Gun Control is not about guns. It's about control.

[Red Squirrel]

While guns don't kill people, they are a tool for killing people, so by handing them out like candy at Halloween to anyone it makes it that much easier for someone to kill people randomly, such as all these shootings. Most of these shootings are probably crazy people who have lot of guns and decide they want to "go out hunting". There are collectors, people who just have of guns for show, that's fine. But then there are people who have lot of guns, and want to use them for their intended purpose because it's fun to them. Guns like an AK-47 are not for hunting partridge. lol

 

[Lemon law]

Let me also ask some gun nuts where they get the idea, that their guns are needed to prevent being ruled by a tyrannical government? Do you really think all your pistols with huge magazines, and your Ar-15 or Ak-47 assault rifles are going to stop tanks, or 100mm+
artillery, not to mention smart bombs and cruse missiles.

Point granted, armed citizens can maintain a guerrilla war type of opposition, but then road side bombs and IED's rather than firearms become the weapon of choice.

 

[Farmer]

Let me also ask some gun nuts where they get the idea, that their guns are needed to prevent being ruled by a tyrannical government? Do you really think all your pistols with huge magazines, and your Ar-15 or Ak-47 assault rifles are going to stop tanks, or 100mm+
artillery, not to mention smart bombs and cruse missiles.

Point granted, armed citizens can maintain a guerrilla war type of opposition, but then road side bombs and IED's rather than firearms become the weapon of choice.

In America, the soldiers who drive those tanks are citizens. They have opinions of their own. They are not mindless robots who unquestionably follow the will of the "Government", whatever you might mean by that.

Are you suggesting that firearms are not required to maintain an insurgency? For the big fuss you guys make about taking away firearms because they are dangerous, that doesn't really make too much sense.

 

[pontifex]

While guns don't kill people, they are a tool for killing people, so by handing them out like candy at Halloween to anyone it makes it that much easier for someone to kill people randomly, such as all these shootings. Most of these shootings are probably crazy people who have lot of guns and decide they want to "go out hunting". There are collectors, people who just have of guns for show, that's fine. But then there are people who have lot of guns, and want to use them for their intended purpose because it's fun to them. Guns like an AK-47 are not for hunting partridge. lol

guns are not handed out like candy. you have to go through a background check and possibly more (depending on state) to get a gun.

I have a bolt action rifle and I want to use it for its intended purpose - hunting deer.

why do anti's think that anyone can walk into a drug store and buy a gun like a gallon of milk? it's simply not true.

 

[Farmer]

why do anti's think that anyone can walk into a drug store and buy a gun like a gallon of milk? it's simply not true.

Because that's what they say on CNN.

 

[jpeyton]

handing them out like candy at Halloween to anyone

Incorrect.

Most of these shootings are probably crazy people who have lot of guns and decide they want to "go out hunting".

Incorrect.

there are people who have lot of guns, and want to use them for their intended purpose because it's fun to them.

Incorrect.

Typical anti-gun argument. When you're on a large public forum with other intelligent people, especially people who can use the internet to fact-check you, you should probably step up your game.

 

[OverVolt]

Incorrect.


Incorrect.


Incorrect.

Typical anti-gun argument. When you're on a large public forum with other intelligent people, especially people who can use the internet to fact-check you, you should probably step up your game.

Yea, its not CNN where they pick 1 pro-gun guy, the ugliest one they can find, and have 3 anti-gun guys talk over him for 30 minutes as he fruitlessly tries to address what they are talking about.

 

[J-Money]

So you're on board with reinstating prohibition?

Because alcohol serves an entirely recreational purpose in our society.

11,000 drunk driving fatalities could be eliminated every year if we banned alcohol. Coincidentally, that is the same number of firearms-related homicides we had in 2011 according to the CDC.

We let anyone 21 and over, with a few dollars in their pocket, buy alcohol. You could be a felon, mentally unstable, suicidal, etc. No background check needed to pick up fifth of vodka.

As a society, we decided that we wouldn't punish tens of millions of responsible alcohol consuming adults for the mistakes of a relative few criminals.

How many drunk drivers use it to kill people on purpose?
I'm all for American doing what they want, but you gotta quit using bad comparisons.

 

[pontifex]

Incorrect.


Incorrect.


Incorrect.

Typical anti-gun argument. When you're on a large public forum with other intelligent people, especially people who can use the internet to fact-check you, you should probably step up your game.

the antis cannot use facts. they only use the lies and false facts and emotional garbage from other antis.

 

[soulcougher73]

 

[Pocatello]

How many drunk drivers use it to kill people on purpose?
I'm all for American doing what they want, but you gotta quit using bad comparisons.

Does it make a difference to a parent if the child is maimed or killed by a drunk driver, or shot by a crazy person? Is it less painful?

 

[J-Money]

Does it make a difference to a parent if the child is maimed or killed by a drunk driver, or shot by a crazy person? Is it less painful?

Intent makes a big difference if your going to compare the two.

One is an accident, one is done on purpose.

Use knife murders or something else done on purpose with a specific tool if you want a legit comparison.

 

[tokie]

Does it make a difference to a parent if the child is maimed or killed by a drunk driver, or shot by a crazy person? Is it less painful?

No.

But you should read the definition of manslaughter.

 

[NetGuySC]

Here's the perfect solution. On the gun registration application there should be a check box saying that you agree to never use the weapon in an illegal manner. If you don't check the box you can't buy the gun.

Having the check box on voter registration applications stating that you're an American citizen single handily keeps millions of illegal aliens from registering to vote.

 

[Farmer]

No.

But you should read the definition of manslaughter.

A drunk person is in a state of mind where he is incapable of perceiving reality and making sound decisions.

A similar argument can be made of a person suffering from mental illness, which is the origin of the insanity defense.

Please, leave it to an actual lawyer.

Here's the perfect solution. On the gun registration application there should be a check box saying that you agree to never use the weapon in an illegal manner. If you don't check the box you can't buy the gun.

There already is one. Along with check boxes that say you have no history of mental illness, you have not been convicted of a felony, etc etc.

 

[jpeyton]

How many drunk drivers use it to kill people on purpose?

Drunk drivers made two conscious decisions that led to their criminally negligent act.

1) They consumed alcohol.
2) They chose to drive while under the influence.

Explain how we allow alcohol, something with a purely recreational purpose, exist in society even though we're aware it claims upwards of 11,000 lives every year (not to mention hundreds of thousands of cases of abuse, violence, depression, etc.)

Last time I checked, guns don't make you beat your wife and kids.

If you're drawing a blank on an answer, I'll clue you in: it's because we see its recreational benefits outweighing its risks.

Guns are no different. Benefits outweigh the risks. Tens of millions of responsible gun owners outweigh the extremely rare possibility of firearms-related homicides. Even if we had another school shooting tomorrow, you're still 55 times more likely to be killed by heart disease. Even after 9/11, airplanes are an extremely safe form of travel.

 

[Pocatello]

Intent makes a big difference if your going to compare the two.

One is an accident, one is done on purpose.

Most of the time, there is no accidental drinking, the person meant to drink until drunk. Before that person was drunk, he or she knew how dangerous it would be to drive home drunk, but decided to drink more.

 

[fskimospy]

If only all the kids had guns then things would have turned out okay.

 

[J-Money]

Drunk drivers made two conscious decisions that led to their criminally negligent act.

1) They consumed alcohol.
2) They chose to drive while under the influence.

Explain how we allow alcohol, something with a purely recreational purpose, exist in society even though we're aware it claims upwards of 11,000 lives every year (not to mention hundreds of thousands of cases of abuse, violence, depression, etc.)

Last time I checked, guns don't make you beat your wife and kids.

