Just for the record , are you saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married ?

I think gays should be allowed to get married. I could care less. My point is there is a lot more important shit that should be focused on rather than this bs. gays getting married has absolutely no effect on anyone's lives. The only people who are against it are people that live such pointless boring lives they need someone to hate for no reason outside picking and choosing random sins out of the bible to crucify people for.

I see you point (I don't live in the US btw , so i don't support any political party)

But consider the following, "gays getting married has absolutely no effect on anyone's lives" , and what about the life of you know... the people who are gay.

That aside , consider that not many resources get used for allowing gay marriage , it's obviously a big deal on the media , but i don't think that the US congress spend weeks and millions of dollars on this subjects , i assume that it was just a matter of signing a few papers. Again , the media may have done a big deal about it, but inside the white house , it was just a matter of a few meetings and a document getting signed.

That's simply my view on that very specific part of your whole point , and about the rest , i will simply hold my thoughts simply because i don't live in the US , and i feel that I'm not informed enough to have a compelling opinion. Have a nice day.

I thought it was implied that the gays would benefit by being able to get married and live their lives like people. I meant that directed towards straight people that have an issue with gays getting married. It will not effect their lives whatsoever so who cares if gays want to get married?

Obama would have gotten a lot more done in the past 4 years had the House not blocked every single bill he proposed. (He still got shit done nonetheless)

Dems had majority when he got into office

Yeah, but that's right when he got in. When a president changes, Congress slowly moves over to being occupied mainly by the opposing party.

He also passed a lot of bills that failed miserably and drove us into a significant more amount of debt. Im not republican or democrat. I make decisions based on logic. What I want is a completely new reformation of government because as of now it is a pissing contest between the two parties and any good idea get thrown away

Quit bitching about it, your government has been fucked for decades.

Freedom to vote is an illusion. It comes down to which miss guided political party has more power and can pass laws that suit their preferences. Anyone who thinks it made even the slightest difference who got elected president is an idiot

Love the analogy ; Choose between two doors, to the same slaughterhouse.

Government in general went down the shitter with Nixon. The political divide you see today didn't really happen until Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich thought it was a smart idea to press charges against a President for screwing his secretary, simply for an excuse to impeach the democrat.

Was it bill that accused her of stalking, or Hillary?

During those 8 years, Hillary loved to act like she shared the position with her husband, saying things like "we are the president."

Actually it went down when the federal reserve bank came into play.

Well, I wasn't exactly around before 1913, so I can't exactly support that nor argue against it.

The same day of the New Town shootings, a man in China attacked a school with a knife, hitting twenty-two people. How many of them died? Zero. A knife is much less likely to kill a person than a gun. I can't sit 200 yards away and kill you with a knife.

Well, they have. Look at the gun crime statistics of other developed countries compared to the US for proof.

and what happened to the total crime statistics, oh right, they went up because criminals can attack whoever they want without fear of retribution

You just completely made that up...

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Also, no - there is the law, I think that counts as an incentive not to commit a crime...

Look at this,
12 million crimes in the US with a pop of around 300 million,
and 6.5 million crimes in both the UK and Germany, which each have around 25% of the us population. Guns are very difficult to obtain, but somehow the amount of crimes per person is in each of these countries is about twice what the US suffers, which is disturbingly high, do you still think that treating responsible citizens like children is the best way to prevent crimes?

I'm sorry, but is it still legal to buy fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a box truck?

idiot

That was a well stated, well thought out, and very polite sentence that was incredibly clear and I understood all of it. Thank you.

its an extremely concise, no bullshit argument.

Those are the ingredients to an explosive, kind of obvious.

Diesel fuel+fertilizer=bomb

specifically, here, the oklahoma city bombing. No gun involved, 168 dead.

this is the internet not a group therapy session, bring your best argument with proof to support it or fuck off

Thank you for that. I might have been a bit of an ass with my earlier comment, but still.

You're welcome.

fek.

The other day in China a man stabbed 21 kids. So yes its still multiple people.

Imagine if had had a gun, make that 21 multiply...

