Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger of No

[MichaelJR]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

There are close to 200,000 medical malpractice deaths a year.

Thank you. I was waiting for some backup on this. It's a stinky number that the med field doesn't like repeated often. Despite the misconception that everything is okay, the made for TV defribulators bring everyone back from 0, and everyone high fives after that ever successful heart transplant (you know, the magical procedure with zero rejection where the child always lives and the family hugs it out).

Medical field as well?

 

[Phil_Osophy]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Couldn't agree with you more. 88,000,000 people typically purchase them for protection/fun/hunting/zombies

So, 20-30,000 is a tiny percentage of misuse.

 

[MichaelJR]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

So, 20-30,000 is a tiny percentage of misuse.

I'd take a gander and say your chances of drowning are exponentially more likely than being shot, considering a fair amount of that number (which now is closer to 13K) is suicide and police shootings (they are getting a tad trigger happy as of late, 5000 last year by my count, but who's counting when there's no accountability)

 

[lemonlyman]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Thank you. I was waiting for some backup on this.

Medical field as well?

I am not denying there is medical malpractice, but it seems like you are arguing that the average patient would be better off not going to a doctor than going to one, since they are more dangerous than guns. Even if this is not what you are trying to say, its the message that stat delivers, at least to me it is.

 

[Phil_Osophy]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I am not denying there is medical malpractice, but it seems like you are arguing that the average patient would be better off not going to a doctor than going to one, since they are more dangerous than guns. Even if this is not what you are trying to say, its the message that stat delivers, at least to me it is.

His argument is that you are more likely to die from medical malpractice than by a gun.

 

[MichaelJR]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I am not denying there is medical malpractice, but it seems like you are arguing that the average patient would be better off not going to a doctor than going to one, since they are more dangerous than guns. Even if this is not what you are trying to say, its the message that stat delivers, at least to me it is.

I'm not saying don't see a doctor. Someday I'll have to feed a family. Please see doctors.

All I'm trying to convey, is that guns are, numbers wise, a very small concern, and yes you need to be worried every single time you go under. 51% chance you don't walk away from invasive surgery lasting over 6 hours if you have Diabetes, and in some cases even hypoglycemics have had severe complications. Surgery on diabetics is a huge problem, and a major contributor to that number I gave you. If you go under, you're FAR worse off than if you were handling a gun. Far worse.

 

[lemonlyman]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?

 

[MichaelJR]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?

Because the right to drive was not incorporated into the constitution.

 

[lemonlyman]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Because the right to drive was not incorporated into the constitution.

The right to free speech is, that doesn't mean you can say anything you want (obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, libel/slander, etc)
The right to be presented with a warrant before undergoing a government search or seizure is, it doesn't mean the police cannot search you or arrest you without a warrant if there are imminent circumstances.

There are exceptions/restrictions/regulations to virtually every amendment to the bill of rights. Just as you are a medical student and I respect your knowledge in the medical arena, I am a lawyer, and would ask for the same respect in return.

 

[MichaelJR]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I know this place is loaded with Beck haters....but this is crucial (designer of the printable liberator plastic 3D printed gun) Cody at Defcad is a genius. Lemonly, he's a law student.

 

[Torrent]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?

Who says we don't there are laws in the books that if 100% followed would keep guns out the hands of most crooks. But we don't/can't enforce them 100% of the time. People steal guns. People sell them to others on black markets. Sometimes people even obtain them lawfully and jump through all the hoops then use them in a criminal act. Most people that own them aren't the ones that use them for crimes. The problem is when people just say regulate them more. There is no regulation that will stop someone that wants to brake laws from braking them. It will add more the penalty in the end but if they are willing to risk death, a fine, and waiting period will not stop them.

 

[lemonlyman]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Who says we don't there are laws in the books that if 100% followed would keep guns out the hands of most crooks. But we don't/can't enforce them 100% of the time. People steal guns. People sell them to others on black markets. Sometimes people even obtain them lawfully and jump through all the hoops then use them in a criminal act. Most people that own them aren't the ones that use them for crimes. The problem is when people just say regulate them more. There is no regulation that will stop someone that wants to brake laws from braking them. It will add more the penalty in the end but if they are willing to risk death, a fine, and waiting period will not stop them.

That's like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because people who want to kill someone will do so even though there is a law. The law is a deterrent, not a prevention. I agree that some regulation is unnecessary and politically motivated, but it seems to be the stance of many on this forum that because of the 2nd Amendment, we shouldn't be allowed to regulate guns at all. If we want to get into a discussion on the proper levels of regulation I am all ears, and would honestly love to hear and learn more about this, as I don't think I am the only left leaner on here with an imperfect understanding on the gun industry.

btw a brake is what a car uses to stop.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Who voted for this law in the first place? And why are you complaining about it now? Did you just find out about it and immediately went into a rant?

you are generally going to make ignorant posts if you assume such things about me. I am not ranting nor am I new to this issue.

 

[Carleen]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

you are generally going to make ignorant posts if you assume such things about me. I am not ranting nor am I new to this issue.

