Gun control debate (merged)

#28,402
#28,402
luthervol said:
What? You're kidding right? There will always be some calling for bans on everything.
We're talking about the differences between 1, 5, 25, 50, or 80% of the population supporting the ban.
Hell. there are nuts calling for a complete ban on abortions.
There are nuts calling for the ban of alcohol.
There are nuts calling for a ban on drag shows.
There are nuts calling for a ban on the abortion pill.
There are nuts calling for a ban on adult novelty stores.
Click to expand...
Well I enjoyed our conversation, fleeting as it was.
 
#28,403
#28,403
85SugarVol said:
Well I enjoyed our conversation, fleeting as it was.
Click to expand...
Didn't mean to shut down the conversation.
It's just that we all know that there will be calls for banning whatever type of gun is used in a mass killing.
That fact shouldn't be relevant, it's simply a given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#28,404
#28,404
As conservative as I am on nearly every issue,I've never seen the gun issue as a black and white topic. I see why it's an emotional issue from both sides of the aisle. I'm not for an outright ban because that's unreasonable and unrealistic. I have no issues with anyone owning a gun,and know plenty of reasonable gun owners. I won't pretend to have the answer to how to reduce mass shootings and gun violence. However, I do see that something needs to be done. JMO after reading some of the thread and after hearing this debate in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#28,407
#28,407
luthervol said:
I'm hoping mass attacks are never excused.
But t would be slightly more like the car driven into the parade. No one mentioned anything about banning cars (because car ownership is viewed as rational and reasonable). I'm confident that shotgun ownership is viewed as more rational and reasonable than assault weapon ownership. The more rational and reasonable the ownership of the "weapon" used in the attack is deemed to be, the less there will be calls for banning the "weapon".
Click to expand...
and yet its people like you who have no idea about the weapons in question who get to determine rationality and reasonableness? That doesn't seem rational, or reasonable.

and it was an SUV, the assault weapon of the vehicle world that ran over those people. Cars kill AS many people as guns do. Seems if its rational and reasonable to stop one, its rational and reasonable to stop the others. if you actually care about the lives. and this doesn't even account for most gun deaths being suicides, very very few vehicular suicides. There are also far fewer vehicles than guns. You are far more likely to die from a car than a gun. But you ignore that, doesn't rational or reasonable to ignore deaths if that is your stated goal.

Fatality Facts 2021: State by state.


What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Orangeslice13
#28,408
#28,408
LouderVol said:
and yet its people like you who have no idea about the weapons in question who get to determine rationality and reasonableness? That doesn't seem rational, or reasonable.

and it was an SUV, the assault weapon of the vehicle world that ran over those people. Cars kill AS many people as guns do. Seems if its rational and reasonable to stop one, its rational and reasonable to stop the others. if you actually care about the lives. and this doesn't even account for most gun deaths being suicides, very very few vehicular suicides. There are also far fewer vehicles than guns. You are far more likely to die from a car than a gun. But you ignore that, doesn't rational or reasonable to ignore deaths if that is your stated goal.

Fatality Facts 2021: State by state.


What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
Click to expand...


While that's true,and there has been instances where vehicles have been used as a tool to attack others.... The argument from the other side would be that it's not a cars main use to harm others as with guns,it is. I can see the reasoning from both sides and why it's one of those issues that people are at a impasse about.
 
#28,410
#28,410
Pennheel said:
While that's true,and there has been instances where vehicles have been used as a tool to attack others.... The argument from the other side would be that it's not a cars main use to harm others as with guns,it is. I can see the reasoning from both sides and why it's one of those issues that people are at a impasse about.
Click to expand...
TL;DR;

This is an issue I have with a lot of the anti 2A, semi-auto rifles, assault weapon arguments. what is the "main use" of a gun?

There is the potential.
and there is what is actually happening.

we are told the deaths are a problem, what is actually happening. That IS a valid point, a loss of life should never be negated, but it doesn't mean we throw out a system just because a person dies.

However, what we consistently hear that they want banned are the weapons with a higher POTENTIAL for killing. And that potential is just randomly assigned by people who use terms like "fully semi automatic" and "30 magazine clip in a second". Those weapons with the potential are not actually the ones doing the actual killing. So why are they interested in the potential if the actual deaths are what rightly matters? Why go after the potential and ignore the ACTUAL deaths? "assault weapons" kill less than 10% of all gun deaths, pistols are by far the number one issue. So is it potential or is it actual deaths that matter?

The simple answer is its not about actually saving lives.

The same thing circles back to guns vs other instruments. Potential vs actual harm.

