Obama speaks on changes to US gun laws

[Bug Out]

Drunk driving kills far more people per year, and there is no way you can tell me that is not preventable. What is the leading cause of drunk driving? I would venture to guess it is drunks. They get drunk from this thing called alcohol. Last time I checked, Prohibition wasn't an on-going thing as of 2013.

Ah prohibition is no longer on going, but there is regulation on driving while drunk.

We have regulations against murder, discharging a firearm inside city limits, Felons owning guns, ect. so what's your point?

[Emile Zola]

When was the last time a drunk driver went on a spree in his car and killed 26 people in minutes? Has it ever occurred? I'll repeat myself the public is uneasy with the amount of damage someone can do with one weapon.

If you wish, you can always Google about the car-and-bike crash that occurred in Mexico.

You can also talk to the parents and/or relatives of those affected by drunk driving accidents. Relatives such as myself.

So why don't you take your feelings on drunk driving and apply it to the victims of mass shootings and gun homicides in general. It's a bit hypocritical to be concerned for one and not the other.

[Bug Out]

Drunk driving kills far more people per year, and there is no way you can tell me that is not preventable. What is the leading cause of drunk driving? I would venture to guess it is drunks. They get drunk from this thing called alcohol. Last time I checked, Prohibition wasn't an on-going thing as of 2013.

When was the last time a drunk driver went on a spree in his car and killed 26 people in minutes? Has it ever occurred? I'll repeat myself the public is uneasy with the amount of damage someone can do with one weapon.

Well, there goes buses and airplanes.

[Spreewerke]

If you wish, you can always Google about the car-and-bike crash that occurred in Mexico.

You can also talk to the parents and/or relatives of those affected by drunk driving accidents. Relatives such as myself.

So why don't you take your feelings on drunk driving and apply it to the victims of mass shootings and gun homicides in general. It's a bit hypocritical to be concerned for one and not the other.

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

[Free South Califas]

And it was the gun control that did it? Really? Not the USA PATRIOT Act? Not the evidence of an FBI-coordinated raid on Occupy? Not [fill in the blank with any of the many authoritarian moves of the last few decades]?

All that stuff happens here in Canada, too, sometimes worse.

Oops, it didn't occur to me that you might live in Canada, and indeed gun rights would be the salient difference for you.

EDIT: Just wanted the anti gunners to see this.
(Image)

Hate to say it but that's a rather spurious comparison of raw data, there. In any but the most weaponized society with significant access to modern medicine, there are exponentially many more opportunities to be killed during a medical procedure than with a gun.

[Emile Zola]

When was the last time a drunk driver went on a spree in his car and killed 26 people in minutes? Has it ever occurred? I'll repeat myself the public is uneasy with the amount of damage someone can do with one weapon.

Well, there goes buses and airplanes.

Which is why people freak out when a plane crash occurs and air travel is highly regulated and subject to high levels of scrutiny.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If you wish, you can always Google about the car-and-bike crash that occurred in Mexico.

You can also talk to the parents and/or relatives of those affected by drunk driving accidents. Relatives such as myself.

So why don't you take your feelings on drunk driving and apply it to the victims of mass shootings and gun homicides in general. It's a bit hypocritical to be concerned for one and not the other.

Because separating objects from actions is a rather crucial element in society. Both legally, philosophically, and otherwise.

Edit: It seems Spree has explained this already.

[North Calaveras]

So why don't you take your feelings on drunk driving and apply it to the victims of mass shootings and gun homicides in general. It's a bit hypocritical to be concerned for one and not the other.

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Emile Zola]

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

[Bug Out]

Well, there goes buses and airplanes.

Which is why people freak out when a plane crash occurs and air travel is highly regulated and subject to high levels of scrutiny.

Yeah, and you could start and run a bus line for a taxi license.
So are guns. You think you can just walk into a store an buy on the spot without a background check? How good or bad of a check is up to your sheriff's office, but there is a check. In NC, you must show a permit to buy, even from individuals. There is no "gun show loophole" in this state. If there's a problem in other states, then the state should take care of it, not the fed.

[Spreewerke]

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

[Bug Out]

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

Give them time. Maybe not a drunk, but a crazed bastard will try eventually.

[Bug Out]

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

Preach on!

[Free South Califas]

Still immature that you would attack my beliefs with a single word instead of making a statement. "Those who respond to a smart comment with shut up aren't smart enough to have a comeback." and just saying bullshit is you saying to me " shut up your wrong, im right and i dont want you to speak your opinion." good day

If I wanted you to shut up, I'd have said "shut up". Instead, what I wanted you to do was say things that are not hilariously wrong. To that end, I correctly pointed out that what you said was, in fact, bullshit. Governments are not hell. Being in or near a generic government does not cause death, loss of limbs, PTSD, self-destruictive coping mechanisms such as abuse of alcohol or drugs, or any of the other horrors and risks of war. That you would compare the two so flippantly is so patently absurd as to not warrant a substantive reply. Yet, you got one anyway, since you didn't seem to grasp this the first time.

And the comparison reveals a severe callousness and/or a deficit of understanding about war.

No, what pains me is that the loss of gun rights are inevitable. There will always be some shooter or incident that happens which will ruin everything for all the legal owners of firearms. It will never stop.

