I promise not to debate you…

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Not just misinformed, you forgot how we don’t care about dead kids either.
You don’t.
You keep minimizing school mass shootings like their lives don’t matter. Small price to pay for you to keep playing with your guns. A few dead kids, well it’s not that bad. In fact it’s negligent. Only 623 dead people in 50 years of mass shootings.
Given the choice between continued school shootings and getting rid of your guns we all know what you would choose. That is clear.
 
There clearly is a difference between “gangland”, drug related, or young adult melees where someone pulls a gun and 5-6 people get shot or possibly killed and Columbine/Uvalde or the Batman Movie Theater shooting. Not the least of which the vast majority of those shootings are perpetrated by handguns. But I agree the media lumps them in together to increase the frequency they can claim and I agree it’s disingenuous. But that’s the media these days, biased and with political motivations on both sides.

But @pgg how do you propose to solve the random angsty teen shooter types? Let’s just aim for significant reduction of AR/short barrel rifle type gun shootings. Now of course, if ARs were magically gone in this country the angsty teen would acquire a handgun by purchase or by grabbing the one under his Dad’s bed etc, but for the sake of incremental action let’s just focus on this one subtype of the greater societal and access flaw and try to eliminate the kids or young adults walking into schools with guns that scare police forces. I’m legitimately asking what you think we could do to reduce or eradicate just the AR related random public mass shootings.
 
You don’t.
You keep minimizing school mass shootings like their lives don’t matter. Small price to pay for you to keep playing with your guns. A few dead kids, well it’s not that bad. In fact it’s negligent. Only 623 dead people in 50 years of mass shootings.
Given the choice between continued school shootings and getting rid of your guns we all know what you would choose. That is clear.

The lack of logic strikes. I guess you should give up your vehicle then if you care about the children.

IMG_5856.jpg


About the same amount of kids that died from school shootings in the last 50 years die EVERY YEAR from car accidents.


If you don’t stop driving your car, or at least for the love of god keep it under 30 mph, you certainly care about your vehicle more than the dead children. Given the choice between getting to work on time and continued child deaths on the road, it’s clear what you would choose.


#histrionics
 
There clearly is a difference between “gangland”, drug related, or young adult melees where someone pulls a gun and 5-6 people get shot or possibly killed and Columbine/Uvalde or the Batman Movie Theater shooting. Not the least of which the vast majority of those shootings are perpetrated by handguns. But I agree the media lumps them in together to increase the frequency they can claim and I agree it’s disingenuous. But that’s the media these days, biased and with political motivations on both sides.

But @pgg how do you propose to solve the random angsty teen shooter types? Let’s just aim for significant reduction of AR/short barrel rifle type gun shootings. Now of course, if ARs were magically gone in this country the angsty teen would acquire a handgun by purchase or by grabbing the one under his Dad’s bed etc, but for the sake of incremental action let’s just focus on this one subtype of the greater societal and access flaw and try to eliminate the kids or young adults walking into schools with guns that scare police forces. I’m legitimately asking what you think we could do to reduce or eradicate just the AR related random public mass shootings.

Thank you for the level headed post. I know you asked PGG, but I’d be fine with a 2-4 week waiting period for AR purchases (anything above a handgun honestly) and increasing the age to 21 for those types of purchases as well. Might stop someone who is “in the heat of the moment” and I think it seems reasonable.
 
The lack of logic strikes. I guess you should give up your vehicle then if you care about the children.

View attachment 355971

About the same amount of kids that died from school shootings in the last 50 years die EVERY YEAR from car accidents.


If you don’t stop driving your car, or at least for the love of god keep it under 30 mph, you certainly care about your vehicle more than the dead children. Given the choice between getting to work on time and continued child deaths on the road, it’s clear what you would choose.


#histrionics
Are people using cars to target and kill people now?
 
Not surprised here… if kids getting killed by guns won’t move the needle, I’m certain random “thugs” getting killed along with innocent bystanders won’t.

Only solution is to take away all your toys.

I made this comment in the rad onc thread, but I really want people to think critically about this. Even if you hate the second amendment and think nobody should be allowed to own a gun (which is a different argument), do you honestly believe this will be an effective "solution?"

