121
Post by: Relapse
I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder and there have been several threads started after different shootings happen. In that time there have probably been as many if not more deaths caused by drunk drivers, but I havn't seen a single thread about that.
Here's some stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Protip: Drunk driving is illegal.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Relapse wrote:I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder
Then it sounds like you aren't really reading these forums, but focusing in on a limited number of posts. Pretty sure AustonT or Jihadin have never said such a thing, and I know I haven't either. At best the argument has been that gun control (of varying degrees depending on the poster) would lower gun related homicide, not just murder in general.
121
Post by: Relapse
Protip backatcha, so isn't murder using a gun. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ahtman wrote:Relapse wrote:I keep reading on these forums about how guns need to be outlawed to prevent murder
Then it sounds like you aren't really reading these forums, but focusing in on a limited number of posts. Pretty sure AustonT or Jihadin have never said such a thing, and I know I haven't either. At best the argument has been that gun control (of varying degrees depending on the poster) would lower gun related homicide, not just murder in general.
The fact is that the posts are there, ie theatre shooting, New York shooting, gun control threads, etc. My point is this, drunk driving kills as many or more people than murders with guns, yet we don't have the threads addressing this the way we do guns.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.
121
Post by: Relapse
Ahtman wrote:
Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.
You know what I meant by that statement, no need to be deliberatly obtuse.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Relapse wrote:The fact is that the posts are there, ie theatre shooting, New York shooting, gun control threads, etc. My point is this, drunk driving kills as many or more people than murders with guns, yet we don't have the threads addressing this the way we do guns.
Drunk driving deaths are incidental whereas someone going into a theater and shooting people is purposeful; the drunk driver isn't trying to kill people whereas the armed gunman is. Impaired driving is something we actively try to crack down on, as evidenced by constant barrage of commercials and billboards extolling that the police will get you as well as a number of organizations such as MADD. If we follow your reasoning it leads to guns being illegal just as drunk driving is illegal since both lead to deaths. Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote:You know what I meant by that statement, no need to be deliberatly obtuse.
Actually I didn't, as it seems you wrote it while impaired, possibly from alcohol.
121
Post by: Relapse
Now we're having a discussion. Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?
I disagree because people are well aquainted with the fact that driving drunk is gambling with other people's lives.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
All comes down to responsibility.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.
29110
Post by: AustonT
I like where this thread is headed.
We should outlaw violence. Then violent crime will cease altogether. Then we'll outlaw car accidents and those will stop too. Then we can outlaw death and live forevah!
121
Post by: Relapse
Ahtman wrote:
Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.
Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Relapse wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.
Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.
No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention
121
Post by: Relapse
 youbedead wrote:Relapse wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.
Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything.
The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.
No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention
There you have it. The end result is what I'm talking about, and how it seems more than a few advocates of gun control are so because of the number of people killed. Yet purposeful or not, more people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by guns and I really don't see that many threads about alcohol control as compared to threads about guns here.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
A agree with Relapse. We should make it illegal to drive while drunk. Automatically Appended Next Post: youbedead wrote:Relapse wrote: Ahtman wrote: Where did I say worse? I just said they were different. Can't have a discussion with you making up information to suit you as it goes on. Do you really not understand the difference between an accidental death and the premeditated killing of other human being? You'll also notice that DUI and Murder they aren't the same crimes with the same punishment. Looking at just the end result (people are dead) and ignoring all context doesn't really address either problem.
Easy there, no need to get all hyped up. I just want to understand your point a bit better and am not tailoring anything. The way you called Impaired driving deaths incidental and gun deaths purposeful seems to imply one act is worse than the other.
No it means one is purposeful and one is incidental, you can then make an argument that one is worse then the other. Is the end result what matters or is it the intention
Accidental gun deaths account for a meaningful portion of gun death statistics annually. Automatically Appended Next Post: You wanted "so is". ...Also that comparison does't work. Driving drunk is akin to operating a gun while drunk. Murdering someone intentionally with a car is akin to murdering someone intentionally with a gun. You're doing what you always do and drawing false comparisons because it's easy for you to score a few meaningless and silly one liners. Stop it. this thread is bad and you should all feel bad
58635
Post by: BolingbrokeIV
Oh wow, you're absolutely right. Why is there so much fuss about making guns illegal and hardly any about making drink driving illegal? It's almost like it already is.
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously, I know everyone is making the same point but it looked like it was going to keep going over Relapse's head until someone posted a Pickard faceplam.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Protip #2: Owning a gun, which is what you wanted the discussion to be about, isn't illegal. It's more discussed than something that is already illegal because the debate is whether to make it illegal.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?
Murder by gun is generally worse because its generally murder, as opposed to manslaughter.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Glorioski wrote:F
Oh wow, you're absolutely right. Why is there so much fuss about making guns illegal and hardly any about making drink driving illegal? It's almost like it already is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, I know everyone is making the same point but it looked like it was going to keep going over Relapse's head until someone posted a Pickard facephlam.
Clearly everyone here realizes murder and drunk driving are both illegal. My point is that there seems to be more uproar over people being murdered by guns than people being killed by drunk drivers even though more people die because of drunk driving than gun crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:Your point is that murder by gun is worse because someone deliberatly killed someone else, but killing people by impaired driving is forgivable because the person didn't set out to kill anyone, correct?
Murder by gun is generally worse because its generally murder, as opposed to manslaughter.
True enough. I started thinking about this because I was remembering some friends that had died because of impared drivers.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Clearly everyone here realizes murder and drunk driving are both illegal. My point is that there seems to be more uproar over people being murdered by guns than people being killed by drunk drivers even though more people die because of drunk driving than gun crimes.
Probably because you don't drive a gun to work and alcohol purchasing is more heavily regulated than ammo.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Probably because you don't drive a gun to work
Depends where at in the world you are 
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.
So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.
And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.
You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.
Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.
Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.
Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.
So there is not really any difference between the two at all.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
So there is not really any difference between the two at all.
People won't accept a answer so simple as that.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
 d-usa wrote:Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object. So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner. And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same. You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one. Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car. Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail. Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail. So there is not really any difference between the two at all.
Except one is required for a modern society and economy to function because it enables mass personal transit and the other is a device designed specifically to kill humans with virtually no productive or educational uses. You can't operate a nuclear reactor while drunk either, I don't see you clamouring to try and say that nuclear reactors and cars are the same fething things. You know why? Because it's a bad argument and makes no fething sense.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I was not convinced, but then I saw red text and cursing. That must mean that person is right...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:I was not convinced, but then I saw red text and cursing. That must mean that person is right...
I wouldn't be here otherwise.
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote:Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object.
So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner.
And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same.
You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one.
Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car.
Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail.
Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail.
So there is not really any difference between the two at all.
Pretty good. Consider this also, a car being operated by a drunk driver has the potential to do more loss of life than someone with a gun and murderous intent and in fact does according to statistics.
Dogma made a point about drunk driving being manslaughter. Clearly no one in their right mind is going out in a car with the intent to kill people. However the consequences of driving impaired cause a third of all traffic fatalities.
Should something more be done with laws against impaired driving?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving.
But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc.
I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote:I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving.
But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc.
I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.
That's a pretty correct assesment of my point.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote:Well. let's look at this a bit rationally with regards to drunk driving. If you want to compare this with guns you have to take one thing in consideration: it is not the action that some people have a problem with, it is the object. So if you want to compare the two you have to focus on the "weapon" and not the action. So you have to compare car to gun, not "drunk driver" to gun owner. And if you look at the "weapons" like that, then we are already treating guns and cars exactly the same. You can own both without much difficulty. Want to buy a gun, go down to the store and buy one. Want to buy a car, go down to the store and buy one. Want to use it in public? Get a license. You need a drivers license to operate a car in public. You need a concealed carry license to operate your gun in public. Both licenses require education on the applicable laws and regulations. Both licenses require practicing under instruction. Both licenses require an exam and presentation that you can safely and accurately operate your gun/car. Both are illegal to operate while intoxicated. Drive a car drunk, go to jail. Carry concealed while drunk, go to jail. Use one unlawfully, go to jail. Use the other unlawfully, go to jail. So there is not really any difference between the two at all.
