Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by mrsell63

_____________________

I believe it was silverware that made Rosie Odonell fat. It certainly wasn't her fault.

JERRY
_____

Well then, I guess we need to institute a ban on silverware, it's for our own good and society as a whole.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

Well then, I guess we need to institute a ban on silverware, it's for our own good and society as a whole.

Banning people and cars will solve the drunk driving problem!!!

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Banning people and cars will solve the drunk driving problem!!!

In the 1960s and 70s drunk driving was very common in my part of Ontario and I think the rest of Canada too. There has been a concerted campaign since then through increased enforcement by bringing in roadside checks, increasing the fines/jail time on conviction and a heightened public awareness through commercials. It is greatly decreased but you will never eliminate it totally.

You are back to what is an acceptable casualty rate versus infringement on personal freedoms. I am just saying this because the effort put into gun control during that same period has almost solely focused on one aspect, more and stricter gun laws. They have ignored improving enforcement of existing laws, allowing gun offenses to be plea bargained away for a conviction on other charges, not very effective mental health care and no public eduction programs through advertising and the like.

There has not been a balanced approach to gun control and it is at or past the point of infringing on personal liberties now. As with drunk driving, you will never eliminate it but you could do more in other areas to reduce the casualty rate and not infringe anymore on personal liberties. There is no universal standard for what is an acceptable casualty rate and at what point personal liberties become too restricted. That is what makes countries different and leads to a whole lot of heated debate.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

In the 1960s and 70s drunk driving was very common in my part of Ontario and I think the rest of Canada too. There has been a concerted campaign since then through increased enforcement by bringing in roadside checks, increasing the fines/jail time on conviction and a heightened public awareness through commercials. It is greatly decreased but you will never eliminate it totally.

You are back to what is an acceptable casualty rate versus infringement on personal freedoms. I am just saying this because the effort put into gun control during that same period has almost solely focused on one aspect, more and stricter gun laws. They have ignored improving enforcement of existing laws, allowing gun offenses to be plea bargained away for a conviction on other charges, not very effective mental health care and no public eduction programs through advertising and the like.

There has not been a balanced approach to gun control and it is at or past the point of infringing on personal liberties now. As with drunk driving, you will never eliminate it but you could do more in other areas to reduce the casualty rate and not infringe anymore on personal liberties. There is no universal standard for what is an acceptable casualty rate and at what point personal liberties become too restricted. That is what makes countries different and leads to a whole lot of heated debate.

Bob

Perhaps you can explain this to me: Any mass shooting incident, whether in the US, Finland or Germany, generates a huge public outcry, with voices raised demanding to ban civilian gun ownership partially or entirely. Now, I don't have all the numbers worldwide, but in 2010 in the US, more than 10,000 people were killed in traffic accidents that involved driving under the influence of alcohol. That's about a third of all traffic fatalities, and even more deaths than were caused by firearms, even in the trigger-happy, gun-infested US. Non-fatal, albeit often serious, drunk driving related injuries in the US are in the hundreds of thousands every year. In Germany, 2009 gives us a similar picture - about 5,500 traffic fatalities, about a third of those alcohol related, i.e. 1,800 people killed by drunk driving. There, the contrast is even more stark, since deaths by firearms in Germany in the same year were a mere 269! In other words, app. 600% more people were killed by drunk driving in Germany than by firearms...

So my question, and I am not being facetious, is WTF we have all this hue and cry about firearms, while in 54 years of life I have not heard a single politician or citizen's group demand a total ban and a zero tolerance policy on driving under the influence. Note that I'm not saying "ban cars" or "ban driving", that would be ridiculous. However, make it an automatic felony, on the level of assault, to drive while under the influence, to any degree, of alcohol or other drugs. Equip new cars with breathalyzers or skin tests that must come up clean to allow starting the engine (the technology exists). It looks to me as though the US could save 10,000 lives per year just by enforcing that, Germany could save 1,800 lives, both countries could save 100's of thousands of people from injury, and billions of $ or EUR in the short- and long-term public healthcare cost to the taxpayer.

Why the double-standard, why do we accept one casualty rate, yet not the other, far smaller. Why do we as a society tolerate, even treat as cavalier, a common practice that kills hundreds of thousands worldwide and injures millions every year? I don't know, but it sure seems completely irrational, and I think we need to get things into perspective.

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Perhaps you can explain this to me: Any mass shooting incident, whether in the US, Finland or Germany, generates a huge public outcry, with voices raised demanding to ban civilian gun ownership partially or entirely. Now, I don't have all the numbers worldwide, but in 2010 in the US, more than 10,000 people were killed in traffic accidents that involved driving under the influence of alcohol. That's about a third of all traffic fatalities, and even more deaths than were caused by firearms, even in the trigger-happy, gun-infested US. Non-fatal, albeit often serious, drunk driving related injuries in the US are in the hundreds of thousands every year. In Germany, 2009 gives us a similar picture - about 5,500 traffic fatalities, about a third of those alcohol related, i.e. 1,800 people killed by drunk driving. There, the contrast is even more stark, since deaths by firearms in Germany in the same year were a mere 269! In other words, app. 600% more people were killed by drunk driving in Germany than by firearms...

So my question, and I am not being facetious, is WTF we have all this hue and cry about firearms, while in 54 years of life I have not heard a single politician or citizen's group demand a total ban and a zero tolerance policy on driving under the influence. Note that I'm not saying "ban cars" or "ban driving", that would be ridiculous. However, make it an automatic felony, on the level of assault, to drive while under the influence, to any degree, of alcohol or other drugs. Equip new cars with breathalyzers or skin tests that must come up clean to allow starting the engine (the technology exists). It looks to me as though the US could save 10,000 lives per year just by enforcing that, Germany could save 1,800 lives, both countries could save 100's of thousands of people from injury, and billions of $ or EUR in the short- and long-term public healthcare cost to the taxpayer.

