Quote from: challengerX on October 09, 2014, 11:46:44 AM

This is the Serious section.

Your point? This is a serious thread. Individual gun ownership is a serious American right and it should be encouraged, rather than vilified

Police officers are probably the biggest proponent of this right because they're ordinary citizens who are around guns constantly. They know the words formed by the media and politicians are complete lies and work hard to encourage gun ownership

Just read this for factual gun information that deconstructs the ideas pressed by liberal media
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

"assaultweapon.info" is definitely one of the most unbiased sources with no agenda...

Quote from: Kinder Skellington on October 09, 2014, 11:52:06 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 09, 2014, 11:46:44 AM

This is the Serious section.

Your point? This is a serious thread. Individual gun ownership is a serious American right and it should be encouraged, rather than vilified

Police officers are probably the biggest proponent of this right because they're ordinary citizens who are around guns constantly. They know the words formed by the media and politicians are complete lies and work hard to encourage gun ownership

Just read this for factual gun information that deconstructs the ideas pressed by liberal media
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

"assaultweapon.info" is definitely one of the most unbiased sources with no agenda...

It's not biased. Only agenda it has is deconstructing the whole false "assault weapon" idea

Why should I value a cops opinion any more than anyone else's?

Just read this for factual gun information that deconstructs the ideas pressed by liberal media
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

>assaultweapon.info

topqeq

and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

America needs gun control.
No one, and I repeat, no one needs a fcking assault rifle or any kind of heavy fire weapon like it. Pistols are enough for protection.

Assault rifles are fully automatic and are HEAVILY restricted. Tell me the difference of a ranch rifle having a wood stock and an ar-15 with a composite stock? Absolutely nothing. And there's pistols that do more damage than rifles.

You don't know anything about guns so why should I listen to what you say?

Quote from: Kinder Skellington on October 09, 2014, 04:03:01 PM

Quote from: challengerX on October 09, 2014, 12:53:23 PM

Quote from: Kinder Skellington on October 09, 2014, 12:07:08 PM

Quote from: challengerX on October 09, 2014, 12:02:22 PM

Quote from: Kinder Skellington on October 09, 2014, 11:52:06 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 09, 2014, 11:46:44 AM

This is the Serious section.

Your point? This is a serious thread. Individual gun ownership is a serious American right and it should be encouraged, rather than vilified

Police officers are probably the biggest proponent of this right because they're ordinary citizens who are around guns constantly. They know the words formed by the media and politicians are complete lies and work hard to encourage gun ownership

Just read this for factual gun information that deconstructs the ideas pressed by liberal media
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

>liberal media
Bro, I don't even watch TV. Much less the news. Your thread is incredibly one sided and pretty hostile to be honest.

You already know my views on gun ownership. I'm not against it all, I just don't think it should be available so easily. Better background and mental health checks are in order.

Didn't say you watch TV or liberal media. It may be one-sided but it's far from hostile. It's pointing out surveys and words of police saying they're against gun ownership. What's hostile is Camnator's threads and I'm showing that cops are actually pro-freedom

You know my views on guns as well. If you're actually interested in guns like I believe you said in another thread, then you can PM me and I can walk you through what's actually true and what's actually false

I'm not talking about Camnator though, I'm talking about this thread. Saying crap like "liberal media" is almost bait.

I know the truth. All I'm saying is better background checks and mental health checks are in order. There's been far too many psychos that legally get guns and go on a killing spree. Whether they're a majority or not isn't the point, the point is it happens and it happens often enough to warrant some reform to gun laws.

Well, liberal media IS liberal. It's no different than using conservative media

What exactly do you mean by better background checks and mental health checks. What constitutes as mentally unable to own guns? People get guns illegally to commit killing sprees and do so in areas that are gun free. We don't need anymore laws; we actually have the correct laws on the books but they are not enforced enough nor are they strictly enforced to the fullest extent

Saying "liberal media" as if it's a group of people pushing an agenda to take away people's guns is not the best way to start off a serious thread, but you're welcome to make it as goofy as you like.

What do you think counts as people who should not be able to own guns? Depressed people, psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists. Those with mental diseases or disorders. We need better background checks and extensive mental health checks to make sure less "at risk" people are not legally buying guns. Whether they're new laws, revised laws, improved laws. Doesn't matter. Things need to get serious.

Well, no different than a thread stating conservative media trying to hamper the progression of marriage equality

Some mental orders shouldn't have a say in who can get a gun. Depression is a mental condition that everybody has at least once encountered and doesn't mean they shouldn't own a gun, it can actually help people stop feeling depressed by taking up guns and going to the range. ADD and social anxiety are also mental disorders, as I have them, and I also don't think those should go towards a person buying a gun. You are correct by saying people with disorders like paranoia schizophrenia shouldn't be able to own a gun

I really don't see an issue with the current background checks. They serve their purpose and catch people who can't own guns constantly. What IS an issue is the straw-man purchases where a person legally able to purchase does purchase a gun but hands it over to a person illegally able to. However, I think people that have been convicted of non-violent crimes (like pot possession) should be able to own a gun after, say, 5-10 years after serving their sentences

Obviously you're going to disagree with me so I'll just wait for your response and we can just continue trying to influence each other when we won't have either of it

But Charles Ramsey is still Philly's police commissioner...

Quote from: Kinder Skellington on October 09, 2014, 11:52:06 AM

Just read this for factual gun information that deconstructs the ideas pressed by liberal media
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

>assaultweapon.info

topqeq

and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

It's actually fairly accurate about what it talks about. As the name implies, it provides information about the term "Assault weapon", and its use in politics and the flaws of the term.

As for being biased, this quote from the website is rather nice.

No corporation, lobby, or political action committee had any part in the creation or funding of this educational project. It is solely the work of an individual.

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on October 09, 2014, 06:35:08 PM

Quote

are against gun control,

So a cop that arrested somebody for attempted murder is against the thing which is helping to prevent this person they arrested from getting a gun which may be used in another crime?

Don't forget, the police department doesn't hire smart people.

Except they require college degrees in order for an officer to get promoted