Gun Control

[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?

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..........

what is your point? mine is that laws and attitudes changed and drunk driving fatalities decreased. not sure how your personal experiences changes that fact?

 

not to mention, one of the reasons for increased owi's would be a change in the law. legal bac rates have decreased.

 

also, i enjoy this conversation about how drunk driving related fatalities and all, but my single point was that that laws and attitudes changed and fatalities decreased. it is possible to change laws to make people safer.

[HSKR]

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..........

what is your point? mine is that laws and attitudes changed and drunk driving fatalities decreased. not sure how your personal experiences changes that fact?

 

not to mention, one of the reasons for increased owi's would be a change in the law. legal bac rates have decreased.

 

also, i enjoy this conversation about how drunk driving related fatalities and all, but my single point was that that laws and attitudes changed and fatalities decreased. it is possible to change laws to make people safer.

 

Do you actually have links that prove the laws and attitudes have changed the number of drunken driving fatalities? My first guess would have been they have gone down because of improved automobile safety, such as airbags, seat belts that beep until you click it in, vehicles designed to crush and take part of the energy in an accident, etc, etc.

[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..........

what is your point? mine is that laws and attitudes changed and drunk driving fatalities decreased. not sure how your personal experiences changes that fact?

 

not to mention, one of the reasons for increased owi's would be a change in the law. legal bac rates have decreased.

 

also, i enjoy this conversation about how drunk driving related fatalities and all, but my single point was that that laws and attitudes changed and fatalities decreased. it is possible to change laws to make people safer.

My point is they continue to happen and laws didn't stop them like everyone seems to think would happen if we ban all firearms. Deaths would automatically stop based on the ban of firearms right? Wrong, man will continue to kill man and doing ONE thing isn't going to stop that. You need to change several things to seriously put a dent in it. Your post didn't have to have to drip with "I know more than you do" which is the way I took it. I put my personal experiences out there because I actually see those things, most folks just look at these "studies" and draw their conclusions which doesn't mean much to me. Go ahead and post all the studies you want, I can post several more contradicting those studies. There are pros and cons to every argument and both sides can prove their argument one way or another.

[walksalone]

I understand they want to ban "Class III" weapons, but here's the thing...

 

Say you ban your Joe Six Pack from owning a "Class III" firearm. What is that going to accomplish? Once you institute the ban, are all the crimnials just going to line up to give their weapons back? I'm willing to bet thats not going to happen. Not to mention, with all the figures folks are throwing out there, how many gun crimes are committed by criminals as opposed to the shootings in Newtown or Aurora. Just because some guy walks into a movie theater or a school and shoots up a bunch of people makes it worse than a bunch of gang bangers wiping each other out?

[carlfense]

I understand they want to ban "Class III" weapons, but here's the thing...

 

Say you ban your Joe Six Pack from owning a "Class III" firearm. What is that going to accomplish? Once you institute the ban, are all the crimnials just going to line up to give their weapons back? I'm willing to bet thats not going to happen. Not to mention, with all the figures folks are throwing out there, how many gun crimes are committed by criminals as opposed to the shootings in Newtown or Aurora. Just because some guy walks into a movie theater or a school and shoots up a bunch of people makes it worse than a bunch of gang bangers wiping each other out?

Of course criminals will continue to break laws . . . that's why they're criminals. That doesn't mean that laws are useless.

 

For example, if a criminal is caught with a Class III firearm without the proper permits . . . you won't have to worry about him breaking other laws for a long time.

[walksalone]

I understand they want to ban "Class III" weapons, but here's the thing...

 

Say you ban your Joe Six Pack from owning a "Class III" firearm. What is that going to accomplish? Once you institute the ban, are all the crimnials just going to line up to give their weapons back? I'm willing to bet thats not going to happen. Not to mention, with all the figures folks are throwing out there, how many gun crimes are committed by criminals as opposed to the shootings in Newtown or Aurora. Just because some guy walks into a movie theater or a school and shoots up a bunch of people makes it worse than a bunch of gang bangers wiping each other out?

Of course criminals will continue to break laws . . . that's why they're criminals. That doesn't mean that laws are useless.

 

For example, if a criminal is caught with a Class III firearm without the proper permits . . . you won't have to worry about him breaking other laws for a long time.

 

I didn't mean to infer that the laws were useless, if they are going to implement them, they're going to have to be more proactive than just making sure folks like you and me are unable to purchase Class III firearms.

[rawhide]

But then the jails/prisons fill up and criminals are released early. No one should suffer those conditions. pussies

 

And yes there is a video of Feinstein the ONE, the ONLY stating she would have tried for a complete weapons ban but didn't have the votes so where is her oath now; no where near the 2nd Amendment.

