Driver kills 50 and injures 50+ (hyperbole)

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I acknowledged that to Krazysh0t already. It's a mental exercise, not a literal comparison. I added the (hyperbole) to the title for that exact reason.

Anything else you'd like to comment on?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well apparently that's today because you offered a gun control measure and I not only didn't call you a gun grabber but even agreed with you . There's always common ground but I feel people use these tragedies to push their agenda without actually understanding where the other side is coming from.

This and pretty much every other political topic.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I acknowledged that to Krazysh0t already. It's a mental exercise, not a literal comparison. I added the (hyperbole) to the title for that exact reason.

Anything else you'd like to comment on?

Yea learn the difference between apples and oranges, its goin to save you a whole lot of stress in the future.

a reply to: thov420

And I appreciate that. That is why I'm talking to you and not yelling or being derisive at the moment. Most of the time as soon as the loudmouth assholes start yelling at me I exit the conversation, and it doesn't take long for those types to come out of the woodwork on gun control threads.

I have a very hard time equating cars to guns, even for purposes of hyperbole.

However, if I am to do so, I am left considering the following:

1) As far as I am aware (someone correct me if I am wrong), the government can tie the VIN number of every legally owned car to specific owner(s). Such traceability does not exist with firearms. Would such traceability be helpful for preventing firearm related crimes, for restricting who can or can't own one, for keeping track of ownership changes, or for holding people accountable if their firearms are used by others to commit crimes?
2) One can lose their ability to drive for violating traffic law. There are also ways in which a person may lose his right to own a gun (being in a mental institution, convicted of a felony, being a fugitive, being an illegal alien, etc.) Would there be benefit in broadening the reasons for which a person may be prohibited from owning a firearm? For example, should being investigated by the FBI for potential terrorist connections prohibit ownership, even if there isn't sufficient evidence to bring charges?

In the original hyperbole, let's assume the driver was on a FBI watch list for vehicle related slaughter. Should that give us the ability to take his car away? Should it prevent him from buying or renting another?

I mean, at some point the hyperbole runs out of steam.

I think a lot of this boils down to how much we trust the government. Those who are unwilling to pass more restrictive gun laws tend to see these laws as a gateway to a massive infringement on our basic rights rather than as a way to keep lunatics and terrorists from owning weapons.

In this country, with our history, I can't see how this ever gets resolved.

Guns, cars, knives or any weapon for that matter do not, I repeat ,do not kill people. People kill people with these things. To ban weapons as a means to stop killing is an inane and even stupid reason. Vet people rigorously, yes, but you will not stop all killings. It's the same as hard drugs, they are illegal yet are virtually easily obtainable for those that want.
As for the sales of weapons after mass shooting, if you people can't see the reasoning behind that then I feel sorry for you, I would put this down to a matter of self defence.
Like, what if someone in that night club were armed and shot the guy before his carnage mounted? Who knows?
Just remember guns don't kill people, it takes a person to pull the trigger.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

With your argument then there should be more talk of banning cars. Cars kill as many people as guns do overall.. and it is not their primary function... If you remiove suicide, you are 3 times as likely to die from a car accident as with a firearm... And since guns are primarily used for hunting and self-defense, I woud say mass shootings are not their primary function either..

originally posted by: Orionhunter88
a reply to: Krazysh0t

With your argument then there should be more talk of banning cars. Cars kill as many people as guns do overall.. and it is not their primary function... If you remiove suicide, you are 3 times as likely to die from a car accident as with a firearm... And since guns are primarily used for hunting and self-defense, I woud say mass shootings are not their primary function either..

Yeah maybe if you completely ignore the part of my argument where I pointed out that comparing cars to guns doesn't work.

If we're going to resort to a "cars are killer machines, why aren't those banned?" hyperbole, let's explore the opposite end of the argument: why aren't guns regulated and licensed with the same diligence as cars? Why doesn't the government have titling and licensing information on every gun in the country?

Cars, a machine built specifically to transport people from one place to another, but which are known to be dangerous in the wrong hands, and are valuable enough to warrant legal protections in the form of titles and government-controlled ownership lists, involve a lot of money, time, and legal hassle to own. Why not institute that level of bureaucracy for gun ownership? A gun buyer MUST also title his gun, take a test and obtain a license even be allowed to operate his gun, provide insurance for any inadvertent damage caused by his gun, etc.

a reply to: georgeglass

Are you comfortable pulling a weapon out and shooting another person?

In self-defense?

Absolutely.

And I will sleep fine.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah maybe if you completely ignore the part of my argument where I pointed out that comparing cars to guns doesn't work.

I did not ignore your argument.. I was pointing out that there is a reason to compare the two.. you assume that guns are primarily for killing but yet they kill less statistically than cars.. Random killing is the primary purpose of neither, yet cars are better at it.. And since there are around 300 million cars in this country... and about 253 million cars.. cars are actually more deadly than guns... so why is the comparison not valid? But you are also more likely to overdose from prescription medication or die from medical malpractice.. But we don't talk about banning doctors either.. because you think they save lives.. Well police think guns saves lives, or they would not carry them.. Home owners think they save lives.. And if you need help, you probably call someone with a gun to save your life... But you focus on a gun that does not kill anyone by itself now. And unless you beat someone to death with it, it is the rounds that exit the barrel that actually kill. And that action requires a person to pull a trigger.. Just like it takes a person to be behind the wheel of a car... Just because yoy say there is no comparison does not make it true.. No matter how many times you say it.. Because if there are people involves, there can be a comparison made.. The day guns start going on killing sprees by themselves, then we should talk about banning them...

You picked an interesting topic because driving is one of the most regulated things there is. Think of all the road signs and the traffic lanes, for just one example. These are in place to reduce accidents, and they didn't take away anyone's right to drive. To drive you need to have a license and you also need to complete training. You have to have a registration for your car and insurance.

All of these are things that would be helpful to make guns safer, just as they make driving safer today. And that is not the end of it - you are not allowed to drive if your blood alcohol level is at or above .08. This is another regulation. Regulations of guns are necessary just as they are for cars (and are already in place for cars).

America is number 1 in per capita gun ownership yet 111 in per capita gun deaths of all countries. Gun deaths are trending down as gun ownership is trending up.

Everyone know the most liberal big cities with the strictest gun laws have the most murders.

If your not a criminal or a gangbanger your chances under current laws of getting killed by a gun is.0008% according to the FBI.

Lastly "ASSAULT RIFLES" kill very few compared to hand guns. A glock can be easily concealed and carry 15 rounds and shot just as fast as a ar-15.

This gun law crap is getting annoying based on minimal reasoning behind such.

so this is basically the spoons can kill people too argument ?

thanks, we know

Tcrimeresearch.org...

a reply to: Orionhunter88

Really so you agree that one should have a license to own a gun, be at least 16, go through a state mandated training program where in they get a provisional license and are required to take a class and finally a written test and safety exam, and register all guns with the state once a year? Because that's what you have to do with a car.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That sounds like a sensible approach.

A common factor in these 'mass shootings' is automatic weapons with high rate of fire and high capacity so those would require the highest class of license in a graded system. To avoid semantics about automatic here, by auto I mean any self-loading weapon, any weapon that can be fired as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Hey if that is the avenue they want to pursue, that is fine, but my point was to show the folly of comparing cars to guns.

a reply to: Greggers

You make a good point and that thought never entered my mind when I wrote the OP. In hindsight, it really is a bad comparison. I should have thought it out a little more before posting.

Every gun that goes through an FFL has the serial number of the firearm and the id of the buyer recorded. I think that's plenty of tracability without stepping up to a national registry. And unless the FBI has enough evidence to press charges I don't think they should be able to restrict rights at all.

I barely trust the government as it is. Thanks for the comment.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

The reason is owning a gun is a fundamental right and a car is a privilege. I would much rather reduce government bureaucracy than inflate it.