Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

There are towns in North Dakota where everybody has guns, and there's no crime, nobody locks their door. They look at gun crime as a problem of the cities, with it's gangs, drugs, welfare checks, high cost of living, and rampant homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

There are towns in North Dakota where everybody has guns, and there's no crime, nobody locks their door. They look at gun crime as a problem of the cities, with it's gangs, drugs, welfare checks, high cost of living, and rampant homosexuality.

---

Gays with guns??

Only if they match the outfit, honeybunch. :dancing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The analogies to cars and medical malpractice don't even withstand the mildest scrutiny.

Every year millions of people undergo life-saving treatments and have surgery and the risk of death, while small in each instance, is going to add up on the aggregate. Millions of people drive cars and they need to in order to live a modern lifestyle which means living an unwalkable distance from where they work. Before airbags and seatbelts became a virtual mandate there were thousands of unnecessary deaths a year. In fact, under the Reagan administration as I've said before, the Department of Transportation misunderstood its mandate and did not want to burden car manufacturers in the name of safety.

Further, if you look at the regulatory framework in the medical field, doctors are not immunized from liability the way the gun manufacturers are. Have you heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act? It provides broader protection from products liability for gun manufacturers than drug companies have under Comment K of the Second Restatement of Torts. Comment k was included in the restatement of the law based on the understanding that some drugs had great risks but even greater benefits. They were therefore labeled, unavoidably dangerous. Comment K has subsequently been stripped of its protective power for drug manufacturers because it was superfluous. In short, risk-utility analysis (the previous standard) if applied correctly, accounts for this category of so-called unavoidably dangerous products.

What this all means is that big pharma is a heavily regulated industry and companies are susceptible to lawsuits even when they're creating drugs to unclog your arteries or treat cancer. Doctors do not have a good faith defense to malpractice and are held up to professional standards regardless of intent, as they should be. Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have virtual immunity from suit even for creative actions such as negligent marketing, which would allow them to be sued for directing their advertisement of assault weapons to criminals.

Finally, to hammer home the final point. People need some form of transport just to live in urban areas. People need medical care and prescription drugs. The argument for the necessity of guns is far weaker and almost makes this entire exercise pointless because it's so intuitive.

The PLCAA-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Just a wiki, but why don't you see why Congress saw fit to prevent accountability in the marketplace. Immunity from suit.

Comment K of the Restatement-http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/13/

Not a great article on comment k imo, or how it has been interpreted subsequently, but it does demonstrate that drug manufacturers are far more accountable than gun manufacturers in products liability law.

---

Unfortunately... you miss each point I made.

1st - There should be regulation regarding gun ownership greater than exists today.
2nd - The first point means that I am in favor of gun ownership - if the first point can be accomplished.

3rd - The numbers are important. Gun deaths are like shark attacks - they take a greater proportion of attention then appropriate. Guns are easy news stories with easy taglines that can be exploited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

I can - and you know very well which side of the debate I'm on - but would putting up the same stats for tobacco deaths make diehard smokers stop? Unlikely, I'd suggest. And it's essentially the same with the most vociferous and extreme advocates of minimum or preferably no control on guns. Some lobbies and interests simply won't listen regardless of how often you confront them with the facts.

---

The possible difference in this argument is that while no matter how much the media talked about the threats of smoking, die hard smokers would not quit society as a whole became very open to limiting the rights of smokers, in planes, in restaurants and eventual almost all public places and in some parts of the US within 150 feet of a building. Add to that the taxation on cigarettes made ownership and usage quite difficult.

Tobacco deaths have dramatically dropped. In states in the US like California where they have been most aggressive about dealing with tobacco use in public places and education about the dangers of tobacco use, health consequences from tobacco and the private and public health sector care costs have dropped the most as of course have tobacco related fatalities.

There is no prohibition or magic wand to end the effect of firearms on mankind or in the more limited view the citizens of the US. But a public more educated and faced to hear every day what damage our current lack of attention to firearm safety/ownership issues present the more likely that popular opinion will turn against the current belief that this issue isn't a big deal.

