[davis449]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Breno we applaud your efforts but trust me this goes nowhere. soon they'll tell you that kidney failure kills more people so why bother with gun control.

I'm serious, there's a chart for it a few posts back.

It's pointless.

We do that because people like you make this out to be an astronomically bigger deal than it really is. So we post comparison statistics to prove just how overblown yours and those like you make it.

[BimmerAg]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

No. I have never said, nor do i believe, that anyone in the USA shouldn't have the right to have guns. I do believe the process for gaining access to, and the penalties for using them for anything but lawful purposes, should be tightened.
i am also saying, close the gaps that CLEARLY exist and are often pointed out by pro-gun advocates.

What gaps do you believe clearly exist in current US gun laws?
The only one I can think of is the ability to sell to another private party with no background check, although I believe that this accounts for a very small percentage of gun sales. I have personally purchased guns from other private parties and they required me to show my CHL (which requires a background check and fingerprints)

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

Out of curiosity and playing devils advocate, does your view also apply to US Muslims who own guns legally?

Other 'pro-gunners' on here care to share their thoughts?

Yes, I believe that the group as a whole should not be held responsible for the actions of a few individuals that do not necessarily represent the values of the group. For me that applies to gun owners, Syrian refugees, Muslims in general, opposing team's sports fans, etc.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

That is actually a pretty good analogy. The difference is that we have so many in circulation, even without any new ones coming in it would take decades to get even most of them out of circulation. Then we have Mexico to the south... who is really really good at smuggling and getting past our patrols. If guns become hard to get here that will just be the next commodity they smuggle in, which will keep guns in the hands of those that are breaking the law well past and bans we put on them.

We have different geographical constraints and known issues with being able to stop things we already consider illegal. Guns will not be any different.

Your argument makes it sound like it's not worth trying. Are you really prepared to give up before you even start?

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by davis449

We do that because people like you make this out to be an astronomically bigger deal than it really is. So we post comparison statistics to prove just how overblown yours and those like you make it.

the fact that humans are not immortal and die of things like heart disease and cancer is an argument i suppose, just a terribly incorrect one that has no place in a sensible discussion.

[Fundguy1]

The only gaps are the laws aren't homogenous for everyone allowing the left to fly off the handle eith laws in their states, the porous border, the lack of laws about reporting psychological psychos, and the private sale loophole. I wouldn't mind requiring a dealer do the transaction is long as you can still do it in your immediate family.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Your argument makes it sound like it's not worth trying. Are you really prepared to give up before you even start?

It's not give up, it's pointing out the futility of trying and also should include the counter argument that this would also allow 2mm more rapes, assaults, burglaries, and murders a year. You keep ignoring that 800 lbs gorilla.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

No. I have never said, nor do i believe, that anyone in the USA shouldn't have the right to have guns. I do believe the process for gaining access to, and the penalties for using them for anything but lawful purposes, should be tightened.
i am also saying, close the gaps that CLEARLY exist and are often pointed out by pro-gun advocates.


It's cool though. Play on. I'm not emotionally invested in this.

Can you expound on the gaps that clearly exist?

I totally agree on increasing penalties to using a gun in a crime. But that's not going to stop the people who bring up this debate. It MIGHT stop some of the everyday gun violence that the media doesn't talk about until an incident like this comes up. And i'm all for that, but genuinely curious about which of the gaps that clearly exist.

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

Out of curiosity and playing devils advocate, does your view also apply to US Muslims who own guns legally?

Other 'pro-gunners' on here care to share their thoughts?

I don't understand the question. If you're a US citizen, you should be free to exercise your 2a rights. Jewish, Muslim, Christina, Agnostic, Atheist, FSM, etc.. .

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

the fact that humans are not immortal and die of things like heart disease and cancer is an argument i suppose, just a terribly incorrect one that has no place in a sensible discussion.

I'll post this again so you can see that no one was comparing things like heart disease and cancer to gun murder.



You see there are 2 things highlighted outside of murder by gun. Abortion and Obesity. Socially you hear the responses to the right, "Her body, her choice" "Big is beautiful, etc..." The facts are being fat is largely unhealthy and preventable. Depending on your view of conception, abortion can be terminating a life for convenience.

