Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39250582]I got a genius idea. Make it mandatory to file a reason for owning the gun. If you only put 'self defense', the sale will be automatically denied. However, legitimate main purposes like 'hunting' or 'target practice' will be allowed. [I]Lots[/I] of people who own guns, especially these idiotic NRA types, are all about ~~ defending their castle against the brown hordes ~~ or whatever, and they are a danger to society. Sales of guns outside of lawfully registered gun stores will be ruthlessly prosecuted, because seriously, fuck those kinds of people, they make other people who like guns (like myself) look like childish retards.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is that self-defense is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a gun. Say for example an old lady living in the inner city wants to buy a .22 pistol to scare off muggers. She isn't gonna be hunting with a .22 and there aren't many places in the city to go target shooting. Why should she be denied the sale if self-defense is the only reason she wants a gun?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250606]when we want a middle class teenager from australia's opinion we'll ask for it (we won't)[/QUOTE] Oh god don't tell him no one wants his opinion, he's gonna explode!

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250487]keep ur guns in a safe and dont keep them loaded [/QUOTE] defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having a gun for self defense. the only purpose of having a safe is to store guns you either; don't need in arm's reach atm or when you are not in your house. having an unloaded gun for self defense is just about as bad as not having one keeping guns in inaccessible areas and teaching children firearm safety would be much better, but guns are a taboo subject in american schools (draw gun in notebook = suspended LOL)

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250621] there are tons of other arguments brought against the 2nd ammendment, see: everything anyone anti gun has ever said about guns in america ever[/QUOTE] Well that's quite broad, honestly. The argument that "the second amendment is old so it doesn't matter" has no bearing.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250487]keep ur guns in a safe and dont keep them loaded how is it a stretch? they're both massively irresponsible practices that endanger the well being (and lives) of everyone in the household. where is the stretch?[/QUOTE] Leaving loaded firearms lying around where children can get to them is indeed a poor action. But keeping them unloaded is stupid. If someone breaks into your place in the middle of the night, they're not going to politely wait for you to unlock the safe, get the gun and load it.

The reason I oppose mandatory, onerous, and vague storage laws can be summed up rather well in the case of [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/31/firebombs-left-no-choice-homeowner-tells-gun-trial/Mr. Ian Thompson.[/url] He defended his home from a firebombing attack, and he was charged with numerous firearms offences. The only 2 that stuck? 2 counts of Careless Storage of a Firearm because even though his guns were locked up in a safe, he had ammo in his nightstand, and the cops refused to believe he could have a pistol ready in the time he said he did. Punishing people like this after they've already been victimized by crime is atrocious, and what's worse is he has documented audio and video proof of death threats being uttered towards him by the bombers, and they admitted to taking a $5000 contract to kill him, they were not charged with attempted murder, and all received shorter sentences than the mandatory minimum 5 years Mr. Thompson faced for defying storage laws. Do I agree with locking your guns up? Yes, with the notable exception of having 1 pistol under your supervision in your bedroom at night in case someone breaks in. Do I think it should be law? Not when that laws leads to things like this. This isn't the only case of storage laws being used in a ridiculous manner, I just don't feel like digging through God-knows-how-many-pages of Google News to find them.

I expect them to not endanger their life foolishly. I didn't say 'outright ban self-defense usage of firearms', I said ban stating it as the [I]main[/I] reason you have a gun. Maybe you guys live in some magical utopian part of the country, but the batshit crazy people who own guns for no other purpose than shooting other people who may or may not actually be a threat to them are a bigger detriment to society than actual armed criminals. Don't get me started on how there are tons of people who are demonstratably mentally ill, and they own firearms.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250621]i dont think you understand how that law is supposed to work.. the police dont knock on your door every week and go "hey we're here to inspect your guns open up or we'll arrest you", after someone kills themselves or someone else with your weapon they investigate to see if you left it sitting out, if you did, you get in trouble. its a retroactive attempt at deterring future offenders [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] there are tons of other arguments brought against the 2nd ammendment, see: everything anyone anti gun has ever said about guns in america ever[/QUOTE] Actually, in Britain there is an annual, mandatory inspection, same with Japan, and in Canada the CFO can request to inspect your storage at any time, though you can refuse and he will have to get a warrant, which he's almost guaranteed to get. So yes, it can just be a matter of the cops randomly checking your house.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39250657] Maybe you guys live in some magical utopian part of the country, but the batshit crazy people who own guns for no other purpose than shooting other people who may or may not actually be a threat to them are a bigger detriment to society than actual armed criminals.[/QUOTE] nah most of us dont live in (largely white) gated communities with armed security and alarm systems. literally nobody who has a legal gun has one solely to go around killing people. the only people that do are mentioned in the last part of your post who you idolize, just stop posting.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39250651]Leaving loaded firearms lying around where children can get to them is indeed a poor action. But keeping them unloaded is stupid. If someone breaks into your place in the middle of the night, they're not going to politely wait for you to unlock the safe, get the gun and load it.[/QUOTE] I'm all for keeping it unloaded as long as I have a handy "high capacity" 30 round magazine ready.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39250651]Leaving loaded firearms lying around where children can get to them is indeed a poor action. But keeping them unloaded is stupid. If someone breaks into your place in the middle of the night, they're not going to politely wait for you to unlock the safe, get the gun and load it.[/QUOTE] ok you know what that's fair, you can keep your guns loaded but they have to be in a safe [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39250647]Well that's quite broad, honestly. The argument that "the second amendment is old so it doesn't matter" has no bearing.[/QUOTE] that's not the point i'm making. i'm not saying the 2nd amendment is null because its old, i'm just saying the existence of the 2nd amendment shouldn't be justification for it's existence. if something is flawed it's flawed, regardless of how old it is or how much people revere and honor the people that came up with it [QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250642]defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having a gun for self defense. the only purpose of having a safe is to store guns you either; don't need in arm's reach atm or when you are not in your house. having an unloaded gun for self defense is just about as bad as not having one keeping guns in inaccessible areas and teaching children firearm safety would be much better, but guns are a taboo subject in american schools (draw gun in notebook = suspended LOL)[/QUOTE] really how urgent is your self defense situation that you're picturing in your head? is the gunman like holding the barrel of his gun to your temple when you wake up in bed or something? you don't have time to hustle to the closet, type in some digits and grab your gun? if you don't have time for that you probably don't have time to identify the intruder or verify that they're even a threat to you

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39250657]I expect them to not endanger their life foolishly. I didn't say 'outright ban self-defense usage of firearms', I said ban stating it as the [I]main[/I] reason you have a gun. Maybe you guys live in some magical utopian part of the country, but the batshit crazy people who own guns for no other purpose than shooting other people who may or may not actually be a threat to them are a bigger detriment to society than actual armed criminals. Don't get me started on how there are tons of people who are demonstratably mentally ill, and they own firearms.[/QUOTE] Maybe [i]you[/i] are the one who lives in a magical utopia if you think the police will be there to save your ass. Took the cops 15 minutes to arrive when I called and told them a bunch of people with sledge hammers and a fire axe were beating down my neighbor's front door.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39250654]The reason I oppose mandatory, onerous, and vague storage laws can be summed up rather well in the case of [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/31/firebombs-left-no-choice-homeowner-tells-gun-trial/Mr. Ian Thompson.[/url] He defended his home from a firebombing attack, and he was charged with numerous firearms offences. The only 2 that stuck? 2 counts of Careless Storage of a Firearm because even though his guns were locked up in a safe, he had ammo in his nightstand, and the cops refused to believe he could have a pistol ready in the time he said he did. Punishing people like this after they've already been victimized by crime is atrocious, and what's worse is he has documented audio and video proof of death threats being uttered towards him by the bombers, and [B]they admitted to taking a $5000 contract to kill him, they were not charged with attempted murder, and all received shorter sentences than the mandatory minimum 5 years Mr. Thompson faced for defying storage laws[/B]. Do I agree with locking your guns up? Yes, with the notable exception of having 1 pistol under your supervision in your bedroom at night in case someone breaks in. Do I think it should be law? Not when that laws leads to things like this. This isn't the only case of storage laws being used in a ridiculous manner, I just don't feel like digging through God-knows-how-many-pages of Google News to find them.[/QUOTE] none of the stuff in bold has anything to do with storage laws, just a general failure of the justice system what exactly did he get in trouble for? the ammo in the nightstand?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250686] really how urgent is your self defense situation that you're picturing in your head? is the gunman like holding the barrel of his gun to your temple when you wake up in bed or something? you don't have time to hustle to the closet, type in some digits and grab your gun? if you don't have time for that you probably don't have time to identify the intruder or verify that they're even a threat to you[/QUOTE] I don't live in a mansion so I don't have the luxury of the crook navigating through the maze that my house would be, but basically, if my only gun in arms reach is unloaded in my safe, a criminal will consistently kill the living fuck out of me. this isn't some mystical hollywood picture where the bad guy takes 8 minutes to get through your front door after announcing his presence (I wish) kick in front door turn right he's in my face I'm dead before I finish opening safe (much less load gun LOL)

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250706]none of the stuff in bold has anything to do with storage laws, just a general failure of the justice system what exactly did he get in trouble for? the ammo in the nightstand?[/QUOTE] If I understand, it's that he appeared to have a pistol stored in the night stand, but he claims he got it out of the safe and loaded it, apparently too quickly for the police to believe. I bet if you practiced such a thing you could have it down pretty quick.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250710]I don't live in a mansion so I don't have the luxury of the crook navigating through the maze that my house would be, but basically, if my only gun in arms reach is unloaded in my safe, a criminal will consistently kill the living fuck out of me. this isn't some mystical hollywood picture where the bad guy takes 8 minutes to get through your front door after announcing his presence (I wish) kick in front door turn right he's in my face I'm dead before I finish opening safe ([B]much less load gun LOL[/B])[/QUOTE] scroll up and read literally the first thing i said in my post

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250686]ok you know what that's fair, you can keep your guns loaded but they have to be in a safe[/quote] I've been saying for almost a week now that a fair compromise is that guns should be stored in a locked cabinet when the user isn't home. [quote]that's not the point i'm making. i'm not saying the 2nd amendment is null because its old, i'm just saying the existence of the 2nd amendment shouldn't be justification for it's existence. if something is flawed it's flawed, regardless of how old it is or how much people revere and honor the people that came up with it[/quote] Same for that one about putting up soldiers in your home, right? When will there ever be a need for soldiers in a town? What about the fourth amendment? If you have nothing to hide, no reason to not let a cop snoop around any time they want. [quote]really how urgent is your self defense situation that you're picturing in your head? is the gunman like holding the barrel of his gun to your temple when you wake up in bed or something? you don't have time to hustle to the closet, type in some digits and grab your gun? if you don't have time for that you probably don't have time to identify the intruder or verify that they're even a threat to you[/QUOTE] I'd rather have a gun ready and determine I don't need it, then find myself needing to defend my life and wishing I had something to stop the criminal as he bashes my head in with a crowbar or something.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39250697]Maybe [I]you[/I] are the one who lives in a magical utopia if you think the police will be there to save your ass. Took the cops 15 minutes to arrive when I called and told them a bunch of people with sledge hammers and a fire axe were beating down my neighbor's front door.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because requiring you to pass some background checks and demonstrate mental forethought before you own a lethal ranged killing device is the same thing as endangering yourself, right?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250706]none of the stuff in bold has anything to do with storage laws, just a general failure of the justice system what exactly did he get in trouble for? the ammo in the nightstand?[/QUOTE] Ammo in the nightstand when his guns were unloaded in the safe, and because the crown was operating on an assumption that he kept the gun loaded, despite not being able to prove it. Those were the only 2 charges that stuck, he was also initially charged with negligent discharge and pointing a firearm for firing warning shots at the attackers.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39250714]If I understand, it's that he appeared to have a pistol stored in the night stand, but he claims he got it out of the safe and loaded it, apparently too quickly for the police to believe. I bet if you practiced such a thing you could have it down pretty quick.[/QUOTE] yeah so then once again that's a case of the justice system sucking rather than storage laws being bad. if you can't prove they had the gun laying around they shouldn't be prosecuted. the entire purpose of a storage law is to protect people who aren't able to responsibly handle a gun like suicidal teenagers or a toddler. if you're being charged for storage law violations in a scenario in which it's not 100% obvious you had the gun laying around (ie a case where a teen/toddler shoots themselves) there's no reason to prosecute

