Gun control wouldn't have stopped what happened in Vegas...should we do it anyway?

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

OK, well, I disagree. Next year we’ll have another election and you can vote for the people that think like you again, and I’ll vote for the people that think along the same lines as me and we’ll see who wins, ok?

What do you think this is, a democracy?

Yes, of course that’s how it’ll play out, but also, in the meantime, I will be attempting to get people to vote for the people that I wish to represent us, and I assume you will be doing the same.

Your vote and my vote will cancel each other out. Lets see if our idea cancel too.

@DrDeth

You dont. Your premiums are based upon your driving record.

And the area I live in, the type of car I drive, the number of other people in my household (even if I don’t give them permission to drive). Though I’ve given, at this point, more to my insurance company than what would be paid out under a liability claim, I still have to pay them.

The guy who left his guns unlocked within reach of small children, which is a crime. However, his homeowners insurance should cover those claims.

Should, maybe. Depends on whether he was paid up, and how good his policy was. Will it pay enough out to cover all the medical bills and possible disability that these kids will experience throughout their life?

How 'bout this guy. What would have made you think that he was an irresponsible gun owner?

@HurricaneDitka

No. Semi-auto means one bullet is fired each time you pull the trigger. This is how many modern firearms function. I think you’ve confused semi-auto with full-auto here.

Then it sounds like we agree.

See above. You’re using the term “semi-auto” here, but I believe you’re thinking of full-auto fire, wherein the operator can hold down the trigger and the firearm will continue to fire until the trigger is released or the magazine is emptied.

To be fair, some number of years ago when I was first getting into shooting things, all the different terms were a bit confusing, especially as they are not consistent, or really all that descriptive.

Once you know your way around some guns and have used it a bit, the terminology seems natural, but, to anyone outside the hobby, it’s pretty close to technobabble.

ETA: The legal ownership of full-auto weapons is extremely restricted.

Is that okay with you, or are you with those who would like to see that restriction lifted as well?

[XT]

@begbert2

I’d imagine it would work out with a massive increase in production and sale of whichever kind of firearms were still sellable.

Maybe. It really depends. If you are banning something based on rate of fire then down the road it’s possible similar restrictions or bans could be forthcoming about revolvers or bolt action rifles. Maybe starting with banning speed loaders, or forcing manufacturers to go back to single action but maybe banning those too eventually. It would be hard for manufacturers to really know. And, of course, the likely result would be that if you could get such a ban implemented then all the guns that are already owned would probably be grandfathered in…and the vast majority of guns in the US today are semi-automatic or double action. Why that would be important is that, suddenly, those guns would be much more in demand. You can’t get new ones, presumably, anymore, so those that are here would command more interest and price. But there are 100’s of millions of them, so they would be in circulation for decades. That is why I was saying it’s hard to see how that would work out unless you coupled a ban on sales with a confiscation. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really solve much except putting the gun manufacturers out of business or going to other markets.

I don’t have the gun knowledge to write this sort of gun law. I’m fairly confident that you could make a weapon that was reasonably immune to being modded for rapidfire without going all the way to handloading each round between shots, though.

You could make it illegal to modify a gun to do something like full auto. As I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain in the earlier discussion, however, semi-automatics can be fired VERY rapidly, and that fire would be much more accurate than anything fired from a modified or even manufactured full auto weapon. Hell, bolt action rifles and revolvers (double action) can be fired incredibly rapidly as well. I’ve seen trick shooters fire a revolver at 6 rounds per second, and the British army had their mad minute, firing (aimed fire) something like a round every second sustained.

You could, of course, go back to single action (you can fire that fast too by fanning, but it’s not as accurate or easy) or just have smaller cylinders or only allow a few rounds in the magazine for a bolt action weapon.

[DrDeth]

@begbert2

Semi-auto generally fires the several shots in roughly the same direction, right? Three shots or so with one trigger pull, using three bullets, all pointed in the same direction over the mugger’s shoulder?

Sadly for granny, semi-auto used up all her bullets before she could get around to actually turning and hitting the second mugger.

I will readily grant that granny needs a gun that allows multiple shots quickly; that muzzle-loader she inherited from her grandpa won’t cut it in today’s hectic world. And I’ll further grant she needs a gun with a reasonably easy trigger to pull, so she can really get off those single shots fast if she actually gets a bead on her target. But I’m really not seeing where you’re making an argument for semi-auto helping her.

No, semi-auto is one shot per trigger pull, usually you do fire three times in quick succession, then you still have 7 rounds for the next mugger.

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

… To be fair, some number of years ago when I was first getting into shooting things, all the different terms were a bit confusing, especially as they are not consistent, or really all that descriptive.

Once you know your way around some guns and have used it a bit, the terminology seems natural, but, to anyone outside the hobby, it’s pretty close to technobabble.

I know, which is why I was trying to clarify as politely as I could.

@k9bfriender

Is that okay with you, or are you with those who would like to see that restriction lifted as well?

I wouldn’t mind seeing some of those restrictions eased / modified / repealed, but it’s certainly not a priority of mine. If I could wave a magic wand and have my way, the 1986 Hughes Amendment would be repealed, but full-auto weapons would still be subject to the NFA requirements. I’d exempt SBRs and suppressors from the NFA.

[DrDeth]

@k9bfriender

How 'bout this guy. What would have made you think that he was an irresponsible gun owner?

Good idea! :rolleyes: Let’s take guns away from the police, also!:dubious:

[begbert2]

@XT

Maybe. It really depends. If you are banning something based on rate of fire then down the road it’s possible similar restrictions or bans could be forthcoming about revolvers or bolt action rifles. Maybe starting with banning speed loaders, or forcing manufacturers to go back to single action but maybe banning those too eventually. It would be hard for manufacturers to really know. And, of course, the likely result would be that if you could get such a ban implemented then all the guns that are already owned would probably be grandfathered in…and the vast majority of guns in the US today are semi-automatic or double action. Why that would be important is that, suddenly, those guns would be much more in demand. You can’t get new ones, presumably, anymore, so those that are here would command more interest and price. But there are 100’s of millions of them, so they would be in circulation for decades. That is why I was saying it’s hard to see how that would work out unless you coupled a ban on sales with a confiscation. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really solve much except putting the gun manufacturers out of business or going to other markets.

In my delusional fantasy rewrite of reality and law, I’m not all that concerned about confiscating existing weapons. The restrictions I’d magic into place would be:

1. The restricted weapons are no longer sold to the populace.

2. Interpersonal sales are tightly monitored, and you can’t sell your now-restricted weapons to other civilians anymore (at least not legally).

3. If you use your gun in a crime, or it’s used in an accidental shooting that can be attributed to firearm negligence, the weapon is confiscated (obviously).

4. Me being me, I’d also take 'em away if they’re used in a suicide attempt; that’s irresponsible usage in my opinion.

5. Otherwise you can keep what you’ve got.

6. I might also implement byzantine carry restrictions (must be strapped to the top of your head!), but that’s another subject.

My main goal is I wanna dry up the supply of awesome weapons to crooks. I recognize that all of the above will do jack-all to stop spree shooters who already have supplies, but attempting to do anything about them will cause all owners of semi-automatic rifles to start shooting cops or something (maybe?), so I don’t really have any plans for what to do about them.

@XT

You could make it illegal to modify a gun to do something like full auto. As I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain in the earlier discussion, however, semi-automatics can be fired VERY rapidly, and that fire would be much more accurate than anything fired from a modified or even manufactured full auto weapon. Hell, bolt action rifles and revolvers (double action) can be fired incredibly rapidly as well. I’ve seen trick shooters fire a revolver at 6 rounds per second, and the British army had their mad minute, firing (aimed fire) something like a round every second sustained.

You could, of course, go back to single action (you can fire that fast too by fanning, but it’s not as accurate or easy) or just have smaller cylinders or only allow a few rounds in the magazine for a bolt action weapon.

You know, I’m not worried about the rate of fire that’s possible to achieve if you’re a crack shot trick shooter. I’m of the opinion that most criminals and spree shooters are dumbasses with only middling skill. (And there’s really nothing that can be done about the others anyway.)

[begbert2]

@HurricaneDitka

I know, which is why I was trying to clarify as politely as I could.

T’was recognized and appreciated.

[XT]

@begbert2

In my delusional fantasy rewrite of reality and law, I’m not all that concerned about confiscating existing weapons. The restrictions I’d magic into place would be:

1. The restricted weapons are no longer sold to the populace.

2. Interpersonal sales are tightly monitored, and you can’t sell your now-restricted weapons to other civilians anymore (at least not legally).

3. If you use your gun in a crime, or it’s used in an accidental shooting that can be attributed to forearm negligence, the weapon is confiscated (obviously).

