TheGreatBuzz

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular and it wasn't supposed to be anything religious. Just a question I like to ask sometimes. It's just two topics that both sides usually feel strongly about and it's interesting to see where people are willing to give and take. EDIT: For the record I am an atheist and believe abortion is wrong in most cases. I also accept it isn't my job to impose my morals on you so I consider myself pro-choice.

Out of curiosity, would you (democrats for simplicity sake) agree to leave gun control alone if we (republicans for simplicity sake) agreed to leave abortion alone?

Show me the website that says the civilian version is "specifically designed for hunting people". I know people that hunt animals with an AR. That is not a gun though. That is a modification. It's like adding a super charger to your car. Now if you want to talk about whether or not a certain add on should be allowed, I'm totally open for that discussion. But your out of the box AR will do a lot of the same things that out of the box hunting rifle does.

I had to teach this to my wife. I showed her a picture of a AR-15 and a wood stock semi-auto hunting rifle. She said the AR should be banned but the hunting rifle was okay. She was surprised when I explained to her that they were both capable of doing the exact same thing. It's just the look that scares people. I suspect a lot of the population just isn't that informed about guns. That's why some call the assault weapons ban the "scary looking gun" ban.

But how will they know what guns that person has to ensure they are all turned over? It's not like there is a list or registry of all the gun owners and what they have. Or is there? Maybe a secret list? That's how Obama is going to come take all our guns!! I knew it !!!

True. But the person didn't just suggest limiting access to guns. Or even major legislation making guns much harder to get. He talked about going door to door and taking ALL guns. I would imagine if ALL privacy laws went away, the right to vote were completely taken away from 100% of the people, or freedom of speech were 100% repealed, you'd see a lot of talk of civil war. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for civil war. Just making a point.

#4 -It would more than likely start a no **** civil war.

Your third paragraph was a fact used to answer my question. Thank you. The rest of your post was just your biased opinion. You are entitled to it but when you want to make a point, just stick to the facts. It will go a lot further.

Curious how you know this?

Good article but seems that a foregone conclusion was reached before it was written. I hate that. Put up both sides and if your side really is better, it will win. This was very one-sided. I say all this as a republican, gun owning supporter of the Second Amendment (the way most republicans interpret it).

Well I stayed out of the "merits" of each side like poster I was responding to asked. And I see we have fallen back to the same ole "piss and moan about the other sides stance and not put forward a solution that both sides might actually agree on" stance. Now cue the "well the gun lobby won't let any changes be made" and the "the other sides stance is stupid so why should be negotiate" responses. Like I said, this is like every other issue we face today. Both sides are so dug into their own positions that they won't honestly consider another idea. Instead they will just mock the other sides position. They may even throw out some twisted or completely made up "facts" to support their position.

It pretty much comes down to restricting gun rights vs. doing something about mental health. There is a lot more detail and levels to it but that is the two general sides. But like pretty much every single issue facing America today, the two sides are so far apart and have their heels dug in so deep that common sense, middle ground solutions can't be reached. So the average citizen is left with having to learn how to duck and cover.

Is it just me or does it seem like there is a few teams out there that looked at the trainwreck the Redskins organization was up until recently and said "We should try that!" I don't get it.

Pretty much whoever is the next coach of the Browns, it's a bad idea for that coach.

So what would it take to fix it? Honest question. Can a new law fix it? A constitional amendment? How many people would support something like that? I think it would be a good idea but am curious to hear others opinions.

So I have been giving this some more thought. I think one solution I would like to see that may solve a lot of across the board issues is to severely limit the power of lobby groups. And more specifically limit the ability of companies to lobby. I think it is pretty well understood that a large portion of individuals don't agree with the NRA. But they are looking at for the gun industry, not gun owners. So if we limit the powers of corporate lobbyist then maybe the government would be forced to listen to the people and not the corporations. Thought?

Thank you. My birthday is actually today. We were just celebrating Friday since we will be busy celebrating a playoff win today (hopefully)!

