Obama, urging gun control, says 'shame on us' if people forget Newtown victims - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killerelf12;40087171]Any idiot who buys a gun for that reason is usually the type of guy who winds up shooting their own foot, or someone else accidentally gets hurt by them. They would be an example of an irresponsible gun owner. No different from someone seriously underestimating how dangerous a muscle car is, and wrapping it around a tree in a crash.[/QUOTE] How many units do Bushmaster sell each year again?

American gun crime would seriously go down if the War on Drug's was stopped but yet Obama encourages it. The man lack's integrity since has lied about all his presidential promises and has in fact went in the opposite direction of his promises. He doesn't care about gun crime or liberty.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40087950]American gun crime would seriously go down if the War on Drug's was stopped but yet Obama encourages it. The man lack's integrity since has lied about all his presidential promises and has in fact went in the opposite direction of his promises. He doesn't care about gun crime or liberty.[/QUOTE] You think Obama actually has the power to stop the machine of law enforcement and the pharmaceutical corporations that has run for nearly a century?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40087966]You think Obama actually has the power to stop the machine of law enforcement and the pharmaceutical corporations that has run for nearly a century?[/QUOTE] 30 years is nearly a century?

The price we pay for better self defense, a higher serial killer death toll. Unless we tax citizens and firearm companies to pay for school security, armed guards, bullet resistant windows, safe rooms which can be locked and with a phone to call the local police. Then we could sort of have the best of both worlds I imagine. I don't see how banning one type of gun would make any drastic impact on gun violence other than out right banning all guns and searching and destroying guns in every home, which is a bit too radical to expect.

[QUOTE=Ridge;40088165]30 years is nearly a century?[/QUOTE] You need to do a little more reading. Look up "Harry J. Anslinger". [editline]29th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=tr00per7;40088177]The price we pay for better self defense, a higher serial killer death toll. Unless we tax citizens and firearm companies to pay for school security, armed guards, bullet resistant windows, safe rooms which can be locked and with a phone to call the local police. Then we could sort of have the best of both worlds I imagine. I don't see how banning one type of gun would make any drastic impact on gun violence other than out right banning all guns and searching and destroying guns in every home, which is a bit too radical to expect.[/QUOTE] Well, the automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles used in the majority of mass shootings have been legally obtained. While banning these weapons won't stop such things from happening, it'll make it easier for the shooter to be taken out by law enforcement/other people if there's a delay between every shot, and it'll reduce the amount of damage he can do in a given amount of time.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40088184]You need to do a little more reading. Look up "Harry J. Anslinger". [editline]29th March 2013[/editline] Well, the automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles used in the majority of mass shootings have been legally obtained. While banning these weapons won't stop such things from happening, it'll make it easier for the shooter to be taken out by law enforcement/other people if there's a delay between every shot, and it'll reduce the amount of damage he can do in a given amount of time.[/QUOTE] 2010, Cumbria, England. A man kills over 10 people with a double-barrelled shotgun. It made no difference that he didn't have a "high-powered semi-automatic" rifle, which is a complete misnomer, the AR-15 is not "high-powered." It doesn't make anything easier, they have defenceless targets when they commit these shootings, they could take a single-shot .22 and kill just as many people because nobody can stop them for about 10 minutes until the police show up with a gun. And id anyone think that if someone's going to commit a mass shooting, they'd want the extra media attention they know they're going to get from using a gun they bought legally? When criminals kill each other, they don't want attention drawn to it, when someone kills a bunch of people, they want as much attention drawn to it as possible, and slandering gun owners for months on end after the shooting because of them is quite a bit of media attention. Hell, they've been slandering gun owners in Canada for 23 years because of a school shooting.

i can understand why pro-gun dudes don't want all out gun bans and i recognize the need for civilian firearms use as a self defense mechanism, what i don't understand is why you guys are so terrified of the idea of federal laws that enforce background checks, mental health checkups, gun safe laws and gun registration?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40080740]I can hear my rifles calling for the blood of innocents. I don't know how long I can resist it. If only I had bought something without a pistol grip![/QUOTE] Blood for the blood god!

