Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

Guns aren't scary at all.

Cars are easier to avoid, seeing as I usually hear them coming, allowing me to jump off the walkway into a yard or whatever.

Guns less so. :|

They are just so unpredictable. A guy can take a gun out of his pocket completely surprisingly, but I usually do not see people take cars out of their pockets.

According to the Center for Disease Control(a U.S. government agency), in the U.S., almost 8 times as many people die from alcohol related causes as guns homicide. 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases involve alcohol in some capacity, etc.

If you just go by drunk driving deaths, they equal gun homicides.

Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Relapse wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

Guns aren't scary at all.

Cars are easier to avoid, seeing as I usually hear them coming, allowing me to jump off the walkway into a yard or whatever.

Guns less so. :|

They are just so unpredictable. A guy can take a gun out of his pocket completely surprisingly, but I usually do not see people take cars out of their pockets.

According to the Center for Disease Control(a U.S. government agency), in the U.S., almost 8 times as many people die from alcohol related causes as guns homicide. 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases involve alcohol in some capacity, etc.

Don't get me wrong. My disapproval of alcohol is very strong as well. I am firmly of the belief that the risks outweigh any gains.

Well theres plenty of people getting killed by violent intentional means that do not involve guns. Look at all the countries with higher murder rates than US, albiet most of them are the middle east / africa / south america / central america/ non china/japan asia. Most of these counrties the general population doesnt have a lot of guns, so these murders are done mostly by non gun means, knifes, their bare hands, clubs, rocks. etc. A guy could take a knife out of his pocket and get all jonny slasher if they are drunk pretty easy.

I think the angry person on the otherside of the weapon is scary, of course them having a gun is scarier.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Do with guns as you do with cars I say, add a little device to it that you must breathe into and checks your alcohol percentage, only allowing use of the car/gun if your levels are low! Whatever those devices are called.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

You're right, it is an interesting comparison. Everyone knows that drunk driving is a problem, and you know what? We try to fix that problem. If you get caught driving drunk you're going to jail and could lose your license, even if you didn't hurt anyone. But the pro-gun side would act like it's the end of the world if we tried to have similar laws for guns, and make it a crime to possess a gun while drunk. FFS, we even have angry debates over whether it should be legal to have a gun at a bar!

You know that it already is illegal to carry a gun while drunk, right?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Really? Is this a law that is actually enforced like drunk driving laws, or is it just something else to add to the charges if you commit a crime with your gun?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Really? Is this a law that is actually enforced like drunk driving laws, or is it just something else to add to the charges if you commit a crime with your gun?

Indeed, and how on earth would you enforce that anyway?

'Yeah sorry, if you want to buy some beer we gotta check you for guns first!'

'If you want to buy this gun, you are now forbidden from drinking alcohol!'

Imagine the outrage.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Really? Is this a law that is actually enforced like drunk driving laws, or is it just something else to add to the charges if you commit a crime with your gun?

I don't know why it wouldn't be enforced if you're caught.

More people die from medical errors than alcohol, which explains why Relapse is always fighting against ObamaCare.

And actually, the number if deaths from Alcohol is lower than from guns. Which I addressed in the other thread, but I guess it's just another one of those inconvenient truths people ignore and then they just repeat the same nonsense the next time.

The only way you get a higher number is by including any illness that could possibly somehow be linked to somebody drinking one drink of alcohol sometime. And if we want to okay that game then any cancer death by anyone that has ever fired a gun should be included under "deaths caused by guns".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated as a crime everywhere I can think of, just while driving a car while intoxicated is a crime everywhere I can think of.

Really? Is this a law that is actually enforced like drunk driving laws, or is it just something else to add to the charges if you commit a crime with your gun?

Actually it gets enforced. If you are stopped for being intoxicated and you have your weapon then you get the extra charge on top of the drunk driving/public intox charge.

Ashiraya wrote:

Do with guns as you do with cars I say, add a little device to it that you must breathe into and checks your alcohol percentage, only allowing use of the car/gun if your levels are low! Whatever those devices are called.

That would be rather impractical given the operating principles of most firearms. A car has an electrical ignition that's relatively easy to hook a gizmo like that up to in order to prevent the electrical starter from operating. What on earth are you going to do to a mechanical device like a firearm?

This is to say nothing of the fact that cars are not, by default, automatically packaged with such devices.

Peregrine wrote:

Really? Is this a law that is actually enforced like drunk driving laws, or is it just something else to add to the charges if you commit a crime with your gun?

I'm not sure how you mean. I'd hazard this typically the latter just by the nature of the different things we're talking about. Cops can't exactly show up at a private shooting range and start breathalyzing people the way they can drivers on public streets, and if you're carrying concealed they're probably not going to know you're carrying unless you're being taken in for something else. If the cops find a firearm on someone they think is intoxicated, they're getting arrested, but I don't think it's something they go out of their way to find the way they do with drunk driving checkpoints.

