Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[Nickyjo]

Political institutions that want to take away people's rights and do so under the cover of pretending they care about yours safety and they don't they want to violate or safety.

The government cannot keep you safe if it could why are you sitting here whining about safety the government is more powerful than it ever has been.

Not being able to defend yourself that takes away your safety.

Fine example of US anti-intellectualism. Don’t confuse yourself with facts.

 

[CLAX1911]

Fine example of US anti-intellectualism. Don’t confuse yourself with facts.

When you're reduced to ad hominem the debate is over and that becomes the weapon of the loser.

This is why you can't get regulations you're ineffectual try listening.

 

[Nickyjo]

It’s what the actual data says. Guns went up, homicides went down. Sucks forum banners I know, But reality doesn’t care about your ideology.

The larger point is that more guns in a society generally means more gun deaths, despite any variation in stats over a time.

 

[CLAX1911]

The larger point is that more guns in a society generally means more gun deaths,

And? With these deaths somehow not occur if you had to acquire firearms illegal? Why?

Show that suicidality is created by the presence of a gun that legally purchased.

despite any variation in stats over a time.

You're not making a very valuable observation here. In medieval times there was probably more people were killed with swords then they're on now. It doesn't mean that swords were particularly dangerous it just means they were a common weapon.

 

[RF667799]

The larger point is that more guns in a society generally means more gun deaths, despite any variation in stats over a time.

But strangely enough, the rate of homicide has trended down as gun numbers went up. Which is not evidence of "cause", but is damn good evidence of "despite".

Even accidental deaths- which one might expect to correlate strongly with numbers of guns- remain at a steady number and lower rate of incidence.

The strongest correlation is between homicidal people and murders. Every murder necessitates a homicidal person. Not every murder necessitates the use of a gun.

 

[Nickyjo]

And? With these deaths somehow not occur if you had to acquire firearms illegal? Why?

Show that suicidality is created by the presence of a gun that legally purchased.

You're not making a very valuable observation here. In medieval times there was probably more people were killed with swords then they're on now. It doesn't mean that swords were particularly dangerous it just means they were a common weapon.

I don’t get what the issue is here. More guns mean more gun deaths. It’s not the only factor for the high rates of US crime and homicides, but it has something to do with it. I pointed to studies and opinions by reputable groups that indicated this. Find me studies that show no connection.

Or, better still, let’s duel at dawn at 20 paces. You (and a friend) bring swords. I’ll bring a gun. See who wins.

 

[poppopfox]

Not this stupid ****ing shit about cars again.

But if you want to go down this road.

- I could legally take my gun to any private range (99% of ranges are privately owned) in my car. Just like towing my race car to any track.
- No requirement for a license to buy a gun (or license to buy a car).
- No age limit to buy a gun (vehicle).
- Unlimited use of gun (vehicle) on private property with no license needed.
- 100% reciprocity of guns (vehicles) in every state. CA may ban ARs but my FL AR is allowed in CA just like my diesel truck.
- 100% reciprocity of licenses. I can drive in every state of union plus DC with a FL license, so I should be able to carry everywhere as well, right?

Not this stupid ****ing shit about cars again.

 

[CLAX1911]

But strangely enough, the rate of homicide has trended down as gun numbers went up. Which is not evidence of "cause", but is damn good evidence of "despite".

Really what this argument is and why it's not really useful that he's making here is that people who use weapons use the best weapon available. It's like things swords had some sort of extra power only during the Middle ages or lances only during the Middle ages because more people died from wounds from that sort of weapon and that's only the case because those were the best weapons available.

Even accidental deaths- which one might expect to correlate strongly with numbers of guns- remain at a steady number and lower rate of incidence.

Accidental deaths from guns are very rare. The most common cause of death using a firearm is suicide. Unless he can show that somehow firearms induce suicidal tendencies into people it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

For example but suggest someone wants to commit suicide let's say they're going to park their car on the train tracks well that's illegal you're not supposed to do that so the suicidal person won't because he doesn't want to break the law I don't think he cares.