If you're drawing a blank on an answer, I'll clue you in: it's because we see its recreational benefits outweighing its risks.

Guns are no different. Benefits outweigh the risks. Tens of millions of responsible gun owners outweigh the extremely rare possibility of firearms-related homicides. Even if we had another school shooting tomorrow, you're still 55 times more likely to be killed by heart disease. Even after 9/11, airplanes are an extremely safe form of travel.

Hey I'm not advocating gun control by any means. Just pointing out that you guys keep using bad comparisons. Sure benefits outweigh risks.

Just a drunk driver doesn't think "I'm gonna drink, drive then murder someone".

Using an apples to apples comparison will help you go a long way. Try x tool vs guns in homicides. Like x car homicides vs x gun homicides. Remove the accidents that happen.

Just use sane comparisons and you'll make it the anti-gun crowd look bad, but using bad ones don't further your case.

 

[SheHateMe]

So, now there is a comparison between guns and cars as weapons of death?

and snakes and swords and knives and cancer and heart disease and video games and prescription drugs.

 

[J-Money]

Most of the time, there is no accidental drinking, the person meant to drink until drunk. Before that person was drunk, he or she knew how dangerous it would be to drive home drunk, but decided to drink more.

Absolutely, but they didn't choose to use drinking to murder someone.

Like I said, stop using bad comparisons and you'll be much better off. How about guns per capita side by side with gun homicides? Better comparison to go against the x country vs USA argument.

 

[Pocatello]

Absolutely, but they didn't choose to use drinking to murder someone.

Like I said, stop using bad comparisons and you'll be much better off. How about guns per capita side by side with gun homicides? Better comparison to go against the x country vs USA argument.

Why is it so important to you if a person is killed on purpose or not? Isn't the pain and grief the same to the family members?

 

[hal2kilo]

If only all the kids had guns then things would have turned out okay.

:thumbsup:

 

[J-Money]

Why is it so important to you if a person is killed on purpose or not? Isn't the pain and grief the same to the family members?

Does the arguement for or against gun control take into consideration the pain and grief of a family member?

No.

The arguement is how often is X used in a murder vs X.

You guys keep comparing gun murders vs car accidents. Very different things.

You want another easy one for you? Next gun accident death thread, point out car accidents vs gun accidents. Should be an easy win, way more car accidental deaths. Then can say "ban cars!"

But gun murders vs car accidents = different.
Gun accidents vs car accidents = same.
Gun murders vs knife murders = same.
Gun murders vs vehicular homicide = same.
Gun murders = drunk driving deaths = different. Close, but drunk driver did not specifically choose to drink and drive so he can use it to kill someone. A gun used in a murder is chosen to be used to murder someone.

What the tool is specifically being used for is what the anti-gun crowd comes at you with, you respond by comparing different things. Not a good way to "win".

Again, let me say I'm not advocating gun control. These issues won't go away with gun control by any means.

 

[Pocatello]

Does the arguement for or against gun control take into consideration the pain and grief of a family member?

No.

The arguement is how often is X used in a murder vs X.

You guys keep comparing gun murders vs car accidents. Very different things.

You want another easy one for you? Next gun accident death thread, point out car accidents vs gun accidents. Should be an easy win, way more car accidental deaths. Then can say "ban cars!"

But gun murders vs car accidents = different.
Gun accidents vs car accidents = same.
Gun murders vs knife murders = same.
Gun murders vs vehicular homicide = same.
Gun murders = drunk driving deaths = different. Close, but drunk driver did not specifically choose to drink and drive so he can use it to kill someone. A gun used in a murder is chosen to be used to murder someone.

What the tool is specifically being used for is what the anti-gun crowd comes at you with, you respond by comparing different things. Not a good way to "win".

Again, let me say I'm not advocating gun control. These issues won't go away with gun control by any means.

There is no "win" or "lose". I'm not comparing car accidents, which happen. Drinking and driving are not accidents. You are trying to make a tragic death some how different.