4. Me being me, I’d also take 'em away if they’re used in a suicide attempt; that’s irresponsible usage in my opinion.

5. Otherwise you can keep what you’ve got.

6. I might also implement byzantine carry restrictions (must be strapped to the top of your head!), but that’s another subject.

My main goal is I wanna dry up the supply of awesome weapons to crooks. I recognize that all of the above will do jack-all to stop spree shooters who already have supplies, but attempting to do anything about them will cause all owners of semi-automatic rifles to start shooting cops or something (maybe?), so I don’t really have any plans for what to do about them.

No, I get it. I recalled you actually answering the OP earlier and I read it carefully. That’s kind of why I put in what I did. The drying up part just isn’t going to happen, unfortunately. Many of the original full auto weapons grandfathered into the original 1930’s ban are still out there and are still being sold and exchanged. And the numbers were minuscule. Semi-autos in the US represent literally hundreds of millions of weapons.

ou know, I’m not worried about the rate of fire that’s possible to achieve if you’re a crack shot trick shooter. I’m of the opinion that most criminals and spree shooters are dumbasses with only middling skill. (And there’s really nothing that can be done about the others anyway.)

I agree with your main point about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and that criminals and day to day shootings are much bigger threats than one-off sprees like what happened in Vegas…that was one of the main points of my OP after all, that and to discuss what we should or could do from a reality perspective while trying to mitigate the loss of life to the best extent we can. That said, you don’t have to be a crack shot trick shooter to fire a lot more rounds than people think, and you don’t need mods or trigger gimmicks to do it.

[k9bfriender]

@DrDeth

Good idea! :rolleyes: Let’s take guns away from the police, also!:dubious:

That wasn’t my point. My point was that, even a police officer, with training and supposed responsibility can have incidents where his child gets ahold of his gun and kills himself or a sibling.

You said, why should you, as a responsible gun owner, have to have any liability for responsible gun owners.

I am asking how I would have told that this guy was irresponsible, so as to avoid him, or having my kids around his home.

If a cop cannot be responsible enough to not have his kid get ahold of his gun, when why should I expect you to be more responsible with your firearms?

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

That wasn’t my point. My point was that, even a police officer, with training and supposed responsibility can have incidents where his child gets ahold of his gun and kills himself or a sibling.

You said, why should you, as a responsible gun owner, have to have any liability for responsible gun owners.

I am asking how I would have told that this guy was irresponsible, so as to avoid him, or having my kids around his home.

If a cop cannot be responsible enough to not have his kid get ahold of his gun, when why should I expect you to be more responsible with your firearms?

Perhaps because the vast majority of gun owners are responsible? There are tens of millions of gun owners, and typically high-double-digits of children killed by firearms each year. According to the CDC’s WISQARS data, there were 77 in 2015, 69 in 2014, 94 in 2013, 78 in 2012, etc. Those deaths are tragic, but they are thankfully quite rare occurrences.

[begbert2]

@XT

No, I get it. I recalled you actually answering the OP earlier and I read it carefully. That’s kind of why I put in what I did. The drying up part just isn’t going to happen, unfortunately. Many of the original full auto weapons grandfathered into the original 1930’s ban are still out there and are still being sold and exchanged. And the numbers were minuscule. Semi-autos in the US represent literally hundreds of millions of weapons.

To be honest I’m not really concerned about the fact they’re still out there - gun owners keep telling me they’re not all going to turn into psychotic murderers just because they hold a gun, and I’ve decided to tentatively accept that pending further evidence. The only part I would want to stop would be the “sold and exchanged” part, because it’s my vague/poorly-sourced understanding that one of the ways criminals get their hands on guns are poorly-monitored private sales. But as long as an upstanding non-criminal gun owner is merely keeping his massive arsenal to himself, well, no harm no foul.

(Yes, I realize that I’m painting a giant target on their back for criminals to come steal their guns from them. But they insist they’re armed and can deal with it, so…)

@XT

I agree with your main point about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and that criminals and day to day shootings are much bigger threats than one-off sprees like what happened in Vegas…that was one of the main points of my OP after all, that and to discuss what we should or could do from a reality perspective while trying to mitigate the loss of life to the best extent we can. That said, you don’t have to be a crack shot trick shooter to fire a lot more rounds than people think, and you don’t need mods or trigger gimmicks to do it.

Well, if we went the crazy route and banned semi-automatic rifles, then I’d bet it would get a lot harder - by your own statement. Sure, some people can fire bolt action rifles and revolvers at horrifying speeds, but I can’t imagine it’s a common skill.

