Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[GameTime]

what solution did I state but have not followed through on?

did i read wrong?  if so i apologize.  it has looked to me that you are advocating the need for less guns in America.  many have asked you how many guns need to be eliminated.

[VinBucFan]

what solution did I state but have not followed through on?

did i read wrong?  if so i apologize.  it has looked to me that you are advocating the need for less guns in America.  many have asked you how many guns need to be eliminated.

Oh, I am not being evasive, the answer, which I have stated many times, is I don't know. I don't know because there is no magic number. At 310 million guns in society currently  we have the 7 or 8 problems I listed previously (ie kids bringing guns to school daily) and 30,000 deaths per year. That's too much.

However, even though I cannot give a number (and, frankly, I don't think anyone could) I have said on these thread many of the specific things I would do immediately to reduce both the number of guns and access to guns.  If you check back here in 30 minutes (or tomorrow if you cant) I will put them all in one comment. It takes a while, but I am happy to do it.  Maybe one of the pro-gun types can translate it into a number, but I doubt it. I will still put the "solutions" that I would offer out there, as I already have.

[GameTime]

but this is where you are alone, and thats fine.  the problem isnt the number of guns.  the problem is how society looks at guns, and treats guns.  with less guns society will still not respect guns.  id even go as far as to say that most law abiding citizens that have multiple guns have more respect for them than a lawbreaker with a single gun.

it was mentioned earlier how many deaths cars cause annually.  the answer isnt less cars, its more responsible driving.

i didnt watch the video posted by dbuc/dalbuc, but i think i would agree with it.  the problem is society, and trying to restrict anything/everything that can go wrong is not the answer.  it sounds great initially, but being responsible is the only answer.  and since we cant force responsibility, we as a society are just f-d.  we just gotta deal with it the best we can.

[VinBucFan]

it was mentioned earlier how many deaths cars cause annually.  the answer isnt less cars, its more responsible driving.

That's not actually accurate.  You're right that we did not reduce cars BUT we di what . . . . we greatly restricted their use.  At one time you did not have to wear seatbelts, now you do.  Car manufacturers (think Pinto) were held liable for safety defects.  Gun manufacturers have federal immunity.  All cars have airbags. Speed limits first cam around fro gas shortages, but they are a safety feature now. Not only are drivers liable for drunk driving, the place that served them is liable. Again, gun dealers have immunity.  You'll see why I mention this in a minute.

Plus . . . on HUGE difference  . .  cars are a NECESSARY part of everyday life. That means their SOCIAL UTILITY is VERY HIGH so they justify greater risk (even with that we greatly restricted their use for safety). By comparison, guns serve no purpose other than killing humans. They serve a social utility for personal defense, but that is more than balance out by the fact that they put a drain on society for crime, accident death etc. Yet, it is arguably just as easy, if not easier, right now to buy a gun as it is a car. Nearly every adult has to drive in the US and there are only a small fraction of the US that are gun owners. There are more guns than cars in the US!!!

Just wanted to respond to that one issue, but I will still post my list

[VinBucFan]

and since we cant force responsibility, we as a society are just f-d.  we just gotta deal with it the best we can.

let me just use your own words:

"and since we cannot force responsibility . . . . we just gotta deal with it the best we can"   if you believe that (and I don't necessarily disagree) how in the world would you come to the conclusion that what a "f-d' society needs is more guns?  if there are a lot of irresponsible people in society why would you want to make it easy for them to get guns?

http://www.today.com/id/46316454/site/todayshow/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UR3ETKWceSo

 Logic says it shoud be the other way around, you should make it very difficult or them to get guns.  because we have a 2nd amendment, you have to do that without infringing on everyone's rights, but getting a gun should be harder than buying a car by a mile . . .  it's arguably easier. Plus, "According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles."  there are 310 MILLION guns.  Cars are needed for work, commerce etc.  Guns are needed for killing. There;s more guns that cars.  Nearly every adult household has one car or more (because they need it to survive). There are only 50 million gun households and yet there are 310 million guns.

huh?

[VinBucFan]

Here you go GT:

I have already mentioned every one of these in these threads, I am just putting them in one place.  To my knowledge I have not seen a single similar proposal from a pro-gun poster, with Spartan maybe being the exception. I don't think even pro-gun people believe that 30,000 lives per year is a fair price for their hobby or some measure of liberty so I am not sure why pro-gun people dont offer solutions, other than a "slippery slope" fear. Anyway, here are mine, in one place:

1.   A REAL ban on assault rifles, no loopholes. Their social utility is greatly outweighed by the risk. They are not used frequently, but that is growing and they are very deadly when used;

2.   I don’t think the government should be able to confiscate anything, so I would do a national VOLUNTARY buyback of assault rifles (I read there are about 1.6 million) up to a date certain, after which time “strict liability” would attach to the gun owner and the manufacturer. That means you can keep it, but if anyone gets harmed you’re on the hook (along with your estate) and so is the manufacturer;

3.   A real ban on gun accessories that serve no real purpose other than killing more people quickly, things such as extended clips. Somebody smarter than me can choose the dividing line, but these items should be banned;

4.   I would immediately stop all private sales of guns, that includes trade shows and the like and online sales. Guns should only be sold through licensed, registered dealers;

5.   I would do several things that would organically reduce the number of guns:

    a.   Remove federal immunity for gun manufacturers. If states want to provide immunity, someone can move out of a state, but there should be no federal immunity;*****
    b.   Create strict liability for anyone who deals in guns. If a gun is sold to someone outside of federal guidelines, the dealer is strictly liable;
    c.   Strict liability for gun owners. Spartan can have as many legal guns as he likes, but he and his family and estate are strictly liable for any harm that is caused by the guns;
    d.   Tax all guns and all ammo to create a defense fund, so that we can take the NRA up on their “solution” which was to put armed guards in every school. I read that is about $15 billion per year.  The tax should be progressive meaning that it would not put the purchase of a SINGLE gun out of reach for an average American but the tax should increase with the number of guns purchased by a registered owner. Another route would be a license.

6.   I would first try to get private money first (donations, corporate sponsorship etc) to do a once a year national gun buyback, so that people could turn in excess guns or guns they no longer wanted. If corporations like Walmart, who make a fortune off of gun sales wouldn’t step up, then I would tax actual sales to create this annual fund. Another route would be a license. Evey other item that creates a substantial public health cost is taxed heavily (cigarettes, liquor etc) guns create a demonstrable public health problem because 30,000 a year die.

I don’t think one could translate this into a number (i.e. how many guns do we need to reduce the 310 million by), but these are real, concrete steps that would still allow for private gun ownership in keeping with the 2nd Amendment, but it would also balance that right against a very real public health nightmare in this country.

Keep in mind, I am not suggesting that these be done to the exclusion of mental health efforts and education efforts etc. We should do all those too, but the easiest thing to control and the quickest means to reduce the violence is to reduce the guns (see Japan, UK etc.)


****** Read this :  http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1303254.new.html#new

[Dolorous Jason]

"Why do you think we need guns for self defense if we could just pass enough laws and regulations so that no one has a gun" -- I never said any of that -lol, 

LMAO, that is some funny stuff

I didn't say you said that . That is what we call a question. Try and follow along as I ask it again , peanut butter boy :

Why do you think we need guns for self defense ? You did say that , didn't you ?

[Dolorous Jason]

but this is where you are alone, and thats fine.  the problem isnt the number of guns.  the problem is how society looks at guns, and treats guns.  with less guns society will still not respect guns.  id even go as far as to say that most law abiding citizens that have multiple guns have more respect for them than a lawbreaker with a single gun.

it was mentioned earlier how many deaths cars cause annually.  the answer isnt less cars, its more responsible driving.

i didnt watch the video posted by dbuc/dalbuc, but i think i would agree with it.  the problem is society, and trying to restrict anything/everything that can go wrong is not the answer.  it sounds great initially, but being responsible is the only answer.  and since we cant force responsibility, we as a society are just f-d.  we just gotta deal with it the best we can.

This really sums it right here , but PB boy is never going to accept or understand this concept .

A free society has to be populated by a majority of self-accountable and honorable people or it won't work . That starts at home with proper parenting. If we can't fix the culture then we might as well go for the all out tyranny and stop kidding ourselves. ( 310 million guns down to 155 million isn't going to do sh!t )  I , for one , refuse the less freedom option under any circumstances.  I take the Samuel Adams point of view : "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

That is all . I'm sick of going round in circles with an idiot.  / thread

[VinBucFan]

Why do you think we need guns for self defense ? You did say that , didn't you ?

The constitution allows for amendments,  so that we can alter anything we deem to not be working. " I support the constitution " is not a valid answer. I will ask you again : why do you support a limited right to bear arms?  I will answer your question after you answer mine.

lol, funny thing about you guys is you get answers you don't like and you declare them invalid. If enough people felt it within their interest to amend the Constitution, so be it. That's the process. I hope it would not be amended to make the 2nd an unlimited right to bear arms, lol, but I get that there is a legitimate interest in self defense, I don't deny that, never have that I can recall. Despite your fantasy claims to the contrary I have never advocated banning all guns, just reducing the number/type, which brings me back to the question i posted, let's see if you can give the first and best reponse:

 

[VinBucFan]

310 million guns down to 155 million isn't going to do sh!t

"Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0#h[SshNaa,1,6]

"There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet, 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. In 2012 alone there have been seven mass shootings, and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

"The U.S. has the most heavily armed civilian population in the world and we have, by several magnitudes, the highest gun-death rate outside of countries at war or facing drug wars.

More guns, more violence. More guns, more violence"

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/our-view/2013/01/25/more-guns-more-violence-no-coincidence/1311554

 

Basic logic: guns create a risk of death and injury. MORE guns create MORE of a risk of death and injury. LESS guns create LESS of a risk of death and injury.  It's really not that complicated and yet this is still posted:

310 million guns down to 155 million isn't going to do sh!t

The ironic part is that someone who actually typed that ^^^^^^^^^

also typed this:

I'm sick of going round in circles with an idiot. 

 

[GameTime]

That starts at home with proper parenting.

this.  or should i say the lack of this.

[GameTime]

vin - your post #395 seems well thought out.  not saying i agree with all of it, but most of it is pretty reasonable first glance imo. 

[VinBucFan]

That starts at home with proper parenting.

this.  or should i say the lack of this.

poor parenting is arguably our biggest problem in this country. The impact is felt across so many issues in life its terrifying.  We should be spending BILLIONS in dollars and man hours to improve parentingas it would go a long way to fixing some of our biggest social problems.

By most accounts Ms. Lanza was a pretty dedicated parent who spent a lot of time and money caring for a troubled child (and apparently other children as well).  She was also a gun enthusiast who kept at least FIVE guns in her home -- including an assault rifle -- along with a lot of ammunition.

[Biggs3535]

vin - im sure you can see what the problem in this thread is.  you stated a solution, yet you wont follow through on it.  i used to think runole was the master at diversion, but you are taking the cake.

if you dont have the answers, its okay to say you dont know.  its a message board, posters change their opinions all the time.  its no big deal.  but to ruin every thread is nonsense.

The caricature is completely oblivious to how he comes across on this message board, and thus has absolutely no shame.

[VinBucFan]

vin - your post #395 seems well thought out.  not saying i agree with all of it, but most of it is pretty reasonable first glance imo.

thanks, I certainly don't expect you or anyone to agree with it. I certainly don't have the answers, just trying to have an honest conversation