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.
When a horrific incident like a mass shooting happens we are all appalled and the knee jerk reaction of many is to ban guns.
A common argument against banning guns that I point out is that it is perfectly legal for a person to walk into a car dealership and with no background check, no waiting period they buy a big truck and then use it to plow into a group of kids waiting for the school bus.
Point is evil will find a way to kill.
The other day we had a woman drunk out of her mind plow her car into a people at a parade.
She killed 4 people including a 2 year old and wounded 44.
Driving Drunk is illegal but after this terrible tragedy the powers that be are not calling for a ban of cars or alcohol.
Statistic for gun deaths are skewed in that they count all deaths including the gang bangers who by choice live and die a violent life.
Point is we have so many more people of all ages who are hurt and killed by drunk drivers and even distracted drivers every day than we do by the bullets from some lunatics gun.
Prohibition started in 1920 and was repelled in 1933. During that time most average people became criminals in that they found a way to break the law and they produced, transported and consumed alcohol.
Would it be the same if guns were banned or would only criminals have them?
I think we can all agree it is a tragedy when a lunatic kills people with a gun but what is even worse are the innocent deaths that are caused by drunk or drugged drivers.
Why are people so against guns but not so against cars, alcohol and drugs? Is it "intent" ? A lunatic gun man plans to kill people but a drunk doesn't plan to run over people when he gets behind the wheel.
One could argue that being an alcoholic is a sickness but so is wanting to shoot innocent people.
What are the answers?
Is Drunk Driving a comparison to a lunatic mass shooter?
Is Drunk Driving a comparison to a lunatic mass shooter?
In so far was neither one is in full control of their faculties and the destruction of their poor choices. Other than that, I'd say their is zero comparison.
Along the lines of responsible gun ownership, I think there's a growing crowd of people who want responsible motorists and responsible alcohol consumers. I would say we've hit a critical mass of guns and that we have far too many people being irresponsible with them, contributing to both accidental misfiring (my 71 year old neighbor accidentally fired into his lawn last year) and unlawful acts. We may be hitting critical mass of cars in some areas with the gridlock, road-rage, and other social strain. The solution here isn't to ban all cars, but to provide productive alternatives.
As for prohibition, there were always exemptions and work-arounds. Churches and sacramental events kept the Napa Valley vineyards in business. My point is that this might not be an all or none option. Gun ownership and gun control enforcement can co-exist.
In so far was neither one is in full control of their faculties and the destruction of their poor choices. Other than that, I'd say their is zero comparison.
Along the lines of responsible gun ownership, I think there's a growing crowd of people who want responsible motorists and responsible alcohol consumers. I would say we've hit a critical mass of guns and that we have far too many people being irresponsible with them, contributing to both accidental misfiring (my 71 year old neighbor accidentally fired into his lawn last year) and unlawful acts. We may be hitting critical mass of cars in some areas with the gridlock, road-rage, and other social strain. The solution here isn't to ban all cars, but to provide productive alternatives.
As for prohibition, there were always exemptions and work-arounds. Churches and sacramental events kept the Napa Valley vineyards in business. My point is that this might not be an all or none option. Gun ownership and gun control enforcement can co-exist.
Exactly. The NRA wants gun owners to believe that any regulation means complete gun bans, but it does not in the least! Even in countries with insanely strict gun laws many citizens own guns. Difference is they don't have the shootings and the violence that we have here and that's because IT WORKS! These other countries have gangs, criminals and mentally ill people too, but they manage to keep guns away from and we can too.
And honestly Todd, I am sick to death of these "well cars kill people, so let's ban cars" straw man arguments. It is just an NRA type ploy to take focus away from the fact that GUNS ARE A PROBLEM in the US. And the biggest difference in this comparison is that the point of a car is to get you from point A to point B, the point of a gun is to kill, plain and simple. No one goes to a car dealership and buys a car with the pure intention of going out and murdering people. Even the drunk driver you reference did not intend to hurt anyone, though she still belongs in jail for her irresponsible actions. Hoards of people buy guns with sole intent to kill a person or group of people.
Do we need stronger distracted driver laws to prevent accidents and deaths and harsher punishment for DUI's yes of course, just like we need stricter laws and heavier regulations to prevent gun related deaths and injuries. Just because there are two problems here doesn't mean we should ignore one.
Do we need stronger distracted driver laws to prevent accidents and deaths and harsher punishment for DUI's yes of course, just like we need stricter laws and heavier regulations to prevent gun related deaths and injuries. Just because there are two problems here doesn't mean we should ignore one.
I disagree with you on bulking up any laws. You see: as a victim under the oppressions when the law codes fell into the wrong hands, I understood completely how the pretenders of the lords of the laws were capable of. The laws meant to help, not meant to kill. Yet there were people just taking on those SOPs to faten their own wallets from slaughtering the sheepish.
No matter how much you bulk up the laws, a killer will kill. And a sick jurist will just go on sickening. I have enough laws. I'm through on them.
There was a point in time when drunk driving was much more common than it is now. Then a bunch of fed up citizens, mostly moms, founded MADD. That organization was able to channel all the outrage into changing public perceptions of drunk driving as well as getting new laws on the books. Now drunk drivers are more likely to end up in legal trouble and face public scorn. The organization was effective. When an incident like the Oklahoma accident happens now it is seen as an isolated incident that the law will handle. The public has confidence that justice will be served.
Gun violence opponents have never had their MADD. The NRA has been very effective at blocking even the collection of good data around the issue, let alone getting loopholes in the laws changed. They've also executed a very successful PR campaign among gun owners. That creates a level of anger and frustration around the issue because it feel like there is no way to do anything to change things among those so inclined. That's why there is much more blowback on mass shootings than there is on drunk driving incidents IMO. A good amount of the public feels like their opinions don't matter and there is little public confidence that the current system works to keep gun violence to a minimum.
There was a point in time when drunk driving was much more common than it is now. Then a bunch of fed up citizens, mostly moms, founded MADD. That organization was able to channel all the outrage into changing public perceptions of drunk driving as well as getting new laws on the books. Now drunk drivers are more likely to end up in legal trouble and face public scorn. The organization was effective. When an incident like the Oklahoma accident happens now it is seen as an isolated incident that the law will handle. The public has confidence that justice will be served.
Gun violence opponents have never had their MADD. The NRA has been very effective at blocking even the collection of good data around the issue, let alone getting loopholes in the laws changed. They've also executed a very successful PR campaign among gun owners. That creates a level of anger and frustration around the issue because it feel like there is no way to do anything to change things among those so inclined. That's why there is much more blowback on mass shootings than there is on drunk driving incidents IMO. A good amount of the public feels like their opinions don't matter and there is little public confidence that the current system works to keep gun violence to a minimum.
Very good points.
Change comes about slowly but change does happen.
The problem is the intent. A tiny percentage of gun owners buy their weapons with intent to shoot innocent people. Most buy guns to hunt, to target shoot, to collect some buy for personal protection in case a bad guy tries to hurt them. A gun is a sense of security for many.
Anyone over the age of 21 can buy a bottle of booze. Most buy it to enjoy over time either alone or with friends. A few buy it with intent to get totally bombed. Some who are drunk get into cars and drive.
The Gov. trusts its citizens to a certain extent to do the right thing. We can buy guns, we can buy booze and it is a small percentage that abuses that trust. If that trust is broken "The public has confidence that justice will be served."
Few buy guns to commit mass murder (our own Gov. excluded) and few buy booze to drunk drive yet it happens and in the end the victims are dead and we are left to wring out hands.
There are no easy answers that will appease everyone.
Exactly. The NRA wants gun owners to believe that any regulation means complete gun bans, but it does not in the least! Even in countries with insanely strict gun laws many citizens own guns. Difference is they don't have the shootings and the violence that we have here and that's because IT WORKS!
Just like in the 1000s of other threads on the subject I will pose the question.
What laws are you proposing?
Can you show any evidence, even imagined, that shows how your proposed law(s) would have prevented any of the "mass shootings" in the last calendar year?
If you wander into this discussion crying about how some "common sense" laws should be embraced but that darn NRA is just too unreasonable....then you're not informed.
The problem is that there have been many many attempts over the years to circumvent the 2nd amendment with laws like Chicago's handgun restrictions (unconstitutional) and a host of steep taxes or fees on things like bullets or a per gun tax or high licensing fees etc.
Also, when people mention how you have to have a valid license, insurance etc. to drive a car....in recent years there are states in this country with 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 drivers are without insurance. The majority of gun violence is going to occur whether or not you make the guy they are buying requiring a license or not.
Especially galling is the fact that the NRA enjoys most of it's support in rural America which has gun violence rates similar to Canada.
How about instead of blaming rural America for what is mostly an urban problem....that we as a country address those areas and why they are over-run with violent youths gunning each other down? Heck, Baltimore graduates maybe half their kids from highschool and the cause of all the violence is the darn NRA? Somebody is getting hoodwinked bigtime....but that's what happens when you buy into partisan politics.
There was a point in time when drunk driving was much more common than it is now. Then a bunch of fed up citizens, mostly moms, founded MADD. That organization was able to channel all the outrage into changing public perceptions of drunk driving as well as getting new laws on the books. Now drunk drivers are more likely to end up in legal trouble and face public scorn. The organization was effective. When an incident like the Oklahoma accident happens now it is seen as an isolated incident that the law will handle. The public has confidence that justice will be served.
Gun violence opponents have never had their MADD. The NRA has been very effective at blocking even the collection of good data around the issue, let alone getting loopholes in the laws changed. They've also executed a very successful PR campaign among gun owners. That creates a level of anger and frustration around the issue because it feel like there is no way to do anything to change things among those so inclined. That's why there is much more blowback on mass shootings than there is on drunk driving incidents IMO. A good amount of the public feels like their opinions don't matter and there is little public confidence that the current system works to keep gun violence to a minimum.
The NRA is the MADD for weapons owners. More like gun owners against stupid laws.
Exactly. The NRA wants gun owners to believe that any regulation means complete gun bans, but it does not in the least! Even in countries with insanely strict gun laws many citizens own guns. Difference is they don't have the shootings and the violence that we have here and that's because IT WORKS! These other countries have gangs, criminals and mentally ill people too, but they manage to keep guns away from and we can too.
Just curious, would you be able to name 5 gun laws that the NRA wants strengthened? Or maybe 5 that they successfully strengthened ? Maybe 3 of each? Even 1? I often see people vilify the NRA without taking an honest look at what they actually do.
Also, if you think strict gun laws work, can you provide a short list of countries that had a violence problem like we have here in the US, and how stricter gun laws changed the overall homicide trends?
I would be thrilled if you could find even one. The only examples I've seen where people even attempt that are Britain (homicide rates were low to begin with) and Australia (the overall homicide rate trend didn't change, just the method). I'm interested to hear your examples though.
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.
