|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: |
Cars kill more people per year than legally obtained guns by a large margin. Where is the call for car control? |
Seriously? Here's you answer. |
Nice try, genius. Per your infographic, cars are heavily regulated. Yet, they still kill more people per year. If you take into consideration everything else I wrote from the post where you quoted just those two sentences, it certainly adds perspective i.e. deaths per registered cars vs. legal guns. Of course, that would mean accepting the facts for what they are instead of picking and choosing bits and pieces to fit your narrative. Oh and cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights. One is a right and the other is a privilege.
Mic drop my ass. |
1. Cars have a legit, required purpose beyond violence
2. Violence is not even the purpose of cars
3. Plenty of regulation and innovation are in play to bring the number of car deaths down.
4. Car owners aren't fighting every safety or regulatory advance, or pushing for more, more dangerous, unlicensed and unregulated cars. |
1. Yet, they end up killing more people a year than guns.
2. See 1. Plus, car wrecks are as violent as they get. Guns provide a form of self defense especially for the weak, elderly, and women.
3. See 1 again. Blaming guns is the same as blaming drugs and alcohol. It's all in the mindset of the individual. Focus on the real problem.
4. Talk about disingenuousness.
| 24 wrote: | | To compare something with unintended consequences with something that is doing what it was designed for is disingenuousness of high order. |
Don't be such a drama queen. I wasn't comparing cars to guns per se. My point was about putting the number of deaths per year in perspective. Are you and DMR sharing notes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
Question: Is there any kind of weapon that you're against regulating or against people having? If they're just harmless objects and it's all about the mindset, is there any limit to what kind of killing device a person should be allowed to possess? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
I read your statement that they're inanimate objects. It's the mindset and the person that's the issue. Given that, I'm curious if there are weapons you're not ok with people having. Or, if you're ok with them having anything, if you'd want them to be regulated. And even if you're limiting it exclusively to "firearms", that itself is a pretty large and diverse umbrella term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
I'm wondering which gun control regulations (if any) you are in favor of and which regulations (if any) you oppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: |
Cars kill more people per year than legally obtained guns by a large margin. Where is the call for car control? |
Seriously? Here's you answer. |
Nice try, genius. Per your infographic, cars are heavily regulated. Yet, they still kill more people per year. If you take into consideration everything else I wrote from the post where you quoted just those two sentences, it certainly adds perspective i.e. deaths per registered cars vs. legal guns. Of course, that would mean accepting the facts for what they are instead of picking and choosing bits and pieces to fit your narrative. Oh and cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights. One is a right and the other is a privilege.
Mic drop my ass. |
1. Cars have a legit, required purpose beyond violence
2. Violence is not even the purpose of cars
3. Plenty of regulation and innovation are in play to bring the number of car deaths down.
4. Car owners aren't fighting every safety or regulatory advance, or pushing for more, more dangerous, unlicensed and unregulated cars. |
1. Yet, they end up killing more people a year than guns.
2. See 1. Plus, car wrecks are as violent as they get. Guns provide a form of self defense especially for the weak, elderly, and women.
3. See 1 again. Blaming guns is the same as blaming drugs and alcohol. It's all in the mindset of the individual. Focus on the real problem.
4. Talk about disingenuousness.
| 24 wrote: | | To compare something with unintended consequences with something that is doing what it was designed for is disingenuousness of high order. |
Don't be such a drama queen. I wasn't comparing cars to guns per se. My point was about putting the number of deaths per year in perspective. Are you and DMR sharing notes? |
You're entitled t argue your view, and I don't toss people for disagreeing, but be careful with name calling. I have no problem tossing you for being an ass.
BTW, you were comparing the two when you put the number of deaths in perspective, compared to each other. And of course, you don't want to follow that to the rest of the comparison, which i don't blame you for. Wanting to compare two things on one front an then not on another, is, FWIW, completely disingenuous...
