I agree with Piers

I'm sorry, but that is a stupid coment.

I never said you should change your view of what you believe. I said your view is decidedly in the rhight hand tail of the distribution, but you act as if you are near the center.

If inly 1% of the people believe 2 + 2 = 4, then 99% are INCORRECT. However with most things political, thengs are neither right nor wrong, they are preferences. Restricting gun ownership or not is neither correct nor incorrect, it is a preferences statement about how we want our society to be. In that sense your opinion cannot be "right" (nor can it be "wrong"). It may, however, by myopic. Originally Posted by Old-T

It is true that most political views are not absolutely true or absolutely untrue. We still have to make important decisions about what sort of country we want. The decisions we make will determine the quality of life for us and generations to come.

Sometimes in politics we do face decisions that are very close to choosing between absolute truth and complete lies. Those who say that we can go on spending at current levels indefinitely without destroying the country are telling a complete lie. Those who say that we must cut the size and cost of the federal government substantially in order to survive are telling what I consider to be absolute truth.

America is at a crossroad. The road we choose will mean the difference between continued greatness or disaster.

It is true that most political views are not absolutely true or absolutely untrue. We still have to make important decisions about what sort of country we want. The decisions we make will determine the quality of life for us and generations to come.

Sometimes in politics we do face decisions that are very close to choosing between absolute truth and complete lies. Those who say that we can go on spending at current levels indefinitely without destroying the country are telling a complete lie. Those who say that we must cut the size and cost of the federal government substantially in order to survive are telling what I consider to be absolute truth. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I won't agree with all of what you say. But somehow folks who have that view are blind to similar issues of long term depletion of water, levels of toxic chemicals, deforestation, etc. You are very selective about what quality of life isses you care about. Kind of typical, unfortunately. We can neither continue to run great deficits, nor can we continue to have so little regard for the environment. What we do about it will indeed have very long lasting effects. Most sane people do not believe we can overspend--but not everyone agrees on where to cut or where to tax. That is where there is far more room for discussion. Too bad your danger sense is so myopic.

According to FBI statistics, we now have about 2/3s of the murders (non- suicides and non-justifiable homicides) than we had during the assault weapon ban, and it has been decreasing every single year since the assault weapon ban was allowed to lapse. Those are readily verifiable facts from the FBI data. The number of murders has also been under 10,000 per year, not bad for 300 million people. Considering some are gang bangers killing gang bangers, well so much the better.

If one includes suicides, then violent deaths by guns rises to a bit over 30,000. On the other hand, violent deaths in Japan are typically over 80,000 per year, despite a much smaller population.

Europe has far more restrictive laws in general regarding guns, yet have about the same murder rate in terms of mass murders. 77 in Finland far exceeds our worst. However while most of Europe is a 'no gun zone', our worst mass murders occur in the 'no gun zones' such as the school in CT and the theater in Aurora which was the only 1 of 7 theaters that advertised that no concealed carry weapons would be allowed in the theater. In Aurora, 2 theaters were closer to the killer's house, one was larger, but the chosen one was the only theater that banned legal concealed carry weapons.

Those are just facts. Another one is that over 30,000 people a year die because of drunk drivers, that is more than 3 times as many as are murdered by firearms. Where is the outrage about drunks? Cigarettes?, now we are talking big numbers.

Most sane people do not believe we can overspend- Originally Posted by Old-T

You are right, there. We are run by a group of insane people. They are called Republicans and Democrats. We need to replace them with sane people.

Those are just facts. Another one is that over 30,000 people a year die because of drunk drivers, that is more than 3 times as many as are murdered by firearms. Where is the outrage about drunks? Cigarettes?, now we are talking big numbers. Originally Posted by ncrtt1

I agree there should be more outrage about drinking & tobacco. And it's much harder to justify in the same way there is a valid self defense argument about guns.

Very slowly--too slowly--the attitude changed on cigarettes. And in some places it's changing on drunk driving. Much the "I can own any gun I damn well want to own" crowd is often the same folks who have an attitude that killing someone with a car is somehow just a Good Ol' Boy accident. Locally we had a judge just convicted of his 30th or so DWI charge. Still on the bench, still reelected by folks who don't see it as a problem. At least not a serious one. Last time I was in NM the papers had a big write-up about a guy still driving with 20+, several including injuries (no deaths if I remember right).

You are right, there. We are run by a group of insane people. They are called Republicans and Democrats. We need to replace them with sane people. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

At the end of the day, politicians on both sides of the isle do what the people want more often than not. That's the reason the encumbent re-election rate is ninety plus percent in Congress time after time.

America's real problem is that most Americans only vote self interest with little regard for what's best for the country or for their children's future.

Talk about a strawman. This is a complete non-argument.

Drunk driving is against the law already, inc case you hadn't noticed.

And the fact that we cannot fix ALL problems at once does not mean we shouldn't fix ANY problem.

Vehicles deaths are a tragedy we have to live with - whether drinking is involved or not.

That doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands and do nothing about gun violence. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No shit ExNYer, drunk driving is against the law .. my point exactly. And yet statistics around the country show that liberal jury's don't want to convict drunk drivers that have murdered someone by driving drunk. Instead they want to blame the bars for over-serving the idiot and making them the "victim".

I live in San Antonio TX and it is not uncommon for someone to get off from a DWI after being pulled over 6 or more times. Then when that someone finally causes a terrible accident that kills someone, everyone wants to "do something" about drunk drivers but over time it passes and everyone goes back to drinking and driving.

I guess you think that people who are killed by drunk drivers are not as important as those killed by guns? Or else you would be outraged and want to do more to punish drunk drivers.

America's real problem is that most Americans only vote self interest with little regard for what's best for the country or for their children's future. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I would argue most vote for what they preceive their self interest is. And most--due to a severe myopia--actually believe that what they perceive as good for them is good for most--because they eroniously believe they are the "average" American. I do not think most voters are evil, but I do believe most are narrow minded out of ignorance.

And yet statistics around the country show that liberal jury's don't want to convict drunk drivers that have murdered someone by driving drunk. Instead they want to blame the bars for over-serving the idiot and making them the "victim". Originally Posted by satexasguy

Pray tell, what data do you have to show that these are "liberal" juries? Most the extreme injustice I have seen is from judges, not juries, and the judges are liberal, conservative, and everything in between. And guys (mostly guys but some women) who don't want to punish DUIs heavily come in all political stripes; their common thread is that they themselves like to have a few drinks on their way home.

And since this thread was about guns, your assumption how people feel about drunk driving--unless that have said in here--is a gross display of illogic. If I want to follow your logic, you didn't complain about child abuse in this thread so you must be in favor of it. That is obviously absurd, as is your DUI comment.