I don't know anything about this law, so I guess you could say I am ignorant, but I wanted you to clarify your opposition to this law being renewed.

 

[BretJ]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?

That is potentially dangerous logic. It looks good on the surface but should cost-benefit equation be applied equally in other areas as well? Why is it that alcohol, which offers no compelling benefit at all to society (short of getting a buzz) is acceptable, yet firearms require more in-depth scrutiny? The fact that alcohol causes exponentially more tragedy (rapes, murders, beatings etc.) and costs to society than firearms yet is even easier to aquire and abuse is even more mind blowing.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

That is potentially dangerous logic. It looks good on the surface but should cost-benefit equation be applied equally in other areas as well? Why is it that alcohol, which offers no compelling benefit at all to society (short of getting a buzz) is acceptable, yet firearms require more in-depth scrutiny? The fact that alcohol causes exponentially more tragedy (rapes, murders, beatings etc.) and costs to society than firearms yet is even easier to aquire and abuse is even more mind blowing.

Alcohol creates more tax revenue. Sweden practically lives off the taxes they collect from boozy tourists.

 

[BretJ]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

The right to free speech is, that doesn't mean you can say anything you want (obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, libel/slander, etc)
The right to be presented with a warrant before undergoing a government search or seizure is, it doesn't mean the police cannot search you or arrest you without a warrant if there are imminent circumstances.

There are exceptions/restrictions/regulations to virtually every amendment to the bill of rights. Just as you are a medical student and I respect your knowledge in the medical arena, I am a lawyer, and would ask for the same respect in return.

Those regulations to free speech (and other amendments) only kick in when there has been harm to or potentially harms someone. Ownership of a firearm causes no harm and is no more a potential threat to anyone than buying a 24 pack of a cold, frosty, malted beverage.

 

[BretJ]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Alcohol creates more tax revenue. Sweden practically lives off the taxes they collect from boozy tourists.

I know it was not your intent but, in essence, society is able to overlook the alcoholism, rapes (isn't Sweden the rape capitol of europe?), deaths, murders, family breakups etc. because the taxes generated are "worth it".

 

[Fisher]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I know it was not your intent but, in essence, society is able to overlook the alcoholism, rapes (isn't Sweden the rape capitol of europe?), deaths, murders, family breakups etc. because the taxes generated are "worth it".

I don't know if Sweden is or is not a rape capital, but to the Swedes it apparently is worth it. Without it, their social safety nets wouldn't be what they are. Do you think there aren't cost-benefit analytics in everything the government does? It often the result of politics as to whom the costs penalize and to whom the benefits accrue.

 

[Gardener]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

(isn't Sweden the rape capitol of europe?), .

I know I am getting old, but when I was a kid, Sweden was one of the least likely places a woman would be raped.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

How did Obama shut down the government? Nothing ever reached his desk.

Oh, I forgot. "OBAMA BAAAAD." If something bad happens, it's Obama's fault. My mistake.

The Buck Stops Here. Image - Bing Images
He can use EO for anything he wants. He could have stopped the shut down. He didn't.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I know I am getting old, but when I was a kid, Sweden was one of the least likely places a woman would be raped.

When I was a kid, the only thing I knew about Sweden was that it was where that crazy-assed can't understand a word he was saying Muppet chef came from.

 

[lemonlyman]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

Those regulations to free speech (and other amendments) only kick in when there has been harm to or potentially harms someone. Ownership of a firearm causes no harm and is no more a potential threat to anyone than buying a 24 pack of a cold, frosty, malted beverage.

I am really glad you raise this point, because I think this is the fundamental difference between pro and anti gun advocates. Many liberals, myself included to an extent, believe that ownership of firearms, in aggregate, does pose a potential threat, as the more guns that are out there, the more likely one of those guns will end up in the hands of a criminal, may it be through a straw purchaser, stealing the weapon, or legally purchasing it and committing a crime. But I think most democrats would tell you that they do not want to take away someone's ability to go through the proper channels and purchase a firearm for your own protection.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

How did Obama shut down the government? Nothing ever reached his desk.

Oh, I forgot. "OBAMA BAAAAD." If something bad happens, it's Obama's fault. My mistake.

No. It isn't obama's fault. He doesn't know anything. Nobody informed him. You know. Like the obamacare website thing, Benghazi, and so on.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Schumer Reveals: Next Month Ban on Undetectable Plastic Guns Expires, In Danger o

I appreciate this may generate a similar topic line to the M-16 thread but why do you see undetectable weapons as being without need for regulation?. I would have thought this would be at least one area where even the NRA and gun right supporters may see the need for regulation.

Undetectable like a Glock 7?

This bill was introduced out of an urban myth invented by "Die Hard 2." Glock was making polymer (plastic) parts for their guns. People immediately freaked (especially those ill informed left wing gun control nuts who don't know anything about firearms) that these could pass metal detectors. They in fact had more metal in them than most guns the same size. Plus bullets still are made of metal.

But I will redirect the question: where is need expressed in the 2nd?