Gun Control

[B1G Red]

sd'sker, you and your family are 100% safe from any gun I own, provided you don't accidentally break down my back door in the middle of the night sometime.

 

Probably a lot more at risk from the drunk drivers out there.

that is great. a real comfort. never said that you were a risk to me or my family. i think it is great that you own guns for whatever reason you do, but can you assure that everyone else who owns guns is as responsible as you?

I have no problem restricting guns from felons or the mentally ill.

[NebraskaHarry]

gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay.

 

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.

 

prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms.

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.

[sd'sker]

Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

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.

[B1G Red]

sd'sker, you and your family are 100% safe from any gun I own, provided you don't accidentally break down my back door in the middle of the night sometime.

 

Probably a lot more at risk from the drunk drivers out there.

that is great. a real comfort. never said that you were a risk to me or my family. i think it is great that you own guns for whatever reason you do, but can you assure that everyone else who owns guns is as responsible as you?

I have no problem restricting guns from felons or the mentally ill.

FWIW, i have very little heartache with the prohibition of fully automatic class 3 stuff either, but cringe at the last line of every "list" of prohibited weapons that reads something like "or any other weapon that xxx bureaucrat deems un-necessary" or something like that.

[NebraskaHarry]

Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

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?

[sd'sker]

gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay.

 

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.

 

prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms.

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.

i never said anything higher taxes. i just pointed out the difference between a tax and a ban. i think you should pay higher liability insurance, as does someone with a vicious dog would have to. i am trying to use your example to demonstrate my point, please do not respond with just, 'dogs and guns are not a like, NOT IN ANY WAY'. that is just not product to the conversation.

[B1G Red]

gun owners should own greater liability insurance, as should smokers pay higher health insurance premiums. that is just common sense. and if any damage is caused by your gun, regardless of who controlled it at the time of damage, the gun owner should pay.

 

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.

 

prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms.

no it is not. one is a ban, the other is a tax.

 

 

Sure it is, a high dollar tax is as surely a ban on average joe as anything. Then only the uber rich would afford a gun, kinda like Europe. Hmmmm. Now it all makes sense.

[sd'sker]

Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

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?

i never said they are way up, i would just like it if they were way down. but mass shootings are way up.

here are some interesting gun facts:

 

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

[B1G Red]

Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

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?

We don't want to confuse this issue with facts now!!!!!!

[NebraskaHarry]

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

[B1G Red]

Harry, it's all yours now man, gotta run.

[NebraskaHarry]

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

[NebraskaHarry]

Harry, it's all yours now man, gotta run.

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

[sd'sker]

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

yes, as all crime has. but we should continue efforts to stop gun violence, especially mass shootings.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Oh, I see now. I can't believe I didn't see it before. We need more regulations. Just like the drunk driving regulations.

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?

And yet I still continue to arrest several people a year on first offense OWI's, as well as second offense and third offense OWI's. Those third offense OWI's carry a 5 year prison sentence in the State of Iowa. Makes no sense to me..........