Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Shadow Wolf]

My thoughts are everyone is frustrated, everyone is looking for something to lash out at, and where one group is irritated when the other mentions gun regulation, that side is seemingly become irritated that the other seems to offer only prayers as a solution. And there is the saying that "two hands at work accomplish more than a million hands clasped in prayer."

What are the arguments against it?

According to some, the "argument" is we need more guns to fix our gun problem, and such a system will make it easier for the government to take your guns and criminalize gun ownership.

 

[Draka]

Another punishment for the law abiding.

Are requirements to take driving tests, pass written and eye exams, renew licenses, and carry insurance punishments for "law-abiding" car drivers? See, the thing is, if these kinds of regulations were to go into effect for guns then following the regulations would be "law-abiding". We also have regulations about what types of vehicles are allowed on the road, for safety reasons, and we have emissions regulations and more. The average driver on the road has many restrictions about what they can drive, where they can drive, how they can drive, and so on. If we had half as many laws and regulations concerning the ownership and use of guns we might actually have at least some decent gun control plan. I don't hear people pitching a fit and moaning over all the stuff they must do to own and drive a vehicle legally. So why the concern over guns?

 

[BSM1]

Are requirements to take driving tests, pass written and eye exams, renew licenses, and carry insurance punishments for "law-abiding" car drivers? See, the thing is, if these kinds of regulations were to go into effect for guns then following the regulations would be "law-abiding". We also have regulations about what types of vehicles are allowed on the road, for safety reasons, and we have emissions regulations and more. The average driver on the road has many restrictions about what they can drive, where they can drive, how they can drive, and so on. If we had half as many laws and regulations concerning the ownership and use of guns we might actually have at least some decent gun control plan. I don't hear people pitching a fit and moaning over all the stuff they must do to own and drive a vehicle legally. So why the concern over guns?

Should we require every driver in the US to take a breathalyzer test before they can start their cars simply because someone might be killed by a drunk driver?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've heard many make the argument that the constitution doesn't have any provisions in there for taking away someones rights (other than criminality). I suspect any process you implement will not be effective.
For example, if we give psychologist the ability to report people who they think shouldn't own guns to a judge, gun nuts will simply avoid going for treatment....

I'm confident a reasonable compromise could be hammered out.
But I'm not confident our leaders are up to the task.
You need to stage a coup which installs me as fearless leader.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news,....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often,some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

Should we require every driver in the US to take a breathalyzer test before they can start their cars simply because someone might be killed by a drunk driver?

Ya know......I could live with that.
(I was run down & nearly killed by a drunk once.)

 

[Draka]

Should we require every driver in the US to take a breathalyzer test before they can start their cars simply because someone might be killed by a drunk driver?

Not remotely the same thing, but if you want to go there...I have no issue with having breathalyzer equipment be a normal part of a car to start it. Smart move BSM1. Anymore ideas?

 

[Nietzsche]

Should we require every driver in the US to take a breathalyzer test before they can start their cars simply because someone might be killed by a drunk driver?

It would be ideal.

 

[BSM1]

Not remotely the same thing, but if you want to go there...I have no issue with having breathalyzer equipment be a normal part of a car to start it. Smart move BSM1. Anymore ideas?

Bottom line: Right now I can strap on my .40 and go to the store and nothing you say or think can change that. So there. Deal with it.

 

[BSM1]

It would be ideal.

But aren't you penalizing drivers like me who do neither strong drink nor drugs? Why should I pander to your paranoia?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But aren't you penalizing drivers like me who do neither strong drink nor drugs? Why should I pander to your paranoia?

Driving is very dangerous, and very deadly. Because of this risk, there comes a time when you must stop saying "what about me?" and focus on others who aren't yourself, especially when you may be spared because you put yourself aside for just a moment. If it were up to me, you would be legally required to keep up on maintenance on your car, because failure to do so can endanger the lives of others. Cars are dangerous and require a great deal of responsibility, and must approach guns with the same mentality. But what we have is we will have people take a driving, written, and vision test to drive, but require no training, whatsoever, in order to purchase and carry a firearm, which is beyond any currently existing notion or concept of dumb and stupid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But aren't you penalizing drivers like me who do neither strong drink nor drugs? Why should I pander to your paranoia?

About 90 people are killed in car wrecks everyday. About 31 of them are killed by drunk drivers. Why should we not do something to better address the issue of drunk driving?

 

[Jumi]

Should we require every driver in the US to take a breathalyzer test before they can start their cars simply because someone might be killed by a drunk driver?

There are breathalyzer ignition locks that would make that easy

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/8750569/breathalyzer-steering-wheel-department-of-transport

 

[BSM1]

About 90 people are killed in car wrecks everyday. About 31 of them are killed by drunk drivers. Why should we not do something to better address the issue of drunk driving?

