Drunk driving deaths

[GandD 5,966]

1) While you cna argue that a gun's main purpose is to kill things, I have used them for many years, and thus far the only things I have killed are what food I put on the table and many, many targets. Choosing the WRONG target is the fault of the end user. Also, consider the origins on the term "car bomb". Again, depends on the intent of the end user.

2) Even pro-gun folks don't mind better controls. I am ALL ABOUT tight background checks. I am all about removing one's right to carry because of a DUI, at least for a period of time. But I think the law goes way too far, also; consider a guy who has consensual sex with a minor (but doesn't know she was a minor at the time). By our laws, he can go to jail for that. And because he goes to jail, he is never allowed to own a gun for the rest of his life. Now THAT is ridiculous by just about anyone's logic.

No, a gun is used to kill. Is that not the reason you own one? To defend yourself? Is the intent to fire it in the air or at the person/thing you plan to defend yourself against. The comment about the car-bomb is nonsense. The intention is certainly in the mind of the manufacturer and these things are purpose built.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Do you really consider the part in bold a legitimate question?

I'm saying it is an interesting view point. If I carry a gun, but never harm anyone, you might think I am weird for carrying, but I have done nothing illegal (given that I am carrying it legally). If I drink and carry that same gun, same thing. If I drink, get drunk, then go to sleep it off in my car because I know I am not sober, I will be arrested if I am caught. Yet I did nothing wrong. Doesn't that strike you as a tad extreme? I mean, we are used to it, because it has become the law in the US, the norm even. But is it right?

The DUI laws are there to protect people, I understand. And obviously, there are enough alcohol-related deaths in the US to warrant action being taken. But you don't just arrest a guy standing outside a jewelry store looking in as if he's casing the joint, until he actually tried to rob the place. Unless it's Marvin, of course...

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

No, a gun is used to kill. Is that not the reason you own one? To defend yourself? Is the intent to fire it in the air or at the person/thing you plan to defend yourself against. The comment about the car-bomb is nonsense. The intention is certainly in the mind of the manufacturer and these things are purpose built.

No. I have never bought a gun to defend myself. I was given my first gun at the ripe old age of seven, and I was taught how to shoot and hunt with it. I have never used it to kill another human.

[GandD 5,966]

No. I have never bought a gun to defend myself. I was given my first gun at the ripe old age of seven, and I was taught how to shoot and hunt with it. I have never used it to kill another human.

Hunting is killing. I'm not against it, but its still purpose built to kill. Which is my point. A gun is built to kill things.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'm saying it is an interesting view point. If I carry a gun, but never harm anyone, you might think I am weird for carrying, but I have done nothing illegal (given that I am carrying it legally). If I drink and carry that same gun, same thing. If I drink, get drunk, then go to sleep it off in my car because I know I am not sober, I will be arrested if I am caught. Yet I did nothing wrong. Doesn't that strike you as a tad extreme? I mean, we are used to it, because it has become the law in the US, the norm even. But is it right?

The DUI laws are there to protect people, I understand. And obviously, there are enough alcohol-related deaths in the US to warrant action being taken. But you don't just arrest a guy standing outside a jewelry store looking in as if he's casing the joint, until he actually tried to rob the place. Unless it's Marvin, of course...

You've changed your statement. Your original statement was this: if a person drives intoxicated, but does nothing wrong, have they really committed a crime? Two completely different scenarios.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

1) Interesting.

2) I was referring to a drunk driver strapping one on, not a commuter. Potentially, it becomes a murder weapon. (Then again, someone here posted a good point that if a person drives intoxicated, but does nothing wrong, have they really committed a crime? Yet they are prosecuted as such).

3) Kind of, in an extremist sort of view. But in either case, the item can only do what the person responsible for its control allows it to do. Both can do good, both can ruin lives.

When you've seen what both do to a person that has a very important role in your life, it either turns you into one, or makes you fight against it. I'm the latter.

Now a days, folks think a few beers aren't a big deal. If one ounce of alcohol enters my system, my keys are given up, without hesitation.

A gun is a weapon, no matter how you frame it. That's it's primary goal. You can use it to protect someone, or for sport. But it's always going to be a weapon first and foremost.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

How did I know that when I clicked on the last page of this topic, I'd be reading about guns? Never change.

[Teddy B 17,252]

How did I know that when I clicked on the last page of this topic, I'd be reading about guns? Never change.

Guns is what it was really about from post one.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Guns is what it was really about from post one.

Always is. I know people don't actually care about drunk driving deaths or motor vehicle deaths. They simply like to compare them to other kinds of violence even when there's no comparison at all. Logic never wins.

[GandD 5,966]

Which technically qualifies it as a "bait thread"

[Teddy B 17,252]

Always is. I know people don't actually care about drunk driving deaths or motor vehicle deaths. They simply like to compare them to other kinds of violence even when there's no comparison at all. Logic never wins.

The only logical conclusion that could possibly be drawn is that we have a gun problem in this country. That's why the gun aficionados will never be logical when it comes to this issue.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Hunting is killing. I'm not against it, but its still purpose built to kill. Which is my point. A gun is built to kill things.

What about target shooting, skeet shooting, trap shooting, competitive shooting? Shooting is even an Olympic event. So I call bs on the only thing a gun is built for is killing. I know people that have shot competitively for decades and have never killed anything.

[decocker 7,198]

SKEET SHOOTING!

[GandD 5,966]

What about target shooting, skeet shooting, trap shooting, competitive shooting? Shooting is even an Olympic event. So I call bs on the only thing a gun is built for is killing. I know people that have shot competitively for decades and have never killed anything.

Do they build guns specifically designed for this type of activity? If so, what % of guns in circulation is this?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

SKEET SHOOTING!

Have you ever tried it?