|
Gun Control
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM (862 Views)
|
|
dreachon
|
May 2 2013, 10:10 AM
Post #31
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done. And that is perfectly legitimate reasoning. To be fair, 29,000 of those deaths/year due to accidental poisoning come from hollywood elite who "accidentally" overdose on their prescription "medication" for definitely real diseases. ;)
Seriously though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is 2 fold.
1) Because it would be an extremely easy change that would reduce easily avoidable accidents
2) Because it creates more, responsible gun owners. Like you, I think having good guys with guns is a good thing. But unfortunately, a huge number of people getting guns simply don't know enough about them to be considered one of the good guys. If we have gun owners that know how to properly store, clean, and operate their weapons then we may see an increase of responsible gun ownership reducing or thwarting crime. My goal isn't simply to prevent bad things, it would be to increase the positive aspects of gun ownership.
Edited by dreachon, May 2 2013, 10:10 AM.
|
|
| |
|
dut1101
|
May 2 2013, 10:13 AM
Post #32
|
All-Star
- Posts:
- 1,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #378
- Joined:
- December 2, 2010
|
- realtivelynew
- May 2 2013, 07:43 AM
Are there child warnings on rifles?
A 5 year old getting a rifle for their birthday
oy vey I thought the same thing... How is there a .22 out there made for a 5 year old??? What the hell is wrong with a super soaker at the age of 5!!
|
|
| |
|
dut1101
|
May 2 2013, 11:54 AM
Post #33
|
All-Star
- Posts:
- 1,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #378
- Joined:
- December 2, 2010
|
- Mr Gray
- Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM
Obviously still a hot topic, so I figured I would give it it's own thread as opposed to being interspersed across other ones. I've been thinking a lot about it, particularly because gun violence is at an all-time high in my area (Fort Wayne area) right now, so it's been flanking the news. Here are a couple of points for discussion.
1) Let's assume that we really can't stop psychos like Adam Lanza or James Holmes, and instead focus on the areas where the most damage is being done, even though they don't get the same level of news coverage? Agree? 2) I agree that criminals have too easy access to guns...the violence in my area and much more extreme in Chicago proves this. How do we limit this access without leaving law abiding citizens vulnerable and/or infringe upon their right to own and posses a firearm for protection at home or away from home? 3) What improvements/changes to the background check system would actually lead to a meaningful decrease in gun violence? http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Mayor-Henry-on-205796441.html
2nd police action shooting in less than a week.... damn
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 2 2013, 11:58 AM
Post #34
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 10:10 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done.
And that is perfectly legitimate reasoning. To be fair, 29,000 of those deaths/year due to accidental poisoning come from hollywood elite who "accidentally" overdose on their prescription "medication" for definitely real diseases. ;)Seriously though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is 2 fold. 1) Because it would be an extremely easy change that would reduce easily avoidable accidents 2) Because it creates more, responsible gun owners. Like you, I think having good guys with guns is a good thing. But unfortunately, a huge number of people getting guns simply don't know enough about them to be considered one of the good guys. If we have gun owners that know how to properly store, clean, and operate their weapons then we may see an increase of responsible gun ownership reducing or thwarting crime. My goal isn't simply to prevent bad things, it would be to increase the positive aspects of gun ownership. dreach, I will keep an open mind on this, but can you please explain how you believe it would be easy to implement, and why this would create more gun owners/responsible gun owners who would then thwart crime? With so few accidental gun deaths, it would seem that we don't really have a major irresponsible gun owner problem. I would think that creating additional bureaucratic red tape, regulations, and costs (which is what would have to happen in your proposal), we would deter gun ownership, not encourage it.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
Post #35
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 11:58 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 10:10 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done.