The strongest correlation is between homicidal people and murders.

I won't interact with the murder thing because murder is illegal it doesn't matter whether you have legal ownership of a firearm or not if you commit murder you've committed a crime and the way to stop that is through enforcement. It's not controlling everyone that doesn't do murder and just completely ignoring the murderers.

Every murder necessitates a homicidal person. Not every murder necessitates the use of a gun.

Again I'm reminded of the medieval period. People committed murder in those days too but it wasn't with a firearm. Firearms in that time period were extremely rare if existing at all but there was still murders they just used the most common weapons because that's what murderers do.

The argument I would use against this claim about murder is murder wasn't invented when guns were. That nullifies the argument and if they don't understand that then they are being obtuse and obstinent works so you don't have enough snap to participate in that argument.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don’t get what the issue is here.

I'm not surprised.

More guns mean more gun deaths.

Why is death less important if it's not facilitated with a firearm or a legally owned firearm?

It’s not the only factor for the high rates of US crime and homicides, but it has something to do with it.

Murder was not invented at the same time guns were. Murder predated guns by thousands of years possibly tens of thousands of years.

I pointed to studies and opinions by reputable groups that indicated this.

Indicating that people who commit murder use the best weapons available to them well no s*** you didn't need studies and whatnot to say that everybody with the slightest understanding of reality understands that.

What point you're not making is that everyone who doesn't commit murder shouldn't have a gun or should have a highly regulated life because of this.

Find me studies that show no connection.

Why it's not my argument that people who want to commit murder don't choose common weapons.

You're just not making a very good point

Or, better still, let’s duel at dawn at 20 paces. You (and a friend) bring swords. I’ll bring a gun. See who wins.

This is a pointless statement.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not this stupid ****ing shit about cars again.

Well everyone says we should regulate guns the way we regulate cars I'm 100% for that. There is no equivalent to the public roadway for firearms so no regulations at all.

 

[RF667799]

Well everyone says we should regulate guns the way we regulate cars I'm 100% for that. There is no equivalent to the public roadway for firearms so no regulations at all.

I would say that carrying a firearm in public is analogous to driving a car on the roadway. But we must keep in mind that carrying a firearm is a Constitutional right- a very important one- and driving your car is not. So any licensing must be exceptionally cheap or free, and absolutely HAS to be on a shall issue basis. None of the stuff like driver's licenses, where they can be administratively revoked or suspended. Though gun banners would probably like that state of affairs.

 

[CLAX1911]

I would say that carrying a firearm in public is analogous to driving a car on the roadway.

I would not. Because carrying a gun does not put people in danger driving a car does.

I would say driving a car in public is analogous to firing a gun in public. Carrying a gun in public is equivalent to towing a vehicle the offensive vehicle is sitting on a trailer tied down and with no driver so unless your finger is on the trigger you're not driving the gun essentially.

But we must keep in mind that carrying a firearm is a Constitutional right- a very important one- and driving your car is not.

Again driving a car is necessarily putting everyone else on the roadway in danger and maybe not even because you're an unsafe driver so you have a blowout and lose control and you smash into another car those people in that other car can die carrying the gun I'm not ever end that way. You have to engage with its media triggers pedals steering wheels hammers strikers that sort of thing in order for it to be a danger.

Carrying a gun in home Depot is like parking my truck in the parking lot of home Depot. I'm not sitting behind the wheel I'm not touching the pedals the engine is not on so it cannot possibly be a danger to anyone kind of like a gun you're carrying.

The only exception to this I can imagine is if someone knows you have a gun and takes it from you but that's like holding you accountable if someone steals your car out of the parking lot for what they do with it.

So any licensing must be exceptionally cheap or free, and absolutely HAS to be on a shall issue basis.

I say the licensing is the second amendment it can be revoked through adjudication and that's it.

