Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes.
wat?
There are a decent amount of crimes that are committed with actual assault rifles, machine guns, SMGs, and the like, but that's typically by gangs and drug cartels who bought them from the black market or simply stole them from the Mexican military. They certainly aren't legally owned, and any ban on such weapons would have zero effect on them.
This is why I believe your current police force is inadequate. Something should be done to prevent as many criminals as possible from obtaining these weapons.

  • 12.17.2012 8:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, let's look at another shooting where the guns were acquired legally, the Dark Knight Rises shooting.

The shooter legally acquired:
A Remington 870 Express Tactical
An AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag
Two Glock 22s.

These were all just bought out of a few stores.

In Canada, to acquire these weapons, you'd need a PAL for the 870, and an RPAL for the AR and the Glocks. The drum mag is illegal. The AR would have only had 5 round magazines.

And considering his mental state, he probably would have been denied his PAL while taking his Firearms Safety Course. Basically, he wouldn't have been able to buy any of these guns under our system.

  • 12.17.2012 8:57 AM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates

Ok, let me do this again.

This is exactly the same as this this. The only difference may be in how the bolt is blown back and a new round chambered.

Both are in caliber .223
Both are semi-auto
Both have detachable magazines

One probably uses a recoil spring system to load a new round, and one uses a gas blow back system to load a new round. That might be the only difference.

So, what makes one more deadly than the other?

This fires a 7mm magnum round. It is exponentially more powerful than .223. People often use 7mm mag for bear hunting due to it's stopping power.


Op, all you are doing is basing your argument on aesthetics. Aesthetics do not change the performance of the firearm, just the look.

Does this scare you? It's a hunting rifle you know...
how about this? Well, it's the same thing as the last picture I posted.

  • 12.17.2012 8:58 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
In fact, I would be surprised if you could find as many examples from the rest of the world involving knivves as you can fins within the US alone involving guns.
Again, I think that mental health treatment and overzealous media attention contribute far more than the prevalence of guns.
Then you should aim to improve all contributing aspects in an attempt to do everything possible to prevent further massacres from happening.

A review of current gun restrictions is in order.
A review of media coverage and media sensationalism is in order.
A review of mental health treatment is in order.

And I believe a review of the effectiveness of the police force is in order as well.
I agree.

The only real difference in our arguments is that I, for the most part, think that our current gun restrictions are adequate. The thing is, we need to review how we treat mental illness before we can criticise current gun restrictions--we have laws barring mentally unstable people from buying or owning guns. It's just not effectively enforced because so many mental conditions get downplayed or left undiagnosed or untreated.
Posted by: Garshne
You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always, to some degree, be people who wish to do others harm.

  • 12.17.2012 8:59 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.
*looks for examples of negotiation-resolved robberies as is implied would happen if all parties have a gun*
*doesn't find any*
*not the point*

The point is that the robbers were unable to use force to intimidate the homeowners into complying.
instead the homeowners used force to stop the burglars from complying with their wishes (ie: don't steal my stuff and get out of my house).
I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a counterpoint, unless you're trying to say the criminals are being victimised by the homeowners.
the whole point that copy/paste is making is that if everyone has guns then the need for force is illiminated.

what your previous response implied was that this had happened due to the homeowners' possession of a gun.
i was pointing out that this hadn't happened because by shooting at someone, you are imposing force upon that person.
the playing field has not been levelled; the balance of power has merely been shifted onto the guy who shoots. whether that be the person breaking in or the person defending their home is irrelevant.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 10:53 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 9:01 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes.
wat?
There are a decent amount of crimes that are committed with actual assault rifles, machine guns, SMGs, and the like, but that's typically by gangs and drug cartels who bought them from the black market or simply stole them from the Mexican military. They certainly aren't legally owned, and any ban on such weapons would have zero effect on them.
This is why I believe your current police force is inadequate. Something should be done to prevent as many criminals as possible from obtaining these weapons.
When we get into gang operations, though, that requires a whole lot more other things. The most pressing causes being our insane War on Drugs, and our problems with poverty, and ineffective border control, and. . . the list goes on and on. No amount of police officers will fix this without addressing these underlying factors; it's like trying to pump water out of a boat while ignoring the big hole in the bottom of the hull.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 9:02 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 9:02 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always, to some degree, be people who wish to do others harm.
Certainly, but if the number of criminals could be effectively controlled and countered by the police force the task of self-defence wouldn't need to fall on the average citizen.

Having a more effective police force could be a lot of help in the long run in preventing and countering a whole range of problems in the US. That is a good thing that should happen sometime in the future.

  • 12.17.2012 9:02 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes.
wat?
There are a decent amount of crimes that are committed with actual assault rifles, machine guns, SMGs, and the like, but that's typically by gangs and drug cartels who bought them from the black market or simply stole them from the Mexican military. They certainly aren't legally owned, and any ban on such weapons would have zero effect on them.
This is why I believe your current police force is inadequate. Something should be done to prevent as many criminals as possible from obtaining these weapons.
When we get into gang operations, though, that requires a whole lot more other things. The most pressing causes being our insane War on Drugs, and our problems with poverty, and ineffective border control, and. . . the list goes on and on. No amount of police officers will fix this without addressing these underlying factors; it's like trying to pump water out of a boat while ignoring the big hole in the bottom of the hull.
But pumping water out can keep your boat from sinking while that hole is fixed.

It's one thing out of a whole range of problems. And I should've included border patrol separately, because the police don't handle that, do they?

  • 12.17.2012 9:05 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always, to some degree, be people who wish to do others harm.
Certainly, but if the number of criminals could be effectively controlled and countered by the police force the task of self-defence wouldn't need to fall on the average citizen.

Having a more effective police force could be a lot of help in the long run in preventing and countering a whole range of problems in the US. That is a good thing that should happen sometime in the future.
Ideally, that's a great ending goal. In the meantime, however, I think armed civilians are a great stopgap measure.
Posted by: Garshne
But pumping water out can keep your boat from sinking while that hole is fixed.
Yes, but from my viewpoint all we're doing is debating water pumps instead of the actual hole.
Posted by: Garshne
It's one thing out of a whole range of problems. And I should've included border patrol separately, because the police don't handle that, do they?
US Border Patrol is a federal agency that's part of the Department of Homeland Security. But there's far more to it than just having good patrol agents; there's also immigration laws, enforcement of said laws, etc.

Everything's intertwined; we can't point at just one or two factors and say "we'll address this and then things will be alright."

  • 12.17.2012 9:12 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always, to some degree, be people who wish to do others harm.
Certainly, but if the number of criminals could be effectively controlled and countered by the police force the task of self-defence wouldn't need to fall on the average citizen.

Having a more effective police force could be a lot of help in the long run in preventing and countering a whole range of problems in the US. That is a good thing that should happen sometime in the future.
Ideally, that's a great ending goal. In the meantime, however, I think armed civilians are a great stopgap measure.
The current state of affairs should be proof enough that you are wrong.

  • 12.17.2012 9:14 AM PDT

I agree that all presidents should serve 2 terms. 1 in office and 1 in prison


Posted by: ArchNinja64
Disagree. People are the problem, not guns.

  • 12.17.2012 9:15 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Garshne
You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always, to some degree, be people who wish to do others harm.
Certainly, but if the number of criminals could be effectively controlled and countered by the police force the task of self-defence wouldn't need to fall on the average citizen.

Having a more effective police force could be a lot of help in the long run in preventing and countering a whole range of problems in the US. That is a good thing that should happen sometime in the future.
Ideally, that's a great ending goal. In the meantime, however, I think armed civilians are a great stopgap measure.
The current state of affairs should be proof enough that you are wrong.
Considering that all of these spree killings have happened in places where civilians aren't allowed to be armed, I don't see how.

I thought we'd already been through this.

