Current Events > Drunk driver....we blame the driver...guy blows something up we blame the bomber

(+) Yeah! (+)

For drunk drivers, tougher laws against drunk driving have been enacted.
For bombers, tougher regulations for the purchasing of bomb making materials have been enatced.
For mass shootings....
---

TC please just stop using this dumb analogy now that it has been clearly refuted and admit that you view guns in a unique light for whatever reason you choose. but don't pretend that these comparisons to other scenarios are even close to correct. you value your gun rights more than you value attempts to stop gun deaths. I am not shaming you for that, but that is the case. it has nothing to do with how we treat cars or bombs, and if it did you would be forced to change your position on this matter
---

For drug addicts we blame the ......
---

Balrog0 posted...

TC please just stop using this dumb analogy now that it has been clearly refuted and admit that you view guns in a unique light for whatever reason you choose. but don't pretend that these comparisons to other scenarios are even close to correct. you value your gun rights more than you value attempts to stop gun deaths. I am not shaming you for that, but that is the case. it has nothing to do with how we treat cars or bombs, and if it did you would be forced to change your position on this matter

Honestly it should pretty clear that tc has no desire to have a serious topic.
---

<

Balrog0 posted...

TC please just stop using this dumb analogy now that it has been clearly refuted and admit that you view guns in a unique light for whatever reason you choose. but don't pretend that these comparisons to other scenarios are even close to correct. you value your gun rights more than you value attempts to stop gun deaths. I am not shaming you for that, but that is the case. it has nothing to do with how we treat cars or bombs, and if it did you would be forced to change your position on this matter

Nope its not a dumb analogy. Do you blame the pencil when you spell a word wrong?

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame not the tool itself.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

TC please just stop using this dumb analogy now that it has been clearly refuted and admit that you view guns in a unique light for whatever reason you choose. but don't pretend that these comparisons to other scenarios are even close to correct. you value your gun rights more than you value attempts to stop gun deaths. I am not shaming you for that, but that is the case. it has nothing to do with how we treat cars or bombs, and if it did you would be forced to change your position on this matter

Honestly it should pretty clear that tc has no desire to have a serious topic.

Im.not the one name calling and im even saying im for gun control in terms of preventing people with mental illnesses have a gun.

Please stop
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Nope its not a dumb analogy. Do you blame the pencil when you spell a word wrong?

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame not the tool itself.

it has already been clearly explained to you how your analogy fails. this pencil analogy is different from the two you first used, because the two you first used have actual implications for public health whereas this one is a much more basic (and therefore less useful) comparison where you are talking about assigning individual blame for an individual action that has no implications outside of this bounded scenario you are talking about

to bring this back on topic, both drunk driving and bomb making are heavily regulated in various ways that guns are not, specifically due to the public health and safety implications involved in them. if the worst a gun could do was make you lose a point on a test then your new analogy would be more useful.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame

yes it is. good job. now try and understand that discussion of gun control is independent of any shooter...no one is blaming the gun for what happened at the school. we blamed the shooter. he's been arrested and will face punishment. there is no reason to discuss him further. we are now discussing ways to prevent people like him from getting guns...that's not blaming the gun. Why do you do this?
---

tc can you quote any real person that has said the gun did the crime without human interaction?
---

Balrog0 posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Nope its not a dumb analogy. Do you blame the pencil when you spell a word wrong?

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame not the tool itself.

it has already been clearly explained to you how your analogy fails. this pencil analogy is different from the two you first used, because the two you first used have actual implications for public health whereas this one is a much more basic (and therefore less useful) comparison where you are talking about assigning individual blame for an individual action that has no implications outside of this bounded scenario you are talking about

to bring this back on topic, both drunk driving and bomb making are heavily regulated in various ways that guns are not, specifically due to the public health and safety implications involved in them. if the worst a gun could do was make you lose a point on a test then your new analogy would be more useful.

No it hasnt people responded and i responded back.

Guns are also heavily regulated.

Im asking what kind of gun control would you apply
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Its the person behind the gun thats to blame

yes it is. good job. now try and understand that discussion of gun control is independent of any shooter...no one is blaming the fun for what happened at the school. we blamed the shooter. he's been arrested and will face punishment. there is no reason to discuss him further. we are now discussing ways to prevent people like him from getting guns...that's not blaming the gun. Why do you do this?

Theres been plenty of posters here and on social media who blame guns for the death
---

Patchwork posted...

I think the idea is people want to limit the damage a deranged individual can do in a short period of time.

