Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, no one is talking about banning guns . . . until they start talking about it.
Sorry, sounds like the same tired old NRA line. No, none of those things, banning guns, confiscating etc that the gun people go around getting all angry about, could be accomplished without an amendment to the US Constitution. And should that process ever actually begin, you'd have several years to go around and buy up all the ammo and guns you could. There's no need to rush around like you did when Obama was elected. Remember how he was going to take away all your ammo?
You gun people live in your own world where the US government is seen somehow as the enemy. Remember this, you have the freedom to believe as you wish - but so does everyone else.
There will come a time, in my opinion, where the pro gun lobby will become the issue and all this fanaticism will begin to be a negative and will go the other way. Is there a time between now and then where the truly responsible gun owners will have their sister souljah moment and join us in the world of common sense? I hope so.
Sorry, sounds like the same tired old NRA line. No, none of those things, banning guns, confiscating etc that the gun people go around getting all angry about, could be accomplished without an amendment to the US Constitution. And should that process ever actually begin, you'd have several years to go around and buy up all the ammo and guns you could. There's no need to rush around like you did when Obama was elected. Remember how he was going to take away all your ammo?
You gun people live in your own world where the US government is seen somehow as the enemy. Remember this, you have the freedom to believe as you wish - but so does everyone else.
There will come a time, in my opinion, where the pro gun lobby will become the issue and all this fanaticism will begin to be a negative and will go the other way. Is there a time between now and then where the truly responsible gun owners will have their sister souljah moment and join us in the world of common sense? I hope so.
No the cost just tripled.
What I've been asking in every thread without an actual answer is WHAT LAW would have helped in any one of the shootings that caused your sister souljah moment?
What I've been asking in every thread without an actual answer is WHAT LAW would have helped in any one of the shootings that caused your sister souljah moment?
Simple.
The answer is none, and if they admit that then there whole argument is shot(pun intended).
The whole idea that cellphones cost lives is based on a fallacy. And guns don't either. It's the ammo.
The best solution is to ban both cellphones and cars, and let people use their guns for transportation and communication. If that sounds like a brilliant idea, it's actually no more brilliant than the average gun nut.
Guns don't just cost lives. They start gangs. Children intimidate each other into joining, and shoot each other to give themselves credibility. Whole neighborhoods become blighted, and people get stuck there, unable to afford to move away. They can just barely afford iron bars on their windows.
Naive people say not to blame responsible gun owners. But guns are owned by people who drink and use drugs. They leave them lying around because their responsibility is in control only when they aren't partying. Kids have easy access to guns their whole lives, from when they're big enough to lift a gun off a table. Naive people say it's hopeless to try to confiscate all the guns. But that's partly because they don't want them to be confiscated. If the general public agreed they should be confiscated, a way could be found to accomplish that.
The problem is that many people ignore cellphone laws because they are not generally enforced. (And, to be fair, since so many people ignore the law, it would take many more LEOs to actually make a dent in cellphone-use-while-driving.)
The only solution, I think (and actually it is my husband's idea), would be if there could be some kind of signal jamming device that would come into play if the engine was running.
Of course, I don't know if that idea is actually workable, but I would be 100% in favor of such a device.
(Also, this is one more instance in which standard fines are unfair. A $500 fine is no big deal to very rich people, but it can be a very big deal to poorer people.)
I agree that we need cell phone laws and maybe even classes to reduce accidents on the road that injure and kill unsuspecting people. Many states are enacting distracted driver laws that are working, but the huge flaw in this argument/comparison is that no one goes on texting and driving murder rampage. No one texting and driving INTENDS to injure or kill someone. Crazy, angry people pick up guns with the pure intent to kill, plain and simple. Guns are the easiest most effective way to slaughter a group of people in a short amount of time. That is why these people choose them over building a bomb, over knives, over crossbows, over smoothering with pillows or whatever other silly object you would like to try and compare guns to.
Body count is a body count regardless of intent.
Additionally, it's been proven by an old man driving a caddillac through a farmers market a number of years back that you can definitely kill as many with a car as with a gun....and that's if you aren't even being creative about it. Just look around in the papers at mass death tragedies and you could just copy the events if you were insane and bent on killing. There are a host of deadly fire incidents at crowded nightclubs etc.
I have come to the conclusion that those people are not against VIOLENCE, or DEATH and DESTRUCTION, they are only against GUNS.
It isn't logical, of course, but that is the way it appears, IMO.
Sorry, but you have come to the wrong conclusion.
This is a straw man argument. You could replace the word "guns" with many things- cell phones and cars, drugs, cancer, heart disease, drunk driving, etc.
People do care about texting and driving. You see commercials about "safe driving" daily. Each subject above actually has campaigns to raise awareness and fir harm reduction. When was the last time you saw a PSA about "using firearms appropriately? "
The answer is none, and if they admit that then there whole argument is shot(pun intended).
The problem is that if you really want to reduce gun deaths, you are asking the wrong questions. Of course no "one solution" will probably stop any mass murder. But why are so many opposed to a *harm reduction* goal and approach in this area?
It's the "all or nothing" mindset that is impeding our safety. Cops at least give tickets for texting and driving. They don't need to confiscate your phone. And no one is asking to get rid of all guns. A simple ticket if you lose your gun, for example, would be appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a host of deadly fire incidents at crowded nightclubs etc.
