• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook gun sales surge raise accidental gun death rate.

Manc Skipper said:
There's a chilling logic here, and not a little karma.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gun-deaths-study-says/?utm_term=.8dc56f479c7f
Click to expand...

So 3,000,000 guns being sold in a country with already 300 million guns already owned by civilians somehow led to 60 more accidental deaths? I don't think it was the extra guns sales that did it. Looks like they are just grasping at straws. Because it doesn't say if these are repeat buyers or if the are people who never owned a gun before. It also doesn't say if any of these guns are ones anti-2nd amendment trash wish to ban, since those are the ones anti-2nd amendment trash are currently going after it makes sense people would go out and buy those guns and if those are the ones in the accidents.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
So 3,000,000 guns being sold in a country with already 300 million guns already owned by civilians somehow led to 60 more accidental deaths? I don't think it was the extra guns sales that did it. Looks like they are just grasping at straws. Because it doesn't say if these are repeat buyers or if the are people who never owned a gun before. It also doesn't say if any of these guns are ones anti-2nd amendment trash wish to ban, since those are the ones anti-2nd amendment trash are currently going after it makes sense people would go out and buy those guns.
Click to expand...
You would almost think the WaPo had a slant or something....
 
Rucker61 said:
We've gone from 35k traffic accident deaths in 20120 to 40k traffic accident deaths in 2016. What do you want to blame that on?
Click to expand...

Most traffic "accidents" are attributed to some negligent act. I would suspect more distracted driving but that is just a guess.
 
Rucker61 said:
We've gone from 35k traffic accident deaths in 20120 to 40k traffic accident deaths in 2016. What do you want to blame that on?
Click to expand...

You do this all the time. Guns and cars have nothing to do with each other. Why does every thread with the word 'gun' in the title have a reference to cars on the first page?
How's this- we'll all agree to pause at every mention of guns and reflect on the car analogy so that it doesn't have to be brought up again and again and again and...
 
Grand Mal said:
You do this all the time. Guns and cars have nothing to do with each other. Why does every thread with the word 'gun' in the title have a reference to cars on the first page?
How's this- we'll all agree to pause at every mention of guns and reflect on the car analogy so that it doesn't have to be brought up again and again and again and...
Click to expand...

When the media stop writing "scare" articles about guns and ignoring much larger causes of deaths, and the anti's quit posting them here.
 
Grand Mal said:
You do this all the time. Guns and cars have nothing to do with each other. Why does every thread with the word 'gun' in the title have a reference to cars on the first page?
How's this- we'll all agree to pause at every mention of guns and reflect on the car analogy so that it doesn't have to be brought up again and again and again and...
Click to expand...

Perhaps because most folks accept that operator error (negligence?) is the cause of most accidents whether the operation of a gun or vehicle is involved.
 
Rucker61 said:
When the media stop writing "scare" articles about guns and ignoring much larger causes of deaths, and the anti's quit posting them here.
Click to expand...

You want to draw that analogy, either make guns as regulated as cars or cars as unregulated as guns.
Don't get me wrong. I support your right to own whatever guns you want and can get. But why would you always draw that cars-guns comparison when you'd never accept guns being as regulated as cars? That's the only way the analogy could be valid, if they were teated equally under the law. You want that? Learners permits, graduated licenses, insurance requirements? Registration? Or abandon drivers licensing and all other regulations attached to vehicles. Then you have a valid comparison. Otherwise you're doing apples and oranges every time you see the word 'gun'.
 
Grand Mal said:
You want to draw that analogy, either make guns as regulated as cars or cars as unregulated as guns.
Don't get me wrong. I support your right to own whatever guns you want and can get. But why would you always draw that cars-guns comparison when you'd never accept guns being as regulated as cars? That's the only way the analogy could be valid, if they were teated equally under the law. You want that? Learners permits, graduated licenses, insurance requirements? Registration? Or abandon drivers licensing and all other regulations attached to vehicles. Then you have a valid comparison. Otherwise you're doing apples and oranges every time you see the word 'gun'.
Click to expand...

You don't need a background check to buy a car. And if you don't use it on public property, you don't need a license, registration or insurance either.
 
RF667799 said:
You don't need a background check to buy a car. And if you don't use it on public property, you don't need a license, registration or insurance either.
Click to expand...

I don't care. You're just helping prove my point- it's ridiculous to compare guns and cars. Why should I have to have boat registration and a life jacket for each person aboard when guys can ride unregistered snow machines into the back country without wearing a helmet? See how stupid these comparisons are?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most traffic "accidents" are attributed to some negligent act. I would suspect more distracted driving but that is just a guess.
Click to expand...

