Latest News Article

[danthonywalker]

Randomness3333, on 17 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Well thank you for calling me brain dead. That is a nice way to leave, going so low as to insult people here.

Most controversial debates usually end this way. I see this happen in plenty of Religious debates. One side cannot possibly change their stance, willful ignorance will do so to a person, and their last resort is usually through insults or using information that's too stupid too even be able to comeback on (I forget the law/theory that it's called to dumbfound the enemy), usually I see that, but insults is another form of last resort. It's kind of sad really, when one's last position is to go that route, instead of just going back, and thinking on the matter, and actually take something into consideration. No need to change a viewpoint or respond, but at least think about it. But to go as far as insulting, that's just blatant arrogance right there.

[toast_burner]

rist_violin, on 17 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Completely invalid. British police do not carry firearms.

The CO19 do but they specialise in dealing with people who may be armed. So if you don't have a gun chances are you won't see them.

[Randomness3333]

danthonywalker, on 17 January 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Most controversial debates usually end this way. I see this happen in plenty of Religious debates. One side cannot possibly change their stance, willful ignorance will do so to a person, and their last resort is usually through insults or using information that's too stupid too even be able to comeback on (I forget the law/theory that it's called to dumbfound the enemy), usually I see that, but insults is another form of last resort. It's kind of sad really, when one's last position is to go that route, instead of just going back, and thinking on the matter, and actually take something into consideration. No need to change a viewpoint or respond, but at least think about it. But to go as far as insulting, that's just blatant arrogance right there.

It is a sad and petty thing to do.

[JDawgMillenium]

Randomness3333, on 17 January 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

Yeah not everybody tries to understand the other side of the argument. I understand both sides and understand that some people feel it's a violation of their rights. I also believe that having restrictions on guns can do good.

Believe me that I am well aware with empathy.

Quote

Were you reading it sarcastically?

Yes. It was a response to having your feelings damaged and...oh, never mind. I don't want to get into one of those arguments like I did with toast-burner.

[Randomness3333]

JDawgMillenium, on 17 January 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Believe me that I am well aware with empathy.
Yes. It was a response to having your feelings damaged and...oh, never mind. I don't want to get into one of those arguments like I did with toast-burner.

Neither do I. Empathy and understanding are a good thing to have.
Actually, my feeling weren't hurt as I deal with worse everyday at school.

[warobsessive]

BattleVet, on 17 January 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Before I leave this thread because of the amount of brain dead people dwelling here I'll leave you all with this.

Hey now, You're putting words in my/people like me's mouth. I feel no need to ban guns. Just tighter regulation. In fact, you've flipped me on a couple things.

Also, there's no reason to put 3 of these pics at once.

I hate so much that people instantly associate ANY form of gun control with a gun ban.

Politician: I think we should close the gun show loophole. Also, have universal background checks to make sure people who want a gun are mentally competent for the responsibility of gun ownership."

Public: "He's trying to ban all guns! Dictator! Hitler-Mao-Stalin-Pol Pot conspiracy!"

[JDawgMillenium]

warobsessive, on 17 January 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

Hey now, You're putting words in my/people like me's mouth. I feel no need to ban guns. Just tighter regulation.

This thread quickly shifted into others saying that we should not be armed at all. It has made people who want normal gun control look like saints to me.

[OriginOFPain]

JDawgMillenium, on 17 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

This thread quickly shifted into others saying that we should not be armed at all. It has made people who want normal gun control look like saints to me.

Not only that, but also some here are willing to throw out the Constitution entirely, as if it was common litter.


EDIT:

Here's a bit of news on that damn newspaper that published the map of gun owners. I really hope Anonymous DDOS's their website or defaces it. At least do something to hold these ­s accountable.

[Randomness3333]

Is it legally possible to ban sales online, such as through craigslist in which people meet IRL for the sale, with no background checks?

[HempKnight]

Randomness3333, on 17 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

Is it legally possible to ban sales online, such as through craigslist in which people meet IRL for the sale, with no background checks?