If the outrage is loss of life, why are these things irrelevant in the conversation? These are preventable things. Obesity, alcohol and tobacco abuse, etc.. likely cost US tax payers more money in a year than a life time of mass shootings and 100x more loss of life.

Is it because with gun murder someone took someone else's life? How about drunk drivers then? Did they not make a decision to drink while they were going to drive that ended in the loss of someone's life? What about negligent medical errors? Are those ok because someone had good intentions? Is drug abuse ok because it's only hurting the drug user? What about the kids in foster care because of dead overdosed parents?

Again, if the outrage is loss of life, why do these other preventable things with FAR greater loss of life get a pass?

[Breno_Piece]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Can you expound on the gaps that clearly exist?

see my earlier post about different states having different laws / restrictions. I used a nifty NFL defense analogy.

[are0lies]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'll post this again so you can see that no one was comparing things like heart disease and cancer to gun murder.



You see there are 2 things highlighted outside of murder by gun. Abortion and Obesity. Socially you hear the responses to the right, "Her body, her choice" "Big is beautiful, etc..." The facts are being fat is largely unhealthy and preventable. Depending on your view of conception, abortion can be terminating a life for convenience.

If the outrage is loss of life, why are these things irrelevant in the conversation? These are preventable things. Obesity, alcohol and tobacco abuse, etc.. likely cost US tax payers more money in a year than a life time of mass shootings and 100x more loss of life.

Is it because with gun murder someone took someone else's life? How about drunk drivers then? Did they not make a decision to drink while they were going to drive that ended in the loss of someone's life? What about negligent medical errors? Are those ok because someone had good intentions? Is drug abuse ok because it's only hurting the drug user? What about the kids in foster care because of dead overdosed parents?

Again, if the outrage is loss of life, why do these other preventable things with FAR greater loss of life get a pass?

Your list does not really make a very strong statement, because the only direct, intentional cause of death is murder by gun. A better analogy would be one which shows the purchase of weapons to the rising, or falling of gun-related deaths. Likewise, perhaps a comparison of states with most weapon ownership, to murder by weapon.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by are0lies

Your list does not really make a very strong statement, because the only direct, intentional cause of death is murder by gun. A better analogy would be one which shows the purchase of weapons to the rising, or falling of gun-related deaths. Likewise, perhaps a comparison of states with most weapon ownership, to murder by weapon.

Abortion is not a direct, intentional cause of death???

[are0lies]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Abortion is not a direct, intentional cause of death???

We don't have to agree with it, but Roe v Wade says differently.
(Roe v. Wade, (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, and overturning all state laws outlawing or unduly restricting abortion.)

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by are0lies

We don't have to agree with it, but Roe v Wade says differently.
(Roe v. Wade, (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, and overturning all state laws outlawing or unduly restricting abortion.)

Roe v. Wade has no impact on abortion being a direct and intentional death.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'll post this again so you can see that no one was comparing things like heart disease and cancer to gun murder.



You see there are 2 things highlighted outside of murder by gun. Abortion and Obesity. Socially you hear the responses to the right, "Her body, her choice" "Big is beautiful, etc..." The facts are being fat is largely unhealthy and preventable. Depending on your view of conception, abortion can be terminating a life for convenience.

If the outrage is loss of life, why are these things irrelevant in the conversation? These are preventable things. Obesity, alcohol and tobacco abuse, etc.. likely cost US tax payers more money in a year than a life time of mass shootings and 100x more loss of life.

Is it because with gun murder someone took someone else's life? How about drunk drivers then? Did they not make a decision to drink while they were going to drive that ended in the loss of someone's life? What about negligent medical errors? Are those ok because someone had good intentions? Is drug abuse ok because it's only hurting the drug user? What about the kids in foster care because of dead overdosed parents?

Again, if the outrage is loss of life, why do these other preventable things with FAR greater loss of life get a pass?

They are choices of the ‘self’, whereas when you shoot someone you’re taking their life. There’s a big difference between eating poorly, abusing yourself with drugs, not going to gym enough, and then shooting a third party. Surely you can see there's an appropriate list for that which is TOTALLY separate to 'murder by gun', which by the way seems to be under by about 50%

You need to exclude non-crimes from that list, and then reorder with relevant information like other methods of murder and manslaughter to see where guns truly sit. Comparing it to cancer, please.

Abortion - Legally abortion isn’t taking a life and when it legally becomes a life abortion is not legal. Ethical, moral and religious considerations aside. I won’t be entering into or divulging my position as that’s a whole other thread.

Obesity - again, not a crime. It's simple. Most things on that list belong on a medical hitlist, not a criminal one.

I concede suicide by gun would and should not be included but the stat I published specifically mentioned ‘homicide’. I would need to do further digging to be sure on that point.

Drunk Driving is a criminal offence, so yeah i'm not sure what your point is there??? Vehicular homicide is a thing. Medical errors - you sign a form accepting the risks, it's a bi-party agreement with known risks. Criminal negligence on the part of the doctor and yeah they go to jail if it's proven or are open to prosecution.

so on that list you've got 2 valid entries

Drunk Driving
Murder by gun (under by about 5500)

should we do all we can to reduce both of those? Hell yes!

Just see through the propaganda because that list is total BS

The issue isn't, that list is. It's purposefully designed to induce apathy without thought.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Roe v. Wade has no impact on abortion being a direct and intentional death.

We are taking legal context here. Gun laws.

Legality is the very essence of the discussion otherwise there’s be no debate here.

We all know the mass shootings are wrong, we’re arguing the merits of the laws surrounding gun control.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

We are taking legal context here. Gun laws.

Legality is the very essence of the discussion otherwise there’s be no debate here.

We all know the mass shootings are wrong, we’re arguing the merits of the laws surrounding gun control.

Yeah. You want a law so the jackass in Vegas and others can't buy guns legally, forcing them to decide if they should just be nice people or buy them illegally or probably kill more with a truck bomb at the cost of allowing 2 million rapes, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and homicides to happen. That smacks of sound policy making.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

We are taking legal context here. Gun laws.

Legality is the very essence of the discussion otherwise there’s be no debate here.

We all know the mass shootings are wrong, we’re arguing the merits of the laws surrounding gun control.

Murder is illegal it still happens. Guns being illegal disarms law abiding citizens only.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Your argument makes it sound like it's not worth trying. Are you really prepared to give up before you even start?

We already have tried though, just not specifically with guns. Drugs aren't legal and don't even have the 'readily available across state lines' scenario - yet they are easily obtainable by anyone who wants them. What makes anyone think firearms would be any different?

Further, unlike drugs, firearms have a legitimate purpose for law-abiding citizens. There are unintended consequences to consider when proposing stricter firearms laws. IMO, those unintended consequences far outweigh any the perceived benefits.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

see my earlier post about different states having different laws / restrictions. I used a nifty NFL defense analogy.

This is easily debunked with a simple understanding of firearms murder stats and US law regarding the sale of firearms, to wit:

#1. The overwhelming majority (80%+) of firearms crimes are committed with handguns as opposed to rifles/shotguns.

#2. A resident of a given state can't purchase a handgun in a different state and then just take it home with them. IE, and Illinois resident from Chicago can't just drive over to Indiana, buy a handgun and then drive back to Chicago. The gun would have to be transferred by the FFL holder in Indiana to an FFL holder in Illinois, where the purchaser would be able to pick it up. If the weapon in question isn't legal to own in Illinois, the FFL holder there would not be able to transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Your argument makes it sound like it's not worth trying. Are you really prepared to give up before you even start?

I don't believe the tool is the problem to start with. I am not giving up anything.

I believe we need to actually punish our criminals appropriately instead of plea dealing and giving slaps on the wrist for everything. I believe we need to stop being so damn PC about everything and call stuff as it is. Let's worry about keeping people safe over hurting feelings.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

They are choices of the ‘self’, whereas when you shoot someone you’re taking their life. There’s a big difference between eating poorly, abusing yourself with drugs, not going to gym enough, and then shooting a third party. Surely you can see there's an appropriate list for that which is TOTALLY separate to 'murder by gun', which by the way seems to be under by about 50%

You need to exclude non-crimes from that list, and then reorder with relevant information like other methods of murder and manslaughter to see where guns truly sit. Comparing it to cancer, please.

Abortion - Legally abortion isn’t taking a life and when it legally becomes a life abortion is not legal. Ethical, moral and religious considerations aside. I won’t be entering into or divulging my position as that’s a whole other thread.

Obesity - again, not a crime. It's simple. Most things on that list belong on a medical hitlist, not a criminal one.

I concede suicide by gun would and should not be included but the stat I published specifically mentioned ‘homicide’. I would need to do further digging to be sure on that point.

Drunk Driving is a criminal offence, so yeah i'm not sure what your point is there??? Vehicular homicide is a thing. Medical errors - you sign a form accepting the risks, it's a bi-party agreement with known risks. Criminal negligence on the part of the doctor and yeah they go to jail if it's proven or are open to prosecution.

so on that list you've got 2 valid entries

Drunk Driving
Murder by gun (under by about 5500)

should we do all we can to reduce both of those? Hell yes!

Just see through the propaganda because that list is total BS

The issue isn't, that list is. It's purposefully designed to induce apathy without thought.

I get your points and realize the causation is different for each entry on the list, but my point has always been about loss of life. I have a hard time understanding how no one wants to institute legislation limiting the rights of millions in order to limit the number of lives lost to tobacco use, alcohol use, obesity, etc... when those constitutional right limits would save MANY more lives than banning guns from those who are already willing to abide by the laws on the books.

I may be in the minority here, but if my wife were killed by a drunk driver or by a crack addict robbing her for money or by a car "accident" not involving alcohol or by a medical error or by a random shooting incident; my outrage is over the loss of her life, not the means in which she lost it.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I get your points and realize the causation is different for each entry on the list, but my point has always been about loss of life. I have a hard time understanding how no one wants to institute legislation limiting the rights of millions in order to limit the number of lives lost to tobacco use, alcohol use, obesity, etc... when those constitutional right limits would save MANY more lives than banning guns from those who are already willing to abide by the laws on the books.

I may be in the minority here, but if my wife were killed by a drunk driver or by a crack addict robbing her for money or by a car "accident" not involving alcohol or by a medical error or by a random shooting incident; my outrage is over the loss of her life, not the means in which she lost it.

are you sure? you would have the same outrage at cancer as you would a murderer with a gun. Mine would be different. Cancer causes a hollow loss with a feeling of helplessness because the cause can be largely genetic or environmental. It's just so unknown sometimes. I watched one grandmother pass from cancer, the other one from Alzheimer’s and while the loss is deep, in a way it's a blessing by the time the end has come. A lot of those items on that list are total BS

A drunk driver i hear you. If it's criminal i hear you.

A loss caused by murder is so sudden and totally different IMHO.

Both are obviously not good.

I just really have an issue with whoever puts that list together to trick people into their point of view. when you dig deeper it's total horse shit.

When people get together and say "we've had enough" of things, great things can happen. Look at vaccines, at one stage they were just another unsolvable problem killing MILLIONS. Now we've all but eradicated a lot of diseases all because someone didn't accept the status quo.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

are you sure? you would have the same outrage at cancer as you would a murderer with a gun. Mine would be different. Cancer causes a hollow loss with a feeling of helplessness because the cause can be largely genetic or environmental. It's just so unknown sometimes. I watched one grandmother pass from cancer, the other one from Alzheimer’s and while the loss is deep, in a way it's a blessing by the time the end has come. A lot of those items on that list are total BS

A drunk driver i hear you. If it's criminal i hear you.

A loss caused by murder is so sudden and totally different IMHO.

Both are obviously not good.

I just really have an issue with whoever puts that list together to trick people into their point of view. when you dig deeper it's total horse shit.

When people get together and say "we've had enough" of things, great things can happen. Look at vaccines, at one stage they were just another unsolvable problem killing MILLIONS. Now we've all but eradicated a lot of diseases all because someone didn't accept the status quo.

I am sure. I wouldn't have any outrage towards cancer or murder with a gun. I can't really effect the outcome of either one of those. Actually, i take that back. My 2nd amendment rights to conceal carry a firearm gives me a tool to for self defense if being attacked by someone intent on murdering myself or loved ones. But i even asked my wife about the same scenario and the cause is irrelevant to her as well.

I'll ask again, why is the status quo acceptable when it comes to tobacco use, obesity and alcohol use/abuse? I mean, a single side effect of alcohol abuse kills more people than guns every year. Maybe because we already tried to ban alcohol and that didn't workout so well. It basically invented organized crime and is arguably responsible for much of the corruption within the ranks of our government from the local to federal levels of office.

Loss of life is loss of life in my eyes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to what kind of legislation would save more lives on that chart.