Gun Control

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

Way to make things up. I don't expect a lot different from you. But now maybe you'll show me where I asked for more guns.... I have made it clear that as we loosened gun laws we saw crime drop. That doesn't mean that more guns = less crime. What it means is that the logic of the less guns = less crime crowd is severely flawed.

And to make your analogy more apt, more people drinking but not driving (i.e. breaking the law) would not increase drunk driving deaths. In the same way, more law abiding citizens owning guns will not increase gun violence.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Banning guns will increase crime on the whole because it makes criminals of people that would otherwise be law abiding citizens. My guess is that a whole lot of people would 'lose' their guns rather than turn them in. It isn't going to stop criminal behavior and it will make criminals of some people that would otherwise not break a rule.

Drunk driving is an order of magnitude bigger problem than gun violence. It is probably 3 orders of magnitude bigger problem than mass killings. Heck lightning strikes are a comparable problem to mass killings in most years. Ultra-rare cancers that kill 10 times the number of people we lose in mass killings per year get no research budget because it isn't deemed a problem worthy of spending money upon.

There is a show on TV now called Moonshiners. It details the criminal activity of people that make moonshine and sell it in Dry counties. There is no moonshine activity in Wet counties. Banning things make people into criminals. We should know this by now but most people are not bright enough to wash their hands after they wipe their rears. I don't know why I expect them to show glimmerings of intellectual thought when they cannot handle basic bodily functions.

Gee, a simple yes you read me correctly would have been sufficient.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Gee, a simple yes you read me correctly would have been sufficient.

That is what I tell my wife!

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Banning guns will increase crime on the whole because it makes criminals of people that would otherwise be law abiding citizens.

There are useful guns for hunters, marksmen and those who want personal protection and then there's guns that lunatics prefer when they want to murder the maximum number of people in the least time.

If the (automatic/assault/whatever you want to call them) weapons were outlawed, lunatics would not be able to kill so quickly. Is that really too much of a sacrifice to ask of people?

The right to bear arms was written when people had muskets. A luny with a musket isn't nearly as frightening as one with an assault rifle.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

There are useful guns for hunters, marksmen and those who want personal protection and then there's guns that lunatics prefer when they want to murder the maximum number of people in the least time.

If the (automatic/assault/whatever you want to call them) weapons were outlawed, lunatics would not be able to kill so quickly. Is that really too much of a sacrifice to ask of people?

The right to bear arms was written when people had muskets. A luny with a musket isn't nearly as frightening as one with an assault rifle.

You realize that two .40 caliber Glocks can unload 26 bullets in a matter of seconds? If you think banning guns that 'look' like military weapons but fire no faster than handguns will appease the gun control lunatics, you are sadly mistaken.

Automatic weapons are already illegal and have been for a long time.

They are talking about semi-automatics and clip sizes. It takes me 2-3 seconds to change clips on a .40 Glock. Each holds 12 rounds. So one gun, 3 clips and I can squeeze off 37 rounds in about 1 minute. Is that a lunatic gun?

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Way to make things up. I don't expect a lot different from you. But now maybe you'll show me where I asked for more guns.... I have made it clear that as we loosened gun laws we saw crime drop. That doesn't mean that more guns = less crime. What it means is that the logic of the less guns = less crime crowd is severely flawed.

And to make your analogy more apt, more people drinking but not driving (i.e. breaking the law) would not increase drunk driving deaths. In the same way, more law abiding citizens owning guns will not increase gun violence.

Another insult, I don't expect different from you though I guess. It's severely flawed if you just look at the examples you provided. Perhaps you should read the article I linked that shows instances where increasing gun laws actually prevented violence, especially against children.

And yes, just because people are law abiding means they are fit to have a gun and that they won't be more apt to fire that gun in circumstances that probably do not call for it.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

They are talking about semi-automatics and clip sizes. It takes me 2-3 seconds to change clips on a .40 Glock. Each holds 12 rounds. So one gun, 3 clips and I can squeeze off 37 rounds in about 1 minute. Is that a lunatic gun?

I don't know what those are called in the gun world but for me, those weapons are unnecessary and should be illegal. They won't all disappear overnight but at least more won't be introduced into the world.

IMO guns are great for hunting, marksmanship and personal defense but the kind of weapon you described doesn't need to be in society.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

Another insult, I don't expect different from you though I guess. It's severely flawed if you just look at the examples you provided. Perhaps you should read the article I linked that shows instances where increasing gun laws actually prevented violence, especially against children.

And yes, just because people are law abiding means they are fit to have a gun and that they won't be more apt to fire that gun in circumstances that probably do not call for it.

You claimed that I said more guns should be given out. That was made up.

What insult are you talking about? I don't even understand your posts half the time. It is almost as if you are arguing with what you think people are saying rather than what they actually say.

