Why is it?

[opendebate]

that is a false dichotomy. do you put saving lives ahead of

1) speed limits above 25 MPH

2) innocent until proven guilty

3) the right against self incrimination or coerced confessions

4) swimming pools, football, baseball, hang gliding, private planes and marathon running

5) publicly supplied attorneys

6) reasonable bail

see there are lots of rights you can curtail that would actually save more lies than attempting to restrict the rights of those who currently can legally own guns.

how many deaths are a result of any of those? (except car accidents, and there are restrictions on what you can and can not do when driving)

 

[opendebate]

I don't know anyone who wants to see innocent people die.. so you can lay that bull**** to rest... you aren't special in that regard.


it's ok though...I put my safety , and that of my family,above yours or anyone else's.... but none of this has to direct oppose each other.

I never claimed to be special. I merely state my position. Save your "oooohhh Im a scary dude" for someone it works on and stop being a bully.

If you read my posts you would know that I said IF it came down to it I would try to take your guns. I just don't think it is a matter of either extreme.

It's impossible to have a conversation with ANY of you. You don't listen, you make false accusations and become bullies. It scares me that you are armed.

 

[Harshaw]

how many deaths are a result of any of those? (except car accidents, and there are restrictions on what you can and can not do when driving)

There are plenty of restrictions on what you can and can't do with guns, too. Like against using them in crime.

 

[Thrilla]

I never claimed to be special. I merely state my position. Save your "oooohhh Im a scary dude" for someone it works on and stop being a bully.

If you read my posts you would know that I said IF it came down to it I would try to take your guns. I just don't think it is a matter of either extreme.

It's impossible to have a conversation with ANY of you. You don't listen, you make false accusations and become bullies. It scares me that you are armed.

first, stop playing the victim.. it's bull****....nobody is bullying you :roll:

2nd, you made a typo in the post i responded to.. you specifically said
"I just think it comes down to one extreme or another..."..go ahead and go look.

3rd, when people say " i don't want innocent to die" it makes it sound like you think us pro-guns folks actually want innocents to die....


gun control is a boring subject to me anymore.. all i have to say is.. you're not getting my guns in any event... it's just that simple...it will not happen.


don't feed us bull**** about us not listening...we're the same as you are, not worse, not better.

why would you be scared that i'm armed?.. that's a pretty irrational thing to say about someone you know nothing about.

 

[opendebate]

first, stop playing the victim.. it's bull****....nobody is bullying you :roll:

You can't claim I'm crying victim when you are guilty of what you are accused of doing. SYG does not apply here so stop shooting off your mouth. You think you can use that line and then you get to do anything you want? Sometimes people really are guilty of what they are being accused of, that doesn't make me a victim. Just makes you a bully.

I don't know about you, but I am a person not a party.

 

[BretJ]

how many deaths are a result of any of those? (except car accidents, and there are restrictions on what you can and can not do when driving)

I generally use alcohol as an example of something that has no real beneficial purpose short of altering ones consciousness, yet is responsible for exponentially more deaths and societal misery than firearms. It seems however that most folks are fine with the costs. If preventing innocent deaths is the major concern behind gun control, I would think the same sort of measures would save far more lives if applied to alcohol. Further purchase restrictions such as amounts purchased, alcohol content limits, tracking of DUI offenders, alcoholics, psychological issues etc. in a database. Seems just as reasonable to me as proposed regulations for firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

The NRA has made a mockery about gun rights, but they do have a good point when it comes to blocking background checks/ screening for mental illness.

I think that is a bit of a fuzzy line, and who really gets to determine where to actually set the limit on gun ownership, along mental illness lines?

the only mockery I see is that they tend to compromise too much or support marginally pro gun candidates rather than refusing to endorse in a race that has a RINO running against a anti gun Dem

 

[TurtleDude]

how many deaths are a result of any of those? (except car accidents, and there are restrictions on what you can and can not do when driving)

none of the anti gun laws proposed have any evidentiary support of stopping any gun crimes or deaths

banning cars going more than 25 MPH would save thousand of lives. same with banning pools and dangerous sports

 

[AngryOldGuy]

There are plenty of restrictions on what you can and can't do with guns, too. Like against using them in crime.

well in that case there should be no gun crime?

 

[CRUE CAB]

well in that case there should be no gun crime?

Well, that settles it. Crime is officially over. Fine job man.

 

[opendebate]

I generally use alcohol as an example of something that has no real beneficial purpose short of altering ones consciousness, yet is responsible for exponentially more deaths and societal misery than firearms. It seems however that most folks are fine with the costs. If preventing innocent deaths is the major concern behind gun control, I would think the same sort of measures would save far more lives if applied to alcohol. Further purchase restrictions such as amounts purchased, alcohol content limits, tracking of DUI offenders, alcoholics, psychological issues etc. In a database. Seems just as reasonable to me as proposed regulations for firearms.

How often does anyone get killed because a bottle of JD accidentally went off in their face? How many people have accidentally drank themselves to death? You are only putting yourself at risk when you drink too much and when you cross that line and put others at risk the restrictions begin. IE: you are not allowed to drive drunk because you put the lives of others in danger. If something other than a little more control can be done to protect innocent lives then I am all ears, sincerely. I don't LIKE the idea I just don't see many other options that would have an immediate impact.

