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

MayDay10 · December 2012

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?

DS1119 · December 2012

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?

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio 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.

vant0037 · December 2012

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.

Ooops!

ass (of out)
u (and)
me

Mostly me though. haha.

Sorry charlie!

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.

I'll see your "Mr. Green" and raise you:

DS1119 · December 2012

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?

JonnyPistachio · 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.

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio 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.

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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 P · December 2012

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.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio 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.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

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!

DS1119 · December 2012

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.

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio 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.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

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.

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio · December 2012

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...

MotoDC · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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....

DS1119 · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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?

hedonist · December 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

vant0037 · December 2012

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.

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

Comments

Categories