Gun control vs. Vehicle control (DUI)..........

[ABikerSailor]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

 

[CaféAuLait]

When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

Actually they lowered it in 2000 and if you look at the chart the deaths rose in some cases:

Drunk Driving Fatalities - National Statistics | Century Council

Deaths did not really decline until 10 years later and that was due to education, PSA’s etc not so much lowering the BAC rate. Offering free cab services, etc.

Drunk Driving Fatalities - National Statistics | Century Council

Crime is a problem that is why many choose to arm themselves. Perhaps we should get tougher on murderers and those individuals who make people fear for their lives instead of feeling for them and giving them second chances. Maybe people would not feel as strong of a need for a weapon.

As far as your sentencing guidelines perhaps we should have that for ANYONE who kills someone. Going by your parameters: if you kill your infant you are jailed for the rest of your life, you kill a 10 year old you are jailed for 65 years, and you kill a 20 year old you are jailed for 55 years and so on. Sounds great!

You rape someone you are jailed for more than a year or two, I think 25 years at the least. Pedophiles, LIFE.

I see those who feel for prisoners in the US, many who have committed outlandish crimes. I see more people feel for the perp than the victim in some cases. There are pages and people devoted to releasing the Manson Klan because their “rights” are being taken away according to them. I remember when Susan Atkins became ill in jail, she lost her leg to cancer people advocated her release for humane purposes. She murdered 4 people and cut the unborn baby out of a woman and ate the babies blood. But hey we should show her compassion because she is dying? No, life should mean life.

I’ll never forget the Lawrence Singleton case in California. He raped a 15 year old and then severed both her forearms with a hatchet. She lived. Singleton received a 14-year sentence, the maximum allowed by law in California at that time. Singleton was paroled after serving only 8 years. ONLY 8 years after brutally raping this girl and hacking off her arms with a hatchet.

He left jail and killed his next victim 7 years later.

Lawrence Singleton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lets fix this system and maybe many won’t want a gun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

So if someone steals your car and gets drunk and kills someone you as the owner of the car should serve a portion of the sentence also?


A Car is Stolen in the United States Every 26.4 Seconds

A Car is Stolen in the United States Every 26.4 Seconds - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[Ravi]

Not even mentioning safety requirements like airbags, etc.

 

[jtpr312]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Here's the thing. You said shoot someone, do the time never allowing for the fact that some people need shot. Furthermore, the death penalty has proven unable to deter people from shooting others if they have it in mind to do so, so what makes you think jail time, which can already be life imprisonment for shooting someone, make a difference? Or are you proposing that people who now lawfully shoot someone in self defense do time? Secondly, you say if someone rips you off because your guns aren't secured, you should do time. Well wouldn't your guns, if in your home, be considered secure? Or are you proposing to punish the victim of a burglary for the actions of the burglar? That goes back to the car thing. If someone steals your locked car and kills another in an accident, do you do part of the thief's time?
Here's the thing, we ALREADY have sufficient laws on the books regarding violent crimes committed with a firearm, we don't need any more gun controls, we need people controls. The problem is, the ones doing these violent gun related crimes are for the most part people who have long and extensive criminal records already, most going back to their teen or even pre-teen years. We need to identify these people at as early an age as possible, and make sure they are not allowed to live among us after their first heinous crime or their 2nd violent felony, ever. I would say execute them as I see no reason to waste resources on scum like that, but I would be ok with forced labor camps for them so they would at least earn part of their keep. THIS might lower crime rates over time when younger kids, instead of seeing, hearing and of looking up to the prison thugs who come home with tales of "do yo time, don't let yo time do you" or "Prison be the cost of doin bidness", or recruiting for the gangs, are never seen or heard from again, ever. We need to change the culture that not only allows the violent predators to re-offend over and over again, but that also raises our citizens to become violent predators. ALL the gun control in the world, inlcuding a 100% ban with confiscation of EVERY legally owned weapon in this nation will not make us any safer than the 100% ban on cocaine, meth or heroin has done. We still have over 35,000 deaths annually from dope, not to mention them being easily available in EVERY town, city and suburb in the US and being availabe in most schools in the US, and this after over 50yrs of the most stringent and all encompassing bans man can impose. We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to get rid of the scumbags that think violently preying on their fellow citizens is an acceptable lifestyle choice. I read an article where two young boys tortured and killed a little neighbor girl to steal her bike. Now these two young boys, both pre-teens if I remember correctly, the story is new so you can find it, are perfect candidates for exection or a work camp for life. Unfortunatley, we will send them to prison, read finishing school for scumbags, for life, they will get out while still relatively young men because rarely does life mean forever and we will have two more hardened, sociopathic criminals loose on our streets. This is the story over and over and over again in this nation.

