• Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

D

Darth Budd

Inna-Gadda-Davida
Ok guys, guns don't kill people. They do make it easier, but if someone is determined to kill you, there are a hell of a lot of other ways to do so. For instance, beatings, stabbings, pipe bombs, homemade guns, arsenic, chlorine gas, arson, run them over, crush them with a wrecking ball, piano wire to the throat, tying them down while the lasers creep ever slowly closer and you maniacally explain your dastardly plan, feed them to a moose, turn them into an Islanders fan and watch them slowly die on the inside, carbon monoxide, nuclear holocaust, push them down the stairs, water poisoning, etc.
 
Slasher

Slasher

Suck It
Neurotoxin said:
I don't see why you guys keep saying that guns do kill people, which is an inanimate object given responsibility?

Also slasher don't you agree that we should go after the source of the violence? Like I said before, gun violence is a symptom, banning them or regulating them might the national homicide rate drop, but we might instead see a large increase of stabbings or or beatings like in the UK. IMO that is not a good trade off. Like you said before, our country is saturated with guns, so the only thing banning them will do is take them away from law abiding citizens, criminals wont have a problem getting them nor breaking those stupid laws that prevent carrying them around, because what do you know, they're criminals.
Click to expand...

You might see gangs as the source of the problem... I see guns as the source.

Also, as for other means of killing rising - this may be true to a certain extent. Like if you remove guns, gun crime will undoubtedly drop, and other means of killing may slightly rise, but the trade off would more than likely end in a significant less amount of homicides in the end. If removing guns means less deaths in the end, then I agree with whatever means necessary to enforce this.

Darth Budd said:
Ok guys, guns don't kill people. They do make it easier, but if someone is determined to kill you, there are a hell of a lot of other ways to do so. For instance, beatings, stabbings, pipe bombs, homemade guns, arsenic, chlorine gas, arson, run them over, crush them with a wrecking ball, piano wire to the throat, tying them down while the lasers creep ever slowly closer and you maniacally explain your dastardly plan, feed them to a moose, turn them into an Islanders fan and watch them slowly die on the inside, carbon monoxide, nuclear holocaust, push them down the stairs, water poisoning, etc.
Click to expand...
If somebody plans on killing an entire family, he can choose to do so with something as easily accessible as a gun. His snap decisions might determine his irrational actions. On the other hand, if he just has a knife handy, do you think he'll make such a snap decision? If acts based on impulse and stupidity are dropped, this will result in less deaths in the end. Snap decisions don't give you the time to make "pipe bombs", or to 'kill them with a piano wire'... guns on the other hand give you that easy means.

Why is it that other developed nations don't have such an out of control homicide rate as the United States does. There is a direct correlation between whether guns are allowed, and the amount of homicides (both gun, and non-gun) recorded. How can you justify the need to own a gun, when other countries can get by just fine without needing them so readily available in every room of their house. Canada is a perfect example if you're looking for stat comparisons. We're a very similar culture under very similar rules, yet we aren't nearly as violent to our own peoples.
Sure, guns aren't so readily available here, so other forms of killing may be slightly elevated compared to the US. But the trade off isn't as nearly as harsh as the amount of gun-related homicides in the United States. There are less murders committed in the end.
 
N

NoEffex

Seth's On A Boat.
Slasher said:
You might see gangs as the source of the problem... I see guns as the source.

Also, as for other means of killing rising - this may be true to a certain extent. Like if you remove guns, gun crime will undoubtedly drop, and other means of killing may slightly rise, but the trade off would more than likely end in a significant less amount of homicides in the end. If removing guns means less deaths in the end, then I agree with whatever means necessary to enforce this.


If somebody plans on killing an entire family, he can choose to do so with something as easily accessible as a gun. His snap decisions might determine his irrational actions. On the other hand, if he just has a knife handy, do you think he'll make such a snap decision? If acts based on impulse and stupidity are dropped, this will result in less deaths in the end. Snap decisions don't give you the time to make "pipe bombs", or to 'kill them with a piano wire'... guns on the other hand give you that easy means.

Why is it that other developed nations don't have such an out of control homicide rate as the United States does. There is a direct correlation between whether guns are allowed, and the amount of homicides (both gun, and non-gun) recorded. How can you justify the need to own a gun, when other countries can get by just fine without needing them so readily available in every room of their house. Canada is a perfect example if you're looking for stat comparisons. We're a very similar culture under very similar rules, yet we aren't nearly as violent to our own peoples.
Sure, guns aren't so readily available here, so other forms of killing may be slightly elevated compared to the US. But the trade off isn't as nearly as harsh as the amount of gun-related homicides in the United States. There are less murders committed in the end.
Click to expand...

It would only solve it for a very short while. Soon enough(Just like alcohol way back when it got banned) guns would be smuggled from other countries and the people who actually want the guns will manage to get them - the only difference is they would be unregistered and untraceable.
 
D

Darth Budd

Inna-Gadda-Davida
Here is something I just learned, Iceland practices all kinds of small arms shooting, i.e. rifles, handguns, etc, yet has far lower crime than here. This supports the idea that the problem is not with guns, but more how our culture is. We glorify violence, we are taught from a young age that the police are bad, gangs are good and violence is necessary. Maybe we should change that rather than our laws.
 
