These Students will change US gun landscape

[sayak83]

That means there's a an acceptable death standard somewhere. What do you think it should be for guns? Same for cars?

Much stricter.

 

[tytlyf]

Like guns cars kill too. Just making comparisons.

So you think cars should be banned? Such a silly argument.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Much stricter.

I would say guns are no more or less dangerous than cars are. They're both tools.

And remember I'm including accidental as well as intentional use.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you think cars should be banned? Such a silly argument.

Okay let me ask you this, Why are cars given a clean pass for deaths that they cause and not vilified for it and guns are not?

 

[tytlyf]

I would say guns are no more or less dangerous than cars are. They're both tools.

And remember I'm including accidental as well as intentional use.

Intentional use is extremely rare.

 

[tytlyf]

Okay let me ask you this, Why are cars given a clean pass for deaths that they cause and not vilified for it and guns are not?

Cars are given a clean pass when intentionally used to kill people? I'd assume it's due to the rarity of use in that case. People will go for guns much quicker than cars.

One is meant to kill, the other is not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Intentional use is extremely rare.

But there are still actual death tolls regardless.

Car still surpass guns in human death statistics.

 

[tytlyf]

But there are still actual death tolls regardless.

Car still surpass guns in human death statistics.

Not intentional. Intentional use to kill is so non-existent it's silly to even mention.

 

[sayak83]

I would say guns are no more or less dangerous than cars are. They're both tools.

And remember I'm including accidental as well as intentional use.

I have shown you that they are far more dangerous than cars. You have not refuted me. People die from eating sugar more often (via diabetes, heart track etc) than they die from eating rat poison. Does not mean that rat poison is safer to eat than sugar.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you actually think that 50 or so million Americans are
"paranoid"?

Absolutely. Not just about guns, but about spiders, snakes, foreigners, and any number of overprevelent irrational fears which people often overcompensate for. Be that overcompensation killing any spider they see, walking on the other side of a road from that (insert object of racial or national or religious fears) or sleeping with a loaded gun in the dresser.

Incidentally, if my family and I had had a home invasion, we would be much more interested in making an escape than escalating. Especially since we kept our gun (used for putting down ailing livestock) disassembled and put away out of reach, as all responsible gun owners should.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Cars are given a clean pass when intentionally used to kill people? I'd assume it's due to the rarity of use in that case. People will go for guns much quicker than cars.

One is meant to kill, the other is not.

Yeah, but we come back to the same conundrum. Death still occurs and continues to do so. Isn't that what the whole argument revolves around? Preventing deaths from happening?

It's the same as saying it's perfectly okay if little Susie dies in a car accident, and cars will remain un-vilified and legal as the death toll continues on, but definitely not okay if she dies by gunshot where guns need to be severely restricted, or outright banned from people.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am sick of this fallacious comparison. The utility/risk provided by a car per unit of use is far greater than that of a gun.

I have replied with this and factual evidence about cars being a necessary part of modern human society and was fed replies about how we could all live like the Amish and how people in NYC don't need cars. It takes a huge amount of tunnelvisioning to compare a staple of modern living with something so clearly not.

 

[Audie]

Well given the present death statistics for cars, that says a lot for Safety and Security measures. That's part of the argument I'm trying to make.

The whole point of these kind of protests are people stating they want to see deaths reduced to zero (not realistic) or whatever could be considered as acceptable levels (more realistic).

As i stated in earlier posts, I'm not against reasonable additional regulation that would have people better trained and more responsible with firearms and have some components made illegal on a civilian firearm. If they only go that far, that's okay. But such a safety program needs to be accessible to everybody who wants to own a gun not just a few in order to preserve the Second Amendment.

Like cars, there would have to be a acceptable death standard established where guns are no longer vilified like cars are.

What is then, an acceptable death toll for guns?

There has to be a number somewhere because cars are not vilified in spite of all the deaths that occur on a daily basis that includes women and children.

Well given the present death statistics for cars, that says a lot for Safety and Security measures. That's part of the argument I'm trying to make.

The whole point of these kind of protests are people stating they want to see deaths reduced to zero (not realistic) or whatever could be considered as acceptable levels (more realistic).

As i stated in earlier posts, I'm not against reasonable additional regulation that would have people better trained and more responsible with firearms and have some components made illegal on a civilian firearm. If they only go that far, that's okay. But such a safety program needs to be accessible to everybody who wants to own a gun not just a few in order to preserve the Second Amendment.

Like cars, there would have to be a acceptable death standard established where guns are no longer vilified like cars are.

What is then, an acceptable death toll for guns?

There has to be a number somewhere because cars are not vilified in spite of all the deaths that occur on a daily basis that includes women and children.

The USA has exactly the illegal drug problem and number of deaths,
ruined lives that the public is willing to tolerate, dont you think so?

Same with text n' drive, drink n' drive.
All manner or non-essential risk.

Football ruins a lot of young men, but it is so
far in the range of what society tolerates.

Mao was the greatest drug councelor of
all time. Zero tolerance.

Yeah.

Anyone want that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to disagree but....

Of the settlements made, the negligence lawyers would get 40% and families of the victims 60%. Citizens of the state would pay 100% in taxes.

Something has to be done, but the path is anything but simple.

No, it isn't. For one thing, it's littered with naysayers that think themselves clever.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have shown you that they are far more dangerous than cars. You have not refuted me. People die from eating sugar more often (via diabetes, heart track etc) than they die from eating rat poison. Does not mean that rat poison is safer to eat than sugar.

I don't know. I'm of the opinion that guns are reasonably safe if you know how to properly handle and use them. I think they are no more or less dangerous than cars.

I've handled guns quite often in the past with no problems. It's irresponsibility and carelessness that cause death and that has to do more with the person than the tool which is why I think people are looking in the wrong direction in combating gun issues.

It's clear guns aren't the cause of what's happening in society given our history coincides with the gun. It's been these last few Generations. There are clearly other factors that are making people go off the edge like this.

Bottom line is guns are not the cause here. It's something else whether that be societal programming, propaganda, fake news, media stress, information overload, credit cards, or whatever, or maybe even a combination of it all at once piling on more and more stress, proverbialy breaking the camel's back.

I think if you want to reduce school shootings and gun deaths, then we should be finding out what in hell is making people snap and go bonkers today and start addressing it.

 

[Nous]

Is there a large number of lives destroyed by gun-possessing criminals that states have allowed to possess guns? I haven't seen those data.

Legally owned guns.

Huh? Felons (et al.) cannot legally purchase guns in any state.

What change in laws do you advocate in order to make "the state accountable for every life destroyed by a gun the state legally allowed the criminal to possess"? How many annual firearm deaths are being referred to by that designation?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The USA has exactly the illegal drug problem and number of deaths,
ruined lives that the public is willing to tolerate, dont you think so?

Same with text n' drive, drink n' drive.
All manner or non-essential risk.

Football ruins a lot of young men, but it is so
far in the range of what society tolerates.

Mao was the greatest drug councelor of
all time. Zero tolerance.

Yeah.

Anyone want that?

If firearms were something new, I probably agree with you.

Short answer is obvious nobody wants death to happen. But I can tell you it's not guns, it's societal attitudes and behaviors for which something else is going on that's causing people to go crazy enough to run out and kill people.

 

[Curious George]

I don't know. I'm of the opinion that guns are reasonably safe if you know how to properly handle and use them. I think they are no more or less dangerous than cars.

I've handled guns quite often in the past with no problems. It's irresponsibility and carelessness that cause death and that has to do more with the person than the tool which is why I think people are looking in the wrong direction in combating gun issues.

It's clear guns aren't the cause of what's happening in society given our history coincides with the gun. It's been these last few Generations. There are clearly other factors that are making people go off the edge like this.

Bottom line is guns are not the cause here. It's something else whether that be societal programming, propaganda, fake news, media stress, information overload, credit cards, or whatever, or maybe even a combination of it all at once piling on more and more stress, proverbialy breaking the camel's back.

I think if you want to reduce school shootings and gun deaths, then we should be finding out what in hell is making people snap and go bonkers today and start addressing it.

Not just school shootings but all murder and suicide--invest in education, mental health, and poverty reduction

 

[Nous]

I don't know. I'm of the opinion that guns are reasonably safe if you know how to properly handle and use them. I think they are no more or less dangerous than cars.

See the evidence cited in the OP: Are Gun-Owners Delusional, Dishonest, Indifferent or Just Ignorant of the Evidence?

You didn't offer any account for the contradiction between the primary reason that the majority of gun-owners assert for owning a gun and the findings showing that guns in the home increase the risk of death or injury to a family member or acquaintance while providing no significant protection to persons in the home, and the defensive use of guns outside of the home is extremely rare and more often results in injury to the victim than simply running away, hiding, and calling the police. Correct?

 

[PureX]

It's true that cars are extremely dangerous, too, which is why states have strict laws and controls in accordance, no? In my state, license renewal (including a drive test) happens every six years. Then there are the issues of car tabs and insurance. Imagine if this were applied to gun owners, and that they had to take a shooting competency test every six years, had to constantly buy tabs for their guns, and buy insurance as well.

Maybe we should start treating them like cars more, no?

Not to mention denying a gun-owner's license for things like DUI, assault, domestic abuse, stalking, road rage incidents, and so on. These are exactly the people we want to keep guns away from.