Guns and Cars Kill People~~~

...amongst othther things. Knives can kill. rocks can kill. Damn near anything can be used as a weapon.

Not being anti gun why would I even bring this up?

Because I'm tired of the silly ass argument. Yes, cars kill people so we should outlaw them. Just plain frigging lame folks.

Ever heard of this scenario? Of course you haven't.

"The guy attacked me with a Buick but luckily I had two Chevys and a Ford all gassed up to protect myself". "I've got a Peterbilt in the attic if it ever REALLY turns ugly".

Yup. Cars kill. Are they designed to do that? Well. Are they?

Cars can kill. Can you drive a gun?

Nope. Designed for killing.

 

Do you have a point or did you just feel like ranting?

 

The car argument is a classic straw man. An assault rifle has but one purpose. A car on the other hand has many other purposes. I've have said over and over that I am a fan of hunting, target shooting, and any other gun related sport. I grew up around guns and they are merely tools.

The problem comes in when people stop thinking of guns as tools but start seeing themselves as Rambo needing the biggest baddest deadliest gun they can own simply because they see it as making them more of a man. I've never met a hunter that carried an assault weapon. It isn't even legal to hunt with an assault weapon as far as I know.

If you want to use the car analogy, why can't I or anyone else attach razor knives to my wheel rims, put a long sharp steel lance on my front bumper, or mount a harpoon gun in the bed of my truck? Cars are legal! Why can't I make them even deadlier if I feel like I need to protect myself? Because anyone that would do such a thing probably needs psychological help more than protection from some perceived enemy. Guns can be made safer but unfettered access and high powered killing rifles with large magazines are just stupid. We don't need to eliminate guns, with need to eliminate unfettered access and high powered rifles and large ammo clips. We wouldn't eliminate every mass shooting but I'd bet dollars to donuts that we'd see a lot less of them.

 

A little of both Coin.

I'm confident you saw my point.

 

But for killing what? My mole trap is designed for killing too. And it has been a 100% effective killing machine.

Sure, a gun can be used to kill a person. But the majority of things killed with guns are not people. And the majority of people killed with guns are not murder. Suicides are number 1 pretty much every year, I believe.

On the other hand, a samurai sword is made for killing people. Don't know too many people that hunt with them and can't think of another practical use for one other than killing a human being.

Samurai swords should really be what we are worried about.

But I think the reason car deaths and gun deaths are often compared is because the numbers are almost identical to each other every year. And, as a society we are completely at ease with the number of car fatalities but completely freak out about the number of gun fatalities.

Another interesting statistic between the 2? The number of DUI deaths is almost the same as the number of gun homicides year in and year out. And both can be charged as murders.

 

Just for the record, I am not a gun extremist. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. We can;t have people with RPGs and Anti Tank weapons running around. Same with some of the assault rifles. But it does irritate me the people who use something like this school shooting to go after all guns.

 

You have a point Stu. You usually do.

Mole traps are effective. I've used them. Luckily I'm not a mole activist.

One can easily go on a limb and say cars are weapons. In some cases they are. People DO intentionally run other people over but I'm inclined to believe the weapon of choice usually involves a gun. Then sharp or blunt objects come into play.

It's the whole assinine argument that irritates me. I'm not, nor have I ever, been calling for a ban on guns. It makes no sense.

Still, anyone that jumps on the "cars should be outlawed, knives should be outlawed, TVs should be outlawed" as a response to those that ARE calling for stricter regulations or GASP outlawing of guns basically shows me stupidity in action.

To me outlawing guns would indeed be stupid. So would outlawing cars, knives etc. It turns into a "stupid is as stupid does argument" IMHO.

I agree.

 

Leave my swords out of it Stu

Ps and my battle hatchet

 

The other thing about all this weapons banning stuff that gets me is that it always comes up after something like the school shooting or the movie theater shooting. As horrible as those events are, they are not where the real gun problem lies in this country.

It lies in the bigger cities where the poor and destitute, usually minorities, are segregated into the run down areas of the city. Chicago has something like 300 or 400 firearm homicides a year mostly gang and poverty related. That is like a Sandy Hook every month and it never ends. And it is just one large city of many in the country.

 

The general insane arguments of this whole shitstorm ...

A. Car vs Gun analogy : really? what's worse is that most of the argument has centered around gun regulation, are we gonna argue that there should be less traffic laws too? like drunk driving should be totally allowed and promoted until he kills someone?

B. No Guns = Tyranny! .... I'm not really sure how to even debate against that, I guess that's a very succsesful tactic to show people your totally not open to rational discussion.

C. More Guns = More safty! .. well then, please explain why the US, having more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world by a huge huge margin, is not the safest place on earth?

D. But the second amendment! .... says that guns are allowed for militias... but the militas have not been realistically around for quite awhile now, if we advocate also for the return of mandatory draft on a state level with equal vigor then I think that would be consistent... but this isn't happening is it? Everyone want their rights but no one wants duty, that's kinda the opposite of Tyranny isn't it ? (aka Anarchy)

On the other hand, given that the US have about 1 gun for every man women and children (which is twice as high as the next highest country and about 10x the world average), so a full gun ban was unrealistic from the start anyway. your never gonna be able to remove that much gun from circulation anyway.

