Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,511
Subj: Re:You're Still Missing A Few Things.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 01:38:24 pm EST (Viewed 822 times)
Reply Subj: Re:You're Still Missing A Few Things.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 at 09:08:52 pm EST (Viewed 690 times)


      Not really.
    Okay, it was just a guess. Do you know?

Overall, the USA is more economically well off than Japan:


      "Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.)" So, not so much.
    I meant with BUYING and purchasing them. If you walk into a gun store obviously drunk, the dealer has a right to refuse to sell. STATES are different when it comes to all kinds of restrictions. Also, just because they ALLOW it doesn't mean that people will do it.

What kind of misbegotten logic is that? What don't we just make murder legal then? Just because you allow murder doesn't mean that people will do it. Ridiculous! Purposely allowing guns into bars is the equivalent of selling guns to a drunk. 95% of the people in bars are there to drink alcohol. Some will be able to handle their drinks, some won't. Allowing anyone who gets drunk to have guns as an invitation to recklessness.

    You're being illogical. The point is that driving tests create a barrier to people who don't know how to drive from accessing cars./quote]That can be ONE of the purposes, driving tests are mostly for people to be ABLE to drive!

No. That's not what driving tests are for at all. Anyone can learn how to drive without a test. A test gives you a license and without a license, you're driving illegally.


      Accidents happen DESPITE that.
    You do realize that there is vehicular homicide and manslaughter, and that people can be negligent, don't you? That's a lot DIFFERENT than a regular car accident.

What's your point?


      People are not forced to take a mandatory gun safety course right now even though guns are deadlier than cars.
    Many people DON'T use their guns, so just making that a blanket rule wouldn't apply to a lot of people.

That simply makes no sense. If they never have to use their guns, then they don't need them. If they need a gun, that means they will have to use it. You will never need something that you never use. That's inherently contradictory. Therefore a mandatory gun training course would be wise for every gun owner to show them how to use a gun effectively and safely.


      And I don't know what you're talking about with regards to cops. Cops go through intensive training on how to use guns and of course they use guns in practice. My stepfather is a cop. I should know. Cops may never have to fire a shot through their whole career, but they certainly are trained to know how to shoot and how to maximize safety with the weapon.
    I was saying that there are cops who MISUSE and have misused their weapons, and or have shot or killed unarmed suspects or innocent people. You wouldn't argue against cops having guns because some cops misuse them, would you?

It depends. If the level of misuse outweighed the pros of their usage, yes, then they shouldn't carry guns. In fact, the police in many countries don't carry guns. But again, cops go through intensive training they must pass to become a cop. If cops misuse their weapons, that is in spite of their training. Gun owners should all receive training. They may still misuse their weapons, but again, that will be despite that training.


      One doesn't need to hate guns to recognize that there are way too many guns in the United States and that's what's responsible for the ridiculously high rate of gun deaths in this country.
    The guns are not going to go away, though. And if more people have guns yet the crime rate was DECREASING, it's obviously not the guns that are the problem.

But more people don't have guns. The rate of gun ownership has been on the decline. Gun sales have remain leveled or increased not because more gun-less people are buying guns but because people who already own guns are buying more guns. Also, guns can go away if you change the laws and the culture.


      And most people don't overdose and die on illicit drugs so those who do die shouldn't be held against people who don't die?
    Of course they shouldn't. Drug laws or bans have MADE criminals out of just regular drug users or addicts.

So you're against all illicit drugs being illegal. You think heroine should be legal?


      If the Second Amendment is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year, then the Second Amendment should be amended.
    That's a fair point, but you're going to have quite a difficult time with that.

The difficulty of the solution can be tackled after we agree on a solution. If the Second Amendment is a part of the problem, then it should be involved in the solution.

    Also, IT HAS been amended.

When has the Second Amendment been amended?

    And again, you're lumping in ALL gun deaths while not paying attention to self-defense, justifiable homicide or suicide.

Because, contrary to your claims, suicide in the vast majority of instances, is a very bad thing, and justifiable homicide is a very rare thing. All you're arguing is that because stricter gun laws wouldn't solve everything, we shouldn't have them.

How to make an entrance:
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software