Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[ptatc]

*sigh* good point. bad example. they do kill other people.

 

the main crux of my argument remains.

 

guns kill other people who DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen. not so with drugs etc

This is the drunk driver example. More people die at the hands of a drunk driver than with guns. All of the victims were innocent and DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen.

[Reddy]

?

 

Sure they do. Drugs cause the direct and indirect deaths of all kinds of people.

 

Guns, booze, narcotics, cigarettes...they all are similar in that society seemingly tolerates them or tries not to (but they exist anyways due to extraordinary demand) and they cause harm to innocent people, directly and indirectly.

 

not at ALL in the same way guns do - with INTENT.

[Reddy]

This is the drunk driver example. More people die at the hands of a drunk driver than with guns. All of the victims were innocent and DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen.

sure, absolutely, which is why there are laws AGAINST drinking and driving.

 

is there a law against drinking and owning a gun?

[iamshack]

not at ALL in the same way guns do - with INTENT.

Which is why I said directly or indirectly.

 

And as was noted earlier, there are all kinds of accidental gun deaths every year.

[BigSqwert]

?

 

Sure they do. Drugs cause the direct and indirect deaths of all kinds of people.

 

Guns, booze, narcotics, cigarettes...they all are similar in that society seemingly tolerates them or tries not to (but they exist anyways due to extraordinary demand) and they cause harm to innocent people, directly and indirectly.

Over 30k people in the country were intentionally killed with guns last year. That's the difference. People don't use a cigarette or bump of coke to intentionally kill others.

Edited December 20, 2012 by BigSqwert

[Reddy]

Which is why I said directly or indirectly.

 

And as was noted earlier, there are all kinds of accidental gun deaths every year.

you (generally speaking) can't legislate to prevent accidents from happening.

[ptatc]

Alcohol requires a second step to be dangerous. A bottle of beer is not dangerous. Being drunk is not dangerous (there is a limit here, sure). Being drunk AND driving is dangerous. Being drunk AND wielding a gun is dangerous. People have been drinking beer for about as long as human civilization has existed.

 

Guns are a relatively new invention and particularly, the modern semi-automatic weapon is new -- significantly, it post-dates our constitution. It is rather difficult, comparatively, to use a gun for mere private use. Every time you fire a weapon, there is significant risk. Nobody sits at home on the weekend and fires off their gun, there's almost no place you can live in which it makes sense for you to fire your gun in your home or on your property. This is why you have to go to a club (or Little Caesar's apparently) to shoot your gun. This is why if you go to a gun range and someone unconsciously waves their gun around, everyone in the place ducks for cover.

 

Becoming drunk and dangerous requires a series of calculated decisions and, often, neglect on part of your peers. A gun becomes dangerous the second you're near it. This is why you have to take a class in the state of IL to legally own a firearm or hunt. One unconscious pull of a trigger can be the death of somebody. If I'm simply demented or perhaps even just angry to an unprecedented extent, I can use the gun out of malice and kill people, perhaps many people. There aren't many good uses for alcohol in that situation, save self-medication.

 

They're both dangerous, but they're totally different. One's function is death -- it can be avoided and in most cases is, thanks to so many conscientious gun owners like myself. However, when it functions properly it kills or performs an action that would be lethal if pointed in the right place. Beer's function, primarily, is a beverage and its original use was a matter of nutrition. It was a way to eat barley. You can have too much, which is bad like most things. You can then drive, which is yet another calculated decision that is separate from your drinking too many beers. We should also add that the maximum lethality of a drunk driver is not all that impressive compared to the well-armed gunman.

 

This is not inherently true. Guns can be used for sports, protection, food etc. Just like alcohol, guns are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Nearly all people who own guns have never shot someone nor had their guns used to shoot someone. Same with drinking. Why punish all of the people who use them correctly.

 

So what your saying is that it is the intent that is being punished. It is better to die from a drunk driver than it is by someone with a gun. The original function of each really doesn't matter. It's all in how each is used. In the hands of the wrong person each are lethal. In the hands of the proper person each is safe.

[iamshack]

Over 30k people in the country were intentionally killed with guns last year. That's the difference. People don't use a cigarette or bump of coke to intentionally kill others.

One could make a pretty good argument that the way alcohol/drugs/tobacco are used in our society that the difference between intent and "indirect" is pretty slim.

[Reddy]

One could make a pretty good argument that the way alcohol/drugs/tobacco are used in our society that the difference between intent and "indirect" is pretty slim.

straight up bulls***.

[iamshack]

you (generally speaking) can't legislate to prevent accidents from happening.

You absolutely can.

 

Why do you think such strict safety and health regulations exist in so many industries?

[ptatc]

sure, absolutely, which is why there are laws AGAINST drinking and driving.

 

is there a law against drinking and owning a gun?

Yes. There are laws against shooting people. There are laws against using the guns in unsafe situations. There are plenty of laws against unsafe usage of guns. There are no laws against safe drinking and there are no laws against safe use of a firearm.

 

There is no law against drinking and owning a car and there is no law against drinking and owning a gun. There are laws against drinking and using either.

Edited December 20, 2012 by ptatc

[Reddy]

You absolutely can.

 

Why do you think such strict safety and health regulations exist in so many industries?

ughhhh now you're comparing manufacturing and safe work environments to gun contol?

 

is there anything you WON'T try to equate with this topic? just ridiculous strawman arguments all around.

[iamshack]

straight up bulls***.

Is it?

 

I disagree.

 

If you allow enough people to operate motor vehicles while under the influence of some intoxicating substance, it is pretty much a statistical fact that some percentage of those people or others they come into contact with will be injured or die.

[Reddy]

Is it?

 

I disagree.

 

If you allow enough people to operate motor vehicles while under the influence of some intoxicating substance, it is pretty much a statistical fact that some percentage of those people or others they come into contact with will be injured or die.

 

they still don't do it ON PURPOSE. Malice of forethought. it's a thing. good grief.

[iamshack]

ughhhh now you're comparing manufacturing and safe work environments to gun contol?

 

is there anything you WON'T try to equate with this topic? just ridiculous strawman arguments all around.

I was just responding to your statement.

 

I'm actually on your side of this. I have never even held a real gun, let alone shot one.

 

But that doesn't mean that there aren't other analogous products that are perfectly lawful that cause similar harm, whether directly or indirectly.

[Reddy]

I was just responding to your statement.

 

I'm actually on your side of this. I have never even held a real gun, let alone shot one.

 

But that doesn't mean that there aren't other analogous products that are perfectly lawful that cause similar harm, whether directly or indirectly.

give me one other product that can intentionally level 30 people in 60 seconds

[iamshack]

they still don't do it ON PURPOSE. Malice of forethought. it's a thing. good grief.

There are all sorts of people, myself included at times, who have driven a vehicle somewhere, knowing full-well they might get hammered, with full intent to drive that vehicle home again.

 

Certainly they don't intend to kill anyone, but once you repeat massive negligence habitually, the line between intent grows much thinner.

[ptatc]

ughhhh now you're comparing manufacturing and safe work environments to gun contol?

 

is there anything you WON'T try to equate with this topic? just ridiculous strawman arguments all around.

That is a portion of the point. How much control should the government have in regulating things. There is a limit as to how much the government can control every situation while taking reasonable restrictions. In the case of firearms, making automatic weapons illegal is a reasonable restriction. However, when you just say we need less guns there needs to be a reasonable why to do it without being too restrictive. I haven't heard a reasonable one.

[iamshack]

give me one other product that can intentionally level 30 people in 60 seconds

Well, I assume you mean a product when operated as the manufacturer intended it to be?

 

How about almost any motor vehicle?

[Reddy]

That is a portion of the point. How much control should the government have in regulating things. There is a limit as to how much the government can control every situation while taking reasonable restrictions. In the case of firearms, making automatic weapons illegal is a reasonable restriction. However, when you just say we need less guns there needs to be a reasonable why to do it without being too restrictive. I haven't heard a reasonable one.

 

My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread:

 

"*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?"

 

Tell me what's unreasonable about this.

[Reddy]

Well, I assume you mean a product when operated as the manufacturer intended it to be?

 

How about almost any motor vehicle?

you still aren't getting the intent part. even when you get plastered, you're still NOT INTENDING, NOT PLANNING, NOT EXPECTING to kill people. end of story man!

 

 

[iamshack]

My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread:

 

"*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?"

 

Tell me what's unreasonable about this.

The driver's license test requires a psych evaluation?

[iamshack]

you still aren't getting the intent part. even when you get plastered, you're still NOT INTENDING, NOT PLANNING, NOT EXPECTING to kill people. end of story man!

Again, as I said, if you are continually repeating negligence, it gets closer and closer to intent.

[Reddy]

The driver's license test requires a psych evaluation?

I have a friend who suffers from seizures and thus cannot drive.

 

so...

 

sometimes.

[Reddy]

Again, as I said, if you are continually repeating negligence, it gets closer and closer to intent.

i didn't realize closer and closer meant the same thing as actually BEING intent.