Adiuvo

Adiuvo

Active Member
I've never been taught that gangs are good, but I have heard from people in authority (such as teachers or parents) that it's the right for the citizen to question everything, and decide things for ourselves. Some people take this to the extreme, and believe that all authority in itself is evil. Listening to gang members talk about what they have done shows you that they are people who obviously took the 'question everything' motiff to the extreme. The series 'Gangland' on History Channel is a good example of this. Nearly every gangster they interview on there; people who actually are involved in the shootings/gang violence, believe that they only have to answer to themselves.

Children are taught to 'be your own person,' and to 'break the mold' since kindergarten, and it's showing now. Instead of listening to laws other people have set out, they instead make their own laws and answer only to them. The whole being an individual thing is important to a child, but they also need to be taught that authority generally is right, and doesn't always need to be questioned. Otherwise, you can get people who think, 'That guy looked at you funny? Beat him up, cause after all your are the most important thing in the world.' This is anecdotal, but every day at school people question decisions made by the administrators, often violently. Why? Simply because the administrators told them something other than what they wanted to do.
 
N

NoEffex

Seth's On A Boat.
Being raised in the ghetto I can tell you culture has everything to do with the crime, not the guns. I know a bunch of people who aren't of the ghetto culture of LA who have guns(Various kinds, and a lot of them), while a person of the ghetto culture of the area gets one single gun and goes insane with it. Hell, I witnessed someone shoot some hobo with a 9mm, while you could have another person who wouldn't do a thing. It's the person and culture, not the gun. A gun doesn't make a person want to go insane.
 
D

Darth Budd

Inna-Gadda-Davida
Well, I just finished writing a paper about gun control for class and this thread gave me enough info. on all the differing opinions to make my paper offensive to EVERYONE. Thank you.
 
F

FreePlay

Member
Simple solution:

Ban children.

It's an indisputable fact that all criminals were once children. Ergo, ban children and you end crime.

... ;D
 
T

TacticalPenguin

New Member
First, let me clarify a bunch of shit for people since most of you don't seem to know the laws and how shit works too well

Bullets designed specifically for piercing armor (thus labeled AP) and recognized as such by the BATFE (more commonly known as ATF) are restricted for military (and I think LE, don't remember) use only

Almost all rifle rounds, AP or not, will penetrate all typical police vests and are only stopped by plate armor which police rarely wear (SWAT and other special task forces or special situations may call for plate armor) - typical streetcops wear either nothing or a IIA or IIIA vest which can stop most pistol rounds.

Rifle rounds move at a much higher velocity than pistol rounds, usually 2000-4000 feet per second, while pistol rounds generally move at 700-1500 feet per second. This is the primary factor in how much a round can penetrate, moreso than energy carried or size of the bullet. A 5.7x28mm (what the FN Five Seven pistol mentioned earlier, as well as the FN P90 carbine fire, and relative to most rifle rounds, a tiny weak little thing) round will go through a IIA vest, while a .45ACP round carrying more energy and many times the weight as well as a larger diameter will not. The difference is 2300ft/s vs 1000ft/s.

The sale of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons to individuals has been illegal since 1986. Fully automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are still free to be bought and sold but carry ridiculous premiums - a fully automatic MP5 or M16 will go for $10000-20000. Fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 can be transferred between FFL/SOT licensees with a letter from an LE or military entity asking for a demonstration or test of the weapon from the licensee. Licensed manufacturers can manufacture and sell to military/LE or keep for themselves all the machine guns they want.

Also, criminals rarely use large caliber rounds (.50 BMG etc) or machineguns. Also, common pistols do indeed account for the significant majority of gun crime, while weapons classified as assault weapons make a small percentage (don't remember an exact percentage but 2% is coming to mind).


Now for my own opinion and thoughts

Armor piercing bullets are, as chathurga rightly said, made specifically for penetrating defenses and killing people; thus, ATF regulates them rather heavily. Bullets specifically designated as armor-piercing are not available to civilians.

Joey said there is no reason for a civilian to have a presumably full auto uzi or M16 - they have been prohibited as described above since 1986.

100 rounds in 3 seconds - Very very few machineguns achieve this rate of fire, most are between 600 and 900 rounds per minute.

Neurotoxin, personally I agree with many of your views but you're not very good at arguing them and you're going along with exactly the things those with opposing views ridicule. You're also pulling a lot of shit out of your ass.

Darth budd - the number describing the caliber and how much damage it'll do are very different. A .30-06 will hurt WAY more than a .45ACP. However, you make a good point that birdshot especially and to a lesser degree buckshot don't penetrate nearly as much as typical rounds and thus shotguns are a good alternative.

As for banning handguns - have we forgotten about concealed carry? While I would support extensive tests for a concealed weapons permit, but under the circumstances present in the US, concealed carry must remain legal.

Millions of guns exist in the US, most of which are legal and owned by citizens who use them only in legal ways. There is no reason to regulate these, taking things away from people because of potential use when actual use is far from potential feared use is ridiculous. Actual use is prevention of feared potential use, hunting, and sport.