How about we separate the deranged from society?

Nope, can't do that - it will hurt someone's feelings, and if it was a minority, it'd be racist.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Theres been plenty of posters here and on social media who blame guns for the death

pointing out that a gun is the tool used to harm does not mean they are "blaming" the gun and ignoring the shooter....what do you get out of acting this dense? is this fun for you?
---

KingCrabCake posted...

No it hasnt people responded and i responded back.

and you haven't refuted anything that has been said

KingCrabCake posted...

Guns are also heavily regulated.

no, they really are not.

KingCrabCake posted...

Im asking what kind of gun control would you apply

idgaf about that, there are plenty of examples of useful gun control measures but the issue I have is that your analogy is just completely wrong. we do more than just blame the individual when it comes to bomb and car deaths. we look at the systemic issues we have that lead to them. you are attempting to apply a different standard for gun control, though. just admit that is the case and move on
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Theres been plenty of posters here and on social media who blame guns for the death

pointing out that a gun is the tool used to harm does not mean they are "blaming" the gun and ignoring the shooter....what do you get out of acting this dense? is this fun for you?

Say we need to ban guns
Ban certain guns
Is blaming the guns
---

This topic is bad trolling and anyone taking it seriously should feel bad.
---

thelovefist posted...

This topic is bad trolling and anyone taking it seriously should feel bad.

Says the person who came in with a troll post
---

Balrog0 posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

No it hasnt people responded and i responded back.

and you haven't refuted anything that has been said

KingCrabCake posted...

Guns are also heavily regulated.

no, they really are not.

KingCrabCake posted...

Im asking what kind of gun control would you apply

idgaf about that, there are plenty of examples of useful gun control measures but the issue I have is that your analogy is just completely wrong. we do more than just blame the individual when it comes to bomb and car deaths. we look at the systemic issues we have that lead to them. you are attempting to apply a different standard for gun control, though. just admit that is the case and move on

I have refuted them ..

Guess we have different definitions of regulation...

And im asking what gun control means to you
---

thelovefist posted...

For drunk drivers, tougher laws against drunk driving have been enacted.
For bombers, tougher regulations for the purchasing of bomb making materials have been enatced.
For mass shootings....

This is factious. Rules about drunk driving are focused on being punitive only to those that have done it and got caught. We penalize the drunk driver, but don't go on to penalize the bartender or liquor store clerk .

OT, notice I didn't make the car argument but the booze one. Booze isn't necessary for life and does lead to a lot of damage done to people beyond the drinker. The difference is, the left likes to drink. It deosn't own guns. So guess want is focused on and how it's handled. Imagine the uproar if you had to produce a mental health card to buy booze (note: I work in the field with the developmentally disabled and one of the hardest things to do is keep them from drinking), or after too many incidents with young people the age limit was raised to 35. You wouldn't hear "buh buh but it's not banning, just trying to prevent harm being done".
---

KingCrabCake posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Theres been plenty of posters here and on social media who blame guns for the death

pointing out that a gun is the tool used to harm does not mean they are "blaming" the gun and ignoring the shooter....what do you get out of acting this dense? is this fun for you?

Say we need to ban guns
Ban certain guns
Is blaming the guns

no it isn't...you refuted that in your own post. you said when someone uses an explosive we blame the person....but we have also banned explosives. so are you saying that by banning explosives we're blaming the explosive and not the person? of course not. we still blame the person. we just did something that made it harder for people like that to be able to use their tool of choice to harm people.

Can't have it both ways, bud....either your topic is contradicting what you're saying now, thus hurting your narrative, or you fully understand that putting restrictions on the tool used doesn't mean we're blaming the tool over the person who uses it.
---

Also this topic is directed to those who blame the gun and want gun bans. Dont know if thst was clear
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

This is factious. Rules about drunk driving are focused on being punitive only to those that have done it and got caught. We penalize the drunk driver, but don't go on to penalize the bartender or liquor store clerk .

No, that simply isn't true. Sorry, see post 38. We don't focus exclusively on punitive measures ex-post. We also have preventive measures.

lightwarrior78 posted...

OT, notice I didn't make the car argument but the booze one. Booze isn't necessary for life and does lead to a lot of damage done to people beyond the drinker. The difference is, the left likes to drink. It deosn't own guns. So guess want is focused on and how it's handled. Imagine the uproar if you had to produce a mental health card to buy booze (note: I work in the field with the developmentally disabled and one of the hardest things to do is keep them from drinking), or after too many incidents with young people the age limit was raised to 35. You wouldn't hear "buh buh but it's not banning, just trying to prevent harm being done".

Two things:

1) that is a stupid argument in bold, we literally did that by moving the drinking age nationally to 21 through a somewhat controversial highway funding mechanism rather than directly. probably raising the age to 35 would be different but you are choosing an arbitrarily high age. granted, there are arguments against increasing the drinking age, too, just as there are arguments against some kinds of gun control, but this idea is not as ridiculous as you are attempting to make it sound.

2) we do restrict alcohol in a lot of ways, what are you talking about? you literally can't buy alcohol on sunday where I live! there are multiple counties where alcohol sales are illegal, period! and even then there are restrictions on the kind, strength, and origin of alcohols you can sell. if you mean restaurants and bars, those require both local and state permits similar to gun stores. and we have higher excise taxes on alcohol than we do on guns...
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Also this topic is directed to those who blame the gun and want gun bans. Dont know if thst was clear

again, does a ban on explosives mean we're not blaming the person like you said in the OP?
---

tc thinks no one is blaming the shooter...

ok
---

Darkman124 posted...

dozens of young people with still-developing brains mass-murder their peers, we try to think beyond the individual blame and wonder if we can actually do something to make the trend stop

maybe the trend isn't from guns, but from the way the young person is treated at school and home?

i mean it's not like anyone picks up a gun and just turns into a murderer (though some would believe that)

and as op said, we blame the driver, the bomber, but for some reason when it comes to mass shootings, it's only about making more laws against guns? though from the other two scenarios given, you should realize that just because there are laws in place, it will not stop people from driving drunk, from terrorist acts, and it will not stop people who wish to shoot someone from getting a gun and doing so.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Theres been plenty of posters here and on social media who blame guns for the death

pointing out that a gun is the tool used to harm does not mean they are "blaming" the gun and ignoring the shooter....what do you get out of acting this dense? is this fun for you?

Say we need to ban guns
Ban certain guns
Is blaming the guns

no it isn't...you refuted that in your own post. you said when someone uses an explosive we blame the person....but we have also banned explosives. so are you saying that by banning explosives we're blaming the explosive and not the person? of course not. we still blame the person. we just did something that made it harder for people like that to be able to use their tool of choice to harm people.

Can't have it both ways, bud....either your topic is contradicting what you're saying now, thus hurting your narrative, or you fully understand that putting restrictions on the tool used doesn't mean we're blaming the tool over the person who uses it.

Theres already regulations on guns tho
---

Alexanaxela posted...

tc thinks no one is blaming the shooter...

ok

Never said that
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Also this topic is directed to those who blame the gun and want gun bans. Dont know if thst was clear

again, does a ban on explosives mean we're not blaming the person like you said in the OP?

a ban on explosives is worthless though. while many people will follow the law, there will be those that won't.

an equivalent situation would be like saying "the school had a no gun zone sign, but he brought it in anyways!!!!"

just because laws exist, does not mean they will be followed.
---

Ulyanyx posted...

and as op said, we blame the driver, the bomber, but for some reason when it comes to mass shootings, it's only about making more laws against guns? though from the other two scenarios given, you should realize that just because there are laws in place, it will not stop people from driving drunk, from terrorist acts, and it will not stop people who wish to shoot someone from getting a gun and doing so.

except, no, we do plenty of things other than 'blame the driver' and also your argument applies equally to the regulatory steps we do take for drunk drivers.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Also this topic is directed to those who blame the gun and want gun bans. Dont know if thst was clear

again, does a ban on explosives mean we're not blaming the person like you said in the OP?

Fireworks are not banned. Theyre explosives.

Also bombs arent used for hunting
---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76325375/896196641
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Fireworks are not banned. Theyre explosives.

you know what i mean and you know what i'm asking...you said in OP that we blame the person, not the explosive...but the said that advocating a ban on guns means they're blaming the guns...that's contradictory.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Ulyanyx posted...

and as op said, we blame the driver, the bomber, but for some reason when it comes to mass shootings, it's only about making more laws against guns? though from the other two scenarios given, you should realize that just because there are laws in place, it will not stop people from driving drunk, from terrorist acts, and it will not stop people who wish to shoot someone from getting a gun and doing so.

except, no, we do plenty of things other than 'blame the driver' and also your argument applies equally to the regulatory steps we do take for drunk drivers.

the only regulatory steps you can take for drunk drivers is after something has occurred. there is no gaurenteed way to stop people from driving intoxicated unless we either move to self driving cars en masse, or we have more measures and people in place to prevent people from driving drunk/intoxicated. (because yes some people will still take the risk)

my point being; just because laws are in place, does not mean it will not happen. i'm sure many people on this site have done something "unlawful" whether it's been as simple as exploring private property or something worse (as some people have claimed against other users, but i'm not bringing any of that drama here)
---

Ulyanyx posted...

the only regulatory steps you can take for drunk drivers is after something has occurred

no, that is not the case at all, actually. specifically if what you're talking about is reducing deaths related to drunk driving, rather than punishing people who drive or might drive drunk.

