1. Post #241
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,228 Posts
    This site used to be way more anti-control.

    It makes no sense to me how a liberal ideology would support the banning individual ownership of anything.
    bans don't get to the root of a problem. like most bans
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  2. Post #242
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    bans don't get to the root of a problem. like most bans
    The idea of banning guns based on arbitrary criteria really irks me. For one, it supports the idea that "guns are bad." As if you couldn't bludgeon a guy to death with a 2x4, should we ban wood too? Or are you gonna use the wood for its intended purpose, correctly, so nobody gets hurt? Secondly, how arbitrary the criteria is only demonstrates a lack of understanding of guns by legislators, and I'll repeat that it's likely along the lines of "you're scared of what you don't understand." And finally, if gun violence is so rampant, the problem isn't with the abundance of guns floating around, oh no - there's something wrong with the people.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  3. Post #243
    Fluttershy Enthusiast
    thelurker1234's Avatar
    June 2011
    5,194 Posts
    The idea of banning guns based on arbitrary criteria really irks me. For one, it supports the idea that "guns are bad." As if you couldn't bludgeon a guy to death with a 2x4, should we ban wood too? Or are you gonna use the wood for its intended purpose, correctly, so nobody gets hurt? Secondly, how arbitrary the criteria is only demonstrates a lack of understanding of guns by legislators, and I'll repeat that it's likely along the lines of "you're scared of what you don't understand." And finally, if gun violence is so rampant, the problem isn't with the abundance of guns floating around, oh no - there's something wrong with the people.
    Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents.
    Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  4. Post #244
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents.
    Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.
    More like "Let's ban reinforced vehicles like police interceptor Crown Victorias because they can cause more damage in a collision"

    It's silly. If I wanted to go commit vehicular homicide in a Civic I'd damn well do it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  5. Post #245
    Captain Armed Dildo, Master of Ratings
    cpt.armadillo's Avatar
    February 2011
    5,472 Posts
    If you use .223 for deer then you'd need the 100 round mag just to take the deer down. .223 is a varmint and small game calibre, the minimum for deer is a heavy .243, and even then I wouldn't go lower than a .270.

    Even the army is pissed at the .223, because it doesn't kill well enough. Those who've been in long enough to remember the guns in .308 wish they could have them back because they'd actually put a person down.
    In fact, the current round they use is a modification of the original. The original AP rounds would just go through the opponent's body and he would keep on running at you while you were putting holes in him.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  6. Post #246
    Gold Member
    Kartoffel's Avatar
    April 2010
    4,295 Posts
    I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Winner Winner x 7Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  7. Post #247
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.
    Fucking murderer.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 9Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  8. Post #248
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,145 Posts
    I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.
    You should get that looked at, Revolver disease is pretty dangerous if it goes untreated.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Funny Funny x 3Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  9. Post #249
    ASK ME ABOUT MY BAKELITE FETISH
    Dennab
    April 2011
    6,395 Posts
    Why would anyone need a sports car? They're unnecessarily fast and dangerous, we should outlaw them and have everyone stick to their priuses.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  10. Post #250
    bake someone a cake with laxatives and viagra and then they will have poopboners
    n0cturni's Avatar
    August 2007
    4,286 Posts
    I still think it'd be fun to own a .22 rifle or 9mm pistol, just to bring to the range and maintain every once in a while.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  11. Post #251
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    October 2010
    12,084 Posts
    Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents.
    Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.

    terrible comparison

    an accident with a car can hurt or kill, the intended purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 5Agree Agree x 1Disagree Disagree x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  12. Post #252
    Gold Member
    Broseph_'s Avatar
    June 2009
    2,012 Posts
    Franklin expected the US to last a decade before a second revolution split the country again.