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40088905]background checks,[/quote] I do not oppose this, hence why I support a license for the [i]acquisition[/i] of firearms. [quote] mental health checkups,[/quote] Who is going to pay for those, and at what point is someone deemed "mentally unfit to own a gun?" Would it just be anyone with ANY mental disorder? Not everyone who is mentally ill is dangerous, and that's part of the issue surrounding the stigmatization of the mentally ill. [quote]gun safe laws[/quote] Because they're ineffectual and all they're realistically used for is throwing someone behind bars because the government wants broader restrictions but can't put them in place due to public opinion. A man who defended his home from firebombers was charged with unsafe storage here because between firing warning shots to scare them off and the cops showing up about half an hour later, he just put his gun on a table. What would work is holding the owner of the gun criminally responsible for any accidental discharge resulting in injury or death caused by their children if they leave a gun around when there are kids in the house. Even still 12 year olds have defended themselves with a gun from a home invader, if the gun was locked up the kid would probably have been dead. [quote]and gun registration?[/QUOTE] Because it costs a uselessly large amount of money and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It doesn't help solve crimes, it doesn't stop guns from being used in crimes, and it's just extra money the government is wasting on ineffectual legislation. Not to mention there's evidence from all across the world that registration does indeed lead to confiscation of firearms.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40088905]why you guys are so terrified of the idea of federal laws that enforce background checks, mental health checkups, gun safe laws and gun registration?[/QUOTE] Most of us agree with those things, probably the only thing we have a problem with on that list is gun registration, because that's the first step in confiscation. The other thing we don't want is something as stupid and useless as the "Assault weapons ban" because it's pointless and does nothing useful, and manages to take away our rights at the same time.

as someone who has been shot on multiple occasions and has studied the efforts of gun control and the effect of guns in modern society, i say you can't fucking compare a european country with no guns to america. most of those countries never even had a gun culture, while america was founded on one. our societies are so radically different that comparing america and the UK is completely pointless and the only parallels you'll find are incidental. also the direction obama is going with gun control is very poorly thought out and it'll only make things worse

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40088905]i can understand why pro-gun dudes don't want all out gun bans and i recognize the need for civilian firearms use as a self defense mechanism, what i don't understand is why you guys are so terrified of the idea of federal laws that enforce background checks, mental health checkups, gun safe laws and gun registration?[/QUOTE] Background checks and mental health checks are fine because those will help keep firearms out of the hands of people who would misuse them. Gun safe laws can't constitutionally be enforced and as has probably been mentioned by now registration is the first step to confiscation, which is unacceptable.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40089159]Background checks and mental health checks are fine because those will help keep firearms out of the hands of people who would misuse them. Gun safe laws can't constitutionally be enforced and as has probably been mentioned by now registration is the first step to confiscation, which is unacceptable.[/QUOTE] gun safe laws can be enforced constitutionally, you don't raid houses to check if they're locked up, you punish people after the fact in the aftermath of a suicide, theft or murder where you have discovered the gun wasn't locked up. the idea that a gun registry is the "first step to confiscation" is laughable, if you're so worried about confiscation you could report your gun as stolen so that when men in black wearing obama logos on their lapels come to take your guns away you just say you don't have them anymore. if the government actually wanted to take your guns away they would just sidestep you at the front door, search your house and take them.

The assault weapon/semi auto rifle argument is beyond stupid; and that's the direction the debate is being brought in on the lawmaking front. The discussion should not even be on the table in regards to the topic of gun control, and it's insane that the topic is being taken seriously at all. Then there's the people who just lump all "guns" into a single category even though there's HUGE practical and statistical differences between them. If you want to talk guns talk about better and more efficient background checks, or maybe talk about the absurd number of handguns in illegal circulation.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40089256][B]gun safe laws can be enforced constitutionally, you don't raid houses to check if they're locked up, you punish people after the fact in the aftermath of a suicide, theft or murder where you have discovered the gun wasn't locked up[/B]. the idea that a gun registry is the "first step to confiscation" is laughable, if you're so worried about confiscation you could report your gun as stolen so that when men in black wearing obama logos on their lapels come to take your guns away you just say you don't have them anymore. if the government actually wanted to take your guns away they would just sidestep you at the front door, search your house and take them.[/QUOTE] so it really doesn't do anything, now does it?