Same applies to firearms.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't care. You're just helping prove my point- it's ridiculous to compare guns and cars. Why should I have to have boat registration and a life jacket for each person aboard when guys can ride unregistered snow machines into the back country without wearing a helmet? See how stupid these comparisons are?
Click to expand...
Firearms are often owned for hunting purposes it is not all about shooting people? So, why do you keep a spare tire in your car if you have never had a flat tire? Why do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home when you have never had a fire? Now you know why some people have firearms.............
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't care. You're just helping prove my point- it's ridiculous to compare guns and cars. Why should I have to have boat registration and a life jacket for each person aboard when guys can ride unregistered snow machines into the back country without wearing a helmet? See how stupid these comparisons are?
Click to expand...

i'm not comparing guns and cars. I'm comparing the apparent focus on gun deaths, in this case unintentional gun deaths, compared to the focus on unintentional automobile deaths. The researchers' data and thus their conclusions are wrong anyway.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't care. You're just helping prove my point- it's ridiculous to compare guns and cars. Why should I have to have boat registration and a life jacket for each person aboard when guys can ride unregistered snow machines into the back country without wearing a helmet? See how stupid these comparisons are?
Click to expand...

That they are regulated differently is often part of the point when cars and guns are compared. Pointing out the difference in regulation doesn't refute the comparison itself. Besides, I was just pointing out that already none of the regulation you referenced in the case of cars applies to them when they aren't used on public property.

I don't think it's stupid to ask why boats and snow machines shouldn't be regulated likewise either. Here, they eventually got around to requiring a registration for ATVs, dirt bikes and the like when they are used on public property.
 
Last edited:
I'm now wondering if it wouldn't be so bad if guns were treated more like cars. You could buy, own, and use whatever you want on private property with no registration, waiting period, background check, etc.
 
Casper said:
Firearms are often owned for hunting purposes it is not all about shooting people? So, why do you keep a spare tire in your car if you have never had a flat tire? Why do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home when you have never had a fire? Now you know why some people have firearms.............
Click to expand...

Really? Firearms are often owned for hunting?
Whale oil beef hooked.
 
Grand Mal said:
Really? Firearms are often owned for hunting?
Whale oil beef hooked.
Click to expand...

Well then you got part of the message, now go read the rest, S L O W L Y...............
 
Casper said:
Well then you got part of the message, now go read the rest, S L O W L Y...............
Click to expand...

Why? Have you mistaken me for someone who doesn't think you should have whatever guns you want?
I suggest you read my posts in this thread, S L O W L Y.
Or don't bother. Easier to not think about what you read, just react to key words.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why? Have you mistaken me for someone who doesn't think you should have whatever guns you want?
I suggest you read my posts in this thread, S L O W L Y.
Or don't bother. Easier to not think about what you read, just react to key words.
Click to expand...

You say I can own whatever I want but you want to add a bunch more rules and regulations that make that more expensive and difficult for people to do so. There are a few states where they have taken this to it's extreme, you can own anything just so long as you can persuade someone to ok it and then charge a butt load of fees if lucky enough to get approved. No, I think I will pass on that non-sense as it makes no one safer and as far as I am concerned more regulations do violate my right to bear arms.
Question for you, if you can, how do you plan on dealing with those that already have a well stocked gun safe, with all the attachments to go with them, and a couple of Ammo Safes fully stocked, what new gun regulations can deal with that issue? Just so ya know, Anyone can write laws, enforcing them is a far different matter.
 
Casper said:
You say I can own whatever I want but you want to add a bunch more rules and regulations that make that more expensive and difficult for people to do so. There are a few states where they have taken this to it's extreme, you can own anything just so long as you can persuade someone to ok it and then charge a butt load of fees if lucky enough to get approved. No, I think I will pass on that non-sense as it makes no one safer and as far as I am concerned more regulations do violate my right to bear arms.
Question for you, if you can, how do you plan on dealing with those that already have a well stocked gun safe, with all the attachments to go with them, and a couple of Ammo Safes fully stocked, what new gun regulations can deal with that issue? Just so ya know, Anyone can write laws, enforcing them is a far different matter.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? I thought I told you to go back and read my posts. If you had, you wouldn't be saying something as stupid as, "...you want to add a bunch more rules and regulations..."
Listen. Carefully. I support your right to own whatever guns you want. I don't advocate you have more rules and regulations. I don't care if you own full-auto rifles, .50 cal. belt-fed machine guns, and RPG's. You need to learn to read, and understand, before you beak off.
Now go back and read what I've written here again. S L O W L Y.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom