Deion Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin cut an ad for gun control

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This whole damn discussion is a strawman. Nothing, nothing that is being proposed has anything to do with the reasonig is getting pushed. Typical lib shite ginning up a tragedy to get their way.

Right, let's not even SEE if something could be done to prevent further tragedies. Just be sad and take no action. Sure.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Right, let's not even SEE if something could be done to prevent further tragedies. Just be sad and take no action. Sure.

Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.

You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.

You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.

Well if you want to equate automobiles to guns then do you think people should pay insurance on each gun they own? That would seem like a good idea to me.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Well if you want to equate automobiles to guns then do you think people should pay insurance on each gun they own? That would seem like a good idea to me.

Yea...all the criminals who commit the vast majority of gun crimes will be sure to get their insurance.

Plus there is a little thing called a constitution, but who gives a flip about that.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...all the criminals who commit the vast majority of gun crimes will be sure to get their insurance.

Plus there is a little thing called a constitution, but who gives a flip about that.

People have a first amendment right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded movie theater. All rights have limits. The second amendment is no exception.

And gun nuts live in this bizarre world where criminals can do whatever they like without consequences so there is no point making laws for anything. Maybe we should get rid of speed limits since criminals won't obey them anyways. Maybe we should get rid of laws on narcotics since criminals won't obey them anyways.

These laws are not meant to completely eliminate bad behavior, but they are meant to make illegal behavior much more difficult. Two bit criminals don't have unlimited resources to circumvent the law. Not every criminal is a member of a well connected organized crime organization. If you force people to show proof of insurance for each gun they buy then it will make it a lot harder for criminals to get these guns.

Moreover, law abiding citizens do stupid things with guns believe it or not. Making everyone have insurance for each gun they own would not be such a bad idea.

Finally, you made the comparison between guns and cars, now you are saying they are two completely different things. Seems like you are being very hypocritical.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.

You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.

We DO apply the same logic to automobiles. What do you call mandatory seat belt laws? Think people weren't up in arms when those were put in place? We've had numerous changes in regulations around child safety in automobiles and billions of dollars invested in making cars and roadways safer.

Mandating 40mph speed limits is roughly analogous to outlawing all guns. It's absurd and no one with a brain is going there.

But background checks for ALL gun buyers? Completely logical, and (in terms of invasiveness) probably on par with, or even less invasive thans, a law forcing citizens to wear something in their own car.

National database of gun registration (not proposed but should be, imo)? Hell we already do that with cars.

There's a huge national focus on car safety. You could end your life reading through studies on this affect or that. There are organizations dedicated to it (MADD?).

On the flip side, you have the NRA scaring the life out of anyone that dares conduct a study on gun safety and what does (and doesn't) affect it.

The NRA and its constituents are the ones asking for a double standard here, not those asking for a rational conversation around gun laws and gun safety.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.

You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.

Thiggy made some counterarguments above, but a comment from me here. Why not apply the same logic? Because it would be ridiculous to, that's why. Automobile travel serves a very important function to a very large percentage of people. The risks are things that you just have to live with, because of how difficult it would be to go without automobile travel. Gun ownership? Nowhere NEAR the same level of need/utility.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thiggy made some counterarguments above, but a comment from me here. Why not apply the same logic? Because it would be ridiculous to, that's why. Automobile travel serves a very important function to a very large percentage of people. The risks are things that you just have to live with, because of how difficult it would be to go without automobile travel. Gun ownership? Nowhere NEAR the same level of need/utility.

No one is talking about doing away with auto travel. Just stopping the 32000 people killed yearly. Shouldn't we do whatever we can to stop this slaughter?

Tbh I hate using this type of argument for any case. If we can just save one life isn't it worth it...well no, it may not be so make your argument on something besides a bunch of hand wringing.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No one is talking about doing away with auto travel. Just stopping the 32000 people killed yearly. Shouldn't we do whatever we can to stop this slaughter?

Tbh I hate using this type of argument for any case. If we can just save one life isn't it worth it...well no, it may not be so make your argument on something besides a bunch of hand wringing.

Not everyone can drive a 18 wheeler. You are licensed to only drive certain automobiles. You have to be insured for each car you own. At least in Texas every car MUST be inspected and if it is found lacking it can be condemned. Only people above a certain age can drive a car and to even get licensed you must have a probationary period and after passing a test you can get licensed.

If you wanted to put similar regulations on guns I would have no problem with that. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite by making that comparison.