all, not like the police/military will retaliate. whats stopping you?[/QUOTE] Right, because just because we have an inept government means they're an oppressive government. Just because the politicians in office are mostly just plain stupid does not mean they're malignant power grabbers hoping to set themselves as kings above the rest. We are no where near anything that the Declaration of Independence lists as why we rebelled 200+ years ago. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36875174]I have some pretty rightist ideas that would leave me backed by only the most extremist conservatives, but I also have some leftist ideas that would put off enough of those conservatives that I'm really just fighting with libertarians, but they're too busy smoking weed to revolt.[/QUOTE] Why do people think all us Libertarians are just lazy pot heads :v:

[QUOTE=Clavus;36870841]Ironically, it's the same reason I steer clear of gun control debates on Facepunch. :v: Gun debates are bad debates.[/QUOTE] The reason I tend to stay away from actual gun debates is you get maybe a page of reasonable discussion if you're lucky, then some jackass with an extreme view one way or the other comes along and it turns into a shitfest quickly.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36878536]The reason I tend to stay away from actual gun debates is you get maybe a page of reasonable discussion if you're lucky, then some jackass with an extreme view one way or the other comes along and it turns into a shitfest quickly.[/QUOTE] But that's where all the fun is

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36878610]But that's where all the fun is[/QUOTE] I want reasonable discussion on things, not threadshitting.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36878665]I want reasonable discussion on things, not threadshitting.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.facepunch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=403]Here ya go[/url]

[QUOTE=lavacano;36878536]The reason I tend to stay away from actual gun debates is you get maybe a page of reasonable discussion if you're lucky, then some jackass with an extreme view one way or the other comes along and it turns into a shitfest quickly.[/QUOTE] i think that all children from the age of 4 should have access to assault rifles and anyone who doesn't agree with this is a smelly liberal

[QUOTE=Dori;36873845]the 2nd amendment stopped being practical 200 years ago[/QUOTE] how come he never explains his very vague and highly controversial posts?

[QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.[/QUOTE] Body armor or not, it can't withstand being shot at by over a dozen people. (If said dozen people were all carrying a firearm.) You'd have to be really stupid, and I mean [I]really[/I] stupid, to rob someone or try to kill someone amongst a crowd of people which is likely to have at least half a dozen people that are armed.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36878816]Body armor or not, it can't withstand being shot at by over a dozen people. (If said dozen people were all carrying a firearm.) You'd have to be really stupid, and I mean [I]really[/I] stupid, to rob someone or try to kill someone amongst a crowd of people which is likely to have at least half a dozen people that are armed.[/QUOTE] the fact that you just considered a dozen people rising up, unholstering their pistols and simultaneously shooting at an armor proofed gunman in a teargas filled theatre a plausible scenario is honestly mindboggling. what i would give to live in your world of imagination where the effects of teargas and sheer panic are negated by pure patriotism.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36878816]Body armor or not, it can't withstand being shot at by over a dozen people. (If said dozen people were all carrying a firearm.) You'd have to be really stupid, and I mean [I]really[/I] stupid, to rob someone or try to kill someone amongst a crowd of people which is likely to have at least half a dozen people that are armed.[/QUOTE] A dozen people all firing into a smoking, crowed, and stampeding theater would result it far more than 12 deaths.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871130]I don't expect people to be prepared for that specific scenario. I expect people to be prepared for an unexpected scenario. Better to have a gun in your purse and not ever need it, than to go out and get mugged, raped or worse because you didn't have one. Sure one person in there armed against him probably wouldn't have evened the odds against him. But what if half that theater was armed? The man could have been the only casualty in that horrific event.[/QUOTE] No. These aren't the days of pepperboxes and deringers, a single handgun has enough firepower to kill a room of people. The chances are that if carrying firearms was widespread the number of firearm related deaths would subside the number of people saved by carrying guns for the very fact that half the society is actively armed in public with substantial firepower. If that same theater scenario had happened a huge gunfight would have broken out, bullets would be penetrating walls, ricocheting, hitting bystanders. Hell the guy had a level 1/2 kevlar vest; probably good for anything short of a .44 magnum. The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"]North Hollywood Shootout[/URL] perpetrators were being fired at by [I]squadrons of trained police officers[/I] for over 20 minutes before they were finally struck in unarmored areas. How in the hell do you think a bunch of pistol-armed civilians in a dark movie theater would fare against a guy equally armed and armored? There's always two contrasting side to this argument. "Hey, some guy shot 50 people in a mass shooting" - "EVERYBODY CARRY GUNS" "NO, BAN ALL GUNS." Neither of these are acceptable solutions. Freak occurrences are bound to happen, it's a fact of life and society. Banning all guns wont solve anything, nor will [I]everybody[/I] having guns.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;36878803]how come he never explains his very vague and highly controversial posts?[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, he is a fish with short term memory loss.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;36879043]No. These aren't the days of pepperboxes and deringers, a single handgun has enough firepower to kill a room of people. The chances are that if carrying firearms was widespread the number of firearm related deaths would subside the number of people saved by carrying guns for the very fact that half the society is actively armed in public with substantial firepower. If that same theater scenario had happened a huge gunfight would have broken out, bullets would be penetrating walls, ricocheting, hitting bystanders. Hell the guy had a level 1/2 kevlar vest; probably good for anything short of a .44 magnum. The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"]North Hollywood Shootout[/URL] perpetrators were being fired at by [I]squadrons of trained police officers[/I] for over 20 minutes before they were finally struck in unarmored areas. How in the hell do you think a bunch of pistol-armed civilians in a dark movie theater would fare against a guy equally armed and armored? There's always two contrasting side to this argument. "Hey, some guy shot 50 people in a mass shooting" - "EVERYBODY CARRY GUNS" "NO, BAN ALL GUNS." Neither of these are acceptable solutions. Freak occurrences are bound to happen, it's a fact of life and society. Banning all guns wont solve anything, nor will [I]everybody[/I] having guns.[/QUOTE] a level 1/2 can be pierced by any old FMJ .40S&W which is pretty much the standard for carry guns these days

