Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
In a dui vs. shooting? No i don't. Driving drunk is reckless and at this point everyone knows the possible result. Pain inflicted on a victim is every bit as painful a death as a gun shot. The effect on the family is every bit as devastating as a shooting.Hawkeye21 said:
Texting and driving is just as reckless. Same punishment for them as someone who murders some students with a gun?
If it could be proven you were carrying on a long texting conversation or its done habitually? Yeah, there's not even an excuse or being under the influence of a drug and not being able to exercise normal judgement. Again the result is the same as an angry person killing random people on the street with a gun.
I disagree with the states making laws against texting and driving. Yes, some people die because of careless drivers that text. Should we ban all cell phones with texting ability? Should we remove all vehicles from the road?
I'm ok with police and the military having gunsStealthycat said:
Agreed. But my response wouldn't be "Yeah but First Amendment"Stealthycat said:
So here's an interesting example of how ingrained the pro- and anti-gun control sides are. You see the above stats as demonstrating the need for guns, I see them as demonstrating the need for reducing gunsStealthycat said:
As an idealist with "God Power", I have no problem with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a buy back, at least as it relates to handguns and semi-autos - Let the hunters keep their shotguns and rifles with some type of licensing program. You'd also have to beef up possession laws with mandatory minimums and a grace period for the buyback. After a certain date, if you are in possession of a prohibited weapon, you are committing a felony. It's a pretty simple enforcement scheme, and we can relax drug laws to help with space issues in jails/prisons. The 2nd Amendment is an outdated relic from a time when we were legitimately scared of governmental power and invading armies - Don't give me that Obama is coming for my little white babies, Ammon Bundy "what about our liberties crap. We are the most free nation on earth.
OMG why? Have you not watched the news and see how distrustful the public is of police? and you TRUST them ?
21,000 out of 180 million homes ............. that's not a lot , 1.1% if I did the math, assuming 180 million homes own guns, might be 200 or 220 million and how many of those owned the guns vs taking/stealing them etc?
are they intentionally texting?
I agree here. A registry would be of limited use for law enforcement. But it would be essential to the formation of a well regulated Militia (see above).
exactly - that's the mentality of anti-gunners
Sure, but your well regulated Militia is gonna suck. BTW, I'm not anti gun but I am pro reason.I'll compromise - I'll register 1 gun
deal ?
if I don't have a gun, how can I protect myself from all the evil in the world? ask nicely ?
there are lots of differences in the US and other countries ..........they have lots of crimes, they have different judicial systems, they have a lot of differences that impacts rates and such don't you think ?
at least you're honest
things SHOULD be done
I don't have a gun and I've avoided most of the evil. And I haven't risked accidentally shooting someone, or shooting myself in a depressive state, or my kids playing with a gun, or me shooting some innocuous person because I was hypervigilantly looking for incoming evil.
It's a business decision by the banks. The tellers are trained to give robbers a few stacks of bills. It avoids escalating the situation and endangering the tellers, customers, etc. The robbers are there for $, not to hurt or even scare anyone. Most bank robberies take less than a minute, and no one other than the teller even knows the robbery is happening.
I have shot guns all my life. I have never needed one since I got my CWP. I had a situation where I thought I might need it last winter, but I didn't have to use it. I needed one once when I was in college when I truly believe a man was trying to stalk/kill me.
That was kind of my point. There should be different consequences for different occurrences. Some are accidents, some are from very poor decisions and some are premeditated. They all can have the same result but they do not all deserve the same punishment.
I own guns and have shot them all my life but man do you raise some terrible points sometimes.
Studies have shown that reducing the availability of guns in a home reduces the likelihood of suicide.
randall146 says they don't use guns to rob banks though ..... sure there is a safety factor but you could say that anytime a criminal demands something of you right?
I believe that he's right. It wouldn't surprise me that most robbery attempts are done with a fake gun, a knife or they say the have a gun on them even though they don't. It's not worth the risk for a bank to see if that robber actually has a gun or not. Just hand over some money and let him get caught later. There are plenty of cameras there to help identify them.
do you extend that to other things as well ?
Those are prime examples of having to weigh the consequences. Let your car be stolen and have insurance help you get a new one or risk getting shot or stabbed. People lose their purse or wallet all the time so having it stolen wouldn't be a big deal either, just cancel your cards and get a new license.
If you have a gun in your house your risk of shotting yourself or someone else you know is by definition higher than if you didn't have one in the house.
You think 99.9% of gun owners don't shoot themselves or someone they know? Really? Less than one in a thousand?
I'm only discussing bank robberies, but most modern bank robberies are completely unarmed, with just a note. Sometimes the note will say "Give me the money or someone will get shot" but mostly they say things like "this is a robbery. All 10's and 20s. No dye packs" or "Give me $$ or else." Usually they feature terrible spelling.
What do you think would be better, giving the robber the money and letting him get caught by police or arming the tellers and having them shoot the robbers? I can't imagine an insurance company would like tellers being armed.
and I would not give up those things - criminals will not dictate my life if I have anything to say about it
And not only weighing the consequences, but weighing the likelihood of the bad thing happening in the first place. So why would I walk around armed all the time (presenting an increased risk to myself and those around me) when 1) the odds of me getting carjacked or robbed are extraordinarily low and 2) on the rare chance it happens, it is far more dangerous FOR ME to pull out a gun to fight for my property than simply giving up the property.
That's correct. I'm sure a bank's insurance rates would skyrocket if the tellers were armed, well beyond the cost of simply giving the robber money and letter the police do their job.
good gawd why would I shoot myself or someone else without just cause ! hell I could back over someone with my car's too
This is a very flawed way to think about things. I really hope you don't get in a situation that you feel requires you to shoot another and you end up killing an innocent person. But, hey, it was the criminal's fault in the first place, right? You were just defending yourself.