We made drugs illegal, and yet anybody who wants drugs has always been able to easily obtain them. The war on drugs with criminalizing possession was an abysmal failure. Why in the world do you think there won't be a black market for guns, especially with the hundreds of millions already in existence, and that someone who wants to do something evil won't go to that market to obtain them? They buy them legally now because there is no real need for a black market. Yes, people who impulsively decide to commit suicide may have a second thought if they can't immediately go to Wal-Mart and buy a gun and instead have to jump through a few extra hoops. But people who commit mass shootings and extensively plan them, record them, etc? These are usually premeditated acts of horror. They will get their guns even if you take them away from all the good guys.

It is simple thinking to say just take the guns away and that solves this problem. I get that you want to solve the problem, but the reality is that people want to take the guns away for political reasons other than solving this problem and use these events to push their political agenda by capitalizing on our collective desires to not see children murdered.
 
I made this comment in the rad onc thread, but I really want people to think critically about this. Even if you hate the second amendment and think nobody should be allowed to own a gun (which is a different argument), do you honestly believe this will be an effective "solution?"

We made drugs illegal, and yet anybody who wants drugs has always been able to easily obtain them. The war on drugs with criminalizing possession was an abysmal failure. Why in the world do you think there won't be a black market for guns, especially with the hundreds of millions already in existence, and that someone who wants to do something evil won't go to that market to obtain them? They buy them legally now because there is no real need for a black market. Yes, people who impulsively decide to commit suicide may have a second thought if they can't immediately go to Wal-Mart and buy a gun and instead have to jump through a few extra hoops. But people who commit mass shootings and extensively plan them, record them, etc? These are usually premeditated acts of horror. They will get their guns even if you take them away from all the good guys.

It is simple thinking to say just take the guns away and that solves this problem. I get that you want to solve the problem, but the reality is that people want to take the guns away for political reasons other than solving this problem and use these events to push their political agenda by capitalizing on our collective desires to not see children murdered.
No of course it won’t happen but I’m not against a “radical” solution at this point when all I’m getting back is that we need to keep assault rifles, make one door entry points and arm the teachers, janitors and kids.
 
Thank you for the level headed post. I know you asked PGG, but I’d be fine with a 2-4 week waiting period for AR purchases (anything above a handgun honestly) and increasing the age to 21 for those types of purchases as well. Might stop someone who is “in the heat of the moment” and I think it seems reasonable.

I think that’s so ridiculously easy it’s insane for us as a country not to do them. I mean I honestly don’t care if you own guns, or if you like guns to go throw a thousand rounds at a target at some range somewhere, but I cannot understand the opposition to mandatory waits. I mean if you have a buddy shooting trip or competition planned you plan ahead and buy your gun etc, there’s no such thing as an gun acquisition emergency.

Now, you mention you are ok with 2-4 week waits for “anything above a handgun”, why? I think handguns should absolutely be included. “Heat of the moment” situations are honestly much more likely with pistols (suicides, 1 v 1 arguments, jealous spouses, etc).
 
I made this comment in the rad onc thread, but I really want people to think critically about this. Even if you hate the second amendment and think nobody should be allowed to own a gun (which is a different argument), do you honestly believe this will be an effective "solution?"

We made drugs illegal, and yet anybody who wants drugs has always been able to easily obtain them. The war on drugs with criminalizing possession was an abysmal failure. Why in the world do you think there won't be a black market for guns, especially with the hundreds of millions already in existence, and that someone who wants to do something evil won't go to that market to obtain them? They buy them legally now because there is no real need for a black market. Yes, people who impulsively decide to commit suicide may have a second thought if they can't immediately go to Wal-Mart and buy a gun and instead have to jump through a few extra hoops. But people who commit mass shootings and extensively plan them, record them, etc? These are usually premeditated acts of horror. They will get their guns even if you take them away from all the good guys.

It is simple thinking to say just take the guns away and that solves this problem. I get that you want to solve the problem, but the reality is that people want to take the guns away for political reasons other than solving this problem and use these events to push their political agenda by capitalizing on our collective desires to not see children murdered.

Maybe take the cigarette/tobacco approach. Cigarettes are not illegal and easily obtained. We’ve instituted a minimum age to obtain them, outlawed them in certain public places, and used tax revenue from their purchases to pay for public health programs. However, the most significant regulation on the tobacco industry is in terms of how they can market their product. The regulation on cigarette marketing has been very effective in reducing cigarette usage as well as social acceptance of smoking. That is one of the least talked about methods of reducing gun violence…regulate the marketing. Guns have become a fashion accessory and a virtue signaler that you are a “freedom loving American.” The amount of idiots out there buying guns as accessories to their lame paramilitary cosplay grows every year and a big reason for that is marketing.
 
Maybe take the cigarette/tobacco approach. Cigarettes are not illegal and easily obtained. We’ve instituted a minimum age to obtain them, outlawed them in certain public places, and used tax revenue from their purchases to pay for public health programs. However, the most significant regulation on the tobacco industry is in terms of how they can market their product. The regulation on cigarette marketing has been very effective in reducing cigarette usage as well as social acceptance of smoking. That is one of the least talked about methods of reducing gun violence…regulate the marketing. Guns have become a fashion accessory and a virtue signaler that you are a “freedom loving American.” The amount of idiots out there buying guns as accessories to their lame paramilitary cosplay grows every year and a big reason for that is marketing.

Well, that's basically what we have done with automatic weapons. To buy a fully automatic weapon you have to get a pre 1986 gun, get a tax stamp for it, and pay about $20,000 for the gun itself as they are extremely valuable due to their scarcity.

I doubt many of these shooters can afford $20k guns.
 
The lack of logic strikes. I guess you should give up your vehicle then if you care about the children.

View attachment 355971

About the same amount of kids that died from school shootings in the last 50 years die EVERY YEAR from car accidents.


If you don’t stop driving your car, or at least for the love of god keep it under 30 mph, you certainly care about your vehicle more than the dead children. Given the choice between getting to work on time and continued child deaths on the road, it’s clear what you would choose.


#histrionics
issue here is that there is a fundamental difference between vehicles and guns. Vehicles have more than one purpose, and your average civilian vehicle wasn't designed to kill people, guns on the other hand only have one purpose. I don't understand the logic behind saying that because people are killed by cars, that means we should have absolutely zero gun control. Why are there laws if people are murdered anyway?

How much higher would the death toll be if vehicles were as regulated as guns are in this country?
 
Are people using cars to target and kill people now?

I mean….yeah.

IMG_5857.jpg


But that’s not the point. I don’t think anyone is silly enough to think that we are gonna get rid of evil people who want to hurt others. They’ll always be around. What people are suggesting is that we need to make systematic changes to reduce the chances that someone is gonna get killed by an evil person with a gun. They propose we do this by reducing the amount of bullets an evil crazy person can shoot over a short period of time (by banning certain types of gun or limiting magazine capacity), because less bullets mean less deaths, right?

I’m not proposing that we get rid of cars or driving, but it’s unarguable that reduced speed means reduces traffic deaths. If you are not in favor of a federal 30 mph speed limit, you are choosing your convenience over the lives of children.
 
I mean….yeah.

View attachment 355972

But that’s not the point. I don’t think anyone is silly enough to think that we are gonna get rid of evil people who want to hurt others. They’ll always be around. What people are suggesting is that we need to make systematic changes to reduce the chances that someone is gonna get killed by an evil person with a gun. They propose we do this by reducing the amount of bullets an evil crazy person can shoot over a short period of time (by banning certain types of gun or limiting magazine capacity), because less bullets mean less deaths, right?

I’m not proposing that we get rid of cars or driving, but it’s unarguable that reduced speed means reduces traffic deaths. If you are not in favor of a federal 30 mph speed limit, you are choosing your convenience over the lives of children.
So hypothetically speaking, let’s say every week someone rents a moving truck and rams it into a school/day care, etc killing 20 kids each time.

Do you think we might say or do something about it?
 
That you think that you have the ability or the duty to "parent" other adults is a large part of the underlying division between the two sides of most issues. Once you revert to that mindset, there is no longer meaningful discourse. Seems to be the fall back position on any contentious issue that is discussed here. One side feels that they must parent the other side, who are so misinformed that their opinion has no value.

It’s always ironic to read about the concern of an overly paternalistic government on an anesthesiology forum. This is a forum where I’m sure a lot of members support legislation and legislators that work to prevent practitioners with other degrees from practicing anesthesia independently.
 
