StrangeSox Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:35 PM) Are you not reading the headlines right now? It's not just dumb people responding. It's smart people who truly believe that proper response to these tragedies is to take away guns entirely. who is saying this? I want links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:35 PM) That depends on how you want to frame this... I'd say we should include drunk driving as intentional uses of a car as a weapon, while it may not be their "intention", the fact they get in their car while intoxicated makes it exactly that. And if we include that, I bet there are far more of such accidents with cars than with guns. I also understand I'm stretching here to make an argument, but I think it's valid considering drunk drivers that kill people will get convicted of manslaughter. It was roughly 10-11k last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:35 PM) Are you not reading the headlines right now? It's not just dumb people responding. It's smart people who truly believe that proper response to these tragedies is to take away guns entirely. Are you implying that I think newspapers or the media are smart? Because that would be a faulty premise. Taking away guns entirely is most likely not possible, so its a waste of time to argue about it, and a waste of time for that to be proposed as a solution. Which is why its frustrating to discuss, because certain people can not separate "gun regulation" from "guns being completely banned" when they are 2 separate things. Id die of joy if they allowed drugs to be regulated, because thats not banned and it means all I have to do is follow the rules and I get what I want. Why is that so hard? Why do pro-gun people always have to make it some outlandish "I wont be able to have a gun ever"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The NRA and other gun-advocate groups have been feeding rhetoric that any attempt at regulating guns is just the first step on the inevitable confiscation of all guns for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) who is saying this? I want links. I didn't mean to infer ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html Edited December 17, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) I didn't mean to infer ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html To which I say...it's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) Are you implying that I think newspapers or the media are smart? Because that would be a faulty premise. Taking away guns entirely is most likely not possible, so its a waste of time to argue about it, and a waste of time for that to be proposed as a solution. Which is why its frustrating to discuss, because certain people can not separate "gun regulation" from "guns being completely banned" when they are 2 separate things. Id die of joy if they allowed drugs to be regulated, because thats not banned and it means all I have to do is follow the rules and I get what I want. Why is that so hard? Why do pro-gun people always have to make it some outlandish "I wont be able to have a gun ever"? The issue comes from how it's currently handled by the "law". These restrictions are often argued because they're not on a level playing field. For example, Chicago has far more restrictions than a neighboring suburb when it comes to purchasing, registering and owning. This type of enforcement doesn't work well...and it leaves too much room for argument. This has to be handled federally, across the board, across all 50 states or the argument will never end. I'm not a fan of guns...never have been. But the idea that people a few blocks away from me are able to have weapons I'm not allowed to have seems unfair...even for a person that has no use for such weapons. This is one of the HUGE problem areas that needs to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) I didn't mean to infer ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html oh so you were building a strawman there, cool. Because without the "ALL" part, your response to soxbadger doesn't really make any sense. Yes, after yet another mass gun murder, people are finally starting to think "hey! maybe we have a gun problem!" and would like to do something about it. That is not an absurd or dumb position to take. Edited December 17, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) I didn't mean to say ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html The excuse that "The assault weapons ban was full of holes" is not a good reason to not have an assault weapons ban...it's a great reason to actually implement a well-designed assault weapons ban. The NRA pokes that law through with so many loopholes that it isn't as effective as it could be. It's allowed to lapse. Weapons that should have been banned under an effective assault weapons ban get used in mass shootings. People say "but the AWB woudln't have banned those guns". Great, give me one that would. The gun he used is a killing machine, and nothing else. It is built to fend off a battalion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) That depends on how you want to frame this... I'd say we should include drunk driving as intentional uses of a car as a weapon, while it may not be their "intention", the fact they get in their car while intoxicated makes it exactly that. And if we include that, I bet there are far more of such accidents with cars than with guns. I also understand I'm stretching here to make an argument, but I think it's valid considering drunk drivers that kill people will get convicted of manslaughter. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) It was roughly 10-11k last year. Indeed. I totally bought my Volvo to kill people who try to harm me and my family. In fact, after work today I'll be joining my uncle at the driving range where we get to drive into cardboard cutouts of people to practice our technique to intentionally kill people with our cars. And thank goodness our master bedroom is huge. I keep my car idling next to my bed so that I can run over any home intruder who dares enter my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) The issue comes from how it's currently handled by the "law". These restrictions are often argued because they're not on a level playing field. For example, Chicago has far more restrictions than a neighboring suburb when it comes to purchasing, registering and owning. This type of enforcement doesn't work well...and it leaves too much room for argument. This has to be handled federally, across the board, across all 50 states or the argument will never end. I'm not a fan of guns...never have been. But the idea that people a few blocks away from me are able to have weapons I'm not allowed to have seems unfair...even for a person that has no use for such weapons. This is one of the HUGE problem areas that needs to be addressed. It absolutely needs to be a federal-level policy and you stated why very well. It's also why pointing to Chicago and saying "see! gun control doesn't work!" isn't exactly a strong argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Indeed. I totally bought my Volvo to kill people who try to harm me and my family. In fact, after work today I'll be joining my uncle at the driving range where we get to drive into cardboard cutouts of people to practice our technique to intentionally kill people with our cars. And thank goodness our master bedroom is huge. I keep my car idling next to my bed so that I can run over any home intruder who dares enter my home. While I understand your condescension, it ignores the argument I posed. If you buy that Volvo, and drink and drive as a routine, ignoring the law, IMO, it IS your intention to kill people, whether they're attacking your family or not. Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) The excuse that "The assault weapons ban was full of holes" is not a good reason to not have an assault weapons ban...it's a great reason to actually implement a well-designed assault weapons ban. The NRA pokes that law through with so many loopholes that it isn't as effective as it could be. It's allowed to lapse. Weapons that should have been banned under an effective assault weapons ban get used in mass shootings. People say "but the AWB woudln't have banned those guns". Great, give me one that would. The gun he used is a killing machine, and nothing else. It is built to fend off a battalion. Yeah, the '94 AWB was pretty crappy but did include magazine size limits. So that means we should have a good AWB, not no AWB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) While I understand your condescension, it ignores the argument I posed. If you guy that Volvo, and drink and drive as a routine, ignoring the law, IMO, it IS your intention to kill people, whether they're attacking your family or not. That's a leap. Who has a few drinks and think "I want to kill people tonight"? They just think they're ok enough to drive safely home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) The issue comes from how it's currently handled by the "law". These restrictions are often argued because they're not on a level playing field. For example, Chicago has far more restrictions than a neighboring suburb when it comes to purchasing, registering and owning. This type of enforcement doesn't work well...and it leaves too much room for argument. This has to be handled federally, across the board, across all 50 states or the argument will never end. I'm not a fan of guns...never have been. But the idea that people a few blocks away from me are able to have weapons I'm not allowed to have seems unfair...even for a person that has no use for such weapons. This is one of the HUGE problem areas that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately I cant convince a certain subset of people so in order to effectuate any change, I gotta take what I can get. There is no way that I believe the entire United States can agree on comprehensive gun regulation. Which is why the best I can do is hope that the area I live in passes reasonable regulations. And to be clear, no guns on the street, to me is a reasonable regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) That's a leap. Who has a few drinks and think "I want to kill people tonight"? They just think they're ok enough to drive safely home. Convince a judge of that when you get tried for vehicular homicide after running over a group of nuns crossing the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) That's a leap. Who has a few drinks and think "I want to kill people tonight"? They just think they're ok enough to drive safely home. I'm not talking about that guy. I'm talking about the dude that's fall down drunk after 20 drinks, not 2. And routinely drinks and drives. These are the people that routinely kill people with their vehicles, to the point they've invented a term for it, vehicular manslaughter/homocide. Those people cause most drunk driving accidents/fatalities, to the tune of thousands upon thousands per year. And their regulations, fines, and sentences are often less than that of a person who uses a gun illegally. Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) While I understand your condescension, it ignores the argument I posed. If you buy that Volvo, and drink and drive as a routine, ignoring the law, IMO, it IS your intention to kill people, whether they're attacking your family or not. OK...so by that argument...if I leave my house with a gun, it is also my intention to kill something, because the only use of a gun is deadly harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:49 PM) I'm not talking about that guy. I'm talking about the dude that's fall down drunk after 20 drinks, not 2. And routinely drinks and drives. These are the people that routinely kill people with their vehicles, to the point they've invented a term for it, vehicular manslaughter/homocide. Those people cause most drunk driving accidents/fatalities, to the tune of thousands upon thousands per year. And their regulations, fines, and sentences are often less than that of a person who uses a gun illegally. I'd love if car accidents entered the fray for more regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) OK...so by that argument...if I leave my house with a gun, it is also my intention to kill something, because the only use of a gun is deadly harm. That's simply false. Maybe you enjoy shooting at targets at the range, it's a hobby of yours. That right there is a use of a gun that's not deadly harm. Same goes for people who are into archery. Yes, you CAN kill someone with a bow/arrow, but that doesn't have to be it's ONLY use. Edit to my point: The use of a car isn't intended to kill people. But IMO, if you love having 10 drinks and driving, that IS your intention, whether you're sane or smart enough to admit it or not. Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) That's simply false. Maybe you enjoy shooting at targets at the range, it's a hobby of yours. That right there is a use of a gun that's not deadly harm. Same goes for people who are into archery. Yes, you CAN kill someone with a bow/arrow, but that doesn't have to be it's ONLY use. Take up throwing darts. It's cheaper and safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) Take up throwing darts. It's cheaper and safer. Well, we agree. My friends are into that shooting range crap...I went a few times for training on guns (my brother taught me), but I'm just not into it. I don't get a rush from it...and it makes me uncomfortable being there, knowing that any of those people could just start killing people for no reason. It's a scene I'm not into at all. I'd prefer darts at the bar. But you've been known to attack me at bars, so I wont play darts with you. Ever. Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) That's simply false. Maybe you enjoy shooting at targets at the range, it's a hobby of yours. That right there is a use of a gun that's not deadly harm. Same goes for people who are into archery. Yes, you CAN kill someone with a bow/arrow, but that doesn't have to be it's ONLY use. Edit to my point: The use of a car isn't intended to kill people. But IMO, if you love having 10 drinks and driving, that IS your intention, whether you're sane or smart enough to admit it or not. It is not false. A car has a purpose outside of deadly harm. I agree with you about drinking and driving. But...a gun has no other purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:58 PM) It is not false. A car has a purpose outside of deadly harm. I agree with you about drinking and driving. But...a gun has no other purpose. As does a gun/bow/crossbow. It CAN be used for a purpose outside of deadly harm, whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) It is not false. A car has a purpose outside of deadly harm. I agree with you about drinking and driving. But...a gun has no other purpose. Guns have a wide range of purposes: - Kill people - Kill animals - Practice shooting at targets so that you can one day kill a person/animal if you have to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts