Biden: Obama Might Use Executive Order to Deal With Guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39169780]you see high murder rates,I see low violent crime rates. an extra murder or two per hundred thousand citizens is worth it when we have less than a third of Britain's assaults.[/QUOTE] I would rather be beaten up than shot.

I don't even know how they could use an executive order to modify the Bill of Rights. Leave the Bill of Rights alone. Those should never be touched

[QUOTE=fulgrim;39170775]I would rather be beaten up than shot.[/QUOTE] you're not looking at the percentages. It's about a 10% increase in probability of getting killed in exchange for a 300% decrease in probability off getting raped, beaten, etc. The difference is literally like 2 people per hundred thousand, it's such a negligible difference I don't understand why the difference was ever brought into question.

[QUOTE=Qui Cattus;39170888]I don't even know how they could use an executive order to modify the Bill of Rights. Leave the Bill of Rights alone. Those should never be touched[/QUOTE] They can't. The constituion does not grand them authority to. The proper way to modify the second amendment would be to propose another amendment that does so, which (I believe) requires a 3/4 majority in both houses of congress, and 2/3 of all the states.

why are there so many dumbs for all gun control related posts [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] why do you people love instruments of death so much

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39173011]why are there so many dumbs for all gun control related posts [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] why do you people love instruments of death so much[/QUOTE] I enjoy murdering innocent paper

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39173011]why are there so many dumbs for all gun control related posts [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] [B]why do you people love instruments of death so much[/B][/QUOTE] thats not the point

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39173011]why are there so many dumbs for all gun control related posts [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] why do you people love instruments of death so much[/QUOTE] Fun fact. The Fork was invented to stab a person 2-3 times at once. Why do you enjoy using it to consume the remains of fallen prey?

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39173011]why are there so many dumbs for all gun control related posts [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] why do you people love instruments of death so much[/QUOTE] I admire the technology, the history, and the sheer beauty of what these instruments of death are or can be. The thing about technology is that when it's created... It's got a base. From that base it can be improvised for so many things, and so many possibilities. The fact is though, everything has it's good and bads. All I ask is this, should I be punished for what happened in Newtown? Should several other reasonable gun owners be punished because some guy who was turned down by the 4473, managed to steal firearms, and went onto a shooting spree?

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39173011]why do you people love instruments of death so much[/QUOTE] Because people like you keep on trotting out these emotional appeals completely bereft of evidence, logic, reason, or even argument. Case in point: 'instruments of death'. It's a meaningless phrase. Antibiotics are instruments of death, and so are microwaves and insect poison. Is that a substantial category? Is there anything intrinsically wrong about an object being designed to kill, that gives it some moral weight? Of course not, we have no qualms about the idea of killing in general, we do it happily every day to bacteria, fungi, mold, insects, and other such life. We have a problem with killing certain things, like people. The phrase 'instruments of death', with all its melodrama, is clearly implying that what you're talking about is tools designed to kill [I]human beings[/I], which not every firearm is. You're looking for a knee-jerk emotional reaction to a soundbite, and that dog don't hunt.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39171665]you're not looking at the percentages. It's about a 10% increase in probability of getting killed in exchange for a 300% decrease in probability off getting raped, beaten, etc. The difference is literally like 2 people per hundred thousand, it's such a negligible difference I don't understand why the difference was ever brought into question.[/QUOTE] ah, I understand where you are coming from now. i guess that makes sence. the idea of trading murders for safety still doesnt sit well with me, but it makes sence.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39170363]If your life isn't in mortal danger you are in no position to be discharging a firearm. You don't shoot someone because you feel threatened or are annoyed and want to take them down a peg. Either you fear for your life, and thus shoot to kill, or you don't even draw your weapon. You don't use it to threaten and you sure as hell don't try to maim.[/QUOTE] Holy fuck the stupid is killing me. A hypothetical situation where I try to avoid death and I still get bitched at for the proper usage of a tool because "If you use this you GOTTA do this" bullshit mentality is why people see guns and go on and kill people, because they don't know it can be used otherwise. I see a tool that can prevent violent assault or crime, just as much as it can cause it, and however the execution is depending on factors precluding. You're going to be in the right if in the situation you're the victim fighting back, and if you shoot the assailant in the arm, leg, chest, or head, or nicked a vein or something, so fucking be it they took the same risk you did defending yourself by trying to rob you in the first place. I'm also going to catch a fallacy of yours. [QUOTE=catbarf;39170363][b]If your life isn't in mortal danger you are in no position to be discharging a firearm. [highlight]You don't shoot someone because you feel threatened[/highlight] or are annoyed and want to take them down a peg.[/b][/QUOTE] I want to say no fucking shit sherlock, I never said anything like this, this is just you assuming shit to make yourself an argument when there is none. And if you don't shoot someone when you're threatened, what do you do? And in a hypothetical where a gun is used, of course the fear of death is involved, you'd have to be a complete idiot to disregard that and consider what I say to be advice for say, a random bar fight or the matter. No, I'm talking about if you're in your home and someone invades your house with ill intent, and you feel the need to defend yourself. [QUOTE=catbarf;39170363]Either you fear for your life, and thus shoot to kill, or you don't even draw your weapon. You don't use it to threaten and you sure as hell don't try to maim.[/QUOTE] Why does the use of force have to be deadly? Can incapacitation work as well? Of course you have the risk of maiming the person but they took the risk of robbing you and you risked defending yourself, so you should be free of punishment because you were only acting in the defense of yourself. And you say intimidation with guns doesn't neutralize situations, sometimes yes, but again if you're in the right, in your home, with a home invader with any possible weapon, you're pretty much clear to take as much defensive action as possible as you see fit. If you have a gun and the guy has a knife, you hold the fucker up and tell him to drop it, if he charges you fire, because he's trying to kill you. Same difference with a gun, just depending on who pulls a gun first is really the deciding factor. If your gun is drawn and his isn't, you can get a few shots off in specific spots if you desire, but the sight of a man with a gun ready to kill you is a good way to get you in the mood to unload, hence your technique of "Kill em all and let god sort em out" shit. But the tide is turned if the invader has a gun drawn and you don't, so your obvious two choices are either flee or cooperate, both could involve death. All I'm saying is if the opportunity arises to end a situation with a gun but without killing a person, it should be taken.

Except in nearly every state if you shoot to wound you'll get charged, which basically nullifies your argument, if you don't shoot to kill when you pull your gun, you get arrested.

You don't do either. You shoot to stop the threat. You shoot them until they no longer pose an immediate danger to you or anybody else around.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39179126]Except in nearly every state if you shoot to wound you'll get charged, which basically nullifies your argument, if you don't shoot to kill when you pull your gun, you get arrested.[/QUOTE] Thank god I live in California then because the law is on MY side. [quote= ShouseLaw.com]According to California law, you act in lawful self-defense if you: 1 reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched, 2 believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and 3 use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.1 California self-defense law justifies your injuring (or even killing) another person if these conditions are satisfied. This means that if these requirements are met, self-defense can serve as a complete defense to a California violent crime if you are forced to kill or injure another. It should be noted that California self-defense law not only protects you against attacks from people, but also from animals. If you defend yourself against imminent danger coming from a dog attack, for example, any reasonable measures you take to protect yourself will be excused.2 If only some of these requirements are met, you may still be able to reduce your criminal liability under the theory of imperfect self-defense (which is discussed in the following section).[/quote]