I think that’s so ridiculously easy it’s insane for us as a country not to do them. I mean I honestly don’t care if you own guns, or if you like guns to go throw a thousand rounds at a target at some range somewhere, but I cannot understand the opposition to mandatory waits. I mean if you have a buddy shooting trip or competition planned you plan ahead and buy your gun etc, there’s no such thing as an gun acquisition emergency.

Now, you mention you are ok with 2-4 week waits for “anything above a handgun”, why? I think handguns should absolutely be included. “Heat of the moment” situations are honestly much more likely with pistols (suicides, 1 v 1 arguments, jealous spouses, etc).

I’d argue that there are potentially scenarios where someone would like to arm themselves in a timely fashion. Perhaps if someone planned on leaving their abusive boyfriend and wanted to make sure they felt safe if he might not take it so well? Just a thought. Cue the people saying it’s just making a situation more dangerous, but tell that to the 120lb female who might truly be afraid of someone who might have access to their apartment/house.

I dunno. I personally don’t think I’d ever be that inconvenienced by a mandatory waiting period, but I can see why there are objections to it. I don’t see why we couldn’t come to a compromise nationally for a waiting period on certain types of rifles though.
 
Well, that's basically what we have done with automatic weapons. To buy a fully automatic weapon you have to get a pre 1986 gun, get a tax stamp for it, and pay about $20,000 for the gun itself as they are extremely valuable due to their scarcity.

I doubt many of these shooters can afford $20k guns.

I’d actually just like to see regulation on marketing.
 
So hypothetically speaking, let’s say every week someone rents a moving truck and rams it into a school/day care, etc killing 20 kids each time.

Do you think we might say or do something about it?

Sure we would. And if we had a mass school shooting every week, we might makes some substantial changes too. But we don’t.

You’re gonna say but there are people who die from guns every week, and I’ll counter that there are people who die from cars every week too, just not in “mass drive-overs.”
 
Sure we would. And if we had a mass school shooting every week, we might makes some substantial changes too. But we don’t.

You’re gonna say but there are people who die from guns every week, and I’ll counter that there are people who die from cars every week too, just not in “mass drive-overs.”
Were cars built to kill? Can we drive guns?
 
It’s always ironic to read about the concern of an overly paternalistic government on an anesthesiology forum. This is a forum where I’m sure a lot of members support legislation and legislators that work to prevent practitioners with other degrees from practicing anesthesia independently.


Reminds me of Rand Paul, the gated community libertarian who ironically got beat up by his neighbor inside his gated community.

 
I’d argue that there are potentially scenarios where someone would like to arm themselves in a timely fashion. Perhaps if someone planned on leaving their abusive boyfriend and wanted to make sure they felt safe if he might not take it so well? Just a thought. Cue the people saying it’s just making a situation more dangerous, but tell that to the 120lb female who might truly be afraid of someone who might have access to their apartment/house.

I dunno. I personally don’t think I’d ever be that inconvenienced by a mandatory waiting period, but I can see why there are objections to it. I don’t see why we couldn’t come to a compromise nationally for a waiting period on certain types of rifles though.

Ok, I’ll give you the battered spouse scenario. And I don’t like saying “well screw that person who’s fearing for their safety” but I think I’m still on the side that would say 95% of the time a waiting period would more likely prevent a rash decision than fail a person in need. Maybe just require a wait on anything with a magazine. The woman that needs to escape her partner can have a revolver same day….

I just don’t think failing to do something because it may inconvenience lawful gun owners/sportsmen etc is a good enough reason.
 
Ok, I’ll give you the battered spouse scenario. And I don’t like saying “well screw that person who’s fearing for their safety” but I think I’m still on the side that would say 95% of the time a waiting period would more likely prevent a rash decision than fail a person in need. Maybe just require a wait on anything with a magazine. The woman that needs to escape her partner can have a revolver same day….

I just don’t think failing to do something because it may inconvenience lawful gun owners/sportsmen etc is a good enough reason.

I agree. I don’t really care about the sportsmen side of things to be honest. I’ve never done it and I certainly don’t think an inconvenience in that regards outweighs a potential benefit, if it can be proven that there would actually be a benefit to said inconvenience.
 
Were cars built to kill? Can we drive guns?

Why are you trying to get into technicalities? If my 30 mph legislation will guarantee we save childrens lives, which it would, then an opponent would have to value those lives less than driving faster. That’s the same logic your side uses to say if we reduced guns via X legislation, opponents must care more about their hunting guns or whatever than they do about dead children.
 
I’d actually just like to see regulation on marketing.
The tax stamps on machine guns put in place in 1934 were $200 because that was how much a machine gun cost. The idea was to double the price of a machine gun so people can't afford them. That $200 today is still the same, but with inflation it's trivial now. We could make $10,000 tax stamps.

I don't get the marketing thing. I don't see a lot of gun marketing. Where are all these gun ads? When I bought my guns, I did not find out about them through marketing.

I agree that the gun nut culture is annoying. I have multiple of the big black scary kind of guns that just sit in my closet. Almost never use them. I rarely think about them. Don't even really remember why I bought them at this point. Taking them to the range occasionally is fun but it's not a hobby I really care enough about. I'm not worried enough about my safety to keep it loaded and under my bed or by the door which is where it would need to be to be of any use. However, I do view them as useful stores of value. I can sell all of them for significantly more than I paid for them. Also, I like knowing they are there, for some reason, so I will never sell them.
 
No, I didn’t say you don’t care about dead kids. I said you care about your guns more!
The lack of logic strikes. I guess you should give up your vehicle then if you care about the children.

View attachment 355971

About the same amount of kids that died from school shootings in the last 50 years die EVERY YEAR from car accidents.


If you don’t stop driving your car, or at least for the love of god keep it under 30 mph, you certainly care about your vehicle more than the dead children. Given the choice between getting to work on time and continued child deaths on the road, it’s clear what you would choose.


#histrionics
You sir are an idiot. I need a car to get around as I don’t have buses or trains where I live.
Most of us need vehicles.
Why exactly do you NEED a gun? As rare and negligible as these shootings are according to you and your buddies, WHY do you feel the need to protect yourself against something negligible with guns?
I won’t argue anymore with people who have as many neurons as my fingers.
 
Why are you trying to get into technicalities? If my 30 mph legislation will guarantee we save childrens lives, which it would, then an opponent would have to value those lives less than driving faster. That’s the same logic your side uses to say if we reduced guns via X legislation, opponents must care more about their hunting guns or whatever than they do about dead children.
If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead kids/people from gun violence, I’ll sign up.
 
You sir are an idiot. I need a car to get around as I don’t have buses or trains where I live.
Most of us need vehicles.
Why exactly do you NEED a gun? As rare and negligible as these shootings are according to you and your buddies, WHY do you feel the need to protect yourself against something negligible with guns?
I won’t argue anymore with people who have as many neurons as my fingers.

Do you need to drive 75 mph? Do you disagree that lowering the speed limit would save lives?
 
If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead kids/people from gun violence, I’ll sign up.

That’s a weird thing to say.

If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead/kids people from car accidents, will you sign up?
 
That’s a weird thing to say.

If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead/kids people from car accidents, will you sign up?
Wasn’t that your hypothetical question to a problem we’re not concerned about?

We’re talking about guns involved in gun violence and you’re equating car ownership to gun ownership despite one being used to actively target and kill people.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t that your hypothetical question to a problem we’re not concerned about?

We’re talking about guns involved in gun violence and you’re equating car ownership to gun ownership despite one being used to actively target and kill people.

I’m equating potentially preventable deaths to potentially preventable deaths, and exploring the trade offs involved. You refuse to answer because you don’t want to admit that your convenience and reduced travel time is worth more than a certain amount of lives lost (including childrens) each year.

If 50% percent of car trips resulted in a car crash, we’d lower the speed limit. There’s a reason we don’t have a 100 mph speed limit. We have deemed as a society that our current speed limits result in an acceptable ratio of convenience to deaths. And as dark as that sounds, it’s the truth. We accept thousands of car accident deaths each year as a hazard of driving as fast as we currently do. We know we could reduce that number if we wanted to, but we don’t. And until you admit that our collective convenience is more important than the thousands of lives lost, you can’t have an honest discussion about mass shootings, which are in the 10s of deaths each year, not the 10,000s of deaths annually.

And if you are gonna sit there and rightly admit that your convenience is worth X amount of deaths, how can you sit there and tell people that their right to self defense isn’t worth (a much smaller) X amount of deaths.