[DrDeth]

@k9bfriender

That wasn’t my point. My point was that, even a police officer, with training and supposed responsibility can have incidents where his child gets ahold of his gun and kills himself or a sibling.

You said, why should you, as a responsible gun owner, have to have any liability for responsible gun owners.

I am asking how I would have told that this guy was irresponsible, so as to avoid him, or having my kids around his home.

If a cop cannot be responsible enough to not have his kid get ahold of his gun, when why should I expect you to be more responsible with your firearms?

Your argument is opaque and makes no sense to me. Of course he shoudl be help responsible who said he shouldnt?

Why should i pay for his mistake?

[JXJohns]

@k9bfriender

…If a cop cannot be responsible enough to not have his kid get ahold of his gun, when why should I expect you to be more responsible with your firearms?

Your first mistake is thinking that a cop is any more safe with a firearm by virtue of them simply being a cop.

[XT]

@begbert2

Well, if we went the crazy route and banned semi-automatic rifles, then I’d bet it would get a lot harder - by your own statement. Sure, some people can fire bolt action rifles and revolvers at horrifying speeds, but I can’t imagine it’s a common skill.

It would certainly be harder to do something like Vegas with just bolt action rifles, though you could still do a hell of a lot of damage. But the thing is, those are very rare events, even in the US. Day to day crime might have more of an impact if all semi-automatic weapons were banned, but it would really depend on how you did it and how people reacted. Myself, I think a ban wouldn’t have the effect that you think it would, if we went by your plan of basically banning future sales but not going after the existing weapons. I also think that people would find loopholes and ways around it if you, say, tried to ban semi-automatics but left in revolvers or bolt action rifles. Then the next step would logically be you wanting to ban those which I presume would lead to just a general ban eventually of all firearms.

Personally, as I said in the OP, I don’t think that any of this is realistic. There is no way such a ban could happen in the US today, IMHO. If somehow the anti-gun folks managed by hook or by crook to sneak it in or get it in when no one was paying attention I believe it would be just like Prohibition and wouldn’t really solve anything. Myself, I think the best course is to look at reasonable steps that could be taken while trying to change the attitude and outlook of the population. Yeah, that’s long term…but then, look how long civil rights took and we still haven’t resolved all of that. This will be similarly painful, taking generations, IMHO, to shift attitudes and viewpoints. I believe it’s counter productive that every time there is something like Vegas that happens that the anti-gun faction comes out of the woodwork calling for bans of anything and everything they can. JMHO there and you guys will do what you will do, but I think it’s making this take longer.

To be honest I’m not really concerned about the fact they’re still out there - gun owners keep telling me they’re not all going to turn into psychotic murderers just because they hold a gun, and I’ve decided to tentatively accept that pending further evidence. The only part I would want to stop would be the “sold and exchanged” part, because it’s my vague/poorly-sourced understanding that one of the ways criminals get their hands on guns are poorly-monitored private sales. But as long as an upstanding non-criminal gun owner is merely keeping his massive arsenal to himself, well, no harm no foul.

If it wasn’t the case, if in fact the vast majority or even a large minority of gun owners were in fact ‘psychotic murderers’ then you can do the math yourself…in a country of 360 million+ people where something like 40% own a gun, how many psychotic murderers would that be if only 1% went on a rampage? I make that as millions and that simply doesn’t happen. It’s not even .001% of gun owners or even .0001%.

What you are missing, IMHO, is the scale of things wrt your plan. Just stopping new sales wouldn’t really do much…the scale of the existing number is just unbelievable. Again, do the math. Let’s say there are 500 million guns (or 400 million or 600 million…whatever your guess is to the actual number of guns at the time of your proposed ban) in the US today. Let’s say that there are no new sales. Then let’s say that 1% of those guns are sold, given as gifts or stolen once the new sales ban goes into effect. We are talking about millions of guns here. 10’s of millions. And that’s just 1%.

Of course, you could try and put in additional rules so that you can’t sell or transfer existing guns either, but then my WAG is theft would explode upwards. And none of this take into account smuggling or other means of getting firearms…just talking about what’s here.

[begbert2]

@XT

It would certainly be harder to do something like Vegas with just bolt action rifles, though you could still do a hell of a lot of damage. But the thing is, those are very rare events, even in the US. Day to day crime might have more of an impact if all semi-automatic weapons were banned, but it would really depend on how you did it and how people reacted. Myself, I think a ban wouldn’t have the effect that you think it would, if we went by your plan of basically banning future sales but not going after the existing weapons. I also think that people would find loopholes and ways around it if you, say, tried to ban semi-automatics but left in revolvers or bolt action rifles. Then the next step would logically be you wanting to ban those which I presume would lead to just a general ban eventually of all firearms.