Pretty good. Consider this also, a car being operated by a drunk driver has the potential to do more loss of life than someone with a gun and murderous intent and in fact does according to statistics. Dogma made a point about drunk driving being manslaughter. Clearly no one in their right mind is going out in a car with the intent to kill people. However the consequences of driving impaired cause a third of all traffic fatalities. Should something more be done with laws against impaired driving?
Drunk driving penalties have grown stricter year over year for half a century. The problem with making harsher drunk driving penalties is that the crime is committed once you're at that stage. That's like arguing that the penalties for gun crimes should be made more harsh. They're already treated pretty harshly (with jail time). The issue is prevention. With drunk driving that would logically be done via awareness campaigns (constantly done), making driving difficult to engage in after consuming alcohol (virtually impossible), or drug/dependency checks being made mandatory to have a licence (economically unfeasible). The problem with solving drunk driving is that the problem is the drinking and no one is willing to work on solving that. Drinking is a sacred passtime here. The car can't be removed because that means we're all out of a job and most of us starve to death. This is unlike preventing firearm violence in almost every way. There is no economic structure that demands that we have guns. There are no social structures based around the distribution of weapons as there is alcohol. There are numerous and simple ways that gun ownership can be vetted and regulated so as to lower the chances of weapons being in the hands of the violent, irresponsible, or deranged (without it seriously impacting the lives of said people). These two social issues are dramatically different and the only reason to conflate them is to make a lazy and incomplete political statement. Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote:I think in regards to the OP it seems like he is concerned that people are more active in regards to guns than drunk driving. But people around here are always pushing for more laws, more education, more public awareness, interlock devices, designsted driver rewards, etc. I have seen maybe two semi-public "get a free gun-lock" campaigns in the last year, but I constantly see anti-drunk driving campaigns.
That's a pretty correct assesment of my point.
I constantly see drunk driving campaigns. I see the ads for them on telivision. I hear them on the radio. I see them on billboards. The anti drunk driving awareness industry is an order of magnitude larger than the one for gun dangers. There is no multi billion dollar lobby protecting drunk drivers. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?
Shuma your on a roll. Don't stop. 
58635
Post by: BolingbrokeIV
 ShumaGorath wrote:Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?
That's one hell of a precedent for you to set. See you next blue moon.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)
If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...
Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.
Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
(regardless of what many, many other studies would show)
Feel free to show them. It's fun to claim that they exist, but actually proving that they do has always been difficult for gun advocates (primarily because such studies almost never exist or are heavily refuted and dubiously produced). If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...
If you feel like rolling out of bed and finding a solution in your alphabet cereal than yes. That's probably one you could find. Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.
Yeah, that's probably attributable to the fact that gun ownership per capita and gun ownership per parent household has fallen to it's lowest percentage in the history of the country. Interestingly, there are more deaths by accidental shootings than by injuries relating to falling down annually in america. But then "gun control nuts" are the only people with the prescience of mind to actually look up the mathematics behind this issue. Everyone else just wants to compare it to drunk driving and shout.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)
If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...
Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.
Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.
Pretty true about prohibition of alcohol not working. The people pushing to abolish guns appear to not have learned that lesson.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Relapse wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)
If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...
Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.
Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.
Pretty true about prohibition of alcohol not working. The people pushing to abolish guns appear to not have learned that lesson.
I wonder if it's lonely for him having blocked everyone who has ever disagreed with him.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Isn't it odd though that the countries with stricter gun control laws have drastically fewer murders?
US 9,369
Canada 144
But really is 9,369 really that much lower than 10,839? And ok the DD was from all of 2009, but in the gun murders from your page I can't see in what time frame it got its numbers. But it looks like 2002.
in 2009, this site listed gun murders at 11,493. Which is more than from DD.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
So there you go, in 2009 guns killed 654 more people than DD'rs.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm not going to deny that guns are by definition a weapon. That is what they are build for, to deliver a bullet to a target. But that does not make them an offensive weapon, nor does it make them the most dangerous thing we own. Cars are more widespread and kill more people, but it is silly to argue that something that is more deadly is okay because it also does non-lethal things.
People are basically arguing this (using 2007 numbers because they are the ones that I happened to find):
Guns killed 31,224 people, and should be outlawed because that is all they do.
Cars killed 42,642 people, but that is okay because they also can be used to not kill people.
I am all about responsible gun ownership, and I think that there is plenty of room to add some legislation to make things safer. I think the loopholes for buying guns without background checks at gun-shows between two private individuals is one area where we can fix things. I don't belong to the crowd that runs for pitchforks and torches everytime the topic of gun-legislation is raised.
I own weapons for two purposes:
1) They are fun. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy target practice with them, I enjoy the historical aspect of them.
2) They protect me and my family. I carry concealed and friends and family know that I am licensed to carry. The few folks that are uncomfortable with a gun being in their house have told me that they are, and I respect them and leave my gun in the car when I visit their homes.
My biggest reason against any sort of gun ban is that I realize that after 200+ years of gun friendly legislation it will never be possible to ban all guns. Countries that started out with a lot fewer guns than the USA have an easier time controling them. But at this point in our history there are so many illegal guns out there that any effort to round up weapons and ban them will only result in loosing the ability to defend ourselves. Drugs are illegal, and they are all around us. Prostitution is illegal, and it is all around us. Child pornography is still very prevalent. We will never be able to get rid of guns without leaving a large group of illegal guns behind, the majority of which will be in the hands of criminals.
I don't want my guns because of some novel "the constitution said so and it is holy" concept.
I want my guns because I know that we will never be able to disarm criminals and I will fight for the ability to protect myself and my family.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Expect most people aren't arguing to ban guns there arguing for stricter control. Make it harder for crazies to get hold of guns
37231
Post by: d-usa
youbedead wrote:Expect most people aren't arguing to ban guns there arguing for stricter control. Make it harder for crazies to get hold of guns
I agree that there is more that could be done for control. I also think that a lot of times gun owners shoot themselves in the foot (get it) when it comes to being good advocates for responsible ownership. Some of us act like the crazies that some people think gun owners are.
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
5534
Post by: dogma
Captain Fantastic wrote:
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
"Less messy"?
Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?
51375
Post by: Inquisitor Ehrenstein
We need to outlaw beer because people might drive drunk.
Then we need to outlaw guns because people might shoot people.
Then we should make it illegal not to drink every day because that makes it easier to get drunk.
Then we should make it illegal to look at pictures of guns because someone might make one.
55583
Post by: Tiina Brown
d-usa wrote:I'm not going to deny that guns are by definition a weapon. That is what they are build for, to deliver a bullet to a target. But that does not make them an offensive weapon, nor does it make them the most dangerous thing we own. Cars are more widespread and kill more people, but it is silly to argue that something that is more deadly is okay because it also does non-lethal things.
People are basically arguing this (using 2007 numbers because they are the ones that I happened to find):
Guns killed 31,224 people, and should be outlawed because that is all they do.
Cars killed 42,642 people, but that is okay because they also can be used to not kill people.
I am all about responsible gun ownership, and I think that there is plenty of room to add some legislation to make things safer. I think the loopholes for buying guns without background checks at gun-shows between two private individuals is one area where we can fix things. I don't belong to the crowd that runs for pitchforks and torches everytime the topic of gun-legislation is raised.
I own weapons for two purposes:
1) They are fun. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy target practice with them, I enjoy the historical aspect of them.
2) They protect me and my family. I carry concealed and friends and family know that I am licensed to carry. The few folks that are uncomfortable with a gun being in their house have told me that they are, and I respect them and leave my gun in the car when I visit their homes.
My biggest reason against any sort of gun ban is that I realize that after 200+ years of gun friendly legislation it will never be possible to ban all guns. Countries that started out with a lot fewer guns than the USA have an easier time controling them. But at this point in our history there are so many illegal guns out there that any effort to round up weapons and ban them will only result in loosing the ability to defend ourselves. Drugs are illegal, and they are all around us. Prostitution is illegal, and it is all around us. Child pornography is still very prevalent. We will never be able to get rid of guns without leaving a large group of illegal guns behind, the majority of which will be in the hands of criminals.
