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

135678

Comments

  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 11,728
    DS1119 wrote:
    MayDay10 wrote:
    Car = Transportation device

    Gun = killing device



    Cigarette = killing device


    Car = transportation device and killing device


    Gun = killing device and protection device


    so by this logic, fatty foods = a nuclear weapon?
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    MayDay10 wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    MayDay10 wrote:
    Car = Transportation device

    Gun = killing device



    Cigarette = killing device


    Car = transportation device and killing device


    Gun = killing device and protection device


    so by this logic, fatty foods = a nuclear weapon?


    Put more restrictions on fatty foods too. Maybe even ban them. I mean shit those take more lives every year than legally obtained weapons. Again, this is about saving lives correct?
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    DS1119 wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    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.

    So you simply dont see how this couldve saved lives in the AZ case and many others? The math is not difficult. So Im just going to assume you dont give a shit then. There are specific examples of how this couldve saved lives. I know, you'll just say, but then he could've bought two more guns...yada yada yada...there's always a way to justify overpowered weapons, no limits on magazines and laughable regulations.

    The USA has an obvious gun problem. I'm baffled that people can just sit idly by and justify this stuff.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • vant0037vant0037 Posts: 6,121
    MotoDC wrote:
    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. :lol::lol::lol:
    Ooops!

    ass (of out)
    u (and)
    me

    Mostly me though. haha.

    Sorry charlie! :mrgreen:

    That wasn't a gender joke! I am a guy (at least I think so)...I just meant I don't want to be known as "the ___ guy." I don't want to have a shtick around here. Haha...I was making a joke, trying to lighten the mood some...there's some show or movie that the phrase is from and I can't put my finger on it. :lol::lol::lol:

    I'll see your "Mr. Green" and raise you: :mrgreen::mrgreen:
    1998-06-30 Minneapolis
    2003-06-16 St. Paul
    2006-06-26 St. Paul
    2007-08-05 Chicago
    2009-08-23 Chicago
    2009-08-28 San Francisco
    2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
    2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
    2011-09-03 PJ20
    2011-09-04 PJ20
    2011-09-17 Winnipeg
    2012-06-26 Amsterdam
    2012-06-27 Amsterdam
    2013-07-19 Wrigley
    2013-11-21 San Diego
    2013-11-23 Los Angeles
    2013-11-24 Los Angeles
    2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
    2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
    2014-10-09 Lincoln
    2014-10-19 St. Paul
    2014-10-20 Milwaukee
    2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
    2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
    2018-06-18 London 1
    2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
    2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
    2022-09-16 Nashville
    2023-08-31 St. Paul
    2023-09-02 St. Paul
    2023-09-05 Chicago 1
    2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
    2024-09-15 Fenway 1
    2024-09-27 Ohana 1
    2024-09-29 Ohana 2
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Jason P wrote:
    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.


    So take the guns away from people who legally obtain them? Punish the mass for the mistakes of the few? T


    The majority of people who drink aren't chemically dependant on it. Perhaps we should just do away with alcohol for the benefit of those who are?
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    edited December 2012
    Also, just to make people happy with the silly car/drunk driving analogy, although thats a completely separate topic... I'd bet that if people raised enough hell, and there were enough deaths from drunk driving, that in the future, people might lobby for all cars to have breathalyzers. I'd have no problem with mandatory breathalyzers mounted in all cars in exchange for reduced magazine capacities, and more gun restrictions in the US.

    see what thats called there? compromise for the greater good...imagine that.
    Post edited by JonnyPistachio on
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497

    So you simply dont see how this couldve saved lives in the AZ case and many others? The math is not difficult. So Im just going to assume you dont give a shit then. There are specific examples of how this couldve saved lives. I know, you'll just say, but then he could've bought two more guns...yada yada yada...there's always a way to justify overpowered weapons, no limits on magazines and laughable regulations.

    The USA has an obvious gun problem. I'm baffled that people can just sit idly by and justify this stuff.


    I'm still waiting for all of the articles about people who handle these responsibly to be pubished....not the rare cases. Again though that wouldn't make interesting reading.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Also, just to make people happy with the silly car/drunk driving analogy, although thats a completely separate topic... I'd bet that if people raised enough hell, and there were enough deaths from drunk driving, that in the future, people might lobby for all cars to have breathalyzers. I'd have no problem with mandatory breathalyzers mounted in all cars in exchange for reduced magazine capacities, and more gun restrictions in the US.

    see what thats called there? compromise for the greater good...imagine that.


    More people die annually from drunk drivers than legally owned firearms in the US. Fact.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    DS1119 wrote:

    More people die annually from drunk drivers than legally owned firearms in the US. Fact.
    You are avoiding your own debate challenge by switching subjects.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    DS1119 wrote:

    So you simply dont see how this couldve saved lives in the AZ case and many others? The math is not difficult. So Im just going to assume you dont give a shit then. There are specific examples of how this couldve saved lives. I know, you'll just say, but then he could've bought two more guns...yada yada yada...there's always a way to justify overpowered weapons, no limits on magazines and laughable regulations.

    The USA has an obvious gun problem. I'm baffled that people can just sit idly by and justify this stuff.


    I'm still waiting for all of the articles about people who handle these responsibly to be pubished....not the rare cases. Again though that wouldn't make interesting reading.

    My point is that if we really cared for each and every one of our countrymen, a simple compromise to save even one life is worth it. But thats fine if you just think saving a few lives isnt worth making "responsible gun owners" have to reload more often at the range. imagine how inconvenienced they will all be.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    Jason P wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:

    More people die annually from drunk drivers than legally owned firearms in the US. Fact.
    You are avoiding your own debate challenge by switching subjects.

    exactly. I despise these silly analogies. Also, the US military killed more iraqis than legally owned guns in the US in October of 2009! good point, huh? Ban the US military!
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Jason P wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:

    More people die annually from drunk drivers than legally owned firearms in the US. Fact.
    You are avoiding your own debate challenge by switching subjects.


    Not at all. If this is about saving lives why is the concentration on such a small number when there are more serious issues. It's like someone worrying about having acne when they have been diagnosed with cancer.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:

    So you simply dont see how this couldve saved lives in the AZ case and many others? The math is not difficult. So Im just going to assume you dont give a shit then. There are specific examples of how this couldve saved lives. I know, you'll just say, but then he could've bought two more guns...yada yada yada...there's always a way to justify overpowered weapons, no limits on magazines and laughable regulations.

    The USA has an obvious gun problem. I'm baffled that people can just sit idly by and justify this stuff.


    I'm still waiting for all of the articles about people who handle these responsibly to be pubished....not the rare cases. Again though that wouldn't make interesting reading.

    My point is that if we really cared for each and every one of our countrymen, a simple compromise to save even one life is worth it. But thats fine if you just think saving a few lives isnt worth making "responsible gun owners" have to reload more often at the range. imagine how inconvenienced they will all be.


    It's all about penalizing the masses for the mistakes of a few.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    DS1119 wrote:
    So take the guns away from people who legally obtain them? Punish the mass for the mistakes of the few?

    Do you realize that you escalate it in your own mind to be a ban on guns? for the millionth time, nobody wants that.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    So take the guns away from people who legally obtain them? Punish the mass for the mistakes of the few?

    Do you realize that you escalate it in your own mind to be a ban on guns? for the millionth time, nobody wants that.


