| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:19am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
One point the pro-gunners often fail to consider is that cars (and their owners, their operators, their use) are heavily regulated.•• And vehicular homicide is so rare as to be statistically invisible. People do not use cars as weapons, except in the most unusual cases. Again, production for use. . . .
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:31am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"The gun crowd in this country refuses to give any ground on restrictions/background checks/regulation, Tony. That makes them extremists--"nuts", in other words."
Which is why I said "I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms, but I also don't think that every person who owns a firearm is some cowboy who believes that it's still the Old West." I also pointed out that warning signs were evident in past mass shooters and had someone in the government done something during the many times that they intersected with these individuals those people would not be dead.
I was then told that my position was absurd and that anything less than a total ban is unacceptable.
Also I see no meaningful difference in terms of public safety between the "Annie Oakley" person mentioned above who would only shoot to wound or fire warning shots and the idiot who thinks they can text while driving, can cut across 3 lanes of a highway in order to make the exit ramp or is okay to handle a car after just "a few beers". Both are risks to themselves and others. And in terms of personal risk, I much less likely to be involved in an encounter with Annie Oakley wannabe than I am with the guy who thinks he can drive like "The Fast and The Furious" on a freeway.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:41am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
"And vehicular homicide is so rare as to be statistically invisible. People do not use cars as weapons, except in the most unusual cases.
Again, production for use. . . ."
Which would be a valid point if your position wasn't also that negligent handling of a firearm results in tragedy and therefore opens the door to negligent handling of an automobile.
Someone who willfully gets behind the wheel of car while they are intoxicated or chooses to become distracted because they have to answer a text is no less morally culpable for the injuries and deaths that they cause with that car than someone who discharges a weapon without concern for the others around them.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-s hooter-183593571.html
During a mall shooting in Oregon, there was a licensed handgun owner in the mall at the time and he was in a position where he could have done something about the shooter - however he did not feel that he could fire at the shooter without putting himself and other people at risk and so he NEVER fired his weapon. This is an example of a responsible gun owner. And if the anti-gun crowd would spend half as much time recognizing that there are such people in the world as they do demonizing every gun owner - the issue of gun control would be a done deal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 11:49am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"And vehicular homicide is so rare as to be statistically invisible. People do not use cars as weapons, except in the most unusual cases.Again, production for use. . . ." Which would be a valid point if your position wasn't also that negligent handling of a firearm results in tragedy and therefore opens the door to negligent handling of an automobile. •• Twist your own words, please, not mine. My whole point is that killing someone is the purpose for which a gun was created. "Negligent" use would be "Don't worry, it isn't loaded." Walking into a school and murdering children is criminal, but the shooter wasn't there accidentally.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"In one breath they demand that government do more to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong" folks, then in the next they cry "Tyranny" when government tries to take those very steps."
Well you already have the fact that fully automatic weapons are banned under a law that has been on the books since 1934. That while they may LOOK similar an AR-15 fires a single bullet per pull of the trigger while an M4A1 can multiple rounds per pull of the trigger. The 1993 assault weapons ban lumped AR-15's in the same category as the fully automatic M4A1 yet excluded a more common semiautomatic rifle called "ranch style" rifles NOT because the there was some meaningful difference between the function of the ranch style rifle and the AR-15 but because the AR-15 LOOKED like a more menacing weapon. DoJ figures showed that up until the ban these newly banned weapons accounted to 2% of gun related crimes.
Meanwhile handguns which were not covered under the AWB account for a much higher percentage of gun crimes and unlicensed guns account for a significant portion of THOSE numbers.
So my question to you is this, how is a ban on weapons that are involved in 2% of the gun crime and owned by *legal* registered owners a responsible step by the government to addressing the other 98% of gun crimes which involve completely different weapons and more often than not involve unregistered and unlicensed owners?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6904
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 12:09pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
During a mall shooting in Oregon, there was a licensed handgun owner in the mall at the time and he was in a position where he could have done something about the shooter - however he did not feel that he could fire at the shooter without putting himself and other people at risk and so he NEVER fired his weapon. This is an example of a responsible gun owner. And if the anti-gun crowd would spend half as much time recognizing that there are such people in the world as they do demonizing every gun owner - the issue of gun control would be a done deal.
And I'm almost positive that the NRA gun-idolater crowd would waste no time in labeling that man a coward.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"And I'm almost positive that the NRA gun-idolater crowd would waste no time in labeling that man a coward."
Possibly, but I'm not defending the NRA (nor would I). I'm defending my claim that reasonable gun laws are the answer and was told by Mr. Byrne that (and I quote) "The government is at fault because it gives ANYBODY (aside from proper authorities) access to guns!"