Why the double-standard, why do we accept one casualty rate, yet not the other, far smaller. Why do we as a society tolerate, even treat as cavalier, a common practice that kills hundreds of thousands worldwide and injures millions every year? I don't know, but it sure seems completely irrational, and I think we need to get things into perspective.

In short, your guess is as good as mine. Like I said, the level of acceptable casualties without being too restrictive of personal freedoms varies from country to country and also by what is causing those casualties. Never said it was rational, humans mostly aren't, and you will always have casualties no matter what you do. Life is dangerous. I really don't know what the answer is to your WTF question and I am not being facetious here.

Bob

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Perhaps you can explain this to me: Any mass shooting incident, whether in the US, Finland or Germany, generates a huge public outcry, with voices raised demanding to ban civilian gun ownership partially or entirely. Now, I don't have all the numbers worldwide, but in 2010 in the US, more than 10,000 people were killed in traffic accidents that involved driving under the influence of alcohol. That's about a third of all traffic fatalities, and even more deaths than were caused by firearms, even in the trigger-happy, gun-infested US. Non-fatal, albeit often serious, drunk driving related injuries in the US are in the hundreds of thousands every year. In Germany, 2009 gives us a similar picture - about 5,500 traffic fatalities, about a third of those alcohol related, i.e. 1,800 people killed by drunk driving. There, the contrast is even more stark, since deaths by firearms in Germany in the same year were a mere 269! In other words, app. 600% more people were killed by drunk driving in Germany than by firearms...

So my question, and I am not being facetious, is WTF we have all this hue and cry about firearms, while in 54 years of life I have not heard a single politician or citizen's group demand a total ban and a zero tolerance policy on driving under the influence. Note that I'm not saying "ban cars" or "ban driving", that would be ridiculous. However, make it an automatic felony, on the level of assault, to drive while under the influence, to any degree, of alcohol or other drugs. Equip new cars with breathalyzers or skin tests that must come up clean to allow starting the engine (the technology exists). It looks to me as though the US could save 10,000 lives per year just by enforcing that, Germany could save 1,800 lives, both countries could save 100's of thousands of people from injury, and billions of $ or EUR in the short- and long-term public healthcare cost to the taxpayer.

Why the double-standard, why do we accept one casualty rate, yet not the other, far smaller. Why do we as a society tolerate, even treat as cavalier, a common practice that kills hundreds of thousands worldwide and injures millions every year? I don't know, but it sure seems completely irrational, and I think we need to get things into perspective.

It's very simply really. Alcohol is part of our society, no matter where you live (with few exceptions). How many folks as kids brag about drinking and driving or drinking in general. It's too much a fabric of life. Even though on a logical level alcohol is poison really and when you factor in it's abuse and the toll on society it should be dealt with but never will because of attitude. Besides, they tried it with prohibition and the only thing it did is make organized crime big industry. They learned you can't legislate away what the general public likes. Eventually they will learn that with the "war on drugs too".

My state has a terrible problem with DUI. You are constantly hearing about whole families being taken out by one drunk driver. Usually someone with many many arrests and convictions and often times prior prison time. However that doesn't stop them. No insurance? no problem, no license? no problem. They don't care. Once they take the first drink there's no stopping them.

Besides no one is ever going to ban firearms. A segment of society will yell and scream the same as there are organizations who would like to see all kinds of things done to combat DUI but they are wasting their time. Nothing will come of it. So no, there is no double standard. Besides if they banned cars our economy would collapse. If they banned guns they would just enrage a bunch of people and make a lot of animals happy.

However having said that, like it or not at some point in the future there will be a tipping point. There will be some incident so horrendous and beyond belief now that all the money and bluster of the NRA and gun owners will be swept aside and the public will demand action. It's inevitable. It's just what form it takes and when it happens. That's the way things always go. So you all better stock up now and be prepared.

Originally Posted by HamburgO

So my question, and I am not being facetious, is WTF we have all this hue and cry about firearms, while in 54 years of life I have not heard a single politician or citizen's group demand a total ban and a zero tolerance policy on driving under the influence.

I suspect it's money. Although taxes on guns certainly produce a big number, I'd bet it is dwarfed by alcohol (or cigarettes) taxes.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

However having said that, like it or not at some point in the future there will be a tipping point. There will be some incident so horrendous and beyond belief now that all the money and bluster of the NRA and gun owners will be swept aside and the public will demand action. It's inevitable. It's just what form it takes and when it happens. That's the way things always go. So you all better stock up now and be prepared.

I am not that sure. If anything, the tipping point towards pro-gun ownership was reached awhile back and has continued to strengthen. If anything happens restricting gun ownership I would bet it will be via executive order.

Hmmmmm.......

I also believe there is a tipping point. I believe the internet has helped this along. The misinformation about guns, gun crime, gun law effectiveness etc...has been exposed via grassroots groups and the WWW. Now don't get me wrong anyone can post on the internet and it does not make them an expert, nor does it make what they say true. I feel the general public is slowly starting to see the light and realize the outlandish attempts of organizations like Brady and HCI and their ilk to manipulate, and outright lie, to the public. Also people are starting to awaken to the idea that self preservation is their responsibility and not a police officer's. We were founded and built with firearms. We are a nation built be rugged, dangerous men who didn't fancy the idea of a crown or to be called "subjects" any longer. So we took up arms and shot a bunch of British soldiers. Not bad for a bunch of "ignorant farmers". One more point if I may....Shooting and firearms used to be a very male dominated sport....There are more pink firearms and ladies oriented classes and courses than I have ever seen before. I love it. More people are getting their CCWs as well.