NebraskaHarry

This is going no where. I'm thinking about calling it too.

sd'sker those charts in those articles actually show a downward trend in gun related fatalities since the 1980's.

Those types of solutions only hurt the people who do nothing wrong in the first place.

do you realize how substantially drunk driving fatalities have decreased in just a few decades? just because of a few changes in the law that no one now would ever doubt unless you just want to seem like a raging alcoholic? But aren't drunk driving fatalities still higher than gun related fatalities? so what if they are? the point is that traffic fatalities from drunk driving are less because of actions society took. why would i comparing the number of traffic fatalities cause by drunk driving to the number of gun fatalities? that makes no sense? then you would compare the same actions to reduce drunk driving fatalities to gun fatalities and that makes even less sense. So I guess I haven't see the statistics that gun related fatalities are way up then they were in the past. You care to share that info?

Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. this is absurd. every point i make is instantly misconstrued into something totally nonsensically and then never addressed. i did not bring up smoking, but they are both inherently dangerous acts that cause greater risk. owning a gun and smoking both make you a greater liability to an insurer. so that was my point that you responded to by emphatically stating something that made no sense. no it is not. one is a ban, the other is a tax. Misconstrued? You want guns owners to pay higher taxes because they own something the could in theory hurt someone else. But maybe you're right. Also, I think it is our best interest to tax knife owners. And owners with big dogs. I'll be damned if they're gonna hurt my family without paying higher taxes.

do you realize how substantially drunk driving fatalities have decreased in just a few decades? just because of a few changes in the law that no one now would ever doubt unless you just want to seem like a raging alcoholic? But aren't drunk driving fatalities still higher than gun related fatalities?

Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close.

drunk driving laws have radically changed since the '70s, you know, when they were virtually nonexistent. when did i claim that drunk driving is a fixed problem? i said it has been mitigated through a change in societal attitudes and better regulations. you are equating drunk driving and gun control in a very odd matter. how has gun control improved? you are focusing on gun control when i am focusing on gun deaths; the problem is not gun control, that is just one solution (and not a total solution, but an area where regulations could lead to a mitigation in the problem). finally, the 'wild west' had shockingly low levels of gun violence. i got the joke and i thought it was funny. do not know what more i should have done there. but my post tried to connect well focused regulations to limiting a problem. prohibition was not enacted to reduce drunk driving, so i really did not understand your point. that is not entirely true. the first thing you have to do to get legally drunk is be of age. after that, i really do not understand your point. Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

Life NRA member, avid shooter of clay targets, paper, metal plates, and assorted edible critters, shooting instructor, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, personally never put more than 5 rounds in a 30 round clip. personally would tolerate some restrictions on transfers or even magazine limits, but have ZERO faith that those restrictions don't become the seeds that grow into more bans. Semiauto "assault" rifles, becomes semiauto rifle, becomes semiauto anything, becomes goodbye semiauto skeet gun. People may think I'm nuts, but I don't trust a federal agency with a list of who has what for firearms. If the federal government has it, then so does the rest of the world. 10 years from now, you won't be able to get homeowners insurance becasue they know you have firearms or ammunition in your home, or you are denied/pay more for health insurance because the CDC calls gun ownership a disease. I don't smoke but ask a smoker what insurance companies are like. So I support those who resist any 2nd amendment restriction, because I don't trust the outcome. I agree. Some politicians already have their foot in the door, now they're trying to shove themselves all the way in.

I don't know what you're talking about, someone broke in and stole my guns last week. I don't own any guns, Mr. Government person.

I own several (my wife would probably say many) guns. I support reasonable regulation including (but probably not limited to) universal background checks. There is one data point for your curiosity. Used to be a member of the NRA back when they were a little more reasonable. I'm all for background checks. Every gun I own had a background check. Never was an NRA member nor do I want to be, but many people, including our many politicians want to go further than background checks.

Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. You're trying to compare drunk driving to gun shootings. And if that's the case alcohol is to guns as driving drunk is to shooting people. How that has anything to do with gun regulation, I don't no. Plus we still have drunk driving we these regulations you mention so I guess we should just ban alcohol to reduce drunk driving I guess. Kind of like banning guns to reduce shootings. Makes sense to me. what? the point is that there was a threat to public safety. the laws were adjusted. the problem has since been mitigated. it is really pretty simple. drunk driving was better regulated, just as gun ownership should be. driving a car necessitates certain responsibilities. why should gun ownership be any different? The regulations on guns has been just as on par over the years as it has on drunk driving. It appears your claiming that drunk driving is a fixed problem and gun control is not. I will say that drunk driving has probably improved, but so has gun control... whatever that means I guess. I mean we're not exactly living in the "wild west" any more are we?

