Gun Control thread (merged many)

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing.

I wonder, why do people always bring a completely different problem into the debate?
This is the gun control thread. Not the alcohol abuse thread.
While I get your point, I don't think it is sensible to go along with it.

Debate the topic, don't create straw-men like that, or "cars" (the usual excuse).
(And no, I am still not anti-gun.)

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I wonder, why do people always bring a completely different problem into the debate?
This is the gun control thread. Not the alcohol abuse thread.
While I get your point, I don't think it is sensible to go along with it.

Debate the topic, don't create straw-men like that, or "cars" (the usual excuse).
(And no, I am still not anti-gun.)

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

It comes down to accountability. There will always be those who blame people , companies and organizations for something they had nothing to do with and then try to extract money and payments from them. That's tantamount to legalized extortion.

Great thread. Lots of good insightful posts.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

It comes down to accountability. There will always be those who blame people , companies and organizations for something they had nothing to do with and then try to extract money and payments from them. That's tantamount to legalized extortion.

Great thread. Lots of good insightful posts.

Me and August and others went over the car comparison a few pages ago, the thing to remember about cars though is that there have been increasing efforts over the years to make cars safer and to reduce alcohol related issues, through ad campaigns, taxes and in the cases of cars, design and material choices, as well as legislation.
Alcohol and cars were not designed to kill, a gun on the other hand....

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Me and August and others went over the car comparison a few pages ago, the thing to remember about cars though is that there have been increasing efforts over the years to make cars safer and to reduce alcohol related issues, through ad campaigns, taxes and in the cases of cars, design and material choices, as well as legislation.
Alcohol and cars were not designed to kill, a gun on the other hand....

Good point, however, cars may not be designed to kill but they do in large numbers. I missed your earlier post as well.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

That was my point.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

That was my point.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

Thread derailment
That's the same way the migration debate goes, isn't it?
/Thread derailment

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

That was my point.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

No one is ignoring either problem. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I.e, accountability. That's something I'm sure most in society and in this forum exercise responsibly in their lives on a daily basis.
The problem is, it seems problems and issues are taxed out of existence in the absence of an effective solution.

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

No one is ignoring either problem. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I.e, accountability. That's something I'm sure most in society and in this forum exercise responsibly in their lives on a daily basis.
The problem is, it seems problems and issues are taxed out of existence in the absence of an effective solution.

Explain to me what "self responsibility" has to do with what I complained about?
Someone initiates a debate and coincidentally, those who disagree always bring up other and non-related problems, instead of talking about the actual topic.
Why?
How is this helping anyone, how does that solve problems?

This is just something that I don't understand about people since... forever.
They do it all the time.
"Hey, I think you always put too much salt on the pasta."
"OH YEAH? WELL LAST YEAR YOU PUT TOO MUCH PEPPER ONTO SOMETHING TOO!"
"... "

[kobiwaldi]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

...

This is just something that I don't understand about people since... forever.
They do it all the time.
"Hey, I think you always put too much salt on the pasta."
"OH YEAH? WELL LAST YEAR YOU PUT TOO MUCH PEPPER ONTO SOMETHING TOO!"
"... "

sry of ot..
Realy reminds of my wife

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by kobiwaldi

sry of ot..
Realy reminds of my wife

It is amazing how they have some kind of internal hard-drive of everything you've done wrong over the past two decades which can be accessed at a moments notice.
I've never worked out how they do it.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

No one is ignoring either problem. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I.e, accountability.

Answer me this as I'm not really familiar on this.

If a kid grabs his dad's gun (the licensed gun owner) and the kid goes to his school and starts a shooting and then ends his life. Is his dad going to be held accountable for not having his gun locked away safely from others?

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Answer me this as I'm not really familiar on this.

If a kid grabs his dad's gun (the licensed gun owner) and the kid goes to his school and starts a shooting and then ends his life. Is his dad going to be held accountable for not having his gun locked away safely from others?

To answer this, If someone makes the choice to have a weapon in their home for protection or sport or any other number of valid reasons, They have an ethical, moral and of course legal responsibility to make sure the weapons in question are secured. If you have a child or children, then the gun owner may want to reevaluate the merits of having a weapon at home or elect to either get rid of the weapons or take increased actions to make sure they are secured. Again, it's a question of accountability and being a responsible gun owner.

Should the parent be held responsible ? In most jurisdictions, sanctions in the form of the filing of criminal charges will most likely be filed for failing to secure the weapon used. It's simple, if you have weapons which are relatively expensive to own, invest the same amount of money to make sure they are secure.

This is a different matter relative to holding a legally authorized gun manufacturer or seller legally responsible for a death or accident once it has left their respective factory or store and beyond their control.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

legal responsibility to make sure the weapons in question are secured.

Does this not vary state to state? In fact I think that Massachusetts is the only state that requires firearms to be in a locked safe or stored with a trigger lock. More states require that licensed dealers sell locking devices with the weapon, although out of those states most of those are for handguns only, and few of them apply the same law to private dealers, and out of those only a few require the locks to be approved or to meet certain standards.

In the UK, the law is that:

“The firearms and ammunition [or shotguns] to which the certificate relates must at all times (except in the circumstances set out in paragraph (b) below) be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms or ammunition by an unauthorised person.”

and

“Where a firearm or ammunition [or shotgun] to which the certificate relates is in use or the holder of the certificate has the firearm with him for the purpose of cleaning, repairing or testing it or for some other purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale, or the firearm or ammunition is in transit to or from a place in connection with its use or any such purpose, reasonable precautions must be taken for the safe custody of the firearm or the ammunition.”

http://basc.org.uk/firearms/firearm-...hat-do-you-do/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I don't think Platapus or anyone else was intentionally trying to introduce another problem like alcohol into the debate. I think the point was to draw a comparison between how many people are lost in auto accidents relative to shooting victims and that vehicles are not banned while gun manufacturers are facing legal actions..

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Err... so he dragged another topic/possible problem into this, although there is zero connection?

There is a very tangible connection, though it might be easy for you to miss.

"Hey, we have a gun problem!"
"BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!"
"Uhm, OK then, let's ignore both problems then...?"

The connection is that there is a large group of people here who consistently claim that the only solution to the gun problem is to ban all guns. By that logic we should also ban all cars, since cars are also involved in large numbers of deaths, many more than guns. They don't see it that way, and I suspect the real reason is that their cars have some value to them whereas guns don't.

Do you see it now?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The connection is that there is a large group of people here who consistently claim that the only solution to the gun problem is to ban all guns.

I disagree on that.
Also, I can't think of a single member here who said that, let alone "a large group".