Gun Control

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Automobiles are responsible for more deaths each year than guns. If the goal is to preserve human life, then we might start by reducing the number of cars and licensed drivers. At the same time, the majority of gun deaths (over 60%) are attributed to suicide. To reduce these deaths, we should look at the question of why people would want to kill themselves. Perpetrators of violent crimes are likely to use other weapons to harm people. If they're willing to kill or rob in the first place, they are also likely willing to use an illegal weapon to do it.

An increasingly centralized government is restrained by and afraid of individuals who protect their personal sovereignty by owning a fire arm. This is precisely what the authors of the U.S. Constitution intended. I say this as someone who does not own a gun, nor ever intends to own one. Asking people to turn in or destroy the fire arms they already have is unconstitutional, impractical and pointless. I don't see how in the world that would happen regardless of the public's or media's sentiment, which incidentally are irrelevant.

 

[Gameface]

Automobiles are responsible for more deaths each year than guns. If the goal is to preserve human life, then we might start by reducing the number of cars and licensed drivers. At the same time, the majority of gun deaths (over 60%) are attributed to suicide. To reduce these deaths, we should look at the question of why people would want to kill themselves. Perpetrators of violent crimes are likely to use other weapons to harm people. If they're willing to kill or rob in the first place, they are also likely willing to use an illegal weapon to do it.

An increasingly centralized government is restrained by and afraid of individuals who protect their personal sovereignty by owning a fire arm. This is precisely what the authors of the U.S. Constitution intended. I say this as someone who does not own a gun, nor ever intends to own one. Asking people to turn in or destroy the fire arms they already have is unconstitutional, impractical and pointless. I don't see how in the world that would happen regardless of the public's or media's sentiment, which incidentally are irrelevant.

I absolutely don't think suicides should ever be used when they calculate gun deaths. I also think they should exclude lawful uses of deadly force. Take those two things away and lets look at the real number of gun deaths. I'm not saying it will suddenly seem like an insignificant number, but it will at least be an honest number.

And I know bringing up auto deaths is an eyroller for gun control advocates, but in reality we could almost eliminate auto deaths by reducing the speed limit to 25mph on all streets all the time with aggressive enforcement and physical features on the road that make driving too fast uncomfortable. But we don't want to save "just one life" bad enough to put up with having to drive slow. Yet the "if we can save just one life then we need to do it" argument for gun control seems to be accepted by many.

 

[One Brow]

Does it make college safer if a potential mass murderer knows he/she will find no resistance there?

Because you'll find no immature drunks doing stupid things on college campuses, just completely sober, rational law-abiders and mass murders, so there is no reason to pass laws assuming any other sort of people exist?

 

[Gameface]

Because you'll find no immature drunks doing stupid things on college campuses, just completely sober, rational law-abiders and mass murders, so there is no reason to pass laws assuming any other sort of people exist?

So banning guns on campus makes sense because there are irresponsible drunks on campus? Come on man, that's weak.

 

[One Brow]

Utah allows carry on all campuses and always has. There has never been a shooting at a Utah university/campus

Is that true for every campus that has ever allowed guns?

 

[One Brow]

So banning guns on campus makes sense because there are irresponsible drunks on campus? Come on man, that's weak.

You're saying that immature people don't do stupid things with guns, or that they never wear guns when they go drinking?

I know you're too rational to believe that people refuse to handle guns when they are irrational.

 

[Stoked]

You're saying that immature people don't do stupid things with guns, or that they never wear guns when they go drinking?

I know you're too rational to believe that people refuse to handle guns when they are irrational.

So if being rational is the bench mark, do you oppose the AWB since it is irrational?

 

[Gameface]

You're saying that immature people don't do stupid things with guns, or that they never wear guns when they go drinking?

I know you're too rational to believe that people refuse to handle guns when they are irrational.

I'm not saying any of that, I'm saying that using the stereotype of stupid drunk college kids as a justification for restricting gun possession is not a strong or convincing argument.

 

[Bronco70]

Because you'll find no immature drunks doing stupid things on college campuses, just completely sober, rational law-abiders and mass murders, so there is no reason to pass laws assuming any other sort of people exist?

This is a joke, right? Why exactly do you assume that "immature drunks" are going to obey the rules?

 

[franklin]

I absolutely don't think suicides should ever be used when they calculate gun deaths. I also think they should exclude lawful uses of deadly force. Take those two things away and lets look at the real number of gun deaths. I'm not saying it will suddenly seem like an insignificant number, but it will at least be an honest number.

And I know bringing up auto deaths is an eyroller for gun control advocates, but in reality we could almost eliminate auto deaths by reducing the speed limit to 25mph on all streets all the time with aggressive enforcement and physical features on the road that make driving too fast uncomfortable. But we don't want to save "just one life" bad enough to put up with having to drive slow. Yet the "if we can save just one life then we need to do it" argument for gun control seems to be accepted by many.

If I were a local representative then I'd put in a bill requiring all skiiers to wear safety harnesses hooked to ziplines just to piss off all the gun control/wear your seatbelt cause I have to pay for it freaks in my office who perform deadly/expensive ski activities all winter long on the public's dime.

 

[One Brow]

So if being rational is the bench mark, do you oppose the AWB since it is irrational?

I don't have enough knowledge of the details of the ban to support or oppose it. You didn't even specify if you mean the ban that already expired, or some future version.

I agree that any ban that has no practical effect is pointless.

 

[One Brow]

This is a joke, right? Why exactly do you assume that "immature drunks" are going to obey the rules?

I don't. That's why you limit availability.