To be honest, I think that if you need a deadly weapon on your person to feel safe, that says more about you than the people trying to ban the guns. I mean, much like how criminals will still get a hold of guns if they were banned, if someone is planning to mug you at gunpoint, your 9mm isn't going to help. Let's say you're strolling along the road and a guy pops up in front of you with a shotgun and demands your money, if you pull out your gun he's gonna shoot you. You not having access to a gun won't change the situation any, you'll still either get shot or lose your money. Hell, it might even help, because people wouldn't get the idea into their head that they could get out of that. Saying that you own a gun purely for self defence is folly, it's highly situational, and all the scenarios my sleep deprived brain can come up with in which a gun would actually help would be pure luck. I'm someone is going to slam dunk this post, seeing as how popular guns are on this forum. But it doesn't change the fact that I can see no justification for owning one.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36879910]To be honest, I think that if you need a deadly weapon on your person to feel safe, that says more about you than the people trying to ban the guns. I mean, much like how criminals will still get a hold of guns if they were banned, if someone is planning to mug you at gunpoint, your 9mm isn't going to help. Let's say you're strolling along the road and a guy pops up in front of you with a shotgun and demands your money, if you pull out your gun he's gonna shoot you. You not having access to a gun won't change the situation any, you'll still either get shot or lose your money. Hell, it might even help, because people wouldn't get the idea into their head that they could get out of that. Saying that you own a gun purely for self defence is folly, it's highly situational, and all the scenarios my sleep deprived brain can come up with in which a gun would actually help would be pure luck. I'm someone is going to slam dunk this post, seeing as how popular guns are on this forum. But it doesn't change the fact that I can see no justification for owning one.[/QUOTE] someone comes around a corner with a shotgun he asks for your wallet you reach behind you in the general area of your back pocket you come back with a pistol you shoot the assailant before he realizes what's happening the day is saved

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36879910]To be honest, I think that if you need a deadly weapon on your person to feel safe, that says more about you than the people trying to ban the guns.[/QUOTE] Unless you live in an area that really [b]is[/b] a crime infested shithole. Most people don't though.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36879945]someone comes around a corner with a shotgun he asks for your wallet you reach behind you in the general area of your back pocket you come back with a pistol you shoot the assailant before he realizes what's happening the day is saved[/QUOTE] Forgive me for thinking that guy with a shotgun already aimed at you is able to pull the trigger before you aim and get him. Obviously the guy with the shotgun wouldn't always shoot first, but I think that the chances are high enough to negate my point.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36880100]Forgive me for thinking that guy with a shotgun already aimed at you is able to pull the trigger before you aim and get him. Obviously the guy with the shotgun wouldn't always shoot first, but I think that the chances are high enough to negate my point.[/QUOTE] you're not factoring in reaction times. Not to mention the fact that most of the time their intent isn't to kill and they would be extremely hesitant to pull the trigger [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] also you don't aim at that kind of range in that scenario, you just point and land whatever shots you can. Aiming takes too long

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36880151]you're not factoring in reaction times. Not to mention the fact that most of the time their intent isn't to kill and they would be extremely hesitant to pull the trigger [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] also you don't aim at that kind of range in that scenario, you just point and land whatever shots you can. Aiming takes too long[/QUOTE] If the shotgun's close enough, can't you also knock it away with your other hand at the same time you're pointing your gun? It'd buy you a couple seconds.

[quote]Why do people think all us Libertarians are just lazy pot heads :v:[/QUOTE] cuz we wanna legalize weed hehe smoke xXxw33dxXx erryday, amirite bro?

[QUOTE=lavacano;36880213]If the shotgun's close enough, can't you also knock it away with your other hand at the same time you're pointing your gun? It'd buy you a couple seconds.[/QUOTE] Don't bother trying to take their gun. Just push it to the side. That'll catch them off guard, but more importantly, it moves the muzzle away from you.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36880213]If the shotgun's close enough, can't you also knock it away with your other hand at the same time you're pointing your gun? It'd buy you a couple seconds.[/QUOTE] this isn't hollywood

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36880347]this isn't hollywood[/QUOTE] which is why a bunch of armed nerds safely taking down an armor plated gunman in a teargas filled theatre isn't plausible

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36880365]which is why a bunch of armed nerds safely taking down an armor plated gunman in a teargas filled theatre isn't plausible[/QUOTE] no, that's why it is. hollywood makes body armor look like a super impenetrable invincibility vest, when in reality it can only take 3 or 4 shots to one spot at beset