None of the stuff like driver's licenses, where they can be administratively revoked or suspended.

Are you licensed to drive is to determine baseline competence and really it's not even that because typically people only take one driving test in their life.
And again when you start a vehicle and you put it in drive that's like firing a gun. You are touching the trigger or the gas pedal you are aiming or steering you can't do these things if it's off or if you're not in it.

So this is a behavior and an environment you're entering into where behaving in it at all put everyone at risk. Because again you can lose consciousness and slam into someone else's car at any time if you lose consciousness while carrying a gun you're not going to fire it it's not going to fly out of your holster and smack someone in the head and it's just either going to be sandwiched under you or on your side and as long as nobody picks it up and pulls the trigger it's fine.

Though gun banners would probably like that state of affairs.

 

[RF667799]

I would not. Because carrying a gun does not put people in danger driving a car does.

I would say driving a car in public is analogous to firing a gun in public. Carrying a gun in public is equivalent to towing a vehicle the offensive vehicle is sitting on a trailer tied down and with no driver so unless your finger is on the trigger you're not driving the gun essentially.

Carrying a gun in public is generally with the expectation that you will fire it in public when necessary.

Again driving a car is necessarily putting everyone else on the roadway in danger and maybe not even because you're an unsafe driver so you have a blowout and lose control and you smash into another car those people in that other car can die carrying the gun I'm not ever end that way. You have to engage with its media triggers pedals steering wheels hammers strikers that sort of thing in order for it to be a danger.

Carrying a gun in home Depot is like parking my truck in the parking lot of home Depot. I'm not sitting behind the wheel I'm not touching the pedals the engine is not on so it cannot possibly be a danger to anyone kind of like a gun you're carrying.

The only exception to this I can imagine is if someone knows you have a gun and takes it from you but that's like holding you accountable if someone steals your car out of the parking lot for what they do with it.

I say the licensing is the second amendment it can be revoked through adjudication and that's it.

Are you licensed to drive is to determine baseline competence and really it's not even that because typically people only take one driving test in their life.
And again when you start a vehicle and you put it in drive that's like firing a gun. You are touching the trigger or the gas pedal you are aiming or steering you can't do these things if it's off or if you're not in it.

So this is a behavior and an environment you're entering into where behaving in it at all put everyone at risk. Because again you can lose consciousness and slam into someone else's car at any time if you lose consciousness while carrying a gun you're not going to fire it it's not going to fly out of your holster and smack someone in the head and it's just either going to be sandwiched under you or on your side and as long as nobody picks it up and pulls the trigger it's fine.

 

[CLAX1911]

Carrying a gun in public is generally with the expectation that you will fire it in public when necessary.

But again just carrying it is not engaging with the trigger or the firing pin.

Driving a car is because it's doing the thing it does when you use it on the roadway a gun being carried is just passive.

Example of fire extinguisher is just sitting there the only time it never just sits there it is when it's being used the chemicals that are in them can be dangerous but nobody's in danger just standing in a room next to a fire extinguisher.

Another example of something that causes a lot of injury to the workplace and angle grinder. I can carry an angle grinder I can hand an angle grinder to somebody but the simple act of carrying it is not dangerous.

It's only when I turn it on and start throwing Sparks everywhere that it can endanger other people.

Also if you park a car in the parking lot the intent is to drive it home but the active parking it is not dangerous that's the driving it in the roadway.

 

[RF667799]

But again just carrying it is not engaging with the trigger or the firing pin.

Driving a car is because it's doing the thing it does when you use it on the roadway a gun being carried is just passive.

Example of fire extinguisher is just sitting there the only time it never just sits there it is when it's being used the chemicals that are in them can be dangerous but nobody's in danger just standing in a room next to a fire extinguisher.

Another example of something that causes a lot of injury to the workplace and angle grinder. I can carry an angle grinder I can hand an angle grinder to somebody but the simple act of carrying it is not dangerous.

