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

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36966057]desperate people do desperate things[/QUOTE] Mostly when it's necessary, and most of the time that's when a homeowner pulls a gun on them

[quote=RobbL;36966035]Purely using logic now, if a man breaks into your house they're almost always just looking to steal a few of your possessions, nothing important in the scheme of things. Weigh that against the relatively few cases where they're actually out to kill or severely injure someone and the justification of using lethal force against every single one of them seems a bit silly.[/quote] Nah, if someone were to break into my house with the intent to steal shit me and my family worked hard to get, my thoughts certainly wouldn't be "eh, he's probably poor. Yeah, take my money, my TV and all sorts of valuable things, buddy". [quote]Take into account the fact that pulling a gun on a criminal very often just causes them to retaliate and escalates the situation into unnecessary violence (if they truly are a psychopath you don't really want to get on the wrong side of them), whereas if you didn't do so the burglar would most likely just go about his business (they don't generally intend to kill anyone).[/quote] Tell me, what would you do if you broke into someone's house and the owner showed up with a weapon pointed at your face, telling you to get the fuck out? Exactly. You'd get the fuck out. [quote]And if citizens can't own firearms then the criminals aren't likely to have them either (organised criminal gangs are completely irrelevant here so please don't bring that up)[/quote] "Criminals won't be able to get weapons. Criminals able to get weapons and eventually sell them to other criminals don't matter in this situation." [quote]So many of you here seem to believe that all thieves are unstable mentalcases, but in reality most of them are normal people in desperate situations who just want to carry out what they do with as little repercussions as possible[/quote] So committing crimes and stealing other people's shit is all fine and dandy if there are no repercussions? Brb stealing shit. I'll tell you a story. My father lost his job while I was a fetus. He worked as customs, so when the EU removed those entirely, it was a very dire situation for him and his family. He became a nurse and worked his ass off to save his family and unborn son from poverty. He succeeded, and never committed a single, slightest infraction of the law in his entire life. A similar story happened to my uncle and several other people I know. They found themselves quite desperate, and worked tiresome, back-breaking, humble, often underpaid jobs and managed to restart a nice life without a single goddamn crime.

[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36965573]That's a bit of an overly simplistic view of things. Often, Federal Laws are left vague so that states have room to define the law further as is fitting for that particular state. Gun control laws do not always infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. For example, many states have adopted legislation that explicitly states how firearms are to be stored when not in use (namely, in a safe or locked up.) That's gun control, but it's not preventing people from purchasing, owning, keeping, or maintaining firearms, and thus is not in conflict with the second amendment. Thus, the Supremacy Clause would not come into effect, because the local law (the gun storage law) does not conflict with the Federal law that you just invoked (the second amendment.) In the case of the use of lethal force, we're still discussing that. Sgt is currently looking for the federal law that conflicts with the state law that I provided. Once that is provided, we will continue to discuss the issue. As it stands, Sgt claims that the state law I provided contradicts a federal law, and is invalid as per the supremacy clause. I disagree, because I don't think such a federal law exists, but we will see what Sgt comes up with in his researching. Basically what I'm saying here is that the supremacy clause only applies when a state contradicts federal law. You claim that federal law nullifies gun control because it also nullified self defense laws. That depends entirely on how the federal law is written in each separate case (self-defense is one case, gun control another.) Each case and it's applicable laws are different, and the state laws would need to be compared to the federal laws separately for each issue. As of yet, nobody in this topic has actually pulled and compared information on state or federal laws for gun control as relating to 'keeping or bearing arms' so you can't reasonably claim that the Supremacy Clause nullifies those laws.[/QUOTE] Gun control as I had meant in the previous post, things like city-wide handgun bans Chicago did.