    His predictions sort of came true with the Civil War.
    New England wanted to secede hard from the 1790s up to the 1820s
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  13. Post #253
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,616 Posts
    And we don't. Hell, we even change it (Amendments), but as far as the law goes, it is the supreme Law of the Land.
    I might be wrong but from what I can tell there hasn't been a firearms related amendment in over 300 years since the second amendment was enacted.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  14. Post #254
    ASK ME ABOUT MY BAKELITE FETISH
    Dennab
    April 2011
    6,395 Posts
    regardless of your laments, the US gov't won't do anything to ban guns

    nothin at all

    nothin at all

    nothin at all
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  15. Post #255
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    terrible comparison

    an accident with a car can hurt or kill, the intended purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill
    They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to accept they're wrong and this is a stupid comparison.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 8Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  16. Post #256
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,145 Posts
    They refuse to accept they're wrong
    Wow, because everyone wants to listen to that argument.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Zing Zing x 4Dumb Dumb x 1Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  17. Post #257
    ASK ME ABOUT MY BAKELITE FETISH
    Dennab
    April 2011
    6,395 Posts
    They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to accept they're wrong and this is a stupid comparison.
    nothin at all
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  18. Post #258
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,228 Posts
    cause everyone knows banning stuff stops it right

    like how nobody commits crime ever

    or like how the prohibition totally made everyone stop drinking alcohol
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Zing Zing x 4Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  19. Post #259
    No such thing as overkill.
    catbarf's Avatar
    January 2007
    7,811 Posts
    terrible comparison

    an accident with a car can hurt or kill, the intended purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill
    The intended purpose of rat poison is to hurt or kill. The intended purpose of a longbow is to hurt or kill. The intended purpose of a handgun is to hurt or kill. All of these can be used to kill a person in an aggressive and deliberate manner, yet only one of the three is seen as scary and dangerous for a private citizen to own.

    There are many items designed expressly to hurt or kill which we have no qualms about. You can kill someone with pest control poison just as surely as with a handgun. While the intended purpose is to hurt or kill, that purpose is not implicitly directed against human beings. There are many uses for firearms that don't involve killing other people- and even when they do, it can be for a justified purpose, like home defense.

    The intended purpose is a significant factor, but it alone is not a valid reason to oppose firearm ownership.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  20. Post #260
    Gold Member
    Boba_Fett's Avatar
    August 2007
    9,110 Posts
    regardless of your laments, the US gov't won't do anything to ban guns

    nothin at all

    nothin at all

    nothin at all
    As great as that sounds to me, I can't bring myself to believe that. Just like what happened in England, it only takes one tragedy for politicians to rile up enough support to convince people they don't need certain freedoms.

    No, I don't think they'll outright ban guns in America, but they'll make it really hard to purchase them, and they'll tax ammunition to the point where it will be cheaper to fire wads of cash out of the barrel of a gun instead of bullets.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  21. Post #261
    16bit's Avatar
    April 2010
    2,200 Posts
    If you use .223 for deer then you'd need the 100 round mag just to take the deer down. .223 is a varmint and small game calibre, the minimum for deer is a heavy .243, and even then I wouldn't go lower than a .270.

    Even the army is pissed at the .223, because it doesn't kill well enough. Those who've been in long enough to remember the guns in .308 wish they could have them back because they'd actually put a person down.
    Thats funny, actually.


    Colt H-Bar, Shoots .223.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 5Late Late x 1 (list)

  22. Post #262
    No such thing as overkill.
    catbarf's Avatar
    January 2007
    7,811 Posts
    As for being attacked on the street, it's all well and good to wax philosophy about how you should just hand over your money and have no reason to be afraid. Spend some time in a hostile, dangerous city, maybe get mugged yourself, and see how long that noble perspective lasts. The reality is that people get hurt or killed in these situations all the time and being willing to throw your wallet at someone the instant they ask politely and just hoping you come out unscathed is foolish. I'm not advocating everyone go out and buy a handgun and shoot everyone who looks at you funny, but it's not okay to insist that people not even try to defend themselves.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  23. Post #263
    Gold Member
    Kartoffel's Avatar
    April 2010
    4,295 Posts
    They use this argument every time. It's been used every page in this thread. They refuse to [b]accept they're wrong[\b] and this is a stupid comparison.
    Maybe it'd help if you actually proved us wrong. I know that I have a good use for my assault weapon.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  24. Post #264
    Gold Member
    markg06's Avatar
    September 2006
    10,940 Posts
    As great as that sounds to me, I can't bring myself to believe that. Just like what happened in England, it only takes one tragedy for politicians to rile up enough support to convince people they don't need certain freedoms.

