Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

613 posts in this topic

So things like raising the drinking age by three years aren't restricting access I guess.

Here we go making up poo again.

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize the gun ban argument in this thread, it's ban all or certain types of weapons simply because law abiding citizens don't "need" them. If that is the basis of your argument, step back and think about how weak that is. Why should I, a law abiding citizen living in 'Merica, be denied the right to lawfully own a gun, or heaven forbid an AR15? (insert ignoramus lib argument, "So you're saying I should be be able to own nukes") If you follow that logic, why should that single guy up the road have that 2400 sq ft house, he doesn't need it. In fact, lets boot him out and stick this more deserving 5 member family in there while were at it. I'm finished defending something that I don't need to defend. If I want something, and can legally obtain it, I get it. That's why we are all so blessed to live in the USA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

There is some truth to what you are saying. But people aren't taking bottles of Vodka and throwing them at kids and killing them.

That is also why there is preventative measures like making it illegal to drive while you are fugged up.

With guns they only arrest you after you kill a bunch of people, with alcohol they try to arrest you before that can happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.

So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

Firearms and alcohol when used responsibly (not together) are unlikely to pose a threat to innocent bystanders.

Both firearms and alcohol are safer today because of federal, state and local government regulations.

Current federal, state and local regulations for firearms are still not sufficient and need to be revised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some truth to what you are saying. But people aren't taking bottles of Vodka and throwing them at kids and killing them.

That is also why there is preventative measures like making it illegal to drive while you are fugged up.

With guns they only arrest you after you kill a bunch of people, with alcohol they try to arrest you before that can happen.

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.

Very rational and logical response...well done.

Given that, I am interested in seeing your views on improving the laws around purchasing and owning firearms.

1 We all know that laws around purchasing firearms is very inconsistent across state lines and is lacking (especially the Gun Show Loophole). Would you be in favor of more consistent laws....requiring backgroudn checks and a waiting period?

2. What do you think about requiring people to be required to take and pass a gun safety/ownership course to purchase them? Maybe a periodic renewal.....like we do for a driver's license.

I agree with you that banning guns is not the answer. But, I also agree with many here that the regulations around purchasing and owning guns does need some work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My proposal has been, based on what someone purchases and the frequency etc, let that drive the scrutiny. Take the mom of Adam here. As she buys what she buys let that raise a red flag and then some questions have to be asked.

I have seen alot of people mention a yearly renewal and gun courses etc or paying fees or taxes and to a point thats fine. It still doesn't get at the heart of someone.

If you buy body armor or high powered rifles and or ammo, you will get a certified letter in the mail and you will have an appointmen. Fill out a form and various questions are asked.

If you pass the mental illness piece or criminal record piece you can move forward. You will be asked if you have kids and as delicate as you can let the person doing the interview ask questions to at least see if they can get a sense of the person. Make notes and much like social worker create a file and go from there.

The state of CT had supposedly good gun laws and yet this happened. Everything from buying the guns etc were done legally.

I want to go back to the drunk driving part again because I brought that up early on. The sheer # of deaths that happen with DD is light years worse than random killings. It's not even close. But the social stigma is significantly skewed towards gun deaths? The reason?

Most everyone drives a car or may have something to drink. At some level more are connected with that.

But as a society, from 1982 and on, we had to make social and cultural changes. Cars and alcohol wasn't banned, but meaures were put in place to counter all the deaths that were going on. It was close to 30k a year dying.Think about that staggering #.

The 3 common denominators at play here are this. Mental Illness. Guns and violent video games. All three can remain while all three can be tweaked from a social lense as well as how, who and when a person is given or exposed to each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.

Well stated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very rational and logical response...well done.

Given that, I am interested in seeing your views on improving the laws around purchasing and owning firearms.

1 We all know that laws around purchasing firearms is very inconsistent across state lines and is lacking (especially the Gun Show Loophole). Would you be in favor of more consistent laws....requiring backgroudn checks and a waiting period?

2. What do you think about requiring people to be required to take and pass a gun safety/ownership course to purchase them? Maybe a periodic renewal.....like we do for a driver's license.

I agree with you that banning guns is not the answer. But, I also agree with many here that the regulations around purchasing and owning guns does need some work.

Didn't ask me, but I'm going to play along =)

1. The Gun Show Loophole (unless I'm missing something about it) doesn't seem to be addressing the real issue, or addressing it well enough... I try to ask myself how closing that loophole would have helped to prevent any of the recent shootings, and I simply don't know that there is a correlation, and don't believe the loophole would be effective... I'm fine with closing it, I just don't think it addresses the issue in that none of the recent shootings (to my knowledge that is, and I could be wrong) had their firearms obtained in that manner... It's like saying there were 12000 alcohol related deaths, so we need to close Buffalo Wild Wings... I just don't think it addresses the problem adequately... But I'm in favor of it (not closing BWW), and it's a start... I think point #2 could have more effective results...

2. We have to have licenses for fishing, hunting, driving, and tons of other things, but don't have to have one to own a firearm... I think that requiring a license for the purchase of any firearm is a good start... Obtaining that license needs to be a comprehensive process of a background check, education and potentially some sort of psych evaluation (even if it's just cookie cutter questions it's more than we have now)... Gun safety education should be mandatory, IMO, and should include not only safe handling of the weapon, but also should educate on safe storage and responsible ownership...

I also think that the gun industry could help out a bit as well going forward (this would not address the guns currently out there, of course)... I think that more innovative safety measures could be included into weapons going forward... Imagine if you didn't need an actual 'gun lock' to make your weapon inoperable... Perhaps a locking mechanism on the trigger that could only be deactivated by matched key, or one that would make it impossible for the hammer to engage the firing pin, or load the weapon... Now that's just an off the top of my head idea, and not practical for legacy firearms of course, but the hallmark of mankind has been innovation, and I'm sure that there are answers to be had...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*great post*

Thank you for that.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites