0
Driver1

Gun wielding good samaritan halts carjacking in progress.

Recommended Posts

Hooknswoop

Do you accept 90 deaths/day as the price to drive your car?

Derek V



Cars are used to make our world go around, guns dont really fill the same practical use in our daily lives.

Im not even sure that you are serious when trying to compare the two or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***Some actually are. How many lives are saved by guns each day? I can throw facts without numbers also.



Tell us how many lives are saved by guns in the USA every day, then.

320,000,000 or so. Just rounding down.

What would your number be rounded down?

Oh that's right, 0
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Do you accept 90 deaths/day as the price to drive your car?

Derek V



I don't, that's why I believe in tougher regulations to obtain a driver's license. and tougher penalties on the abuse of the driving privilidges. I believe that allowing young people to drive at 16 and not drink until 21 has a negative influence on car accident rates as well.

Generally though the crowd in favour of gun ownership tends to be against any type of safety regulation. I mean a gunshop announcing it would carry biometric guns received death threats. To the point where they had to drop the biometric gun to try and stay in business.

So as much regulations there are to try and improve the safety of automobile operation, there is even more pressure against any form of safety regulation when it comes to guns.

In other words, the comparison really is pretty damn assinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree... I'm pretty sure that ALL of the gun owners I know are in favor of safety education, practice, and 'regulation where it makes sense'. Constant mission creep of regulation hawked as 'common sense approach to gun safety' is really (and rightly so) viewed as mission creep to restrict ownership in general with the ultimate goal of effectively banning firearms. What I find asinine is the assumption that guns kill people and more 'regulation' is needed for the safety of the children.
Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

How many deaths per day are acceptable to you to then?

Derek V



None are acceptable.

How many rapes per day are acceptable to you?
How many toddlers shooting their mothers per month are acceptable to you?
How many times is it acceptable for you to beat your wife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Generally though the crowd in favour of gun ownership tends to be against any type of safety regulation. I mean a gunshop announcing it would carry biometric guns received death threats. To the point where they had to drop the biometric gun to try and stay in business.

So as much regulations there are to try and improve the safety of automobile operation, there is even more pressure against any form of safety regulation when it comes to guns.



Just because gun owners tend to oppose regulations as brought forward by gun control groups, it does not prove the non-existence of regulations/measures that gun rights advocates would be okay with. The problem is that gun control groups and the politicians they are behind don't take steps backwards to re-evaluate what they're doing, they just double-down. If we're lucky, we can get a veto from the governor or have it overturned by the feds, but democratic-controlled legislatures are a fire hose.

The national democratic platform isn't "to reduce gun violence to blah blah levels" or "to reduce the number of crime guns in circulations by x% over y years" or any such emergent goal that would promote discourse, it's to get all firearms registered and to ban things.

I have no problem with being held liable if a child got their hands on one of my firearms. I don't need that law to take measures to prevent it from happening but, hey, maybe some people will shape up. I don't take kindly to laws that say all firearms have to be locked up three times, unloaded, and encased in a block of concrete, subject to law enforcement verification even in my own home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

***How many deaths per day are acceptable to you to then?

Derek V



None are acceptable.

How many rapes per day are acceptable to you?
How many toddlers shooting their mothers per month are acceptable to you?
How many times is it acceptable for you to beat your wife?

Ask mpohl how many are acceptable.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Quote

None are acceptable.



The only way to get to 0/day is to take away all the cars. How many lives would that cost per day? More than 90, I'm sure.

Derek V



Strawman.

Regardless you also don't have any backup for the "More than 90" claim.

Plus, the comparison is assinine as previously laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just because gun owners tend to oppose regulations as brought forward by gun control groups, it does not prove the non-existence of regulations/measures that gun rights advocates would be okay with.



This wasn't the result of regulations. This was a business deciding to carry a gun with an additional safety measure.

The fear was that bringing attention to such a product might lead to legislation therefor it had to be opposed immediately. This almost put the gun store out of business.

The result is that the market for any type of safety improvent to guns is effectively zero. Gun purchasers set the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

I answered your questions, without any quibbling.

I asked you a simple question, "Do you accept 90 deaths/day as the price to drive your car?". A simple yes or no will do.

