Guns, I know, not again, can't help myself

[Arlos]

Nerve gas: Military item designed to kill people.

Hand Grenade: Military item designed to kill people.

Assault rifle: Military item designed to kill people. (just not quite as many at once as nerve gas or hand grenades)

Tobacco: Naturally growing plant that, when used, harms only the person using it.


Lets all sing along again, "One of these things is not like the other....."

Also, I fail to see how banning military grade weaponry (or restricting such items to firing ranges) somehow equates to depending on the government for everything.... Straw man much?

-Arlos

[Ganzo]

Nerve gas: Military item designed to kill people.

Hand Grenade: Military item designed to kill people.

Assault rifle: Military item designed to kill people. (just not quite as many at once as nerve gas or hand grenades)

Tobacco: Naturally growing plant that, when used, harms only the person using it.


Lets all sing along again, "One of these things is not like the other....."

Also, I fail to see how banning military grade weaponry (or restricting such items to firing ranges) somehow equates to depending on the government for everything.... Straw man much?

-Arlos

Hillarious how someone who uses Strawman fallacy for every argument calls out someone else for using it inside the same post.

[Harrison]

An AR15 is not an assault rifle no matter how hard you want it to fit the bill.

If you want to ban people from having fully automatics, I don't care. It's already done, effectively. (Pre ban automatics are really expensive)

While I disagree with it, whatever.

But, lawl at you still trying to compare nerve gas and a rifle. You can't aim nerve gas. It's an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction. You comparing that to a rifle is just bad form. You're better than that.

[Lyion]

Tobacco: Naturally growing plant that, when used, harms only the person using it.

Last I checked there were no stats on second hand gun powder killing people....

[Spazz]

Ok arlos few points for you. No one owes you an explanation on why they own anything but i have still given them to you. If we base our rights off of need you can kiss just about everything else good bye.

You want to play one of these things is not like other than answer me this one. WHich kills more innocent people drunk drivers or Assault weapons.

Next stop talking about sams and grenades. Those arent arms they are ordinance. You have no right to own them and storage of explosives unlike guns is a major issue.

There is no difference between an assault rifle and any gun out there. Its not more deady its not more accurate and its not some how magical and going to make you kill anyone just having one around.

Millions of americans own assault weapons and dont commit a single crime and all you got to say is well fuck them I dont agree with what they do so they need to give it up.

Go ahead arlos explain to me why anyone needs to own a bat.
Explain to me why anyone needs a car that goes over 70 mph?
Now explain to me why anyone needs Whiskey?

Now keep in mind as you come back at me like a twat that all of the things I mentioned kill way more people than assault weapons a year and thats why your argument holds no water to me. Want to live in a safer society thats fine I can respect that but when it just comes down to guns make you feel icky and a lack of respect for the millions and millions of normal gun owners well my friend you now know why I dont owe you an explanation and have no respect for your demands.




Also ill agree to keep my gun stored at the range when you agree to keep your car stored at the track.

[Gypsiyee]

Last I checked there were no stats on second hand gun powder killing people....

Fair enough, but the cigarette to gun comparison is still pretty ludicrous. Secondhand smoke takes long term exposure for a disease that can be treated. Secondhand smoke lung cancer deaths are also just a fraction of firearm deaths each year. Long term vs. instant, 12k vs 3500.. just not even remotely comparable.

[Spazz]

Your right comparing smoking to guns doesnt work well. Booze on the other hand lines up perfectly.

[Harrison]

Including suicides in a number geared to incite fear(Firearm deaths), then saying cigarettes only kill the idiot using them so you can't compare them to firearms, is pretty hilarious.

They are directly comparable. You just don't want them to be because it destroys your feigned concern for your fellow man. You don't give a shit about anyone else, or you'd be fighting for a real solution to bigger problems.

I don't want to ban tobacco, alcohol, or drugs in general either. It's not up to the government to tell us what we can and cannot do and I'm sick of them invading my life left and right because we keep letting them.

[Drem]

Whats the point of comparing something you smoke to a weapon? Especially when lots of progressive legislation has removed cigarettes from public places and most campuses, hospitals, and airports. Let us know when your argument gets past the '80s

If anything you should use cigarettes as a model for change in the firearm industry. Trust me, no smoker enjoys not being able to smoke at the bar, in the airport, at the theatre, etc, but the country was able to agree upon and severly limit second hand exposure and it forces smokers to smoke less in general

But i doubt any agreement will ever be reached because people think they actually need AR-15s and 30 round pistol mags and gun shops at wal-mart and shit. Seems harder to get a pack of cigs in wal-mart anyway. Cant even get camel or american spirit. But yo i could go buy a shotgun and a pistol and 1,000 rounds each

That doesn't seem right to me

[Harrison]

What does "need" have to do with anything? Why do you need to kill yourself with an addictive substance? Why do you need a car with 600hp and can go 0-60 in under 10s? Why do you need a motorcycle? Why do you need to smoke marijuana? Why do you need to eat a big mac?

Need doesn't dictate whether you have the right to or not. The government isn't your mommy, stop letting it act like it is. It's pathetic.

[Gypsiyee]

Including suicides in a number geared to incite fear(Firearm deaths), then saying cigarettes only kill the idiot using them so you can't compare them to firearms, is pretty hilarious.

They are directly comparable. You just don't want them to be because it destroys your feigned concern for your fellow man. You don't give a shit about anyone else, or you'd be fighting for a real solution to bigger problems.

I don't want to ban tobacco, alcohol, or drugs in general either. It's not up to the government to tell us what we can and cannot do and I'm sick of them invading my life left and right because we keep letting them.

uh, that's the number of firearm homicides. so....

since you apparently only post just to see your own text i'll go ahead and re-link what i've already linked earlier in this thread.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

you'll note that firearm suicides are much higher at 18k+. maybe take 5 seconds to check the accuracy of your argument before you go derping all over the place.

[Harrison]

The CDC statistics are based on death certificates. I wouldn't even be surprised if they included combat related deaths of American military overseas. (Since they don't disclose specific information such as that. It would go against their agenda.)

The CDC has been caught using shitty methods of classification in the past to push a specific agenda, and this is no different. (Dog breed specific attacks for example.)

[Gypsiyee]

oh, my bad. i missed the memo that your biased unsubstantiated guesses are superior to the CDC's statistical data. since you say it, it's obviously true. i concede.

[Harrison]

But, hey, focus on that rather than the fact tobacco is retardedly more dangerous and kills infinitely more people worldwide every single day.

[Drem]

What does "need" have to do with anything? Why do you need to kill yourself with an addictive substance? Why do you need a car with 600hp and can go 0-60 in under 10s? Why do you need a motorcycle? Why do you need to smoke marijuana? Why do you need to eat a big mac?

Need doesn't dictate whether you have the right to or not. The government isn't your mommy, stop letting it act like it is. It's pathetic.

When did i ever talk about the government? Not smoking on campuses or in hospitals is created and put into effect locally, dipshit

I'm saying sometimes people give up a few freedoms to make the world safer for everyone else. As usual you're missing the point and assuming i want all guns banned or whatever nonsense that you get aggro about. I can realize cigarettes are bad for everyone. Im happy people cant smoke inside anymore. I would also be happy if people couldnt get 30 round clips for their pistols

Sorry you cant make the separation between recreational drugs/activities and items that help murder people better. Sorry you cant see the benefits from trying to lightly control these touchy social topics. You are on some retard shit right now, keep it up

[Drem]

Why is it that the dudes who talk about "reality" and "the real world" the most have the biggest disconnect from it

[Gypsiyee]

But, hey, focus on that rather than the fact tobacco is retardedly more dangerous and kills infinitely more people worldwide every single day.

I do not think the word infinitely means what you think it means.

And yes, it kills more people than firearms each year.. the vast majority of whom have chosen to smoke. If you are going to make the direct correlation, then it should be a tit for tat comparison. You wanna compare firsthand smoker lung cancer deaths to firearm suicides? fine. but you don't just get to pick and choose what you want to compare to suit your own nonsensical purposes.

[Spazz]

I want to compare alcohol related deaths and draw a direct comparison but nobody wants to go that route with me cuz its a losing battle.