In my “I’m the god-emperor of the world and can rewrite law” plan I don’t really have a step for extending the ban to existing weapons. I mean, if future generations wanted to do so, then good on them. But that’s not my problem.

And I’m well aware that there would be little instant impact. (Well, aside from maybe arresting a lot of people who try to get their hands on the banned weapons after the sales ban is in place.) I’m not in a hurry here. The idea would be to institute a plan that wouldn’t turn all gun owners into criminals, but would gradually start to erode the number of guns pouring into the hands of existing criminals.

@XT

Personally, as I said in the OP, I don’t think that any of this is realistic. There is no way such a ban could happen in the US today, IMHO. If somehow the anti-gun folks managed by hook or by crook to sneak it in or get it in when no one was paying attention I believe it would be just like Prohibition and wouldn’t really solve anything. Myself, I think the best course is to look at reasonable steps that could be taken while trying to change the attitude and outlook of the population. Yeah, that’s long term…but then, look how long civil rights took and we still haven’t resolved all of that. This will be similarly painful, taking generations, IMHO, to shift attitudes and viewpoints. I believe it’s counter productive that every time there is something like Vegas that happens that the anti-gun faction comes out of the woodwork calling for bans of anything and everything they can. JMHO there and you guys will do what you will do, but I think it’s making this take longer.

Take longer than what? Doing nothing?

@XT

If it wasn’t the case, if in fact the vast majority or even a large minority of gun owners were in fact ‘psychotic murderers’ then you can do the math yourself…in a country of 360 million+ people where something like 40% own a gun, how many psychotic murderers would that be if only 1% went on a rampage? I make that as millions and that simply doesn’t happen. It’s not even .001% of gun owners or even .0001%.

What you are missing, IMHO, is the scale of things wrt your plan. Just stopping new sales wouldn’t really do much…the scale of the existing number is just unbelievable. Again, do the math. Let’s say there are 500 million guns (or 400 million or 600 million…whatever your guess is to the actual number of guns at the time of your proposed ban) in the US today. Let’s say that there are no new sales. Then let’s say that 1% of those guns are sold, given as gifts or stolen once the new sales ban goes into effect. We are talking about millions of guns here. 10’s of millions. And that’s just 1%.

Of course, you could try and put in additional rules so that you can’t sell or transfer existing guns either, but then my WAG is theft would explode upwards. And none of this take into account smuggling or other means of getting firearms…just talking about what’s here.

I’m pretty sure the ‘additional rules’ against selling and transferring existing guns were already part of my existing plan - they pretty much are my existing plan.

And yeah, the theft thing. Guns pretty much have to already be a target of thieves. Presumably gun owners are aware of this and already accept the risk. If that risk goes up and becomes too scary, well, I supposed I forgot to establish a government service that would politely accept your gun without you having to shoot somebody first. (Consider it established.)

And regarding smuggling, we already try to stop smuggling, with as much success as we do. That will keep happening no matter what we do, and isn’t really a good argument for stasis.

[XT]

@begbert2

In my “I’m the god-emperor of the world and can rewrite law” plan I don’t really have a step for extending the ban to existing weapons. I mean, if future generations wanted to do so, then good on them. But that’s not my problem.

And I’m well aware that there would be little instant impact. (Well, aside from maybe arresting a lot of people who try to get their hands on the banned weapons after the sales ban is in place.) I’m not in a hurry here. The idea would be to institute a plan that wouldn’t turn all gun owners into criminals, but would gradually start to erode the number of guns pouring into the hands of existing criminals.

Like I said, I get it.

Take longer than what? Doing nothing?

No…longer that it took us to go from freeing the slaves to civil rights. As for doing nothing, well, two things on that. First is, that’s what this thread was about…what can we reasonably and realistically do that would help. I actually think that some things could be done. Second point is, what the anti-gun folks are actually doing, IMHO, is worse than doing nothing. Have you ever seen the Mythbusters episode where they are trying to take candy from the baby? Eventually, the baby would just put that candy down on their own, having lost interest. Try and take it away though?

I’m pretty sure the ‘additional rules’ against selling and transferring existing guns were already part of my existing plan - they pretty much are my existing plan.

Well, it’s rather like going to breakfast at Milliway’s then, so no worries.