Are you sure about your stats? While we're talking about it look at the mandatory seat belt laws. How does forcing me to wear a seat belt keep you safe? This is a perfect example of government over reach.

There are breathalyzer ignition locks that would make that easy

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/8750569/breathalyzer-steering-wheel-department-of-transport

But should I be forced to install one on my vehicle even though I do not drink?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure about your stats? While we're talking about it look at the mandatory seat belt laws. How does forcing me to wear a seat belt keep you safe? This is a perfect example of government over reach.

The loss of your intellect would devastate RF.
Not only should you wear a seat belt, you should wear a helmet while driving a big Volvo in the slow lane.

But should I be forced to install one on my vehicle even though I do not drink?

After reading my post, you just might start.
And as a beginning drinker, you might over-indulge.

 

[Draka]

But aren't you penalizing drivers like me who do neither strong drink nor drugs? Why should I pander to your paranoia?

Is it penalizing every driver who has never had an accident by requiring everyone to carry auto insurance?
Is it penalizing everyone who buys alcohol to make them dig out and show their ID because some under age people may try to buy beer?

Taking safety precautions that help to insure the safety of everyone is not an act of penalizing people that are acting safe in the first place, but insurance that others around them are safer for them to be around.

People carry auto-insurance because it is just a fact of life that accidents can happen and when accidents happen with a car, the results can be potentially disastrous. We're talking thousands of pounds of deadly machinery hurling down roads at each other. This is why we have all the restrictions and regulations about driving that we do.

Guns are specifically made to be weapons. They aren't toys, harmless things...they are deadly machinery. In the hands of certain people they are especially dangerous. So why not have the same amount of care and oversight when it comes to guns as we do cars?

 

[BSM1]

The loss of your intellect would devastate RF.
Not only should you wear a seat belt, you should wear a helmet while driving a big Volvo in the slow lane.

After reading my post, you just might start.
And as a beginning drinker, you might over-indulge.

Next thing you know they'll be forcing me to wear my glasses when I drive.
Thankfully my DUIs are a lifetime behind me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it penalizing every driver who has never had an accident by requiring everyone to carry auto insurance?
Is it penalizing everyone who buys alcohol to make them dig out and show their ID because some under age people may try to buy beer?

Taking safety precautions that help to insure the safety of everyone is not an act of penalizing people that are acting safe in the first place, but insurance that others around them are safer for them to be around.

People carry auto-insurance because it is just a fact of life that accidents can happen and when accidents happen with a car, the results can be potentially disastrous. We're talking thousands of pounds of deadly machinery hurling down roads at each other. This is why we have all the restrictions and regulations about driving that we do.

Guns are specifically made to be weapons. They aren't toys, harmless things...they are deadly machinery. In the hands of certain people they are especially dangerous. So why not have the same amount of care and oversight when it comes to guns as we do cars?

I knew it!
You're a shill for the insurance industry.
The other hint was your jewelry....

 

[BSM1]

Is it penalizing every driver who has never had an accident by requiring everyone to carry auto insurance?
Is it penalizing everyone who buys alcohol to make them dig out and show their ID because some under age people may try to buy beer?

Taking safety precautions that help to insure the safety of everyone is not an act of penalizing people that are acting safe in the first place, but insurance that others around them are safer for them to be around.

People carry auto-insurance because it is just a fact of life that accidents can happen and when accidents happen with a car, the results can be potentially disastrous. We're talking thousands of pounds of deadly machinery hurling down roads at each other. This is why we have all the restrictions and regulations about driving that we do.

Guns are specifically made to be weapons. They aren't toys, harmless things...they are deadly machinery. In the hands of certain people they are especially dangerous. So why not have the same amount of care and oversight when it comes to guns as we do cars?

Insurance is required to protect property. It doesn't contribute to the safety of anyone. And we already have the gun laws on the books that would alleviate many of your fears if they would simply be enforced.

 

[Draka]

Insurance is required to protect property. It doesn't contribute to the safety of anyone. And we already have the gun laws on the books that would alleviate many of your fears if they would simply be enforced.

Auto insurance covers medical. And if someone does have a tendency to have accidents, show they are an unsafe driver, then they can lose both their insurance and their license. Since both are required to legally drive on the road then the loss of either is to help keep unsafe drivers off the road. Yes, some may break the law and drive anyway, but aren't we talking about people who obey the law here? The "law-abiding" citizens who give up driving when they don't have the legal right to?

If you have a gun and something were to happen with it, something dangerous, wrong, injurious, deadly, and you had your license or insurance stripped from you to have a gun...being a law-abiding citizen, would you give it up? Or would you, like people driving with no insurance or a revoked license, break the law because, well, who cares if you're not all that safe? You believe you're safe and that's all that matters right?