Reasonable control

Will congress now put forth a bill calling for reasonable control on pressure cookers?

No, just ball bearings.



I know I don't want my neighbors stocking up on those dangerous things. And NO one needs ball bearings for hunting.



this is all TIC, as I'm sure your post was as well nuk.

Gun powder, primers, shot.

BroncoBot wrote:
No, just ball bearings.



I know I don't want my neighbors stocking up on those dangerous things. And NO one needs ball bearings for hunting.



this is all TIC, as I'm sure your post was as well nuk.

You have it BB.



I'm watching Fox News Sunday. They had D. F'stien on, believe it or not. When the moderator pointed out that the Boston people were told to stay at home she was asked if she didn't think they'd want guns to protect themselves. She put on a S.... eating grin (I want to take the sacrament today but thats the best way to discribe it.) and went off about shotguns. She denied the need for "asault weopons"! She obviously was not there cowering in an insecure house. Of course there were lots of them that were happy to have their hands in their laps because they didn't have a shotgun and would never have a dirty "asualt weapon" to protect themselves and their families.



Pardon me, I have to see if I can get my toungue out of my cheek.

No, we just need to regulate the size of the pressure cookers. After all nobody needs one the size of the bomber's crockpots. After all, how big do they have to be to kill a deer?

I bet every single person in that community were looking for "assualt somethings". But they could take the liberal advice and get out an asault ball point pen and urinate on them. Or better yet run to a "safe zone" aka "gun free zone".



I just point to Sandyhook and say "look how they addressed the problem. Two armed guards at every school".

I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

Schmoe wrote:

I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

I disagree, but no surprise there. Guns, in and of themselves are dangerous. Hence gun safety courses and safety locks etc etc etc. Pressure cookers are not like that. Pressure cookers only become a concern when they are turned into bombs with circuit boards and explosive devices and shrapnel etc.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

I disagree, but no surprise there. Guns, in and of themselves are dangerous. Hence gun safety courses and safety locks etc etc etc. Pressure cookers are not like that. Pressure cookers only become a concern when they are turned into bombs with circuit boards and explosive devices and shrapnel etc.

Pressure cookers are actually quite dangerous without circuit boards and explosive devices, and people have died from accidents involving them, just like guns.



I also feel like I should point out that there will be SOME differences between any two DIFFERENT things in an analogy.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

I disagree, but no surprise there. Guns, in and of themselves are dangerous. Hence gun safety courses and safety locks etc etc etc. Pressure cookers are not like that. Pressure cookers only become a concern when they are turned into bombs with circuit boards and explosive devices and shrapnel etc.

Pressure cookers are actually quite dangerous without circuit boards and explosive devices, and people have died from accidents involving them, just like guns.



I also feel like I should point out that there will be SOME differences between any two DIFFERENT things in an analogy.

Cars in and of themselves are EXTREMELY dangerous. As are 100s of other items used by man in this life as tools. Yet if used properly, these can be very beneficial. Again, why are we condemning the entire "pro-gun" crowd who is obeying the law. The analogy that some of us are driving at here is that owning a particular gun (just like owning a pressure cooker) does NOT make someone a criminal. The only difference here is that pressure cookers haven't been labelled as "dangerous" and you can sell one to a family member without certain members of our US congress calling you crazy. Bottom line, again, is that there are criminals out there, and they will attempt to accomplish their plans whether it be with the help of a gun, a pressure cooker, a knife, or a car. Guns have become an easy target though with the help of the media, current US representatives and some isolated tragic events.

I think the bottom line is that the government doesn't fear a populace armed with pressure cookers.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BroncoBot wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

I disagree, but no surprise there. Guns, in and of themselves are dangerous. Hence gun safety courses and safety locks etc etc etc. Pressure cookers are not like that. Pressure cookers only become a concern when they are turned into bombs with circuit boards and explosive devices and shrapnel etc.

Pressure cookers are actually quite dangerous without circuit boards and explosive devices, and people have died from accidents involving them, just like guns.