Derek V



I answered your question. I asked you some simple questions in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You miss my point. Their is a price to be paid. You do not want to admit that you are willing to pay that price for driving your car.

This is the real gun/anti-gun argument. This is what it boils down to, but people don't want to discuss it in these terms.

We pay a price for being able to drive our cars. We pay a price for gun ownership.

That is what all the arguments boil down to, "Is it worth the price?".

Some people are not willing to pay 30/day for gun ownership, most are. Almost everyone is willing to pay 90/day for driving. We pay a price for swimming pools, alcohol, cigarettes, flying, skydiving, skiing, everything. and, generally, society finds the price acceptable.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How many rapes per day are acceptable to you?



As the price for what? I need more information.

Quote

How many toddlers shooting their mothers per month are acceptable to you?



For the price of gun ownership? I haven't thought about it. What is the current rate?

Quote

How many times is it acceptable for you to beat your wife?



For the price of what? I need more information.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You miss my point. Their is a price to be paid. You do not want to admit that you are willing to pay that price for driving your car.



No, I get your point completely. I have made the same point here before. Sandy Hook is the price you pay for your 2nd amendment.

That doesn't mean you just have to accept the price and move on.

Like you say, in skydiving a price is paid as well. Yet we still try and regulate to some degree. We don't just shrug our shoulders and go, meh, just the price we pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That doesn't mean you just have to accept the price and move on.



Agreed.

I think it is a balance between restrictions and limitations and the price to be paid. I believe we are at a good balance point and increased restrictions will have to be large for small returns.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

You miss my point. Their is a price to be paid. You do not want to admit that you are willing to pay that price for driving your car.



No, I get your point completely. I have made the same point here before. Sandy Hook is the price you pay for your 2nd amendment.

That doesn't mean you just have to accept the price and move on.

Like you say, in skydiving a price is paid as well. Yet we still try and regulate to some degree. We don't just shrug our shoulders and go, meh, just the price we pay.



No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment

But the link needs to be made to try and make the argument you are trying to make

Sandy Hook was more about support for those with mental health issues

Not being able to help them has risen because of medical privacy issues

Medical privacy issues were put in place for a specific disease/issue

Do you happen to know what disease this is? The one that pushed HIPPA laws being put into place?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment

But the link needs to be made to try and make the argument you are trying to make

Sandy Hook was more about support for those with mental health issues

Not being able to help them has risen because of medical privacy issues

Medical privacy issues were put in place for a specific disease/issue

Do you happen to know what disease this is? The one that pushed HIPPA laws being put into place?



You are about to blame Sandy Hook on gays.

This is SC gold.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment

But the link needs to be made to try and make the argument you are trying to make

Sandy Hook was more about support for those with mental health issues

Not being able to help them has risen because of medical privacy issues

Medical privacy issues were put in place for a specific disease/issue

Do you happen to know what disease this is? The one that pushed HIPPA laws being put into place?



You are about to blame Sandy Hook on gays.

This is SC gold.


Nope
I am not

but we can discuss the laws of un-intened consequenses

Sandy Hook is a mental health issue
Not a gun issue
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment



Thank you for taking the bait to show that your argument is being driven by emotion, which is exactly what derek was trying to point out.

There is a price to be paid for everything, including the easy availability of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment



Thank you for taking the bait to show that your argument is being driven by emotion, which is exactly what derek was trying to point out.

There is a price to be paid for everything, including the easy availability of guns.



Sure
but guns being available has less to do with it (Sandy Hook) than is how we take care of those with mental health issues

I was clear

Your emotions did not let you see that because you need to have the primary link to be guns, so you can make your anti gun argument
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment



Thank you for taking the bait to show that your argument is being driven by emotion, which is exactly what derek was trying to point out.

There is a price to be paid for everything, including the easy availability of guns.



Conversly, there would be a price to payed if we removed all guns
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***

Quote

No
Sandy Hook has little to do with the price of out 2nd Amendment



Thank you for taking the bait to show that your argument is being driven by emotion, which is exactly what derek was trying to point out.

There is a price to be paid for everything, including the easy availability of guns.



Conversly, there would be a price to payed if we removed all guns

Agreed, I have stated many times before that banning all guns wouldn't be an option for the US.

Claiming all the good guns do, while blaming the negatives associated with it on something else is dishonest though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0