  • 12.17.2012 9:16 AM PDT

Oh no! It's black and has the same design as the military uses! It must be the same quality weapon! People like the OP are complete idiots. You have no idea what you are even talking about. You also don't know that "hunting rifles" can be just as powerful if not more powerful than the weapons you are afraid of. dip-blam!-s everywhere.

Also, it's not -blam!- "yay" you illiterate dumbass. It's "yea."

[Edited on 12.17.2012 9:36 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 9:35 AM PDT

You can use an AR 15 for hunting which many claim is a military grade weapon and despite popular belief the AR in AR 15 does not stand for assault rifle it stands for Arma Lite who makes the rifle platform. And people should be allowed these if they want them. People who should not have them are people with mental disorders who decide one day they are going to be mass murderers.

  • 12.17.2012 9:41 AM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.

I don't see why people need anything other than a handgun or shotgun for home protection.

This is 2012. Grocery stores exist. You don't need to hunt for food.

  • 12.17.2012 9:46 AM PDT

Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need a handgun or shotgun for home protection.

  • 12.17.2012 9:47 AM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need anything other than a handgun or shotgun for home protection.

This is 2012. Grocery stores exist. You don't need to hunt for food.


Some people still do.

Why pay for beef every week when you can take a deer and eat for months? Why buy ham when you can take a hog and have as much pork as you want?

There are people who still live in the wild parts of America where they do hunt for food. That is how they survive.

Not everyone lives in a City max, you should know this.

  • 12.17.2012 9:48 AM PDT


Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need anything other than a handgun or shotgun for home protection.

This is 2012. Grocery stores exist. You don't need to hunt for food.


You dont hunt for the food just the experience.

  • 12.17.2012 9:49 AM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need a handgun or shotgun for home protection.


Then don't own one. Problem solved right there.

Don't like guns, you don't have to have one.

  • 12.17.2012 9:51 AM PDT

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need a handgun or shotgun for home protection.


Then don't own one. Problem solved right there.

Don't like guns, you don't have to have one.
Your ability to point out the obvious is extraordinary. Well done sir... Well done.

  • 12.17.2012 9:52 AM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: SpartanMk18
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: MadMax888
I don't see why people need a handgun or shotgun for home protection.


Then don't own one. Problem solved right there.

Don't like guns, you don't have to have one.
Your ability to point out the obvious is extraordinary. Well done sir... Well done.


I take pride in my ability, I appreciate your praise.

  • 12.17.2012 9:53 AM PDT

Notches:
/// //// // ///

The reason we have Police in the first place is to insulate civilians from the violence of criminals. The last thing we want is for criminals to start thinking that their victims could be just as dangerous as the police. If you advocate weapons as personal protection, you'd better see bears daily, or you can pack up your tiny dick and move to Somalia!

  • 12.17.2012 10:00 AM PDT

Agreed. Only in America is only guns a right, yet health care is a privilege...

  • 12.17.2012 10:01 AM PDT

Old school Bungie, born and raised,
In the Septagon is where I spend most of my days.
Relaxin', maxin', posting all cool,
Talking about Halo, life and some school.
Got in one little argument, and the mods got scared,
they said "You're gonna get banned and your member title'll be bare!"


Posted by: Happy Flowers
The last thing we want is for criminals to start thinking that their victims could be just as dangerous as the police.


Why would that be the last thing we'd want? Why would I want to be seen as vulnerable to someone looking to hurt somebody?

  • 12.17.2012 10:18 AM PDT

Notches:
/// //// // ///

Posted by: prometheus25

Posted by: Happy Flowers
The last thing we want is for criminals to start thinking that their victims could be just as dangerous as the police.


Why would that be the last thing we'd want? Why would I want to be seen as vulnerable to someone looking to hurt somebody?


They're just looking to make a quick buck. If they don't feel pressured to shoot you dead right off the bat then society is doing it's job.

In Somalia sometimes armed victims of a crime survive and sometimes they don't, but I guarantee you that they never ever get the first shot off.

  • 12.17.2012 10:30 AM PDT