I don't want my guns because of some novel "the constitution said so and it is holy" concept.
I want my guns because I know that we will never be able to disarm criminals and I will fight for the ability to protect myself and my family.
Hmm ...
"Deliver a bullet" "Not an offensive weapon".
"Gets shot" "catches the bullet" "Oh thank you, a bullet! That was just what i ordered.  "
A gun is all about being offensive, because you can't claim that the gun is mainly defensive .. now, can you?
Ok, you may claim that the gun is for your defense, but if the threat of using it offensive didn't exist, then the gun would not work defensive at all. It is the "the best defense is a good offense", but without the inherent offense in the gun, there is no defense either.
Guns killed 31,224 people.
Cars killed 42,642 people.
This got me thinking about percentages .....
How many people owns guns?
How many people owns cars?
Or rather, how many did that 2007, where those above numbers came from?
Liking them for target practice? You can target practice with anything.
Liking them for history? Ok, but then they don't have to be useable.
They protect your family? Do they, really? Or will it just lead to that any possible robbers will get machinguns, or at least guns themselves?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
121
Post by: Relapse
sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
37231
Post by: d-usa
If you want to make the argument that owning a gun for defense will make robbers get bigger guns, then you might as well make the argument that you should no defend yourself at all.
If you have pepper spray at home, they will bring a bat. If you have a bat, they will bring a tazer. If you have a tazer, they will bring a gun. If you have a gun, they will bring a machine gun.
So it seems like you are saying that the best defense would be to not defend ourselves at all.
Do you honestly think that it would be feasible to disarm the entire US population, legal and illegal guns, and leave no weapons in the hands of criminals?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.
121
Post by: Relapse
sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.
This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.
By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.
This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.
By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.
You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.
121
Post by: Relapse
sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.
This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.
By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.
You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.
Yet, the news is quicker to report a gun death than someone killed by drunk drivers. They will report on someone that shot themselves, but not someone who drank themselves to death or died from tobbacco caused cancer.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Relapse wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.
If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.
This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.
By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.
You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.
Yet, the news is quicker to report a gun death than someone killed by drunk drivers. They will report on someone that shot themselves, but not someone who drank themselves to death or died from tobbacco caused cancer.
So because of that we can't talk about any gun control laws that could save lives?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you're trained and licensed to use them, have no violent criminal record, and are considered mentally stable enough, I say go for it.
The training and licensing process is more to get rid of those who are too incompetent, criminal, or unstable to own the weapons, not the average, law-abiding citizen.
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
dogma wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:
That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
"Less messy"?
Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?
I've seen lots of car crash photographs, and they seem messier. Things like jaws torn off, arms twisted off and crushed, skulls smashed, torsos torn in half. It's not pretty. Plus, people constantly get burned up, which is almost equally terrifying.
If you take a .45 straight to the temple, a huge chunk of your skull and brain will be thrown all over the place, and there will be plenty of blood, but it's localized to your head, so at least in my opinion, it's less messy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
 Jihadin wrote:Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...
Why shouldn't I own land mines and sarin gas? Automatically Appended Next Post: Captain Fantastic wrote: dogma wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote: That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.
"Less messy"? Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?
I've seen lots of car crash photographs, and they seem messier. Things like jaws torn off, arms twisted off and crushed, skulls smashed, torsos torn in half. It's not pretty. Plus, people constantly get burned up, which is almost equally terrifying. If you take a .45 straight to the temple, a huge chunk of your skull and brain will be thrown all over the place, and there will be plenty of blood, but it's localized to your head, so at least in my opinion, it's less messy.
A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Jihadin wrote:Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...
How'd you pull off private ownership of an M4?
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
ShumaGorath wrote:
A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.
Okay Shuma, thanks for your input. We appreciate it.
@seaward- He probably just means a carbine length AR-15. You can legally own a select fire M4, although more than likely, if you wanted one, you would buy an M16A2, swap out the stock and throw a carbine length upper on it, because there are no registered 'M4's in the registry.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Captain Fantastic wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:
A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.
Okay Shuma, thanks for your input. We appreciate it.
@seaward- He probably just means a carbine length AR-15. You can legally own a select fire M4, although more than likely, if you wanted one, you would buy an M16A2, swap out the stock and throw a carbine length upper on it, because there are no registered 'M4's in the registry.
I assumed he meant an AR-15 M4gery, yeah, but I wanted to be sure.
I actually don't think you can own a select fire M4 thanks to FOPA, but I'd have to go dig up Class III rules again. I know a dealer near me owns one, but it's the shop that owns it rather than any one guy, under the dealer sample exception. I guess you could drop in a (legal) M16 sear, but we're still in M4gery territory.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Yep its a AR. I just know it by the M4 since its what I'm really use to. Mines not tricked all out. Its tricked out enough to what I'm use to. Its has two modes. Safe and semi. I've never used "burst" with my assigned weapon when in the "box"
33125
Post by: Seaward
Jihadin wrote:Yep its a AR. I just know it by the M4 since its what I'm really use to. Mines not tricked all out. Its tricked out enough to what I'm use to. Its has two modes. Safe and semi. I've never used "burst" with my assigned weapon when in the "box"
Hmm.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:Yep its a AR. I just know it by the M4 since its what I'm really use to. Mines not tricked all out. Its tricked out enough to what I'm use to. Its has two modes. Safe and semi. I've never used "burst" with my assigned weapon when in the "box"
It's a useless function that serves only to make the trigger unpredicatable. The M4A1 is vastly superior not because it fires in full auto, but because the full auto sear is symmetrical and makes the trigger consistent. Plus in a pinch you can really give someone a bad day.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I'm confused.
Guns are legal.
Alcohol is legal
Killing people is not, whether it is with a gun, or with a car while drunk.
Now, if the general logic is guns kill people, can't we apply that to cars and alcohol as well? And knives, and poison, and ropes, and water, and the million other items used in murder...
People kill people. Weapons simply make it easier. Certain types of guns/rifles that are available should be made illegal, but not everything. Semiautomatics have no business being legal. Muzzle loaders, revolvers, bolt action rifles, over under shotguns, and similar slow rate of fire weapons are not exceptionally dangerous weapons. Especially considering that you can create all sorts of fun IEDs from household items and do a lot more damage than you ever could with any legal gun.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Semiautomatics have no business being legal.
While I hate to pull a Frazzled, you're gonna have pry my Colt 1991 from my cold dead hands 
33125
Post by: Seaward
It's pretty tough to concealed carry a blunderbuss.
Muzzle loaders, revolvers, bolt action rifles, over under shotguns, and similar slow rate of fire weapons are not exceptionally dangerous weapons.
Those are all "exceptionally dangerous weapons." There isn't an appreciable rate of fire loss in a DA revolver versus a semiauto pistol; the perceived loss in speed comes in reloading, and even that can be mitigated.
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
Amaya wrote:Semiautomatics have no business being legal.
Pfftthahahaha. Okay, sure. I suppose everyone should CC a wheel-gun then? The idiocy in this statement is unbelievable.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Clearly he meant airsoft semiautomtics should be illegal. Jeez guys.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:Semiautomatics have no business being legal.
Pfftthahahaha. Okay, sure. I suppose everyone should CC a wheel-gun then? The idiocy in this statement is unbelievable.
Semis aren't all that common in hunting and presumably he thinks that the self defense argument of firearms is silly (which in the majority of cases it is).
21853
Post by: mattyrm
 Amaya wrote:
People kill people. Weapons simply make it easier.
Well, yes mate, but that IS a problem isn't it?
We have all been in a fist fight, have you noticed how most people get really jumpy, their adrenalin gets up, they start getting really twitchy and super angry, and at that moment in time, Im pretty sure they would happily kill you if they had a gun. How many times have you been in a bar room brawl, and at the time and during the immediate aftermath everyone wants to kill every fether, but the next morning people are way calmer and not as interested?
Its the main reason I'm against every Tom Dick and Harry having a gun!
I think that left to their own devices people are more friendly and affable than most people believe. Its only on the spur of the moment, at the hight of anger, people make decisions they regret, and that's why 99% of spur of the moment killings occur, then the remorse comes in, and half the time people blow their own fething brains out.
