"Most of the country" think we need to remove all Muslims. There's no need to reason with people who are inherently unreasonable.
Well that's simply not true. Though, there are far too many that do I'll give you that.
"Most of the country" think we need to remove all Muslims. There's no need to reason with people who are inherently unreasonable.
Isn't this a flawed premise? I mean if it's only "hobbyists" turning in the guns and not criminals, then the gun violence is still going to be ther e. And who is going to reimburse me? Plus, the second amendment grants me the right to have a gun anyway, so I'm going to have to go with a no on this one.
It really doesn't, lol.
Or you could reread his stated priorities in life which demonstrate my opinion of him perfectly. He has done something terrible. He admits he would not give up his guns even if it factually made everyone safer. That is the definition of a scumbag, ripped directly from Webster's.
I'm pretty sure that most gun owners feel that way, the problem being the fact that not enough for a outright ban (which is what your hypothetical question was about). I'm guessing that's why you get some of these responses where "human life isn't worth shit".Maybe not. What I was trying to get at was the outer bounds of where gun owners accept that 'hey, maybe this isn't worth it'. I truly feel like once we hit on that point, we all can agree/ move on.
I wasn't questioning that guns are dangerous.
Can you show me statistical evidence that guns do what you propose, or is it just pretty rhetoric that makes you feel good?
For clarification because you couldn't parse your own 1 sentence post: you claim that simply having guns around endangers everyone else. Prove it.
I'm not sure where the ambiguity is coming from so I'll state it without equivocation:
Yes, I believe that lives lost due to recreational activity are not a reasonable justification for banning a recreational activity. That sentiment includes but is not limited to firearm ownership, motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, parachuting, SCUBA diving, mountain climbing, and any of the other activities that make for a varied and interesting existence.
If you want the utopian future you're advocating for, go rent a copy of Demolition Man.
I don't have a horse in this race , but this is a poor argument :
A motorcycle driver that drives recklessly through traffic and ignores all the rules to showoff his "toy" can cause grievous harm or death to other people on the road .
A gun owner who ignores all safety rules and is recklessly waving his gun around in people's directions to show off his" toy" can cause grievous harm or death to other people .
In both cases the guy operating either one of them is at fault .
i am pretty confident that Neither a gun or a motorcycle will kill me by me just standing next to it .
Well then congrats on being part of the group that is more interested in yelling at people rather than having an actual discussion with people of differing opinions.
Only one side has been preventing any legislation because it involves an industry against anything that will impact profit, and indeed benefits from each mass-shooting and any talk of gun-control.
The other side getting increasingly frustrated when it's an issue involving trying to prevent unnecessary loss of life is understandable. And it will only increase with each and every tragedy.
Leading back to the subject of this thread and a President having to force through what should be basic common-sense measures.
To be fair, the former presidents act was changed to limit secret service protection to 10 years for presidents after 1997, and then in 2012 it was changed back to be protection for life.
Even the article cited specifically states they do not have causation, only correlation.
To put it in perspective
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
There is as tight of a correlation between US spending on science and technology as there is with suicides by strangulation and hanging.
When a study says they do not have causation - there is a damn good reason they say it.
The NRA is the one blocking any legislation. NRA=/= All gun owners. Most gun owners are actually in favor of increased background checks.
And also, like I stated in a later post and in several before as well, guns are instruments for killing. I'm not disputing that. If you were keeping up with the thread you would have also seen that my post was more about asking him for proof of his claims when he was asking others for the same. Don't cherry pick my posts please.Hmm...
Bungee jumping is not potentially lethal to anyone but the jumper. Scuba diving is not potentially lethal to anyone but the diver.
Owning a gun, unlike your other examples, is not potentially lethal to people beyond just the gun's owner.
Are you trying to post a ridiculous facebook garbage chainmail forwarded to you by your grandma on neogaf?
I'm hoping it's a long troll.
And also, like I stated in a later post and in several before as well, guns are instruments for killing. I'm not disputing that. If you were keeping up with the thread you would have also seen that my post was more about asking him for proof of his claims when he was asking others for the same. Don't cherry pick my posts please.
You keep saying this as if there's a discussion to be had.
After a certain point, the evidence becomes so overwhelming and obvious that it's either about accepting it or denying it. This deserves about as much discussion as Muslim deportation or trying to ban gay or interracial marriage, or climate change denial.
Okay, then don't have the discussion. The status quo will continue in that case. Personally I'd like for some stricter gun control measures to help keep guns out of unsafe hands, but since the discussion is supposedly meaningless, I guess I'll just go about my day. Maybe pick up some ammo after work and test out my new AR-15. That okay with you?
But the question wasn't banning guns, it was banning guns solely for the purpose of hobbying. Bungee jumping, parachuting, scuba diving and mountain climbing are activities that do not inherently endanger other peoples lives by default. Guns and ease of access to guns have been proven to do just that.
Motorcycle riding is a function of transportation. A necessary function of human life. Ideally we would try and eliminate accidents altogether which we are doing with automation but recreational motorcycle riding is not in and of itself a hobby that is reliant upon a device thats primary purpose is to kill or injure. It is something that sets your attempt at comparison apart.
