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

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36880377]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[/QUOTE] tear gas [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] read this a few times until it sinks in

As a firearms enthusiast, I don't think Obama has been detrimental to firearms rights in the United States, however, I believe that this event could serve as an unfortunate catalyst for some sort of measures fueled by ignorance, and perpetuated by the national media. Search AR-15 on Twitter. It will make you mad if you actually know or understand anything about firearms.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36880391]tear gas [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] read this a few times until it sinks in[/QUOTE] it wasn't tear gas and I have no idea where you got the idea that it was. it was just smoke grenades

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36880411]it wasn't tear gas and I have no idea where you got the idea that it was. it was just smoke grenades[/QUOTE] probably because there were multiple witnesses inside the theatre claiming that the "smoke grenades" made it difficult to breathe, and that the police were screaming "GET US GASMASKS WE CANT ENTER THE THEATRE" when they arrived on the scene though im not sure why im even bothering to try debating the likeliness of a bunch of armed civilians rising up in a movie theatre and safely taking down a gunman without causing further injuries lmao

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36880427]...witnesses inside the theatre claiming that the "smoke grenades" made it difficult to breathe... [/QUOTE] have you ever tried breathing in heavy smoke? besides that if it were tear gas they'd be claming that the smoke grenades made it difficult to not pass out and go blind [QUOTE=Kopimi;36880427] ...the police were screaming "GET US GASMASKS WE CANT ENTER THE THEATRE" when they arrived on the scene... [/QUOTE] standard procedure, they didn't know what they were dealing with. They were dealing with an unknown substance in the air

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36880411]it wasn't tear gas and I have no idea where you got the idea that it was. it was just smoke grenades[/QUOTE] [quote=Huffington Post]...an Aurora movie theater after witnesses say he unleashed [b]tear gas[/b] and gunfire on a crowd of moviegoers..[/quote] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/colorado-shooting_n_1692184.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/colorado-shooting_n_1692184.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Bumrang;36880485][url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/colorado-shooting_n_1692184.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/colorado-shooting_n_1692184.html[/url][/QUOTE] what about the fact that all articles (at least all the ones that mention it) say that he got every weapon used legally? You can't just buy tear gas, it's not available for civilian purchase. Smoke grenades you can find at any milsurp store

everyone that keeps saying "teargas"- have you ever seen those canisters in action? they dont work like they do in the movies. Its not like the room is "filled with teargas". And teargas itself is a generic term, could be anything from a mild irritant to military grade. The point is- its not "teargas- end of story" like some are making it out to be

[QUOTE=Ridge;36880295]Don't bother trying to take their gun. Just push it to the side.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

don't just take their gun, try doing a backflip and firing off two weapons akimbo. bonus points if you go into bullet-time.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36870955] I have always felt that the best way to deter crime isn't the removal of guns, but actually giving them out more. If everyone (with in reason and training) carried a firearm, how many muggings would there be? How many home invasions would happen if every house had a gun (or two, or three) in them? [/QUOTE] No, a robber always has a reason to why he robs, and it's not because their victim isn't carrying a gun. Because of social problems such as drug addiction, unemployment, poverty etc. people are willing to break the law, it's an act of survival, not an act of evilness. So instead of trying to improve the underlying social issues, you attack the symptoms. You're sweeping the problem under a rug, more guns may decrease crime rates, but will not fix the actual problem; poor living conditions by those who eventually delve into criminality. There is a reason why many countries with far less relaxed gun laws also have lower crime rates, because they have solved many of the social issues I addressed earlier. More guns is not the ultimate solution to criminality.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36883997]No, a robber always has a reason to why he robs, and it's not because their victim isn't carrying a gun. Because of social problems such as drug addiction, unemployment, poverty etc. people are willing to break the law, it's an act of survival, not an act of evilness. So instead of trying to improve the underlying social issues, you attack the symptoms. You're sweeping the problem under a rug, more guns may decrease crime rates, but will not fix the actual problem; poor living conditions by those who eventually delve into criminality. There is a reason why many countries with far less relaxed gun laws also have lower crime rates, because they have solved many of the social issues I addressed earlier. More guns is not the ultimate solution to criminality.[/QUOTE] I wonder what the reasoning was for that girl in TX that got blown away a couple weeks ago for breaking into someone's house with a bunch of friends.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36883997]No, a robber always has a reason to why he robs, and it's not because their victim isn't carrying a gun. Because of social problems such as drug addiction, unemployment, poverty etc. people are willing to break the law, it's an act of survival, not an act of evilness. So instead of trying to improve the underlying social issues, you attack the symptoms. You're sweeping the problem under a rug, more guns may decrease crime rates, but will not fix the actual problem; poor living conditions by those who eventually delve into criminality. There is a reason why many countries with far less relaxed gun laws also have lower crime rates, because they have solved many of the social issues I addressed earlier. More guns is not the ultimate solution to criminality.[/QUOTE] Someone having a hard time is pretty bad, but it doesn't mean I have to let them rob and rape me.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36884702]I wonder what the reasoning was for that girl in TX that got blown away a couple weeks ago for breaking into someone's house with a bunch of friends.[/QUOTE] "what's the worst that could happen"

The gunman from Aurora purchased all his firearms legally, stricter laws wouldn't have prevented it.