Just another way to think about things, and an important reason that the “if it saves one life” argument is quite faulty.
 
I’m equating potentially preventable deaths to potentially preventable deaths, and exploring the trade offs involved. You refuse to answer because you don’t want to admit that your convenience and reduced travel time is worth more than a certain amount of lives lost (including childrens) each year.

If 50% percent of car trips resulted in a car crash, we’d lower the speed limit. There’s a reason we don’t have a 100 mph speed limit. We have deemed as a society that our current speed limits result in an acceptable ratio of convenience to deaths. And as dark as that sounds, it’s the truth. We accept thousands of car accident deaths each year as a hazard of driving as fast as we currently do. We know we could reduce that number if we wanted to, but we don’t. And until you admit that our collective convenience is more important than the thousands of lives lost, you can’t have an honest discussion about mass shootings, which are in the 10s of deaths each year, not the 10,000s of deaths annually.

And if you are gonna sit there and rightly admit that your convenience is worth X amount of deaths, how can you sit there and tell people that their right to self defense isn’t worth (a much smaller) X amount of deaths.

Just another way to think about things, and an important reason that the “if it saves one life” argument is quite faulty.
What are some things we haven’t tried to limit car deaths? We’ve lowered the speed limits, enforced seat belts, enforce laws to stop drinking and driving with police check points, limit the age to get a drivers license, car insurance, improved how we make cars, etc…

What something we’ve done to limit gun violence?

We accept “risk” in our lives but you’re equating the use of a gun as something that is needed in society. I can’t hop in a gun and go to work.
 
You don’t.
You keep minimizing school mass shootings like their lives don’t matter. Small price to pay for you to keep playing with your guns. A few dead kids, well it’s not that bad. In fact it’s negligent. Only 623 dead people in 50 years of mass shootings.
Given the choice between continued school shootings and getting rid of your guns we all know what you would choose. That is clear.
I am in the middle on the issue, but to describe it as either / or and that there only two variables at play is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. You have the issues of the second amendment rights, you’ve got the issue of protecting yourself against criminals, and you also have issues of corrupt politicians who will continue to push socialist ideals to an unarmed and defenseless populace. There are many others as well, such as ghost guns and the “only criminals will have guns” argument.
 
Last edited:
I am in the middle on the issue, but to describe it as either or and that there only two variables at play is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. You have the issues of the second amendment rights, you’ve got the issue of protecting yourself against criminals, and you also have issues of corrupt politicians who will continue to push socialist ideals to an unarmed and defenseless populace. There are many others as well, such as ghost guns and the “only criminals will have guns” argument.

You forgot about corrupt politicians accepting millions of dollars from the NRA. And principled, non corrupt politicians advocating for sensible gun control getting primaried by their own party.


 
Last edited:
What are some things we haven’t tried to limit car deaths? We’ve lowered the speed limits, enforced seat belts, enforce laws to stop drinking and driving with police check points, limit the age to get a drivers license, car insurance, improved how we make cars, etc…

What something we’ve done to limit gun violence?

We accept “risk” in our lives but you’re equating the use of a gun as something that is needed in society. I can’t hop in a gun and go to work.
Plus, if someone breaks into your home, you can mow them down with your car during their escape. We should outlaw grill guards though because they may be too lethal.

In regards to what we have done to curb gun violence, here are a few:
-We made gun related murder illegal. If you murder someone with a gun in the majority of states, you WILL do some serious jail time.
-We have made it illegal to carry a gun into a school. That is completely illegal in most states.
-We set an age limit on who can legally buy a gun, just like a driver’s license, only with a higher age limit.
-We encourage gun safety for legal gun owners such as gun safes and encouraged people to take as many safety precautions as possible.

The main thing though, is, that it is illegal to murder someone with a gun, just like it is illegal to speed or drive drunk. It seems that the same basic restrictions surrounding driver safety are also in place for guns. I suspect a far higher percentage of people follow the gun regulations than they do the driving regulations. If I drive 80 where I live, I will be passed by the majority of vehicles on the interstate. Judging from the number of attorneys that deal with DUI arrests, I suspect that there is a high percentage that don’t follow that rule either. It seems fairly common.
 
Plus, if someone breaks into your home, you can mow them down with your car during their escape. We should outlaw grill guards though because they may be too lethal.

