Guns

[RandyForRubio]

I know Montana has a huge issue with drunk driving. You see people with 6+ DUI's in the papers weekly. One lady had 13 I think. Other countries have similar alcohol laws as us, yet they don't have the issues we do (speculatory, I'm too lazy to look it up, just based off of what foreign friends have told me). Perhaps that gives more credence to the idea that maybe there's a mentality with people here that's way off base?

Regarding the new gun law, it's honestly just feel good ********. Won't change anything. Certainly won't change how I do things. Just makes it so they can go one step further when this doesn't fix problems (and so on and so on and so on).

I think perhaps we could see more change with stricter sentencing on DUI's and gun crimes. Get caught with a gun illegally? Year in prison, no parole. Things like that. Same with DUI's. Probably less strict on certain drug offenses. Promote gun education rather than eradication. That seems logical, but people don't wanna do it. I don't get it.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I disagree.
A friend of mine got pulled over drunk driving and went to jail, lost his job (couldn't show up for work cause he was in jail), and had to pay about $10,000 in court costs and fines.

Totally ruined his life.

With all due respect, did your friend not have an attorney? Did he not post bail? My friend got a DUI in Utah and got 50 hours of community service and a small fine (around $1,000). Also, I have been laid off from a job and had to move to a different state. More of an inconvenience than a life ruining event. Losing a job is an ancillary consequence anyway, and is probably not the norm. Now my Uncle was hit by a drunk driver in SLC. He now has permanent memory issues, changed his personality and he cannot work. He is on disability and only got a small settlement from the indigent driver. Now THAT is something that I would say is a ruined life.

In Utah, the minimum penalty for a DUI is 48 hours (jail, community service or house arrest). The second DUI has a minimum of 240 hours (jail, community service or house arrest). Not a lot of penalty considering the risk of getting caught. I read that on average, when a person gets a DUI that have driven 80 times under the influence without being drunk. Not sure how accurate that is, having odds of less than 2% of getting caught with minimum penalty is not a deterrent. Essentially, with one DUI you can go out, and based on the odds drive drunk 80 more times and face a penalty of 240 hours assuming you have a good attorney. Is that reasonable?

My point with all of this is if we want to save lives, we should look at all avenues. To push for one and not the other is hypocritical. I'm willing to limit my right to gun ownership to attenuate the amount of gun violence. I'm willing to give up my privilege to drive if I have been drinking.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I work a fairly liberal older man. Peace, love and the 60s never left his soul. A hippy from Puerto Rico descended (by 1 generation) from gypsies in Persia (true story lol).

But on this issue he is draconian right. He truly feels that at a certain point society is better off with you dead and gone. When you are a serial repeater and go in and out of jail constantly he fairs a cheap and quick death carried out immediately.

Funny the quirks in people that make us not fit in the "left" and "right" boxes that people want us to fit into.

Reminds me of the Jack Handy: "Sometimes I wish I were dead. No, wait. Not me — you."

Stoked, do you not feel that there is a point where someone is better off gone? For example, being a Rockets fan is the tipping point from my point of view.

 

[Stoked]

Reminds me of the Jack Handy: "Sometimes I wish I were dead. No, wait. Not me — you."

Stoked, do you not feel that there is a point where someone is better off gone? For example, being a Rockets fan is the tipping point from my point of view.

I agree but he is draconian with it. Pretty much 2nd offense or first offense with alot of crimes.

 

[Bronco70]

I think banning guns completely or even severe restrictions will be next to impossible in the U.S. because of the Constitution and the court cases interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

The legal difficulties would pale in comparison to the logistical nightmare of rounding up 300M+ privately owned firearms.

The financial and manpower resources required would be beyond prohibitive. And lotsa luck getting folks to voluntarily turn them in.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[franklin]

With the President's recent executive action (and crying) on background checks for guns due to senseless deaths, there has been a lot of debate on gun control ( an ongoing debate actually).
There are roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year. Of those, approximately 11,000 lives are taken by gun. How many of those homicides would not occur if we had better gun control is unknown, but it would probably be a good part of the 11,000 that could be saved. If life is precious, should we not do what needs to be done to save lives? Let's be honest though. The Constitution as well as the Supreme Court has held that we have a right to bear arms. That is a significant hurdle to overcome. Would my right to keep guns be worth saving 1,000+ lives each year? The answer for me is yes.

Now, to shift gears. There is another culprit in this country that kills far more people each year, that does not have constitutional protection. That is alcohol. Drunk driving ALONE is responsible for approximately 13,500 deaths each year in the US. Additionally, studies have shown that roughly HALF of all homicides are committed by intoxicated perpetrators. So add another 8,000 to that list. Even without the 29,000 alcohol induced deaths or the 18,000 that die of alcohol related liver disease, the numbers are staggering.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://www.jaapl.org/content/22/1/133.full.pdf

I am an avid drinker, and do so responsibly. I love a good scotch or belgium ale after a long day. I am an avid gun owner, and again, am very responsible. I know we tried prohibition in this country and it failed. In my opinion, we are way to lax with our drinking laws, especially in regards to drunk driving. Why can people even get their license back after putting lives in jeopardy? A guy I know was almost killed by a drunk driver but "luckily" just left him with mental deficiencies and the guy who hit him is back driving again.