I really do see both sides of the issue. Where i live I wish no one had access to a weapon at all but due to how many weapons are in circulation id rather cut off my left foot than be disarmed.

Criminals with weapons is a huge issue and they get them through strawman purchases, gunshow loopholes, stealing them or getting them smuggled in depending on the weapon and the class of criminal. If its not guns and knives and I dont know how to deal with it. Im trying to move away and while that gets me out it doesnt do anything about the problem. There are millions of sportsmen out there shooting everything from the thompson submachine gun of the gangster era to musketloading old school enthusiasts and it seems to me wronglike really wrong to strip there rights away because some other asshole abused them. Im tired of basing all of our policies off of what some asshole might do instead of the norm.

I want to see the violence in america come to a screeching halt but the reality of the situation is that a gun ban isnt going to change who we are as a people and how we view and treat each other.

Its funny to me that old dude brought up natural born killers when talking about why this happens. I agree that movie is a great reference but not for the reasons he thinks. That movie is violent as all hell but its a look at violence how it sells and how we make violent losers into instant celebs the second they do something horrid.

[Harrison]

Like comparing weapons of mass destruction to rifles?

You guys arbitrarily decide what is relevant and what isn't and then tell others their apple is really an orange.

There just happens to be more of you doing it so you think you're right. Logic doesn't work that way.

[10sun]

Why do you need a car with 600hp and can go 0-60 in under 10s?

If you have a 600hp car that takes 10s for 0-60mph then your car has issues. My Passat takes 9 and it has 200hp. My Jeep had 280 and took 8s.

You still don't drive do you?

[Harrison]

No shit. Way to miss the entire point. The numbers were generalized on purpose. Why does anyone need that nonsense?

It's not about necessity.

[brinstar]

so sad

[Menelvir]

For the purposes of comparing manner of death (intentional or otherwise), and whether the argument for tighter control or restriction of guns has any teeth, I tend to think legally-ownable guns of any stripe compare more readily with other military-grade weaponry than they do with either alcohol or tobacco.

I think the reason for this probably involves several factors, including the use (misuse?) of said thing to impose your will on others in a short, violent, shocking (unexpected) way, and it can also be perceived as even more heinous depending on the nature of the victims (young victims vs. adult victims, for example).

Most would probably tend to acknowledge that tobacco and alcohol kill many people directly or indirectly every year. And yet, regardless of the numbers, this is not something that disturbs people in a way that a singular act of overwhelming violence (or multiple singular acts taken collectively over time) does. Is this hypocritical? Death is death, right?

Yes and no.

The manner of death does make a difference, and though death is death, some forms are less psychologically palatable than others.

In another sense, maybe it is like alcohol and tobacco -- it's a precarious balance of will, the freedom to do or have something, and freedom to be free from that something (negative freedom).

I have difficulty seeing it as other than a zero-sum game. If you give with one hand, it necessitates taking with the other. The trick is finding where that balance lies such that the outcome is optimal -- probably for the largest number of people -- many similarly-conceived laws seem to be utilitarian in nature.

[Arlos]

The comments about nerve gas and explosives were designed to show that there is a spectrum of deadliness from military equipment, and we already ban civilians from owning military items of a certain lethality. It's all a matter of where the line is drawn. Right now, assault rifles that are 95% identical to military assault rifles are legal. I don't think that's right, and I think they should be included in the list of items that are too dangerous to the general population for civilians to possess, just like we ban hand grenades, LAW rockets and fully automatic weapons.

Oh, and Harrison: An AR-15 is functionally identical to an M-16, save for the burst fire selector switch. The M-16 is the TEXTBOOK definition of an assault rifle. So, when you claim that an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle you are absolutely, factually, provably wrong.

In other news, the president today signed a set of 23 executive orders on the issue. Frankly, I can't see any that even the most ardent gun fancier can object to. Here's the list:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

Strengthens background checks, assists law enforcement in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, helps schools with emergency planning, and makes sure that state Medicaid plans cover mental health issues. I don't see a single thing that's an issue there. Thoughts?

-Arlos

[Tossica]

He's a commie and wants to take our guns!