[QUOTE=Neat!;40089292]so it really doesn't do anything, now does it?[/QUOTE] if it's so easy to circumvent why are you so desperately worried about the homicide detectives or suicide cleanup crew asking you how your son got the gun? if it catches a handful of people in the aftermath of a crime who had their pistol laying on a dresser it's helpful [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] moreover it promotes a social standard that if you own a gun you should be keeping it in a safe, making it taboo to leave it out

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40089256]gun safe laws can be enforced constitutionally, you don't raid houses to check if they're locked up, you punish people after the fact in the aftermath of a suicide, theft or murder where you have discovered the gun wasn't locked up. [B]the idea that a gun registry is the "first step to confiscation" is laughable,[/B] if you're so worried about confiscation you could report your gun as stolen so that when men in black wearing obama logos on their lapels come to take your guns away you just say you don't have them anymore. if the government actually wanted to take your guns away they would just sidestep you at the front door, search your house and take them.[/QUOTE] At least 3 guns were re-classified in Canada arbitrarily by the RCMP prior to the end of the long gun registry, and they were confiscated and destroyed. The handgun registry was also used to locate and destroy hundreds of thousands of handguns after the government deemed them "prohibited" in 1995, and it's used every day to take rifles that are now deemed "prohibited" out of the estates of the deceased owners who were grandfathered to own them and destroy them, barring the children/next of kin of the deceased previous owner from acquiring the gun, because the government knows where it is. They banned it for no good reason, and they'll take it from you when they get the first opportunity and offer you absolutely nothing in return, and if you don't hand the gun in to them, you'll be arrested for it. IIRC, the leader of the Coalition for Gun Control admitted it would be harder to prohibit guns if they weren't registered, because the government wouldn't be able to force people to hand them in for destruction because they wouldn't know where they were. Registration has lead to confiscation in Canada, Australia, and the UK notably, it is not at all laughable to say that registration leads to confiscation, because it's demonstrable. [editline]29th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;40089329]if it's so easy to circumvent why are you so desperately worried about the homicide detectives or suicide cleanup crew asking you how your son got the gun? if it catches a handful of people in the aftermath of a crime who had their pistol laying on a dresser it's helpful [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] moreover it promotes a social standard that if you own a gun you should be keeping it in a safe, making it taboo to leave it out[/QUOTE] And when someone breaks into your house, you expect them to wait while you turn the dial on your safe, find your gun in the dark, load it, and then shoot them?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40089329]moreover it promotes a social standard that if you own a gun you should be keeping it in a safe, making it taboo to leave it out[/QUOTE] Why should this be a social standard applied to everyone? What if I live alone in a bad neighborhood and keep a shotgun, loaded but no round chambered, next to my bed in case someone breaks in? What's wrong with that?

[QUOTE=catbarf;40089771]Why should this be a social standard applied to everyone? What if I live alone in a bad neighborhood and keep a shotgun, loaded but no round chambered, next to my bed in case someone breaks in? What's wrong with that?[/QUOTE] Well as long as it's not loaded or something, it's fine. Anybody who keeps a loaded shotgun next to their bed is not the sort of person I would trust with a gun.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40088905]enforce background checks[/QUOTE] Not a bad idea, in fact its already done when you try to purchase a gun from a dealer, form 4473. [QUOTE]mental health checkups[/QUOTE] That's a bad idea because of three reasons. 1. Its extremely vague 2. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are never violent 3. It would further stigmatize people with mental illnesses, which would discourage all of them from seeking help, regardless of if they want a gun or not. [QUOTE]gun safe laws[/QUOTE] Not really a way you can enforce that, it would be hard to justify a search without breaking the 4th amendment. It may not be impossible but it would definitely be limited in its effectiveness. [QUOTE]and gun registration[/QUOTE] Again not a bad idea, but it is something that is already in place when buying from a dealer through form 4473. What people don't seem to realize is that there is significant amount of gun control already existing today in the U.S. Yeah there needs to be more work involved with regulating private sales, but that isn't a trivial task to solve and it tends to get overshadowed with the rest of the gun control rhetoric. A lot of the pro-gun rhetoric is stuff that is based purely on emotion without actually looking at the reasons why gun violence happens. Gun control debates end up taking precedence over the real issues which are income disparity and poverty which are the main causes for violent crimes in general in the U.S. Nobody wants to talk about poverty and income disparity because those are [U]actually hard issues to deal with[/U]. Gun control provides an easy way for people to feel like they are supporting good legislation. People get caught up in the notion that guns were used in mass shootings that they shut out any sort of alternate reasoning and end up trying to demonize guns and gun owners. It really is not all that dissimilar to all of the demonizing of video games and gamers.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40089820]Well as long as it's not loaded or something, it's fine. Anybody who keeps a loaded shotgun next to their bed is not the sort of person I would trust with a gun.[/QUOTE] You are mentally inferior if keeping a shotgun for home defence results in your distrust. I guess this goes along with your argument that "anybody who owns a gun for home defence intends to kill somebody"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40088905]i can understand why pro-gun dudes don't want all out gun bans and i recognize the need for civilian firearms use as a self defense mechanism, what i don't understand is why you guys are so terrified of the idea of federal laws that enforce background checks, mental health checkups, gun safe laws and gun registration?[/QUOTE] Registration leads to confiscation. I support background checks, and mental health requirements. And keeping guns in a safe protects your investment, so it makes sense.