To some people, that might be a clue that there is something wrong with the object or pastime in question…

Basically, this.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Because I do not blame the car nor the alcohol in the event of a drunk driving incident. Did the alcohol cause the person to get drunk? Yes, but only because they chose to use it for that purpose (to get drunk). Did the car choose to swerve into the other lane? No, but it did so because the driver was drunk thanks to their previous decision with alcohol.

Did the gun tell Lanza to walk into that school building and kill those children? No, but he still chose to use it in that fashion.

Inanimate objects are inanimate.

People are dicks.

I think maybe we should try to fix the latter rather than blame the former.

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

So you don't have a problem with the actual NUMBERS of people being killed by things, you have a problem with those outlying samples where multiple people are killed in a short manner of time?
...
You must HATE airplanes SO much. Statistically the deaths from them are insignificant, but when there ARE deaths from them there can be multiple deaths in a very short amount of time.

[Emile Zola]

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

No one is being punished. People want regulations, background checks on gun sales and registering your guns. If you're a law abiding citizen it shouldn't affect you at all.

[North Calaveras]

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

No one is being punished. People want regulations, background checks on gun sales and registering your guns. If you're a law abiding citizen it shouldn't affect you at all.

No many people don't want regulations, the only reason this is even being talked about is because the media blows it skyhigh.

like was said before, it's less than a tenth of a percent.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

No one is being punished. People want regulations, background checks on gun sales and registering your guns. If you're a law abiding citizen it shouldn't affect you at all.

Interestingly, when the same argument is used vis-a-vis freedom of speech or rights to privacy, people instantly see the problem.

'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' isn't a phrase to base laws off of, regardless of what those laws are about.

[The New Sea Territory]

I am not going to obey an Assault Weapons ban if it passes.

Top job on announcing your intention to break the law on a public forum. Should this thread end up submitted as evidence of premeditation in your trial, I'd say hello to the judge and jury on behalf of NSG.

Says the liberal. Taking away a gun because it's "scary" means those people are spineless, big-government loving authoritarians.

Big Government=B
Liberty=L
Corruption=C
Tyranny=T

B=100t - 2000l(C)

Altogether, big governments have low liberty, and high tyrannical corruption. BO is the symbol of statist garbage everywhere.


Algebra doesn't lie...

[Emile Zola]

So you don't have a problem with the actual NUMBERS of people being killed by things, you have a problem with those outlying samples where multiple people are killed in a short manner of time?
...
You must HATE airplanes SO much. Statistically the deaths from them are insignificant, but when there ARE deaths from them there can be multiple deaths in a very short amount of time.

Let me correct you I have problem with both gun homicides (12,000+) and mass shootings. Maybe it's just me but I think they are bad events. The difference between air travel and gun violence is I get to choose whether I fly on a plane or not. People don't get to choose when someone gets a a gun pointed at them.

[North Calaveras]

So you don't have a problem with the actual NUMBERS of people being killed by things, you have a problem with those outlying samples where multiple people are killed in a short manner of time?
...
You must HATE airplanes SO much. Statistically the deaths from them are insignificant, but when there ARE deaths from them there can be multiple deaths in a very short amount of time.

Let me correct you I have problem with both gun homicides (12,000+) and mass shootings. Maybe it's just me but I think they are bad events. The difference between air travel and gun violence is I get to choose whether I fly on a plane or not. People don't get to choose when someone gets a a gun pointed at them.

people don't choose when a plane get's to go down either, well the pilot can but the passengers don't.

[The New Sea Territory]

Again when has a drunk driver caused a mass killing where they deliberately targeted pedestrians with a car and killed 26 people in minutes? Yes people are dicks so why give them the capacity to create carnage.

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

They weren't illegally-possessed. He fired a Sig Sauer and a Glock, but had an AR-15 on him, which was proven to never be fired.

If you ban a Glock, then your banning a handgun that many people use, which kills the market for guns. Guns generate money and jobs, so why take them away?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Gun Laws don't do away with guns, the do away with LEGAL guns.

[Emile Zola]

Interestingly, when the same argument is used vis-a-vis freedom of speech or rights to privacy, people instantly see the problem.

'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' isn't a phrase to base laws off of, regardless of what those laws are about.

How are these compatible? Explain yourself.

[The New Sea Territory]

So you don't have a problem with the actual NUMBERS of people being killed by things, you have a problem with those outlying samples where multiple people are killed in a short manner of time?
...
You must HATE airplanes SO much. Statistically the deaths from them are insignificant, but when there ARE deaths from them there can be multiple deaths in a very short amount of time.

Let me correct you I have problem with both gun homicides (12,000+) and mass shootings. Maybe it's just me but I think they are bad events. The difference between air travel and gun violence is I get to choose whether I fly on a plane or not. People don't get to choose when someone gets a a gun pointed at them.

Great. Taking away guns won't stop "someone getting a a gun pointed at them".
People who want guns will get them. If I REALLY tried, I could get a tank. Anything is possible with enough prayer, money or duct tape.

[Frisivisia]

Because I was under the assumption that the United States court of law assumed innocence until proven guilty. On that day in Connecticut, one man with illegally-obtained firearms killed multiple children. Do you know how many other law-abiding gun owners didn't do that? All of them. Why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal did with illegally-possessed items?

They weren't illegally-possessed. He fired a Sig Sauer and a Glock, but had an AR-15 on him, which was proven to never be fired.

If you ban a Glock, then your banning a handgun that many people use, which kills the market for guns. Guns generate money and jobs, so why take them away?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Gun Laws don't do away with guns, the do away with LEGAL guns.

Except that legal owners shoot people too.