The tobacco industry was able to manipulate public policy as long or longer than the NRA and the gun manufacturers have and while tobacco still lives they are contained and IMHO so can firearms be contained. And if 12,000 deaths a year and countless injured can be reduced by 25% 0r maybe 75% than that would be a great step forward IMHIO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

One thing the car accidents are just that ACCIDENTS! They were not intended. Medical mistakes are a thing that happens, most of the time it is terminally ill patients as a last ditch effort to save their live and doctors always tell the patient and the family there is always a chance that you can die. Obesity is mostly the persons choice and the government can not tell people when and what they can't eat to force them to make them skinny, others it is in their genetic code and then no matter what they will be obese. Cancer would be cured if we stopped sending all of the new science field students to work on the new iPhone, just so we can have a jack on the bottom, or new tablets when laptops work just fine, we would probably have cancer solved by now.

Although with guns, some are accidents (probably about 5-10%). The rest are split between police and murders (90-95%). And in most cases the police need to kill because the person has a gun him/herself. The other part is conscious decisions to kill.

Car accidents are not planed in 99% of the time, medical mistakes are a risk we all take with any medical care to keep us alive and is not planned at all, unless the doctor is a psychopath. Gun deaths on the other hand if any one take a gun to use to kill it is a decision that they made, is not an accident or a risk to keep us alive because of an illness or an accident outside of our control.

---

The numbers are the numbers... More people are killed by knives than rifles in this country, but the media and the pols are over-concerned about AR-15s and magazine sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fivekatz

Brickcitybrother, you bring up some good points as far as other things in the world that should be of concern. But that does not change the on-going debate in US about sensible regulation, registration and licensing of firearms.

Auto safety is an interesting topic to bring up. For the longest time the lobbies for auto manufactures and the auto makers themselves always claim that the carnage on the highways was human error and not the product. But after years of infighting safety standards were applied such as seat belts, air bags, better bumpers, better side body construction, superior brakes, break away steering columns were added and the fatalities per capita were radically reduced. Not eliminated reduced.

Then there is the issue of cancer and how many more people a year it kills than guns do and if one looks at what we spend on cancer research as a government versus what we spend on our military that too is shameful.

While idealistically I would love to see us become a society without guns, that is not going to happen, any more than we were going to ban cars.

So what I suggest is we treat the guns just like cars. You need to register it, you need a license to operate it and your license to operate will be controlled by your first passing a simple test just like you would to operate a car and it would be limited to what you as a citizen need to operate.

Now there aren't good reasons for the average citizen to own an assault weapon, so just like the average driver does not have a license to operate a commercial 18 wheeler, the average citizen would not have the a license to operate a assault weapon. Without a license, one should not be allowed to register their assault weapon and since registration could take place at the time of sale, assault weapons would only be sold to those who can show occupational need for assault weapons.

That little bit was just spit balling. But your car analogy was a good chance to show how industry argues a point to distract (people kill people not guns - cars don't kill - drivers error does).

---

You caught on to one of the points I was making ... simply regulate guns better. Get real background checks and don't allow ANY sales without them. Its a start... but not the last definitive answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...munity-leaders

---

Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...munity-leaders

---

Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.


PS - Thank you for raising the level of your point and the debate by implying I'm braindead. Great argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

Again - the 'Assault weapons are the problem' point. To which I say again - more people die from being stabbed than with ANY TYPE OF RIFLE (of which assault weapons are a subset). I think that ends the argument regarding are greater concern over assault weapons.


PS - Thank you for raising the level of your point and the debate by implying I'm braindead. Great argument.

---

Maybe, but you can't kill 20 people in 30 seconds with a knife.

I know I'm coming off as a gun lover here, one problem is tobacco and guns have a lobby with lots of cash behind them, and in the USA, we have a President, not a King, and Obama needs a serious outcry from the public to get anything done. I still don't know why it's the ATF, Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. does that make sense?

So while Guns have people with a monetary concern backing them up, Sane people have to convince people that there are a lot of things out there that can kill ya. Like Big Macs may kill more people than .38s

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters:

1. Heart disease (595,444 deaths)

2. Malignant neoplasms (573,855)

3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (137,789)

4. Cerebrovascular diseases (129,180)

5. Accidents (118.043)

6. Alzheimer's disease (83,308)

7. Diabetes (68,905)

8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (50,472)

9. Influenza and pneumonia (50,003)

10 Suicide (37,793)

11. Septicemia (34,843)

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (31,802)

13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (26,577)

14. Parkinson's disease (21,963)

15. Pneumonitis due to solids of liquids (17,001)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

72 days since Newtown there have been 2262 gun deaths up 44 since yesterday.

If anyone wants me to stop posting the inconvenient truth of the approximate number of murders please let me know.

---

Interesting... Using the same CDC data set as slate is using* 7,315.06 individuals have been killed in auto accidents since Newtown (day 75). Its really interesting that the data estimates that 18,223 people will kill themselves this year by using a gun. ** That's a rate of about 50 a day (meaning that according to that data in 75 days 3,647 individuals will have killed themselves using a gun). Whoa.



*Click Here

**Click Here

Not to bring up the obvious but a knife has a lot of purposes, from helping you open the latest Amazon box UPS delivered, to skinning your fish, to cutting your steak.

An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute.

Even if every American has the right to bear arms, arms are unkind, they take life more often that they save life and maybe it is time that Americans stop telling teenagers with raging homones to just say no to having an orgasm and start to tell them and the general population to just say no to devices that only have one purpose which is to maim or kill whatever they are successfully aimed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Maybe, but you can't kill 20 people in 30 seconds with a knife.

---

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

This response also applies to fivekatz who wrote, in part:

"An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute."

If assault weapons were to magically disappear - the death rate for guns would not move a single percentage point! But yet people like to focus their attention singularly on them. Just like people who fear entering the ocean ... because of sharks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I know I'm coming off as a gun lover here, one problem is tobacco and guns have a lobby with lots of cash behind them, and in the USA, we have a President, not a King, and Obama needs a serious outcry from the public to get anything done. I still don't know why it's the ATF, Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. does that make sense?

So while Guns have people with a monetary concern backing them up, Sane people have to convince people that there are a lot of things out there that can kill ya. Like Big Macs may kill more people than .38s

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters:

1. Heart disease (595,444 deaths)

2. Malignant neoplasms (573,855)

3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (137,789)

4. Cerebrovascular diseases (129,180)

5. Accidents (118.043)

6. Alzheimer's disease (83,308)

7. Diabetes (68,905)

8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (50,472)

9. Influenza and pneumonia (50,003)

10 Suicide (37,793)

11. Septicemia (34,843)

12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (31,802)

13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (26,577)

14. Parkinson's disease (21,963)

15. Pneumonitis due to solids of liquids (17,001)

---

Aside from demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that life itself is a terminal disease, I'm not really sure where this set of stats takes the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

---

So from this should we presume that you're quite happy for "scary and rare" multiple killings with assault rifles to continue without any intervention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

So from this should we presume that you're quite happy for "scary and rare" multiple killings with assault rifles to continue without any intervention?

---

Read my original post ... so that you know such a comment misses the point.

From my point you should infer that I would like to address the larger issue of gun ownership and gun deaths and not focus on a tiny scary fraction of them that the media throws in our faces as "Good Television". Too many individuals have fancination with the anecdotal incidents. The focus is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

And you can't defeat a Great White Shark once it begins an attack. What is the point other than to paint a scary picture.

Scare tactics do not make a coherent argument to those who are not scared by them. Assault weapon deaths are incredibly rare - just like shark attack deaths. Incredibly scary and incredibly rare. We should not take a large general problem and base a solution to it on a fractionally rare and minute, but incredibly scary, version of that problem.

This response also applies to fivekatz who wrote, in part:

An assault weapon with a high capacity won't help you open your cyber-shopping box, it won't help you cut your dinner into digestible pieces but it sure as hell can kill a a lot folks in a mere half a minute.

If assault weapons were to magically disappear - the death rate for guns would not move a single percentage point! But yet people like to focus their attention to them. Just like people who fear entering the ocean ... because of sharks.

---

IMHO the rare nature of fatalities from Assault Weapons can only be dwarfed by the fact that there is even less evidence where an assault weapon in the hands of a civilian actually saved lives versus no firearm or a firearm of lesser capacity per every 10 seconds.

Even with this in mind why not just throw the bleeding hearts a bone and take the weapons of mass destruction off of the streets. Not only do you make the chardonnay drinking democrat wimps from the northeast happy, you make tens of thousands of law enforcement officers who hate being out gunned happy. Throw the them bone heh?

Since they aren't a problem why not ban them from the hands of ordinary citizens?

Just wonderin'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Here's the top 15 killers that topped murder in the US in 2010, according to Reuters

---

this may come as a shock to you but the vast majority of people who die that arent murder victims (so about 20 per year in the us judging by your homicide rates) die from some form of age related illness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fivekatz

IMHO the rare nature of fatalities from Assault Weapons can only be dwarfed by the fact that there is even less evidence where an assault weapon in the hands of a civilian actually saved lives versus no firearm or a firearm of lesser capacity per every 10 seconds.

Even with this in mind why not just throw the bleeding hearts a bone and take the weapons of mass destruction of the streets. Not only do you make the chardonnay drinking democrat wimps from the northeast happy, you make tens of thousands of law enforcement officers who hate being out gunned happy.

Since they aren't a problem why not ban them from the hands of ordinary citizens?

Just wonderin'?

---

.
.

Using your logic... I presume you are fine with the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 and wounded 17 because he DID NOT use any assault weapons (even though he committed a massacre that is clearly the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history).

Just wonderin'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

.
.

Using your logic... I presume you are fine with the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 and wounded 17 because he DID NOT use any assault weapons (even though he committed a massacre that is clearly the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history).

Just wonderin'?

---

Depends on your definition of assault weapons I suppose. But just the same if the weapons used at VT weren't covered under an inyial ban of assault weapons by citizens who can not show good cause for owning them I would call it a good start.

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.

---

I did not miss the point. I would think one brick at a time would make sense to brick city brother.

Sure the debate is wider than high capacity mags or even guns, in includes a lack of understanding and treatment of mental health issues and whole lot of other stuff but to repeat my statement:

If assault weapons are such a non-issues shouldn't NRA and all the 2nd Amendment folks just feed them to the bleeding hearts to shut us up?

I still have yet to hear about 12,001 lives saved a year by guns that off set the 12,000 a year that die in their carnage.

This is not an argument of constitutional rights my friend, the congress would trample your rights in a flash if the big money was there to ban guns rather than the big money being associated with allowing gun manufactures to sell their products unfettered.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

Read my original post ... so that you know such a comment misses the point.

From my point you should infer that I would like to address the larger issue of gun ownership and gun deaths and not focus on a tiny scary fraction of them that the media throws in our faces as "Good Television". Too many individuals have fancination with the anecdotal incidents. The focus is just wrong.

---

I agree entirely on your point in that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides involve a single victim and a single shooter and that the awful totality of the situation gets lost all too often. But surely it's the horror of the large-scale multiple shootings, often using assault and semi-automatic weapons, that sticks in the memory. How could any sentient being not be moved and angered by any lazy jurisdiction which creates the conditions that condone a massacre of children such as at Newtown?

This thread has the smartest people saying the dumbest shit.

The car/gun ANALogy doesn't work at all. Cars aren't weapons. Guns have no other function. There's no relation in this context. Boats aren't banned because the Titanic sunk, but there's enough lifeboats on every cruise ship nowadays. The song & dance about how everything kills you doesn't work either. The gun debates aren't about people dying. Everybody dies. If it were possible to pass legislation doing away with all or most of the deadly maladies on Buttslinger's "list", just about everybody would cheer. Other than the disease maintenance industry, nobdy's going to shed a tear over the eradication of heart disease or cancer. But all that's irrelevant in this context because the topic of gun debates is murder.

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

---

You're never going to get through to most of them.Just like they will never get through to us. Most of the people here are stuck in their "guns are bad" stance (and the same could be said about the pro-gun peeps) and can't see the analogies. Still good people.

To those that keep dismissing the car analogy, You're completely wrong in dismissing it. The simplification of saying "guns and cars are totally different things" is just as bad as me saying "guns have never killed". You would not like me saying a general carpet statement like that would you?

Yes guns can be compared to cars. Before you jump on me for saying it.

Please Consider the following :
1st: I don't want cars or guns banned. get it? Ok let's move to 2nd point.

2nd: Guns and Cars serve a purpose. Guns in civilian hands are to shoot a projectile (do you really think the clerk at the gun store really tells us "have a good time killing people" when we buy a weapon?) Cars are to get you from Point A to Point B (do you really think the car dealership sends you off after buying a car with a "go get drunk and run over little kids, and don't pay attention to the road" , of course not). Get it? ok let's move to 3rd point.

3rd: Guns and Cars DEPEND on the human behind them to use properly in society. Get it? ok let's move to 4th point.

4th: When a Gun is not used properly a death or injury results. When a car is not used properly a death or injury results. Get it? Now to the Final.

Final:To finalize , Guns CAN and will be compared to Cars. Dismissing this analogy makes you seem as stubborn as the gun nuts you so vilify. Suggesting a TOTAL (regulations are fine) ban on either one is too extreme and will be met by stiff opposition in a debate.

You guys too easily dismiss when we mention the analogies of cars vs guns, or cigs vs cars or anything else. Please open up you minds a little. It's clear as day.

I'm a gun owner, and even I admit there need to be some things done to prevent violent gun deaths (as well as accidental gun deaths) just as I believe the measures in place against bad drivers (the ones that kill by human "error", or DWI) could use some work.

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.
Same with the anti-gun people. I actually did a list of suggestions, you might not have agreed with any of them.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
No, then you're not using them in ALL their capacity, they're also used for not kiling. aka stationary targets and collection/display.

I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.
You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself Trish

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.
Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection. I do agree about the more stringent monitoring and control as it would help bring the deaths by guns down perhaps considerably

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.
My point exactly. Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill? When a gun is used properly in MILITARY hands , it kills and neutralizes. When a gun is used properly in CIVILIAN hands it hits an inanimate target or an animal. Smh at this one....

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.
No, the main difference is their use. Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets. When being Misused they are used to murder people. Cars are sold to civilians for transport, and when being misused the kill people

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.
Agree with this 100% there should be some liability

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.
Disagree about the semi automatic, but can actually UNDERSTAND your reason for saying it, a bad shooter is a bad shooter and no ammount of auto/semi auto is going to make him better lol

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.
If you don't want people to die AT ALL, then you have to ban just about everything that can result in death. Why are only gun deaths bad? Do you not mourn DWI victims? What if someone hangs themselves? Do you not mourn that? But banning rope is stupid right?

Quote:

---

You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?

---

Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.

Quote:

---

I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself Trish

---

Where exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.

Quote:

---

Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection.

---

So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.

Quote:

---

Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun.

---

And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.

Quote:

---

So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill?

---

You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

Quote:

---

Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets.

---

Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, it's done for erections.

Quote:

---

If you don't want people to die AT ALL

---

You miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.

No, you would not be using it for It's intended civilian purpose.You would me MISUSING it.

Where exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.

It's not a demeaning tactic. You contradicted yourself and I called you out on it. You're saying it's ok for YOU to kill animals, but someone should not have a semi auto , even though they're just using it for target shooting. Therein lies the contradiction.

So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.

It's not "so I say" , it's the truth. If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right?

And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.
Agree. Hence the cars/guns comparison

You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
No, I understood perfectly. You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people. I get it. As long as you decide what is bad, that IS what is bad? And other's opinions do not matter.

Not so with a car, So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death. You can misfire a gun and only hurt someone, just like you can hit someone with a car and not kill them.

Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, its a way to jack-off.

You miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

You've been missing points as well

Quote:

---

It's intended civilian purpose.

---

Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.

Quote:

---

You contradicted yourself

---

No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.

Quote:

---

If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right?

---

Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.

Quote:

---

You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people.

---

Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.

Quote:

---

So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death.

---

No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

Quote:

---

You've been missing points as well

---

Nice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.

Making what up? Getting around what? The fact is that they're sold to civilians for safe use. And they're misused by idiots. If you want really want to get technical, they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed. In the military this is for killing, with civilians this is for target shooting/hunting/collection/display, why can't you make that distinction?.

No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.

I pointed out the contradiction clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.
Just as it is not illegal to calibrate your gun for non lethal target shooting. You assume guns are only for killing. But I already know you can not see that point so no use of bringing it up anymore.

Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.
So you'll vilify a driver that drives carelessly, but you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misuses (because the gun is sold for recreational use) a gun? That is a contradiction. Again, you don't see it.

No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
I read quite clearly, at this point you just keep repeating yourself saying the same thing over and over again. You are deciding what is the proper way of using a gun, in your mind it is to kill and nothing else.

Nice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.[/QUOTE]
I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of. A roof is to provide shelter. Not to jump off as this could result in injury or death. Depressed/psychotic individuals use roofs as they were not intened to. A gun sold to civilians is NOT (I already know your answer Trish, and you are incorrect) for killing humans. Animals yes. But so is a bow and arrow.

The fact is , you're quite set in YOUR viewpoint that:
A: guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution

B: Cars are meant to drive , therefore are excused from vilification and not comparable to guns

C: you did not contradict yourself, even though you have several times

D: you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.

Now how I feel:

A: a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and display

B: you actually make anti-gun people look bad

C: It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool

D: There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence.



:)

You're all way off topic. Nobody cares about "gun deaths" any more than they care about death from heart disease. People are bent out of shape over the deliberate killings, especially the domestic terrorism in the form of mass shootings that's becoming more frequent. The tool is the only part of this that can be controlled at all through legislation. Anything else would require recognizing & admitting who the terrorists are. But apparently, delving into that aspect just opens a whole new vault of off topic ad hominem bullshit that further obfuscates the point. Oh well... I guess we're stuck talking about curing social ills by withholding some of the things that infect, & help assholes be sick.

BTW: ATF got lumped together like that because they were originally a tax collecting agency of the Treasury Department. Taxation was the preferred & perhaps the only form of regulation during reconstruction & up through the depressions. The bureau was given to the Justice Department in 2002.

I wrote a long sarcastic piece, but it got too personal so I deleted it.
The gist was that being the Policemen of the World, and maintaining prisons and mental facilities costs tons of money, and is costing the average American more than they're getting back, there are hidden taxes everywhere, and the 1950s family is shot to hell, girls have to work 50 hour weeks too, so they can have two hours of peace a day in front of the TV. Money = Freedom It's not the Mitt Romneys that are shooting people, it's the people that have been pushed to the limit. And that's getting to be more and more people.

Quote:

---

they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed.

---

You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.

Quote:

---

I pointed out the contradiction clearly

---

I'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."

Quote:

---

You assume guns are only for killing.

---

Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.

Quote:

---

you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misuses

---

I do and have in the last post indicated my abhorrence of a bad people who misuse guns. I simply also vilify bad people who do not misuse but use guns for the purposes for which they were designed; i.e. killing other people.

Quote:

---

I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of.

---

So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?

Quote:

---

guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution

---

Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.

Quote:

---

you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.

---

Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.

Quote:

---

a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and display

---

I "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.

Quote:

---

you actually make anti-gun people look bad

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatic weapons.

Quote:

---

It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool

---

I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.

Quote:

---

There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence.

---

Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation.

You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization? I stated a fact, not a guess about people getting an erection

I'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."

I know exactly what a contradiction is, and you contradicted yourself. That is all. I'm not going to re-quote and paste your comments and outline everything that led me to that conclusion.

Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.
No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display. There is a difference. (see Hummer vs Humvee analogy later)


So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?
No, I'm saying that the person who is suicidal/homicidal will still commit the act regardless of firearms being in the house. It does not make a roof "bad". Just like that does not make a firearm "bad".


Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.

Original military Design and intent, and intended use for civilians are two very different things. A Humvee was released and DESIGNED in a civilian version aka "Hummer", that does not mean people are going to but a 50 cal machine gun on it and patrol in it.

Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.

But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.

I "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.

see point above.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatics weapons.

I agree about limits. Rational differs depending on who you ask in this case., Sorry If I mistakenly associated you with anti-gun but some of your points seem to lean you heavily that way. You're saying "ban/take away the weapons I DONT agree with, but leave me mine".

I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.
Likewise, no hate or apathy implied. :)

Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation. [/QUOTE]
Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

Unfortunately... you miss each point I made.

1st - There should be regulation regarding gun ownership greater than exists today.
2nd - The first point means that I am in favor of gun ownership - if the first point can be accomplished.

3rd - The numbers are important. Gun deaths are like shark attacks - they take a greater proportion of attention then appropriate. Guns are easy news stories with easy taglines that can be exploited.

---

I understood each point. Your use of statistics was just inept in my view. The issue is not how many deaths are caused by a particular factor but the number of preventable deaths. To analyze what can be done to make a device safer one must consider risk and utility. How much would it cost to avoid a certain number of deaths? What utility is given up in avoiding those deaths? If there are available means of preventing thousands of deaths and they are not taken, this attracts attention.

The examples you gave are not comparable. Of course there are things that kill more people than guns; that does not mean that they are susceptible to a solution or further that a great deal is not being done already. So again, another important consideration would be the sufficiency of the regulatory structure in place to address that area. As I stated, pharmaceuticals are much more heavily regulated than guns and have much greater utility. If any industry deserves immunity it's one that develops products that improve quality of life rather than inherently dangerous products with little value. I think issues of obesity and environmental cancers do not get the attention they should. But doing something to prevent obesity would not crowd out the attention given to the issue of guns, in which as you say there are good public policy solutions.

Edit: Just in case you aren't reading between the lines of my argument it is this. You cannot say gun deaths get more attention than they deserve by simply showing the number of deaths by cause. This would imply that an issue only gets attention based on how many people die. Here are some suggestions for why certain things attract attention. If the death could have been prevented by modest regulation, people tend to pay more attention. If it is the result of a criminal act and the criminal has been facilitated by loose regulation, people will pay attention. Again, this all goes to avoidability and the cost of avoidance. The lower the cost of avoidance, the more public outrage will be engendered when the unattractive outcome is not in fact avoided.

74 days since Newtown and 2284 gun deaths, up 22 since yesterday.

Ban guns!

Quote:

---

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization?

---

Someone certainly does. I never said everyone does. That would be a generalization. Nevertheless, it remains the case that what distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower is the former was designed to kill, the latter was not.

Quote:

---

I know exactly what a contradiction is...

---

The evidence is against it.

Quote:

---

No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display.

---

Yet one designer can patent a single design, have two guns built exactly in accord with that design and yet one will be used to kill and the other solely for target shooting. Two guns built in accordance with one design. It is a bit sophomoric to keep insisting that guns are not designed for killing.

Quote:

---

But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.

---

Well, I would scratch the phrase "in essence 'picking' what people use or deserve," ('cause the essence of picking what people use is actually picking what people use) but other than that you got it. All us have only our own experiences and beliefs to go on (as long as "experiences" is interpreted broadly; so as for example to include our conversation here).

Later.