I also feel like I should point out that there will be SOME differences between any two DIFFERENT things in an analogy.

Cars in and of themselves are EXTREMELY dangerous. As are 100s of other items used by man in this life as tools. Yet if used properly, these can be very beneficial. Again, why are we condemning the entire "pro-gun" crowd who is obeying the law. The analogy that some of us are driving at here is that owning a particular gun (just like owning a pressure cooker) does NOT make someone a criminal. The only difference here is that pressure cookers haven't been labelled as "dangerous" and you can sell one to a family member without certain members of our US congress calling you crazy. Bottom line, again, is that there are criminals out there, and they will attempt to accomplish their plans whether it be with the help of a gun, a pressure cooker, a knife, or a car. Guns have become an easy target though with the help of the media, current US representatives and some isolated tragic events.

We require all cars to be registered and no one fears big brother on that one, or at least I have not seen that fear expressed. We require all drivers to have insurance before they can drive even though not every driver is a bad one and we do not have large objections to that....So what is the point? I do not condemn the whole pro gun crowd because guns are dangerous but thinking there should be some controls in place just like we have for other items LIKE CARS does not mean I am condemning all car drivers either

imuakahuku wrote:
I think the bottom line is that the government doesn't fear a populace armed with pressure cookers.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Fortunately, the government has not seen my cooking.....

BoiseBYU wrote:

We require all cars to be registered and no one fears big brother on that one, or at least I have not seen that fear expressed. We require all drivers to have insurance before they can drive even though not every driver is a bad one and we do not have large objections to that....So what is the point? I do not condemn the whole pro gun crowd because guns are dangerous but thinking there should be some controls in place just like we have for other items LIKE CARS does not mean I am condemning all car drivers either

I contend there are no controls that would be so effective as to stop violence with firearms and be worth the public burden. Just as controls to stop alcohol purchases did practically nothing to stop such transactions. Are our roads free of carnage because of these restrictions that we have placed on drivers? No. Would the roads have MORE accidents and deaths if insurance and registration were not required? Probably not. People would drive in much the same manner (possibly better if they didn't have insurance to fall back on if they crashed their car). It simply is not worth the cost to society to have a new enormous arm of federal power created to track something that for 200+ years we have been able to do effectively ourselves.



This is an overblown issue. I agree that it's not about guns, it's about a paranoid government.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3747550.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One example. And of course this is perhaps an "exception to the rule". But so are literally all violent crimes committed by firearms. The overwhelming majority of the owners of firearems in the US are law abiding citizens who have never had an intention of harming anyone with their gun.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I don't think the analogy stands. Bombs are outlawed. No one is arguing that pressure cookers should be banned because they can be turned into a bomb any more than gun control people argue that metal should be banned because it can be turned into a gun.

So, killing people with pressure cookers is already illegal, just like killing people with guns is already illegal, and we want to restrict one but not the other, sounds like there's a decent analogy here.

I disagree, but no surprise there. Guns, in and of themselves are dangerous. Hence gun safety courses and safety locks etc etc etc. Pressure cookers are not like that. Pressure cookers only become a concern when they are turned into bombs with circuit boards and explosive devices and shrapnel etc.

Pressure cookers are actually quite dangerous without circuit boards and explosive devices, and people have died from accidents involving them, just like guns.



I also feel like I should point out that there will be SOME differences between any two DIFFERENT things in an analogy.

Cars in and of themselves are EXTREMELY dangerous. As are 100s of other items used by man in this life as tools. Yet if used properly, these can be very beneficial. Again, why are we copndemning the entire "pro-gun" crowd who is obeying the law. The analogy that some of us are driving at here is that owning a particular gun (just like owning a pressure cooker) does NOT make someone a criminal. The only difference here is that pressure cookers haven't been labelled as "dangerous" and you can sell one to a family member without certain members of our US congress calling you crazy. Bottom line, again, is that there are criminals out there, and they will attempt to accomplish their plans whether it be with the help of a gun, a pressure cooker, a knife, or a car. Guns have become an easy target though with the help of the media, current US representatives and some isolated tragic events.

