NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. 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. Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. 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? Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Tried that once, it was called prohibition, and it made everyone quit drinking, NOT. And drinking wasn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, unless you count "the pursuit of happiness" which to some is the same as consumption of alcohol. LOL. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. link Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Tried that once, it was called prohibition, and it made everyone quit drinking, NOT. And drinking wasn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, unless you count "the pursuit of happiness" which to some is the same as consumption of alcohol. LOL. how are you equating drinking with drunk driving? Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. 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. Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. 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? Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Tried that once, it was called prohibition, and it made everyone quit drinking, NOT. And drinking wasn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, unless you count "the pursuit of happiness" which to some is the same as consumption of alcohol. LOL. how are you equating drinking with drunk driving? No, I think it was your post that tried to connect drunk driving with gun murder. I was just commenting on Harry's earlier post that reducing murder by banning guns equates to banning alcohol to control drunk driving. Oh, and tried to insert a shot of humor about the pursuit of happiness by drinking, but it obviously didn't work. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Now let me think... The first thing you half to do in order to get legally drunk is drink. The second thing you need to do is utter the words, 'Oh I'm OK to drive don't worryabout me. Wake up sd'skers. T_O_B Link to comment
Junior Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Tried that once, it was called prohibition, and it made everyone quit drinking, NOT. And drinking wasn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, unless you count "the pursuit of happiness" which to some is the same as consumption of alcohol. LOL. how are you equating drinking with drunk driving? No, I think it was your post that tried to connect drunk driving with gun murder. I was just commenting on Harry's earlier post that reducing murder by banning guns equates to banning alcohol to control drunk driving. Oh, and tried to insert a shot of humor about the pursuit of happiness by drinking, but it obviously didn't work. Curious if you found those links showing that Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, etc have tried to ball all of the guns. Any luck? Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. 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. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I would like to know the statistics on people who own or don't own guns and their opinion on gun control. 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. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Your government has lists of who has what for cars. They have lists of who has what for homes. They have lists of who inherits what. They have all kinds of lists. But nobody is clinging desperately to their cars screaming, "THE GUV'MENT GO'N TAKE OUR CARS!!!!" It's time to calm down with the tinfoil hat scare tactics. It's OK. Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Your government has lists of who has what for cars. They have lists of who has what for homes. They have lists of who inherits what. They have all kinds of lists. But nobody is clinging desperately to their cars screaming, "THE GUV'MENT GO'N TAKE OUR CARS!!!!" It's time to calm down with the tinfoil hat scare tactics. It's OK. 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts