Yet another movie theater shooting.

[jeager106]

Required background check, required psychological screening, training, certification, requirement for license.

Hey! I'm ALL FOR THAT and have said for years NO ONE should
be able to buy any firearms without passing at least a safety class.
In many States a person can get a concealed carry permit, carry
a handgun without having the slightest notion how to work the damned
thing!
That SCARES ME TO DEATH.
Point: Florida, you attend a 25 minute class on law then demonstrate you can fire the weapon ONE TIME as in ONE ROUND of ammo. That's it, one shot and you can carry a gun. You don't even have to hit a target!!!!
Horse pucky on that!

 

[Marisa]

I just use'm for movies.
The other things are torture.

That explains a lot.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Meanwhile, an average of 80 people per DAY are killed in vehicle related deaths in the US...

Shhhh..Don't remind us that the majority of killings is done by (loos around quickly to see if anyone is looking) us. Let's blame it all on mental illness and not admit that yes, we kill people too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's likely true.
Does he also hold a handgun sideways?
Does he call it a "piece" or "heat".
Ew.

Maybe you have met him. That's him to a "T"

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe you have met him. That's him to a "T"

Again.....
Ew.
I don't care for cavalier attitudes about guns.
They're deadly serious business.

 

[Wirey]

Again.....
Ew.
I don't care for cavalier attitudes about guns.
They're deadly serious business.

Amen. Everyone who buys a gun should have to look at a few shooting scene photos first.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More than anything, that is what gets me on edge seeing someone with a gun because I have no idea how well they know how to use it, how responsible they are with it, or if they should even have it in the first place. If the irresponsible and psychologically stable were barred from ownership and if people had to be trained and certified, it wouldn't bother me. Guns are just too dangerous and require too much responsibility to let just anyone have them, and have them without being taught how to use them. In a way, it's like trying to feed yourself in the forest when you have not a clue as to what mushrooms, berries, and plants are edible, and what ones will make you sick or kill you. Except with guns, other people are put at risk.

 

[Neo Deist]

Guns are just too dangerous and require too much responsibility to let just anyone have them, and have them without being taught how to use them. In a way, it's like trying to feed yourself in the forest when you have not a clue as to what mushrooms, berries, and plants are edible, and what ones will make you sick or kill you. Except with guns, other people are put at risk.

And what about tobacco products?

Fact sheet from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Second hand smoke kills more people each year than gun related crimes, not to mention almost half a million people that are doing the actual smoking. It seems to me that we should focus on banning cigarettes first and worry about guns second.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And what about tobacco products?

Fact sheet from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Second hand smoke kills more people each year than gun related crimes, not to mention almost half a million people that are doing the actual smoking. It seems to me that we should focus on banning cigarettes first and worry about guns second.

This thread isn't about tobacco. When people discuss the dangers of guns and the necessity of regulations, it only ignores the problem to bring up things like cars, tobacco, swimming pools, and other things.
And many places have banned smoking in public places because it does pose a health risk to others.
And no, we shouldn't ban cigarettes. If someone wants to smoke, that is their choice. However, they shouldn't put others at risk because of that choice.

 

[Neo Deist]

And no, we shouldn't ban cigarettes. If someone wants to smoke, that is their choice.

Yet tobacco related deaths approaches half a million people each year (US stats). It also drives up the costs of insurance and healthcare. Tobacco kills 15x MORE people each year than guns do. How do you justify your position?

 

[Revoltingest]

Amen. Everyone who buys a gun should have to look at a few shooting scene photos first.

If you insist....

 

[jeager106]

And what about tobacco products?

Fact sheet from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Second hand smoke kills more people each year than gun related crimes, not to mention almost half a million people that are doing the actual smoking. It seems to me that we should focus on banning cigarettes first and worry about guns second.

Well said and quite true.
However I've never heard of a drive by smoking or a cigarette
mass murdering in a theater.

 

[dust1n]

Yet tobacco related deaths approaches half a million people each year (US stats). It also drives up the costs of insurance and healthcare. Tobacco kills 15x MORE people each year than guns do. How do you justify your position?

You know that cigarettes are things that people do, knowing the risk that themselves may be hurting their health for their lifetime, and will likely die, years down the road, of some disease related to it.

Guns are used to kill, intentionally, other people, (all though I fully support a gun owners right to shoot themselves), indiscriminate of age or choice.

Also, not everyone who gets shot dies, especially now-a-days, when gun trauma is easier to fix. Just looking the first study, gun shot trauma in Philadelphia had a 27% mortality rate. Some gun shot wounds are permanent damage to put bodies, such as being a paraplegic.

Again, this would be the same as driving a car or smoking a cigarette. I choose to do something I know carries with a great deal of risk, and I exert as much as I can to prevent some sort of mistake or accident. I can't swerve around a bullet or take some gum that heals my bullet wounds.

I'm not for banning guns. By storing guns in a safe, or a coded case at least, is reasonable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet tobacco related deaths approaches half a million people each year (US stats). It also drives up the costs of insurance and healthcare. Tobacco kills 15x MORE people each year than guns do. How do you justify your position?

Smoking is a personal choice. And, as we have seen with alcohol and drug prohibition, the only things banning such a substance is good for is increasing crime and increasing use.

 

[Revoltingest]

Smoking is a personal choice. And, as we have seen with alcohol and drug prohibition, the only things banning such a substance is good for is increasing crime and increasing use.

But second hand smoke is much less of a choice for many.
And victims of drunk drivers have no choice in the matter.
How do I know?
I wasn't notified that the drunk who ran me down (bicycling) wanted to "break my neck" until after the fact.
Others experience the same lack of prior notice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But second hand smoke is much less of a choice for many.
And victims of drunk drivers have no choice in the matter.
How do I know?
I wasn't notified that the drunk who ran me down (bicycling) wanted to "break my neck" until after the fact.
Others experience the same lack of prior notice.

Many places have banned smoking in public buildings and spaces. That may be the best we can do to ward off the effects of second hand smoke, as substance bans have proven themselves utterly useless.
As for drinking and driving, we need harsher penalties and stronger regulations overall when it comes to driving. Personally, I like Japan's approach of a fine, jail time, and having your license suspended over a first offence of drinking and driving. It's even illegal to ride a bike while drunk over there. Personally, if I had my way, these lawyers who have a billboard in town that says they'll help you out with that DWI that ruined your holiday vacation should themselves be charged with public endangerment as they are broadcasting they will lessen the punishment of something that is very dangerous and should be considered a very serious offence.

 

[Neo Deist]

Smoking is a personal choice. And, as we have seen with alcohol and drug prohibition, the only things banning such a substance is good for is increasing crime and increasing use.

Do you smoke?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you smoke?

I used to.

 

[Neo Deist]

I used to.

Asked because I have found that if someone is interested in something or does something, they do not want it banned, made illegal, etc. If they don't care about item X, they will typically support a ban, regulation, etc. In short, people pick and choose and tend to be hypocrites.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Asked because I have found that if someone is interested in something or does something, they do not want it banned, made illegal, etc. If they don't care about item X, they will typically support a ban, regulation, etc. In short, people pick and choose and tend to be hypocrites.

It has nothing to do with hypocrisy, but a hard look at history and the evidence of substance prohibition, which has never worked to eliminate the substance from society, has funded and supported crime, and it appears that it may actually increases use given the trend of decreased use of drugs of Portugal and the decreased use of pot in states that have legalized, as well as the Mexican drug cartels loosing interest in pot due to plummeting prices and turning to opium, which comes at a time when there are ongoing increases in cracking down on prescription abuse.