Furthermore this is a question about a persons individual ethics. If someone could prove to you that if you gave up the guns you own for hobbyist purposes that it would definitively save other peoples lives, you are saying no to that. You are saying that you value your hobby above the lives that could be proven to you to be lost because of your decision.
Hmm...
Bungee jumping is not potentially lethal to anyone but the jumper. Scuba diving is not potentially lethal to anyone but the diver.
Owning a gun, unlike your other examples, is not potentially lethal to people beyond just the gun's owner.
The NRA is the one blocking any legislation. NRA=/= All gun owners. Most gun owners are actually in favor of increased background checks.
You're making determinations based on research that I'm not sure exist. While some of my examples are usually individual sports (Bungee jumping and parachuting), the others are not as clear-cut. Motorcycling largely takes place on public roads while SCUBA and mountain climbing are often performed in groups. I've not seen research on the increase or decrease in risk of doing those sports with others.
Again, there is nothing that a motorcycle can do that a car cannot that is necessary to performing the function of transportation. Motorcycle riding is 100% a hobby and, coming from someone who has ridden for over a decade, is on an anecdotal level far more dangerous to my well-being than any firearm I've ever owned or operated. There isn't a day that I take a motorcycle on the road that I don't anticipate and avoid a near miss, whether it's someone taking my right-of-way, someone drifting into my lane because they're not paying attention, or someone nearly rear-ending me because they're texting.
I'm not sure why you continue to repeat my position with disbelief as it's rather common among the American population. There are any number of hobbies and activities in our lives that, if banned, would result in less lives lost.
Once again, motorcycles are absolutely potentially lethal to people beyond the owner.
Okay, then don't have the discussion. The status quo will continue in that case. Personally I'd like for some stricter gun control measures to help keep guns out of unsafe hands, but since the discussion is supposedly meaningless, I guess I'll just go about my day. Maybe pick up some ammo after work and test out my new AR-15. That okay with you?
A 30 year correlation between an object and its intended results is a pretty damn good one.
There's other studies that have found similar, and you'd have more of them if research hadn't been shut down precisely for finding the obvious.
You're making determinations based on research that I'm not sure exists. While some of my examples are usually individual sports (Bungee jumping and parachuting), the others are not as clear-cut. Motorcycling largely takes place on public roads while SCUBA and mountain climbing are often performed in groups. I've not seen research on the increase or decrease in risk of doing those sports with others.
Again, there is nothing that a motorcycle can do that a car cannot that is necessary to performing the function of transportation. Motorcycle riding is 100% a hobby and, coming from someone who has ridden for over a decade, is on an anecdotal level far more dangerous to my well-being than any firearm I've ever owned or operated. There isn't a day that I take a motorcycle on the road that I don't anticipate and avoid a near miss, whether it's someone taking my right-of-way, someone drifting into my lane because they're not paying attention, or someone nearly rear-ending me because they're texting.
I'm not sure why you continue to repeat my position with disbelief as it's rather common among the American population. There are any number of hobbies and activities in our lives that, if banned, would result in less lives lost.
Once again, motorcycles are absolutely potentially lethal to people beyond the owner.
The NRA is the one blocking any legislation. NRA=/= All gun owners. Most gun owners are actually in favor of increased background checks.
The status quo will continue because there are more people that agree with you, yeah, but the fact that's your defense as opposed to anything of substance is the most troubling part.
I mean, you are talking about spite buying ammunition because of internet arguments. If that's what makes you feel safe then don't let me stop you, I might get shot lol.
What discussion? The evidence is overwhelming. He is right on that point.
Though for someone trying to play the above it angle, to then go on and finish your post with an obvious attempt to inflame is rather poor form.
It would be like responding to someone who is telling a climate skeptic that the evidence is overwhelming and the person saying, well, since you don't want to have the discussion, fine, Im gonna go "coal roll" around town. Is that ok with you?
The issue is that the study is too general to be of use in terms of determining specific policy. The ban on the studies is fairly frustrating - I've heard that the CDC (or the gov't agency in charge of the study) was caught sort of cherry picking stats - but there are plenty of other institutions (and go outside the country if you have to) - that can do research if you're worried about that. Hell, get like 10 or so places to do those studies, then lock 'em all in a room and make 'em figure it all out together.
It's also frustrating seeing everyone fight over long rifles and outright banning, for instance, when the issue is honestly handguns and common sense freaking gun control. Also; it doesn't help that people have lumped gun control into the culture war, making it impossible to accomplish anything sane, and that there are a fair amount of gun-control advocates who don't really understand anything about guns.
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/
I would assume actual legislation coming from Obama will be a fair bit better; he's grown up around enough rural areas to understand the nuance and the middle ground.
