What if someone threw a gun party, and no one came?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

people in vehicles kill WAY more people than people with guns do.

People who kill with vehicles do so accidentally. Not always true.
People who kill with guns do so intentionally. Not always true, as well.
So perhaps we should be a little more strict on the guns.

Using false, fact lacking, statements as absolutes, only weakens your point. Since it is a weak point to begin with, it pretty much means this is a pointless thread.

Matt

You only just come to that conclusion?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

people in vehicles kill WAY more people than people with guns do.

People who kill with vehicles do so accidentally.
People who kill with guns do so intentionally.
So perhaps we should be a little more strict on the guns.

Are you aware that down here in the South, some people need killin'.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yet open containers are banned in vehicles.

Yes, while driving a car it is illegal to drink. Just like when carrying a gun it is illegal to shoot it in a dangerous fashion or at an innocent person. Still not a reason to ban containers or guns.

Quote

Yet beer is banned under those circumstances.

Just like using a gun to commit a crime is "banned". The fact remains, BEER is not banned.

You have a verb problem and think the solution is to ban a noun. You want to stop gun crime.... Work on stopping crime.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

People who kill with vehicles do so accidentally.
People who kill with guns do so intentionally.
So perhaps we should be a little more strict on the guns.

False.
People intentionally run people over, and people accidentally shoot someone.

In fact, the 30K number is only true if you only care about making guns out as evil.

~15K of those deaths are suicides. And suicidal people use other ways to kill themselves (Carbon Monoxide, hanging, sleeping pills, stepping in front of a train).

~ 7-8K are true accidents and these are a real shame... Still, more people die in pools by accident and there are fewer pools in the US than firearms.

~ 7-8k are murders. Yet we also have murders with bats, knives, cars, and fire.

So, you work on better mental health services for people who are suicidal. You work on better gun education to prevent accidents (I was taught to shoot by my Dad, many people do not have that option... I also took a class in the 6th grade that taught firearms safety - something I would support for everyone). And you work on reducing crime.

Blaming the guns is a myopic, feel good, shortcut for people that don't care to really understand the problem.

Banning an item has NEVER made it stop being a problem (Prohibition didn't work, banning drugs has not worked, banning murder has not worked).

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes, while driving a car it is illegal to drink.

Why? Driving with a blood alcohol percentage higher than a certain limit is illegal.

Why ban alcohol? As long as you are staying under the legal limit, shouldn't you be free to consume it?

Why are you relating driving and drinking a beer to shooting a gun in a dangerous fashion or at an innocent person?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Why ban alcohol? As long as you are staying under the legal limit, shouldn't you be free to consume it?

legal in Mississippi, I think

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

legal in Mississippi, I think

Makes sense to me. Why restrict access to an object by law abiding citizens.

Since that seems to be such a strong principle touted by many on the more rabid pro-gun side of the debate, I am surprised they would not fight other restrictions under the same principle.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why? Driving with a blood alcohol percentage higher than a certain limit is illegal.

Shooting someone who is not attacking you is illegal, yet you want to ban firearms. For your position to be consistent, you would also want to ban alcohol since it is misused.

Quote

Why ban alcohol? As long as you are staying under the legal limit, shouldn't you be free to consume it?

Why ban guns? As long as you are not committing crimes, shouldn't you be allowed to own them?

Quote

Why are you relating driving and drinking a beer to shooting a gun in a dangerous fashion or at an innocent person?

I am showing your inconsistent stance that guns should be removed to prevent misuse, but that you do not hold that same position on beer.

Here is a radical thought.... Ban DRIVING while drunk AND SHOOTING at innocents. That is a consistent position where you focus on the ACTIONS not the object in one case and the action in the other case.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I never said I wanted to ban guns. That is a construct of your own making.

Quote

Ban DRIVING while drunk AND SHOOTING at innocents.

I agree...

Quote

That is a consistent position

As would be allowing people access to beer if they aren't doing anything illegal.....just like allowing them access to guns if they aren't doing anything illegal.

That would be a consistent position....one you seem to be having trouble with.

[billvon 3,120]

>I never said I wanted to ban guns. That is a construct of your own making.

That's one of the things that happens here with great regularity. Unless you support ownership of guns with no restrictions whatsoever, you want to ban them. Many (it often seems the majority here) can not imagine any other possible stance on such issues.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

people in vehicles kill WAY more people than people with guns do.

People who kill with vehicles do so accidentally.
People who kill with guns do so intentionally.
So perhaps we should be a little more strict on the guns.

Are you aware that down here in the South, some people need killin'.

You big scary Christian you

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I never said I wanted to ban guns. That is a construct of your own making.

That's one of the things that happens here with great regularity. Unless you support ownership of guns with no restrictions whatsoever, you want to ban them. Many (it often seems the majority here) can not imagine any other possible stance on such issues.

well, for many of them, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

it should be fed large amounts of grain for 21 days and then harvested for the liver.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

~ 7-8K are true accidents and these are a real shame... Still, more people die in pools by accident and there are fewer pools in the US than firearms.

I think you're off here by a factor of 10. Hundreds of accidental shootings per year, not thousands.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why are you relating driving and drinking a beer to shooting a gun in a dangerous fashion or at an innocent person?

American experience has shown them to be essentially the same level of reckless behavior. The drivers are killing a heck of a lot more people in the process.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

American experience has shown them to be essentially the same level of reckless behavior.

Really?

You have stats for accidents involving people drinking a beer, but not being over the BAC limit?

I am not talking about driving drunk. I am talking about driving under the BAC limit while drinking a beer.

It is no more reckless than drinking a coffee while driving.