Possible? Hells yeah! Able to be enforced? Doubtful. They will quit putting ads on craigslist and such but it will still happen except now you ask your friend if anyone has any guns they want to sell and then he asks his friends who ask their friends and eventually you get a gun without background checks though most likely at a considerable markup. They can, and likely will, make it illegal, it won't stop it from happening and likely won't even put a dent in it. Though I've never been to one I always thought gun shows would be pretty damn cool to go to and check everything out, it's a shame they plan on putting an end to those in my opinion. =/

[AramilTheElf]

BattleVet, on 17 January 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Before I leave this thread because of the amount of brain dead people dwelling here I'll leave you all with this.

That is a very clear strawman. I have seen very few people on this thread advocating for a complete ban on guns, so unless you're directing this at those few people, this is misguided to start off.

And I believe that the government is far less likely to misuse its guns than the random nutjobs that can legally own a weapon nowadays. Why wouldn't we check to see if a person is mentally capable of safely owning a deadly weapon before we give one too him/her? Simply put, a policeman is far less likely to misuse a gun, seeing as he has been through various psych tests and hangs around other police every day, than a randomly chosen member of the populace. Given, that member is not likely to misuse it either. But in our society, the amount who do are large enough to make gun control quite necessary.

[Randomness3333]

HempKnight, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Possible? Hells yeah! Able to be enforced? Doubtful. They will quit putting ads on craigslist and such but it will still happen except now you ask your friend if anyone has any guns they want to sell and then he asks his friends who ask their friends and eventually you get a gun without background checks though most likely at a considerable markup. They can, and likely will, make it illegal, it won't stop it from happening and likely won't even put a dent in it. Though I've never been to one I always thought gun shows would be pretty damn cool to go to and check everything out, it's a shame they plan on putting an end to those in my opinion. =/

Yeah it would be hard to enforce but stopping people from getting .50 cal rifles without a background check is a good idea.

[HempKnight]

Randomness3333, on 17 January 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yeah it would be hard to enforce but stopping people from getting .50 cal rifles without a background check is a good idea.

.50 caliber rifles are very expensive for the most part and far less likely choice for the random person with a record. They're more likely to buy a 38 snub nose or something easily concealed but the point is valid. The vast majority of people who own guns have at one time or another passed a mandatory background check via buying a gun legally but some of them may have bought guns from friends as most gun enthusiasts do. The whole concept will likely make this more of a pain in the ass for perfectly safe gun owners and do little to stop criminals but what can you do?

@AramilTheElf: Statistically police officers kill far more people than gun owners in the U.S. do per capita. About four times as many people were killed here last year in "officer involved shootings" than criminals killed and the majority of the few criminal killings involved illegally obtained weapons. I'd trust a random legal gun owner over a police officer any day because that lone gun owner is not above the law, police officers are. I'm not going to derail this topic into that whole debate though, it's just my two cents worth on that topic.

[Abandon_Ships]

HempKnight, on 18 January 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

.50 caliber rifles are very expensive for the most part and far less likely choice for the random person with a record. They're more likely to buy a 38 snub nose or something easily concealed but the point is valid. The vast majority of people who own guns have at one time or another passed a mandatory background check via buying a gun legally but some of them may have bought guns from friends as most gun enthusiasts do. The whole concept will likely make this more of a pain in the ass for perfectly safe gun owners and do little to stop criminals but what can you do?

@AramilTheElf: Statistically police officers kill far more people than gun owners in the U.S. do per capita. About four times as many people were killed here last year in "officer involved shootings" than criminals killed and the majority of the few criminal killings involved illegally obtained weapons. I'd trust a random legal gun owner over a police officer any day because that lone gun owner is not above the law, police officers are. I'm not going to derail this topic into that whole debate though, it's just my two cents worth on that topic.

Total amount of people killed by Police in the U.S 2012: 532
Total amount of gun-related deaths in the U.S 2012: Over 1,500

It's not four times as many, in fact, it's about a third.

Nobody can say that gun regulation doesn't need to be more strict.

The U.S has 20 times as many gun-related deaths on average out of any western country.

http://www.politifac...ate-20-times-h/

[Randomness3333]

rist_violin, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Total amount of people killed by Police in the U.S 2012: 532
Total amount of gun-related deaths in the U.S 2012: Over 1,500

It's not four times as many, in fact, it's about a third.

Nobody can say that gun regulation doesn't need to be more strict.

The U.S has 20 times as many gun-related deaths on average out of any western country.

http://www.politifac...ate-20-times-h/

Actually many people can and do say that.

[JohnTheRipper]

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

And I believe that the government is far less likely to misuse its guns

Yes and no. There's good cops and bad cops, just like there's good gun owners and bad gun owners.

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

than the random nutjobs

All gun owners are nutjobs now?

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

that can legally own a weapon nowadays.

Some mental illnesses disqualify people from owning a gun, is that not enough to keep out the (legitimate) nutters?

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Why wouldn't we check to see if a person is mentally capable of safely owning a deadly weapon before we give one too him/her?

I've got no problem with that, as long as the criteria isn't ridiculous.

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Simply put, a policeman is far less likely to misuse a gun, seeing as he has been through various psych tests and hangs around other police every day, than a randomly chosen member of the populace.

I agree.

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Given, that member is not likely to misuse it either.

Exactly. Most gun owners don't misuse their weapons.

AramilTheElf, on 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

But in our society, the amount who do are large enough to make gun control quite necessary.

Not really. It's a small amount. 300 million guns in the US, 11k deaths per year from guns? 0.000037 deaths per gun per year? I'd consider that miniscule.

[HempKnight]

rist_violin, on 18 January 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Total amount of people killed by Police in the U.S 2012: 532
Total amount of gun-related deaths in the U.S 2012: Over 1,500

It's not four times as many, in fact, it's about a third.

Nobody can say that gun regulation doesn't need to be more strict.

The U.S has 20 times as many gun-related deaths on average out of any western country.

http://www.politifac...ate-20-times-h/

I said here, as in the city I live in, which last year it was the case. And I also did say per capita, so count up how many police officers there are, now how many legal gun owners there are and then find out statistically which group killed more people per person. The answer in case you were curious will be police officers. "But they are thrust into more dangerous situations" yeah sure, of course they are. This is why they also have non lethal forms of defense and if the situation was so dangerous then how many of them even got shot at much less shot? Not very many. I'm not saying police officers never need to use potentially lethal force, I'm saying they appear to use it a whole lot more than necessary and certainly do here. But again, that's not what this thread was debating about.

[Abandon_Ships]

HempKnight, on 18 January 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

I said here, as in the city I live in, which last year it was the case. And I also did say per capita, so count up how many police officers there are, now how many legal gun owners there are and then find out statistically which group killed more people per person. The answer in case you were curious will be police officers. "But they are thrust into more dangerous situations" yeah sure, of course they are. This is why they also have non lethal forms of defense and if the situation was so dangerous then how many of them even got shot at much less shot? Not very many. I'm not saying police officers never need to use potentially lethal force, I'm saying they appear to use it a whole lot more than necessary and certainly do here. But again, that's not what this thread was debating about.

They do use lethal force more than necessary, which is why I don't think they should carry firearms.

[odiedodi]

Randomness3333, on 17 January 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yeah it would be hard to enforce but stopping people from getting .50 cal rifles without a background check is a good idea.

K but when was the last time you've heard of a barrett used in a crime ever? I'll give you a hint, I saw what was most likely the only one ever at a museum, and it wasn't actually used, but just one of many weapons in the stockpile. It was also burnt to a crisp:



The fact of the matter is criminals generally can't afford $10,000 anti-material rifles, or the ammo for them, or have the brute strength required to tote them around.

[Randomness3333]

odiedodi, on 18 January 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

K but when was the last time you've heard of a barrett used in a crime ever? I'll give you a hint, I saw what was most likely the only one ever at a museum, and it wasn't actually used, but just one of many weapons in the stockpile. It was also burnt to a crisp:
-snip-
The fact of the matter is criminals generally can't afford $10,000 anti-material rifles, or the ammo for them, or have the brute strength required to tote them around.

They can't afford it but if you can get a sniper rifle what else can you get?