 

[jwoodie]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Best Straw Man argument of the day!

 

[ABikerSailor]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Here's the thing. You said shoot someone, do the time never allowing for the fact that some people need shot. Furthermore, the death penalty has proven unable to deter people from shooting others if they have it in mind to do so, so what makes you think jail time, which can already be life imprisonment for shooting someone, make a difference? Or are you proposing that people who now lawfully shoot someone in self defense do time? Secondly, you say if someone rips you off because your guns aren't secured, you should do time. Well wouldn't your guns, if in your home, be considered secure? Or are you proposing to punish the victim of a burglary for the actions of the burglar? That goes back to the car thing. If someone steals your locked car and kills another in an accident, do you do part of the thief's time?
Here's the thing, we ALREADY have sufficient laws on the books regarding violent crimes committed with a firearm, we don't need any more gun controls, we need people controls. The problem is, the ones doing these violent gun related crimes are for the most part people who have long and extensive criminal records already, most going back to their teen or even pre-teen years. We need to identify these people at as early an age as possible, and make sure they are not allowed to live among us after their first heinous crime or their 2nd violent felony, ever. I would say execute them as I see no reason to waste resources on scum like that, but I would be ok with forced labor camps for them so they would at least earn part of their keep. THIS might lower crime rates over time when younger kids, instead of seeing, hearing and of looking up to the prison thugs who come home with tales of "do yo time, don't let yo time do you" or "Prison be the cost of doin bidness", or recruiting for the gangs, are never seen or heard from again, ever. We need to change the culture that not only allows the violent predators to re-offend over and over again, but that also raises our citizens to become violent predators. ALL the gun control in the world, inlcuding a 100% ban with confiscation of EVERY legally owned weapon in this nation will not make us any safer than the 100% ban on cocaine, meth or heroin has done. We still have over 35,000 deaths annually from dope, not to mention them being easily available in EVERY town, city and suburb in the US and being availabe in most schools in the US, and this after over 50yrs of the most stringent and all encompassing bans man can impose. We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to get rid of the scumbags that think violently preying on their fellow citizens is an acceptable lifestyle choice. I read an article where two young boys tortured and killed a little neighbor girl to steal her bike. Now these two young boys, both pre-teens if I remember correctly, the story is new so you can find it, are perfect candidates for exection or a work camp for life. Unfortunatley, we will send them to prison, read finishing school for scumbags, for life, they will get out while still relatively young men because rarely does life mean forever and we will have two more hardened, sociopathic criminals loose on our streets. This is the story over and over and over again in this nation.

Why would someone (other than a person committing a crime) NEED to be shot?

 

[bayoubill]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

lol... I remember being young and dumb, but yet thinking that my roommate and I had come up with the answers to all the problems in the world...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

I agree with strict liability civil fines for gun owners. If you can't safely store your gun in a manner that prevents it from being stolen and used in a crime, you should have to pay 10k for every life that gun takes. How you store your guns is your business but if it results in loss of life you should pay.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

So if someone steals your car and gets drunk and kills someone you as the owner of the car should serve a portion of the sentence also?


A Car is Stolen in the United States Every 26.4 Seconds

A Car is Stolen in the United States Every 26.4 Seconds - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Thread FAIL.

 

[hazlnut]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Best Straw Man argument of the day!

You don't even know what a straw man is... you just like how it sounds.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

No, because according to just about the whole nation, crazy people don't have a right to own a gun, and neither do felons, because of what they did.

However..................a well regulated militia would have the things that LWC brought up, don't ya think? It would help to weed out the crazies and psychos.

But..............on second thought, I can see why you'd be against it ya looney psychopath.

 

[Politico]

Wow this is all kinds of stupid.

 