It's only when I turn it on and start throwing Sparks everywhere that it can endanger other people.

Also if you park a car in the parking lot the intent is to drive it home but the active parking it is not dangerous that's the driving it in the roadway.

If firing it in public is analogous to driving, then carrying it with the expectation of firing it in public it is reasonable to license individuals who want to do that. We don't license drivers at the moment they drive on a public road. We license them in advance, because of their expectation that they will be driving on a public road.

 

[CLAX1911]

If firing it in public is analogous to driving, then carrying it with the expectation of firing it in public it is reasonable to license individuals who want to do that.

They are licensed by the second amendment. Having too thin pay the government for your rights is an infringement.

Why don't you need to have a license to speak freely or join the religion or not be searched without a warrant

We don't license drivers at the moment they drive on a public road. We license them in advance, because of their expectation that they will be driving on a public road.

But the license isn't too determine competence. How many driving tests have you taken in your life I've driven for 25 years I've taken one. I've gotten speeding tickets I've gotten tickets for running red lights.

These violations would be treated a lot differently than firing a firearm in a way you're not supposed to.

Again carrying a firearm is passive driving a car is not.

 

[CLAX1911]

If firing it in public is analogous to driving, then carrying it with the expectation of firing it in public it is reasonable to license individuals who want to do that. We don't license drivers at the moment they drive on a public road. We license them in advance, because of their expectation that they will be driving on a public road.

When I carry a firearm it's in hopes I never have to use it. It is a survival tool and that's the way I look at it a last resort. Don't care how far I don't want to die either.

I don't park a car in the parking lot in hopes I never have to use it the idea is that I'm going to use it and I like being able to use it I don't ever want to get in a car accident but I carry insurance in case.

I carry a window breaker I don't ever want to have to use it but I have it in case I need it or someone else does I don't want to see someone burned to death in their car. Those are the sorts of things that stay with you forever and I'm in no rush to go get those marks put on me but I'd like to be able to do these things if I need to it's a survival thing.

A lot about what I don't carry a gun to transport myself around that's what the cards for it's uses different it's not strictly a survival tool or something I take to a little place and play with it like shooting range or a race track.

 

[rahl]

The larger point is that more guns in a society generally means more gun deaths,

No it doesn’t.

despite any variation in stats over a time.

The data is perfectly clear. Guns up, homicides down. Reality sucks for gun banners.

 

[rahl]

I don’t get what the issue is here. More guns mean more gun deaths.

This has been proven false.

It’s not the only factor for the high rates of US crime and homicides, but it has something to do with it.

You’ve been shown it has nothing to do with it. Guns up, homicides down.

I pointed to studies and opinions by reputable groups that indicated this. Find me studies that show no connection.

We have the actual data. Guns up, homicides down.

Or, better still, let’s duel at dawn at 20 paces. You (and a friend) bring swords. I’ll bring a gun. See who wins.

Non sequitur

 

[Nickyjo]

This has been proven false.

You’ve been shown it has nothing to do with it. Guns up, homicides down.

We have the actual data. Guns up, homicides down.

Non sequitur

How long a period does this cover? I already listed several sources that credit more guns with more gun deaths.

 

[RF667799]

How long a period does this cover? I already listed several sources that credit more guns with more gun deaths.

So how long a period did those cover? The poster is referring to a trend that has held true for decades.

 

[Nickyjo]

So how long a period did those cover? The poster is referring to a trend that has held true for decades.

We still lead similar countries in gun deaths.

 

[RF667799]

We still lead similar countries in gun deaths.

There's the goalpost move. Now climb up on them and pick some cherries.

 

[Nickyjo]

There's the goalpost move. Now climb up on them and pick some cherries.

Again, explain to me what role the presence of guns has in the unusual number of gun deaths.

 

[RF667799]

Again, explain to me what role the presence of guns has in the unusual number of gun deaths.

We don't have an unusual number of homicides. We are pretty much right in the middle compared to the rest of world's countries.