 Ashiraya wrote:
They are just so unpredictable. A guy can take a gun out of his pocket completely surprisingly, but I usually do not see people take cars out of their pockets.

Guns are very predictable. What you are objecting to is human behaviour. That is not governed by a firearm. A gun does not have the power of Sauron's Rings.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're right, it is an interesting comparison. Everyone knows that drunk driving is a problem, and you know what? We try to fix that problem. If you get caught driving drunk you're going to jail and could lose your license, even if you didn't hurt anyone. But the pro-gun side would act like it's the end of the world if we tried to have similar laws for guns, and make it a crime to possess a gun while drunk. FFS, we even have angry debates over whether it should be legal to have a gun at a bar!

It's already a crime.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That would be rather impractical given the operating principles of most firearms. A car has an electrical ignition that's relatively easy to hook a gizmo like that up to in order to prevent the electrical starter from operating. What on earth are you going to do to a mechanical device like a firearm?

This is to say nothing of the fact that cars are not, by default, automatically packaged with such devices.

For the latter, I meant do with guns as you should do with cars*.

For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Guns are very predictable. What you are objecting to is human behaviour. That is not governed by a firearm. A gun does not have the power of Sauron's Rings.

But access to guns amplifies the risks of human behaviour.

 Ashiraya wrote:
For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?

No.

No one should have to give up their rights because someone else has an insecurity, or it is "a lot of hassle". You may not ever want to hold a firearm, much less own one. That is your right. That does not give you agency to remove the rights from others who are not fearful of an inanimate object.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That would be rather impractical given the operating principles of most firearms. A car has an electrical ignition that's relatively easy to hook a gizmo like that up to in order to prevent the electrical starter from operating. What on earth are you going to do to a mechanical device like a firearm?

This is to say nothing of the fact that cars are not, by default, automatically packaged with such devices.

For the latter, I meant do with guns as you should do with cars*.

For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Guns are very predictable. What you are objecting to is human behaviour. That is not governed by a firearm. A gun does not have the power of Sauron's Rings.

But access to guns amplifies the risks of human behaviour.

As does access to alcohol.

 Ashiraya wrote:
This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?

That's a ridiculously horrible idea.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But access to guns amplifies the risks of human behaviour.

Yet as gun ownership has gone up gun crime has gone down. As gun rights have been expanded the mythical blood-running-in-the-streets the gun control advocates predict has never taken place.

You are statistically safer being around a gun owner than a police officer.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?

No.

No one should have to give up their rights because someone else has an insecurity, or it is "a lot of hassle". You may not ever want to hold a firearm, much less own one. That is your right. That does not give you agency to remove the rights from others who are not fearful of an inanimate object.

I never understood the reasons for civilians to walk around with weapons anyway. I mean, what do you expect to happen? They are designed to kill.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?

No.

No one should have to give up their rights because someone else has an insecurity, or it is "a lot of hassle". You may not ever want to hold a firearm, much less own one. That is your right. That does not give you agency to remove the rights from others who are not fearful of an inanimate object.

I never understood the reasons for civilians to walk around with weapons anyway. I mean, what do you expect to happen? They are designed to kill.

This road is not one you want to take; I'd advise turning around.

Okay, keep hugging your guns then. :| I will keep really far away while you continue to praise the public availability of killing machines.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I never understood the reasons for civilians to walk around with weapons anyway. I mean, what do you expect to happen? They are designed to kill.

Self-defense


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Okay, keep hugging your guns then. :| I will keep really far away while you continue to praise the public availability of killing machines.

It's comments like this that make any sort of constructive discussion difficult.

Don't engage Ashiraya at this point, those posts are simply designed to get a rise out of people, this is the same poster that made a thread on "proper passive-aggressive posting", just leave it be.

Vaktathi wrote:Don't engage Ashiraya at this point, those posts are simply designed to get a rise out of people, this is the same poster that made a thread on "proper passive-aggressive posting", just leave it be.

It was a joke thread. It was a thread that would work on my realm forum. Yes, it did not work on Dakka and I recognise that, but it was not designed with malicious intent, and it is unrelated to my posts on this topic.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I never understood the reasons for civilians to walk around with weapons anyway. I mean, what do you expect to happen? They are designed to kill.

Self-defense


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Okay, keep hugging your guns then. :| I will keep really far away while you continue to praise the public availability of killing machines.

It's comments like this that make any sort of constructive discussion difficult.

I am aware, but I still find the idea that making items specifically designed to kill available to anyone and everyone is absurd. Yes, you use it for self-defense. Against what? People with guns, for example.
The knowledge that everyone you see is walking around with a killing machine and is ready to use it does not seem like the makings of a secure society.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Don't engage Ashiraya at this point, those posts are simply designed to get a rise out of people, this is the same poster that made a thread on "proper passive-aggressive posting", just leave it be.

Oh, like this post wasn't made to bait a response from her?

Take stuff like this to PMs if you're truly interested in leaving it be.

ATXMILEY wrote:
I noticed in America, a politician can have great policies on various issues, but is a tad bit more strict on gun rights, he/she is suddenly considered an anti christ Socialist Nazi. It doesn't matter that they believe in equal rights for people of all races and genders and that they believe in the freedom of religion and to improve the public school system, if he or she has a slightly more strict stance on guns, they automatically lose the vote.

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

Why is that? Why is it that guns are the only thing that matter? I hear from people saying that they need guns to keep the government in check; okay but do you really think you can win against the US government? If the government REALLY wanted do, they could just take over everything as they do have access to every device connected to the internet not to mention the fact that they have the biggest most funded military in the world.

You're right, the government could easily take whatever they want. But the basis for the constitution is that the government in the USA is not supposed to be that powerful over the people. The constitution was purposely written in a way by the founding fathers to give the people power over the government.

The problem in America is that both sides have extremists. The left believes the government is the answer to all our problems. Government exists to help the poor. The right believes government should be limited in power. The people have liberty and freedoms.

Our founding fathers believed we had a natural god given right to protect ourselves. You can't depend on government to provide that protection. Also in the even that government decides to get tyrannical, the people have the means to defend themselves and take the country back. I'm in the US military. I would say, 80% of us would not obey an order to commit a coup. A lot of us are staunch supporters of the constitution. We swear an oath to protect the people, the country and the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. If the president orders us to war against our people, then the president is the domestic enemy.

Don't forget that the media sensationalized everything here as well, on average there are 30k gun related deaths annually in the US. What the media doesn't report, is the astronomical amount of vehicular deaths, recently we had 46k deaths attributed to driving under the influence. More people die of the flu, 100k a year. A good portion of the gun related deaths are self defense which the media never reports on. God forbid you make a criminal look like a criminal.

Gun crimes are the only crime where the gun in blamed, not the individual.

Take this statistic for example. The year sandy hook happened, more people were murdered using hammers and baseball bats than assault rifles.

You actually have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being killed in a mass shooting.

There's an estimated 150 million legal gun owners in America. With over 320 million legal guns. With that many legal guns in circulation, shouldn't there be more than .009% chance of getting killed with one?

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am aware, but I still find the idea that making items specifically designed to kill available to anyone and everyone is absurd. Yes, you use it for self-defense. Against what? People with guns, for example.

Your "anyone and everyone" comment is more distracting hyperbole - you are projecting human behaviour on an inanimate object.

Against people with guns is a possibility. The vast majority of lawful gun owners are responsible members of society and do not use their firearm as a way of settling disputes (again, you are statistically safer with a private citizen with a firearm than a police officer). The biggest risk is from those possessing guns unlawfully - criminals. In which case leveling the playing field and not being at a disadvantage is prudent (America has significant issues with drug and gang violence that your country may not experience to the same degree)

 Ashiraya wrote:
The knowledge that everyone you see is walking around with a killing machine and is ready to use it does not seem like the makings of a secure society.

Again, comments like this make any conversation difficult because you are coming to the discussion with almost insurmountable preconceived notions because of an irrational fear of an inanimate object

 insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

A lawless government is always a threat to freedom and liberty.

I believe here in america, we're close to losing some of our liberties and freedom.

We have a lawless president, most radical one we've ever had. Fortunately. His military won't take that action.

But it makes you wonder, why high level officers in the military were given litmus tests, asking whether they would be ok ordering their men to kill citizens

Johnnytorrance wrote:
What the media doesn't report, is the astronomical amount of vehicular deaths, recently we had 46k deaths attributed to driving under the influence.

I'm confused... Should the fact that more effort isn't put into reducing drink driving make those thirty thousand people (or the other 70000 or so who were injured but not killed by firearms) feel better about the situation?

The fact that other things also result in an appalling death rate doesn't change an appalling death rate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
We have a lawless president, most radical one we've ever had.

Indeed. I've heard that he's even been trying to give everyone access to affordable health care. The bastard.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
A lawless government is always a threat to freedom and liberty.

Did you miss the part about "democratically elected" in that question? The fact that the government is doing things that you disagree with doesn't mean that it's lawless.

I believe here in america, we're close to losing some of our liberties and freedom.

Close to? Are you aware that this is an ongoing trend that has existed for decades?

We have a lawless president, most radical one we've ever had. Fortunately. His military won't take that action.

Lol. Lawless and "most radical" by what standards? By any reasonable standards Obama is a center-left president with a love of "bipartisanship" and the same expansion of executive power that his predecessors had. So far he has yet to do anything that even comes remotely close to "radical".

But it makes you wonder, why high level officers in the military were given litmus tests, asking whether they would be ok ordering their men to kill citizens

Probably because dealing with a hypothetical armed rebellion (you know, the kind certain gun owners love to talk about) is part of their job? Also, if you're going to use this as an excuse for why you need to own a gun then you're not living in the same world as the rest of us. If the military decides it's time to kill you then you're going to die. Your toys aren't going to do anything to stop a drone or tank from killing you.