P.S. You aren't insulting me by comparing me to Mule... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
I read your statement that they're inanimate objects. It's the mindset and the person that's the issue. Given that, I'm curious if there are weapons you're not ok with people having. Or, if you're ok with them having anything, if you'd want them to be regulated. And even if you're limiting it exclusively to "firearms", that itself is a pretty large and diverse umbrella term. |
I see the point you're trying to make. Even nukes are inanimate objects, right? Good effort to trip me up on your part.  But I think you're missing MY point. Which is when tragedies like shootings occur, to not focus on the tools used, but the individuals (or organizations for that matter). To focus on the real problem and not some knee jerky feel good measure gun laws which do nothing but limit personal freedoms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53835
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
I read your statement that they're inanimate objects. It's the mindset and the person that's the issue. Given that, I'm curious if there are weapons you're not ok with people having. Or, if you're ok with them having anything, if you'd want them to be regulated. And even if you're limiting it exclusively to "firearms", that itself is a pretty large and diverse umbrella term. |
I see the point you're trying to make. Even nukes are inanimate objects, right? Good effort to trip me up on your part. But I think you're missing MY point. Which is when tragedies like shootings occur, to not focus on the tools used, but the individuals (or organizations for that matter). To focus on the real problem and not some knee jerky feel good measure gun laws which do nothing but limit personal freedoms. |
I'm not trying to trip you up, just trying to get an idea of how you view the subject. Very clearly you're ok with people having guns, and don't view them as a problem in any way (it's all about the people). I'm not sure to what measure you want them regulated but I gather from the tone of your posts it isn't much (correct me if I'm wrong). If we aren't to look at the tools used for mass shootings as part of the problem, all I'm trying to get at is whether or not you draw distinctions between various types of these "tools", whether or not there are killing tools you are against people having, and if there are what kinds of regulations on them do you support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38789
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
I'm wondering which gun control regulations (if any) you are in favor of and which regulations (if any) you oppose. |
He skirted around answering the question. I already know the answer, which is the NRA's position on this matter. They don't want any regulations stopping anybody from purchasing a firearm. It doesn't matter what the mental health of the customer is, another gun sold is another potential NRA member. More NRA members=more political power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Splash1 wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
I read your statement that they're inanimate objects. It's the mindset and the person that's the issue. Given that, I'm curious if there are weapons you're not ok with people having. Or, if you're ok with them having anything, if you'd want them to be regulated. And even if you're limiting it exclusively to "firearms", that itself is a pretty large and diverse umbrella term. |
I see the point you're trying to make. Even nukes are inanimate objects, right? Good effort to trip me up on your part. But I think you're missing MY point. Which is when tragedies like shootings occur, to not focus on the tools used, but the individuals (or organizations for that matter). To focus on the real problem and not some knee jerky feel good measure gun laws which do nothing but limit personal freedoms. |
I think most of the people you are debating here are in complete agreement that such shootings typically have other factors than simply the presence of a gun. I know I for one am an advocate of being more proactive in addressing the mental health component that is present in such mass murders.
However, one can not ignore the obvious element that the ready acquisition of guns plays in these events. Whether you are willing to accept it or not, the ease with which the perpetrators of these crimes are able to amass large amounts of ammunition and multiple weapons is a problem. And it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
People on certain medications are strictly tracked in their prescription usage so the authorities can be aware of who might be amassing certain chemicals for the manufacture of illegal drugs. Any deviation from the norm raises red flags that they MAY be involved in illegal activity.
Yet, James Holmes is able to purchase THOUSANDS of rounds of ammunition without raising any flags that may have alerted authorities to his potential for committing a heinous act.
We have reached a point where the same types of certifications, verifications, safety measures and monitoring we apply to so many facets of our lives that are much more mundane and important to daily functions that don't involve weapons designed to cause harm need to be applied to how we approach legal gun ownership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
I'm wondering which gun control regulations (if any) you are in favor of and which regulations (if any) you oppose. |
That's quite an open ended question, for me at least. I'll try to make this short. I'm not in favor of dumb/uneducated/ignorant people of owning guns. They make gun owners like me look bad. But in the end, who am I to say this person or that person shouldn't be allowed to have access to a gun to defend their lives and property? So, no. I do not favor most regulations. Gun regulations are like the saying, "cutting off the nose to spite the face".