 

[knapplc]

I think we can all agree Dianne Feinstein is a ridiculous idiot. I don't think anyone here is basing their thoughts on her politics.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Yes, yes she is...........

[Junior]

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.

 

They are, is the thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that smoking increases your risk of cancer and death. Studies have repeatedly shown that owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or someone in your house will die by a gun. That is simply a fact you cannot dispute.

[sd'sker]

Do you actually have links that prove the laws and attitudes have changed the number of drunken driving fatalities? My first guess would have been they have gone down because of improved automobile safety, such as airbags, seat belts that beep until you click it in, vehicles designed to crush and take part of the energy in an accident, etc, etc.

that is a good point. you might be right.

[carlfense]

I understand they want to ban "Class III" weapons, but here's the thing...

 

Say you ban your Joe Six Pack from owning a "Class III" firearm. What is that going to accomplish? Once you institute the ban, are all the crimnials just going to line up to give their weapons back? I'm willing to bet thats not going to happen. Not to mention, with all the figures folks are throwing out there, how many gun crimes are committed by criminals as opposed to the shootings in Newtown or Aurora. Just because some guy walks into a movie theater or a school and shoots up a bunch of people makes it worse than a bunch of gang bangers wiping each other out?

Of course criminals will continue to break laws . . . that's why they're criminals. That doesn't mean that laws are useless.

 

For example, if a criminal is caught with a Class III firearm without the proper permits . . . you won't have to worry about him breaking other laws for a long time.

 

I didn't mean to infer that the laws were useless, if they are going to implement them, they're going to have to be more proactive than just making sure folks like you and me are unable to purchase Class III firearms.

Makes sense. +1

[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.

 

They are, is the thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that smoking increases your risk of cancer and death. Studies have repeatedly shown that owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or someone in your house will die by a gun. That is simply a fact you cannot dispute.

If that were true then owning a knife technically increases your chance of someone in your house dieing by a knife. Heck, the same holds true for owning a cat. You can just about make excuses for anything potentially dangerous.

 

People like me and many people on here who are responsible gun owners are going to be the ones who get punished for doing things the right way.

[Junior]

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.

 

They are, is the thing. Studies have repeatedly shown that smoking increases your risk of cancer and death. Studies have repeatedly shown that owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or someone in your house will die by a gun. That is simply a fact you cannot dispute.

If that were true then owning a knife technically increases your chance of someone in your house dieing by a knife. Heck, the same holds true for owning a cat. You can just about make excuses for anything potentially dangerous.

 

People like me and many people on here who are responsible gun owners are going to be the ones who get punished for doing things the right way.

 

If you can show a study that demonstrates that houses with knives have death rates which are higher than houses with no knives at all (good luck finding those houses, btw), and show that these rates are statistically significant, then you have an argument. I could cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, literally all day long, that show owning a gun significantly increases the likelihood that someone in your house will die by a gun. Can you show me two peer-reviewed scientific studies that show knives or cats are the same threat? Until you can actually cite data that supports your claims, your argument is nothing more than "I WANT MY GUNS!!!"

[The Dude]

A few quick responses from the thread, don't have time to read through the last few pages, sorry.

 

 

Err... "violent" crimes do not equal gun crimes. The fact that you can commit a violent crime without a gun in your hand is not an argument in favor of keeping guns. That's a nice stat, but it has nothing to do with a gun debate.

I think unintended consequences of gun control policy are very much relevant to a gun control debate.

 

 

 

I've posted two links which discuss multiple scientific studies, on this page alone, that directly refute your statements. You've responded by ignoring those links and posting your suppositions as "proof". Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. If you want to keep your guns, fine, but don't try claiming Australia had no gun violence, or that more guns =/= more violence when every reputable scientific study says otherwise.

I concede your point about Australia, but there is absolutely no reputable scientific study that unequivocally proves more guns = more gun violence. Because in the context of reality, it's simply not true. I think what knapp means to say is no guns = no gun violence. Which is a truism that adds very little to the discussion unless the proposed solution is we hop in a radioactive DeLorean, gun-it to 88, and prevent the discovery of gun powder.

 

 

 

@ carlfense, when people bring up the concern about criminals still possessing guns in the hypothetical event of an outright ban. The concern isn't just that criminals will still have guns. The concern is that they'll still have guns, and law-abiding citizens won't have adequate means to defend themselves against armed, violent criminals. You're meth analogy falls short in addressing the point, in my opinion.