Banning Guns = Banning Islam?

1970RR

Cosmo wrote:

...
You ARE paying for shit you aren't doing, unless you answer Yes to any on the following questions:
Are you an alcoholic? Are you a two-pack a day smoker? Are you a drive by shooter?
If you drink a lot... you pay more. If you smoke a lot... you pay more. If you are going through an awful lot of ammunition... you pay more.
...
Why is this a problem?

Dont forget to tax matches - they can cause fires. And sports equipment too, all those injuries cost us all money. Oh yeah, food too - you know how people abuse that. And cars, dont leave them off, lots of carnage on our roads these days. In fact, I cant think of a better world than one where the government decides what is risky and what is not and then uses taxation as a means to discourage such behavior.

rebornFixer

I get your point.

Cosmo

1970RR wrote:

Dont forget to tax matches - they can cause fires. And sports equipment too, all those injuries cost us all money. Oh yeah, food too - you know how people abuse that. And cars, dont leave them off, lots of carnage on our roads these days. In fact, I cant think of a better world than one where the government decides what is risky and what is not and then uses taxation as a means to discourage such behavior.

...
When was the last time someone was sent to the trauma center because of a tent? and how much of the 'Carnage on the Roads', alcohol related?
You are either silly or blind to the fact that alcohol, tobacco and firearms have ill effects from their use and abuse.

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
When was the last time someone was sent to the trauma center because of a tent? and how much of the 'Carnage on the Roads', alcohol related?
You are either silly or blind to the fact that alcohol, tobacco and firearms have ill effects from their use and abuse.

And you seem equally silly or blind to the fact that it is my right to smoke, to drink, and to target shoot. Just like its a woman's right to choose to murder a baby. You liberals cant have your cake and eat it too.

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

And you seem equally silly or blind to the fact that it is my right to smoke, to drink, and to target shoot. Just like its a woman's right to choose to murder a baby. You liberals cant have your cake and eat it too.

...
Yes... it is your right to choose to smoke, and drink and shoot. I'm not proposing a ban or limits on your consumption. But, why should I have to pay for YOUR hospital bills when you get emphysema because you excercised your right to smoke 2 packs a day?

rebornFixer

Fundamentally, there are a great many dangerous things in our societies that are nevertheless legal. Driving, using some drugs (alcohol and tobacco), owning and using a gun ... There are always restrictions placed on these behaviors, be it age limits, need to get a license, etc. What annoys me is the arbitrary nature of people's focus on lawful gun owners. Maybe not in all states, but in MOST juristictions, you need licenses, background checks, etc. to get a gun via legal means. This is an adequate system. What is inadequate are the lack of controls on illegal weaponry. Clearly more needs to be done to reduce the number of weapons (not just guns) in the hands of criminals ... What the best solution is eludes me, though.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
Yes... it is your right to choose to smoke, and drink and shoot. I'm not proposing a ban or limits on your consumption. But, why should I have to pay for YOUR hospital bills when you get emphysema because you excercised your right to smoke 2 packs a day?

Part of me agrees with this argument, but how far should it be taken? Some idiot drives like an ass, crashes, and injures himself severely. Should we pay his bills?

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
Yes... it is your right to choose to smoke, and drink and shoot. I'm not proposing a ban or limits on your consumption. But, why should I have to pay for YOUR hospital bills when you get emphysema because you excercised your right to smoke 2 packs a day?

You shouldnt. I should. Deny smokers or limit their insurability. Most of the hospitals in my area, at least as far as I know, are privately owned and run. Im not quite sure how much of my tax money is used to pay the patients bills. I know our biggest hospital doesnt pay property tax, but I believe its due to the high number of jobs that hospital provides. Do you have information or statistics, either nationwide or state per state, that show real numbers on the amount of TAX money spent on smokers, drinkers, and gunshot wounds? I'd like to know/be shown something concrete.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Fundamentally, there are a great many dangerous things in our societies that are nevertheless legal. Driving, using some drugs (alcohol and tobacco), owning and using a gun ... There are always restrictions placed on these behaviors, be it age limits, need to get a license, etc. What annoys me is the arbitrary nature of people's focus on lawful gun owners. Maybe not in all states, but in MOST juristictions, you need licenses, background checks, etc. to get a gun via legal means. This is an adequate system. What is inadequate are the lack of controls on illegal weaponry. Clearly more needs to be done to reduce the number of weapons (not just guns) in the hands of criminals ... What the best solution is eludes me, though.

...
Step One. Enforce the Gun laws. Put the fuckers in prison who use guns in the commission of a crime.
Step Two. Enforce the Gun Registration Laws. Put the fuckers who are in possession of a stolen and/or unregistered gun in prison with the assholes who use them in the commission of a crime.
...
That's a start.

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
Step One. Enforce the Gun laws. Put the fuckers in prison who use guns in the commission of a crime.
Step Two. Enforce the Gun Registration Laws. Put the fuckers who are in possession of a stolen and/or unregistered gun in prison with the assholes who use them in the commission of a crime.
...
That's a start.

That'd work. Its not more laws or regulations that we need. Its strict enforcement of the ones we already have in place.

cellophanehand

"it's my constitutional right to bear arms" blah blah blah... simple fact is the more guns that are available the more damage is done with them and generally it's stupid people that are stupid enough to be convinced they need them that feel the need for them and their stupid money goes straight into the pockets of more stupid people. just these stupid people are very very rich.

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

You shouldnt. I should. Deny smokers or limit their insurability. Most of the hospitals in my area, at least as far as I know, are privately owned and run. Im not quite sure how much of my tax money is used to pay the patients bills. I know our biggest hospital doesnt pay property tax, but I believe its due to the high number of jobs that hospital provides. Do you have information or statistics, either nationwide or state per state, that show real numbers on the amount of TAX money spent on smokers, drinkers, and gunshot wounds? I'd like to know/be shown something concrete.

...
Here:
"In addition to the human toll, the monetary cost--as measured in hospitalization, rehabilitation and lost wages--is staggering. A 1989 Centers for Disease Control study estimated the lifetime economic cost of firearms violence for 1985 at $14.4 billion, ranking it third in economic toll for all injury categories."
(ref. http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfcrisis.htm )
That was 1985... has the country gotten more or less violent since then?
...
As for smoking:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/13/3/264
...
If you do not know how to use an Internet search engine... go to one of the search engine sites and type in "Costs associated with Smoking" (or Alcohol or Firearms) in the field denoted as "Search".
...
Do you know how YOU are paying for the results of these things? Your County resources are covering the costs of the 'uninsurable' heavy risk people who pop down to the County Medical Center. They cannot and do not refuse services to anyone... someone has to pay. Guess who that someone is?
...
All I am saying is make the fuckers who are taxing our system pay for the cost on the rest of us. I don't want my tax dollars wasted in trauma centers on fuckers who choose to smoke or drink or shoot themselves in the fucking foot.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
Step One. Enforce the Gun laws. Put the fuckers in prison who use guns in the commission of a crime.
Step Two. Enforce the Gun Registration Laws. Put the fuckers who are in possession of a stolen and/or unregistered gun in prison with the assholes who use them in the commission of a crime.
...
That's a start.

Well, if you're arguing in favour of harsher penalties for those who own or use guns ILLEGALLY, then darn skippy ... I agree.

Cosmo

cellophanehand wrote:

"it's my constitutional right to bear arms" blah blah blah... simple fact is the more guns that are available the more damage is done with them and generally it's stupid people that are stupid enough to be convinced they need them that feel the need for them and their stupid money goes straight into the pockets of more stupid people. just these stupid people are very very rich.

...
I don't know about rich... but, I agree about stupid.
No one has addressed my observation... the one about the people at the swap meet or on the freeways. Look around you... look at these people... would you feel safer is everyone of these assholes had a fucking gun in their pockets or thier glovebox?

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, if you're arguing in favour of harsher penalties for those who own or use guns ILLEGALLY, then darn skippy ... I agree.

...
Yeah... it's a start.
If you buy a car that does not have the proper paper work attached to it... you cannot drive it on public roads and highways, right? Apply the same basic concept for guns. If you are buying a gun with the serial number ground off from some dude selling it out the the back of his van... you KNOW you are doing something illegal and should be held responsible for that illegal decision.
Again... I believe in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights more than I believe in the Bible. The Second Amendment grants us this right. But, I believe we need to act responsibly as a nation with this... and every other Right granted to us.

hippiemom

PaperPlates wrote:

That'd work. Its not more laws or regulations that we need. Its strict enforcement of the ones we already have in place.

No, we need more regulations.

In my home state of Ohio, for example, there is no limit to the number of guns you can buy in any given period of time. There are no restrictions on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. There is no state-level background check (the federal check rarely catches people under recent restraining orders). Ballistic fingerprinting of handguns is not required. No background checks of any kind are required in a private sale. There are no state restrictions on kids possessing guns. There is no testing or training required in order to buy a handgun. Not only are guns not registered, but police are forbidden by law from keeping any gun sale records. There is no waiting period to buy a gun. And most shockingly of all, there is no law requiring gun owners to take responsible steps to secure their weapons, or holding them accountable for what happens if a child or a criminal takes their gun.

rebornFixer

hippiemom wrote:

No, we need more regulations.

In my home state of Ohio, for example, there is no limit to the number of guns you can buy in any given period of time. There are no restrictions on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. There is no state-level background check (the federal check rarely catches people under recent restraining orders). Ballistic fingerprinting of handguns is not required. No background checks of any kind are required in a private sale. There are no state restrictions on kids possessing guns. There is no testing or training required in order to buy a handgun. Not only are guns not registered, but police are forbidden by law from keeping any gun sale records. There is no waiting period to buy a gun. And most shockingly of all, there is no law requiring gun owners to take responsible steps to secure their weapons, or holding them accountable for what happens if a child or a criminal takes their gun.

I agree that a lot of those laws are needed ... Especially the safe storage ones. Many states and Canada already have these laws in place. Ohio must be a tad behind.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
I don't know about rich... but, I agree about stupid.
No one has addressed my observation... the one about the people at the swap meet or on the freeways. Look around you... look at these people... would you feel safer is everyone of these assholes had a fucking gun in their pockets or thier glovebox?

You're generalizing a lot here ... For all you know, many of these assholes do not break the laws and are at about a 0% chance of killing someone with a gun. Do I think keeping a gun in one's glovebox makes the world a safer place? No. But if someone wants to do it, and they aren't a gang banger or ultra-paranoid, who cares?

Cosmo

hippiemom wrote:

No, we need more regulations.

In my home state of Ohio, for example, there is no limit to the number of guns you can buy in any given period of time. There are no restrictions on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. There is no state-level background check (the federal check rarely catches people under recent restraining orders). Ballistic fingerprinting of handguns is not required. No background checks of any kind are required in a private sale. There are no state restrictions on kids possessing guns. There is no testing or training required in order to buy a handgun. Not only are guns not registered, but police are forbidden by law from keeping any gun sale records. There is no waiting period to buy a gun. And most shockingly of all, there is no law requiring gun owners to take responsible steps to secure their weapons, or holding them accountable for what happens if a child or a criminal takes their gun.

...
Ohio... is that still part of America?
...
Just kidding. They must LOOOOVE their guns back there.
I do not think the Second Amendment applies to thing like M-60s or 105mm Howitzers... although, I know there are some who will argue with that.
and i never understood the need for tons of guns... I mean, I can understand the collector picikng up old Colt Revolvers... but, a rack of Mini Mac 10s? What army are you afraid of?

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

You're generalizing a lot here ... For all you know, many of these assholes do not break the laws and are at about a 0% chance of killing someone with a gun. Do I think keeping a gun in one's glovebox makes the world a safer place? No. But if someone wants to do it, and they aren't a gang banger or ultra-paranoid, who cares?

...
You need to go to the swap meet out here in L.A.