Under the circumstances of the US where there are already millions of guns in circulation and they will not be outright taken away, restrictions on guns are rather futile. The overused "law-abiding citizens" listen to laws so when laws say they can't have something they won't have it. Criminals, on the other hand, do not, and getting a gun is quite easy regardless of any restrictions (which they ignore). Saying something is illegal after it was so widely available for so many years will only make it cost more. Gun laws only affect the gun economy and what law-abiding citizens own, they don't do much for criminals.

Should we have guns in the first place? If the potential government overthrow or invasion or 1984 or some other predicted shit like that ever happens, the pro-gun side will obviously have won. As it is, it is hard to say, countries without guns seem to get on just fine but there is always the possibility of one of those situations after which everyone will kick themselves for not having had guns.

Conclusive argument? None exists, go home. With guns, the US has more crime but has protection in the event of some sort of crisis, the probability of which we do not know, as well as some speaking power over the government. Without them in other countries, there is less crime but vulnerability in the event of such a crisis, as well as less power in the citizen's hands to keep the government in line should it fall out.

Which is a better situation? That's where it usually stops being an argument and starts being a flamefest and bitchfest and people start hating each other, so I'll leave it at that and hope that everybody can accept that there are differing views and pros and cons on each.
 
S

soha

New Member
TacticalPenguin said:
ugh. i write an essay and people bitch about statistics that are only vaguely related to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
The new article is very related.
Original Article said:
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
Click to expand...
The selling point of the a new awb would be that there is nearly all of the guns that the cartels use come from the US. Now if there really isn't a giant river of guns finding there way into Mexico, there would be no need for a new awb.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM EST ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM EST ----------

also post your essay :)
i wanna read it.
 
T

TacticalPenguin

New Member
Neurotoxin said:
The new article is very related.

The selling point of the a new awb would be that there is nearly all of the guns that the cartels use come from the US. Now if there really isn't a giant river of guns finding there way into Mexico, there would be no need for a new awb.

also post your essay :)
i wanna read it.
Click to expand...

I was referring to this 1000 word post

And that article _proves_ nothing. It simply says it is _possible_ that only 17% of guns came from the US - statistically possibility and reality are different. Its possible that anywhere from 17% to 90+% came from the US, it is idiotic to make a final answer without being able to trace the majority or without treating those traced as a sample of the population rather than as all the guns that possibly couldve come from the US.
 
N

NoEffex

Seth's On A Boat.
If they can't get them(assuming it's a majority, considering there is no possible way to trace all their guns) from the US they'd make them themselves.

The day will come where we will be invaded, and guess what? No way to defend ourselves(Don't even mention the army, it's way too small to defend against countries like china). Diplomacy only goes so far(If at all) with megalomaniacs.
 
Slasher

Slasher

Suck It
NoEffex said:
The day will come where we will be invaded, and guess what? No way to defend ourselves(Don't even mention the army, it's way too small to defend against countries like china). Diplomacy only goes so far(If at all) with megalomaniacs.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Can you see the future or something? The world outside of the United States is not always such a scary place. While this invasion is a possibility, do you know what else is a possibility? An egg just might fall from the sky and hit me in the head while walking along the sidewalk. Anything can happen. But thinking your country is going to be invaded by some insane foreign entity and the only way to stop it is to prepare for war by stockpiling weapons is less than optimistic.

You seem to be stuck in the cold war with all that pro-democracy and anti-communist propagandic bs. Move on already.

NoEffex said:
He means it's only biased if it's fox. None of the others are.
Click to expand...

I never even implied that. Every news source is biased, if even only a little bit. Fox just tends to be quite right mannered. Their slogan is a joke. I just found it funny he's quite rightwinged himself and he's whipping fox news stats out.
 
N

NoEffex

Seth's On A Boat.
Slasher said:
Give me a break. Can you see the future or something? The world outside of the United States is not always such a scary place. While this invasion is a possibility, do you know what else is a possibility? An egg just might fall from the sky and hit me in the head while walking along the sidewalk. Anything can happen. But thinking your country is going to be invaded by some insane foreign entity and the only way to stop it is to prepare for war by stockpiling weapons is less than optimistic.

You seem to be stuck in the cold war with all that pro-democracy and anti-communist propagandic bs. Move on already.



I never even implied that. Every news source is biased, if even only a little bit. Fox just tends to be quite right mannered. Their slogan is a joke. I just found it funny he's quite rightwinged himself and he's whipping fox news stats out.
Click to expand...

Being invaded is particularly likely considering we're world-widely hated, considering we've been a huge cock block for pretty much all of the major powers in the world today.

They wouldn't be insane considering our weakening military is becoming less of a threat, and the people aren't even remotely a threat.

That's the reason we really haven't been invaded for a long time. Everybody is scared of us, and when they aren't, shit will go down. Don't even give me that BS about how the world wants peace, because it DOES NOT. We do, plenty of people do, yes, but countries with megalomaniacs in power want..you guessed it..more money and power. Hence why every country has been taken over or had a revolution at one point in time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top