God, this thread makes me believe even more that the US is a country of failed ideals. I'm gonna go to the London Olympics thread because you gun fetishists make me feel bad for your country

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966314]God, this thread makes me believe even more that the US is a country of failed ideals. I'm gonna go to the London Olympics thread because you gun fetishists make me feel bad for your country[/QUOTE] The Olympics, where they have sports involving firearms that is specifically to shoot at things

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966270]Mostly when it's necessary, and most of the time that's when a homeowner pulls a gun on them[/QUOTE] sorry bud, not taking a chance when an intruder forceably breaks into my home. I'll warn him, if he refuses to comply, he or I are going down.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36966277]Nah, if someone were to break into my house with the intent to steal shit me and my family worked hard to get, my thoughts certainly wouldn't be "eh, he's probably poor. Yeah, take my money, my TV and all sorts of valuable things, buddy".[/quote] So kill him instead? Good idea man [quote] Tell me, what would you do if you broke into someone's house and the owner showed up with a weapon pointed at your face, telling you to get the fuck out? Exactly. You'd get the fuck out.[/quote] Or i'd retaliate if I knew he was going to try and confront me with a firearm [quote]"Criminals won't be able to get weapons. Criminals able to get weapons and eventually sell them to other criminals don't matter in this situation."[/quote] They'll be less likely to have weapons though, isn't that obvious? [quote]So committing crimes and stealing other people's shit is all fine and dandy if there are no repercussions? Brb stealing shit.[/quote] I obviously meant repercussions beyond those directly related to theft [quote]I'll tell you a story. My father lost his job while I was a fetus. He worked as customs, so when the EU removed those entirely, it was a very dire situation for him and his family. He became a nurse and worked his ass off to save his family and unborn son from poverty. He succeeded, and never committed a single, slightest infraction of the law in his entire life. A similar story happened to my uncle and several other people I know. They found themselves quite desperate, and worked tiresome, back-breaking, humble, often underpaid jobs and managed to restart a nice life without a single goddamn crime.[/QUOTE] Good for you, but I don't see how that is really relevant. I've been burgled before, but later on my parents found out the guy was a homeless heroin addict who'd just come out of prison and because of that they wanted to press as little charges against him as possible (he ended up going to rehab). Anyway I can imagine that things would have ended up much worse if my dad had gone downstairs to confront him. Thieves generally aren't evil people out to rape your children and kill your dog.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966314]God, this thread makes me believe even more that the US is a country of failed ideals. I'm gonna go to the London Olympics thread because you gun fetishists make me feel bad for your country[/QUOTE] Glad to know there are people who don't live here who take it upon themselves to instruct us on how to build a society thx bro hope you don't get mugged and stabbed with a knife on your way to the Olympics

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966393]The Olympics, where they have sports involving firearms that is specifically to shoot at things[/QUOTE] Huehueheuh, that is an extremely dumb point.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966550]Huehueheuh, that is an extremely dumb point.[/QUOTE] You're getting angry at people for owning guns when there is people in the event you're watching who own guns How is that dumb

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;36966425]sorry bud, not taking a chance when an intruder forceably breaks into my home. I'll warn him, if he refuses to comply, he or I are going down.[/QUOTE] Someone deserves to die because they refuse to leave your house? You seem like a nice guy Using certains forms of force against intruders i'm fine with, but lethal force is just stupid. Wouldn't tasers do the job just as well and also prevent all the unnecessary deaths? [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966574]You're getting angry at people for owning guns when there is people in the event you're watching who own guns How is that dumb[/QUOTE] They're licensed specifically for the event, how is that comparable in anyway to nearly every homeowner possessing a firearm?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36964188]A more approximate scenario for a sudden government takeover using the military (hugely unlikely but we will go with your hypothetical for now) would be similar to the occupation of Afghanistan with two major caveats: The US government actually knows the land it's fighting in, and doesn't have to send men, materiel, and resources across the world. The idea that a few million people with handguns and semi-automatic rifles are going to take down the tyrannical United States government wielding the most sophisticated fighting force the world has ever seen on it's own territory is insane.[/QUOTE] The idea that the majority of US soldiers would turn against their loved ones and neighbors without hesitation is insane

