So educate me, why are so many cases not followed through on?
I am not disagreeing with you, but there may be some reason. Lack of resources?

Statistically this bears out. Put enough cars into a system, people will die by car. Put enough alcohol into a system and people will die by alcohol. Put enough forks into a system... you get the point. This goes back to the point that as ugly as it may seem, given the number of guns in our system, statistically a number greater than zero will eventually use them in a way we don't want.

So then why do you only want to target guns?

Law enforcement likes to bust people for big crimes, like murder with a gun. Busting a guy (and prosecuting him) for illegal possession of a gun, or illegally attempting to buy a gun, or making a straw purchase for someone who can't legally buy one, is boring. It's not sexy. It's a pain in the ass for a small sentence. It won't make headlines.

And it's about money.

More "big" crimes get an enforcement agency more funding.

In a way it's similar to the phenomenon we have around here. We have a fairly significant homeless problem here, and I'm talking about crazy alcoholics walking the streets (we have those too). I'm talking about "gutter punks". 20 something white kids with dreadlocks and pet dogs that aggressively pan handle, drink in public, smoke weed in public, do meth in public, shit and piss in pubic. It got to the point where it was hurting downtown businesses so the merchants banded together and convinced the police dept to beef up enforcement.

But here's the thing. Guess who's getting "enforced" upon? Us. The people who can pay the fines. Look like a dirt bag - harass passers bye while your dog bites people and shits on the sidewalk, get drunk on the streets - cops give you a warning.

Have a Nordstrom bag in your hand and J-walk across the street you're getting a fucking ticket without question.

Ever since the "crack down on aggressive panhandling" has commenced the cops have been cracking down on everyone except the fucking gutter punks.

Look, everyone knows who the shitty people are. We need to start dealing with them or we are going to see more shit like this cop getting killed.

It isn't guns, bro. It's shitty people and a refusal to do anything about them.

See my response above and clue me in on what additional laws could have been put in place to prevent this.



That's what I said to you originally. I didn't say anything about additional laws. I didn't say anything about existing laws. I said that these incidents will remain a prevalent part of your society, much more than other western countries with greater restrictions, as a consequence of the second amendment and the subsequent vast quantities of firearms in existence.

It matters not whether I or anyone else thinks the second amendment is good or bad. I don't think that's the point of the thread. The question was asked what the pro crowd think can be done to prevent this. Your honest answer should be 'nothing'. There are simply too many guns in circulation at this point in time to stop the wrong people getting their hands on them more easily than here, Canada, the UK etc.

You can't pretend that the second amendment doesn't come with serious consequences. But if/when that tyrannical government or invading country comes knocking, the USA will be thanking that second amendment. You also get to enjoy firing them for pleasure and hunting. There's good and bad.

So then why do you only want to target guns?

You're totally correct that people can use cars as lethal weapons just as easily (arguably more easily) as guns. Stats indicate that there's 'roughly' as many gun death as cars deaths. Though obviously there isn't the intent to harm with the majority of car deaths.

To remove or heavily restrict car ownership (to reduce deaths) would have significant impacts on society economically and socially (some might say a positive impact!). Much greater than a 'comparable' restriction on guns. I don't think many pro crowd could disagree.

IMO that's why it's pointless trying to group cars with guns in such a manner. But I'm open to alternative arguments.

your link didn't work but: there are 3 kinds of lies lies, damn lies, and statisics

See my response above and clue me in on what additional laws could have been put in place to prevent this.



That's what I said to you originally. I didn't say anything about additional laws. I didn't say anything about existing laws. I said that these incidents will remain a prevalent part of your society, much more than other western countries with greater restrictions, as a consequence of the second amendment and the subsequent vast quantities of firearms in existence.

It matters not whether I or anyone else thinks the second amendment is good or bad. I don't think that's the point of the thread. The question was asked what the pro crowd think can be done to prevent this. Your honest answer should be 'nothing'. There are simply too many guns in circulation at this point in time to stop the wrong people getting their hands on them more easily than here, Canada, the UK etc.

You can't pretend that the second amendment doesn't come with serious consequences. But if/when that tyrannical government or invading country comes knocking, the USA will be thanking that second amendment. You also get to enjoy firing them for pleasure and hunting. There's good and bad.

Well, obviously we need to outlaw guns. Because guys like this, who illegally obtained their guns, will then certainly follow the law.

Link worked for me.

I'm not sure if the point was to highlight how many gun deaths are suicide (i.e. Can't compare raw gross numbers)? That's fine. I think they mentioned 65% of say 30,000 total (rough figure). Another two percent accidental from memory. Leaves about 30%, or say 9000 intended deaths.

If the ~30,000 annual vehicle fatalities, how many would you say were intended? Just a guess. I don't know, but I'd say it's nowhere near 9,000.

The primary point though is the implication of banning cars to reduce deaths. The societal impact is much greater. That's why I think comparing guns to cars is pointless. You simply can't restrict cars without having a massive impact on citizens. At least in our western societies built around urban sprawl.

The existing laws don't appear to be working. But for now and likely a long time to come that's the collateral damage you're prepared to accept for that privilege. I'm not sure much more can be done.

The car comparison just doesn't wash. Cars have a purpose that it would be massively inconvenient to live without. . Millions of people use cars every day for hours. Guns are for hurting or killing. Like I said before I appreciate the self-defense arguement and use for hunting.

I'd be willing to guess that there are MANY, MANY more guns out there then cars (very few families own more than 2-3 cars). So really, the deaths "per capita" by car vs gun has cars being MUCH more lethal. Someone smarter than me can look up statistics...

So you say. But guns protect and save lives every day. Cars don't have that intended purpose...so they are inherently worse than a firearm (having no "life saving/protecting" purpose). So YOU say that cars serve an everyday purpose that would be "massively inconvenient" to be without. I think the lack of the ability to "save and protect" lives is also "massively inconvenient". Sure there are bad things that happen with cars (statistically much more negative per car than per firearm), just as there are bad things that happen with a firearm...

It all depends on what angle you look at this for your perspective.

Personally, I agree with the "bad people will do bad things with whatever they can get". Removing firearms won't limit "bad things", it will just put that number in another category, all the while taking away the "other" intended uses of those firearms (which I believe are very good uses).