And yeah, the theft thing. Guns pretty much have to already be a target of thieves. Presumably gun owners are aware of this and already accept the risk. If that risk goes up and becomes too scary, well, I supposed I forgot to establish a government service that would politely accept your gun without you having to shoot somebody first. (Consider it established.)

I assumed you’d do some sort of voluntary turn in a la Australia. And you’ll get some guns…I’m guessing if you are really lucky and it’s a rousing success you’ll get perhaps 10 million. That’s a LOT of guns and will be difficult to process but I think you’d get it. Problem being that this would be spit in the bucket. Even if the stars all align and you got 100 million, which I seriously doubt, it wouldn’t really do that much.

As for thieves, yes, today they are a target. Consider what they will be if you institute such a ban on sales, however.

And regarding smuggling, we already try to stop smuggling, with as much success as we do. That will keep happening no matter what we do, and isn’t really a good argument for stasis.

From what I’ve heard the DEA is able to stop, maybe, 15% of the drugs coming into the US. We can’t even stop people from smuggling in PEOPLE to the US. Guns would be trivially easy compared to either of those things. During Prohibition booze came in from all directions. Hell, Canada has less restrictions than you are talking about…it would be ironic if guns flowed from Canada across the worlds largest border to the US.

I don’t actually think it would come to that, as I think the existing guns along would float a black market for decades, but if you actually put enough of a squeeze on things I believe folks would find a way. Try and take that candy from the baby or wait for the baby to just put it down and get interested in something else? I think it’s a lot less painful to just wait for that baby to put the candy down and go chew on a stuffed toy, personally.

[DragonAsh]

Stephen Paddock and Omar Mateen were both responsible gun owners…until they weren’t.

The vast majority of people are responsible drivers, but it only takes one split-second bad decision. I’m sure lots of gun owners are responsible gun owners - until they’re not.

This guy accidentally shot his two-month old kid in the head.

This 8yr old died after finding his dad’s loaded gun in the car.

This grandfather was accidentally shot by his 4-year old grandson (what kind of grandfather lets his 4yr old handle guns FFS?)

This 5yr oldaccidentally shot and killed himself with a family member’s gun. No doubt some here will claim that it was the 5yr old’s right to kill himself.

This 8yr old died after finding his father’s loaded gun.

Here’s another 8yr old boy that died in a shooting accident.

Yet another 8yr old shot by a relative.

In case you’re wondering - those incidents are just in the last 10 days.
If you can read these stories and still shrug your shoulders and say, well, that’s the price of freedom - you’re a disgusting human being.

The obvious difference between guns and, say, drugs or alcohol, is that in general, I’m probably not going to die from your irresponsible use of said drug or alcohol.
Smoking regulations got tougher once people that other people are actually at risk from your smoking.
You want guns? Great - then help pay for the costs guns inflict on society. Put your money where your mouth is and help pay for the costs your freedom demands.

[HurricaneDitka]

@DragonAsh

If you can read these stories and still shrug your shoulders and say, well, that’s the price of freedom - you’re a disgusting human being.

shrug your views of who is and who is not a disgusting human being isn’t very significant to me.

If I pulled up a tear-jerker story or three about kids drowning in pools in recent days, would you much care if I said “you’re a disgusting human being if you won’t join me in banning the evil scourge of swimming pools from our country”?

@DragonAsh

The obvious difference between guns and, say, drugs or alcohol, is that in general, I’m probably not going to die from your irresponsible use of said drug or alcohol.

Are you kidding? Drunk driving?

[DragonAsh]

@HurricaneDitka

Are you kidding? Drunk driving?

Drunk driving is less an alcohol issue than it is a driving issue. You can drink all you want at home, nobody gives a shit. Can’t say that about having a gun in the house - see above.

Let’s see - stricter enforcing, holding bars responsible if they serve people too many drinks, public awareness campaigns, obviously cars are registered & licensed - imagine that - mandatory insurance requirements, etc etc etc.

You do know massive strides have been made in reducing drunk driving deaths over the last 10-20 years, right? Apparently, when society puts their mind to it, they can have an impact for the better. Imagine that.

And of course autonomous driving will render drunk driving essentially a thing of the past in the next 20 years.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

Your second yes casts doubt on the truth of your first yes.

Perhaps if you’d elaborated on how granny needs to triple-tap that mugger (who I’ve been assured was probably scared off at the mere sight of the gun) then your pat answer wouldn’t smell so much like cow.

How can you say that when you admit that you don’t know dick about guns?