CC at Mt Rushmore

[RX-79G]

wait, wut? Drunk drivers kill thousands more people annually than guns but cars are a tiny fraction of crime use?

Is there ever a point in your discussions where you stop, sit back and think.... maybe my opinion isnt exactly the right one?

You misread. Drunk driving is a tiny fraction of all driving.


250,000 people per year are killed by medical mistakes, but that doesn't mean medicine should be banned, either.

 

[Koda]

You misread. Drunk driving is a tiny fraction of all driving.

what? thats not what you said at all. and I did not misread what you said its right there in this thread.

cars: "a tiny fraction of their use is criminal"

So you support gun control. But every analogy you use to support that idea literally proves it untrue.

 

[kmk1012]

There is no comparison between having a spare tire - which has no downsides, aside from taking up trunk space - and letting drunk idiots take dangerous stuff into crowded public places where fights are common.


Nope. I was pointing out that the prohibition on fireworks had nothing to do with Biden, except that he allowed the government agency that knows best how to preserve a national monument to go back to doing its job after a President that did whatever he wanted overrode the Park Service.

Actually there is a downside, added weight which consumes more fuel. Even the fed govt is smart enough to know that. Hence the reason weight reductions/fuel savings have been mandated. But, I still carry a spare because the govt thinks I'm dumb.

 

[RX-79G]

what? thats not what you said at all. and I did not misread what you said its right there in this thread.

cars: "a tiny fraction of their use is criminal"

So you support gun control. But every analogy you use to support that idea literally proves it untrue.

Not sure what you're misunderstanding, but here's what I said:

You also don't need to ban cars because a tiny fraction of their use is criminal.

In the context of DUIs and drunkenness in general, I pointed out that criminal use of cars (like DUI) is only a very tiny portion of the total number of miles that cars are driven. Meaning that banning all the legitimate and necessary uses of cars to combat the relatively small number of criminal uses of cars would be disproportionate. There are other kinds of criminal uses of cars, but I was using the most common kind of criminal driving as an example.



Everyone supports gun control. The only difference is what anyone thinks is "reasonable". Virtually all 2A fans are all for disarming people when they are arrested after a violent crime. That is also gun control.

 

[RX-79G]

Actually there is a downside, added weight which consumes more fuel. Even the fed govt is smart enough to know that. Hence the reason weight reductions/fuel savings have been mandated. But, I still carry a spare because the govt thinks I'm dumb.

Sure. Given that 100 pounds equals about 1% of gas efficiency in a typical automobile, a 25 pound spare would make a 40 mile per gallon car drop to 39.9 mpg.

 

[Koda]

Not sure what you're misunderstanding, but here's what I said:



In the context of DUIs and drunkenness in general, I pointed out that criminal use of cars (like DUI) is only a very tiny portion of the total number of miles that cars are driven. Meaning that banning all the legitimate and necessary uses of cars to combat the relatively small number of criminal uses of cars would be disproportionate. There are other kinds of criminal uses of cars, but I was using the most common kind of criminal driving as an example.



Everyone supports gun control. The only difference is what anyone thinks is "reasonable". Virtually all 2A fans are all for disarming people when they are arrested after a violent crime. That is also gun control.

whether or not a device is a fraction of its criminal use is moot. Comparing car control to gun control has always been a fallacy, both are controlled but there is no prohibition movement for cars yet they kill way more people annually than guns. So theres no point in going down this rabbit hole.

What people think is reasonable are gun laws that only affect the criminal, gun rights proponents do not support gun laws that only affect the lawful. Like gun free zones. GFZs have never prevented shootings, they have made them worse. Why anyone would want to support them is beyond me, especially anyone who claims to be a gun rights supporter....

 

[RX-79G]

whether or not a device is a fraction of its criminal use is moot. Comparing car control to gun control has always been a fallacy, both are controlled but there is no prohibition movement for cars yet they kill way more people annually than guns. So theres no point in going down this rabbit hole.

What people think is reasonable are gun laws that only affect the criminal, gun rights proponents do not support gun laws that only affect the lawful. Like gun free zones. GFZs have never prevented shootings, they have made them worse. Why anyone would want to support them is beyond me, especially anyone who claims to be a gun rights supporter....

I agree that it is a poor comparison. So you should complain to the guy that brought it up. Not me.

I'm addressing your former comments, and I further contend that drunk drivers cause an infinitesimal amount more of death, destruction, and overall detriment to society than a random drunken blow-hard in a bar arguing with another drunken mental "giant".

