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.

Oh so now it's not just drivers killing people, it's drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is already illegal. There's no such law about "drunk firearm ownership". But I'm sure if you look into it, you'll find a large amount of firearm accidents involve alcohol.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh so now it's not just drivers killing people, it's drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is already illegal. There's no such law about "drunk firearm ownership". But I'm sure if you look into it, you'll find a large amount of firearm accidents involve alcohol.

Just answer the question.

I don't drive after consuming alcohol, if that's what you're asking.

But as I said in the "context matters" bit earlier--I don't drive period.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't drive after consuming alcohol, if that's what you're asking.

But as I said in the "context matters" bit earlier--I don't drive period.

True, context does matter. I have found through experience that people who crow the loudest about the dangers of guns don't think twice about driving while they are impaired.

Then they're hypocrites.

I like guns. I like firing them.

What I don't like is the ease with which guns can be obtained by a great many people who have no business with anything more dangerous than safety scissors.

The same thing can easily be said for a number of potentialy hazardous things, cars being top of the list.

The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

I'm just going to say this because I like to say it every time gun control comes up as a topic: guns don't kill people, bullets flying really fast kill people

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

Instead, you have cars going through fences and houses killing or injuring people because someone was drunk or stoned at the wheel.

Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


the only thing Driver's Ed does, theoretically, is lower the initial insurance payments for a new driver. I know I never took any DE classes, still got a license, and aside from a couple speeding tickets, never had any problems with driving.

Must be state by state, where I'm at it's required by law, at it can be fairly difficult to pass the test, most people I know have had to take driver's ed 2 or 3 times

Awesome, I got told off for using caps, cool.

Yes, its absolutely unnecessary, and learn to take a joke

First off, you don't need insurance. You can still buy, operate, and crash a car without insurance.

Actually in quite a few places you cannot buy a motor vehicle without proof of insurance, and you can be arrested/fined heavily for not having insurance

Second, drivers ed is a class designed to show you how to drive or 'use' a car. Any responsible gun owner will do the same with their firearm, so I don't get your point.

The point is there are many irresponsible gun owners/stupid people who own guns. It would seem reasonable to require gun safety, it would provide deterrent to people who don't want to take the class and it would better educate people who want to own guns

I asked questions as to why the law-abiding and responsible gun owners need to be lumped in with the, significantly less, group of idiots that own guns

Because they in part represent you, that small group creates a bad outlook on your whole group. Similar to how crazies on the Dem/Rep Parties make the whole party look bad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It’s true that roughly triple the number of people are killed on the roads than with guns.

If you want to make a useful comparison, though, you would want to look at the following factors.

The amount of use.
Per head of population.
The same statistics from other countries.

This would enable you to see if the US are particularly good shots, or bad drivers, etc.

For example, according to Wikipedia based on WHO data, the road death rate per 1 billion vehicle-km is 5.7 in the UK and 8.5 in the USA, showing that the US are fairly bad drivers in comparison, but better than Spanish where it is 11.7.

Of course it is rather difficult to measure gun use "miles" but perhaps a study could be done based on amount of time using.

I think we all know that all of this is pointless, though. Americans want guns and are not deterred because of accidents and murders.

Well we can't get time used easily BUT we do have statistics on ammunition purchased. Per BATFE over twelve billion rounds of ammunition were purchased between Nov 2008 and Nov 2009. I suspect that number has only gone up, as American gun ownership has been increasingly steadily these last few years. The 12 Billion number doesn't including ammunition reloaded at home by individuals (because how can you get numbers on that?) and possible might not include imported military surplus ammunition. Depends on what exactly the BATFE's counting. One of my instructors mentioned a similar number (12 billion rounds) as "new production" ammunition. I think that roughly works out to 51.25 per billion rounds of ammunition purchased.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves. But since it's apparently a "Constitutional Right" for any moron to own a gun, because the government might "need a fixin' that only us gunfolk can bring!" there's special interest groups looking out for morons owning guns.

There's a very good reason I have no interest in joining the NRA, despite my interest in firearms and shooting. And it's not just because it might as well stand for "National Republican Association".

Relapse wrote:
Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I think I know one person who smokes marijuana, and in a twist of hilarity...he's pro-gun. He's a Republican no less.

But really, I don't associate with people who drink or smoke heavily...so that's another "context matters" situation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves. But since it's apparently a "Constitutional Right" for any moron to own a gun, because the government might "need a fixin' that only us gunfolk can bring!" there's special interest groups looking out for morons owning guns.

So stupid people in cars aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves, and stupid people with guns almost always hurt other people. That seems a bit skewed. Perhaps showing some statistics would change my mind?

Also, are you saying someone that negligently shoots a child they mistook for something else suffers no psychological harm?

 Kanluwen wrote:

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

You may have seen some guys hanging around bike shops wearing Cars R Coffins t-shirts? Maybe not, but there are actually groups who are lobbying for pro-pedestrian legislation and things, in order to protect people who are not inside of a 4 wheeled metal monster, such as cyclists, motorcyclists, and walker/joggers.

It's just that they are lobbying more for Pro-people stuff, rather than "carz R the evilz, so we must ban them at all costs!!! type lobbying, as we occasionally see with the pro- and anti- gun crowds.

I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

 Seaward wrote:
The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

"Like this photo if you don't like cancer!'

My good deed for the day!

So I suppose the answer is to have more laws to govern every aspect of our lives so that when we actually do stupid gak, it's illegal too. Because the existence of laws keeps people from doing stupid gak all the time.

There's no way to tell, unless you can see the future, what a person might do with a gun they purchase. You say it's too easy to get a gun, ok, so you make it harder. The person will still get the gun, act like an ass, and hurt someone.

You can't fix stupid, regardless of how many laws you make.

 Frankenberry wrote:
So I suppose the answer is to have more laws to govern every aspect of our lives so that when we actually do stupid gak, it's illegal too. Because the existence of laws keeps people from doing stupid gak all the time.

There's no way to tell, unless you can see the future, what a person might do with a gun they purchase. You say it's too easy to get a gun, ok, so you make it harder. The person will still get the gun, act like an ass, and hurt someone.

You can't fix stupid, regardless of how many laws you make.

And the thing in the States is, that we seem to legislate to the lowest people. Someone jumps off an overpass onto freeway traffic, committing suicide. So let's build a super tall fence that people cannot climb over, throw things over, etc.

In my home state of Oregon, there's a law that states that if a person is crossing the street at a crosswalk, drivers must wait until person is on the sidewalk again (it's gone from you don't have to wait, but can't hit them, to you have to wait until they are at least 2 lanes away, to where it is now). None of those laws have actually prevented anything, as drivers are fethheads, and think they are more important, therefore will not wait for walkers.


Point is, legislation is all well and good, but it's only as good as it's enforceable. If you cannot realistically enforce a "you're stupid so you can't have a gun" law, then you can't really make the law in the first place.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Hunting for food.

Driving off predatory animals.

Defending yourself from attackers.

The issue in the story is, the shooter failed to apply the second saftey rule they teach you when you are learning to shoot. ALWAYS BE SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT, AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT.

(#1, of course, is 'treat every gun as loaded until you've verified for yourself that it is not.')


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
On a side note 254,212,610 cars in the U.S. the estimate on firearms owned by private individuals is any where from 270 million to over 300 million.

So the number of cars and guns is similar. Good to know.

How about the number of gun owners as compared to the number of car owners. That might prove to be a bit more relavent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves.

I'd like to see your statistics on this, if you have any. Somehow I suspect lots of people do stupid things with guns that never get reported until someone gets hurt, which is why there are no reliable statistics on the matter.

I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

We have a lot more armed criminals down here than you guys do up there. Whether or not we would have more armed criminals if we hadn't had permissive gun policies for a couple hundred years is irrelevant; we didn't, and we do. The cat's been spilled, the milk's out of the barn, the cows are no longer in the bag. Ending the private sale of firearms to American citizens would probably bear fruit in the form of far fewer guns in criminal hands in, oh, a hundred years or so, and in the meantime would deprive numerous citizens of the right to successfully defend themselves from violent criminal acts. It would also take a constitutional amendment that simply wouldn't pass.

Guns are cool. Why does every thread about guns have to degrade into people discussing the same lame statistics and foreigners complaining about our freedoms?

Gun violence might have to do with our somewhat lax regulations (compared to other nations), but more importantly, the abundance of firearms. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, and they aren't going to just disappear overnight. Americans aren't keen on giving them up, and on the contrary, want to buy more. So what is there to do about it? In my opinion, nothing. We're past the point where we can control the issue.

New legislature would do nothing. A law-abiding citizen can go down to cabellas and pick up a handgun, few questions asked, and kill someone. That isn't the fault of a manufacturer, or a gun store. It's the fault of the owner. New laws are nice and cute, but at the end of the day, criminals are still getting their hands on guns and disregarding the law anyway.

Their a product of their environment

Seaward and Samus_arran115 have the right of it.

Too many Americans like guns to be able to change the situation as it would take an amendment to the constitution which would not succeed.

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

Considering the cartel pot industry in estimated to be in the BILLIONS I'd say you're flat wrong that it's only high school kids getting their dope from south of the border.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying anyone who is anti gun that does drugs or drives impaired is a blatent hypocryte. I work with a lot of Mexicans and others from Central and South America that have talked to me about the things that have happened with their families and friends in those places because of the cartels. The cartels are funded by money from drugs that people in this country buy, and I think you've got your head in the sand if you think it's a myth. If thinking someone doing drugs has no chance of funding the killing that's going on down there gets you through the night, go right ahead and pretend that. The people I work with have nothing but contempt for drug users, though, for what they've indirectly done to their countries.


Just a quick search of youtube turns this up:

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=3&rdm=mcetap3d6#/watch?feature=related&v=yzazkS1IhCY

Or this:

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=3&rdm=mcetap3d6#/watch?feature=relmfu&v=WOWwJnmP1mU

I could go on, but it seems you are in some state of mind that doesn't want to believe drugs are getting into this country from Mexico, and yes, that does include pot.

 Seaward wrote:
I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

We have "realistic" tests in Germany, and the UK, and probably the rest of Europe too....I don't know how exactly they work, but they work very well. We have significantly less gun violence here than you have in the US. (firearm related death rate per 100.000 population is over 10 in the US, but only 1 in Germany)
Thousands of people get shot every year in the US, and I bet a few hundred of them died in stupid accidents. I'm not saying you should get rid of the guns (which would be impossible anyway) but at least try to keep them away from idiots like the guy in the op!

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

We have a lot more armed criminals down here than you guys do up there. Whether or not we would have more armed criminals if we hadn't had permissive gun policies for a couple hundred years is irrelevant; we didn't, and we do. The cat's been spilled, the milk's out of the barn, the cows are no longer in the bag. Ending the private sale of firearms to American citizens would probably bear fruit in the form of far fewer guns in criminal hands in, oh, a hundred years or so, and in the meantime would deprive numerous citizens of the right to successfully defend themselves from violent criminal acts. It would also take a constitutional amendment that simply wouldn't pass.

I'm not completely anti-gun I have no problems with it being used for hunting, I just think America is too enthusiastic about there guns.