[QUOTE=cardfan212;36874881]I like how you say it like you lived to see it happen. :v:[/QUOTE] Don't test me sonny

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36885066]Someone having a hard time is pretty bad, but it doesn't mean I have to let them rob and rape me.[/QUOTE] That doesn't combat my point and is not relevant to the discussion.

What he's saying is although we can understand why some criminals do what they do and be sympathetic to them, it doesn't make it any less criminal or even dangerous. Reasonable people don't carry guns out of fear for their fellow citizens, they do it due to the rational realization that there are some very disturbed, even evil people out there who can be very dangerous. Not saying all criminals are evil or disturbed, but there are some that are and you've no doubt heard all you can bear about one in particular the last few days. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't want to carry a gun then don't, no one says you have to, but don't get pissed at me because I carry mine. If you're not gonna try to harm me then it's not meant for you.

You're not understanding the point of my argument. I said most criminals are the product of underlying social issues; nothing implied that you have to feel sympathy for criminals, who in his right mind would feel sympathy for someone that can potentially harm you? My point is very simple, in order to reduce criminality you have to start by improving living conditions amongst those who are most likely to commit crimes. Simply giving everyone a gun might decrease crime rates, but you're only attacking the symptoms and not addressing the social problems that lie behind criminals. Honestly, it's not that hard to understand. A lot of countries have lower crime rates AND more gun control. It's not a paradox, you don't have to resort to criminality if you can rely on the state to aid you in times of need.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36893700]You're not understanding the point of my argument. I said most criminals are the product of underlying social issues; nothing implied that you have to feel sympathy for criminals, who in his right mind would feel sympathy for someone that can potentially harm you? My point is very simple, in order to reduce criminality you have to start by improving living conditions amongst those who are most likely to commit crimes. Simply giving everyone a gun might decrease crime rates, but you're only attacking the symptoms and not addressing the social problems that lie behind criminals. Honestly, it's not that hard to understand. A lot of countries have lower crime rates AND more gun control. It's not a paradox, you don't have to resort to criminality if you can rely on the state to aid you in times of need.[/QUOTE] Not once did I ever say the ultimate, no-other-choice-but-this solution to ending crime is handing out more guns.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36893700]You're not understanding the point of my argument. I said most criminals are the product of underlying social issues; nothing implied that you have to feel sympathy for criminals, who in his right mind would feel sympathy for someone that can potentially harm you? My point is very simple, in order to reduce criminality you have to start by improving living conditions amongst those who are most likely to commit crimes. Simply giving everyone a gun might decrease crime rates, but you're only attacking the symptoms and not addressing the social problems that lie behind criminals. Honestly, it's not that hard to understand. A lot of countries have lower crime rates AND more gun control. It's not a paradox, you don't have to resort to criminality if you can rely on the state to aid you in times of need.[/QUOTE] Yes and no one is disagreeing with you on that, I said the same thing a few pages back. But people don't carry guns in an effort to fix things, it's to keep themselves safe in spite of what ever else other people are doing.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36893787]Not once did I ever say the ultimate, no-other-choice-but-this solution to ending crime is handing out more guns.[/QUOTE] You did say, or at least imply that giving out more guns is the best way of stopping crimes. [quote]I have always felt that the best way to deter crime isn't the removal of guns, but actually giving them out more.[/quote]

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36870937]If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long?[/QUOTE] Yes, because you would have been added to the list of dead for being a dumbass. You sound like Mark Walhberg trying to explain how he would have been all Kung Fu ninja on the 9/11 terrorists. I understand you mean well, but you come off sounding like a gigantic dumb fuck.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36898618]You did say, or at least imply that giving out more guns is the best way of stopping crimes.[/QUOTE] Well, the DC gun ban ended up increasing violent crime, a lot. Similar stuff happened with Chicago and Detroit, IIRC. Another city, I don't remember which one, had one of the higest rape numbers in the nation, and responded by offering gun safety classes and CCW permits to a lot of women. Rape ratios plummeted.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36899255]Well, the DC gun ban ended up increasing violent crime, a lot. Similar stuff happened with Chicago and Detroit, IIRC. Another city, I don't remember which one, had one of the higest rape numbers in the nation, and responded by offering gun safety classes and CCW permits to a lot of women. Rape ratios plummeted.[/QUOTE] But it's not the best way of stopping crime, as I adressed in my previous post.

