Stop the terrorist cars

[Father Heathen]

Question; how man automobile accidents were caused by a person who had drivers training and obtained a license?
Care to answer that bub?

Far less than what there would be if training and testing was less stringent, squirt.

All firearms legally manufactured for sale to the general public are "street legal".
How about that bub?

Traffic laws and safety regulations have evolved during the history of automobiles, squirt.

 

[Kenny]

Medical errors aren't murder. Twitter isn't news either.

Ohhh... so since it isn't murder, we should just sweep it under the rug... times over the murder rate, that is called "insignificant"... do everything to stop murder and let errors continue.

Remind me that it isn't important when they remove the wrong leg of yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's been a surprisingly large number of people driving cars into restaurants and stores either out of anger, to break in to rob it or just being out of their mind. Murder too.

Then obviously, the solution is to allow other people to drive in these places, too. The best solution for a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.

Maybe they won't be able to take the guy out with a PIT maneuver action movie-style, but if they don't have their cars, it definitely won't happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahem:

If we don't let the good guys drive in malls, then only the bad guys will be driving in malls.

 

[esmith]

Far less than what there would be if training and testing was less stringent, squirt.

Got supporting data, or just the usual opinion?

Traffic laws and safety regulations have evolved during the history of automobiles, squirt.

So have firearm laws

Oh, by the way youngster, suggest you watch whom you call squirt. I might just have to sic the OPPL on you (OPPL=old persons protective league

 

[Father Heathen]

Got supporting data, or just the usual opinion?

What, that traffic laws, safety regulations, and training/testing reduce automobile accidents and injury/death?

So have firearm laws

And should continue to do so when they're not working as well as they should.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we don't let the good guys drive in malls, then only the bad guys will be driving in malls.

To get a little more serious it is hard to believe that people do not understand the concept of a net gain. Yes, if firearms are eliminated terrorists and other "bad guys" will find some other method to kill other people. That does not mean that putting a limit on firearms will be a bad thing since the net number of deaths will go down.

 

[Twilight Hue]

......"Damn liberals comin' after our cars!"?

They already tried to come after our fuel guzzling pickup trucks billowing black smoke from the pipes.

 

[Kapalika]

Then obviously, the solution is to allow other people to drive in these places, too. The best solution for a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.

Maybe they won't be able to take the guy out with a PIT maneuver action movie-style, but if they don't have their cars, it definitely won't happen.

If we don't let the good guys drive in malls, then only the bad guys will be driving in malls.

Your parallel fails because there isn't any situation where driving a car in a mall (other than putting it into those spots for sale) really makes any sense. But lots of people all the time go in with concealed weapons without incident.

Also your point is moot was most malls disallow guns since they are privately owned. Shockingly it doesn't stop people from going there to shoot people who had their guns banned.

Honesty, yes, other shoppers shouldn't go vigilante. I honestly think that some of the security guards should be armed. But most malls don't arm them. Because they ban guns.

Your argument would work in a place with almost no guns (like where you live). But you can't really compare it to a place like the USA that has more guns than people. Something the anti-gun crowd forgets is that reducing just a few guns won't stop the problem. You would either have to get rid of most guns already on the market and in private possession, or you have to have some degree of actual security.

That said, some things like Universal background checks have widespread support, and I think those could help a lot. But the main tactic shouldn't be barring honest citizens who are of sound mind and have never committed a violent crime.

The only argument I might take is that we should centralize gun ownership into independent militias separate from state and federal government. But I don't suppose you think that's a good idea? It's either that or private ownership. Those are the two only ways to interpret the 2nd amendment.

EDIT: I know you're not in America I just am assuming pretty much all of this topic is about the gun situation in America since it is 99% of the time gun debates happen.

 

[tytlyf]

They already tried to come after our fuel guzzling pickup trucks billowing black smoke from the pipes.

That's because pollution is killing people, contributing to climate change and the very fast increase of temperatures (which isn't normal).

Go live in China, see how much you like smog.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To get a little more serious it is hard to believe that people do not understand the concept of a net gain. Yes, if firearms are eliminated terrorists and other "bad guys" will find some other method to kill other people.

Some "bad guys" will; most won't. The less opportunity we provide for people to be murdered, the less murder we'll have.

You can see the absolute ridiculousness of this line of argument if you apply it to anything else: "if bombs aren't allowed on planes, terrorists will find some other way to kill people." See how crazy it sounds?

The difference is that lots of people like their guns and want to keep them, so they're more concerned with whether their argument supports keeping guns than whether it's reasonable.

That does not mean that putting a limit on firearms will be a bad thing since the net number of deaths will go down.

Of course. The unique thing about firearms is how easy they make killing. Yes, there are other ways to commit murder or suicide, but most of them take much more planning, ongoing determination, or skill than just shooting someone with a gun you already have, so getting rid of the guns screens out a lot of the potential killing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your parallel fails because there isn't any situation where driving a car in a mall (other than putting it into those spots for sale) really makes any sense. But lots of people all the time go in with concealed weapons without incident.

It works better than you realize (and BTW, you implied that concealed carry makes sense, but I certainly don't accept that idea).

A "good guy" in a car to protect from "bad guys" using cars violently makes way more sense than carrying a gun to defend against armed attackers. With a car, you get protection without doing anything yourself: you don't need to take the other guy out; the safety systems of your car protect you even if you're sitting in it motionless.

Also your point is moot was most malls disallow guns since they are privately owned.

But there are gun nuts who argue that this should change. They defend their position with arguments about how the mall - or church, or school, or wherever - needs "good guys with guns."

Shockingly it doesn't stop people from going there to shoot people who had their guns banned.

But it does mean that the second someone is spotted with a gun, we know something is wrong and respond before anyone is killed. If guns are allowed, you have no way of knowing that a person is there with violent intent until they start shooting.

Your argument would work in a place with almost no guns (like where you live). But you can't really compare it to a place like the USA that has more guns than people. Something the anti-gun crowd forgets is that reducing just a few guns won't stop the problem. You would either have to get rid of most guns already on the market and in private possession, or you have to have some degree of actual security.

It's not about reducing only a few guns. Any position I advocate is part of an overall goal:

- no semi-auto rifles
- no (or at least very limited) handguns
- for the guns that remain (mainly shotguns and non-semi-auto rifles), no allowances for defensive gun use: they have to be stored securely and unloaded, with the ammo stored securely separately. No "castle doctrine" - "self-defense" shootings would invite serious scrutiny and have to pass a high bar for the shooter not to be charged.

And yes: this would mean getting rid of a lot of guns already out there.

That said, some things like Universal background checks have widespread support, and I think those could help a lot. But the main tactic shouldn't be barring honest citizens who are of sound mind and have never committed a violent crime.

Why not?

The only argument I might take is that we should centralize gun ownership into independent militias separate from state and federal government. But I don't suppose you think that's a good idea?

Heck no. Private armies are an awful idea.

It's either that or private ownership. Those are the two only ways to interpret the 2nd amendment.

What I'm proposing would almost certainly need a constitutional amendment to implement it in the US.

EDIT: I know you're not in America I just am assuming pretty much all of this topic is about the gun situation in America since it is 99% of the time gun debates happen.

I'm talking about what I think the gun laws should be like in any Western democracy. How they could be implemented varies from country to country.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It works better than you realize (and BTW, you implied that concealed carry makes sense, but I certainly don't accept that idea).

A "good guy" in a car to protect from "bad guys" using cars violently makes way more sense than carrying a gun to defend against armed attackers. With a car, you get protection without doing anything yourself: you don't need to take the other guy out; the safety systems of your car protect you even if you're sitting in it motionless.


But there are gun nuts who argue that this should change. They defend their position with arguments about how the mall - or church, or school, or wherever - needs "good guys with guns."


But it does mean that the second someone is spotted with a gun, we know something is wrong and respond before anyone is killed. If guns are allowed, you have no way of knowing that a person is there with violent intent until they start shooting.


It's not about reducing only a few guns. Any position I advocate is part of an overall goal:

- no semi-auto rifles
- no (or at least very limited) handguns
- for the guns that remain (mainly shotguns and non-semi-auto rifles), no allowances for defensive gun use: they have to be stored securely and unloaded, with the ammo stored securely separately. No "castle doctrine" - "self-defense" ahootings would invite serious scrutiny and have to pass a high bar for the shooter not to be charged.

And yes: this would mean getting rid of a lot of guns already out there.


Why not?


Heck no. Private armies are an awful idea.


What I'm proposing would almost certainly need a constitutional amendment to implement it in the US.


I'm talking about what I think the gun laws should be like in any Western democracy. How they could be implemented varies from country to country.

Though open carry is legal, one needs to use one's head. Take this case where some open carry nuts that called themselves "auditors" did not get a happy ending:

Going into a police station heavily armed and wearing ski masks and dark glasses and body armor is ummm, not too bright of an idea.

 

[Valjean]

This is a 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun.

.



This is the 25 round magazine you can buy for it.

Might be OK for upland shooting, but with that short barrel and effectively cylinder choke it wouldn't be suited for waterfowl at all.
A lot of places have a three shell magazine rule, too.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Might be OK for upland shooting, but with that short barrel and effectively cylinder choke it wouldn't be suited for waterfowl at all.
A lot of places have a three shell magazine rule, too.

A lot of places had a 5 round magazine limit for hunting rifles too. My point is that the big magazines and short barrels in both rifles and shotguns are not for hunting. They are for being macho at the range and also serve the purpose of killing a bunch of people quickly at short distances.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That does not mean that putting a limit on firearms will be a bad thing since the net number of deaths will go down.

You really think so?

Some "bad guys" will; most won't. The less opportunity we provide for people to be murdered, the less murder we'll have.

You can see the absolute ridiculousness of this line of argument if you apply it to anything else: "if bombs aren't allowed on planes, terrorists will find some other way to kill people." See how crazy it sounds?

The difference is that lots of people like their guns and want to keep them, so they're more concerned with whether their argument supports keeping guns than whether it's reasonable.


Of course. The unique thing about firearms is how easy they make killing. Yes, there are other ways to commit murder or suicide, but most of them take much more planning, ongoing determination, or skill than just shooting someone with a gun you already have, so getting rid of the guns screens out a lot of the potential killing.

That's really a bunch of BS. It doesn't take much for a person to drive into a crowd of people either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really think so?


That's really a bunch of BS. It doesn't take much for a person to drive into a crowd of people either.

Seriously I do. Guns make killing easier for an individual. I don't want all gun sales banned, but I can see some reasonable limitations being put on gun ownership.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seriously I do. Guns make killing easier for an individual. I don't want all gun sales banned, but I can see some reasonable limitations being put on gun ownership.

Even I had softened up with some Provisions made by way of gun design and age requirements. If done right, people can still have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of places had a 5 round magazine limit for hunting rifles too. My point is that the big magazines and short barrels in both rifles and shotguns are not for hunting. They are for being macho at the range and also serve the purpose of killing a bunch of people quickly at short distances.

For duck hunting one shell chambered and three shells in the magazine is all that is legally allowed. If a gun can take more shells a plug that cannot be removed without disassembly is required:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/waterfowl.pdf