Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[ivwshane]

Quoting you: "We do indeed have restrictions on who can and cannot buy cigarettes."

I named the only restriction I can think of regarding who can and cannot buy cigarettes. If you can think of any besides age or maybe being a prisoner then have at.

I don't need to as it was irrelevant to my point, a point you don't seem to grasp.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

If your hate speech was being suppressed I would protest to allow it. I'd fight for your right to use libelous or slanderous speech but hopefully you'd be aware of the legal consequences for doing so.

That sounds like a person's right to commit murder but to be aware of the legal consequences? My point is there are already legal consequences that make free speech somewhat limited. No rights are fully unlimited.

 

[soulcougher73]

He didnt use a AR he used a Sig Sauer MCX.

Im sure the dead will be glad to know it wasnt an AR-15, but instead a gun modeled after an AR-15. They will sleep easier now....

 

[glenn1]

I don't need to as it was irrelevant to my point, a point you don't seem to grasp.

Yeah, I guess it would be irrelevant to you what approaches work and which don't.

With smoking we took an approach of not banning them and convincing the consumers not to buy them. The results were hugely positive. With guns you want to double down on the same banning approach that hasn't worked and wondered scratch your head wondering why the results are hugely negative from your POV (more weapons sold then ever). At some point rational people would abandon an approach that was a catastrophic failure and convert instead to the approach that worked, but you're anything but a rational person aren't you?

 

[soulcougher73]

More people die in ladder falls than mass shootings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isYF5E0WxGU

The frequency of shootings? They are a statistically insignificant amount as a percentage of all deaths for the average citizen not engaged in crime or gangs or suicides. You'd be far better off requiring ignition interlock in ever vehicle made and mandating retrofitting all vehicles to prevent 100% of dwi deaths, accidents..etc.

So now were going to compare accidents to shooting crimes? Apples and Oranges anyone?

 

[soulcougher73]

What huge problem?

Define huge.

It's just a little bit bigger than Trumps hands. His are just yuge.

 

[glenn1]

So now were going to compare accidents to shooting crimes? Apples and Oranges anyone?

The same number system used to count apples and oranges can likewise count the number of accidents and shooting and compare the two. If I said both "Jhhnn saying something smart" and mass shootings were rare I'm not comparing anything about them except for how often they occur.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I understand rights are not unlimited. I cannot go to Gander Mountain and buy an automatic weapon. I cannot use free speech to start a riot. (though maybe I should be able to?) But my point is more to how much more do we keep whittling away our freedoms in an effort towards a 'safer' society?

I don't have a good answer, but I suppose this is what a healthy debate is. I'm sure everyone's thresholds are different. For the extremes on both sides though, I don't think they're even giving this a fair evaluation.

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on this. Second hand smoke kills between 3-4 people for every single person murdered with a gun in this country, and no one give a shit about limiting smoking rights. Why are guns held to a different standard when other freedoms no one care about limiting plainly put more innocent victims' dead bodies in the ground?

The problem is every time we compare guns with smoking with cars, etc. is that they're extremely different objects. To your smoking comparison, people smoke for their own enjoyment, not with the intent to cause harm. While that can be said of most firearm owners, you have people who intend to use them to cause harm. So what's the appropriate comparison on the side of smoking? Second hand smoke, while harmful isn't intentionally done to harm others. That's why there's plenty of laws about smoking indoors, 20 ft away from a building, etc. The equivalent of someone going on a shooting spree would be someone to capture second hand smoke in a large gas tank and then lock a bunch of people up in that room and pipe all that second hand smoke in. It's the intention to cause harm that really makes the difference.

And for the most part I think people recognize and accept that guns, while they have their uses, are inherently dangerous objects such that they are subject to extra screening, precautions, and regulations. I'm not necessarily saying we need more, but there are pretty logical reasons why mass shootings get a lot more attention than car accidents.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Quoting you: "We do indeed have restrictions on who can and cannot buy cigarettes."

I named the only restriction I can think of regarding who can and cannot buy cigarettes. If you can think of any besides age or maybe being a prisoner then have at.

Glenn I believe the point is cigarettes have more sale & transportation restrictions than guns.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Smoking has had several restrictions put on it in many states. Increased taxes, more increased taxes, more increased taxes, no smoking in Federal buildings, 21 to purchase (CA?), restrictions on cigarettes in the military, no smoking in public parks.
I'm good with a tax on guns. Set it around 70% like it is on cigarettes. Make health insurance cost close to double if there is a gun in the house, allow employers not to hire a gun owner due to health care costs, have the government make bulk sales across state lines illegal, make their resale illegal.

You keep saying it but it simply isn't true.