And that is perfectly legitimate reasoning. To be fair, 29,000 of those deaths/year due to accidental poisoning come from hollywood elite who "accidentally" overdose on their prescription "medication" for definitely real diseases. ;)Seriously though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is 2 fold. 1) Because it would be an extremely easy change that would reduce easily avoidable accidents 2) Because it creates more, responsible gun owners. Like you, I think having good guys with guns is a good thing. But unfortunately, a huge number of people getting guns simply don't know enough about them to be considered one of the good guys. If we have gun owners that know how to properly store, clean, and operate their weapons then we may see an increase of responsible gun ownership reducing or thwarting crime. My goal isn't simply to prevent bad things, it would be to increase the positive aspects of gun ownership.
dreach, I will keep an open mind on this, but can you please explain how you believe it would be easy to implement, and why this would create more gun owners/responsible gun owners who would then thwart crime? With so few accidental gun deaths, it would seem that we don't really have a major irresponsible gun owner problem. I would think that creating additional bureaucratic red tape, regulations, and costs (which is what would have to happen in your proposal), we would deter gun ownership, not encourage it. Agree. If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced? All pre-airbag cars crushed and discarded? Maybe we should mandate 30 mph governors on all cars since significantly fewer deaths happen at ot below that speed?
Where does it end?
|

|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 2 2013, 04:12 PM
Post #36
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:09 AM
- brumdog44
- May 1 2013, 03:59 PM
Let me ask you a simple question: why would you not want a background check for the sale of a gun? I'm looking for a logical, non-slippery slope answer.
Wayne LaPierre was for background checks at gun sales ten years ago. Why would you -- or he -- disagree with it now?
I'm a big opponent of creating laws just to say that we "did something". I have no problem with background checks at gun shows, as I have said before this more closely resembles a commercial environment vs a private one. Outside of that, I see so-called "mandatory" background checks of private sales to be ineffective, thus placing a burden on responsible citizens with no societal gain. Where are you on internet private sales? I am in the exact same position on their sale -- IMO, that is a financial transaction that should be subject to a background check as well.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 2 2013, 04:21 PM
Post #37
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done. I think that you need to give me credit for pointing out something here though: your typical reasoning is not based on the numbers, but rather on whether it is right or not.
For instance, your abortion arguments are never about the number of people that are aborted -- abortion is wrong in your opinion in all cases on it's base. So I don't know how you can argue that we shouldn't be legislating on something that isn't prudent for .000019% of the population when you are looking to make an act illegal for 100% of the population.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 2 2013, 04:22 PM
Post #38
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 11:58 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 10:10 AM
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done.
And that is perfectly legitimate reasoning. To be fair, 29,000 of those deaths/year due to accidental poisoning come from hollywood elite who "accidentally" overdose on their prescription "medication" for definitely real diseases. ;)Seriously though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is 2 fold. 1) Because it would be an extremely easy change that would reduce easily avoidable accidents 2) Because it creates more, responsible gun owners. Like you, I think having good guys with guns is a good thing. But unfortunately, a huge number of people getting guns simply don't know enough about them to be considered one of the good guys. If we have gun owners that know how to properly store, clean, and operate their weapons then we may see an increase of responsible gun ownership reducing or thwarting crime. My goal isn't simply to prevent bad things, it would be to increase the positive aspects of gun ownership.
dreach, I will keep an open mind on this, but can you please explain how you believe it would be easy to implement, and why this would create more gun owners/responsible gun owners who would then thwart crime? With so few accidental gun deaths, it would seem that we don't really have a major irresponsible gun owner problem. I would think that creating additional bureaucratic red tape, regulations, and costs (which is what would have to happen in your proposal), we would deter gun ownership, not encourage it.
Agree. If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced? All pre-airbag cars crushed and discarded? Maybe we should mandate 30 mph governors on all cars since significantly fewer deaths happen at ot below that speed? Where does it end? Compromise solution: guns are limited to bullets that shoot at 30 mph.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 2 2013, 08:51 PM
Post #39
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- May 2 2013, 04:21 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 08:04 AM
- dreachon
- May 2 2013, 06:25 AM
dreach, I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure you've really looked at this in the big picture. There are around 600 accidental gun deaths each year in the US who has a population of 313 million people. Each one of those 600 deaths is tragic and avoidable, but I feel that creating national policy and mandatory action just isn't prudent for something that impacts only 0.00019% of the population. In contrast, about 30,000 people are killed each year due to accidental poisoning, but I'm certain that you don't expect every person who purchases bleach or anti-freeze to take a safety class and purchase approved storage units. As I said in my original post, I think policy should address areas where the most damage is being done.
