Get ready for the next round of attacks on the 2nd.

on that note wrote:

archer wrote:

on that note wrote: Short answer, because cars are more dangerous and hurt more people. Given we have limited policy and enforcement resources, we have an obligation to each other to focus them on the most dangerous activities. Guns just are not that dangerous relative to other stuff and the policies being proposed don't logically indicate that they will change this or make the stuff that is far more dangerous that we currently ignore, any safer.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet that fewer people are intentionally killed by cars than are intentionally killed by guns. Has anyone taken an automobile and intentionally killed 20 kids and 6 adults?

That is a reasonable point, but neglect of the known boarders on intention. We know the consequences of not regulating driving more strictly, thus if we don't do something, we have at least deprioritized it. We knew we could have stopped it or mitigated it, like we feel with gun violence, so we can elect to take action. I am not sure what to call it, but our decision to not address it, results in a certain amount of predictable death.

If you see the logic in that regarding the consequences of not regulating driving more strictly, why don't you see the consequences of not regulating gun ownership more strictly?

Something the Dog Said wrote: The comparisons between regulation of motor vehicles and guns is absolutely irrelevant. Each one should be considered on their particular merits and issues. If there is a lack of regulation of motor vehicles, then that issue should be examined based on the unique particularities of that issue, not compared to something that has no relevance to that industry. This is just a common tact by the NRA tools who want to deflect from the examination of the role of firearms in society. Why not have an honest discussion of that issue rather than deflecting from it?

I am honestly surprised you don't see the relevance. Do you have no comments on priorities and limited resources? I am making all my comments under the assumption that if our regulators spend our national regulation time on gun control right now that this may have a limiting effect on what they can do to address something else, like car deaths (which I completely understand that everyone is accepting on the level they are with enforcement and laws at the current level intended to address it) or the economy.

I also think you are wrong about considering them on their individual merits. What are these? Because I am thinking that the merits of the issues are how they can effect the safety of people. Since these are the same people, and again there is only so much time that can be allocated to gun control and a meaningful national debate before it takes away from something else that we thought was a priority.

Could you give me your version of looking at the particularities of driving regulations and why you would do so and then another on gun control and why you would do so without having them relate that they were trying to mitigate the same thing, the risk of injury?

I am really trying to understand your point, I am conceding that I must be missing something and I am giving merit to your persistance, as I am often the same. With all due respect can you explain it to me.

And I will admit something, I have nothing to do with the NRA, I own no guns, I have shot perhaps 10 bullet in my life, but countless bebes. I have no regular fears that result from guns, gun owners or these events. They do not make me want to get a gun, I do not really care who has them. I assume most people do, those that have shown me they are packing often are not those I expect. I assume most non LEO or former soldiers would actually crap their pants, gun or not, if they were in the middle of one of these events. I am not afraid simply because of odds, the same reason I am afraid of the road, my wife's safety on the road and why I make these comments.

So Dog, with all due respect, in stead of just insisting you are right, can you explain it to me so I understand where we are not connecting? Thanks if you do. My question fundamental question is how you prioritize your limited govt resources to promote safety, why gun control now, when the stats still say other stuff is more pressing, both in regards to safety and prosperity.

Vatican Welcomes Obama Gun Control Proposal
01/19/13 10:16 AM ET EST AP

The Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 10885.html

Where does this leave conservatives who are both religious and anti gun control?

archer wrote:

on that note wrote:

archer wrote:

on that note wrote: Short answer, because cars are more dangerous and hurt more people. Given we have limited policy and enforcement resources, we have an obligation to each other to focus them on the most dangerous activities. Guns just are not that dangerous relative to other stuff and the policies being proposed don't logically indicate that they will change this or make the stuff that is far more dangerous that we currently ignore, any safer.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet that fewer people are intentionally killed by cars than are intentionally killed by guns. Has anyone taken an automobile and intentionally killed 20 kids and 6 adults?

That is a reasonable point, but neglect of the known boarders on intention. We know the consequences of not regulating driving more strictly, thus if we don't do something, we have at least deprioritized it. We knew we could have stopped it or mitigated it, like we feel with gun violence, so we can elect to take action. I am not sure what to call it, but our decision to not address it, results in a certain amount of predictable death.