    Sure they do. And even if they don't they want ridiculous regulations that will just cost more money for absolutely zero reason. If a kook wants to get a gun and can't pass some ridiculous background check to obtain one does anyone really thnk they still can't get one.? All this does is create more government red tape...bigger government and less freedom.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    DS1119 wrote:
    It's all about penalizing the masses for the mistakes of a few.

    its all in how you look at it. I dont see it as penalizing. I see it as compromise to see if something new might work. We have an obvious gun problem that no one knows how to fix. Again, even if a tiny thing such as magazine capacity saves a few lives, its worth it.
    Also, as I said in the case of AZ, the limit was something like 12 rounds in the past, how is it penalizing if it just simply goes back to how it was in the past? Again, you'd have to be awfully selfish to not be open to small compromise.

    Again to use the silly car analogy -- If too many people were dying from accidents and they reduce the speed limit in that area from 65 to 45, im not going to scream bloddy murder that I am penalized and my rights are encroached upon!...im going to compromise to different regulations to save lives. same thing really...
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    DS1119 wrote:
    It's all about penalizing the masses for the mistakes of a few.

    its all in how you look at it. I dont see it as penalizing. I see it as compromise to see if something new might work. We have an obvious gun problem that no one knows how to fix. Again, even if a tiny thing such as magazine capacity saves a few lives, its worth it.
    Also, as I said in the case of AZ, the limit was something like 12 rounds in the past, how is it penalizing if it just simply goes back to how it was in the past? Again, you'd have to be awfully selfish to not be open to small compromise.

    Again to use the silly car analogy -- If too many people were dying from accidents and they reduce the speed limit in that area from 65 to 45, im not going to scream bloddy murder that I am penalized and my rights are encroached upon!...im going to compromise to different regulations to save lives. same thing really...
    Full disclosure, most speed limits drive me (no pun intended, honest) batty. So slooooow....
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    DS1119 wrote:
    It's all about penalizing the masses for the mistakes of a few.

    its all in how you look at it. I dont see it as penalizing. I see it as compromise to see if something new might work. We have an obvious gun problem that no one knows how to fix. Again, even if a tiny thing such as magazine capacity saves a few lives, its worth it.
    Also, as I said in the case of AZ, the limit was something like 12 rounds in the past, how is it penalizing if it just simply goes back to how it was in the past? Again, you'd have to be awfully selfish to not be open to small compromise.

    Again to use the silly car analogy -- If too many people were dying from accidents and they reduce the speed limit in that area from 65 to 45, im not going to scream bloddy murder that I am penalized and my rights are encroached upon!...im going to compromise to different regulations to save lives. same thing really...


    It's not a legal gun problem. The media sells it as a problem. And using any analogy vs guns is not silly. Ultimately people want increased gun control/bans to save lives correct? So why is comparing that to anything that would save MORE lives be silly?
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Of all the insane discussions we've had here, I think i've only seen maybe 1-2 folks say we should completely ban guns. I fucking hate guns, but I dont think an all out ban is even worthy of talking about.

    Im with JasonP here -- I do think guns should be harder to get, smaller magazine capacities, and longer background checks. I dont think 50 caliber sniper rifles should be available to the public because its just not necessary. No online sales with zero background check -- I was amazed to learn how easy it was to get a gun. There should also be mandatory classes. (I know, I know, what criminal with a filed off serial number is going to blah, blah blah...) I dont think these things is too much to ask, just to see if we can reduce the amounts of senseless killings and accidents.

    Depends on what you mean by how easy it is to get a gun compared to alcohol, cigs, etc... Anyone can get a gun online pretty easily. Absolutely anyone.
    Agree with you and JasonP.

    And I don't think guns will ever be outlawed, just like I don't think Roe v Wade will ever be overturned (not comparing the two subjects, but the odds of either becoming unavailable).

    I also don't get the fear-mongering on either side of the spectrum: Ban them all! Have complete access to any weapon! Is there no common sense middleground? What's the big deal of putting well-thought-out safety measures into place? If I wanted/needed a gun for legitimate reasons, I'd have no problem with a background check, or training (which I'd seek out anyway), or not being able to get my hands on an assault rifle.
  • vant0037vant0037 Posts: 6,121
    DS1119 wrote:
    All this does is create more government red tape...bigger government and less freedom.

