Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42835554]Because again, it's protected in the constitution. I know you think the constitution is stupid and everything but if I'm going to be frank, a lot of people on this end think the same of Common Law.[/QUOTE] Yet the constitution is modifiable.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42835760]Yet the constitution is modifiable.[/QUOTE] But it's not meant to be fluidly modifiable.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42829438]You can't have both that's the point. You simply can't afford it. Do you have any idea how expensive the ban on all guns would be in US? First you need to get rid of all the guns, then you have to keep them away. It's going to be pretty hard because the moment you ban guns, the US will become the largest demand for illegal guns. And since there are drugs in the most secure prisons and illegal immigrants in US (who can't be disassembled into small parts and assembled after crossing the border) I'm pretty sure guns will always make it to US. Second, you can't "remove the means by which such people can easily maim or kill others". You'd have to take away all sharp or heavy objects. Taking away the guns would take the most lethal ones away, but don't even try to make it look like you are getting rid of all possible means of killing people. Third, I support mental and background checks and gun training for gun owners. Because it's the crazy and irresponsible people and criminals who shouldn't have guns. Forth, I find it repulsive that you think it's okay to take away people's shit because there are some who misuse them. Most legal guns are never fired at people. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] You can fight the problem itself or fight to make it less lethal. Pick one. You can't afford both.[/QUOTE] How often should a gun owner undergo mental health screening since it varies dramatically over a persons life time?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42835786]But it's not meant to be fluidly modifiable.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by this? It's still modifiable either way. If enough people want to, they can get rid of any amendment they like, provided enough people vote for it.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42830784]Why can't you afford both? Because your argument depends on it? The easier it is for sane people to get guns, the easier it is for everyone else to get guns, and that includes mentally ill people.[/QUOTE] Because the US is spending >51 billion a year on war on drugs. You want to double it? Good job spending 100 billion dollars a year on something that doesn't work. I don't know how much you'd have to spend on war on guns in order to get the effect you think a gun ban would achieve (guns disappearing) since you're spending over 51 billion a year on war on drugs and you can buy drugs on every corner, but you certainly wouldn't be able to afford ANYTHING else if you do it, certainly not getting rid of poverty and improving mental health of over 300 mil citizens. I'd love to live in a fantasy world where money isn't an issue and you can afford everything too, but you really should start growing up out of it. [QUOTE=NoDachi;42835835]How often should a gun owner undergo mental health screening since it varies dramatically over a persons life time?[/QUOTE] Every 6 months maybe? I'm not really sure. You'd have to get experts on it and determine how short the period should be in order to effectively detect mental problems before they manifest.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42829438] Third, I support mental and background checks and gun training for gun owners. Because it's the crazy and irresponsible people and criminals who shouldn't have guns. Forth, I find it repulsive that you think it's okay to take away people's shit because there are some who misuse them. Most legal guns are never fired at people. [/QUOTE] lmfao how absolutely fascist of you to think of criminals and mentally ill as "not people". [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] or at least not people who deserve rights, at least.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42836967]lmfao how absolutely fascist of you to think of criminals and mentally ill as "not people". [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] or at least not people who deserve rights, at least.[/QUOTE] Where did I say they are not people? Or that they don't deserve rights? Have you ever made an argument that wasn't a lie or an absurd strawman?

