Hooknswoop

We gave up some rights in Colorado. You said it would help and be enforceable. You were wrong. Now you want me to give up many more rights. there are other options besides gun control, that WILL work. Derek V

I do not see how giving up my gun rights is going to change anything. Derek V

I can reply that you have not convinced me that you need free speech. You could live your life just fine without it. Obviously, I am for free speech. My point is the phrasing of the argument. You do not have to justify your rights to me or anyone else. Derek V

I would rather you stayed and continued to offer your opinion. I am not here because I want people to agree with me. I am here to listen to and try to understand the opposing viewpoint. Derek V

Supporting the 2nd amendment is not supporting "the killing of innocent children." any more than supporting the 1st amendment is supporting hate speech. You know this, but use inflammatory and emotional arguments instead of logical arguments. I like this anti-gun argument. Not my favorite, but a good one. We have nukes, yes. Why didn't that work in Afghanistan? The old, 'we have tanks, bombers, armored vehicles, your AR is a joke' line. LOL. My favorite anti-gun argument is, "Why do you need a ____________?" Imagine if I asked you why you need the right to free speech? If you cannot justify needing that right, then we should take it away. Your opinion. Agreed. No argument there. just like you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, there are limits to our freedoms. I'd vote 'yes' to ban all future sales of bump stocks. I am in favor of enforcing the current laws vigorously as well. I don't see that happening any more than the FAA stepping in and regulating skydiving. More gun control is not the answer. There is no easy answer. They passed 2 new gun control laws a few years ago here in CO. Bill Von was positive both laws were enforceable and would make a difference. He is wrong on both. So now we have more gun restrictions for no positive result. This is why I am against more gun control laws. Derek V

I have seen video of a cutaway handle in the reserve lines. Fortunately not above a cascade. I wouldn't throw handles. I learned with ripcord and SOS, so going to throw out with a cutaway and reserve handle was a significant change. Lots of practice on the ground. Still practice. If you have good upper body strength, I am a fan of the one-hand, one-handle method. You can put your thumb through the cutaway and/or reserve cable for a better grip, if necessary. Derek V

An AAD can affect someone other than you. They are all just tools for being prepared. Derek V

Are you scared if you have an AAD, wear a seatbelt, have a smoke alarm, spare tire? Are you paranoid if you have an AAD, wear a seatbelt, have a smoke alarm, spare tire?? Derek V

It's not just criminals with guns, but criminals with knives, bats, friends, lots of previous spare time and free access to a gym, etc. I carry a gun for the same reason I have an AAD. Hope I don't need it, but if I do, it could save my life. 1 knife pulled on me, 1 gun. Neither time was I in a place or doing something I shouldn't. For the knife, I was very glad I had my firearm on me. I wasn't armed when the gun was pulled. Never needed my AAD. Probably never will. Derek V

I am not in favor of disabling firearms outside of a defines boundary (home/property/whatever. I carry a firearm outside of the home. Derek V

Let me clarify my position. I am in favor of reducing, even eliminating, firearm related fatalities. What I am not in favor of is restricting individual rights, (specifically the 2nd amendment) especially for little to no reduction in firearm related fatalities. For example, the background check and magazine limit laws here in CO. I am in favor of enforcing the current laws. I am in favor of ensuring that if someone should not be able to pass the NICS background check, that they not pass the background check. I am in favor of more policing of areas with high rates of firearm fatalities as well as reducing the factors that drive those high rates. My point about the vehicle fatalities is that a lot more can be done, today, and isn't being done. Because that would restrict individual freedoms. There is no mandate that new cars be equipped with the technology that prevents exceeding the posted speed limit. There is no mandate that new cars be equipped with a breathalyzer tied to the ignition. There is no mandate that cell phone manufacturers must disable e-mail, text, etc in a moving vehicle. Society accepts the 40,000 +/- vehicle related fatalities. We could do a lot more, today, but don't. Derke V

Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results. The other improves the nation and will have large results. Derek V

Yep, but none of those things took away freedoms from individuals. Derek V

I thought this statement might get misunderstood. I didn't phrase it very well. In the US, with the 2nd amendment, gun control is difficult at best. I also think improving poorer areas is better than gun control. Reduce firearm fatalities and improve people lives. Win-Win. That is what I mean by gun control not being the best method. Derek V

The point is society is not calling for this technology to automatically limit vehicles speed to be mandatory in all new vehicles every time there is a traffic fatality. We avoid restricting freedoms. I didn't even know that the technology was available. Same for breathalyzers tied to the ignition. We don't put them in every vehicle. Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities. Mental health care, bringing poorer area up with jobs, infrastructure and education, etc is much better. This is the direction the discussion needs to go. Derek V

The comparison is that we could do a lot more to reduce vehicle fatalities, but we choose not to. Why? Because we don’t want that much restriction on our freedoms. This is why the debate never goes anywhere. It isn’t about reducing fatalities, it is about gun control. Here in CO, they passed the universal background check and magazine limit laws. Those laws limited the 2nd amendment and have done nothing to reduce fatalities. You said these laws were enforceable. You were wrong. Now you want to go further. Derek V

There are cars that will limit their max speed to the speed limit automatically? Never seen that. Again, is this about gun control or reducing fatalities? Derek V

Even though there are more vehicle related fatalities per year than firearm related fatalities? Derek V

I’ve never heard of a car that uses gps and a map so that it will not exceed the speed limit. My cell phone works in my vehicle. Imagine if all cars had breathalyzers and would start if any alcohol was detected. We could do a lot more and have a large impact on fatalities. But we don’t. Derek V

Agreed! Your list was not draconian measures, mine is. Limit vehicles max speed to the speed limit for the section if road they are on. Install breathalyzers in every vehicle. Prevent cell phones from communicating in a moving vehicle. These would reduce traffic fatalities. I don’t see a thread, “More traffic fatalities” with links to today’s deaths. Derek V

I don’t see it as a slight reduction. A matter of perspective, I guess. Large reduction for small to no benefit. For example, the u inverse background check and magazine limit laws that were passed here in CO. A large reduction in freedom for what? 2 unenforceable laws. No thanks. If the conversation is about reducing firearm fatalities, there are other, better ways than gun restrictions. I do not agree with your prediction. You also said the background check law was enforceable. We accept roughly the same fatalities per year from vehicles and refuse to pass dracian measures to reduce them. In fact, I don’t even see that being discussed in this forum. Derek V

No, I’m not. We will add crumple zones and air bags, but not restrict cars to the speed limit. Why? Because that is a restriction on a freedom. That is the difference, that is where we draw the line. You’re ok with further restrictions on firearms, but not vehicles. Derek V

We could more more, but we don’t. Because we, as a society, accept the current of freedoms vs. fatalities from vehicles. Why take away freedoms, when there are other solutions? Is the conversation about more gun restrictions or reducing firearm fatalities? Derek V

We could much, much more. But that would limit individual freedoms. As a society, we are willing to pay a price, roughly equal to the number of firearm fatalities for the freedoms to drive above the speed limit if we choose, or after drinking, or distracted, etc. we could sacrifice these freedoms and see a dramatic decrease fatalities, but we don’t. Why? I am more than happy to have the discussion, but you don’t want to hear that further restrictions to the 2nd amendment are a non-starter. There are other ways of having a positive impact that I am willing to support. Telling people they don’t care and come off as you are the only one willing to make a difference, and don’t expect the conversation to continue. Derek V

We could reduce them by much more very easily, but we don’t. Why is that? Where is the moral outrage, “It's only children. Who cares if they [die in preventable car crashes]?” I disagree. Derek V