You obviously don't pay much attention to what I post. I think the "Obama is muslim, hates America, taking out guns, etc" crowd are retarded. I'm one of the usually quiet sane Republicans. I'm Pro-choice when it doesn't involve me. I'm for immigration reform and against a big wall. Please don't lump me in with the yahoo's. It's insulting. I didn't look at all those other deaths because I just found this out last night. Just seems like adding $200 to the price of every car and installing a breathalyzer would probably drop DD down a pretty large amount. And I'm not saying we can't address guns because of the DD deaths. I'm actually for common sense gun reform. I think EVERY firearm transaction should require a background check. But I know it's going to take a lot more work to put a dent in the 10k gun deaths than it would to put a dent in the 10k DD deaths. I just want to see more done about DD. Okay now I'm really leaving. I'm late for my own birthday party.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27 It's what I got from a quick search. I used it because it was a .gov site so I hoped it wasn't twisted statistics meant to drive an agenda. But it only goes to 2008. I used handguns because it was what the chart addressed specifically. the other lines were for "other guns" and I felt that wasn't specific enough. I'm not one of these idiots that thinks Obama and the government in general is coming to get my guns. Please don't lump me in with them.

I'm sorry put the explainations aren't making any sense. So since DD deaths are down by 50% that means a lot has been done and people are content with the results. So the fact that handgun related deaths are down ~50% from 1995-2008 means we should be content with those results? It doesn't need the amount of press? Handguns are under control so just let it keep working? What else do I want done? I'd say a breathalyzer in every car is quite similar to some of the proposed gun regulations. I'd be fine with that. EDIT: I've gotta go now but please don't think I'm running from the argument. I'm about to get off work and go out for my birthday with my wife. I'll come back to address what needs addressing.

Thanks. It isn't about leg work. Maybe I should have clarified more but I thought I was clear. I'm not just talking about a bill that is passed, I'm talking about the amount of press and fanfare. What if the politician, etc spent half their time talking on FOX/MSNBC about guns and half about DD? DD should be a much easier battle to win. Exactly. No one agrees with drunk driving so why is it still an issue? Imagine if even a quarter of the time and effort that was put into guns was instead put into drunk driving what could be accomplished. Why are we choosing the nearly impossible task of gun laws (it's depressing that it is nearly impossible) but not doing as much to address an issue that EVERYONE AGREES IS BAD! I get it's getting better but 10k deaths a year is still mind boggling. It's a number that is trotted out at gun debates as sucha horrible number. And it is. So use that same number for an issue you have better luck fixing. EDIT: Also do some research and see what a joke DD penalties are. Even in the "new legislation" cited above. Pathetic. Sorry for derailing this thread. I'll let it go now unless those in here want to keep addressing it. I just don't want the MODS to jump on me.

When was the last time Congress addressed it? It's the same number of deaths as violent gun crime so why not the huge uproar? I get there will never be perfection but why not a bigger focus? It seems to me that guns are the "sexy" topic and it is just ignored that the same number of people die from DD. I'm really not trying to turn this into some type of political debate. I'm not trying to push some anti-Obama agenda. Until last night I didn't even know these numbers. And when I learned them it really bothered me. Maybe some of it comes from my history with DD's.

Sure by percentage it's about 50% which sounds good but over the course of 30 years I'd say it's actually not that good. When there was ~20k and now there is ~10k, it's still far to many. Especially when "don't drink and drive" is so easy for someone to do. And violent gun related deaths have also declined, albeit not by as large a percent. source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27 I'm not trying to turn this into a drunk driving thread. I'm just really curious what is the reasoning for not a bigger push against DD and how the POTUS would have addressed that question.

Well I'd have really liked to hear the Presidents answer to this but I'll bite, what do you think the answer is?

I was expecting this thread to have a lot more talk about the town hall last night. Oh well. Here are some of my thoughts. I will really disappointed that it was only an hour. I think an hour could have been enough except that to many of the questions were very long winded and the answers had 5 minutes of political speak before even addressing the question. That was very frustrating. I liked that the NRA was called out for not participating. I despise the NRA with a passion despite being a Republican gun owner. I was surprised by the gun death numbers. I had never really looked into them. So per POTUS, there are ~30k gun deaths each year. ~2/3 are suicide (which I consider more of a mental health issue). That leaves ~10k violent gun deaths each year. That made me think of this question which I really wish had been asked: According to MADD, there were ~10k drunk driving related deaths in 2013 (about the same number of violent gun deaths) and 290k drunk driving related injuries. Where is the Executive Orders and town hall discussions regarding this? Why the huge push to control gun deaths but I've never heard POTUS mention drunk driving (not saying he hasn't but it hasn't had near the focus of guns). Why no push to put a breathalyzer in every car? Considering todays political climate, it seems you'd make a lot more head way focusing on these 10k deaths than the 10k violent gun related deaths.