Defend your right to own a car.

[BanginJimmy]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

[bu villain]

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

I'm not saying a person is both a criminal and non-criminal at the same time. I am saying a non-criminal can get a gun and then become a criminal by robbing someone with their legally purchased gun.

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

We already do. We say that mentally ill people can not buy guns. We also say you must have a class 3 license to buy certain weapons. Most people don't take much issue with that.

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

[Sinfix_15]

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?



The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

[bu villain]

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

[David88vert]

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

Let's go back to the car analogy that started this thread. You've pointed out that we are off-course. :-)

On the main page of CNN right now are two terrible car crashes, and both involved SUVs.
Teen tragedy: 5 die in fiery collision with tanker truck in Texas - CNN.com
6 teens killed, 2 injured when overcrowded SUV flips into pond - CNN.com

Both of these crashes happened within hours of each other.The first crash in OH killed 6 teens, and injured 2 others. The second crash in TX killed 5 teens.
11 teens dead that fast.
Such accidents took the lives of about a quarter of the 15- to 24-year-olds who died in 2010, according to the most recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They outpaced the other top culprits: firearm wounds, homicides, suicides and accidental poisonings.

Where are the outcrys to ban SUVs? They are obviously more deadly, and available everywhere to everyone, with no restrictions. Why isn't Obama on the TV promising to push for "SUV control"?