    Yeah but to what end? If limited in its application to guns, and more regulations might mean more lives saved, then is "less freedom" a bad thing?

    I understand that "bigger government" and "less freedom" are hot button tag lines for political parties, but if "more regulation" = "less available guns" and that translates into "less freedom" but "less freedom" actually means "more lives saved," then let's cut the damn political bullshit and call a spade a spade. Sometimes "less freedom" is OK in instances where some people can't be trusted not to kill their neighbors.
    1998-06-30 Minneapolis
    2003-06-16 St. Paul
    2006-06-26 St. Paul
    2007-08-05 Chicago
    2009-08-23 Chicago
    2009-08-28 San Francisco
    2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
    2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
    2011-09-03 PJ20
    2011-09-04 PJ20
    2011-09-17 Winnipeg
    2012-06-26 Amsterdam
    2012-06-27 Amsterdam
    2013-07-19 Wrigley
    2013-11-21 San Diego
    2013-11-23 Los Angeles
    2013-11-24 Los Angeles
    2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
    2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
    2014-10-09 Lincoln
    2014-10-19 St. Paul
    2014-10-20 Milwaukee
    2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
    2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
    2018-06-18 London 1
    2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
    2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
    2022-09-16 Nashville
    2023-08-31 St. Paul
    2023-09-02 St. Paul
    2023-09-05 Chicago 1
    2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
    2024-09-15 Fenway 1
    2024-09-27 Ohana 1
    2024-09-29 Ohana 2
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,618
    Deja vu no this topic has been discussed to no end and with the same conclussions, there are some of us here who would like to see more regulations and ther are others that wan't no regulations at all ...

    I'm sure will have the same debate in a month or two yeppie can't wait :sick:
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    I don't own a gun, will never own a gun, do not like guns. But I am ok with other people owning them. However, we have NO common sense gun laws in place and that is what I want. Why can't there be a middle ground? Sensible gun control laws that require you to register your gun and have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and a limit on certain types of weapons and ammo are reasonable expectations, in my mind.

    A couple of years ago there was a big to-do in KY about carry concealed weapons (without a license mind you) to CHURCH. To protect yourself?? We have protections in this state only for gun owners and very few for the rest.

    These are the gun "restrictions" in KY which are laughable BTW.

    Subject/Law Long Guns Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
    State permit to purchase? No No
    Firearm registration? No No
    "Assault weapon" law? No No
    Owner license required? No No
    Concealed Carry permits issued? No Yes KRS § 237.110
    Open Carry? Yes Yes May carry openly without permit/license.
    State preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes KRS § 65.870 Exception: KRS § 237.115 allows the following entities to restrict concealed carry:

    Postsecondary educational institutions
    Any unit of government within the state in buildings that it owns, leases, or occupies – however, concealed carry is allowed in highway rest areas, public housing, and private dwellings

    NFA weapons restricted? No No
    Peaceable journey laws? No No Federal rules observed.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • WildsWilds Posts: 4,329
    fife wrote:
    Wilds wrote:
    They don't understand the importance guns play in keeping people free, and only see the cost of that freedom on display when people do bad things with guns.

    if guns kept people safe wouldn't America be the safest place in the world considering you do have the most guns?

    I'm not talking about keeping people safe. I'm talking about freedom from oppression.


    That is why the framers of the Constitution put that in. I don't think I'll live to see it, but some day I think Americans will need them.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    edited December 2012
    DS1119 wrote:
    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.
    ...
    To own the car, you need to be on the title of the car... don't you? To get your name on the title, don't you need a contract?
    Which state do you live in where you can sign a legally binding contract with an 8 year old? Being the eternal skeptic, I need to look it up for myself. Unless you can provide that legal information.
    Post edited by Cosmo on
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • vant0037vant0037 Posts: 6,121
    Cosmo wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    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.
    ...
    To own the car, you need to be on the title of the car... don't you? To get your name on the title, don't you need a contract?
    Which state do you live in where you can sign a legally binding contract with an 8 year old. Being the eternal skeptic, I need to look it up for myself. Unless you can provide that legal information.