As for your article, which one? I would gladly look at it. I am unaware of any evidence that gun control laws have reduced violence above the background reduction going on nationally.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

I don't know what those are called in the gun world but for me, those weapons are unnecessary and should be illegal. They won't all disappear overnight but at least more won't be introduced into the world.

IMO guns are great for hunting, marksmanship and personal defense but the kind of weapon you described doesn't need to be in society.

So you are for a handgun ban. Now we know where you stand. That makes you a relative radical in this discussion.

[Leonardite]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

You're saying banning guns would decrease gun related deaths. Dayton is saying banning alcohol would decrease drunk driving related deaths.

How does that not match up?

If this whole "ban guns" thing is about saving lives for you, why aren't you for banning alcohol? Is it because you don't own a gun and maybe enjoy a cold alcoholic beverage every once in awhile? Or are you just going along with the "ban guns" thing cause that's what all your liberal friends are doing?

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

So you are for a handgun ban. Now we know where you stand. That makes you a relative radical in this discussion.

Dayton, you failed to understand my post. I am not for a handgun ban, I am for a ban on guns that can fire an obscene number of bullets in minimal time. You described a glock that could get off 37 rounds in a minute. I simply said that is a gun I don't want in the hands of the public.

Six shooters and muskets are fine. They can kill too but not at the speed and ease of the assault weapon or 37 round glock.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by Leonardite

You're saying banning guns would decrease gun related deaths. Dayton is saying banning alcohol would decrease drunk driving related deaths.

How does that not match up?

One's intentional and one's accidental.

Not too many people (other than the victims families) get too upset about accidental deaths from gunfire.

[mattcoldagelli]

So, pretty big faceplant from the NRA today, huh?

[Leonardite]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

One's intentional and one's accidental.

Not too many people (other than the victims families) get too upset about accidental deaths from gunfire.

Innocent people die, regardless of the intent. That's what this is whole thing is about.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by Leonardite

Innocent people die, regardless of the intent. That's what this is whole thing is about.

That's part of it. On the other hand we are all willing to accept a certain amount of uncertainty and chance regarding our well being. Every time you or I get in a car or on any public transportation we can be killed. When I walk in the woods with my dog, a tree can fall on me. When I get in my boat to go fishing I could fall out and drown. Storms destroy buildings and the collapse kills people. I don't let those risks bother me. All accidents and not much I could do about any of it.

I also go to the movies, grocery store, office, library and church without worrying that a luny will start shooting. A risk as well but one that is man made. The evil that man can do if far more frightening but the results (death) are the same.

[pizzaman]

So, I heard the NRA is advocating for armed good guys in every school. I don't know how I feel about that. I wish it weren't necessary but maybe that's what modern life has become.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

So you are for a handgun ban. Now we know where you stand. That makes you a relative radical in this discussion.

Hey the handgun ban in D.C. and Chicago eliminated all violent crime in those cities. Oh wait....

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

So, pretty big faceplant from the NRA today, huh?

While I dont think armed officers in schools will stop all school shootings, I wouldnt say calling for them is a faceplant. And they are right that more laws wont stop them.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

So, I heard the NRA is advocating for armed good guys in every school. I don't know how I feel about that. I wish it weren't necessary but maybe that's what modern life has become.

I dont think it will work because that one armed officer will become the first one a gunman kills in a school shooting.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by bmb777

I dont think it will work because that one armed officer will become the first one a gunman kills in a school shooting.

You're thinking like a logical person. How many of the mass murderers are well enough grounded in reality to plan and execute an attack on kids in school that starts by killing the guard? I have no idea. They would have to find and kill the officer first and that might be difficult.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by bmb777

I dont think it will work because that one armed officer will become the first one a gunman kills in a school shooting.

Good point, you'd need more guns than just one. I go back to arming a few kids, just not revealing which ones so that a gunman wouldn't know which kindergartners he has to take out first.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

You're thinking like a logical person. How many of the mass murderers are well enough grounded in reality to plan and execute an attack on kids in school that starts by killing the guard? I have no idea. They would have to find and kill the officer first and that might be difficult.

[mattcoldagelli]

Originally Posted by bmb777

While I dont think armed officers in schools will stop all school shootings, I wouldnt say calling for them is a faceplant. And they are right that more laws wont stop them.

I was referring more to the "How dare you look towards us when it is SO clearly video games!" tenor of the press conference.

[-josh-]

I see the endless debate still continues. If guns are banned it wont effect me because i'm not giving mine up, even if i have to go bury it in my parents backyard in the middle of nowhere.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by -josh-

I see the endless debate still continues. If guns are banned it wont effect me because i'm not giving mine up, even if i have to go bury it in my parents backyard in the middle of nowhere.

+1