The guy in Newtown had a gun. And he only got 26 people. So multiply that by...1.24?

They're samurai and stuff. Can't do nothin bout that.

Is it okay because nobody died? is rape okay because nobody dies?

Do you believe it plausible for guns to be totally taken out of the American market, given there are more guns than people?

Are you even American?

No, i'm not american. I don't believe that they should fully be taken out, but all automatic guns should. Listen, i'm stating my opinion, there's no reason to argue with it because it will not change. You can state your own opinion and I don't care, I will respect it.

The following is California's restrictions on guns. Yet, gun-crime has not decreased, rather a stagnation was seen:

California's law limits detachable magazines to 10 rounds, as did the 1994 federal ban. New York recently lowered its limit from 10 to seven. But the California, New York and federal bans did not outlaw the huge number of high-capacity magazines already in circulation.

Banning certain types of clips, as is said above, is useless because there are already so many in circulation.

Data on California's assault-weapons ban is ambiguous at best. In 2011, the state had almost the same rate of gun homicides as the nation as a whole.

Because I can

if you can get rid of all automatic weapons in the US, i'll ban water; about the same level of impossibility. They are already banned, by the way.

They're not, automatic weapons are just taxed and regulated more heavily than regular firearms

I'm just agreeing with it.

Might i suggest looking up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). If i remember that is one of the acts that people debate over and it gives a definition to Assault Weapons (reference one of my last comments from another post if you want a short version)

10 round magazines. If they banned "High Capacity clips" (That is, CLIPS greater than 10 rounds) they'd be banning nothing, since no clip (a device used to SPEED THE LOADING OF A MAGAZINE) is larger than 10 rounds anyway

...unless you are distinguishing between the words "clip" and "magazine," in which case I see your point

That too

This is just wrong. There are plenty of >10 round clips. They aren't entirely practical or common, but they exist. As for being a PROBLEM, they are hardly an issue.

Large magazines take the argument to "people don't kill people, guns don't kill people, TEN ROUND MAGAZINES KILL PEOPLE"

Refer to the secondary thread that this comment spawned. I was already shown that >10 round clips exist, but I will remain steadfast in the fact that they seem awkward at best to use. a 10 rounder's hard enough to load smoothly.

turns out there are actually high capacity clips

I cannot imagine just how fucking difficult that would be to use. Jesus ._. That or someone's just attached 3 standard SKS clips together.

lol yeah, five round Mosin clips are hard enough

There's a reason there's pretty much a 10 round cap on clips to begin with <_<

the biggest flaw with an assault weapon ban is people are irrationally scared of the "evil black rifle". Just as simple to kill someone with a hunting rifle as is is with a tactical rifle (I hate the term assault rifle)

I'd like to argue that they are afraid of these guns because of the media.

That's right, I'm proposing that violent video games, movies, and the media are making us irrationally AFRAID of guns (not more inclined to use them)

That very well may be, although I tend to think these fears stem from ignorance rather than your proposition.

Keeping them as they are is the correct way to do it. You can take assault rifle from a lawful citizen but then he is open to the criminal who says "Fuck the popo" and keeps his ak for robbing the normal citizen.

I think that letting people have guns that can't kill multiple people at once, as easily, is fine. Take a look at numerous other coutnries and you'll see that their lower gun-murder rate corresponds with a lower gun-possession rate. However, since guns are already so prevalent and worshipped in American society, I don't think guns should be banned. Just the ones that are more dangerous.

Sure, people will argue that this infringes upon their rights. But at a certain point they should be willing to give up a bit for the common good, rather than clinging to their weapons with the excuse that it will protect them.

Another thing, though - people should start advocating for nonlethal forms of incapacitation, if they are really so scared about their livelihoods. As long as it's effective enough - and incapacitation is enough - then a taser, etc. should be fine.