Also, the US is a very wide and diverse region and society, gun laws should also reflect that, some states / region are so sparcely populated that guns make perfect sense, others? not so much.


On a practical side, the gun law should be that every region (probably down to the county level) should be allowed to install anything from a full ban to no regulation. but anyone travelling across those regions should be consistent with each region's regulation. but the problem would be enforcing such a system, given that it is rather unlikely to check everyone travelling between regions... but it's a start anyway.

Gun transaction should be registered, private transaction between individuals should generally be not allowed, or at least must also register to prove that your not selling guns to kids or criminals at least.


States like say... Montana or Alaska, having no regulation on guns make sense, but having none in New York / LA / Chicago?

 

That is both not what it says and not what the Supreme Court says it means.

 

Yes of course, let us leave out that the whole paragraph was.

It looks to me that the later part of this sentence was clearly in support of the first part, not to mention that we speak as if supreme court rulings have never contradicted been overruled by later rulings, or that the pro-gun folks will support all Supreme court rulings .

The same court rulings also had ruled that states have all the right in the world to regulate guns essentially to however they like.

The context of the militia with the 2nd amendment being dismissed is hard to fathom, given that in 1793 (you know, by the founding fathers themselves) this was a congressional law.

​

 

Back to what was meant;

Remember, their English was not the same as our in every instance.

 

Are all gun owners in the US of A members of a State or city/town/village Militia though?

 

right.... then let's see how the 1822 Arkansas high court ruling thought of this... since you would agree that in 1822 the "English" was still probably not that much different from when the Bill of Rights was written 31 years ago.

Even back then there were clear disagreement between interpretation.

Currently, the Supreme Court holds the Individual rights interpretation of this argument... but only since 2008. And certainly you'd agree that not all Supreme court decisions have been sound, seeing that before the civil war they actually ruled that Slavery was totally legal.

This debate has been going on ever since the 2nd Amendment was wrote, it is simply not realistic to pretend that this was something written in stone that they didn't argue about.


meanwhile, if we also go by current standing Supreme court ruling, then the same 2008 decision that ruled on guns as an individual rights also clearly states that.

This essentially mean that as long as a state or Fed does not legislate to the point of total disarmament, it is entirely constitutional.

 

While I applaud your attempt, you really shouldn't waste your breath attempting to explain real-life concepts to him.

 

Again, back to my original objection. You said;

No it does not say that nor imply that and the Arkansas high court ruling probably affects no one today, but at most, those of Arkansas. Yes, the Constitution and its amendments can be changed, but not just because some individual decides it means something other that what it says and what the Supreme Court says it means.

 

If we can regulate a perfectly constitutionally legal medical procedure like abortion, we can regulate guns. Car vs guns is a silly argument while abortion vs guns is about as close as you get to a valid comparison if one actually exists. The Supreme court has ruled that abortion is legal based on the their interpretation of the Constitution. They have also ruled that the second Amendment gives us the right to own guns. If you are for gun rights, you also have to be for abortion rights otherwise you are picking and choosing which constitutional rights you agree with and which ones you don't agree with. Conversely, if you are for abortion rights, you also have to be for gun rights. Does either mean that restrictions can never be placed on either right, absolutely not. All I'm saying is support both a woman's right to choose and gun owner rights but don't be hypocritical and only support one and know that restrictions to both should always be a consideration based on the needs of society. The needs of society should never be seen through the lens of either religion or paranoia.
Notice that I am not for the elimination of guns as I am often accused but merely advocating for the regulation of the most deadly weapons and ammo clips. You can't eliminate all shootings but you can cut down on the number of victims killed in any one shooting spree.

 

Unlike your last hissy fit on guns, you almost make sense here. I don't think there is anyone here who advocates totally unregulated guns allowed to the public. The question should be what the regulations should be. However, so many of these shootings have occurred in the more highly regulated areas, do you really expect to change much? Might not your efforts be better aimed at care for he mentally ill? If you did not read it before, try reading this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

 

If I can be reasonable in responding rather that just rolling my eyes and being snarky... Taking the high powered guns and ammo clips out is just part of the solution. We also have a mental health crisis in this country that also contributes to the problem. Its not either/or it is both. Just at a time when we have veterans from the longest wars in our country's history returning to society, we are also experiencing the lowest funding and health care system participation for mental health patients. The new Affordable Care Act addresses some mental health issues but not nearly enough. And that is on top of the millions of people that have never served in a military capacity and have untreated mental health issues. There is just nothing available for these types of people and high powered guns are plentiful. Add in violent television shows and violent games and movies and it is a miracle we don't have more shootings in this country. The first step has to be to limit high powered guns and beef up the mental health system in this country. That would go a long way in reducing these mass shooting but there are still other things we can do in the long run to reduce the numbers of these senseless acts of violence.