[QUOTE=laserguided;40090090]You are mentally inferior if keeping a shotgun for home defence results in your distrust. I guess this goes along with your argument that "anybody who owns a gun for home defence intends to kill somebody"[/QUOTE] Read. [quote][b]Anybody who keeps a loaded shotgun next to their bed[/b][/quote] If you can't think of any possible problems, especially if somebody else lives in the household, you are probably not fit to operate firearms. [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;40090111]Registration leads to confiscation. I support background checks, and mental health requirements. And keeping guns in a safe protects your investment, so it makes sense.[/QUOTE] It's probably why babies are taken away by the state after you register their birth.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090135]If you can't think of any possible problems, especially if somebody else lives in the household, you are probably not fit to operate firearms.[/QUOTE] Alternatively, you keep them out of reach of children, and you teach them the dangers involved. Like you do with drugs, alcohol, and other dangerous machinery. We all agree that abstinence is not a proper form of sex education. Yet we seem to think that it is just fine for something that has much greater capacity to alter lives.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090135]Read. If you can't think of any possible problems, especially if somebody else lives in the household, you are probably not fit to operate firearms. [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] It's probably why babies are taken away by the state after you register their birth.[/QUOTE] Yeah I full well understand what you said. But its still dumb.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090135] It's probably why babies are taken away by the state after you register their birth.[/QUOTE] Yes, because we all bought our babies at the baby store because they're tradeable commodities whose "ownership" the government can regulate without it being a violation of basic, fundamental human rights, after all.

[QUOTE=Ridge;40090163]Alternatively, you keep them out of reach of children, and you teach them the dangers involved. Like you do with drugs, alcohol, and other dangerous machinery.[/QUOTE] The difference is that medicine bottles use safety caps, alcohol is usually stored in bottles that children find difficult to open (or in hidden cupboards for that nice glass of sherry), and the machinery is turned off with it probably having multiple safety features. If you keep a shotgun for self defence, you don't keep the fucking thing loaded next to your bed. At the very least, keep it unloaded with the shells inside the drawers.

I have yet to see anyone describe what gun registration is supposed to accomplish. Seriously, all it does is let you know that a gun is or was legally owned at one point, and assuming serial numbers are intact, the gun can be traced back to one of its previous legal owners anyway, so a more widespread registration doesn't do [I]anything.[/I]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090192]The difference is that medicine bottles use safety caps, alcohol is usually stored in bottles that children find difficult to open (or in hidden cupboards for that nice glass of sherry), and the machinery is turned off with it probably having multiple safety features. If you keep a shotgun for self defence, you don't keep the fucking thing loaded next to your bed. At the very least, keep it unloaded with the shells inside the drawers.[/QUOTE] Then you need to load it, possibly in the dark with many other factors. There is this thing called firearms safety, though you seem pretty uninformed when it comes to firearms so I'll assume you're blindly speaking here. There are many other ways to keep it loaded and safe.