I'm defending the gun owners who responsibly use their (and more importantly responsibly don't use) their weapons from being lumped into the same category as the people Mr. Ghazi says "Again, it basically comes down to "guns are cool, I want guns, they're my right, I'll have them and screw everyone else."
I don't believe in knee jerk reactionary politics (right or left). If that offends you - well I can't help that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"Twist your own words, please, not mine."
Uh, you did the exact same thing to me.
"My whole point is that killing someone is the purpose for which a gun was created."
Yes, and is the person who breaks into a house any less dead than if the owner stabs him with kitchen knife or "take his head off" (not literally of course) with a baseball bat? So basically your point comes down to the fact the civilians should not be allowed to take lives and that "power" should only be reserved for the police?
"Negligent" use would be "Don't worry, it isn't loaded." Walking into a school and murdering children is criminal, but the shooter wasn't there accidentally.
NO ONE is claiming otherwise. Nor is climbing behind a wheel after you've had more than few too many - that too is a deliberate choice. You claimed that automobile related homicides are statistically insignificant - well they're NOT. According to the NTHSA drunk driving accounts for over 10,000 of the 33,561 traffic fatalities last year. That figure is comparable to the 11,000 firearm related homicides for the same period. AAA data suggests that aggressive driving accounts for about 50% of fatal crashes.
Punishing a legal gun owner or even demonizing him (or her) because of what some nutcase - who the government had ample opportunity to deal with previously - is wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 1:03pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Can we please stop talking about home invasions. Matt posted an
article about Georgia becoming the old west with civilians carrying guns
in public places such as bars (!) and churches (!).
I'd almost consider a compromise in which civilians could keep guns
*only* in their homes to fend off intruders, but it's obvious that the pro-
gun crowd will not be satisfied until we reach a point of total vigilante
justice.
We have means of dealing civilly with conflict. Guns erase that. You
see a suspicious person in your neighborhood? You call the police and
keep your distance. You are annoyed that someone is texting in a
theater? You move your seat or call the manager. You can't stand the
loud music from a car in the parking lot? You leave.
In all these situations, guns provoke conflict, escalate it to the point that
inevitably someone fires and someone is dead. Where will it end? An
altercation at a bar with a drunken idiot that used to end in either a
scuffle or the bouncer kicking someone out might end in gunfire. Oh,
what about the guy who parked in my space at church? Normally, I'd
grumble about it but now, I have a gun... maybe I'll order him to move
and if things start to get heated, well...
Guns in America... Sometimes it feels like you're talking to someone
whose life is a mess who denies it has anything to do with alcohol or
drugs. No, his life is a mess because he got fired, his girlfriend left him,
and he's getting evicted. What does his drinking or meth use have to do
with it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
TONY: Punishing a legal gun owner or even demonizing him (or her)
because of what some nutcase - who the government had ample
opportunity to deal with previously - is wrong.
SER: How was the "government" going to prevent the following?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/7-year-old-girl-sho t-dead-
boy-5-birthday-party-police-article-1.1756390
http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2014/04/15/juliet-lynch-shot- dead-five-
year-old-boy-gaston-south-carolina
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fla-deadly-theater- shooting-
texting-son-article-1.1720738
I could, sadly, go on.
The gun lobby likes to hand wave the Sandy Hooks and the Colorado
theater shootings as "nutcases" the "government" should have
somehow stopped from having guns (though the lobby shoots down
reasonable background checks), but that denies the regular senseless
deaths as a result of "responsible" gun owners.
If "responsible" gun owners feel "demonized," boo frickin' hoo. If I'm
going to lose sleep over anything, it's the dead kids.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35940
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 1:26pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
It's been mentioned before but I just have to comment. Where is the line? On one hand, gun owners basically want a "hands off" approach by the government. Don't tell me what to do with my god given right to own a gun! On the other hand, those same people blame the government for not doing enough to ensure guns are kept out of the hands of the "nutcases" and "psychos". So which is it? Total Catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Legislation is never going to be specific enough to only target an individual profiled to be a potential risk sometime in the future. The government isn't flawless enough in it's design to raise a red flag whenever a troubled individual exhibits signs that really, let's be totally honest, often only become clear in hindsight and are often never expressed to this nebulous concept of a unified, all encompassing and 100% logistically organized government. But it's far easier to take the onus off of the owner themselves and put the blame on "the government"...the same government that the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that might possibly be any sort of restriction whatsoever.
Absurd.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 26 April 2014 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I'm defending the gun owners who responsibly use their (and more importantly responsibly don't use) their weapons from being lumped into the same category as the people Mr. Ghazi says "Again, it basically comes down to "guns are cool, I want guns, they're my right, I'll have them and screw everyone else."
-----
No, you are inappropriately taking offense on behalf of them. Different thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