In regards to what we have done to curb gun violence, here are a few:
-We made gun related murder illegal. If you murder someone with a gun in the majority of states, you WILL do some serious jail time.
-We have made it illegal to carry a gun into a school. That is completely illegal in most states.
-We set an age limit on who can legally buy a gun, just like a driver’s license, only with a higher age limit.
-We encourage gun safety for legal gun owners such as gun safes and encouraged people to take as many safety precautions as possible.

The main thing though, is, that it is illegal to murder someone with a gun, just like it is illegal to speed or drive drunk. It seems that the same basic restrictions surrounding driver safety are also in place for guns. I suspect a far higher percentage of people follow the gun regulations than they do the driving regulations. If I drive 80 where I live, I will be passed by the majority of vehicles on the interstate. Judging from the number of attorneys that deal with DUI arrests, I suspect that there is a high percentage that don’t follow that rule either. It seems fairly common.
I would imagine the majority of car accidents are”accidents“ and not intentional. I can’t say the same about gun violence… or are we considering those incidents unintentional?
 
Last edited:

In response to the question of who NEEDS and AR 15? Apparently many Federal Agencies do!
Agencies like HHS, NASA, The Smithsonian, DHS, DOJ and Dept of Homeland Security,The IRS, The VA, The Office of the Inspector General at HHS, The EPA, The Social Security Administration, to mention some. Millions of rounds of ammunition have been purchased also. Why do these agencies NEED to be militarized? A better question than why do I NEED to protect my family. A billion dollars have been spent outside the DOD on federal agencies arming themselves.
Edit. Note this article is from Forbes, not known for it's support of the 2nd Amendment or conservative views.
 
Do you need to drive 75 mph? Do you disagree that lowering the speed limit would save lives?
It sure would. And I would do it. What are you gonna do?
That’s a weird thing to say.

If lowering the speed limit to 30 mph reduces the amount of dead/kids people from car accidents, will you sign up?
So you ask a question, get an answer and now you say it’s weird? What do you want as a response?
 
Not sure if you’re just being dense….

Today I also learned.

Cars =/ Guns
Guns =/ drugs
Therefore cars does not equal drugs.

Also that by agreeing to drive at 35mi/hr, there is a good possibility that we can eliminate all/many school shootings. I think I may sign up too.

Bottom line it for me then, since I am pretty dense and reading this thread as literal as possible.

Do we or do we not having a gun problem in this country? If you feel we don’t, then rest of the discussion is moot. If you feel that we do, what is one reasonable solution that you think we should do?
 
What are some things we haven’t tried to limit car deaths? We’ve lowered the speed limits, enforced seat belts, enforce laws to stop drinking and driving with police check points, limit the age to get a drivers license, car insurance, improved how we make cars, etc…

What something we’ve done to limit gun violence?

We accept “risk” in our lives but you’re equating the use of a gun as something that is needed in society. I can’t hop in a gun and go to work.

Just because you can’t get in a gun and go to work that’s a definition of a need? We only accept risk for things that involve work? Again, we could all accept a slightly longer commute and lower the speed limit to even 50 and it’d save lives, but we don’t. Why not?

And there are obvious things we do to limit gun violence. There’s background checks, bans on automatic weapons, and age limits. They might not go as far as you like, but I’m arguing speed limits don’t go as far as I’d like to reduce accident deaths.

If the anti-gun crowd got their way, people would lose their access to guns for self defense and sport, and they want to do that to prevent X number of deaths each year. So the sacrifice for that decrease in deaths is personal usage of guns and ability for self defense/typical 2nd amendment arguments. If we lowered the speed limit to 40 mph, we probably save 20-30k lives each year and the cost would be increased commute times everywhere. It’s a cost benefit analysis. It has to be looked at it this way, cause there’s risk to everything in life.

It makes no sense for me to make the accusation that you don’t care about the lives of children just because you aren’t lobbying for lower speed limits. In the same way, you (and others) claiming the people on the right don’t care about dying kids is wrong and just makes you come off like an A$& hole.
 
You seem to favor one.
As I have said before, I am not a gun owner. I believe that some limits should exist, I just don't know where to draw the line and I have little trust that politicians will base any restrictions on our best interests and will instead base it on how they can best completely disarm legal gun owners. That is where I stand.
 
I would imagine the majority of car accidents are”accidents“ and not intentional. I can’t say the same about gun violence… or are we considering those incidents unintentional?
That depends. Is knowingly getting behind the wheel while impaired intentional? I would venture to say that it could be considered intentional. A lot of car accidents that kill involve drunk drivers or otherwise impaired drivers.
I am not the one who made the comparison to cars, though.
 
If the fear is that any regulation will lead to banishment of all guns, how will there ever be any changes? I’m beginning to believe this is the goal to begin with… no compromise.

Not sure why it has to be all or none here but since that is what it is, then I guess so be it… let there be no compromise, let’s take every gun away!
 
Wasn’t that your hypothetical question to a problem we’re not concerned about?

We’re talking about guns involved in gun violence and you’re equating car ownership to gun ownership despite one being used to actively target and kill people.
From the US Dept of Transportation:
Every day, about 32 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes — that's one person every 45 minutes. In 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths — a 14% increase from 2019.

I guess the question is, does a drunk driver caused death count in your eyes as actively targeting and killing people? I would say yes, but you may disagree. I don't think they set out with that intention, but by driving drunk, they know the risk is extremely high. I think the law sees it that way as in the term "vehicular homicide." There may be other names depending on location and laws.

This is all semantics, but both cars and guns kill people. Quite a few people. Both are problems. We have not solved either although several laws are in place in attempts to lessen the impact from either. People tend to not abide by those laws in many circumstances.
 
If the fear is that any regulation will lead to banishment of all guns, how will there ever be any changes? I’m beginning to believe this is the goal to begin with… no compromise.

Not sure why it has to be all or none here but since that is what it is, then I guess so be it… let there be no compromise, let’s take every gun away!
I am simply relaying why I think there is distrust. Staunch gun owners and NRA activists, I believe (because I am not one), fear that each time some rights will be chipped away and it will be easier and easier to banish them altogether, as you wish to do.
I hear the arguments from both sides, so I am simply relaying the arguments that I hear.
 
I am simply relaying why I think there is distrust. Staunch gun owners and NRA activists, I believe (because I am not one), fear that each time some rights will be chipped away and it will be easier and easier to banish them altogether, as you wish to do.
I hear the arguments from both sides, so I am simply relaying the arguments that I hear.
I didn’t start off wanting to take all guns away but if that’s the only path your buddies believe will happen if any regulation is done, then so be it. We have over 15 pages thus far and no closer to a compromise then we were when this post began.

Only solution is to elect one group of politicians who are willing to make laws that favor whichever side wins. Let’s go AOC and Bernie… socialism for all!!
 
Last edited:
So you ask a question, get an answer and now you say it’s weird? What do you want as a response?

He said if lowering the speed limit would reduce GUN deaths, he would do it. That was weird. You must not have read his actual words.
 
Last edited:
Today I also learned.

Cars =/ Guns
Guns =/ drugs
Therefore cars does not equal drugs.

Also that by agreeing to drive at 35mi/hr, there is a good possibility that we can eliminate all/many school shootings. I think I may sign up too.

Bottom line it for me then, since I am pretty dense and reading this thread as literal as possible.

Do we or do we not having a gun problem in this country? If you feel we don’t, then rest of the discussion is moot. If you feel that we do, what is one reasonable solution that you think we should do?

giphy.gif
 
It sure would. And I would do it. What are you gonna do?

So is that something you feel strongly about like this gun issue? You’re far more likely to die in a car accident than from a gun, and yet your fear of getting shot has, by your own account, largely influenced your decision to want to leave the US. Have you ever once prior to this thread campaigned to cut the speed limit in half? If not, why not?

And no, personally I wouldn’t be on board with that. I think it’s too much of an imposition and I’m a fairly good defensive driver. I still could die every time I get in my car, but it’s a calculated risk I take. However, if you’re going to approach the issue simply from the “if it saves one child’s life” or the “well tell that to all the moms who lost kids in car accidents” point of view, then it’s hard to argue against reducing the speed limit.
 
Last edited:
He said if lowering the speed limit would reduce GUN deaths, he would do it. That was weird. You must not have read his actual words.
I had to go back and read it again. I’ll admit, I misread it the first time too and was confused.
 
Top