 

[Stomper]

wait, wut? Drunk drivers kill thousands more people annually than guns but cars are a tiny fraction of crime use?

Is there ever a point in your discussions where you stop, sit back and think.... maybe my opinion isnt exactly the right one?

It's not the "progressive"way, they never admit their errors. They only deflect, obfuscate the subject, and only double down on them…. It's all about "winning" for them.

 

[Koda]

I agree that it is a poor comparison. So you should complain to the guy that brought it up. Not me.

He brought it up in the context of its fallacy. I was just responding to your use of the subject. But I'll acknowledge that you didnt bring it up.

 

[kmk1012]

So, I started this thread yesterday and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, LOL.

 

[RX-79G]

He brought it up in the context of its fallacy. I was just responding to your use of the subject. But I'll acknowledge that you didnt bring it up.

Not only did I not bring it up, I was pointing out that it didn't compare. So I don't know what your issue is.

 

[ma96782]

what does that have to do with preventing someone illegally bringing a gun into a bar and starting a fight?

That regulations about where you can carry are sometimes worthwhile because you sometimes have to account for the dummies. Everything in a society can't be viewed through the lens of personal liberty.

LOL......I'd venture to guess that many citizens and even the founding fathers were/might have been armed while at Ye Ol' Pub (back in those days).

Aloha, Mark

PS........perhaps......the biggest CHANGE came when the PUNISHMENT changed (think about a MURDER CONVICTION).

 

[RX-79G]

LOL......I'd venture to guess that many citizens and even the founding fathers were/might have been armed while at Ye Ol' Pub (back in those days).

Aloha, Mark

PS........perhaps......the biggest CHANGE came when the PUNISHMENT changed (think about a MURDER CONVICTION).

With what? Swords?

The usual squirrel rifle would interfere with the raising of tankards and the ingestion of ye olde corn nuts.

 

[Cavedweller]

You also don't need to ban cars because a tiny fraction of their use is criminal. But you might regulate their use via road design, speed limits and active enforcement to mitigate criminal misuse of cars.

Right, because criminals will obey speed limits.

That's kind of how gun control laws work, isn't it?

 

[ma96782]

With what? Swords?

AGAIN.

Aloha, Mark

 

[RX-79G]

Right, because criminals will obey speed limits.

That's kind of how gun control laws work, isn't it?

Not really. Many people who would speed don't because they don't want the hassle of a ticket, not because they consider it their civic duty.

Some people would not do something violent when sober, nor would they break a law. But drunk they act differently.


So there isn't just one kind of criminal mindset and motivation. You're clumping all criminals into the premeditated class, and then saying that laws don't work on them so there is no point. That isn't reality.

 

[Jay Walk]

There is no comparison between having a spare tire - which has no downsides, aside from taking up trunk space - and letting drunk idiots take dangerous stuff into crowded public places where fights are common.


Nope. I was pointing out that the prohibition on fireworks had nothing to do with Biden, except that he allowed the government agency that knows best how to preserve a national monument to go back to doing its job after a President that did whatever he wanted overrode the Park Service.

A President that did whatever he wanted?
You are still asleep then.

 

[RX-79G]

View attachment 1449862
AGAIN.

Aloha, Mark

Nope. You miss the fact that pistols weren't something people commonly carried on their persons. So talking about Americans in the 18th century CCing or otherwise retaining arms at the tavern is just kind of silly.

 

[RX-79G]

A President that did whatever he wanted?
You are still asleep then.

So you gave up on blaming the current President?

 

[ma96782]

Nope. You miss the fact that pistols weren't something people commonly carried on their persons. So talking about Americans in the 18th century CCing or otherwise retaining arms at the tavern is just kind of silly.

The early Americans could carry whatever firearm, long gun or handgun, that they wanted to (and I suspect that also included while at Ye Ol' Pub). Dressing and "carrying" for a particular occasion, as the person thought was appropriate.

Of course. While in "militia practice," the long gun would probably be more appropriate (or perhaps, REQUIRED) for the occasion. Bringing along a handgun, was probably NOT frowned upon either.

So then (back then)......IF, someone CHOSE to carry in a Pub. It was probably a personal decision.

No law to prohibit such.....FREEDOM.

But I admit, that I could be wrong. So.....IF.......YOU know of any particular law or prohibition against the carrying in Ye Ol' Pub from back in that era? Please post it.

Aloha, Mark

PS......"silly" is making gun laws against and/or not understanding......

"........shall not be infringed."