What Are People's Motivation To Outlaw Guns In The US?

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

Matchbox Cars don't count. :geek:

vant0037

I don't know if guns should be banned or not, so I can't really answer the thread. But as a criminal prosecutor, I see on a daily basis: (1) lots of shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent, and (2) lots of non-shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent.

So it comes down to whether I believe "guns kill or harm people" or "people kill or harm people." And the answer I found is, well, both. Trust - from a policy standpoint is critical. Whether we trust the average person (good, bad, smart, dumb, lawful owner, drug user, priest etc) to use their guns responsibly, especially knowing that virtually everyone, at some point, makes an ill-advised decision. With 200,000,000 privately owned guns in America (most of them stockpiled in basements in Montana I presume), it's only a matter of time before the wrong person makes an emotional, irrational decision and does so with a gun. That's not semantics, policy, or politics; that's probability.

Is government supposed to trust everyone with a gun, and hope they always do the right thing? Of course not, because that's clearly not working. And government can't obviously predict who will and will not commit crime with a gun (think: how many times do you hear a person who commits a gun crime as "quiet, unassuming, polite" etc?). But government can play the odds and reduce the likelihood that when someone commits a crime or violent act, they have a gun available to them. I don't know if that means we outlaw guns. I don't know if that means we regulate only certain guns. I don't know if that means we arm everyone. I truly don't have an answer. But if we can't get to the bottom of this issue policy-wise (which we can't and won't), let's look at it mathematically. More available guns in circulation increases the likelihood that when someone makes a bad, dangerous, reckless, impulsive, emotional decision, they will have a gun available to them. Less available guns then means...well, you decide.

MotoDC

Go Beavers wrote:

People do accept a higher level of enforcement and monitoring with regards to driving, but why if more enforcement, regulation, and monitoring of guns is proposed, the alarm is sounded and now the dictatorial government is on its way to banning guns?

Because there is absolutely zero slippery slope application to driving "rights". No one anywhere expects anyone to try and ban cars. On the other hand, it's a fairly viable assumption that while most anti-firearm folks say they don't want to ban firearms, they would be pretty happy if guns happened to get banned anyhow. Yes, you can mindlessly apply slippery slope to just about any argument, but the above adds weight to its application in this case.

For clarity's sake, I'm for stronger restrictions on obtaining firearms. I am not for banning assualt rifles. I'm anti-grenade. Thank you.

Cosmo

DS1119 wrote:

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

...
Really? Where?
I thought you could not enter into a contract with a minor... and that the minimum driving age was 14.5 in montana or something.

STAYSEA

fife wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

This thread isn't really going the way I intended. I would really like to hear people's ultimate motivations for banning guns.

I am not into banning all guns, i just want to make them very hard to get. I think we have seen that there needs to be tougher rules for people to get them.

I hear that guns are dangerous, and kids can get hurt.
Maybe the real motive is to ban guns so they can become easier to buy on the blackmarket?
:?

What are people's motivation to use pepper spray so freely? :corn:

DS1119

fife wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

fife wrote:

I agree that we should feel outraged at people who drink and drive and hurt someone. Look what just happened this weekend with the cowboy player who was drunk and killed someone. that story was in all the news. I don't know about where you live but in Ontario Canada we have put major restrictions on drivers. if your a new driver you can't have any alcohol in your system. None at all no matter how old you are.

we have lower the speed limit, hell if your caught drunk driving the person serving you drinks can be fined for getting you drunk.

can you name me one restriction that anyone has placed on guns?

There's a boatload of them. Just google gun ownership restrictions and there you go.


Do you support a family history and/or background check to obtain a driver's license?

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.

No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.

the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??

MotoDC

vant0037 wrote:

I don't know if guns should be banned or not, so I can't really answer the thread. But as a criminal prosecutor, I see on a daily basis: (1) lots of shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent, and (2) lots of non-shitheads who commit crimes both violent and non-violent.

So it comes down to whether I believe "guns kill or harm people" or "people kill or harm people." And the answer I found is, well, both. Trust - from a policy standpoint is critical. Whether we trust the average person (good, bad, smart, dumb, lawful owner, drug user, priest etc) to use their guns responsibly, especially knowing that virtually everyone, at some point, makes an ill-advised decision. With 200,000,000 privately owned guns in America (most of them stockpiled in basements in Montana I presume), it's only a matter of time before the wrong person makes an emotional, irrational decision and does so with a gun. That's not semantics, policy, or politics; that's probability.

