#BoycottNRA

#851
#851
volfanhill said:
11,000 homicides in 2016
40,000 car deaths in 2016

Gun Deaths in America: CDC Data Shows Another Rise in 2016 | Time


U.S. Traffic Deaths Jump to Make 2016 Deadliest on Roads Since 2007 | Fortune
Click to expand...

Few things are more disingenuous than the cdc trying to correlate gun ownership and suicides. Despite extremely low gun ownership rates, asain countries lead the world in suicide. Despite the world’s highest gun ownership rate by a far margin, we are no where near the top for suicide rates
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#852
#852
evillawyer said:
Without a doubt there's a lot of blame to go round on parkland. The gun debate is inherently factual so I'm glad we agree that it would be best to have as much access to the facts as possible so we can have an informed debate about underlying causes and possible solutions. If that's the case, the NRA is not helping us have an informed debate.
Click to expand...

What information are you seeking?
 
#853
#853
evillawyer said:
Without a doubt there's a lot of blame to go round on parkland. The gun debate is inherently factual so I'm glad we agree that it would be best to have as much access to the facts as possible so we can have an informed debate about underlying causes and possible solutions. If that's the case, the NRA is not helping us have an informed debate.
Click to expand...

No, it is inherently emotional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#855
#855
luthervol said:
Not true. The need is so they can trace the thousands of guns confiscated annually that were used in crimes.
Click to expand...
For what purpose? If the gun has been removed, what purpose would that serve? Oh, that's right, the criminal thugs will most certainly abode by the law and register those serials.
 
#857
#857
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think it makes the point that the risk of loosing your friends and family to a car crash are greater than losing them to gun violence. But if you don't like the car analogy, you can replace that with cancer or obesity kills more people than gun violence.

The point is that from a numbers and statistical standpoint, odds are that gun violence is the least of our worries. But, because gun violence often occurs in such dramatic fashion, it grabs our attention more and stirs up a greater emotional response.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was a really weak argument, for a variety of reasons:

(1) deaths from cars are a side-effect of something that cars are designed to do (namely to safely transport people from A to B). That's what we often say someone died is a car ACCIDENT. Guns are specifically designed to kill or injure a person or animal. When guns kill they're doing what they're designed to do. When cars kill, they're not doing what they're designed to do. In fact, this is one of the great potential benefits of self-driving cars--fewer accidents and fewer accidental deaths.
(2) cars are used much more frequently than guns and by many more people, so it's not terribly surprising that there are more deaths from cars.
(3) most people killed in car accidents have assumed the risk associated with cars (they knowingly got in the car knowing the risks presented). Many, if not most, of those killed by guns have not assumed the risk associated with guns.
 
#858
#858
evillawyer said:
(3) most people killed in car accidents have assumed the risk associated with cars (they knowingly got in the car knowing the risks presented). Many, if not most, of those killed by guns have not assumed the risk associated with guns.
Click to expand...
Oh, so when I get behind the wheel I assume the risk that a drunk driver will swerve into my lane and kill me. (which happens something like 29 times/day) Gotcha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#859
#859
I re-joined the NRA last night. Experience has taught me that whichever way the Liberal Democrats, MSM, and politically correct CEO's and mouth-breathers are going, I need to head in the exact opposite direction. Plus I get a cool range gear bag, so it's a "win-win".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#860
#860
evillawyer said:
I always thought it was a really weak argument, for a variety of reasons:

(1) deaths from cars are a side-effect of something that cars are designed to do (namely to safely transport people from A to B). That's what we often say someone died is a car ACCIDENT. Guns are specifically designed to kill or injure a person or animal. When guns kill they're doing what they're designed to do. When cars kill, they're not doing what they're designed to do. In fact, this is one of the great potential benefits of self-driving cars--fewer accidents and fewer accidental deaths.
(2) cars are used much more frequently than guns and by many more people, so it's not terribly surprising that there are more deaths from cars.
(3) most people killed in car accidents have assumed the risk associated with cars (they knowingly got in the car knowing the risks presented). Many, if not most, of those killed by guns have not assumed the risk associated with guns.
Click to expand...

Yet, if saving lives is the true motivation, increasing the regulations on (or banning) cars would lead to more lives saved than than increasing the regulations on (or banning) guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#861
#861
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait, if the cops confiscated the gun, they would be able to read the serial number off of that weapon and then be able to do ballistics on it to see if any other previous shootings match those same characteristics.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I thought it was more obvious. They would like to be able to trace the origins of the gun to help determine how guns continue to fall into the hands of criminals who are often not the original purchaser of the gun.

The NRA seems to have a vested interest in avoiding the ability to trace.
 
#862
#862
luthervol said:
I thought it was more obvious. They would like to be able to trace the origins of the gun to help determine how guns continue to fall into the hands of criminals who are often not the original purchaser of the gun.

The NRA seems to have a vested interest in avoiding the ability to trace.
Click to expand...
You still have explained nothing. How are they going to trace the illegal transfers?
 
#863
#863
evillawyer said:
Do any of the pro-gun/NRA people on here really believe the "cars kill more than guns" argument is a good one?
Click to expand...

Actually you're correct. The cold, hard truth is that it doesn't matter if they kill more than cars do. I don't need an argument with the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd is repealed, it could be a secession worthy event.
 
#865
#865
SpaceCoastVol said:
Oh, so when I get behind the wheel I assume the risk that a drunk driver will swerve into my lane and kill me. (which happens something like 29 times/day) Gotcha.
Click to expand...

You certainly know, when you get in a car and get on the road, that you are engaging in an activity that others may be engaging in while incapacitated or impaired. That doesn't mean that you've assumed the risk in a legal sense (where it's a defense), but you've knowingly chosen to engage in an activity with others that places your life at risk.

If a kid is playing on a playground and gets caught in crossfire and is killed, I think it'd be a stretch to say he knew the potential risks of going to the playground.
 
#866
#866
InVOLuntary said:
That's bull. Guns used in crimes are seldom tracked back to the person committing the crime. It tracks it back to the original owner. The gun has probably been stolen or exchanged hands many times. The government wants a database for future confiscation.
Click to expand...

You just proved the validity of my point. If the original owner is no longer in possession of the gun either a) it should have been immediately reported as stolen or b) the gun should have been legally (officially) transferred to the new owner. Amazingly enough, when guns are confiscated in crimes and the original owner is contacted, they frequently report it as stolen but never reported. Interesting.
 
#867
#867
Pepe_Silvia said:
Yet, if saving lives is the true motivation, increasing the regulations on (or banning) cars would lead to more lives saved than than increasing the regulations on (or banning) guns.
Click to expand...

You also have to look at the societal benefits of driving vs. the societal risks. I think it'd be impossible to have the modern economy we have without driving. But as other nations demonstrate (Japan, Scandinavian nations, etc.), it doesn't appear that guns held by private citizens are necessary for having a functioning economy or safe society.
 
#869
#869
SpaceCoastVol said:
You still have explained nothing. How are they going to trace the illegal transfers?
Click to expand...

They never will be able to. They will trace it to the last legal owner and that person will have to explain why the gun in no longer in their possession. If it was stolen, it should have been reported immediately. If it was sold or given away, proper paper work should have been submitted. Hold the last legal owner partially responsible. If they had follow the law, they have nothing to worry about.
 
#870
#870
GreyWolf1129 said:
I re-joined the NRA last night. Experience has taught me that whichever way the Liberal Democrats, MSM, and politically correct CEO's and mouth-breathers are going, I need to head in the exact opposite direction. Plus I get a cool range gear bag, so it's a "win-win".
Click to expand...

Never been a member but seriously considering it. That camo bag is pretty sharp.
 
#873
#873
Grand Vol said:
Do you believe AR-15s are more inherently dangerous than other weapons?
Click to expand...

That's a little like saying the poison that is easy to open and looks and tastes like a candy bar is no more deadly than the horrible tasting poison in a well marked child-proof bottle, so why pick out the candy bar poison to ban.
 
#874
#874
luthervol said:
You just proved the validity of my point. If the original owner is no longer in possession of the gun either a) it should have been immediately reported as stolen or b) the gun should have been legally (officially) transferred to the new owner. Amazingly enough, when guns are confiscated in crimes and the original owner is contacted, they frequently report it as stolen but never reported. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Just curious as to what difference does it make if a gun I bought 15 years ago ends up in the wrong hands and the wrong hands use that gun in a crime?

If it was stolen and then used in a crime, that isn't my fault. It is the criminal that used the gun, not me.
 
Last edited:
#875
#875
luthervol said:
You just proved the validity of my point. If the original owner is no longer in possession of the gun either a) it should have been immediately reported as stolen or b) the gun should have been legally (officially) transferred to the new owner. Amazingly enough, when guns are confiscated in crimes and the original owner is contacted, they frequently report it as stolen but never reported. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Failure to report a stolen weapon now constitutes guilt in subsequent commissions of crime?

You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top