Ulyanyx posted...

there is no gaurenteed way to stop people from driving intoxicated unless we either move to self driving cars en masse, or we have more measures and people in place to prevent people from driving drunk/intoxicated. (because yes some people will still take the risk)

my point being; just because laws are in place, does not mean it will not happen. i'm sure many people on this site have done something "unlawful" whether it's been as simple as exploring private property or something worse (as some people have claimed against other users, but i'm not bringing any of that drama here)

yeah like I said this is an argument against all laws.
---

Spooking posted...

Thankfully, we live in the US where lawmakers don't make knee-jerk reaction laws.

they were quick to demand stricter regulations on TIDE PODS but refuse to even talk about this...
---

As someone who works in safety, in the United States we have some pretty clear and pretty specific regulations regarding explosives.
---

I mean one of the laws that is very effective for curbing illegal drunk driving is having adults who host said teen drinking be legally responsible for teen drunk driving, for instance

it isnt a very popular or widespread law but some municipalities/localities have it

this idea that there's nothing to be done about drunk driving except to punish the drunk driver after the fact is based on literally nothing except this fantasy analogy gun control opponents use to make this argument
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

tc thinks no one is blaming the shooter...

ok

Never said that

lol you are really something else. Tag'd
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Fireworks are not banned. Theyre explosives.

you know what i mean and you know what i'm asking...you said in OP that we blame the person, not the explosive...but the said that advocating a ban on guns means they're blaming the guns...that's contradictory.

And we have regulations and gun control already.

Also guns are tools used for hunting as well as self defense. Itll be hard press to use bombs for either especially hunting
---

Alexanaxela posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

tc thinks no one is blaming the shooter...

ok

Never said that

lol you are really something else. Tag'd

Oh no !!
---

none of that refutes are acknowledges what i'm asking you.

you claim that advocating a ban on guns means you're blaming the guns. we have a ban on explosives that harm people. by your logic that means we're blaming the explosive but you said in the OP that we blame the person. You can't have it both ways.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

none of that refutes are acknowledges what i'm asking you.

you claim that advocating a ban on guns means you're blaming the guns. we have a ban on explosives that harm people. by your logic that means we're blaming the explosive but you said in the OP that we blame the person. You can't have it both ways.

Ok since youre playing dense....

Boston bombing...

How many people wanted a ban on pressure cookers? Or regulations? No one blamed the bombed or cookers....they blamed the terrorist
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Ok since youre playing dense....

I'll answer yours if you answer mine first. We banned explosives like the ones used in that situation. It was more than just a pressure cooker. it was modified and what he did to do that is illegal. there is no need to call for attention..

So if we ban something are we blaming that or the person? Come on Jersey....
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Ok since youre playing dense....

I'll answer yours if you answer mine first. We banned explosives like the ones used in that situation. It was more than just a pressure cooker. it was modified and what he did to do that is illegal. there is no need to call for attention..

So if we ban something are we blaming that or the person? Come on Jersey....

Again bombs serve no purpose other than kill large amount of people...its why automatic weapons are mostly illegal
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Patchwork posted...

I think the idea is people want to limit the damage a deranged individual can do in a short period of time.

If youre on anti-depressants you shouldnt have a gun. Im okay with that law. But blaming the gun or wanting gun bans is stupid

Eh, certain guns should probably be banned or heavily restricted. No one needs an automatic rifle.
---

---

M_Live posted...

Cars =/= guns. Cars are a method of transportation. Guns are a weapon. I know this is hard concept for conversatives to grasp, but, they're different.

A car is a car. While most people use them for transportation, they can be used as deadly weapons all the same.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

M_Live posted...

Cars =/= guns. Cars are a method of transportation. Guns are a weapon. I know this is hard concept for conversatives to grasp, but, they're different.

A car is a car. While most people use them for transportation, they can be used as deadly weapons all the same.

But a car's primary use is transportation. Whilst a gun's only use is a deadly weapon.
---