For those of you that are so adamant about banning guns or implementing major restrictions on gun ownership along with greater punishment for violations with guns, why not have similar restrictions in regards to alcohol? Legally, it would be a much easier hurdle to jump over.

I've brought up vehicle injury and death several times in gun-related threads. The liberal anti-gun nuts simply do not care because it's not part of the agenda their media stream tells them to worry about.

Vehicular manslaughter is probably the most overlooked & excused tragedy of our day, yet it doesn't get anyone riled up unless alcohol is involved. Odd to me, but hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I've brought up vehicle injury and death several times in gun-related threads. The liberal anti-gun nuts simply do not care because it's not part of the agenda their media stream tells them to worry about.

Vehicular manslaughter is probably the most overlooked & excused tragedy of our day, yet it doesn't get anyone riled up unless alcohol is involved. Odd to me, but hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Please. Comparing vehicular manslaughter to guns is so dishonest, and you know it. Dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gameface]

Please. Comparing vehicular manslaughter to guns is so dishonest, and you know it. Dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. But all the same, a gun is a powerful tool for self defense. A gun can save your life from a threat when nothing else can. A gun can prevent a threat from escalating without firing a shot. A gun can be used to prevent victimization.

Some people don't see that as a big deal. They don't see that as a valid reason fro private gun ownership. They repeat over and over that guns are only for killing, but that's completely untrue and dishonest. Guns are for many things, and one of those things is the protection and preservation of life.

Cars make it faster and easier to get from one place to another, and for that benefit we are willing to accept the tens of thousands of deaths every year that are caused by vehicles. Some see hypocrisy in that when someone wants to get rid of all privately owned guns because it's worth it if it saves just one life.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I agree. But all the same, a gun is a powerful tool for self defense. A gun can save your life from a threat when nothing else can. A gun can prevent a threat from escalating without firing a shot. A gun can be used to prevent victimization.

Some people don't see that as a big deal. They don't see that as a valid reason fro private gun ownership. They repeat over and over that guns are only for killing, but that's completely untrue and dishonest. Guns are for many things, and one of those things is the protection and preservation of life.

Cars make it faster and easier to get from one place to another, and for that benefit we are willing to accept the tens of thousands of deaths every year that are caused by vehicles. Some see hypocrisy in that when someone wants to get rid of all privately owned guns because it's worth it if it saves just one life.

I completely agree that guns have more uses than just killing, but one could make the argument that guns primary use is for killing or to at least threaten bodily harm, whether that's to murder or protect ones self is up to the user. I think goals and objectives are being a bit confused in your argument, but I've never been one to advocate for the complete elimination of gun ownership so I digress.

But I do see guns as a luxury, more so than automobiles. Cars, trucks, buses, etc. are a requirement for mobility in our society, especially in Utah. One could argue that vehicular homicide rates could be reduced by offering more non-auto transportation alternatives, coupled with harsher penalties to drunk driving, aggressive driving, etc., and harsher restrictions for car ownership/licensing. Gun ownership could also be addressed in the same way by providing more funding for police protection, harsher gun violence laws, and more restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[franklin]

Please. Comparing vehicular manslaughter to guns is so dishonest, and you know it. Dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Willful and purposeful negligence vs. willful and purposeful intent? I fail to see the difference. Why would you vote to stick up for those who kill people by driving madly with a deadly weapon any more than you would someone who randomly fires off shots in a drive by shooting? I don't think you would.

Texting while driving and causing a 30 car pileup is somehow more innocent than a person with a gun robbing a liquor store? Think it threw a little.

 

[franklin]

I agree. But all the same, a gun is a powerful tool for self defense. A gun can save your life from a threat when nothing else can. A gun can prevent a threat from escalating without firing a shot. A gun can be used to prevent victimization.

Some people don't see that as a big deal. They don't see that as a valid reason fro private gun ownership. They repeat over and over that guns are only for killing, but that's completely untrue and dishonest. Guns are for many things, and one of those things is the protection and preservation of life.

Cars make it faster and easier to get from one place to another, and for that benefit we are willing to accept the tens of thousands of deaths every year that are caused by vehicles. Some see hypocrisy in that when someone wants to get rid of all privately owned guns because it's worth it if it saves just one life.

To clarify, hypocrisy is not my main concern even if the word does sell the point a little bit better. My main concern is saving lives that did not deserve being taken early. If we really cared about innocent people dying then why do we throw fits over gun violence when there are far greater concerns (including those that perpetuate gun violence that we ignore on a national level)?

I tire of the left-right divide that picks boogey men to set up for political burning. Guns are one of those boogey men. Read Dalakid's sad rantings in this thread for prime example. There is no thought going into the debate, only pure rabid anger about a political hot topic for no other reason than it being just that. It's as boring as the abortion debate, yet here we are, hung up on it while avoiding real issues that could actually make a difference in saving innocent lives.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Willful and purposeful negligence vs. willful and purposeful intent? I fail to see the difference. Why would you vote to stick up for those who kill people by driving madly with a deadly weapon any more than you would someone who randomly fires off shots in a drive by shooting? I don't think you would.

Texting while driving and causing a 30 car pileup is somehow more innocent than a person with a gun robbing a liquor store? Think it threw a little.

The law sees a difference between negligence and purposeful intent in cases involving both cars and guns, that works for me. But someone using a car and/or a gun to kill others on purpose is the same thing and is prosecuted in a similar fashion.

Duh.