Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Blitzkreig;36948270]Statistically stricter gun laws have lead to higher crime rates. It makes a criminal's job safer.[/QUOTE] ok i cant help myself. It also makes the victim a lot safer. I agree that it doesn't exactly help stop crime but it sure as hell helps stop people getting killed.

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;36948247]Everyone seems so wrapped up in assault weapons that they've forgotten that the he used a shotgun, which I can only assume is not considered an assault weapon to kill people when his other gun failed to fire. Even if assault weapons are banned people are going to be able to get guns like shotguns. Even the UK with its tight gun laws allows some people to own shotguns, so it doesn't matter if you ban "Assault Weapons" either way there is a chance of some maniac getting his hand a weapon to hurt someone with. Banning military style weapons just limits the rights of the legal owners.[/QUOTE] Also that the "assault weapon" was the only one to fail during his killing spree.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36947687]So say a 'tyrannical' government did emerge, what's to say everyone in the country would agree on the matter and join forces? It'd most likely be chaos with people who are supporters of the government fighting against rebels. In an alternative scenario where everyone is on the same side, presumably the military would be against the government too? They have firearms and much more, and the government in itself is powerless against that and so the public having firearms wouldn't make a difference. It's most likely the UN or something would intervene in either scenario anyway[/QUOTE] Just wanted someone to get back to me here, regarding the second amendment

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948371]Just wanted someone to get back to me here, regarding the second amendment[/QUOTE] The purpose is not for an actual revolution, but to keep the government and military scared of asserting authority over the citizens because it would cost a lot of life to do so. That's the way I always looked at it, at least. It's like the people having their own nuke. The government can't get too out of hand when they have an armed populace to be accountable to.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948371]Just wanted someone to get back to me here, regarding the second amendment[/QUOTE] It's preventative mostly. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] ninja'd

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36948414]The purpose is not for an actual revolution, but to keep the government and military scared of asserting authority over the citizens because it would cost a lot of life to do so. That's the way I always looked at it, at least. It's like the people having their own nuke. The government can't get too out of hand when they have an armed populace to be accountable to.[/QUOTE] I see exactly where you're coming from, but doesn't the government already have enough power as it is to stop the production and sale of firearms and even confiscate them before taking actions that could could potentially trigger a rebellion?

[QUOTE=Scot;36948314]ok i cant help myself. It also makes the victim a lot safer. I agree that it doesn't exactly help stop crime but it sure as hell helps stop people getting killed.[/QUOTE] So making someone unable to legally defend themselves against a criminal who will get a gun illegally is supposed to make them safer? This isn't logic, it's stupidity. That's honestly one of the dumbest and most wrong things I've ever heard, because criminals will get weapons anyways, meaning all you do is make it easier to victimize soneone because they can't fight back. It doesn't make the victim safer, it makes them easier to victimize.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948572]I see exactly where you're coming from, but doesn't the government already have enough power as it is to stop the production and sale of firearms and even confiscate them before taking actions that could could potentially trigger a rebellion?[/QUOTE] Not likely. If they tried to confiscate guns or stop gun production it could cause serious civil unrest. It isn't that an armed populace could necessarily defeat the military, but a rebellion or civil unrest could destroy infrastructure, cost manpower, and fuck the nation over in various ways. So it's easier not to confiscate guns.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948572]I see exactly where you're coming from, but doesn't the government already have enough power as it is to stop the production and sale of firearms and even confiscate them before taking actions that could could potentially trigger a rebellion?[/QUOTE] The confiscation would lead to a rebellion, not to mention it will be met with mass non-compliance and therefore be utterly useless.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36948646]The confiscation would lead to a rebellion, not to mention it will be met with mass non-compliance and therefore be utterly useless.[/QUOTE] I meant more gradually making possession of firearms illegal and waiting until the amount of guns owned by the public significantly dropped, rather than taking everyone's guns over the course of a week or something. But yeah that's understandable [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] and why do I get a box for this?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948659]I meant more gradually making possession of firearms illegal and waiting until the amount of guns owned by the public significantly dropped, rather than taking everyone's guns over the course of a week or something. But yeah that's understandable[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if it's a week, a year, 10 years, etc. Guns are engraved in our culture as a tool of destruction and of survival. I would die this very minute if the government said they would take every American's guns, because the right for us to defend ourselves from our own leaders is a right that was foreseen and given to us by our forefathers for the intent of keeping the government in check and to make sure the government could never basically enslave it's populace through military control. You're being dumbed because some people want guns, and some people need them. What about hunters? What about sport shooters? What about gun collectors? Or the average joe wanting to protect his own fucking property?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948659]I meant more gradually making possession of firearms illegal and waiting until the amount of guns owned by the public significantly dropped, rather than taking everyone's guns over the course of a week or something. But yeah that's understandable [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] and why do I get a box for this?[/QUOTE] They tried that in Canada, more than half the people didn't register their guns because they knew they'd be confiscated eventually, and even then there were still 8 million registered guns in a country of 34 million before the long gun registry was scrapped. Even gradual confiscation won't work, considering there's basically 14 million private guns versus about 1 million government guns via police and military, you just can't get gun ownership down that low, even here guns are a part of our history and culture, you'll never see a Canada with less than a million private guns.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948371]Just wanted someone to get back to me here, regarding the second amendment[/QUOTE] As Yawmwen pointed out, it doesn't necessarily require an actual fight to be effective. But, assuming it came to a fight, you don't necessarily need everyone to rise up. The American revolution had dismal numbers in terms of supporters. One today would require better support, but not total support by any stretch of the imagination. A bunch of assholes blowing up train lines and attacking ports could cripple the country virtually indefinitely. There is so much countryside which is necessary for the transportation of goods, but otherwise completely empty in the United States. Fighting rebels domestically would be a military nightmare.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36949066]As Yawmwen pointed out, it doesn't necessarily require an actual fight to be effective. But, assuming it came to a fight, you don't necessarily need everyone to rise up. The American revolution had dismal numbers in terms of supporters. One today would require better support, but not total support by any stretch of the imagination. A bunch of assholes blowing up train lines and attacking ports could cripple the country virtually indefinitely. There is so much countryside which is necessary for the transportation of goods, but otherwise completely empty in the United States. Fighting rebels domestically would be a military nightmare.[/QUOTE] The only real way I could see the government taking over the civilian population is if it unleashed biological or chemical weapons on a majority, and use the military to police the surviving populace. Crazy, but the only honest way I could see the government ever "winning" a domestic popular uprising.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;36948836]You're being dumbed because some people want guns, and some people need them. What about hunters? What about sport shooters? What about gun collectors? Or the average joe wanting to protect his own fucking property?[/QUOTE] I was referring to the scenario I described, I wasn't actually suggesting the government confiscates everyone's firearms