I think that you need to give me credit for pointing out something here though: your typical reasoning is not based on the numbers, but rather on whether it is right or not. For instance, your abortion arguments are never about the number of people that are aborted -- abortion is wrong in your opinion in all cases on it's base. So I don't know how you can argue that we shouldn't be legislating on something that isn't prudent for .000019% of the population when you are looking to make an act illegal for 100% of the population. Not a fair comparison at all brum. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a life (IMO). Dreach is proposing legislation to potentially help cut down on accidental deaths. I'm not sure how we can make accidents illegal, although that would be more apples to apples with abortion. I do support legislation that increases the scrutiny for child neglect in such cases. I'm not 100% sure here, but I assume that if I accidentally shoot an adult, I could face serious charges. I don't see how a parent who allows his child access to something dangerous or fatal should be exempt.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 2 2013, 11:05 PM
Post #40
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Replace the word accidental with avoidable. Dreach is proposing legislation to cut down on incredibly avoidable shootings.
I.e., seat belt laws are cutting down on avoidable deaths.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
May 3 2013, 07:17 AM
Post #41
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- May 2 2013, 11:05 PM
Replace the word accidental with avoidable. Dreach is proposing legislation to cut down on incredibly avoidable shootings.
I.e., seat belt laws are cutting down on avoidable deaths. yes, I have pointed out that those deaths are avoidable. I think there are much better ways to avoid those deaths than creating legislation that burdens tens of millions of citizens because of the actions of only hundreds of citizens.
And you know how I feel about seatbelt laws.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 3 2013, 12:13 PM
Post #42
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 2 2013, 11:58 AM
dreach, I will keep an open mind on this, but can you please explain how you believe it would be easy to implement, and why this would create more gun owners/responsible gun owners who would then thwart crime? With so few accidental gun deaths, it would seem that we don't really have a major irresponsible gun owner problem. I would think that creating additional bureaucratic red tape, regulations, and costs (which is what would have to happen in your proposal), we would deter gun ownership, not encourage it. Well I imagine there are already plenty of gun safety classes, and for those places that don't have them, this could serve as excellent job creation legislation. Where there is demand....I think the law could also be written so that people can obtain their gun, no red tape, and simply have to complete the class within a certain time frame. Say within 60 days of purchase or something along those lines. This literally would not prevent anyone from obtaining their weapon with any more difficulty than they currently do.
And, like I said, I believe people who go through this process would feel more comfortable with their weapon and make better decisions when confronted with a situation where they may need to use it.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
May 3 2013, 03:20 PM
Post #43
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- May 3 2013, 07:17 AM
- brumdog44
- May 2 2013, 11:05 PM
Replace the word accidental with avoidable. Dreach is proposing legislation to cut down on incredibly avoidable shootings.
I.e., seat belt laws are cutting down on avoidable deaths.
yes, I have pointed out that those deaths are avoidable. I think there are much better ways to avoid those deaths than creating legislation that burdens tens of millions of citizens because of the actions of only hundreds of citizens. And you know how I feel about seatbelt laws. Honestly, I don't know how you feel about seat belt laws.....don't recall the conversation. Anyway, it's not important to the issue at hand so no need to get sidetracked.
|
|
| |
|
obatskii
|
May 3 2013, 03:24 PM
Post #44
|
Go Tebow!
- Posts:
- 22,925
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- May 3 2013, 03:20 PM
- Mr Gray
- May 3 2013, 07:17 AM
- brumdog44
- May 2 2013, 11:05 PM
Replace the word accidental with avoidable. Dreach is proposing legislation to cut down on incredibly avoidable shootings.
I.e., seat belt laws are cutting down on avoidable deaths.
yes, I have pointed out that those deaths are avoidable. I think there are much better ways to avoid those deaths than creating legislation that burdens tens of millions of citizens because of the actions of only hundreds of citizens. And you know how I feel about seatbelt laws.
Honestly, I don't know how you feel about seat belt laws.....don't recall the conversation. Anyway, it's not important to the issue at hand so no need to get sidetracked. Seat belts save lives!
|

"They say it takes a village to raise a family. Well, it took a nation to rebuild a program. THANK YOU HOOSIER NATION!" -Tom Crean
Proud Swiftie
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
Post #45
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?
I would support that.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|