Just gonna go out on a limb here and say that other countries somehow don't have mass motorcycle accidents every day
Like seriously how are you even arguing this
this is disingenuous when most gun owners say they disagree with the NRA but in practice are totally apathetic and only spend their time arguing with gun control proponents while benefiting from the NRA's insane policies. you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Once again, motorcycles are absolutely potentially lethal to people beyond the owner. If I were to barrel through traffic at 100+ MPH, as certain assholes are known to do on motorcycles, I would be risking both my life and the lives of those around me. A 400lb motorcycle going 100MPH has more than enough kinetic energy to annihilate a small vehicle.
i don't think its that easy. I don't think the NRA listens to its members, i think it mostly or only listens to gun manufacturers. They are a lobbyist group for the corporations that make guns.
As a gun owner myself, i'm totally ok with background checks on 100% of guns. Close the gunshow loophole. and lets go from there.
He is desperately clinging to a false equivalency to defend his precious weaponry.
So everyone turn their fire on the NRA, not argue amongst each other and create the us against them false dichotomy which the NRA actively encourages, and which these threads always descend into.
Provoked just as much by pro-gun posters misrepresenting other's comments along absolutist terms as those actually calling for that out of sheer frustration.
The NRA is playing both sides, is the enemy of both, and needs to be cut out of the equation completely.
this is disingenuous when most gun owners say they disagree with the NRA but in practice are totally apathetic and only spend their time arguing with gun control proponents while benefiting from the NRA's insane policies. you want to have your cake and eat it too.
i don't think its that easy. I don't think the NRA listens to its members, i think it mostly or only listens to gun manufacturers. They are a lobbyist group for the corporations that make guns.
As a gun owner myself, i'm totally ok with background checks on 100% of guns. Close the gunshow loophole. and lets go from there.
I only see people arguing about outright gun bans. I think almost everybody is in agreement about increased background checks. The NRA never comes out and says "oh well theres legislation that would slightly increase the background check time and would also check mental health." No, they come out and say "OMFG they're gonna steal your guns!"
They know how to rile up their constituents and there is usually so much noise on the issue that the average gun owner probably doesnt even know whats actually being proposed.
Studies can be disputed, to ban them entirely just says you are afraid of what they will find. Would you have trusted the tobacco industry on the benefits and worth of research?
The NIH was banned as well after a study found carrying a gun led to you being 5 times more likely to be shot.
The bans on research are indefensible, it's a public health and safety issue just like smoking, driving, and everything else gun ownership gets compared to.
It's just the actions of a vested industry, and the self-interest of politicians.
Then maybe you should engage the people who agree with me and try to find compromise. The belief that your opinion is the only one that matters isn't really helpful. Gun owners acknowledge the statistics, but so do people who drive motorcycles or drink alcohol. People believe that the benefits of these activities outweigh the risk, and statistics don't change that unless they show a major upward trend in deaths. Whether something is "worth the risk" or not is always based on opinion.
Also, actually I just want to test my new AR-15 for function, but by all means be afraid of someone on the Internet for no reason.
My point is that if you don't think there's a discussion to be had, then you shouldn't have any problem with the status quo and people you disagree with going about their business. I'm not arguing against any facts or statistics, but how much people value those facts and statistics when weighing whether something is worth it or not varies greatly, and you have to be willing to engage with people who differ in that regard if you want anything to get done. Otherwise you're just yelling at clouds.
if gun owners are basing outrage on ignorance then that is their own fault and no one else's. it's not that hard to grasp what is actually being proposed by a legislator.
The entire line of discussion was about the question of whether or not I would ban a hobby to save lives. I wouldn't. I never made the claim that motorcycles are globally responsible for as many deaths as firearms: that would be a strawman concocted by the guy you quoted.
Um, what do you mean the "machine gun type"? You can't just go out and buy a machine gun. You pay a tax to the ATF, undergo a very extensive background check, wait approximately six months while all the paperwork is done, then you're allowed to pay the $15,000+ that they actually cost and are then subjected to random inspection at the discretion of the ATF.
If you're taking about those "scary" looking AR-15s that mass shooters seem to prefer, can you explain to me how that gun is any different from any other semi-automatic gun? How is it any different than a Mini-14 in how it could be used? And you do realize that an assault weapons ban would only change minor characteristics about the weapon and allow existing owners to keep their guns, yes?
People really need to do some basic research before advocating for something.
Ban all guns except for those specifically for hunting and keep those hunting weapons at a county armory when not in use.
Only allow members of the National Guard and State Guards to possess firearms in the home. When taken to the Supreme Court, hopefully a fully stacked liberal court will side with the law thus reinterpreting the Second Amendment to only apply to "well regulated militias" and definitively define militias as the National and State Guards rather than also the adult male population.
Then maybe you should engage the people who agree with me and try to find compromise. The belief that your opinion is the only one that matters isn't really helpful. Gun owners acknowledge the statistics, but so do people who drive motorcycles or drink alcohol. People believe that the benefits of these activities outweigh the risk, and statistics don't change that unless they show a major upward trend in deaths. Whether something is "worth the risk" or not is always based on opinion.
Also, actually I just want to test my new AR-15 for function, but by all means be afraid of someone on the Internet for no reason.