Jesus this thread turned into a warzone, I feel like one of those war journalists who's seen some major shit.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42836925]Because the US is spending >51 billion a year on war on drugs. You want to double it? Good job spending 100 billion dollars a year on something that doesn't work. I don't know how much you'd have to spend on war on guns in order to get the effect you think a gun ban would achieve (guns disappearing) since you're spending over 51 billion a year on war on drugs and you can buy drugs on every corner, but you certainly wouldn't be able to afford ANYTHING else if you do it, certainly not getting rid of poverty and improving mental health of over 300 mil citizens. I'd love to live in a fantasy world where money isn't an issue and you can afford everything too, but you really should start growing up out of it.[/QUOTE] The US's GDP is 15.68 trillion dollars. 100 Billion is a lot, even when contrasted with the total GDP (0.6%), but you cannot seriously suggest that there's no room whatsoever in the budget. Besides, there are other things one could cut, that cost a shit ton more. Such as the defense budget, perhaps? I know that there's a lot of shit the US government needs to pay for, but it has cash. Does it have to fund another War on Drugs? I don't know, maybe. [I]Could [/I]it fund another War on Drugs? Yes. Besides, it's erroneous to compare guns with drugs because (as has been pointed out earlier in the thread) the US gets a shitton of drugs in from Mexico, but supplies a shitton of guns at the same time. Guns would not be as common as drugs if they were subject to identical restrictions because the powerhouse producing all those guns (the US) wouldn't be producing them anymore; whereas the US's War on Drugs has very little effect on the ability of Mexican Drug Cartels to produce and smuggle drugs into the country. Yes, it's impossible to eradicate guns because it's impossible to eradicate anything. The thing is, you don't need to eradicate guns, you just need to make guns difficult enough to acquire that your average petty criminal cannot acquire one. That won't be easy no matter how you go about it, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be thrown out of the window. Here's some references: [quote]"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[/quote] [URL]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg[/URL] [quote]An estimated $10 billion of the Mexican drug cartel’s profits come from the United States, not only supplying the Mexican drug cartels with the money necessary for their survival,[/quote] [URL]http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29706058?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102928222253[/URL] Also, nice job telling me to grow up, you're not doing yourself any favours by making yourself look like an ass. [editline]12th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;42837041]Where did I say they are not people? Or that they don't deserve rights? Have you ever made an argument that wasn't a lie or an absurd strawman?[/QUOTE] I think he's referring to the fact that you said they shouldn't be allowed guns, when the right to bear arms is a thing. It's a stupid argument, but it's yawmwen.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42837282]The US's GDP is 15.68 trillion dollars. 100 Billion is a lot, even when contrasted with the total GDP (0.6%), but you cannot seriously suggest that there's no room whatsoever in the budget. Besides, there are other things one could cut, that cost a shit ton more. Such as the defense budget, perhaps? I know that there's a lot of shit the US government needs to pay for, but it has cash. Does it have to fund another War on Drugs? I don't know, maybe. [I]Could [/I]it fund another War on Drugs? Yes. Besides, it's erroneous to compare guns with drugs because (as has been pointed out earlier in the thread) the US gets a shitton of drugs in from Mexico, but supplies a shitton of guns at the same time. Guns would not be as common as drugs if they were subject to identical restrictions because the powerhouse producing all those guns (the US) wouldn't be producing them anymore; whereas the US's War on Drugs has very little effect on the ability of Mexican Drug Cartels to produce and smuggle drugs into the country. Yes, it's impossible to eradicate guns because it's impossible to eradicate anything. The thing is, you don't need to eradicate guns, you just need to make guns difficult enough to acquire that your average petty criminal cannot acquire one. That won't be easy no matter how you go about it, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be thrown out of the window. [/QUOTE] If there is so much room in the budget explain this [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States[/URL] And you need to understand one thing. The moment the US bans guns it becomes the largest demand for illegal guns thus the biggest black market for guns. Yeah they are the biggest gun manufacturer now, but they are not the only ones who can make guns. You can make an AK out of a shovel. People don't do it now because they don't have to. But give them incentive (like the biggest black market for guns and inflated prices) and they will. Plus even if they wouldn't manufacture any guns, there's plenty go smuggle back to us lying around. The point is, you won't get rid of guns no matter how much money you throw at it, and you need that money for fighting the actual problem not just the symptoms. And besides, the problem are the people who misuse guns, not ALL guns. You only need to make it harder for criminals, crazy and irresponsible people to get a gun. It's not fair to take away people's things because there are some who misue them. You could do that with everything. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42837282]Also, nice job telling me to grow up, you're not doing yourself any favours by making yourself look like an ass.[/QUOTE] I replied in the tone I did because you started like that [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42830784]Why can't you afford both? Because your argument depends on it?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42837444]If there is so much room in the budget explain this [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States[/URL][/quote] [video=youtube;3ugDU2qNcyg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg[/video] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;42837444] And you need to understand one thing. The moment the US bans guns it becomes the largest demand for illegal guns thus the biggest black market for guns. Yeah they are the biggest gun manufacturer now, but they are not the only ones who can make guns. You can make an AK out of a shovel. People don't do it now because they don't have to. But give them incentive (like the biggest black market for guns and inflated prices) and they will. Plus even if they wouldn't manufacture any guns, there's plenty go smuggle back to us lying around. The point is, you won't get rid of guns no matter how much money you throw at it, and you need that money for fighting the actual problem not just the symptoms.[/quote] Again, it's impossible to eradicate anything, and I'm not shying away from that fact. If you remove (or drastically reduce) the supply of something, what happens? Price goes up. If price goes up, it becomes harder for people to acquire said item, because it [I]costs a lot[/I]. People that are determined enough will still get guns, but they'll get guns no matter what you do! You make it hard for petty criminals (by forcing black market prices up) to get weapons, so that people don't need to fear someone mugging them with a handgun. If people don't need to fear getting mugged with a handgun, they won't feel the need to carry a handgun for protection. If neither groups are carrying handguns, then the number of people dying goes down. Less people dying is good! [QUOTE=Silly Sil;42837444]And besides, the problem are the people who misuse guns, not ALL guns. You only need to make it harder for criminals, crazy and irresponsible people to get a gun. It's not fair to take away people's things because there are some who misue them. You could do that with everything.[/QUOTE] As long as average Joe can get their hands on a gun; criminals, mentally ill people, and irresponsible people can. Even if only because they move into one of those groups after already purchasing a gun. If you mental when you already possess a firearm, then no amount of background checks are going to retroactively prevent you from doing something stupid. I don't care about how easy it is for organised criminals or premeditated murderers to get their hands on guns, because there's literally nothing you can do to stop them getting them. Short of walling your country in. What I care about is removing guns from the little guys; household guns that are used in suicides, domestic murders, and the like. I care about getting guns out of the hands of petty criminals, and making the world a generally safer place. Because yes, a world in which less people own deadly weapons is safer.

the fuck is going on in this thread?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42837041]Where did I say they are not people? Or that they don't deserve rights? Have you ever made an argument that wasn't a lie or an absurd strawman?[/QUOTE] you say people shouldn't have their shit taken away or their rights infringed unless they are mentally ill or a criminal without really even defining what that means?

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]As long as average Joe can get their hands on a gun; criminals, mentally ill people, and irresponsible people can. Even if only because they move into one of those groups after already purchasing a gun. If you mental when you already possess a firearm, then no amount of background checks are going to retroactively prevent you from doing something stupid. I don't care about how easy it is for organised criminals or premeditated murderers to get their hands on guns, because there's literally nothing you can do to stop them getting them. Short of walling your country in.[/QUOTE] I don't see the reasoning behind outlawing guns and then hoping they all magically disappear. If you're [I]that[/I] concerned about idiots with guns, just get one yourself. No one can control another person's actions, but you can control your own actions and take steps to increase your personal safety... assuming you don't live in a communist state or fascist dictatorship like the People's Republic of California or NYC. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]What I care about is removing guns from the little guys; household guns that are used in suicides, domestic murders, and the like. I care about getting guns out of the hands of petty criminals, and making the world a generally safer place. Because yes, a world in which less people own deadly weapons is safer.[/QUOTE] "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;42845534]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] This is an abused and overused quote.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;42845534]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] guns are not an essential liberty

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42845724]guns are not an essential liberty[/QUOTE] wats a essential liberty?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42845739]wats a essential liberty?[/QUOTE] free speech and free ammo

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;42845534]I don't see the reasoning behind outlawing guns and then hoping they all magically disappear. If you're [I]that[/I] concerned about idiots with guns, just get one yourself. No one can control another person's actions, but you can control your own actions and take steps to increase your personal safety... assuming you don't live in a communist state or fascist dictatorship like the People's Republic of California or NYC. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] I shouldn't have to get a gun to protect myself against guns. That mentality fosters an arms-race, and can only result in more people dying. I'm not scared personally scared that I'll be killed with one because I live in fairly rural England, and even if I was scared I wouldn't buy a gun because that would be funding gun companies. Also, I don't believe that a gun is an essential liberty; that kinda makes your Benjamin Franklin(?) quote moot. I don't know if you were expecting it to hit a chord with me or something.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42846183]free speech and free ammo[/QUOTE] but no gun to shoot the free ammo???