 

[CRUE CAB]

How often does anyone get killed because a bottle of JD accidentally went off in their face? How many people have accidentally drank themselves to death? You are only putting yourself at risk when you drink too much and when you cross that line and put others at risk the restrictions begin. IE: you are not allowed to drive drunk because you put the lives of others in danger. If something other than a little more control can be done to protect innocent lives then I am all ears, sincerely. I don't LIKE the idea I just don't see many other options that would have an immediate impact.

Drank themselves to death, wow can we muddy the waters just a leeetttle more?

 

[Starbuck]

the only mockery I see is that they tend to compromise too much or support marginally pro gun candidates rather than refusing to endorse in a race that has a RINO running against a anti gun Dem

I'm sorry. . . their plan to arm teachers in schools was silly and robbed them of some credibility in my eyes.

It's a weird position though, I personally feel that the NRA should stick with what it's good at and what it was founded for, training & education. The lobbying, damn I hate lobbyists, should be left for people without any real purpose.

However, I also realize that without a powerful lobby we would see a great jump at gun control every time a shooting made the news. I suppose its a Kobayashi Maru situation.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

all i have to say is.. you're not getting my guns in any event

Buddy my guess is that if yer weapon(s) were made illegal and you had to choose between prison or if you resisted death, you'd hand em over to the jackbooted thugs. The day of our disarmament is far closer than anyone can imagine.

If 20 years ago you'd told me we'd have socialized health care, proof that the IRS is being used to target an opposition party (and no one cares), the government completely disregarding the fourth amendment and wiretapping the entire citizenry (and again no buddy gives a ****) and a regime that seems hell bent on simultaneously hyper-inflating the currency and bankrupting the nation (and no one lifts a finger to stop it). I'd have thought you were crazy.

What in the blue blazes makes you think they can't ram a National Gun Registration bill up yer but? hah then anyone in possession of an unlicensed weapon becomes a felon unable to possess a weapon? har har har

 

[opendebate]

I'm sorry. . . their plan to arm teachers in schools was silly and robbed them of some credibility in my eyes.

It's a weird position though, I personally feel that the NRA should stick with what it's good at and what it was founded for, training & education. The lobbying, damn I hate lobbyists, should be left for people without any real purpose.

However, I also realize that without a powerful lobby we would see a great jump at gun control every time a shooting made the news. I suppose its a Kobayashi Maru situation.

A Star Trek reference....well played sir.

 

[Starbuck]

How often does anyone get killed because a bottle of JD accidentally went off in their face? How many people have accidentally drank themselves to death?

Personally, I know two people who've accidentally drank themselves to death. In both cases it was a tragedy and they died too young.

You are only putting yourself at risk when you drink too much and when you cross that line and put others at risk the restrictions begin. IE: you are not allowed to drive drunk because you put the lives of others in danger.

One of the kids in my high school actually killed a family of four, he was driving drunk on the wrong side of the freeway one night. I suppose this fits your scenario, as he was clearly operating a vehicle while drunk and therefore breaking the law.

My point though, is that I know about as many people who drink as who own/ use firearms. To date, I don't personally know anyone who has been killed/ seriously injured by an accidental firearm discharge. I do know several people who were killed intentionally by a firearm discharge, one of whom taught me how to shoot.

They were killed by an illegal firearm, which wouldn't have been caught by any imposed restrictions.

If something other than a little more control can be done to protect innocent lives then I am all ears, sincerely. I don't LIKE the idea I just don't see many other options that would have an immediate impact.

I don't know if there are any ways to make immediate impact, gun control considered. I'm still thinking about ways, as we talked about the other day, that would help reduce the culture of violence that we keep perpetuating.

 

[Starbuck]

Buddy my guess is that if yer weapon(s) were made illegal and you had to choose between prison or if you resisted death, you'd hand em over to the jackbooted thugs. The day of our disarmament is far closer than anyone can imagine.

Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure either.

About the disarmament part. . . not the people failing to give up their guns part. On people actually forfeiting their firearms at the governments demand, regardless of bold claims, I think you're spot on.

People think that things like this have never happened before, but they have.

History has a funny way of repeating itself.

If 20 years ago you'd told me we'd have socialized health care, proof that the IRS is being used to target an opposition party (and no one cares), the government completely disregarding the fourth amendment and wiretapping the entire citizenry (and again no buddy gives a ****) and a regime that seems hell bent on simultaneously hyper-inflating the currency and bankrupting the nation (and no one lifts a finger to stop it). I'd have thought you were crazy.

Reading through that paragraph, left me thinking of the Nixon administration. . . not exactly, but a close approximation.

 

[Starbuck]

A Star Trek reference....well played sir.

It seemed appropriate, I'm a glad at least one person got the reference.

 

[BretJ]

How often does anyone get killed because a bottle of JD accidentally went off in their face? How many people have accidentally drank themselves to death? You are only putting yourself at risk when you drink too much and when you cross that line and put others at risk the restrictions begin. IE: you are not allowed to drive drunk because you put the lives of others in danger. If something other than a little more control can be done to protect innocent lives then I am all ears, sincerely. I don't LIKE the idea I just don't see many other options that would have an immediate impact.

Show me where it is legal to endanger someones life with a firearm? There are plenty of similar restrictions on firearms.
How many people commit suicide after drinking a bottle of courage? How many people die of alcohol poisoning? How many people beat/strangle/shoot/stab/bludgeon their wives/children after getting drunk? How many accidents are caused playing "hold my beer and watch this"? How many woman are raped after they or the rapist get drunk? How many people are killed by drunk drivers?

Does anyone need to buy a 24 pack? Does anyone need an alcohol content past say 5%? Can't we track alcoholics, violent offenders or mentally unstable people in order to prevent the easy consumption of alcohol? It effects far more lives and costs society far, far more in money and resources than firearms. The alcohol lobby is just as vocal and well funded as the NRA's industry lobbying group. So again, why ignore the exponentially larger number of lives lost? Restricting alcohol would go a long way to preventing gun violence and death. It's a win-win right? We could do prohibition with today's technology. No different than gun control.

 

[opendebate]

.

One of the kids in my high school actually killed a family of four, he was driving drunk on the wrong side of the freeway one night. I suppose this fits your scenario, as he was clearly operating a vehicle while drunk and therefore breaking the law.

That's awful. Ruined his life I'll bet.

My point though, is that I know about as many people who drink as who own/ use firearms.

Hopefully not the same people.

To date, I don't personally know anyone who has been killed/ seriously injured by an accidental firearm discharge. I do know several people who were killed intentionally by a firearm discharge, one of whom taught me how to shoot.

It's actually not that big a number, the suicide rate is higher I think

I don't know if there are any ways to make immediate impact, gun control considered. I'm still thinking about ways, as we talked about the other day, that would help reduce the culture of violence that we keep perpetuating

I'm with you on that idea. In an ideal world everyone would keep their guns, use them responsibly and no one who did want themselves dead would be killed by a firearm. But we all know that won't happen.

 

[opendebate]

How many people commit suicide after drinking a bottle of courage? How many people die of alcohol poisoning? How many people beat/strangle/shoot/stab/bludgeon their wives/children after getting drunk? How many accidents are caused playing "hold my beer and watch this"? How many woman are raped after they or the rapist get drunk? How many people are killed by drunk drivers?

Does anyone need to buy a 24 pack? Does anyone need an alcohol content past say 5%? Can't we track alcoholics, violent offenders or mentally unstable people in order to prevent the easy consumption of alcohol? It effects far more lives and costs society far, far more in money and resources than firearms. The alcohol lobby is just as vocal and well funded as the NRA's industry lobbying group. So again, why ignore the exponentially larger number of lives lost? Restricting alcohol would go a long way to preventing gun violence and death. It's a win-win right? We could do prohibition with today's technology. No different than gun control.

Show me where it is legal to endanger someones life with a firearm?

Have you been to Florida?

The conversation always seems to go into the weeds as this point to me. If one thing causes 1000 deaths and another causes 600 who cares!? That doesn't mean you drop speculating about how to keep those 600 from being lost just because the number is lower.

 

[Moot]

The NRA has made a mockery about gun rights, but they do have a good point when it comes to blocking background checks/ screening for mental illness.

I think that is a bit of a fuzzy line, and who really gets to determine where to actually set the limit on gun ownership, along mental illness lines?

The courts don't seem to have a problem making that determination.

 

[Black Dog]

Have you been to Florida?

The conversation always seems to go into the weeds as this point to me. If one thing causes 1000 deaths and another causes 600 who cares!? That doesn't mean you drop speculating about how to keep those 600 from being lost just because the number is lower.

Yes I live here and it is not legal to endanger someone's life unless you are defending yourself from a threat to life and limb. It's called "reckless endangerment" among other types as well.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm sorry. . . their plan to arm teachers in schools was silly and robbed them of some credibility in my eyes.

It's a weird position though, I personally feel that the NRA should stick with what it's good at and what it was founded for, training & education. The lobbying, damn I hate lobbyists, should be left for people without any real purpose.

However, I also realize that without a powerful lobby we would see a great jump at gun control every time a shooting made the news. I suppose its a Kobayashi Maru situation.

IF one party had not adopted gun restrictions on honest people as a strategy to cover up that party's weakness in dealing with inner city crime, the politicization of the NRA never would have happened. If the FDR courts would have struck down the clearly unconstitutional efforts of the federal government to regulate firearms, I suspect the NRA would have remained mostly an organization sponsoring competitions etc

 

[Oftencold]

Why is it that we have tons of these PSAs showing the danger of certain dangerous and irresponsible activities, many of which are put on by the very companies selling products people use irresponsibly, but we do not have gun safety PSAs?
. . .

Because it would be a waste of time. People too stupid to know not to play with guns are too stupid to be reached by PSA's. It would make as much sense to have PSA's telling people not to wash their hair with gasoline while smoking.