I am in favor of carry licenses. Not to say who should and shouldn't be able to carry per se, but to educate safety and techniques as well as understanding scenarios of when to draw and engage in the form of mandatory class and training time. Instead of more regulations, education can and have done more to keep people from hurting themselves and others. Of course, there are always a few bad apples and there's nothing you can do about that...except maybe more trained carry license holders. You know, instead of chopping down the whole apple tree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | Where are you going with this? If you're going to get into nuclear weapons and such, don't bother. We're talking about firearms here. |
I read your statement that they're inanimate objects. It's the mindset and the person that's the issue. Given that, I'm curious if there are weapons you're not ok with people having. Or, if you're ok with them having anything, if you'd want them to be regulated. And even if you're limiting it exclusively to "firearms", that itself is a pretty large and diverse umbrella term. |
I see the point you're trying to make. Even nukes are inanimate objects, right? Good effort to trip me up on your part. But I think you're missing MY point. Which is when tragedies like shootings occur, to not focus on the tools used, but the individuals (or organizations for that matter). To focus on the real problem and not some knee jerky feel good measure gun laws which do nothing but limit personal freedoms. |
I think most of the people you are debating here are in complete agreement that such shootings typically have other factors than simply the presence of a gun. I know I for one am an advocate of being more proactive in addressing the mental health component that is present in such mass murders.
However, one can not ignore the obvious element that the ready acquisition of guns plays in these events. Whether you are willing to accept it or not, the ease with which the perpetrators of these crimes are able to amass large amounts of ammunition and multiple weapons is a problem. And it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
People on certain medications are strictly tracked in their prescription usage so the authorities can be aware of who might be amassing certain chemicals for the manufacture of illegal drugs. Any deviation from the norm raises red flags that they MAY be involved in illegal activity.
Yet, James Holmes is able to purchase THOUSANDS of rounds of ammunition without raising any flags that may have alerted authorities to his potential for committing a heinous act.
We have reached a point where the same types of certifications, verifications, safety measures and monitoring we apply to so many facets of our lives that are much more mundane and important to daily functions that don't involve weapons designed to cause harm need to be applied to how we approach legal gun ownership. |
OK, now we're getting somewhere. But you are still focused on the objects used. There seems to be this notion that anyone can just walk in to a gun store and walk out with a gun. There a bit more to it than the likes of buying a pack of smokes and a case of beer. Most of these murderers who acquire the guns legally passed a NICS background check. So, what's really at fault here? In the case with Holmes, there were multiple red flags that got ignored. There really was no one to report him to. Here in California, there's a second form of background check performed by the DOJ. It didn't stop what's his face in Santa Barbara. I've said it on numerous occasions; enforce the laws already in the books. And to properly do that, perhaps for one, build a better network of information of mentally unstable and other prohibited peoples. I don't know. You guys are supposedly the experts on everything. Try putting your heads together and come up with some worthwhile ideas instead always ban ban ban.
Take a lesson from Prohibition years. All it did was keep normal folks from unwinding after a hard day. But more importantly, it was the beginning of organized crime. That of which lead to the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's the same with the war on drugs. Heavily regulate or outright ban something and the criminal element will pounce. The people who will suffer are everyday Joes and especially those in low income brackets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splash1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 482
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Splash1 wrote: | | I thought we were talking about what's acceptable to us pro gun folks. |
So what is acceptable to pro gun folks? What regulations would you find beneficial without infringing upon your rights as a gun owner? |
I'm not sure what you're first question is in regards to. I was discussing with Fallout about what's acceptable in terms of the number of deaths. Regulations?
Same with your second question...beneficial in regards to..? |
I'm wondering which gun control regulations (if any) you are in favor of and which regulations (if any) you oppose. |
He skirted around answering the question. I already know the answer, which is the NRA's position on this matter. They don't want any regulations stopping anybody from purchasing a firearm. It doesn't matter what the mental health of the customer is, another gun sold is another potential NRA member. More NRA members=more political power. |
I didn't skirt around anything. I just didn't know exactly what he was referring to. And I've mentioned many times, as have others, that it's a mental health issue. So of course it matters. And FYI, I don't think the NRA does enough to fight gun control nor am I a member and I own more than enough guns for them to be considered an "arsenal" by the fear mongering media. I HAVE donated a buck or two as I have with other 2nd amendment organizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