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250719]scroll up and read literally the first thing i said in my post[/QUOTE] here's something you can try, since I doubt you would touch a real gun put an object roughly the size of gun in your safe pretend someone breaks in the front door, now open the safe as fast as possible while keeping an eye out and grabbing the object now do this twice as fast and pretend someone is actually trying to harm you. multiply by that x5 and you have yourself in a real panic situation, did you do good? would you have done better if said object was in arm's reach and your children/loved ones were properly educated and not terrified of an inanimate object?

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39250725]Yeah, because requiring you to pass some background checks and demonstrate mental forethought before you own a lethal ranged killing device is the same thing as endangering yourself, right?[/QUOTE] 99.99 repeating% of my gun use so far would fall under your lawful reasoning to own a gun, but I still think it's a stupid ass idea.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39250725]Yeah, because requiring you to pass some background checks and demonstrate mental forethought before you own a lethal ranged killing device is the same thing as endangering yourself, right?[/QUOTE] And because the only way to do this is by forcing someone to attempt to justify to a very subjective and generally biased governing body a reason for owning a gun is the only way to ensure those who are not fit to own a gun can't, right?

[QUOTE=Ridge;39250720]Same for that one about putting up soldiers in your home, right? When will there ever be a need for soldiers in a town? What about the fourth amendment? If you have nothing to hide, no reason to not let a cop snoop around any time they want.[/QUOTE] uh i don't think you really understand what you quoted me saying.. my point is that you shouldn't use "its an amendment" as a defense of that amendment. amendments can be flawed, so if someone is able to provide a legitimate reason why that amendment is flawed, there should be no reason not to fix or remove the amendment. i'm not saying "oh its old so lets get rid of it", in fact i explicitly said that in my post that you quoted [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250755]here's something you can try, since I doubt you would touch a real gun[/QUOTE] i shoot regularly and own multiple guns

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250766] i shoot regularly and own multiple guns[/QUOTE] thats cool but try what I said

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250780]thats cool but try what I said[/QUOTE] nah

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250781]nah[/QUOTE] heh out of curiosity, what would you do if a criminal broke in? are you one of those "not do anything and hope they leave me alone" peeps

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39250743]yeah so then once again that's a case of the justice system sucking rather than storage laws being bad. if you can't prove they had the gun laying around they shouldn't be prosecuted. the entire purpose of a storage law is to protect people who aren't able to responsibly handle a gun like suicidal teenagers or a toddler. if you're being charged for storage law violations in a scenario in which it's not 100% obvious you had the gun laying around (ie a case where a teen/toddler shoots themselves) there's no reason to prosecute[/QUOTE] That's actually a problem with the ambiguity of storage laws, the crown was attempting to assert that the vague wording of the law meant the person must have their ammo locked up too, and the police can get a warrant to search an individual's house to check if they're in compliance with storage laws based solely off hearsay. Not to mention I've heard multiple stories of people in Ontario who have had their guns stolen from out of their safes/cabinets being charged with unsafe storage because the criminals managed to get into the safe, so by the logic of the cops it wasn't "safe enough", despite the fact that by Canadian storage laws, a gun doesn't even technically need to be in a safe, merely rendered inoperable and stored separate from ammo.

Craig stop, seriously, you're helping nothing.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39250787]heh out of curiosity, what would you do if a criminal broke in? are you one of those "not do anything and hope they leave me alone" peeps[/QUOTE] i don't regularly fantasize about how i would maim and kill a stranger if he entered my home for reasons unknown so sorry if this sounds a bit like i came up with it on the spot: i'd get my gun out of my safe, point it at him and announce i have a gun and he has to leave and if he doesn't leave shoot him (not even remotely proud of that btw)