2021 48,000 gun deaths, all sources.
2021 43,000 vehicular deaths.

so that checks out. there are more actual deaths from guns.

but then the bolded comes up. Guns MAIN USE is to kill. that is simply untrue, especially when compared to vehicles. If guns main use was to kill/harm others, I would expect the per item ratio of item to death to be slanted pretty heavily. However the actual numbers say the opposite. The ACTUAL use of a gun is far less slanted to killing than cars.

the LOWEST number of guns I have seen suggested for this country is 400 million. 400,000,000.
the HIGHEST number of vehicles I have seen for this country is 150 million. 150,000,000.

when you take those ACTUAL numbers of items and compare it to the ACTUAL numbers of deaths, the "main use" of a gun is a lot less for death.
48,000/400,000,000=0.00012
43,000/150,000,000=0.00028

as the math shows the ACTUAL usage of guns for killing a person is LESS than a car. you take a random gun, and a random car, and the random car is more than twice as likely to kill you. based on ACTUAL numbers. I don't see how one can argue a gun's main use is to kill when it kills half as often as a vehicle does. The math shows that 99.99988% of people aren't buying guns to kill. even if you double that for assumed injuries beyond death, thats still a terribly small fraction of ACTUAL usage to assume its "main use". I would assume it would either need to be a majority of usage would need to be killing, or harming, to claim its the main use, or at least the single largest minority of usage was to harm others. it simply isn't.

another reason to bring up the ratios is because of the POTENTIAL argument. you remove a gun you reduce the chance of someone dying by 0.00012, however, you remove a car and you are far more likely to save a life. and remember that is based on the SMALLEST number of guns assumed, you take some of the larger numbers that are north of a billion guns, and the chances of a particular gun being used to kill gets laughably smaller compared to the chance a particular vehicle will kill. and the potential is minimal to the extreme.

and this whole assumption is that ALL of the gun deaths represent a danger to the public at large. Considering ~55% of gun deaths are suicide, its pretty clear that isn't a danger to the PUBLIC. you remove that 55% and that 48k number shrinks down to 21,600 deaths ACTUAL deaths as a threat to the public. FWIW car suicides, running the car in a garage, are not counted in their numbers, but that's a pretty small number (about the same as the deaths by assault weapons). so if you do want to ban assault weapons you should rationally and reasonably want to ban cars in garages.

summing up, neither the actual risk nor the potential risk of a gun is greater than a car. So IF the potential for a gun is "too" great, the same concern applies to cars.

the only arguments that make sense to get rid of "assault weapons" rely on irrational, evidence-less, assumptions, pushed by people who gain more power based on this particular lie they use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, InVOLuntary and Pennheel
#28,411
#28,411
85SugarVol said:
And what is the inherit flaw with “something has to be done”?
Click to expand...

I know the inherit flaw in that argument all too well. It's not a one size fits all issue that can easily prevent the jackwagons of this world from getting their hands on a gun. I wouldn't ever want to penalize anyone out there to have that right that's offered to us in the second amendment. I believe it's a complex issue,and frustrating one at that.

@LouderVol Thanks for the well thought out reply. Something to think about.👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#28,412
#28,412
Pennheel said:
I know the inherit flaw in that argument all too well. It's not a one size fits all issue that can easily prevent the jackwagons of this world from getting their hands on a gun. I wouldn't ever want to penalize anyone out there to have that right that's offered to us in the second amendment. I believe it's a complex issue,and frustrating one at that.

@LouderVol Thanks for the well thought out reply. Something to think about.👍
Click to expand...
the other thing to remember is that this isn't just a 2A issue.

They have gone after the 1A too. They have sentenced someone to 50 years in prison because they were an influencer who told people about a product. A product that was sold as a novelty item showing a diagrammatic representation of a component that can be used to turn a semi auto weapon into fully auto. Their argument was that an expert was able to use tools, and make that diagram into something real.
They are going after the 4A. they have proposed making multiple guns/systems illegal to own, with no compensation. No grandfathering. meaning your only option is to turn in those items, being seizure by the government.
The 5A. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, and are denied due process. take your pick of items here. Red flag laws, illegal to have a gun stolen from you, comply (turn in your legal guns) or face the penalty of some new law.
6A, speedy trials? You don't even get a trial. and generally, beyond the 2A conversation, they certainly aren't speedy in general.
8A, unusual punishments. something like denying people something they legally obtained seems like unusual.
9A & 10A are both open ended amendments stating items not explicitly listed in the constitution were maintained by the people. again things like keeping your own property, denial of privacy, requiring CC companies to track purchases.

and then you can get into items like the 24th, and some others, women/slave voting, and how the logic behind those applies to the 2A. IE, taxes on one right are banned, so why are you allowed to tax other rights? If we can't selectively ban selected groups from voting, or other rights, why wouldn't that same logic apply to the 2A?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, InVOLuntary and Pennheel
#28,413
#28,413
Grand Vol said:
Wow, a thought out question for a change?

Okay, what's to keep me from filing the pin once and removing that microstamp?

BINGO

Additionally, even the DOJ states the technology isn't viable yet.





So the questions arise, why have this? Who would be responsible for completing the database? If my gun is stolen, does the serial matter any more? What keeps me from replacing the firing pin with an after market item? And last but not least, would this technology actually help solve crime?
Click to expand...
 
#28,425
#28,425
85SugarVol said:
Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?

If Hunter is charged with the gun crime, he’ll challenge under the 2A.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
1. He should be charged.
2. he should then challenge under the 2A.

I don't think that will happen. they will probably drop the case, even though guns bad, must stop at all costs. or Hunter will claim that he actually WASN'T on drugs at the time, or they could just so happen to have a procedural mess up and get the case dropped that way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top