Joe Public doesn't react well to violence, they shouldn't be carrying guns because they will do things they will regret an hour down the line. Killing people is very very easy with a gun, your just point and click, and for that reason I don't think that civilians should be able to own the fething things.
Much as I like guns. 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
your just point and click
you owe me some pushups for that comment Matty
aim and apply a 9lbs trigger squeeze.....wait we're talking amateurs here. Your good Matty Majority of them is point with the pistol sideways and just jerked the triggers as many times as they can
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:Majority of them is point with the pistol sideways and just jerked the triggers as many times as they can
like the NYPD...
34168
Post by: Amaya
ShumaGorath wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:Semiautomatics have no business being legal.
Pfftthahahaha. Okay, sure. I suppose everyone should CC a wheel-gun then? The idiocy in this statement is unbelievable.
Semis aren't all that common in hunting and presumably he thinks that the self defense argument of firearms is silly (which in the majority of cases it is).
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Access to medical records (mental) portion. HIPA though blocks that.
What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle
I don't hunt but I own an assualt weapon. Am I wrong for owning an assualt weapon?
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:Semiautomatics have no business being legal.
Pfftthahahaha. Okay, sure. I suppose everyone should CC a wheel-gun then? The idiocy in this statement is unbelievable.
Semis aren't all that common in hunting and presumably he thinks that the self defense argument of firearms is silly (which in the majority of cases it is).
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
I have to ask, with the statistics that prove alcohol is responsible for more than twice as many deaths yearly than guns, why are you not also denouncing that?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Jihadin wrote:Access to medical records (mental) portion. HIPA though blocks that.
What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle
I don't hunt but I own an assualt weapon. Am I wrong for owning an assualt weapon?
Why do you own an assault weapon then?
And Relapse, imo, drunk drivers should receive much greater punishments. If you kill someone while driving drunk you should never be allowed to drive again or purchas alcohol in addition to jail time. I would not have a problem with drunk drivers who cause fatalities being executed.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why do you own an assault weapon then
Its a fun weapon to fire on the range. I'm one of the ones that enjoy target practice. Also it was the first fire arm I was introduce to when I join up. So I own a "M4" that I'm quite fimiliar with, know how to maintain it, and know what I'm capable of with it. Also gives my wife a peace of mind incase someone goes after her (immigration officer). SO on a side bar plus its added "security" I won't go into details on what my wife does for DHS.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
The Most Dangerous Game.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The Most Dangerous Game
They get creative to in hunting us back................
34168
Post by: Amaya
Jihadin wrote:Why do you own an assault weapon then
Its a fun weapon to fire on the range. I'm one of the ones that enjoy target practice. Also it was the first fire arm I was introduce to when I join up. So I own a "M4" that I'm quite fimiliar with, know how to maintain it, and know what I'm capable of with it. Also gives my wife a peace of mind incase someone goes after her (immigration officer). SO on a side bar plus its added "security" I won't go into details on what my wife does for DHS.
I won't deny that pretty much all of the M16 family and variants are fething awesome and if I had one I would certainly want to fire it weekly, but sadly I think the firearms issue one where it might be better to restrict what is legal simply because a handful of idiots have access to overly potent weapons systems that have no use for hunting.
The problem with my argument is that you could extend such restrictions to that compound bows are sufficient for hunting and all guns should be illegal. It's a nasty issue.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Jihadin wrote:your just point and click
you owe me some pushups for that comment Matty
aim and apply a 9lbs trigger squeeze.....wait we're talking amateurs here. Your good Matty Majority of them is point with the pistol sideways and just jerked the triggers as many times as they can
Yeah sorry mate, I'm toning it down for civvies.
I meant..
The position and hold must be firm enough to support the weapon.
The weapon must be held upright and pointed naturally at the target without undue physical effort.
Sight alignment must be correct.
The shot must be released and followed through without any undue disturbance to the position.
And remember, dont snap that trigger!
Its not "good" making it dead easy to kill people though is it?
The fact is, 99 out of 100 of the shootings in the US would be avoided if people had a nights sleep on it first. The temper frays and people spray because they can, but its a fething tragedy really, over here they would just punch the fethers.. if people are carrying, then fethers get slotted when in the cold light of day, the shooter probably very much regrets their actions.
This is why we advocate....
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Sign me up for the shirt
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote: Jihadin wrote:Access to medical records (mental) portion. HIPA though blocks that.
What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle
I don't hunt but I own an assualt weapon. Am I wrong for owning an assualt weapon?
Why do you own an assault weapon then?
And Relapse, imo, drunk drivers should receive much greater punishments. If you kill someone while driving drunk you should never be allowed to drive again or purchas alcohol in addition to jail time. I would not have a problem with drunk drivers who cause fatalities being executed.
I see we are in agreement on this, but I need to ask a further question. Knowing as you do thegreater numbers of people killed from alcohol related causes, aside from drunk driving, to the number of people killed by guns, have you ever felt compelled to speak out against alcohol
to the degree you do against guns and if not, why?
I'm putting you in an unfair position as mouthpiece for others with your same beliefs because you can articulate your thoughts well and seem passionate on the subject. I'm not trying to pick on you or harass you, but I'm genuinely curious.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I don't speak out against either. I am just voicing my opinion in an largely irrelevant thread that will have a meaningless impact on American policy.
37231
Post by: d-usa
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:I don't speak out against either. I am just voicing my opinion in an largely irrelevant thread that will have a meaningless impact on American policy.
But you've spoken out against guns or at the very least advocated strict control along with bans of certain types of guns on this and several other threads.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Relapse wrote: Amaya wrote:I don't speak out against either. I am just voicing my opinion in an largely irrelevant thread that will have a meaningless impact on American policy.
But you've spoken out against guns or at the very least advocated strict control along with bans of certain types of guns on this and several other threads.
And if people made threads about drunk drivers I would advocate executing anyone who causes fatalities and having their personal assets paid in full to the family(s) of the victim(s).
91
Post by: Hordini
Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
Semiautomatic shotguns are reasonably popular around here for deer, and things like AR-15s make great varmint guns (things like groundhogs and coyotes, etc.). You could also use them for wild boar.
34168
Post by: Amaya
How many shells in the shotguns are you talking about? Is there any deer left to eat?
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:Relapse wrote: Amaya wrote:I don't speak out against either. I am just voicing my opinion in an largely irrelevant thread that will have a meaningless impact on American policy.
But you've spoken out against guns or at the very least advocated strict control along with bans of certain types of guns on this and several other threads.
And if people made threads about drunk drivers I would advocate executing anyone who causes fatalities and having their personal assets paid in full to the family(s) of the victim(s).
Thank you for that I was just curious about mind sets and you went a long way to explaining things for me.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!
You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.
Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.
121
Post by: Relapse
 mattyrm wrote: d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!
You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.
Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.
For sure on that. It would be prohibition all over again if the government tried to reign in gun ownership.
91
Post by: Hordini
Amaya wrote:How many shells in the shotguns are you talking about? Is there any deer left to eat?
In Ohio, you can't hunt deer with a rifle during the normal gun season unless it's a muzzle-loader, so most people who gun hunt use shotguns. The only other option is a handgun (5" minimum barrel, .357 and up), which isn't really that great. With a shotgun, your gun can't have more than three shells in it. If the magazine normally holds more than three, you have to have a plug in it that keeps you from loading more than three shells and the plug has to be one that you can only remove by disassembling the gun. You can carry more shells if you want, but only three can be in the gun. You also have to use slugs. So basically, we're talking three shots. It really shouldn't take more than one, but it's nice to have more than one in case you hit it with your first shot but it doesn't drop.
60105
Post by: Debbin
Ahtman wrote:Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.
Not true. There are several ways for murder to be legal. Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Shooting and killing an intruder in your home is legal. Shooting and killing someone that is attempting to commit grave bodily harm to yourself or others is legal. So not all murder is illegal.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Debbin wrote: Ahtman wrote:Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.