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150][video=youtube;3ugDU2qNcyg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg[/video][/QUOTE] The point stands. You need all the money for fixing the problem not on spending it on something that doesn't work. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]Again, it's impossible to eradicate anything, and I'm not shying away from that fact. If you remove (or drastically reduce) the supply of something, what happens? Price goes up. If price goes up, it becomes harder for people to acquire said item, because it [I]costs a lot[/I]. People that are determined enough will still get guns, but they'll get guns no matter what you do! You make it hard for petty criminals (by forcing black market prices up) to get weapons, so that people don't need to fear someone mugging them with a handgun. [/QUOTE] So in other words the gun ban is going to do what fixing prices of guns to be expensive would do? Of course plus the massive underground and basically giving a multi million dollar industry to criminals? [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]If people don't need to fear getting mugged with a handgun, they won't feel the need to carry a handgun for protection. If neither groups are carrying handguns, then the number of people dying goes down. Less people dying is good![/QUOTE] You do realize not everyone buys guns for protection right? People buy them for a hobby and it's fucking insane to take away their stuff and tell them "you can't do that" because there are some people who misuse guns. And I think you really overestimate how expensive guns would be. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]As long as average Joe can get their hands on a gun; criminals, mentally ill people, and irresponsible people can.[/QUOTE] Background check, training and mental checks every 6 months. That way those who don't fulfill those requirements have to turn into an illegal source. Exactly the same way they would if the gun ban would be in effect. Except the average Joe can still get a gun if he wants. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]Even if only because they move into one of those groups after already purchasing a gun. If you mental when you already possess a firearm, then no amount of background checks are going to retroactively prevent you from doing something stupid.[/QUOTE] Well then lets ban all sharp and heavy objects because if you go insane you can as well kill people with a kitchen knive or a brick. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42841150]I don't care about how easy it is for organised criminals or premeditated murderers to get their hands on guns, because there's literally nothing you can do to stop them getting them. Short of walling your country in. What I care about is removing guns from the little guys; household guns that are used in suicides, domestic murders, and the like. I care about getting guns out of the hands of petty criminals, and making the world a generally safer place. Because yes, a world in which less people own deadly weapons is safer.[/QUOTE] Again background check, training and mental checks every 6 months. Plus higher punishment for owning illegal guns. [editline]13th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42843133]you say people shouldn't have their shit taken away or their rights infringed unless they are mentally ill or a criminal without really even defining what that means?[/QUOTE] Having a gun is a responsibility. You shouldn't be [B][I]given [/I][/B]the right to bear arms if you are a threat to others and yourself. Do you make the same arguments against drivers license? That it's wrong that people have their rights to drive a car without really knowing how infringed? Do you tell people who support drivers license that they are fascists who think those who don't know how to drive a car are not people or at least people who don't deserve rights? And what do you mean defining what it means? Should I prepare the "Gun Safety Act" with all definitions included before we can have this conversation? I don't know how strict those criteria would be yet.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42845739]wats a essential liberty?[/QUOTE] essential liberties are abstract concepts not consumer products built by a factory

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42849449]essential liberties are abstract concepts not consumer products built by a factory[/QUOTE] Here's what I'm sure will be an abstract concept to you.. Defending your life, family and property when the police aren't there to do it for you.

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;42858267]Here's what I'm sure will be an abstract concept to you.. Defending your life, family and property when the police aren't there to do it for you.[/QUOTE] If a public service can' help you, then you're either located in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, or it's a result of conservative budget mindset. Pick one or both, you can't avoid them completely. Are you gonna have your own firetruck because your house might catch fire, or your own hospital because someone might suffer a heart attack??

[QUOTE=Van-man;42858852]If a public service can' help you, then you're either located in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, or it's a result of conservative budget mindset. Pick one or both, you can't avoid them completely. Are you gonna have your own firetruck because your house might catch fire, or your own hospital because someone might suffer a heart attack??[/QUOTE] Ok lol..so here is your solution.. People have to leave their middle of nowhere farm home because some arm-chair General doesn't want them to own a shotgun? That is your solution to gun crime in America? Make everyone live within in a certain distance of each other and force them to rely on the government for protection? And ha..conservative budget mindset.. So let's see the sort of stuff that the police are magically supposed to protect people from...let's see..what state should we take a look at. Oh I know, how about liberal ass New Jersey? Let's take a look at the latest news story from that part of the ACC. [url]http://www.kfyr.com/pages/toddkafesnato.html?article=11815092[/url] Please tell us Mr. Van Man. How will your glorious Police help people from being randomly knocked out on the street in broad daylight? Whether a budget is conservative or liberal is irrelevant. Ignorant pricks are always going to cause trouble until they are taught a lesson or fuck with the wrong people and are shot in the streets. This is just how it works in this country. Unfortunately in states full of people that are out of touch with reality..not gonna name any names.....[b]new jersey[/b]...; Shit like this is allowed to go rampant because people place too much faith in an institution that neither has the responsibility of protecting EVERYONE nor has the manpower to do so. And to answer your question...no I'm not going to own a firetruck or an ambulance.. Probably because I havn't been trained to operate a fucking fire truck or extinguish fires. I'm also not an EMT and wouldn't be able to utilize an ambulance on my own like 2-3 trained, professional EMT's would. What I have been trained to do is operate firearms effectively and with the utmost of safety in mind, starting around the age of 6 and further in the area of heavy/automatic weapon systems through my time in the Infantry. Do I even need to go into the variating cost difference between a Glock 23 and a fucking firetruck? I totally will if you need me to. I can never be too sure with some of you.. :v:

[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;42786446]Again, no they don't, guns are literally nothing more than pieces of moving metal, it's the people that influence these things[/QUOTE] You have read no studies whatsoever on guns. Imagine if he did not have a gun, then. He is mentally ill and for some reason wants to hurt the person knocking on his door. What would he do? Stab her? She would probably still be alive then and it's easier to protect yourself from someone stabbing you. He also won't be able to stab a person through the skull so it's less chance that it'd be a stab wound that actually can kill her.

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;42859394]Ok lol..so here is your solution.. People have to leave their middle of nowhere farm home because some arm-chair General doesn't want them to own a shotgun? That is your solution to gun crime in America? Make everyone live within in a certain distance of each other and force them to rely on the government for protection? And ha..conservative budget mindset.. So let's see the sort of stuff that the police are magically supposed to protect people from...let's see..what state should we take a look at. Oh I know, how about liberal ass New Jersey? Let's take a look at the latest news story from that part of the ACC. [url]http://www.kfyr.com/pages/toddkafesnato.html?article=11815092[/url] Please tell us Mr. Van Man. How will your glorious Police help people from being randomly knocked out on the street in broad daylight? Whether a budget is conservative or liberal is irrelevant. Ignorant pricks are always going to cause trouble until they are taught a lesson or fuck with the wrong people and are shot in the streets. This is just how it works in this country. Unfortunately in states full of people that are out of touch with reality..not gonna name any names.....[b]new jersey[/b]...; Shit like this is allowed to go rampant because people place too much faith in an institution that neither has the responsibility of protecting EVERYONE nor has the manpower to do so. And to answer your question...no I'm not going to own a firetruck or an ambulance.. Probably because I havn't been trained to operate a fucking fire truck or extinguish fires. I'm also not an EMT and wouldn't be able to utilize an ambulance on my own like 2-3 trained, professional EMT's would. What I have been trained to do is operate firearms effectively and with the utmost of safety in mind, starting around the age of 6 and further in the area of heavy/automatic weapon systems through my time in the Infantry. Do I even need to go into the variating cost difference between a Glock 23 and a fucking firetruck? I totally will if you need me to. I can never be too sure with some of you.. :v:[/QUOTE] Did you know less homes in the US have working firealarms than firearms. Yet fire is still a much higher danger than some scary home invasion. Faulty risk assessment at its best.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42859961]Did you know less homes in the US have working firealarms than firearms. Yet fire is still a much higher danger than some scary home invasion. Faulty risk assessment at its best.[/QUOTE] Did you know I survived a home invasion where a good friend was shot and killed right in front of me with an illegally obtained firearm and there was nothing I could do about it because I had no cell phone to call the police? Did you know I've never even seen a house fire up close? So in my experience...home invasions have been a bigger part of my life then house fires. Go ahead and tell me why else you think you should have a say in what I use to protect myself.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42847716 Having a gun is a responsibility. You shouldn't be [B][I]given [/I][/B]the right to bear arms if you are a threat to others and yourself. Do you make the same arguments against drivers license? That it's wrong that people have their rights to drive a car without really knowing how infringed? Do you tell people who support drivers license that they are fascists who think those who don't know how to drive a car are not people or at least people who don't deserve rights? And what do you mean defining what it means? Should I prepare the "Gun Safety Act" with all definitions included before we can have this conversation? I don't know how strict those criteria would be yet.[/QUOTE] so owning a gun is not a right, it is a privilege. that means it can and should be taken if it proves to benefit the safety of the society. we view rights as being default no matter what benefit restriction provides, but privileges get no such treatment. [QUOTE=NoDachi;42849449]essential liberties are abstract concepts not consumer products built by a factory[/QUOTE] so wats an essential liberty?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42859961]Did you know less homes in the US have working firealarms than firearms. Yet fire is still a much higher danger than some scary home invasion. Faulty risk assessment at its best.[/QUOTE] My house has 11 guns, and fire alarms. Come at me bro.