I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control.

Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. You're trying to compare drunk driving to gun shootings. And if that's the case alcohol is to guns as driving drunk is to shooting people. How that has anything to do with gun regulation, I don't no. Plus we still have drunk driving we these regulations you mention so I guess we should just ban alcohol to reduce drunk driving I guess. Kind of like banning guns to reduce shootings. Makes sense to me.

Last I checked we already had laws for murder.

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread. Straw man. (You probably know that already.) You brought up mass murders. Very good. Now where did I say anything remotely close to mass shootings being the only thing worthy of attention? Where did I say that you said that mass shootings were the only thing worthy of attention?

No idea. But if he is, it doesn't surprise me.

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread. Straw man. (You probably know that already.) You brought up mass murders. Very good. Now where did I say anything remotely close to mass shootings being the only thing worthy of attention? You'd make a good lawyer Carlfense. Instead of answering questions you just ask more questions.

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread. Straw man. (You probably know that already.) You brought up mass murders.

Which would show . . . what? Have there been a lot of mass stabbings/mass hammer-ings/mass bombings lately? They sure seem rare compared to mass shootings. (Also, I sincerely hope that you don't believe the often repeated lie that more people are killed with baseball bats and hammers than guns . . .) Well I think it would show that gun control isn't going to necessarily reduce the number of gun related fatalities. In fact it may very well make it worse if we're willing to look at many countries who have implemented gun control. I'm not stating facts here, just my own opinion btw. Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

What would that argument show? I think that more people are scared of nut jobs with guns more than either separately. That even though the US has more gun owners per capita the death rate by guns is much lower in the US than many other countries who have a lower gun owner per capita. I think that more people are scared of nut jobs with guns more than either separately. I think if that were true we'd be having the same discussion about nut jobs with knives and hammers and the capability to make explosives.

It doesn't matter if it's a gun, or a knife, or a bat..................we shouldn't have to deal with nutbags in our society. I'll give you an example: I had to deal with a lady that was completely bat $hit crazy, had no idea as they had just moved into the city. So I get called there one day on a "domestic disturbance" I show up there and try to deal with the problem. Eventually this lady decided to assault me, was taking to the ground fairly quickly by me, handcuffed, taken to the hospital and then jail. During my discussions with her it became painfully obvious she was completely gone, crazy, etc. There was zero reason a person like that should be in society, whether her meds bring her closer to center or not doesn't matter, she refuses to take them. We get called there several times over the next few months and finally ask for the state to intervene and get her some help. She's ordered to be held for mental health evaluation in one of the local hospitals. She's there for only 30 days.................... I get called back there a few months later and she's back, I ask why? Husband says that it's the hospitals policy to send these mental subjects back home to "see how they do." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, she's just as crazy before and nevermind there is a court order in place that "forces" her to take her meds. I don't see anyone there from the courts or state "forcing" her to take those meds. I leave as this isn't a police matter and I'm not getting assaulted again. There is zero reason law enforcement should be dealing with these nut cases. We aren't mental health professionals and we shouldn't have to be. Folks like this should be locked up in a mental health facility and that would help A LOT with the issues that society faces with crazy people on a daily basis. You're trying to use the access to guns issue as the core issue when it isn't, it comes down to mental health..............period. I'm not saying it may not be an issue, it might be and I'm all for tighten background checks up and things like that, but I'm not for taking guns away from people. There are nutbags in every society. America doesn't have a monopoly on people who need mental health care. What we have is too many guns. The numbers are quite clear on that. I think one could make the case that the death rate by guns compared to guns per resident is much lower in the US compared to many other countries. And if you take out suicides, the gap between the US and other countries is even greater. The problem is people are scared of guns more than they are of nut jobs.

Monte Ball is overrated. I don't care how many TD's he had at Wisconsin, I would not draft him before Rex Burkhead.

Where are those pillars going again?

Really? I'm sure Nebraska fans would be just fine without Dirk's input.