We require all cars to be registered and no one fears big brother on that one, or at least I have not seen that fear expressed. We require all drivers to have insurance before they can drive even though not every driver is a bad one and we do not have large objections to that....So what is the point? I do not condemn the whole pro gun crowd because guns are dangerous but thinking there should be some controls in place just like we have for other items LIKE CARS does not mean I am condemning all car drivers either

They license cars for tax receipts. The fear with the guns is the confiscation of guns. Again a corrupt government is not afraid of a driving populace but the are of an armed one.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Gun rights advocates--you do yourself a huge disservice with the "cars are dangerous" analogy. I keep seeing that one every which way I look. Cars don't enjoy Second Amendment protection, so when you pull the cars analogy (which even without that defect is a poor analogy given all the restrictions on motor vehicle use), you're just lobbing a softball over the plate for boisebyu and others who don't have a problem giving up freedoms for "security."



Any gun right debate needs to begin with the Second Amendment. Once the person promoting a curb on gun ownership had demonstrated that the curb does not infringe on the right to bear arms, then you can have the discussion. Otherwise, it's always a non-starter.

snoscythe wrote:
Gun rights advocates--you do yourself a huge disservice with the "cars are dangerous" analogy. I keep seeing that one every which way I look. Cars don't enjoy Second Amendment protection, so when you pull the cars analogy (which even without that defect is a poor analogy given all the restrictions on motor vehicle use), you're just lobbing a softball over the plate for boisebyu and others who don't have a problem giving up freedoms for "security."



Any gun right debate needs to begin with the Second Amendment. Once the person promoting a curb on gun ownership had demonstrated that the curb does not infringe on the right to bear arms, then you can have the discussion. Otherwise, it's always a non-starter.

yeah, that approach was attempted for about 20 pages if I recall. but I totally agree. poor analogy.

snoscythe wrote:
Gun rights advocates--you do yourself a huge disservice with the "cars are dangerous" analogy. I keep seeing that one every which way I look. Cars don't enjoy Second Amendment protection, so when you pull the cars analogy (which even without that defect is a poor analogy given all the restrictions on motor vehicle use), you're just lobbing a softball over the plate for boisebyu and others who don't have a problem giving up freedoms for "security."



Any gun right debate needs to begin with the Second Amendment. Once the person promoting a curb on gun ownership had demonstrated that the curb does not infringe on the right to bear arms, then you can have the discussion. Otherwise, it's always a non-starter.

What's wrong with a softball or two? I feel like its me versus the 1927 Yankees. Anyways, I recognize the distinction between cars and arms, namely the second amendment. Where I differ from all of you guys I think is that I believe this right can be and has limits to its exercise, just like we set forth on the First Amendment and you guys do not appear to agree. All I can say is I respect your view but disagree.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Gun rights advocates--you do yourself a huge disservice with the "cars are dangerous" analogy. I keep seeing that one every which way I look. Cars don't enjoy Second Amendment protection, so when you pull the cars analogy (which even without that defect is a poor analogy given all the restrictions on motor vehicle use), you're just lobbing a softball over the plate for boisebyu and others who don't have a problem giving up freedoms for "security."



Any gun right debate needs to begin with the Second Amendment. Once the person promoting a curb on gun ownership had demonstrated that the curb does not infringe on the right to bear arms, then you can have the discussion. Otherwise, it's always a non-starter.

What's wrong with a softball or two? I feel like its me versus the 1927 Yankees. Anyways, I recognize the distinction between cars and arms, namely the second amendment. Where I differ from all of you guys I think is that I believe this right can be and has limits to its exercise, just like we set forth on the First Amendment and you guys do not appear to agree. All I can say is I respect your view but disagree.

See how easy it is to distill the issue down to it's core when we don't cloud it with forced metaphors? ;)