Not true. There are several ways for murder to be legal. Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Shooting and killing an intruder in your home is legal. Shooting and killing someone that is attempting to commit grave bodily harm to yourself or others is legal. So not all murder is illegal.
None of those things you mentioned are murder. They're all killing, but not murder. Justifiable homicide is not murder. Killing and murder are not always the same thing.
60105
Post by: Debbin
True, but they are added to list of gun related homicides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I meant to say gun related deaths.
91
Post by: Hordini
Debbin wrote:True, but they are added to list of gun related homicides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I meant to say gun related deaths.
That has nothing to do with what you just said. You said there are several ways for murder to be legal, but murder is never legal. That's what I was saying.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
mattyrm wrote: d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!
You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.
Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.
Well yes it would be near impossible to round up all the guns in the US, Not that I would ever say we should. But part of some gun control laws could be the banning the sale of certain types of bullets. clips wear out and will need to be replaced from time to time, and the clip size could be reduced to 10 clips or less.
With people needing to reload more often it gives the others time to get to cover, or get their own guns out. And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter. The arizona shooter who shot the congresswoman was stopped when he had to reload.
Then if you're caught using a illegal gun or bullets, we can triple the time you have to serve.
If both sides could sit down and have a rational conversation on the issue, But to just ignore the whole issue is just inviting more and more mass shootings. And bigger profit for gun dealers.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Please consider what murder actually means. Murder is the act of taking someone's life with malice aforethought. If someone is not phased by witnessing or hearing about this evil act then there is something wrong with them in the morality department.
Some people minds are made up regardless.
37231
Post by: d-usa
sirlynchmob wrote: mattyrm wrote: d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!
You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.
Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.
Well yes it would be near impossible to round up all the guns in the US, Not that I would ever say we should. But part of some gun control laws could be the banning the sale of certain types of bullets. clips wear out and will need to be replaced from time to time, and the clip size could be reduced to 10 clips or less.
With people needing to reload more often it gives the others time to get to cover, or get their own guns out. And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter. The arizona shooter who shot the congresswoman was stopped when he had to reload.
Then if you're caught using a illegal gun or bullets, we can triple the time you have to serve.
If both sides could sit down and have a rational conversation on the issue, But to just ignore the whole issue is just inviting more and more mass shootings. And bigger profit for gun dealers.
I think the performance of the NYPD cops make it pretty clear that it is not as easy as "2 shots and bad guy is dead".
But there are lots of areas for improvement if both sides could talk rationally. With this being an election year there will not even be any attempt to talk about it until 2013 I would think.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Hordini wrote: Amaya wrote:How many shells in the shotguns are you talking about? Is there any deer left to eat?
In Ohio, you can't hunt deer with a rifle during the normal gun season unless it's a muzzle-loader, so most people who gun hunt use shotguns. The only other option is a handgun (5" minimum barrel, .357 and up), which isn't really that great. With a shotgun, your gun can't have more than three shells in it. If the magazine normally holds more than three, you have to have a plug in it that keeps you from loading more than three shells and the plug has to be one that you can only remove by disassembling the gun. You can carry more shells if you want, but only three can be in the gun. You also have to use slugs. So basically, we're talking three shots. It really shouldn't take more than one, but it's nice to have more than one in case you hit it with your first shot but it doesn't drop.
But muzzleloaders are cool. Just hum the Last of the Mohicans theme to yourself, wear some 18th century settler garb, and go to town.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:
I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.
We used to have a great deal more in place to do that. The Boy Scouts used to do a lot of shooting, high schools had rifle teams, not just JROTC programs, the DoD ran a marksmanship program under the Defence budget instead of letting the NRA do it.
We've moved away from such things, for a number of reasons. I think that most pro-gun people would agree whole hearted; and even the anti crowd has to admit its the right thing to do.
15594
Post by: Albatross
d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...
I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I see a paintball game brewing between UK and US. I play if Matty play
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Albatross wrote:d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...
I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.
Just be polite enough to pause running at me while I reload after I miss with my first shot please.
15594
Post by: Albatross
d-usa wrote: Albatross wrote:d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...
I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.
Just be polite enough to pause running at me while I reload after I miss with my first shot please.
Pah! You tricked us with that last time! Well, not this time...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
No pausing when in bayonet range.
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.
Any law abiding citizen, regardless of education, social status, financial status or race, should be able to own a firearm, unless they've broken the law, therefore forfeiting their right. Should you need a background check to have freedom of religion and speech? Should you be investigated before you have the right to prevent unreasonable search and seizure?
Government/military clearance? Why the feth does that have anything to do with firearms. There are plenty of gakbags with Secret Clearances who know absolutely nothing about firearms besides what they learned in boot camp.
High School Diploma? Why, so we can feth them over more? Don't they have life hard enough as is, living as second class citizens?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Tomorow this is probaly going to go off the chain 
37231
Post by: d-usa
How many people die from chains each year? We need to find those statistics.
53251
Post by: xole
http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif
This is pretty much all I have to say on this at this point. It's a topic being argued by different people in different countries, when the same systems are not going to work for everyone.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
No, I don't. I also think that every gun in the country could become irradiated and turn to extremist Islam and half the country would still sleep with them under it's pillow. It's important to keep gun fanatics from voicing ludicrous or factually incorrect arguments without opposition, but I truly expect nothing of any anti gun efforts during my lifetime. This country isn't smart or moral enough to be able to handle something like that anymore. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...
I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.
I'll fight you with my car.
37231
Post by: d-usa
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?
The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".
No, I don't. I also think that every gun in the country could become irradiated and turn to extremist Islam and half the country would still sleep with them under it's pillow. It's important to keep gun fanatics from voicing ludicrous or factually incorrect arguments without opposition, but I truly expect nothing of any anti gun efforts during my lifetime. This country isn't smart or moral enough to be able to handle something like that anymore.
Well, I just don't think that weapons in the hands of criminals are going to be easy to get rid off. Even if we take all the steps to strike the 2nd, it would just not be realistic to think we could get rid of them. That is the reason why I am pro-gun ownership.
But we just have two firmly entrenched sides: the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. What we need is to have is more of a sensible responsible-gun-ownership lobby. But the pro-gun crowd that yells that any form of gun legislation is equal to taking a dumb on the constitution ticks me off just as much as the "we need to ban every gun" crowd. There are people on both sides that are willing to compromise and promote responsible and safer gun ownership, but they get drowned out by the extremists.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'll fight you with my car.
I've done that. Actually did it in a MATV. Drove right through the front door. My driver just grinned like a maniac when I told him to take out the front wall. Two captured insurgents.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.
But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!
33125
Post by: Seaward
I think we ought to just admit we're more tolerant of gun violence than our European counterparts. We don't necessarily like it more, but we accept it more. We have the revolution and the O.K. Corral and the roaring '20s in our cultural DNA.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.
But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!
Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?
221
Post by: Frazzled
This thread reminds me of the epic work: Murder by Death.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It was a good sequel, but it didn't have the same deep character development that Death by Murder had. I think the author just got lazy...
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
Well, you could make drinking alcohol illegal, stopping drunk driving. America tried that once though and nobody liked that.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They pry these ice cold beers from my hand when I'm dead. They have to pick the day though when I elect not to take my meds just to enjoy a beer. Of course there's been time I've drunk a beer while on meds and felt....ggggoooooooodddddddd
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.
But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!
Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?
Land mines are an armament. Bearing arms is pretty open ended and was written with field artillery in mind since it was written to provide for the right to form armed militias (and maintain their support and supply systems) capable of fighting state sponsored armed forces (or specifically insurrections). It wasn't written into the constitution so that you could have a fun day using your mac-10 or gun a robber down. The right to own a gun is a right with a purpose and was written during a time when the English had been attempting to disarm colonials. Narrowing the specificity of the second amendment to mean only the handguns that you want to own shows a disconnect between the actual second amendment and it's intentions and the modern American pro gun citizens belief that their right to own a gun is self evident by the guns "necessity". The entire debate is pretty debased, the second amendment means almost nothing in modern times and the current world in no way reflects what the original authors had written the second amendment for.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Mr Nobody wrote:Well, you could make drinking alcohol illegal, stopping drunk driving. America tried that once though and nobody liked that.
The Mob liked it.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
d-usa wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Captain Fantastic wrote:Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?
In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.
Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.
But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!
Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?
How is it any different? If simply wanting a gun is enough to make it a right, why can't I have my own battleship?
37231
Post by: d-usa
If you are not covered by the 2nd, then no gun for you!
34390
Post by: whembly
Jihadin wrote:I'll fight you with my car.
I've done that. Actually did it in a MATV. Drove right through the front door. My driver just grinned like a maniac when I told him to take out the front wall. Two captured insurgents.
That's awesome-sauce!
Ahem...
The amount of weapon cache that some folks are know are borderline... insane. Virtual bunkers of stuff.
I'm surprised that we don't see MORE gun related deaths with the sheer amount of weapons we have here.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
40024
Post by: SOFDC
And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.
A bit like saying "You shouldn't ever have to throw more than one punch in self defense, so throwing 3 is automatically assault." don't you think?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.
Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Jihadin wrote:And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.
Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.
And if you don't you hit 11 innocent people ala the recent new york shooting incident. Fire control is one of those weird things where you're damned if you do or don't.
121
Post by: Relapse
It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.
So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Relapse wrote:It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns. Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead. So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
 A man who can't see most of his detractors arguments (because he has them on ignore) is making blanket statements about what people in the thread have been saying (in a topic that probably should have been locked from the outset given the posters history). This is the point at which the ignore feature starts to fail conceptually.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
 SOFDC wrote: And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.
A bit like saying "You shouldn't ever have to throw more than one punch in self defense, so throwing 3 is automatically assault." don't you think?
No, because if I fire two shots at you, you'd be dead, or wishing you were.
rule 2, double tap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.
Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.
I was trained to double tap. I can do it quick enough out of reflex. Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote:It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.
So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
Its not that they care more, it's just that they care. We can address the issue and come up with sensible laws and solutions to avoid future mass shootings. We can address all the issues at the same time instead of focusing on one, and ignoring all the others.
37231
Post by: d-usa
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
And if you don't you hit 11 innocent people ala the recent new york shooting incident. Fire control is one of those weird things where you're damned if you do or don't.
You have to be totaly aware of it. Its one of those "things" where in the military you can be charged for it and it will stick. They say how actually close the police officers were to the shooter?
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.
I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners. 
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.
I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.
Yes. They offer them at gunshows. You can also buy the gun at them.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.
I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.
Well, I was just thinking that accidental gun injuries are one of the statictis used to push for more gun control laws. So it would be interesting to me to find out if there is a difference between injuries by legal owners vs. illegal gun owners. If the majority of gun injuries come from illegally owned guns then I wonder if making more laws are going to make any difference in stopping gun injuries caused by guns these people shouldn't have to begin with. Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:Relapse wrote: d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?
None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.
I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.
I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.
Yes. They offer them at gunshows. You can also buy the gun at them.
Watching the poor trigger control and gun handling by gang-bangers, it might be useful. If they would know how to shoot it might stop all the bystanders getting hit during drive-by shootings [/sarcasm]
121
Post by: Relapse
It would definitely be some interesting statistics, though, if a person found them as far as injuries for legal and illegal guns go.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Dusa.
I think if such a statistic existed you'd find legal firearms the majority culprit of accidents caused by firearms as a whole. Even if we enter the morass of what's legal where like the New York shooting with a "legal" gun that's illegal to posses in the city without a permit, would that be legal or illegal? In any even legal firearms outnumber illegal firearms no matter how you twist and turn to define which ones are illegal.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.
29110
Post by: AustonT
First you have to define an illegal gun, because for the most part the gun is legal. It's the owner or the owners location that makes it illegal.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 AustonT wrote:First you have to define an illegal gun, because for the most part the gun is legal. It's the owner or the owners location that makes it illegal.
I would probably just focus on "legally owned gun" vs. "illegally owned gun". I would avoid the whole "legally owned guns used in an illegal way" thing and focus the research on a question like this: "Does a gun that was obtained illegally or owned by a person that is not legally allowed to own a gun inside a home result in more accidental injuries than a gun that was obtained legally." So I wouldn't focus on guns or gun accidents that involve people carrying the guns outside the home.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.
Logic would dictate that the majority of accidental injury is done via legally owned firearms since they hugely outnumber illegally owned firearms (mostly due to hunting weapons). Logic also dictates that due to a lessened focus on safety and training illegal firearm holders would be more prone to accidents. Illegal firearm owners probably don't report accidental injury or death as often as legal owners which would heavily skew any statistic sourced from accident reports and criminal records.
37231
Post by: d-usa
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.
Logic would dictate that the majority of accidental injury is done via legally owned firearms since they hugely outnumber illegally owned firearms. Logic also dictates that due to a lessened focus on safety and training illegal firearm holders would be more prone to accidents. Illegal firearm owners probably don't report accidental injury or death as often as legal owners which would heavily skew any statistic sourced from accident reports and criminal records.
If you focus on pure numbers, then yes. More injuries will probably be from legally owned firearms because there are more legally owned firearms. But I would be interested in the difference in risks. Does a legally owned firearm have a 0.05% chance to result in an accidental injury while a illegally owned firearm has a 0.5% chance in accidental injury? Stuff like that.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Relapse wrote:It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.
So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
People don't (usually) drink themselves to death or kill people by driving drunk. You shoot someone on purpouse. Thus, there's not just the death of the victim, but the breach of the social contract as well (you don't go around killing people at a whim). Alcohol wasn't invented or intended to kill people, guns are.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Wait...driving drunk isn't a breach of social contract?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.
Yep.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.
Where do you live? Northern Somalia?
37231
Post by: d-usa
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.
Where do you live? Northern Somalia?
Greater North Texas
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.
Where do you live? Northern Somalia?
Greater North Texas
When did Texas institute Sharia Law?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I am sorry, I seemed to have absolutely no clue what the point is that you are trying to make.
Is it that having people be angry when some drunk idiot drives his car into somebody and kills them makes us an anarchist Muslim country?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Evidently anyone who voices a different opinion than Shuma is now evil. I like the direction this is going.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:I am sorry, I seemed to have absolutely no clue what the point is that you are trying to make.
Is it that having people be angry when some drunk idiot drives his car into somebody and kills them makes us an anarchist Muslim country?
Hey now, Sharia is a harsh and strictly upheld form of law based governance! Not anarchy.
And yeah, I was remarking on the idea of wanting to put someone down for a drunken mistake. Killing someone because you were driving drunk is awful, but there's no maliciousness or intent in it. It's an awful mistake. That's like wanting to execute people who aren't fastidious with putting up those peanut allergy warning signs when that results in someones death. There are plenty of ways people can accidentally kill eachother. Are there calls for death against the accused in hunting accidents? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Amaya wrote:Evidently anyone who voices a different opinion than Shuma is now evil. I like the direction this is going.
It has been the last few days. People have been voicing some pretty evil (or just ridiculous and unworkable) opinions.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Why are you excusing drunken mistakes? It is common sense that you should not drink and drive. Becoming drunk and losing your inhibitions does not excuse that. You chose to put yourself in that scenario.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Shuma, tell me if you think the two situations are the same:
A drunk guy decides to play with a gun in his house, he is to drunk to realize it is loaded and has a negligent discharge. The bullet does out his window and hits a 9 year old in the head, the kid dies.
A drunk guy decides to drive his car. He runs over a 9 year old and kills him.
Is one situation worse than the other?
33125
Post by: Seaward
ShumaGorath wrote:And yeah, I was remarking on the idea of wanting to put someone down for a drunken mistake. Killing someone because you were driving drunk is awful, but there's no maliciousness or intent in it. It's an awful mistake. That's like wanting to execute people who aren't fastidious with putting up those peanut allergy warning signs when that results in someones death. There are plenty of ways people can accidentally kill eachother. Are there calls for death against the accused in hunting accidents?
You're missing a key point.
Accidentally hitting someone with your car while drunk isn't the same as accidentally hitting them with your car while not drunk. Accidentally shooting someone you think is a deer while drunk isn't the same as...you get the idea.
Unintentionally killed someone while driving under the influence? You made a choice to get loaded. You made a choice to drive. You could have avoided breaking the law and spared a life, but you didn't. That's why it should be - and is - punished far more harshly than pure accident. It's not a pure accident.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:Shuma, tell me if you think the two situations are the same: A drunk guy decides to play with a gun in his house, he is to drunk to realize it is loaded and has a negligent discharge. The bullet does out his window and hits a 9 year old in the head, the kid dies. A drunk guy decides to drive his car. He runs over a 9 year old and kills him. Is one situation worse than the other?
Not really. I'd say that the car scenario could be construed as being more negligent and reckless as it involves more steps and requires that the person leave their home, but there are plenty of decisions with a sensible logical flow that could lead to that ("Whelp, time to leave this party, I'm not that drunk."). I don't think either is evil or worse than one another. When you're driving drunk and kill someone you're not really any different than someone who drove drunk and didn't. What you are is less lucky. Same with the guy that accidentally shot the one spot out his window that would result in someones death. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Seaward wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:And yeah, I was remarking on the idea of wanting to put someone down for a drunken mistake. Killing someone because you were driving drunk is awful, but there's no maliciousness or intent in it. It's an awful mistake. That's like wanting to execute people who aren't fastidious with putting up those peanut allergy warning signs when that results in someones death. There are plenty of ways people can accidentally kill eachother. Are there calls for death against the accused in hunting accidents?
You're missing a key point. Accidentally hitting someone with your car while drunk isn't the same as accidentally hitting them with your car while not drunk. Accidentally shooting someone you think is a deer while drunk isn't the same as...you get the idea. Unintentionally killed someone while driving under the influence? You made a choice to get loaded. You made a choice to drive. You could have avoided breaking the law and spared a life, but you didn't. That's why it should be - and is - punished far more harshly than pure accident. It's not a pure accident.
It's punished much more harshly because of cultural tendencies to treat people who are drunk or under another form of drug influence harshly dating back hundreds of years. I don't see people who decided to talk on the phone or eat a five dollar foot long while driving treated dramatically differently. The "choices" are only immoral or reckless when we don't like them. People hate drunk drivers because they're taught to do so from a young age. Drunk driving itself isn't a difficult act to perpetrate though, and it can happen to otherwise nice and careful people. The difference in punishment between drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter due to drunk driving are dramatically different despite one just being the logical result of the other given uncontrollable exterior events (such as someone else being on the road at the wrong time). There is a differentiation between the two because we feel justified in punishing the accident more than we do the crime. It's a gotchya.
33125
Post by: Seaward
ShumaGorath wrote:It's punished much more harshly because of cultural tendencies to treat people who are drunk or under another form of drug influence harshly dating back hundreds of years. I don't see people who decided to talk on the phone or eat a five dollar foot long while driving treated dramatically differently. The "choices" are only immoral or reckless when we don't like them. People hate drunk drivers because they're taught to do so from a young age. Drunk driving itself isn't a difficult act to perpetrate though, and it can happen to otherwise nice and careful people.
Then you're not paying attention, because penalties for provable impairment of any sort - doing your nails, texting, teaching your dog Chinese, whatever - are in fact higher.
121
Post by: Relapse
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.
So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
People don't (usually) drink themselves to death or kill people by driving drunk. You shoot someone on purpouse. Thus, there's not just the death of the victim, but the breach of the social contract as well (you don't go around killing people at a whim). Alcohol wasn't invented or intended to kill people, guns are.
The fact of the matter is that more than twice as many people die from alcohol related causes than guns, yet I have yet to see a thread against alcohol. I do see threads that pop up asking people what they are drinking, though.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Seaward wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:It's punished much more harshly because of cultural tendencies to treat people who are drunk or under another form of drug influence harshly dating back hundreds of years. I don't see people who decided to talk on the phone or eat a five dollar foot long while driving treated dramatically differently. The "choices" are only immoral or reckless when we don't like them. People hate drunk drivers because they're taught to do so from a young age. Drunk driving itself isn't a difficult act to perpetrate though, and it can happen to otherwise nice and careful people.
Then you're not paying attention, because penalties for provable impairment of any sort - doing your nails, texting, teaching your dog Chinese, whatever - are in fact higher.
And are a joke next to the same penalties for drunk driving. Please pay attention to what you post. The crux of your argument was comparing drunk driving to non drunk driving. Not "any form of distraction" to "no distraction". Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.
So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?
People don't (usually) drink themselves to death or kill people by driving drunk. You shoot someone on purpouse. Thus, there's not just the death of the victim, but the breach of the social contract as well (you don't go around killing people at a whim). Alcohol wasn't invented or intended to kill people, guns are.
The fact of the matter is that more than twice as many people die from alcohol related causes than guns, yet I have yet to see a thread against alcohol. I do see threads that pop up asking people what they are drinking, though.
37231
Post by: d-usa
So to bring this thread full circle:
The OP thinks people are more upset at people getting killed by guns than people getting killed by drunk drivers.
I said that around here people are much more upset at people dying from drunk driving than guns.
Shuma seems to think we hate drunk drivers for irrational reasons.
That cover it?
33125
Post by: Seaward
ShumaGorath wrote:And are a joke next to the same penalties for drunk driving. Please pay attention to what you post. The crux of your argument was comparing drunk driving to non drunk driving. Not "any form of distraction" to "no distraction".
And the crux of your argument seems to be that drunk driving isn't a particularly big deal, that it's easy to accidentally allow to happen, and there's no reason it should be punished any differently from a purely accidental death.
If you're trying to say that penalties for killing someone due to driving while texting should be higher, I'm fine with that. And they're ramping up as more and more incidents occur. Beyond that, I honestly have no idea what point you're struggling to make, aside from the possibility that you're pro-intoxicated driving?
18698
Post by: kronk
I think drunk drivers should be shot by people with hand guns.
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
I would be amazed if theres not many American members here that haven't driven when they shouldn't have. Seriously think about it. Has there NEVER been a point when you were on something, legal or otherwise, and drove? Or got int the car with someone? Never had "just a few" and drove? Im sure a lot of people will vehemently deny it, but the stats say otherwise:
http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/12/more-than-30-million-americans-have-driven-while-drunk-survey-finds/
I honestly think our drunk driving penalties are laughable in some states, but with most Americans having zero access to public transportation and intoxication a national pastime, these things are gonna happen. Horrible mistake it may be to drink to much or take too many prescription pills and then drive and kill someone, but do you really think executing them is fair punishment? Havent we progressed past eye for an eye justice? Which is what I think Shuma was alluding too, just not very well.
34168
Post by: Amaya
It depends on how much you can handle. I can drink a six pack and hardly feel anything. Once I get up to 12 it's probably a bad idea to drive. Eighteen to 24 and I'm probably completely non functioning. Some people get drunk off 3 beers. /shrug
You know your limits, don't surpass them.
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
Amaya wrote:It depends on how much you can handle. I can drink a six pack and hardly feel anything. Once I get up to 12 it's probably a bad idea to drive. Eighteen to 24 and I'm probably completely non functioning. Some people get drunk off 3 beers. /shrug
You know your limits, don't surpass them.
And your HORRIBLY mistaken if you think you can handle a 6 pack and drive. Im sure you've done it. And Im sure that would land you DUI in most states. Tolerance and being impaired are quite different. Point being you just really cant compare gun crime to impaired driving. And people calling for the execution of impaired drivers are just talking gak.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths.
And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
d-usa wrote:The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths. And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
It's not that bad because it's a mistake. Without intent or malice it's just a sad event. It's something everyone grows up knowing about and being aware of. Accidents happen, the effort to lesson their incidence is an important one but demonizing people isn't really helpful or rational. If you someone can't handle things like this in a rational fashion it sincerely calls into question the value of your opinions concerning laws handling such events.
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:It depends on how much you can handle. I can drink a six pack and hardly feel anything. Once I get up to 12 it's probably a bad idea to drive. Eighteen to 24 and I'm probably completely non functioning. Some people get drunk off 3 beers. /shrug
You know your limits, don't surpass them.
So said many a person just before they got into a wreck.
37231
Post by: d-usa
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths.
And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
It's not that bad because it's a mistake. Without intent or malice it's just a sad event. It's something everyone grows up knowing about and being aware of. Accidents happen, the effort to lesson their incidence is an important one but demonizing people isn't really helpful or rational. If you someone can't handle things like this in a rational fashion it sincerely calls into question the value of your opinions concerning laws handling such events.
I'm not the one calling for public executions, just reported that people are up in arms about it.
But minimizing the decision to actively impair yourself and then making the decision to put yourself inside a deadly metal box and drive it down the street calls into question your opinion as well.
And then there are excuses such as "we have poor public transportation". People know that they will have to drive before they start drinking, it's an active decision. Nobody "accidentally" drives while impaired.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Maybe if they're being fething stupid.
33125
Post by: Seaward
ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths.
And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
It's not that bad because it's a mistake. Without intent or malice it's just a sad event. It's something everyone grows up knowing about and being aware of. Accidents happen, the effort to lesson their incidence is an important one but demonizing people isn't really helpful or rational. If you someone can't handle things like this in a rational fashion it sincerely calls into question the value of your opinions concerning laws handling such events.
You're aware that laws against proscribed behavior are generally designed to be deterrents, right?
What would penalties for killing someone while driving drunk look like in a ShumaGorath-run world?
121
Post by: Relapse
How many people have you met that are drunk that didn't realize how far gone they are?
I'd venture a bet that just about every poster here has.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Relapse wrote:How many people have you met that are drunk that didn't realize how far gone they are?
I'd venture a bet that just about every poster here has.
I'm not sure what your point is.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Seaward wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths. And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
It's not that bad because it's a mistake. Without intent or malice it's just a sad event. It's something everyone grows up knowing about and being aware of. Accidents happen, the effort to lesson their incidence is an important one but demonizing people isn't really helpful or rational. If you someone can't handle things like this in a rational fashion it sincerely calls into question the value of your opinions concerning laws handling such events.
You're aware that laws against proscribed behavior are generally designed to be deterrents, right? What would penalties for killing someone while driving drunk look like in a ShumaGorath-run world?
About the same though without the manufactured moral outrage. In a ShumaGorath world alcohol would probably be illegal, but then again a Shumagorath world would be a very different one. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: ShumaGorath wrote: d-usa wrote:The point is that despite the OPs feelings to the contrary, people get just as worked up or even more so over drunk driving that gun deaths.
And I get a big "it's not really that bad because a lot of people are doing it" vibe from Shuma.
It's not that bad because it's a mistake. Without intent or malice it's just a sad event. It's something everyone grows up knowing about and being aware of. Accidents happen, the effort to lesson their incidence is an important one but demonizing people isn't really helpful or rational. If you someone can't handle things like this in a rational fashion it sincerely calls into question the value of your opinions concerning laws handling such events.
I'm not the one calling for public executions, just reported that people are up in arms about it.
But minimizing the decision to actively impair yourself and then making the decision to put yourself inside a deadly metal box and drive it down the street calls into question your opinion as well.
And then there are excuses such as "we have poor public transportation". People know that they will have to drive before they start drinking, it's an active decision. Nobody "accidentally" drives while impaired.
I come from a state with virtually no public transportation at all. As for "minimizing the decision" I wasn't doing that. I was simply stating that the moralistic framework this thread seems to require to actually think through these issues is unhelpful at best. If you can't distance yourself from the subject at hand and think about it critically you can't be helpful.
121
Post by: Relapse
Seaward wrote:Relapse wrote:How many people have you met that are drunk that didn't realize how far gone they are?
I'd venture a bet that just about every poster here has.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Amaya is saying that it takes at least 2 six packs before he shouldn't consider driving. I disagreed, because I don't think it would take that much beer to mess up his driving.
The hospitals and morgues have enough people put in them because someone overestimated their driving skills after drinking more than a couple beers.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I have a pretty simple personal rule for drinking:
I might have one drink with a meal, a beer or a wine that complements it. That is my personal limit.
If I am drinking for the sake of drinking or "having a good time" it is always in a situation where I am either at my final location (Adepticon party, house, at the lake with my tent) or have access to a designated driver.
34168
Post by: Amaya
If I drink 6 beers over 2 hours I can still legally drive. I checked the chart.
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:If I drink 6 beers over 2 hours I can still legally drive. I checked the chart.
You're talking more than 6 beers. You're saying it takes at least two six packs to keep you from driving.
34168
Post by: Amaya
7 is more than 6. In all honesty by 9 I shouldn't be driving.
I don't think I've ever driven after drinking more than 4 over a 90 minute or so span though. I usually wait 2 hours after drinking before doing any driving and I haven't drunk more than a 12 pack over 4 hours or so and driven.
I've seen people get into and out of cars stumbling. I've never been so drunk that my motor skills were that impaired.
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
Amaya wrote:If I drink 6 beers over 2 hours I can still legally drive. I checked the chart.
Your still deluding yourself if you think its not affecting your driving though. And that will depend on what state your in. In NY your DUI anything over .04, with each drink being on average .02.
And Im not trying to be harsh on you I actually appreciate you were willing to stand up and say that yeah you've drank something and drive. Definitely not like I havent. Just some people are so quick to judge without even remembering our own actions.
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:7 is more than 6. In all honesty by 9 I shouldn't be driving.
I don't think I've ever driven after drinking more than 4 over a 90 minute or so span though. I usually wait 2 hours after drinking before doing any driving and I haven't drunk more than a 12 pack over 4 hours or so and driven.
I've seen people get into and out of cars stumbling. I've never been so drunk that my motor skills were that impaired.
Were those people passengers or drivers? I used to work at a hotel in New Orleans and the intoxication level of quite a few of the people I saw driving up were enough to make me consider staying as far from the roads as I could.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
121
Post by: Relapse
Amaya wrote:I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
Damn, that is scary. He could have run over someone and not even known it
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
Amaya wrote:I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
And Ive seen things like this all the time too. Your point being? If somebody is doing it worse its ok to do it at a lesser amount? Honestly confused.
121
Post by: Relapse
I had a friend in high school that got gak faced and tried driving home from a bar.
He got cut in half when his car hit a cement bridge rail.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Relapse wrote: Amaya wrote:I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
Damn, that is scary. He could have run over someone and not even known it
Yep. He got a visit from the police.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Amaya wrote:I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
And Ive seen things like this all the time too. Your point being? If somebody is doing it worse its ok to do it at a lesser amount? Honestly confused.
How did I even imply that?
121
Post by: Relapse
 DutchKillsRambo wrote: Amaya wrote:I saw a driver pass out in his lawn down the street last week. Got out of the van stumbling, pissed all around, stumbled to the lawn, fell the feth out.
And Ive seen things like this all the time too. Your point being? If somebody is doing it worse its ok to do it at a lesser amount? Honestly confused.
The point is there are more than a few people out there driving who are impaired drivers and don't even know it, whether they're falling down drunk or seemingly able to carry on a conversation and act normal.
Their reaction times are slowed and they don't pay the attention they should to driving. As a result, people get hurt by them.
@Amaya,
Good to see he got busted.
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
Because you told a story about how you saw someone who was wasted and driving with no other commentary.
Right after you posted that you're willing to drive impaired (in some states mind)
34168
Post by: Amaya
You're right even though what I did was technically legal it was still somewhat of a danger.
29123
Post by: DutchKillsRambo
All good man when it comes to this topic I am in no way in a position to be preachy if Im coming off that way. If you ask either Grundz or Johhnyboy on this site they'll attest that I used to be a pretty big alcoholic at times with all that entails. But I did finally see how messed up things can get when you drink and drive. Luckily before I ever hurt anyone or had any lasting repercussions. I just remember how easy it is to think your fine when your not. Its crazy really.
7926
Post by: youbedead
AZ has some the stupidest fething DUI laws, we have no minimum BAC instead the language reads 'impaired to the slightest degree'. You don't have to be driving, if you are in possession of your keys while intoxicated you can be arrested for DUI, hell if you decide to be responsible and sleep it off in your car rather then drive drunk then you will be arrested for DUI.
|
|