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966603]Someone deserves to die because they refuse to leave your house? You seem like a nice guy Using certains forms of force against intruders i'm fine with, but lethal force is just stupid. Wouldn't tasers do the job just as well and also prevent all the unnecessary deaths? [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] They're licensed specifically for the event, how is that comparable in anyway to nearly every homeowner possessing a firearm?[/QUOTE] Tasers don't do shit. They sting, and against someone committed it will not stop them worth shit.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966603]Someone deserves to die because they refuse to leave your house? You seem like a nice guy Using certains forms of force against intruders i'm fine with, but lethal force is just stupid. Wouldn't tasers do the job just as well and also prevent all the unnecessary deaths? [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] They're licensed specifically for the event, how is that comparable in anyway to nearly every homeowner possessing a firearm?[/QUOTE] Citizens in the US are have to be licensed to take their firearm off their property [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] Again, I'm still amazed an Italian is more willing to defend a citizen's rights than our own people

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;36966651]Tasers don't do shit. They sting, and against someone committed it will not stop them worth shit.[/QUOTE] Tasers can incapacitate the strongest of people, they're not useless as you say

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966533]So kill him instead? Good idea man[/QUOTE] Never say I'd kill him. Just tell him to get the fuck off my house. [quote]Or i'd retaliate if I knew he was going to try and confront me with a firearm[/quote] How, exactly? Robbers don't usually enter homes guns blazing, or carrying weapons at all. It'd be an armed man defeding his house, vs. an unarmed criminal or a criminal that would have no time to draw an eventual gun. [quote]They'll be less likely to have weapons though, isn't that obvious?[/quote] No. NY has some harsh gun control, yet gangs there are still packing. Heck, even Mexico and Russia are seriously restrictive, but this hasn't stopped organized crime at all. [quote]I obviously meant repercussions beyond those directly related to theft[/quote] So honest people being deprived of their rightfully earned belongings is not a serious repercussion? [quote]homeless heroin addict who'd just come out of prison and because of that they wanted to press as little charges against him as possible.[/quote] Why? At this point going back to prison, with a roof above his head and a meal served every day would have probably been a better outcome for him. [quote]Anyway I can imagine that things would have ended up much worse if my dad had gone downstairs to confront him.[/quote] Unarmed man vs. crazy hobo on drugs/withdrawal crisis. Bad outcome yes, keyword being unarmed. [QUOTE]Thieves generally aren't evil people out to rape your children and kill your dog.[/QUOTE] Violent ones do exist though. I'd rather be prepared than seeing my children raped and my dog killed.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966656]Citizens in the US are have to be licensed to take their firearm off their property[/quote] How have sport-built rifles licensed for a sporting event got anything to do with citizens being able to use firearms against any criminal as they please? I don't see what you're saying here [quote] Again, I'm still amazed an Italian is more willing to defend a citizen's rights than our own people[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966746]How have sport-built rifles licensed for a sporting event got anything to do with citizens being able to use firearms against any criminal as they please? I don't see what you're saying here What?[/QUOTE] Hey man, what if one of those Olympic athletes snapped went and killed someone with their gun?

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;36966643]The idea that the majority of US soldiers would turn against their loved ones and neighbors without hesitation is insane[/QUOTE] So if you're saying the military would join the general public against the government then what's the point of the general public having firearms? In one scenario the general public would be near powerless, and in the other they wouldn't need firearms themselves anyway

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966656]Citizens in the US are have to be licensed to take their firearm off their property [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] Again, I'm still amazed an Italian is more willing to defend a citizen's rights than our own people[/QUOTE] You've had a Canadian doing it too.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966656]Again, I'm still amazed an Italian is more willing to defend a citizen's rights than our own people[/QUOTE] I'm an advocate of lax/reasonable gun control worldwide. "Reasonable" being, let the sane, law abiding people own whatever they want (short maybe of strictly military equipment such as full-autos, heavy ordnance and shit) to hunt, defend their lives and property, or just have fun at a range or other places where it's safe to shoot empty cans with nobody around. And most of all, don't ban stuff that looks scary just because it looks scary.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36966834]Hey man, what if one of those Olympic athletes snapped went and killed someone with their gun?[/QUOTE] Seriously how does that compare to the majority of the population of a country owning firearms and having the right to use them against intruders? I'd re-read your posts if I was you