If you see the logic in that regarding the consequences of not regulating driving more strictly, why don't you see the consequences of not regulating gun ownership more strictly?

You guys are missing my point and what I am trying to ask. I DO SEE THE LOGIC, I DO SEE THE DEMAND TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND PERHAPS TAKE ACTION. But I see larger demand elsewhere that I feel should be met first, not at the same time or be prioritized due to the hype, all be it sad. We do not have unlimited government regulatory resources.

If were to stop for a moment and give us all credit that we have a reasonable society with a number of things we would like to improve. So we set the task today of pushing the govt to consider some issues and perhaps make some policy to change things.

All I am talking about is how you decide what is going to be done first.

The push for us addressing gun control RIGHT NOW, implies that somehow, as a result of one or a few shootings, that this is a big risk to people. I see larger risks that it would take less effort to address, even if one is malicious and one is systematic, I am compelled to address the largest risks to the most people.

I am not trying to be difficult and though I matched crap for crap, I really would still like Dog's perspective, I don't think I am asking bad questions and the gun laws, if created in any form, will not effect me directly. This is not personal to me, I am just trying to understand how people are prioritizing this over so many people not having jobs, which in itself has a death toll nation wide given we have so many people. At this point, with 300,000,000 of us in this nation, the slightest odds will hit us with a real number of people. This makes a few dozen on a national level, fall to a low priority for me, given we have other things still in melt down. Meanwhile while we are all confused about all this stuff, do you really think the leaders are not using this focus behind us to their advantage and just greasing the wheels for power players to pay them more and get more kicked back. Our frenzy around, what I am proposing is a lack of priorities, so we are always running around like a chicken with our head cut off, is making it so we don't pay attention to the stuff that is actually effecting each one of us directly, our economy, drunk drivers, etc. Mass shootings are not effecting most Americans directly, but it is on the forefront right now.

Please do not pull a 180 on me now and tell me that now I am taking this site too seriously because I responded with many words and did not tear someone a new one. There is very little space in between. This is not easy.

I just don't see the either/or scenario.....are we so limited in intelligence that we cannot tackle two or more issues at once? The desire for gun laws that restrict some magazines and assault rifles, the desire for stricter registration rules, did not start with Sandy Hook, or Aurora....it has been simmering for decades, and every time it is even approached we get this hysteria about taking away 2nd amendment rights, and trampling all over the constitution. It takes a tragedy like Sandy Hook to tip the scales, and if we, as a society, do not take advantage of the moment, then it will continue to simmer, but again it will do so on the back burner and soon be nearly forgotten. I would prefer to not kick this particular can down the road any more. Unlike you.....I am a gun owner, I do have both pistol and rifle.....for my own protection and for that of my family and domestic critters.....I see nothing in the current or proposed laws that would infringe on my right to own, carry, or purchase a gun.....

edited to add....nor do I see a time when guns are completely outlawed in this country, the OMG they are going to take away all our guns is hysteria, pure and simple.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

Isn't it strange that when people want to drive a car we make them take an extensive test, both written and practical, on how well they can handle a car before they get a license to use it, make them get liability insurance in order to use that car, and have them renew that license to drive every 5 or so years, yet when they want to own a gun no such test.....or insurance, or in many cases even a license is required.

Where in the constitution is the right to drive mentioned? As we are told over and over again driving is a privilege, not a right. Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is specifically mentioned in the bill of rights.

Where in the Constitution is it stated that "keep and bear arms" included assault weapons and high-cap magazines?...If you want to interpret it the way the "Founding Fathers" had in mind--(which you guys have a fetish for, when it suits your purpose)--then you should have to turn in everything but your muskets.

(which you guys have a fetish for, when it suits your purpose)

archer wrote:

Vatican Welcomes Obama Gun Control Proposal
01/19/13 10:16 AM ET EST AP

The Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 10885.html

Where does this leave conservatives who are both religious and anti gun control?

Apples and Oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. You might just as well ask where does that leave atheists or agnostics who are pro-gun control. But another nice attempt to tie 2nd amendment supporters in with the religious right.

frogger wrote:

(which you guys have a fetish for, when it suits your purpose)