Maybe I could have been clearer. My point is that smoking has some pretty smallish restrictions (the 70% tax sounds like something until you remember that even with that tax we're still talking about lunch money for a pack of smokes) and no one is looking for further restriction. Smoking kills more innocent people than guns, that is the bottom line, and no one really cares because there isn't a political party leveraging that for votes.

The problem is every time we compare guns with smoking with cars, etc. is that they're extremely different objects. To your smoking comparison, people smoke for their own enjoyment, not with the intent to cause harm. While that can be said of most firearm owners, you have people who intend to use them to cause harm. So what's the appropriate comparison on the side of smoking? Second hand smoke, while harmful isn't intentionally done to harm others. That's why there's plenty of laws about smoking indoors, 20 ft away from a building, etc. The equivalent of someone going on a shooting spree would be someone to capture second hand smoke in a large gas tank and then lock a bunch of people up in that room and pipe all that second hand smoke in. It's the intention to cause harm that really makes the difference.

And for the most part I think people recognize and accept that guns, while they have their uses, are inherently dangerous objects such that they are subject to extra screening, precautions, and regulations. I'm not necessarily saying we need more, but there are pretty logical reasons why mass shootings get a lot more attention than car accidents.

I get the intent side of it, and can see what you are saying... no one tries to give others cancer with their cigarettes where people do actively try and harm with a gun. Fair enough.

But, with that being said, the bottom line is cigarettes kill far more innocent people than guns do. If we are trying to make society safer, have less people dying from the actions of others, why is smoking barely a blip on the radar whereas guns are almost the only thing on the radar? I feel like guns are demonized because they cause a different emotional reaction than other things that kill people do. But, once you cut past the emotional aspect, you see that the cold hard fact of the matter is that guns harm fewer people than other freedoms no one care about limiting further.

And for the record, I'm for background checks on all gun sales, even private ones. I feel that is a worthwhile and reasonable change that can have a positive effect on gun violence. But I can't stand the feel good do nothing laws like gun free zones, capacity limits, etc.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Maybe I could have been clearer. My point is that smoking has some pretty smallish restrictions (the 70% tax sounds like something until you remember that even with that tax we're still talking about lunch money for a pack of smokes) and no one is looking for further restriction. Smoking kills more innocent people than guns, that is the bottom line, and no one really cares because there isn't a political party leveraging that for votes.





I get the intent side of it, and can see what you are saying... no one tries to give others cancer with their cigarettes where people do actively try and harm with a gun. Fair enough.

But, with that being said, the bottom line is cigarettes kill far more innocent people than guns do. If we are trying to make society safer, have less people dying from the actions of others, why is smoking barely a blip on the radar whereas guns are almost the only thing on the radar? I feel like guns are demonized because they cause a different emotional reaction than other things that kill people do. But, once you cut past the emotional aspect, you see that the cold hard fact of the matter is that guns harm fewer people than other freedoms no one care about limiting further.
.

No one buys just one pack it would be like a gun you can't reload but I understand your point. I just don't agree.

 

[soulcougher73]

The same number system used to count apples and oranges can likewise count the number of accidents and shooting and compare the two. If I said both "Jhhnn saying something smart" and mass shootings were rare I'm not comparing anything about them except for how often they occur.

I get that. But one is an accident while the other is usually intentional. Seems kind of hard to compare the two equally outside of just numbers. Cant stop accidents. We can try to do something about the other.

 

[Jimzz]

I saw this the other night and started laughing. Typical conservative. Once Muslims and immigrants get their hands on AR-15s it is time to start banning them. I guarantee you if this guy wasnt a gay muslim but instead a white guy from middle murrica. Ole Bill would be talking about how ineffective gun bans and expanded background checks are and how we cant trample the 2nd amendment for white murrica.

Yep I knew it would happen as well as soon as Muslims used their "2nd amendment rights".

Same reason CA does not allow open carry anymore, Blacks back in the day started to use that right as well. So that ended that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I get that. But one is an accident while the other is usually intentional. Seems kind of hard to compare the two equally outside of just numbers. Cant stop accidents. We can try to do something about the other.

Intent is different, but are you sure we don't do things to improve how many accidents there are?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Intent is different, but are you sure we don't do things to improve how many accidents there are?

People falling off ladders or cars getting into accidents is a different discussion that's why stuff never gets done lately. Lets focus on the majority of people D & R support better background checks and some kind of waiting period, even the majority of gun owners too. Add something useful and be part of the solution or mindlessly distract, divert or ignore the majority. Don't be disappointed if you don't like the results when you choose not to participate.

 

[LegendKiller]

People falling off ladders or cars getting into accidents is a different discussion that's why stuff never gets done lately. Lets focus on the majority of people D & R support better background checks and some kind of waiting period, even the majority of gun owners too. Add something useful and be part of the solution or mindlessly distract, divert or ignore the majority. Don't be disappointed if you don't like the results when you don't participate.