Best way? Arguable. Useful though? Oh hell yes. Better than being unarmed and forced to surrender your wallet/butthole/life to some crackpot wielding a broken bottle.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36900715]Best way? Arguable.[/QUOTE] Then explain how countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S. also have lower crime rates if it's "arguable"?

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36901143]Then explain how countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S. also have lower crime rates if it's "arguable"?[/QUOTE] Citation needed. The UK has half the crime of the US while having roughly 1/6th of its population, and the UK restricts firearms, pepper spray, batons and all sorts of pointy objects. Then how someone has already posted, for each time a firearm is used in a crime in the US, it's used as a deterrent 4 times. Then there's countries like Czech Republic, where gun laws are incredibly lax, CCW permits are available to anyone with a clean criminal record and psych history (while in the US some states are only may-issue, or don't issue them at all) and no "gun-free zones" exist; yet gun crime is pretty low, especially with guns purchased and carried legally. Oh and, generalizing the US is a bad idea in terms of crime rates and gun availability. California has the strictest laws yet it's the 13th unsafest state. Detroit and Chicago are pretty strict too, yet they are... well... they are Detroit and Chicago. 'nuff said. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] My point isn't that more firearms reduce crime. My point is that restricting them or prohibiting them usually does fuck all.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36901437]Citation needed. The UK has half the crime of the US while having roughly 1/6th of its population, and the UK restricts firearms, pepper spray, batons and all sorts of pointy objects. Then how someone has already posted, for each time a firearm is used in a crime in the US, it's used as a deterrent 4 times. Then there's countries like Czech Republic, where gun laws are incredibly lax, CCW permits are available to anyone with a clean criminal record and psych history (while in the US some states are only may-issue, or don't issue them at all) and no "gun-free zones" exist; yet gun crime is pretty low, especially with guns purchased and carried legally. Oh and, generalizing the US is a bad idea in terms of crime rates and gun availability. California has the strictest laws yet it's the 13th unsafest state. Detroit and Chicago are pretty strict too, yet they are... well... they are Detroit and Chicago. 'nuff said. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] My point isn't that more firearms reduce crime. My point is that restricting them or prohibiting them usually does fuck all.[/QUOTE] Ok, let's compare USA and where I'm from, Sweden. Sweden has strict gun laws, at least from an American perspective. Only people with a firearms license may acquire firearms or ammunition. To get a firearms license you need to have an approvable purpose, which includes hunting, sports shooting and collecting, but NOT self-defense. When the weapon is not used it must be locked in a cabinet so it is unaccessible for unauthorised people. You may not use firearms for any other purpose than the one(s) written in the license. Let's compare murder rates: Latest data show that Sweden has a homicide rate of 0.86 per 100,000. Only one US state has a homicide rate lower than Sweden, New Hampshire, whose homicide rate is 0.8. The mean homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.8 murders per 100,000, six times higher than the homicide rate in Sweden and New Hampshire. Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url] Surely, if higher firearm density would've been as or more effective than the solutions I proposed, wouldn't the mean US homicide rate be MUCH lower? Especially considering their lax gun laws, which you claim to be a good solution to these types of crime. Even Czech Republic has a higher homicide rate than Sweden, despite their lax gun regulations.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36873976]I haven't heard any reports indicating otherwise, but I doubt he was wearing type III or IV, my 7.62x25 will punch right through type I, IIA, or II and 2-3 good shots will cut through type IIIA[/QUOTE] Except no one is going to let you take an AK into a movie theater, that's just overkill Sure it would get the job done, (If you could hit them through all the panicking people, screaming children, clouds of tear gas and the pants you just shit in) but to the police, if they see two men holding rifles, they're probably going to assume they're BOTH there to cause harm. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ond kaja;36904411]Ok, let's compare USA and where I'm from, Sweden. Sweden has strict gun laws, at least from an American perspective. Only people with a firearms license may acquire firearms or ammunition. To get a firearms license you need to have an approvable purpose, which includes hunting, sports shooting and collecting, but NOT self-defense. When the weapon is not used it must be locked in a cabinet so it is unaccessible for unauthorised people. You may not use firearms for any other purpose than the one(s) written in the license. Let's compare murder rates: Latest data show that Sweden has a homicide rate of 0.86 per 100,000. Only one US state has a homicide rate lower than Sweden, New Hampshire, whose homicide rate is 0.8. The mean homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.8 murders per 100,000, six times higher than the homicide rate in Sweden and New Hampshire. Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url] Surely, if higher firearm density would've been as or more effective than the solutions I proposed, wouldn't the mean US homicide rate be MUCH lower? Especially considering their lax gun laws, which you claim to be a good solution to these types of crime. Even Czech Republic has a higher homicide rate than Sweden, despite their lax gun regulations.[/QUOTE] Two different cultures. Surely Sweden's poverty rate is less than that of the US, which can have a direct effect of the homicide rate.