Note: I read your entire argument with an open mind and tried to understand your point of view as best I can. I would much appreciate the same for my self :)
Making assault rifles illegal will not slow anything down. When a person decides to shoot up a school or other public place 9/10 it is not a crime of passion. Its Planned and if you make assault riles illegal it will simply make it easier to gain because the black market will flood with assault rifles. Look at weed for example since it's illegal the drug cartels are able to make massive amounts of money off of it. So what's to stop them from saying "Hey! that's illegal. Now I can ship them to america and supply criminals". Now for my next argument most murders are done with handguns or shotguns. Both of them easily available to anyone. You can make handguns illegal but then that just brings the cartel into it again. You can't make shotguns illegal they are too much part of hunting and sport shooting. We all know guns are not going away anytime soon and keeping the good ones from the law abiding citizen will only leave us defenseless. You can use tasers but I can put a taser at a robber with a gun but all he is going to do is bust a cap in my ass, take my many, and leave. Now I'm going to assume you are a person with little to no experience with guns. So I'm going to assume the main place you see guns is in video games and TV. But you need to realize is that 99999/100000 a gun is in a law abiding citizens hands and that if people just took a few classes in gun safety we could prevent far more deaths that are accidental.

Ok, so I read your comments and on every level it seems to make sense. Given that I have no expereince with guns - as you correctly guessed - I can't really argue with any of that.

So then why do other countries with stricter gun laws have many fewer deaths related to guns? That's the one thing holding me back from agreeing with you.

Because if you look at all these other countries they are surrounded by other countries with gun control. They don't have a country that is pretty much dedicated to the black market connected to them. Also it does not work out as well as you think look at the Jews for example first they had their guns taken from them then they were rounded up and murdered. I'm not quite sure but I have heard multiple times that in Australia when they outlawed guns murder rates jumped higher then ever because guess what! criminals don't follow laws! (who would have thought?). I highly recommend for you to go on youtube and look up an episode of a show called Bullshit the episode is called gun control. Also I Highly respect the fact you decided not to continue. thumb for you!

did you not read the gif?

same here dude

... Except not. The Boy Scouts are bad because they are Mormon owned and use Mormon rules and regulations and still maintain the status of getting government benefits and grants when the law states that they shouldn't. You shouldn't be able to disbar gays from your organization as well as get governmental protections and the ability to lease areas for free on a government visa. But the Boy Scouts get away with it.

I don't like that at all

If you had watched that episode, you'd have learned that, mate. That comes from them verbatim. I've done my own research to confirm.

Yeah I guess I kinda "Rage Quitted"

we're heading towards a 1984-esque police state, and the ONLY line in the sand between the current state of things and the 'slippery slope' towards a 1984 style government is firearm regulation.

I'd say if anything, we're heading towards a Brave New World type dystopia, rather than a 1984 one.

Regardless, we're heading towards a potentially dark future

That might be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't necessarily think that more regulations will help us, but I doubt that it will do enough harm to throw us in to 1984. After all, we've had an AWB before (1994-2004,) and we came back out of it with more freedoms than before (mostly because of the internet.)

the rabbit hole goes far deeper than gun laws

Sure, I'm just saying that an assault weapons ban isn't an end all, where it leads to this rapid progression to a militaristic dystopia. It is a step in that direction, but it doesn't mean that it is anywhere close to happening. We still enjoy many more freedoms than other countries.

scroll down and read the text wall I posted earlier

That was one hell of a post. I agree with pretty much everything in there. I don't think that a militaristic government take-over is likely, but I know that there is a possibility. The recent (past few years) revolutions in the east have shed light on the problem of militaristic and authoritarian governments.

Like I said before, I'm not really for gun control. I do, however, think that there should be more tests done on potential gun buyers. There should be a full battery of psychological exams done by a board of doctors (more than one, at least,) to determine that they are stable. The same should also apply to household members because, while they may not be the gun owners, they are around the guns on a daily or near daily basis.

I would agree completely with that if we could figure out some type of system to conduct these types of evaluations effectively, expediently, and without bias. Maybe give out (not charge for) evaluation cards to gun owners that allowed them free access to purchase basic firearms? I hate the idea of licensing anything pertaining to basic firearms, but maybe if it was only an alternative to reevaluation any time a purchase was made (or time outside a post-eval grace period).