LET'S BAN GUNS!

[DBTrek]

Regulations and innovations in car safety have reduced car fatalities without reducing the amount of morons.

Have they ever prevented one determined psychopath from plowing his vehicle into a crowd?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So why put more restrictions on it if we don't stop morons first?

Regulations and innovations in car safety have reduced car fatalities without reducing the amount of morons.

It's illegal to not wear a seatbelt, yet when someone dies because they don't wear their seatbelt, do we then make it so the cars won't start without someone clicking the seatbelt shut?

Then what happens if someone does that, then just latches it to the seat?

Do we make it so that it won't start unless a part of the seatbelt is extended? Or weight restrictions have to be met? Or both?

See what we are doing here? The more restrictions, the less freedom... the more restrictions the more money it's going to cost to enforce them, and in turn, the cost of cars become outrageous.

There is going to be a point of time where we say "Fuck it, let Darwinism take affect" and we should to... we have become a country of babies because we are afraid to get hurt this day and age. We either learn from our mistakes or not...

You might want more dangerous cars; sort of an own goal in the fight against tyranny, but cool.

Still, you can't really accuse people of being hypocrites for not worrying about car and highway safety when they worry about gun safety.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Regulations and innovations in car safety have reduced car fatalities without reducing the amount of morons.

Have they ever prevented one determined psychopath from plowing his vehicle into a crowd?

Do they need to have done that in order to have reduced the overall body count from automobile accidents/misuse?

[Montegriffo]

Heaven forbid one should lose one's freedom to carry an arsenal of weapons upto ones hotel room to fire into a crowd of country music fans.

The whole firing into a crowd of country music fans thing is already illegal, so rest easy.

Oh wait . . . you're still agitating for repercussions to be brought against the people who didn't fire at a crowd of concert goers though, right?
Of course.

No, I'm agitating for a conversation about how these events could be made less deadly or even stopped from happening. Turns out that conversation can't take place because of freedoms and rights. Sad.

[DBTrek]

Do they need to have done that in order to have reduced the overall body count from automobile accidents/misuse?

Of course not.
Are people agitating for abridging our 2nd Amendment rights in the wake of the nations largest mass shooting because they're trying to curb deaths from gun accidents?

No?

Then you're tilting at windmills.

[The Conservative]

Regulations and innovations in car safety have reduced car fatalities without reducing the amount of morons.

It's illegal to not wear a seatbelt, yet when someone dies because they don't wear their seatbelt, do we then make it so the cars won't start without someone clicking the seatbelt shut?

Then what happens if someone does that, then just latches it to the seat?

Do we make it so that it won't start unless a part of the seatbelt is extended? Or weight restrictions have to be met? Or both?

See what we are doing here? The more restrictions, the less freedom... the more restrictions the more money it's going to cost to enforce them, and in turn, the cost of cars become outrageous.

There is going to be a point of time where we say "Fuck it, let Darwinism take affect" and we should to... we have become a country of babies because we are afraid to get hurt this day and age. We either learn from our mistakes or not...

You might want more dangerous cars; sort of an own goal in the fight against tyranny, but cool.

Still, you can't really accuse people of being hypocrites for not worrying about car and highway safety when they worry about gun safety.

I want a car I can fix myself!

[DBTrek]

No, I'm agitating for a conversation about how these events could be made less deadly or even stopped from happening. Turns out that conversation can't take place because of freedoms and rights. Sad.

Use your brain, man.
Really.
Just try thinking for a moment.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the USA.
Murderous lunatics are going to kill people.

What sort of slippery-slope, restrictive, batty ass legislation are you going to pass that's going to stop lunatics from committing gun violence?

Because no matter what you do to us legal gun owners, there will still be lunatics and there will still be 300 million guns in this nation.

So please, quit wasting time with this pie in the sky "If we only steal a little more liberty, maybe THEN it'll all work out" bullshit.
This isn't merry ol' England, chap.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Do they need to have done that in order to have reduced the overall body count from automobile accidents/misuse?

Of course not.
Are people agitating for abridging our 2nd Amendment rights in the wake of the nations largest mass shooting because they're trying to curb deaths from gun accidents?

No?

Then you're tilting at windmills.

Then maybe we don't need to be discussing cars, fast food, or any other damn thing at all, since guns are categorically different. As is the specific right to them enshrined in our constitution.

I am not pro gun control. I am anti red herring.

[DBTrek]

I am not pro gun control. I am anti red herring.

You don't even feel a little guilty for two bald face lies in a row, do you?
Sad.

[Speaker to Animals]

Turns out that conversation can't take place because of freedoms and rights. Sad.

There's a keeper.