So, why are you ok with banning that for law abiding citizens?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I am not talking about driving drunk. I am talking about driving under the BAC limit while drinking a beer.

It is no more reckless than drinking a coffee while driving.

You have a good point. While I think most people would agree that driving drunk should be against the law, some of the open container laws might be overkill.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I am not talking about driving drunk. I am talking about driving under the BAC limit while drinking a beer.

It is no more reckless than drinking a coffee while driving.

You have a good point. While I think most people would agree that driving drunk should be against the law, some of the open container laws might be overkill.

The open container law has as much justification as laws against bigamy. There's no problem with a sober person cracking open a beer instead of a coke. Unfortunately, too many people want to crack open 6 beers and drive, and we're still seeing 20k deaths/year. Or more accurately, they're rationally drank the first beer, and then their judgement clouds and drinking more seems like a good idea too. Few DUI deaths are intentional.

The other half of Dekker's comparison was to firing guns randomly at innocent people. There is very little of that going on. People intentionally shoot at others. Far less often do they shoot unintentionally at others. It's logically to worry more about the problem causing tens of thousands of deaths then the one causing hundreds.

Last note - once again it needs to be pointed out that driving is not a right and there are no Constitutional (or rationale) reasons against enforcing safe practices, even if it means that people will have to drink Coke instead of Coors.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

There's no problem with a sober person cracking open a beer instead of a coke. Unfortunately, too many people want to crack open 6 beers and drive, and we're still seeing 20k deaths/year. Or more accurately, they're rationally drank the first beer, and then their judgement clouds and drinking more seems like a good idea too.

The people who want to crack open six beers and drive are probably going to drive drunk whether open container laws exist or not. And if a person's judgement is so clouded by one beer that he thinks getting drunk behind the wheel is a good idea, then he probably shouldn't be drinking anyway. Drinking at home or in a bar, his judgement probably gets so clouded that getting in the car and driving doesn't seem like a bad idea.

I think a majority of drinkers can drink responsibly, so not allowing them a beer while driving is punishing them for others' irresponsible behavior. Sort of like banning booze altogether just because some people can't handle it.

Anyhow, I'm just thinking out loud here. I understand what a problem drunk driving is, and it's of much more concern to me than gun violence is, because it seems to be much more prevalent.

Hmm, I started to point out that I've been hit twice by drunk drivers. But then it occurred to me that I've been hit just as many times by sober drivers, so that's sort of meaningless.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think a majority of drinkers can drink responsibly, so not allowing them a beer while driving is punishing them for others' irresponsible behavior. Sort of like banning booze altogether just because some people can't handle it.

I don't really disagree. Just stating a rationalization for the laws. A lot of legislation is reactionary - when people can't get their shit together (see cell/texting laws), we get overreaching rules in response.

I know well enough when to get that cab (or take it to the destination in the first place) instead of driving. But I've also seen a few times where I thought I'd have one or two and then leave, and instead it turned into a lot more. I suspect some people do the same, but then proceed to make the bad decision to drive as well.

Quote

Hmm, I started to point out that I've been hit twice by drunk drivers. But then it occurred to me that I've been hit just as many times by sober drivers, so that's sort of meaningless.

Ouch! By hit do you mean hard enough to cause damage, or mere contact? I've been rear ended at relatively mild speeds by the inattentive, but fortunately nothing that I'd think about more than a couple days.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Are you aware that down here in the South, some people need killin'.

You big scary Christian you

It's an old joke of the South.

In the South an acceptable defense is, he just needed killin'.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you aware that down here in the South, some people need killin'.

You big scary Christian you

It's an old joke of the South.

In the South an acceptable defense is, he just needed killin'.

It is a misquoted movie line "Mr. Reagan", and even here in the south, it is not an acceptable defense.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

It's an old joke of the South.

In the South an acceptable defense is, he just needed killin'.

It is a misquoted movie line "Mr. Reagan", and even here in the south, it is not an acceptable defense.

Matt

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

... the 30K number ...

~15K of those deaths are suicides. ....

.........................................................................

The RCMP says that 80 percent of gun deaths - in Canada - are suicides.

• Quote

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Hmm, I started to point out that I've been hit twice by drunk drivers. But then it occurred to me that I've been hit just as many times by sober drivers, so that's sort of meaningless.

Ouch! By hit do you mean hard enough to cause damage, or mere contact? I've been rear ended at relatively mild speeds by the inattentive, but fortunately nothing that I'd think about more than a couple days.

Two wrecks that caused major damage. The damage was about equal, but one of them put me in the hospital for a few days because of my own stupidity in not wearing a seatbelt. I don't think the driver in that one was drunk (never talked to her because I was knocked unconscious). She was speeding and ran a red light while I was turning left. (Lesson in being aware of everything and not expecting other drivers to do what they're supposed to - but hey, I was only 15.) In the other major wreck, I'm pretty sure the driver was drunk. He was acting drunk, and he smelled like alcohol, but for some reason the cops didn't even ask him if he had been drinking. (They seemed like they just wanted to get the hell out of there.) From what we could piece together, he was driving at night without his lights on and veered onto my side of the road, hitting me nearly head-on. I never even saw him and suddenly Boom, I was knocked off the road.

The other two, I was rear ended. One caused no damage - I don't think that driver was impaired. The other one caused a little bit of damage, enough that it had to be repaired. And I know the driver was drunk because he got out of the car and started asking me to please not tell the police that he was drunk. It took the police about an hour to get there anyway, so he had probably sobered up by then, but I don't think they even asked him about it.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The open container law has as much justification as laws against bigamy. .

Bigamy contains its own punishment

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"