[QUOTE=RobbL;36948371]Just wanted someone to get back to me here, regarding the second amendment[/QUOTE] When the 2nd Amendment was written, there were no tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters. There were muskets, rifles and cannon. And it's purpose was to ensure the individual citizen could have the same weapons as the military. They could never have conceived things like tracked vehicles, artillery or air support. Personally, I'm just fine with the line being drawn at rocket trucks at airborne weapons platforms. But the individual citizen still has the right to be able to be armed the same as an individual soldier.

[QUOTE=Scot;36948314]ok i cant help myself. It also makes the victim a lot safer. I agree that it doesn't exactly help stop crime but it sure as hell helps stop people getting killed.[/QUOTE] What the [b][u][i] flying bombing fuck [/i][/u][/b] are you talking about. Criminals do not give two shits about gun laws. They will still obtain high powered firearms. The depriving the "victim" of any reasonable means to defend him/herself and calling him/her "safer" is the ramblings of a mad man. Lets say I toss you into a pit with a cougar. You have a snubnosed revolver, which I promptly confiscate upon noticing you have it and replace with a sharpened stick. I now gleefully lie back and shout "you are now safer than you were before, surely you won't be killed because I removed a dangerous firearm"? Now you tell me. Did I improve your chances of survival? Removing firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens makes no one safer, except for perhaps the criminal who is going to victimize him/her.

what happened to keeping politics out of this?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36948620]So making someone unable to legally defend themselves against a criminal who will get a gun illegally is supposed to make them safer? This isn't logic, it's stupidity. That's honestly one of the dumbest and most wrong things I've ever heard, because criminals will get weapons anyways, meaning all you do is make it easier to victimize soneone because they can't fight back. It doesn't make the victim safer, it makes them easier to victimize.[/QUOTE] This isn't how things work in the real world. In country's with strict gun control and where home owners generally do not own a gun, criminals generally don't use guns. Your logic is the flawed one. Criminals will not get weapons anyways, and not owning a gun makes you less likely to get shot. If you're getting robbed, your gun will not help you, the criminal will already have his gun out and you won't have to time to grab yours. Carrying a weapon will only make it more likely that you'll get hurt, because criminals (robbers) generally don't want to harm their victim, they want money, but when you have a weapon they have no choice but to hurt you.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949600]This isn't how things work in the real world. In country's with strict gun control and where home owners generally do not own a gun, criminals generally don't use guns. Your logic is the flawed one. Criminals will not get weapons anyways, and not owning a gun makes you less likely to get shot. If you're getting robbed, your gun will not help you, the criminal will already have his gun out and you won't have to time to grab yours. Carrying a weapon will only make it more likely that you'll get hurt, because criminals (robbers) generally don't want to harm their victim, they want money, but when you have a weapon they have no choice but to hurt you.[/QUOTE] Your argument is based entirely on assumptions.