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966841]So if you're saying the military would join the general public against the government then what's the point of the general public having firearms? In one scenario the general public would be near powerless, and in the other they wouldn't need firearms themselves anyway[/QUOTE] Nah. In the "armed population vs. superior army" scenario, they'd likely lose against said superior army, but that's better than submission to a tyranny IMO. Not to mention the chance of sending a worldwide message of "Our own government is slaughtering us. We're trying to put up a fight and need your help. Worked for Libya and several others. On the "part of the army defects and joins the civilians", if said civilians had weapons too the gov.t's forces would have to deal with more and more insurgents. Libya & co comes again into play.

Lankist is gonna pop out if you keep debating about robbers in houses, let's get back to firearms.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36966865]I'm an advocate of lax/reasonable gun control worldwide. "Reasonable" being, let the sane, law abiding people own whatever they want (short maybe of strictly military equipment such as full-autos, heavy ordnance and shit) to hunt, defend their lives and property, or just have fun at a range or other places where it's safe to shoot empty cans with nobody around. And most of all, don't ban stuff that looks scary just because it looks scary.[/QUOTE] You Eurobros are pretty cool, wish we had more people like you out here. (Canadiabros are pretty cool too)

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;36966865] "Reasonable" being, let the sane, law abiding people own whatever they want (short maybe of strictly military equipment such as full-autos, heavy ordnance and shit) to hunt, defend their lives and property, or just have fun at a range or other places where it's safe to shoot empty cans with nobody around.[/QUOTE] We don't live in the stone age anymore, not everyone's a hunter. Just have a special license for hunters to use certain rifles on certain land, like in the UK. Using specialised firearms for purposes relevant to your job is fine. And if you want to shoot cans and targets, there are these things called air rifles [editline]28th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;36966878]Seriously how does that compare to the majority of the population of a country owning firearms and having the right to use them against intruders? I'd re-read your posts if I was you[/QUOTE] Please explain how this is dumb

[QUOTE=RobbL;36967145]We don't live in the stone age anymore, not everyone's a hunter.[/QUOTE] There's still a lot of them. And I've been told feral hogs are delicious. [quote]Just have a special license for hunters to use certain rifles on certain land[/quote] We have a similar one here too. Too bad, "dem scary assult wepons" are classed as eligible for hunting too. Meaning we can have infinite of them even with the basic, non-hunting gun license. Yet we never had any shooting sprees with them. And we can even buy massive magazines like they're candy. [QUOTE]And if you want to shoot cans and targets, there are these things called air rifles[/QUOTE] Been there, done that. Boring as piss. On another hand, my gun license should arrive in a few days, and my first gun shall be an AK variant. It shall be used against paper and steel targets and not humans. I won't hurt anyone, and most of all I'll have the time of my life. Even field-stripping one to clean it is an enjoyable experience.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36967145]We don't live in the stone age anymore, not everyone's a hunter. Just have a special license for hunters to use certain rifles on certain land, like in the UK. Using specialised firearms for purposes relevant to your job is fine. And if you want to shoot cans and targets, there are these things called air rifles[/QUOTE] Air rifles are pretty boring to shoot in comparison to real guns. also actual firearms serve a defensive purpose.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966698]Tasers can incapacitate the strongest of people, they're not useless as you say[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWR8wxhUxXo&feature=related[/media] Let me know if you want more, I've got about 100.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36967145]We don't live in the stone age anymore, not everyone's a hunter. Just have a special license for hunters to use certain rifles on certain land, like in the UK. Using specialised firearms for purposes relevant to your job is fine.[/quote] Yeah, just about every country allows licenses and firearms for hunting as a recreation, and in some places as a necessity. [quote]And if you want to shoot cans and targets, there are these things called air rifles [/QUOTE] You've obviously never shot a firearm or seriously talked to someone who has.