[jtpr312]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Here's the thing. You said shoot someone, do the time never allowing for the fact that some people need shot. Furthermore, the death penalty has proven unable to deter people from shooting others if they have it in mind to do so, so what makes you think jail time, which can already be life imprisonment for shooting someone, make a difference? Or are you proposing that people who now lawfully shoot someone in self defense do time? Secondly, you say if someone rips you off because your guns aren't secured, you should do time. Well wouldn't your guns, if in your home, be considered secure? Or are you proposing to punish the victim of a burglary for the actions of the burglar? That goes back to the car thing. If someone steals your locked car and kills another in an accident, do you do part of the thief's time?
Here's the thing, we ALREADY have sufficient laws on the books regarding violent crimes committed with a firearm, we don't need any more gun controls, we need people controls. The problem is, the ones doing these violent gun related crimes are for the most part people who have long and extensive criminal records already, most going back to their teen or even pre-teen years. We need to identify these people at as early an age as possible, and make sure they are not allowed to live among us after their first heinous crime or their 2nd violent felony, ever. I would say execute them as I see no reason to waste resources on scum like that, but I would be ok with forced labor camps for them so they would at least earn part of their keep. THIS might lower crime rates over time when younger kids, instead of seeing, hearing and of looking up to the prison thugs who come home with tales of "do yo time, don't let yo time do you" or "Prison be the cost of doin bidness", or recruiting for the gangs, are never seen or heard from again, ever. We need to change the culture that not only allows the violent predators to re-offend over and over again, but that also raises our citizens to become violent predators. ALL the gun control in the world, inlcuding a 100% ban with confiscation of EVERY legally owned weapon in this nation will not make us any safer than the 100% ban on cocaine, meth or heroin has done. We still have over 35,000 deaths annually from dope, not to mention them being easily available in EVERY town, city and suburb in the US and being availabe in most schools in the US, and this after over 50yrs of the most stringent and all encompassing bans man can impose. We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to get rid of the scumbags that think violently preying on their fellow citizens is an acceptable lifestyle choice. I read an article where two young boys tortured and killed a little neighbor girl to steal her bike. Now these two young boys, both pre-teens if I remember correctly, the story is new so you can find it, are perfect candidates for exection or a work camp for life. Unfortunatley, we will send them to prison, read finishing school for scumbags, for life, they will get out while still relatively young men because rarely does life mean forever and we will have two more hardened, sociopathic criminals loose on our streets. This is the story over and over and over again in this nation.

Why would someone (other than a person committing a crime) NEED to be shot?

Exactly, but you never qualified your statment with that. You merely stated if someone shot someone, they should do time. Your exact words where "If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow" Nothing mentioned about justifiable homicide, or self defense, just "If you kill someone because you had a gun".

 

[jtpr312]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

I agree with strict liability civil fines for gun owners. If you can't safely store your gun in a manner that prevents it from being stolen and used in a crime, you should have to pay 10k for every life that gun takes. How you store your guns is your business but if it results in loss of life you should pay.

So you're another moron that believes that if someone steals your car and kills another person with it, you should have to pay 10k for eveyone killed in the crash right. I mean by your asinine loigic, how and where you store your car is your business but if someone steals is anyway you should pay. Here's bit of FYI for you slick. If your guns are in your home and your doors are locked, they ARE supposed to be secure. You cannot hold a person responsible for the criminal activities of others. You people are freaking nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

No, because according to just about the whole nation, crazy people don't have a right to own a gun, and neither do felons, because of what they did.

However..................a well regulated militia would have the things that LWC brought up, don't ya think? It would help to weed out the crazies and psychos.

But..............on second thought, I can see why you'd be against it ya looney psychopath.

Your original point of your thread is a fail, do you want to go two for two?
So if someone steals your car and gets drunk and kills someone you as the owner of the car should serve a portion of the sentence also?

And Firearm ownership is a right driving on the road is a privilege

 

[Vast LWC]

Your original point of your thread is a fail, do you want to go two for two?
So if someone steals your car and gets drunk and kills someone you as the owner of the car should serve a portion of the sentence also?

And Firearm ownership is a right driving on the road is a privilege

Firearm ownership is a "right", you are correct. However, it is a right with a stipulation attached to it.

The reason for said right is not that gun ownership is a basic human right that should not be denied.

No, the specific constitutional reason for people to be guaranteed the right to own firearms is so that "well regulated militias" can be formed in a timely fashion.

Since the militia formed by said gun owners is supposed to be "well regulated", that would mean said militia wouldn't include the insane, or criminals.

Therefore it would be quite useful for the quick formation of that militia to already have these people weeded out.

And it would also be useful for the formation of said militia to have a record of who would potentially be part of it.

In fact, all of the above seem to fall right in line with the purpose of the second amendment.

You see, the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms to the general citizenry, but it definitely also gives a very clear purpose for that right to exist.

If that purpose is not being served by said right, than the reason for it existing is invalidated.

 

[The Rabbi]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

You should spend more time learning stuff and less time taking it up the ass from your roommate.
By your logic if you kill someone who is 80 then you should get 5 years off any other sentence.

What does magazine capacity have to do with BAC? They're equivalent only if you been snorting poppers, which you doubltess have.