[QUOTE=Lyonidis;36949561]What the [b][u][i] flying bombing fuck [/i][/u][/b] are you talking about. Criminals do not give two shits about gun laws. They will still obtain high powered firearms. The depriving the "victim" of any reasonable means to defend him/herself and calling him/her "safer" is the ramblings of a mad man. Lets say I toss you into a pit with a cougar. You have a snubnosed revolver, which I promptly confiscate upon noticing you have it and replace with a sharpened stick. I now gleefully lie back and shout "you are now safer than you were before, surely you won't be killed because I removed a dangerous firearm"? Now you tell me. Did I improve your chances of survival? Removing firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens makes no one safer, except for perhaps the criminal who is going to victimize him/her.[/QUOTE] Removing firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens makes everyone safer from eachother. Each person carrying a firearm is a danger to the people around him/her and himself. Criminals might not give a shit about gun laws, but they're still people. Small time criminals (robbers) will not want to hurt you physically, the risk is too great. And professional criminals won't rob you, there's no money in it for them. The only criminals likely to bear arms in a country where not everyone has a gun, are drugs dealers, drug gangs. And they are most likely to use them on eachother.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949653]Removing firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens makes everyone safer from eachother. Each person carrying a firearm is a danger to the people around him/her and himself. Criminals might not give a shit about gun laws, but they're still people. Small time criminals (robbers) will not want to hurt you physically, the risk is too great. And professional criminals won't rob you, there's no money in it for them. The only criminals likely to bear arms in a country where not everyone has a gun, are drugs dealers, drug gangs. And they are most likely to use them on eachother.[/QUOTE] Because nobody having a gun last year when the Norway killer struck made the place much safer.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36949704]Because nobody having a gun last year when the Norway killer struck made the place much safer.[/QUOTE] Yes. I believe there would be a high possibility that it could have turned out much worse if people were carrying.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949731]Yes. I believe there would be a high possibility that it could have turned out much worse if people were carrying.[/QUOTE] How about we ask the parents of the dead kids on the island if they agree that it was better their children cowered under rocks hoping they wouldn't be executed, than having someone stop this man sooner?

As I already said in this or another thread, in the US alone each year guns are used in about 500'000 crimes, and TWO AND A HALF FUCKING MILLION TIMES in self-defense by law abiding citizens. So yeah, being armed means you'll likely get to protect your wallet, your family and your life.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36949632]Your argument is based entirely on assumptions.[/QUOTE] Criminals that have no problem hurting other people don't become lowly thieves, and it isn't based entirely on assumptions. Burglars in the UK and the Netherlands generally do not carry a firearm even though it is easy as shit to get one on the black market.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949773]Criminals that have no problem hurting other people don't become lowly thieves, and it isn't based entirely on assumptions. Burglars in the UK and the Netherlands generally do not carry a firearm even though it is easy as shit to get one on the black market.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;36949738]How about we ask the parents of the dead kids on the island if they agree that it was better their children cowered under rocks hoping they wouldn't be executed, than having someone stop this man sooner?[/QUOTE] Now you're assuming things. Who are you to say they would've stopped him sooner? They might very well have hit more kids trying to shoot the guy but missing. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;36949798][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Mr Davis said the gun figures were linked to a steep rise in [b]drug offences[/b] - up 21 per cent in the third quarter of last year. The number of drug crimes was 55,700, against 9,500 in the same period in 2006. He said: "Violent crime is fuelled by drugs and Labour's chaotic and confused policy on drugs. Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and are a major symptom of our broken society."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=GunFox;36947326]It is really just a matter of recognizing that the more power which gets centralized in a single location, the greater the possibility of corruption is. The Federal government gets a huge centralization of power, and thereby suffers the greatest corruption. State level governments have wildly varying levels of power and are a serious wildcard if things ever went completely sideways. Any number of things could happen to a national guard force, all depending on the situation surrounding the conflict and the state from which they originate.[/QUOTE] It would seem that government size has nothing to do with actual corruption: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index[/url]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949802]Now you're assuming things. Who are you to say they would've stopped him sooner? They might very well have hit more kids trying to shoot the guy but missing.[/QUOTE] It would depend on many things, for sure. [quote][editline]26th July 2012[/editline][/quote] The link is irrelevant, because they still have guns, despite the ban. And that was your argument.