General Discussion

lancer78

(1,495 posts)

129. Some of us

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:09 AM

Jun 2016

have come to the conclusion that even though laws can be written that protect us, some of us have realized that we cannot legislate 100% safety. Some of us are not willing to lose an enumerated right to MAYBE save 500 lives a year.

When my sister and brother-in-law were killed by a drunk driver, at first I was angry that there weren't "more laws" on the books. But after thinking about it for a while, I realized that there are TONS of laws regarding drinking and driving.

Drunk drivers kill 20 times the number of people than rifles do each year. Yet, people like me, who are victims, are not demanding a ban on alcohol or more laws as we realize that if someone is going to drink and drive, they will. I guess you could make the penalty for DUI the same as attempted murder, but than you would get into cruel and unusual punishment.

We already have laws on the books regarding guns and gun violence. Pretty strict ones if I do say so myself.

I know a lot of people feel they need to "Do something", but there is only so much we can do. It is like with the Patriot Act, how far are we willing to go in order to feel safe?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

194 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do not think about arguing [View all] uppityperson Jun 2016 OP

a kick uppityperson Jun 2016 #1

K&R demmiblue Jun 2016 #2

Perhaps some context would help SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #3

there is a time and place for every argument. passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #11

If it's time to discuss legislation, it's time to discuss technical accuracy... Marengo Jun 2016 #15

That has happened JustAnotherGen Jun 2016 #53

Yep, my point exactly. The absolute ignorance of those pieces of legislation... Marengo Jun 2016 #126

Well I'm a woman JustAnotherGen Jun 2016 #147

Not really. People can express the size and the shape of the thing they want without technical DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2016 #125

Sure, anyone can bring anything to the table. But, if demands are based on ignorance, it's.. Marengo Jun 2016 #128

spot on Locrian Jun 2016 #149

Are you suggesting that DU will write legislation? Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #176

Rubbish. Go ahead and apply the stifling argument in a discussion concerning... Marengo Jun 2016 #179

Thank you. uppityperson Jun 2016 #16

Agreed. So why are so many arguing for gun bans? cleanhippie Jun 2016 #18

Respectfully SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #20

SuperDutyTX, I understand what you are trying to say and I concur. Stonepounder Jun 2016 #68

"assault weapon" is used becasue it is a gray area, and has no meaning in law. As far as I know... Matt_R Jun 2016 #89

I think it's a moot point, as I don't expect to see any meaningful regulation Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #92

In my opinion lancer78 Jun 2016 #114

I don't think anyone is saying that. Stonepounder Jun 2016 #117

I read a lot here, but lancer78 Jun 2016 #119

I think it would be nice if you let us have our funerals Mojorabbit Jun 2016 #118

Were you addressing me? nt passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #135

No, sorry. It is just so jarring when things are still really raw here. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2016 #136

I understand. passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #137

Let's ban civilian sales of assault weapons. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #14

Vent away, but you just stepped into the trap. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #30

Assault weapons. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #32

Of all the variations on the definition of "assault weapon" ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #34

Assault weapon. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #37

Wow. They really got that one wrong. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #39

How bad of a damn shot do you have to be Aerows Jun 2016 #58

I completely take your point, but the "but" here is important: Recursion Jun 2016 #74

What makes you believe that magazine capacity is related to shooter accuracy? ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #75

? blue neen Jun 2016 #95

Paper targets, steel targets, etc. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #101

Paper targets don't have hearts and lungs and brains. blue neen Jun 2016 #108

Glad we understand paper targets. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #116

Precisely the point I was making to the person above you Aerows Jun 2016 #112

Training, hunting.... ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #120

"I don't hunt anymore" Aerows Jun 2016 #134

You seem to be suggesting that some guns were "designed for hunting". ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #140

It looks like Aerows Jun 2016 #141

While you could use that tool, it would not be the ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #143

And we've arrived at our destination. n/t Aerows Jun 2016 #144

Thanks, if not for you, an anonymous poster on a internet forum, I would have totally A Simple Game Jun 2016 #154

No, that is neither how it is supposed to work nor actually does work. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #157

"the idiots who created the artificial definition of "assault weapon". Damn Gun Digest - those jmg257 Jun 2016 #160

Yes, that particular list does contain some ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #161

Do us all a favor and give us your definition of an assault weapon. A Simple Game Jun 2016 #173

I have no definition of "assault weapon". ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #177

You do realize that there were assault weapons even before gunpowder was invented don't you? A Simple Game Jun 2016 #180

Obviously you are not using the phrase the way everyone else is. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #181

So according to you a weapon is a weapon is a weapon and that's all there is to it? A Simple Game Jun 2016 #182

Thank you for confirming your non-standard use of the phrase. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #183

OK I'll lower myself to play your semantics game. A Simple Game Jun 2016 #185

I cannot take credit for any semantics game. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #186

If you can't grasp the concept of categories of weapons then there is no sense in continuing A Simple Game Jun 2016 #187

Sorry that the conversation is not going your way. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #188

In my case talking with someone that doesn't admit a assault rifle A Simple Game Jun 2016 #189

Thank you for at least admitting your ignorance. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #191

OK just one more time because it seems you are trying. A Simple Game Jun 2016 #193

Thanks for taking the next step. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #194

Maybe you guys should start with the "legal" definitons..may vary depending what jurisdiction, jmg257 Jun 2016 #190

No argument there regarding NY. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #192

But, we tried that already and it didn't work. Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #70

Hm. I feel the opposite: handguns are the real problem in the US Recursion Jun 2016 #73

Yet, you are including suicides in the figure that you're using for all gun deaths. Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #87

Even in mass murders, handguns have a slight majority Recursion Jun 2016 #88

The gun manufacturers did away with some of the offending characteristics . . . Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #99

And your last sentence is the most important thing on the thread, I think Recursion Jun 2016 #100

The AMA has finally taken a stand to restrict gun ownership. Jim Beard Jun 2016 #107

We didn't fail to go to the moon Aerows Jun 2016 #113

And there we go lancer78 Jun 2016 #115

Let's do OwlinAZ Jun 2016 #152

TX bigot language suks, imo saidsimplesimon Jun 2016 #28

If gun trolls and the NRA would get out of the way, there is no doubt in my mind that Squinch Jun 2016 #42

+1 Gidney N Cloyd Jun 2016 #52

Thanks! SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #56

You have completely missed the point. The point was that you have an opinion about these topics Squinch Jun 2016 #59

Thanks! SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #62

No, actually it really wouldn't be like that at all. It would be like saying, "we don't want these Squinch Jun 2016 #63

Sounds like we're at an impasse. SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #64

Some of us lancer78 Jun 2016 #129

You always seem to emerge from somewhere when these massacres happen, just to tell Squinch Jun 2016 #164

Your civility is admirable PJMcK Jun 2016 #54

NRA REPORTING FOR DUTY Skittles Jun 2016 #77

Exactly. Squinch Jun 2016 #105

I see where you're going with this. Bucky Jun 2016 #122

Any weapon that can do THAT needs to go away stopwastingmymoney Jun 2016 #142

Then get a Democrat to propose a bill that makes them go away Recursion Jun 2016 #146

agree treestar Jun 2016 #4

Understood. But what about forums where legislation is being discussed (A LOT)? jmg257 Jun 2016 #5

As I said in the OP Yes, those terms matter for legislation, but not on forums, not on Facebook, not uppityperson Jun 2016 #6

OK but they matter if people's ignorance of the subject means they're going in literally Recursion Jun 2016 #71

Pls forgive my ignorance-- lastlib Jun 2016 #82

Accepting detachable magazines Recursion Jun 2016 #84

Why perpetuate ignorance? TipTok Jun 2016 #139

+1, any device DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently shouldn't be in the hands of avg citizen uponit7771 Jun 2016 #7

That's a principle I can be on board with. BUT Recursion Jun 2016 #72

+1000. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #8

God, YES! I have moaned about the semantics war being used by Photographer Jun 2016 #9

K&R! Duval Jun 2016 #10

Your argument is more effective if you use actual facts, accepted terms and language to support it. Android3.14 Jun 2016 #12

You're exactly what the post is talking about. You missed the point, entirely. Ignore. lindysalsagal Jun 2016 #38

He didn't miss the point. Chellee Jun 2016 #61

For the record, I also loathe that sort of pedantic deflection. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #13

Precisely, it is all Bettie Jun 2016 #67

OK, but this detail really, really, really matters to the OP's cause Recursion Jun 2016 #78

They do that to discredit the messenger ErikJ Jun 2016 #17

"to make him look like he doesnt know what he's talking about" AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #21

Only to a gun-nut techy geek. ErikJ Jun 2016 #23

Let me let you in on a secret AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #26

It does SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #27

I said situations like these. ErikJ Jun 2016 #31

The AR platform in the right configuration, such as the AR-10, is an excellent hunting rifle... Marengo Jun 2016 #41

Greatly reduced Aussy suicide and mass shootings. ErikJ Jun 2016 #47

I've heard that as well, but in researching found several studies which suggest... Marengo Jun 2016 #123

Your last point is crucial: Australia targeted all semi-automatics Recursion Jun 2016 #80

The OP is talking about the kinds of firearms that can be used to kill hundreds in minutes. Squinch Jun 2016 #65

No, the OP *thinks* he or she is talking about that Recursion Jun 2016 #79

You can read my mind?!?!!!! uppityperson Jun 2016 #81

I can read your posts Recursion Jun 2016 #86

I support not being able to kill 49 people in a short period of time. I don't use uppityperson Jun 2016 #90

OK, so step 1 is coming to terms with the fact that we need a new law to do that Recursion Jun 2016 #94

I am in agreement with you. Doing the wrong thing doesn't help. uppityperson Jun 2016 #97