    Fairly sure you can't enter into a legally binding contract with a child. I don't do contracts though, so who knows...
    1998-06-30 Minneapolis
    2003-06-16 St. Paul
    2006-06-26 St. Paul
    2007-08-05 Chicago
    2009-08-23 Chicago
    2009-08-28 San Francisco
    2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
    2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
    2011-09-03 PJ20
    2011-09-04 PJ20
    2011-09-17 Winnipeg
    2012-06-26 Amsterdam
    2012-06-27 Amsterdam
    2013-07-19 Wrigley
    2013-11-21 San Diego
    2013-11-23 Los Angeles
    2013-11-24 Los Angeles
    2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
    2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
    2014-10-09 Lincoln
    2014-10-19 St. Paul
    2014-10-20 Milwaukee
    2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
    2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
    2018-06-18 London 1
    2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
    2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
    2022-09-16 Nashville
    2023-08-31 St. Paul
    2023-09-02 St. Paul
    2023-09-05 Chicago 1
    2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
    2024-09-15 Fenway 1
    2024-09-27 Ohana 1
    2024-09-29 Ohana 2
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,964
    I don't know if I can think of anyone who I've come across who actually wants to outlaw guns in the US... just quite a few people who want the laws to be quite a bit more strict so that guns aren't legally purchased by the wrong people. I could also see the value in making certain automatic assault rifles and shit like that illegal to manufacture without a government contract or something.

    Obviously something has to change about the US and guns... there is certainly a strange culture around them in some parts of the States. And people seem very weirdly interested in the idea that somehow having guns keeps them free. I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I don't like guns and do wonder a LOT about people who are "into" them. Those people creep me out. But There are still some good reasons to have one (i.e. anyone living on a farm or in the country should probably own a gun, and I'm not opposed to having one for protection in the home I guess, although that leads to to a LOT of accidents apparently, so the training and ownership requirements have to be much stronger), so outlawing them would be pretty dumb. It would also be a logistical nightmare to pass such a law.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,964
    Deja vu no this topic has been discussed to no end and with the same conclussions, there are some of us here who would like to see more regulations and ther are others that wan't no regulations at all ...

    I'm sure will have the same debate in a month or two yeppie can't wait :sick:
    Yeah really. As soon as I saw the comparison of gun laws and driving laws (right after posting myself), I think my eyes pretty much rolled to the back of my head. We have so been here and done this. :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul wrote:
    Deja vu no this topic has been discussed to no end and with the same conclussions, there are some of us here who would like to see more regulations and ther are others that wan't no regulations at all ...

    I'm sure will have the same debate in a month or two yeppie can't wait :sick:
    Yeah really. As soon as I saw the comparison of gun laws and driving laws (right after posting myself), I think my eyes pretty much rolled to the back of my head. We have so been here and done this. :lol:

    Guns save lives!
    Theres no time like the present

    A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!

    All people need to do more on every level!
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,964
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    Deja vu no this topic has been discussed to no end and with the same conclussions, there are some of us here who would like to see more regulations and ther are others that wan't no regulations at all ...

    I'm sure will have the same debate in a month or two yeppie can't wait :sick:
    Yeah really. As soon as I saw the comparison of gun laws and driving laws (right after posting myself), I think my eyes pretty much rolled to the back of my head. We have so been here and done this. :lol:

    Guns save lives!
    They probably save more lives than they kill (there right there is a strange sentence), but that is probably only because cops and soldiers have guns. If you took out the law enforcement factor, I'm not sure if that would be the case, but doubt it (I don't think there any truly informative stats to show that exist).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Gun control controls only us.
Sign In or Register to comment.