Is government supposed to trust everyone with a gun, and hope they always do the right thing? Of course not, because that's clearly not working. And government can't obviously predict who will and will not commit crime with a gun (think: how many times do you hear a person who commits a gun crime as "quiet, unassuming, polite" etc?). But government can play the odds and reduce the likelihood that when someone commits a crime or violent act, they have a gun available to them. I don't know if that means we outlaw guns. I don't know if that means we regulate only certain guns. I don't know if that means we arm everyone. I truly don't have an answer. But if we can't get to the bottom of this issue policy-wise (which we can't and won't), let's look at it mathematically. More available guns in circulation increases the likelihood that when someone makes a bad, dangerous, reckless, impulsive, emotional decision, they will have a gun available to them. Less available guns then means...well, you decide.

See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.

MayDay10

Car = Transportation device

Gun = killing device

DS1119

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

...
Really? Where?
I thought you could not enter into a contract with a minor... and that the minimum driving age was 14.5 in montana or something.

You don't have to be of legal driving age to own a car. Hell, you don't even need a license to drive a car...it's illegal but only if you're caught. And yes, being in the auto industry, if an 8 year old walks into my dealership and has the means to purchase a vehicle from me he can purchase it. No different than selling the kid a candy bar.

Jason P

DS, why start a gun ban thread only to discuss cars?

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??

Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?

vant0037

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?

I would support this very idea for driver's licensing and gun licensing, and I'm not kidding either. Comprehensive licensing we can call it. You make a good point - let's regulate the hell out of driving, and gun owning. Both are dangerous instruments (cars/DLs and guns), which, if used at the wrong moment, can kill quickly and catastrophically.

The comparison is fair: if we're going to regulate guns more, we should regulate driving privileges more. The argument the other way - we don't regulate driving privileges, so we shouldn't also regulate guns more - doesn't work though.

Good point DS.

DS1119

MayDay10 wrote:

Car = Transportation device

Gun = killing device

Cigarette = killing device


Car = transportation device and killing device


Gun = killing device and protection device

vant0037

MotoDC wrote:

See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.

Aw shit...I don't want to be a "guy" around here.

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??

Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?

:fp:
So I see you refuse to answer my questions. Nevermind, I forgot you clearly have an agenda and you wont see anything from another perspective.

DS1119

vant0037 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?

I would support this very idea for driver's licensing and gun licensing, and I'm not kidding either. Comprehensive licensing we can call it. You make a good point - let's regulate the hell out of driving, and gun owning. Both are dangerous instruments (cars/DLs and guns), which, if used at the wrong moment, can kill quickly and catastrophically.

The comparison is fair: if we're going to regulate guns more, we should regulate driving privileges more. The argument the other way - we don't regulate driving privileges, so we shouldn't also regulate guns more - doesn't work though.

Good point DS.

Since the cal for the ban on guns or over regualtng if you will, is all about saving lives lets do alcohol too. Instead of just hitting a certain age lets do background checks on everyone to see if they have a history of alcohol abuse in their family. If they do we don't allow them to purchase alcohol. Imagine how many lives could be saved. Again this is all about saving lives correct?

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont care. All the silly analogies to just take the focus off of the real problem in question... So you disagree with a simple measure such as limiting magazine capacities (as they were limited just a few years ago in AZ)??

Why isn't there a limit on the size of a package of cigarettes?

:fp:
So I see you refuse to answer my questions. Nevermind, I forgot you clearly have an agenda and you wont see anything from another perspective.

To answer your questions no I don't agree with limiting magazine capacities.

MotoDC

vant0037 wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

See what I mean? Even the guy who "isn't sure what to do about guns" came to the ban conclusion within about 250 words. This is why pro-2nd amendment folks fear the ban, even when the conversation is on regulation/restriction.

Aw shit...I don't want to be a "guy" around here.

Ooops!

ass (of out)
u (and)
me

Mostly me though. haha.

Sorry charlie!

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

Since the cal for the ban on guns or over regualtng if you will, is all about saving lives lets do alcohol too. Instead of just hitting a certain age lets do background checks on everyone to see if they have a history of alcohol abuse in their family. If they do we don't allow them to purchase alcohol. Imagine how many lives could be saved. Again this is all about saving lives correct?

You can't give us something that is chemically addictive and then take it away from us. We crave it and will find ways to get it.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think guns are chemically addictive.