A simple fact need to be brought into this discussion. We don’t outlaw murder, robbery or rape because we believe that doing so will somehow “stop criminals”. We do so because it is a means of expressing our disapproval, as a society, of those modes of behavior And also lets up deal with the people who would incur said disapproval.
Biggest bullshit ever spewed on this site! We did no such thing. We made it illegal so you get a criminal charge, the same as if you shoot someone. In fact kill someone in DUI accident & you’ll get less jail time than if you kill someone with a gun though your victim is just as dead.
There are over 10,000 people killed in DUIs every year in the US, just because they’re ones & twos at a time they don’t get the media coverage like with what happened in El Paso & Dayton this weekend.
Want to ban DUI? There’s a very simple, fairly inexpensive solution. Make ignition interlock devices required on all new cars & retrofitted on existing cars after X years. The volume would mean the cost would come down to less than the couple of hundred it costs to have one installed after you were convicted of DUI. $100 or $200, at most, vs. the cost of a new car is peanuts.
And do you think reloaders manufacture their own propellant? You can restrict the sale of propellant just as simply as you could restrict the sale of ammo.
Yep. Reloaders can make crappy black powder at home, but cordite is a different story. Then there’s the percussion caps. We’ll have mass shooters with flintlocks. :rolleyes:
We do not just criminalize killing people while drunk, we also criminalize driving while drunk. If you are pulled over, and you are over .08 (in most states), then you get a criminal charge, even if you had not yet had an accident.
As a person with a gun only becomes a criminal once they have used their gun in commission of a crime, your analogy to DUI falls completely apart.
Also, intent matters. You should get more repercussions if you shoot someone than if you kill them by accident, even if you were negligent in creating factors that caused that accident.
I see plenty of news coverage about not just DUI, but even unintoxicated car accidents in my local paper nearly every day. If all you pay attention to is national news, then you will only see things that are newsworthy to a national audience. What does someone in seattle care about a drunk driver in dayton? Seattle already has drunk drivers to write about. What seattle doesn’t have is a mass shooter, so that is newsworthy nationally.
If the problem is that you don’t pay attention to local news, and only pay attention to the national news, then of course you are going to get a skewed view of the media coverage, but that is not the media’s fault that you have chosen to ignore local stories of mundane DUIs to concentrate on stories about mass shootings.
If we need to do that, we may look into it. What we have done so far has lessened the number of DUI accidents considerably. The difference between DUI accidents and gun violence is, is that there is not a pro-drunk driving lobby blocking or reversing restrictions on intoxicated driving. There is no one trying to say that these DUI traffic deaths are just a price that society has to pay in order for you to enjoy your god given right to drink and drive.
It’s interesting to look at drunk driving in the debate on reducing or stopping gun violence (especially mass shootings). It’s interesting because we haven’t outlawed personal ownership and operation of vehicles, or alcohol. (We tried to outlaw alcohol consumption but that didn’t turn out very well.)
Comparing the NRA to a pro drunk-driving lobby is inaccurate. Because as much as you may dislike the NRA (and I’m no fan either) they are not a pro mass shooting or firearms murder lobby any more than the alcoholic beverage industry advocates impaired driving. Their resistance to gun regulation may be standing in the way of any real fix for gun violence, but they’re not promoting it.
But again, I think the way that US law and culture treats alcohol consumption and vehicle use is a good model for a solution for gun violence. Alcohol sale and consumption is regulated very well, and so is operating and owning a vehicle. Safety has improved immensely through education, outreach, and laws made with public safety in mind. I think that something along those lines can be done for gun ownership as well. Reasonable regulation done with safety in mind, and no need to change or create a constitutional amendment.
So when you say stop lying you are excusing yourself?
Here is the whole quote from Dr. Deth:
“Gun control simply doesnt work- it can’t work to reduce mass killings. It could, maybe reduce violent crime a bit./”
It is an entirely reasonable to say that gun control will stop mass killings in a country with 400 million firearms but may reduce other violent crime.
Your omission of that second sentence is pretty dishonest. If you find yourself lying and distorting the truth to reach your conclusions, then perhaps your conclusions are not as undeniable as you seem to think they are.
Licensing and registration would work better and faster than that I think.
I don’t think that’s how microstamping works. I think it only imprints the bullet casing not the bullet itself.
We rarely if ever assign criminal liability to an innocent party for the criminal acts of another. Why not simply criminalize gun ownership, while you’re dreaming stuff up.
Where do you live because guns are more expensive on the street than a similar gun in the gun shop in every city I have lived in.
You can regulate primer. You can cast lead bullets. You can recycle casing. You can even make gun powder. You cannot replicate primer at home. It takes a fairly large operation to make primer, and an even larger one to do so safely. It’s not something you can do in your garage.
I know a lot of people who have reloading equipment. They don’t use them much. So I think it would be fair to say that a lot of gun enthusiasts CAN reload their ammunition but most of them just buy their ammo, because reloading is a PITA.
But I think it is also fair to say that most gun enthusiasts keep hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition on hand at all times.
Or that time when a bunch of Afghani tribesmen drove our the soviet union
or when a bunch of Vietnamese drove out America
or when a bunch of iraqis and insurgents bogged down America for over a decade.
But more to the point, we live in a democracy and I don’t think the military would go along with a tyrannical government.
This bears repeating.
Menacing - Wikipedia See brandishing
Driving while intoxicated is a crime
As was already stated in the first sentence of the quote you responded to.
Or when a bunch of high school students had enough and started a movement that over a generation amended the constitution and made guns illegal in a nation full of gun zealots.
See me in 20 years and see if they didn’t.
Why all this focus on 3d printed guns? It’s possible to buy a machine that you can hook up to your computer, that will use a design in a computer file to automatically make a high-quality gun. It’s expensive, but it’s possible. It’s been possible for decades. But that machine isn’t a 3D printer; it’s a CNC mill. And it hasn’t made any significant difference to the gun market.
While it’s theoretically possible to 3D print a gun, it requires a printer that’s even more expensive than that CNC mill (you absolutely can’t do it with just an ordinary Makerbot), and the result is a really terrible-quality gun that’s as likely to blow up in your hand as it is to hit your target. Now, that might change some: 3d printing technology is improving all the time. But it’ll never be possible to make a decent-quality gun more easily with a 3D printer than with a mill.
It seems to be working so far.
It doesn’t exist anymore, because of the social pushback, but when drunk driving was first a thing, yes, there was quite a bit of resistance. it took MADD to really start putting a dent into it, and make and enforce DUI laws.
They were not exactly promoting drunk driving, but they were using similar arguments that, as long as no one is hurt, what is the harm?
Actually I agree with this, it is the gun rights advocates that insist that it cannot be done without abolishing the 2nd, and all that goes with that.
Maybe I’m just a bit too friendly with shady characters.
The people that I know that do it don’t do it to be special, they do it to save money. It comes down to whether their time is worth more than the cost of ammo.
If you shoot a bunch, the cost of ammo can add up quickly.
Probably, a hundred rounds is a couple boxes, and you can go through that in a few minutes.
Hundreds, even thousands of rounds go much faster than you would think.
I could see brandishing being equivalent to open containers.