That's because the NRA and gun lobbies were allowed to write the legislation. Squinch Jun 2016 #93

I posted this on truth-out.org and it was REMOVED ... Jopin Klobe Jun 2016 #19

What makes you think people who are disgusted with guns being used in mass shootings passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #24

"recreate the feeling of automatic firing" but not the accuracy. AtheistCrusader Jun 2016 #29

This is not the right thread for that video. Would you please consider posting it elsewhere? uppityperson Jun 2016 #36

K and r. cwydro Jun 2016 #22

I just heard this Jackson Browne song for the first time today bonemachine Jun 2016 #25

This technical diversion shit means nothing when some maniac The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #33

Exactly, thank you uppityperson Jun 2016 #57

Rec & Kick. Well stated. MerryBlooms Jun 2016 #35

Anyone who uses any of the following arguments is a troll and should be ignored completely. Squinch Jun 2016 #40

As if you have the authority to set any rules on this discussion... Marengo Jun 2016 #43

Simply expressing my opinion. I am sorry if that offends you. uppityperson Jun 2016 #50

Why are NRA / 2A so entrenched ? karadax Jun 2016 #44

Yes, those terms matter for legislation uppityperson Jun 2016 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author Sissyk Jun 2016 #45

Best wishes to your niece, hoping she regains her equilibrium. uppityperson Jun 2016 #51

But what about the zombies? ErikJ Jun 2016 #48

A right wing friend failed an attempt to bait me. edgineered Jun 2016 #49

The distinction between a semi-automatic weapon and fully automatic AR 15 means very little to the still_one Jun 2016 #55

People who espouse opinions on guns with no clue how they work sound as clueless and out of touch Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #60

You won't take my opinion seriously that too many were killed too fast by a murderous jerk and his uppityperson Jun 2016 #66

I believe it was both. And I believe that this one and the one who said, "You Squinch Jun 2016 #69

It is all about how you express your opinion. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #85

Let's make this simple. I don't like people having access to guns that can kill that many people uppityperson Jun 2016 #91

We care about actually addressing the problem rather than appearing to Recursion Jun 2016 #96

An excellent example of a non-technical statement. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #98

Therefore....what? Confiscate all repeating firearms? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #145

One could carry the logic that far. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #158

Good point. While I disagree with imposing more gun control, I can at least see a rationale behind Just reading posts Jun 2016 #159

Lol, 50 dead and you whine about this? Logical Jun 2016 #132

they are cowards Skittles Jun 2016 #76

It usually matters. Words have meanings even on DU. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #83

A 5 or 6 shot revolver could NEVER kill that many people. A double barrel shotgun the same. JanMichael Jun 2016 #102

A person with a essme Jun 2016 #103

Bullshit. Less accuracy and less kill velocity. That has never happened. JanMichael Jun 2016 #109

I really, really want one of these essme Jun 2016 #111

The Va tech shooter used pistols and killed nearly as many people jack_krass Jun 2016 #150

Ah but how different was the total number of casualties? JanMichael Jun 2016 #166

Sandy Hook would have been much worse with an AK-47 clone. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #167

Then ban them first? nt JanMichael Jun 2016 #168

Why first? ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #169

You just said that the AK-47 knockoffs would kill more than the 20 or so little kids. JanMichael Jun 2016 #171

No, that is not what I said. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #172

See Virginia tech Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #153

Not a revolver though, huh? JanMichael Jun 2016 #170

. Squinch Jun 2016 #110

Exactly. Time we start treating gunners like dung, rather than coddling them and their sick junk. Hoyt Jun 2016 #104

You, Sir... 63splitwindow Jun 2016 #106

K&R Dem2 Jun 2016 #121

Oh yes, this^^^^^ Arazi Jun 2016 #124

It's like a goddamn Tom Clancy novel for the gunner trash alcibiades_mystery Jun 2016 #127

it is easy to see why they support Trump Skittles Jun 2016 #148

This message was self-deleted by its author Lint Head Jun 2016 #130

huh, thanks for the kick but maybe to the wrong thread? uppityperson Jun 2016 #131

Thanks. Fumbled fingered tonight. Lint Head Jun 2016 #133

Too late... TipTok Jun 2016 #138

And the question remains - how many more before we do something? liberal N proud Jun 2016 #151

k and r niyad Jun 2016 #155

distractive bullshit heaven05 Jun 2016 #156

It's like claiming the argument against a nuke murdering millions is invalid.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #162

"but you look foolish and how can you ask for something without being accurate" uppityperson Jun 2016 #163

Another way of putting it.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #165

Strongest recommendation suffragette Jun 2016 #174

You are welcome. I still feel that way, 2 date later. I'm getting angry now,past shocked pain, but uppityperson Jun 2016 #175

There's a reason some on here refer to it as a 'trap' suffragette Jun 2016 #178

You will get no argument from me! Initech Jun 2016 #184