My point on dwis is valid and they aren't just accidents.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My point on dwis is valid and they aren't just accidents.

Wasn't directed at you. Assuming you're talking about Driving While Intoxicated. That is a valid topic and worth its own separate discussion. We should not allow guns to distract from it and we should not allow DWI to distract from guns.

 

[LegendKiller]

Wasn't directed at you. Assuming you're talking about Driving While Intoxicated. That is a valid topic and worth its own separate discussion. We should not allow guns to distract from it and we should not allow DWI to distract from guns.

I made a point above that dwis could be prevented by ignition interlock snd save more lives than non crime and gang related homicide. Somebody said that you can't compare the two since those are accidents, they aren't. I thought it was you who said that. Sorry if I made a mistake.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I made a point above that dwis could be prevented by ignition interlock snd save more lives than non crime and gang related homicide. Somebody said that you can't compare the two since those are accidents, they aren't. I thought it was you who said that. Sorry if I made a mistake.

NP, yes its a worthwhile discussion just not to be discussed with guns

 

[soulcougher73]

I made a point above that dwis could be prevented by ignition interlock snd save more lives than non crime and gang related homicide. Somebody said that you can't compare the two since those are accidents, they aren't. I thought it was you who said that. Sorry if I made a mistake.

It was me who said that. I missed the ignition interlock part which ill concede is valid, but still for another discussion. But in general comparing ladder falls and other silly accidents to gun related killings is rather silly. Nobody sets out with the intent "hey, i want to fall off a ladder today and die".

 

[LegendKiller]

It was me who said that. I missed the ignition interlock part which ill concede is valid, but still for another discussion. But in general comparing ladder falls and other silly accidents to gun related killings is rather silly. Nobody sets out with the intent "hey, i want to fall off a ladder today and die".

It's not for another discussion. People freak out about guns but fail to recognize the relative statistical insignificantness of their impact. Your efforts would be better used in banning things that have more impact and save more lives and money. Penny foolish, pound foolish.

What failed here isn't background checks or terror watch lists. The fbi failed. He wasn't on a watch list. They were warned, repeatedly, that he was a risk. By disney, by gun stores. Yet they did nothing.

Meanwhile, the dhs and others (inclusinf fbi) continue the pc trend of removing "radical islam" from material and training to placate liberal nutballs.

 

[SlowSpyder]

People falling off ladders or cars getting into accidents is a different discussion that's why stuff never gets done lately. Lets focus on the majority of people D & R support better background checks and some kind of waiting period, even the majority of gun owners too. Add something useful and be part of the solution or mindlessly distract, divert or ignore the majority. Don't be disappointed if you don't like the results when you choose not to participate.

I am NOT mindlessly distracting or diverting. I'm pointing out that other things that are probably more easily preventable kill far more people than guns, and no one cares. If this is really about making society safer, why is that? Wonder why there is no NRA-like organization protecting the 21st amendment even though alcohol kills more people than guns, tens of thousands more..? No one is talking about a cigarette ban or background checks even though second hand smoke kills more than every gun murder, accident, and suicide combined... thousands more. Do you feel any better burying your loved one who was shot vs. got ran over by a drunk driver?

I agree gun violence is a problem. Absolutely, and one we can do better on. But I don't get how there is so much focus on something that kills significantly less than all these other things. I feel the anti-gun side is more lead by propaganda and fear than logic, to be honest. Freedom carries risk.

 

[jackstar7]

Wait... you don't think there's an NRA-like organization protecting alcohol and spirits?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wait... you don't think there's an NRA-like organization protecting alcohol and spirits?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I do not believe there is an organization comparable to the NRA for alcohol, if I am wrong feel free to educate me instead of trying to make yourself feel superior. I'm not here to dick size, don't be cryptic, what organization are you talking about that is comparable to the NRA that helps defends the rights of alcohol drinkers from those who want to repeal the 21st?

You avoided the greater point being made completely...

 

[jackstar7]

I do not believe there is an organization comparable to the NRA for alcohol, if I am wrong feel free to educate me instead of trying to make yourself feel superior. I'm not here to dick size, don't be cryptic, what organization are you talking about that is comparable to the NRA that helps defends the rights of alcohol drinkers from those who want to repeal the 21st?

You avoided the greater point being made completely...

On the contrary, I think you're missing the point that each of these industries has a massive lobbying arm.

The NRA has no interest in protecting anyone's rights other than the gun manufacturers' rights to make as much money as possible. There is likewise a lobbying arm of the alcohol industry that works to make sure their industry makes as much money as possible. Alcohol fights against mj legalization similarly to how pharma does.

None of these organizations care about your rights. They care about your money and taking it from you as efficiently as possible.