    No, I don't think they'll outright ban guns in America, but they'll make it really hard to purchase them, and they'll tax ammunition to the point where it will be cheaper to fire wads of cash out of the barrel of a gun instead of bullets.
    Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  25. Post #265
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.
    Oh really? Please tell me how many people owned guns before the ban a hundred years ago.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  26. Post #266
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,145 Posts
    Oh really? Please tell me how many people owned guns before the ban a hundred years ago.
    He said barely, not a ton.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  27. Post #267
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,966 Posts
    Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.
    It used to be that every gentleman carried a pistol for protection in the UK, and many women too. The UK, like many countries, has a deep history of gun ownership that's been shat upon in recent years. It used to be that companies made pistols specifically for shoots at Bisley, now have fun getting a handgun in the UK.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 3Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  28. Post #268
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    He said barely, not a ton.
    So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  29. Post #269
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.
    No he didn't, he claimed that guns were far and few between before they even legislated gun control. He said nothing about numbers.

    Tell me, do your synapses fire in your brain?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  30. Post #270
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    No he didn't, he claimed that guns were far and few between before they even legislated gun control. He said nothing about numbers.

    Tell me, do your synapses fire in your brain?
    So you're saying it's perfectly OK to talk shit about things you don't know about? That's what he did.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  31. Post #271
    Gold Member
    Bredirish123's Avatar
    October 2006
    9,196 Posts
    I honestly do not see why people think assault rifles are more lethal than a handgun, shotgun, etc... In fact I'd go as far as saying a shotgun is more lethal because of some of the shells you can purchase online.

    If someone comes up to you and sticks a gun in your face it doesn't matter what type, caliber, or size, you honestly do not want any gun pointed at you. So what does banning assault rifles do? Currently the only arguments I have heard is that it limits a shooters ammo capacity and their ability to be accurate. Look at Virginia tech's massacre; he used a glock for many of the murders.

    With the argument of ammo capacity it would be just as easy to buy a tactical vest with molle pouches that can fit 4 standard 9mm pistol mags in a single puch. If you have four pouches that is 16 mags filled with ammunition, not counting one in the gun already.

    Sure it might take longer to reload but anyone who practices can reload a handgun in less than 2 seconds; there are specific training courses for it.

    In regards to the accuracy argument what people don't realize is the gun doesn't make the shooter more accurate, though it does help, a marksman is a marksman for a reason. It takes a lot to control recoil and keep your target in the sights regardless of the weapon you choose. Anyone can take a proper course to become proficient in multiple types of weapons, not just assault rifles.

    So in reality, banning assault rifles is essentially a cheap way to give people who are afraid of guns peace of mind because the big nasty AK-47 is no longer allowed to be purchased by your neighbor.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 7Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  32. Post #272
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,145 Posts
    So what's your point? He claimed he knows how many people owned guns a hundred years ago. Read posts a few times over before you make stupid irrelevant posts.
    He said, and I quote
    Barely anyone in the UK owned guns before they were restricted anyway so it's not like it made a great deal of difference.
    What he means by that is that there were not many people who owned them, yet you jumped on him and demanded he show all the numbers, as if everyone and their dog had a gun.

    It's quite relevant.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  33. Post #273
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    So you're saying it's perfectly OK to talk shit about things you don't know about? That's what he did.
    OK well do you know how many people in the UK owned a firearm before they were regulated? Because I'm getting the vibe that you think you do, but you don't, and hence resort to being an asshole to try to enforce point dominance.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  34. Post #274
    Gold Member
    Xenomoose's Avatar
    September 2006
    5,628 Posts
    If you want to decrease the amount of firearms-related crimes, the LAST thing you do is go after the legitimate suppliers. If you do that first, not only does that leave innocent citizens defenseless, it gives criminals the motivation to commit more crimes because nobody can defend themselves anymore. No, instead of that, the first thing you do is give criminals less reasons to commit crimes. Most crimes are crimes of desperation, the criminal needs something that they, for some reason (usually poverty), cannot gain through legitimate means. If you decrease their need for these things, then they won't need to commit crimes, and therefore decreases their need to acquire firearms to aid in committing these crimes. That weakens the illegal gun suppliers (remember, most criminals don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means) to the point where they can be driven away so they can't sell any more guns. THAT'S when you start putting restrictions and shit on the legitimate suppliers, since civilians have less of a need to carry a gun for self-defense (since crime rates have lowered and now they feel safer). This will also prevent crazies like the Aurora Shooter who actually did purchase their guns legally. In a way, it's like internet piracy. You don't fight back by placing restrictions that only serve to hurt the innocent people while having no effect on the bad guys, you have to give the bad guys less of a reason to do the shit they do so they eventually stop doing that shit themselves.

    Unfortunately, to do all this would require a LOT of time and money, and nobody would be willing to pay, which is the worst thing about all this. Everyone wants things to be better, but they don't want to pay for it. They expect things to get better because they want it to get better without realizing how expensive and time-consuming it would be. And if they DO realize they'll immediately demand that a better, cheaper, quicker way is discovered, which is why people think that simply banning the sale of firearms will make everything better instantaneously. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at Washington, D.C. and you'll see why. Strictest firearms regulations in the country, highest firearms-related crime-rates in the country. Obviously something went wrong there.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 8Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  35. Post #275
    Gold Member
    Bredirish123's Avatar
    October 2006
    9,196 Posts
    Also why do people think that gunowners need more training before they can own a firearm? To me that just sounds silly, most people take training courses, and if I'm correct many states require some form of training first. Plus, don't you want a shooter to be as inefficient with a weapon as possible? Look at James Holmes, his rifle jammed and didn't know how to properly clear it which spared quite a few lives that might have otherwise been lost if he knew the few simple steps it takes to clear a jam.

    Unskilled gangbanging criminals handling weapons is scary, but I think I'd be even more afraid of a rampage killer who knew exactly what he was doing.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  36. Post #276
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    OK well do you know how many people in the UK owned a firearm before they were regulated? Because I'm getting the vibe that you think you do, but you don't, and hence resort to being an asshole to try to enforce point dominance.
    nobody knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say...

    "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  37. Post #277
    Clops with bisousbisous daily <3
    Mr. Smartass's Avatar
    December 2010
    9,188 Posts
    This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.
    Did you not read the thread, or the OP? This bans "assault weapons", which is REALLY broad and sweeping- and doesn't actually ban actual assault weapons.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #278
    Dennab
    June 2011
    2,108 Posts
    A lot of people in this thread don't understand the 2nd amendment very well.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  39. Post #279
    Gold Member
    markg06's Avatar
    September 2006
    10,940 Posts
    nobody knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say...

    "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...tificates#data

    You know there's figures compiled by the police right?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  40. Post #280
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,820 Posts
    nobody knows how many people owned guns because it was fucking years ago when they started banning guns. He's trying to prove a point to somebody by talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it. Somebody after him even told him his point is entirely wrong. If we're going to go making stuff up in every post I'll just go ahead and say...

    "Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.
    I... what.

    First of all, on the immature arguments point, you are a fucking hypocrite.

    Secondly, if nobody knows how many people owned guns, then how is the guy who "told him his point is entirely wrong" right, if nobody knows the facts for sure?

    And how is what you're doing not "talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it"?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)