How much do you make a year?…

The bartender, if the drunk hit him on the head, stole the drink, and ran off should not be held accountable. If a liquor store is robbed, and the person gets drunk with the alcohol he drank, you don’t hold the liquor store to blame.

If you are going to make comparisons, at least the the analogy straight. A bartender isn’t the victim of a crime when he volunteers to serve a drunk a drink. The homeowner who has his gun stolen is the victim of a crime.

“No I am saying that since there are people out there stealing guns and perpetrating crimes with them, the standard of safe storage that good people should follow needs to be adjusted appropriately.”

And then you have already lost. Rather than do that, make the thief who is caught pay so dearly that they will have lots of incentive to not steal. I personally think they should have to pay back four times what they stole, and if they don’t have that, they should be forced into hard labor until such time as they can pay it off.

I did not say that all government regulations should be eliminated — do not put words in my mouth — what I said is that YOU are responsible for your own safety. The police are not there to protect you, and in case you had not noticed, government regulations don’t do a lot to protect you in any case even with things like lead paint and toys. The regulations only make it so that after the fact you can sue (or criminal charges can be brought against the company or in very rare instances, against a person). But provide “safety”? It hasn’t happened yet. It isn’t the job of the government to make you safe. The government can provide a framework in which when bad people do bad things, they can be punished. All those regulations do only that. When someone does the bad thing, they get their hand slapped.

Also, the idea of regulation providing the improvement in death rates for drunk driving, I’d think you can see your statement as post hoc propter hoc. I would much more attribute the reduction in deaths not from the regulation changes, but from the changes in society that have occurred from organizations like MADD that have made is socially unacceptable to drink and drive. The laws in this case have followed the societal change, and both the regulation and the accident rate are a result of the third thing. The regulations did nothing other than follow the trend that was already started.

The government and regulation do nothing to improve things. If the people do not want to do something, all the laws in the world will not change the behavior. When the speed limits were set to 55 throughout the country, many people did not slow down even though laws were in place to preclude driving fast. Some states even went so far as to make driving over 55 a very minor infraction (Montana made it an “environmental violation” with a $2.00 fine). If the people don’t want it, it won’t do any good to restrict it.

Protect yourself. Don’t blame others when bad people do bad things. Don’t try to restrict liberty for security.

What you are saying “violent crime precipitates gun bans” is the opposite of what has happened. What has happened is that gun bans precipitate violent crime (at least that is the order of the occurrences). Of course if you want to say that there is a possibility of the gun ban being independent of the rise in crime (i.e., that it is purely coincidental) that could be at least viewed as a possibility. But then you would have other situations in which gun ownership is mandated and then crime rates dropping — which you might also say is coincidental. The rational is that with enough data points, you eventually have a statistical improbability that restriction of ownership or outright bans have no relation to increase in crime (and a positive relation at that).

What is absolutely true is that looking at the data, the “logic” (in quotes on purpose) of those that say restricting guns can only lead to a decrease in violent crime can be rejected outright. If there is no decrease in violence, with the restriction and/or ban of guns, then the argument that we should restrict guns in order to decrease crime/violence is pure nonsense. Even if there isn’t enough evidence to say that tighter gun laws increase crime, there is plenty of evidence to say that there is no evidence that tighter gun laws decrease crime.

The problem right now is the data set is rather small. There are few places which ban guns outright, but in all the cases, violence has increased. So far, I know of 4 in modern times. What is really interesting, is that in all the cases in which data before and after are compared, restriction of guns has been ineffective at best, or counter effective to reduce crime and violence.

If the null hypothesis for the test were “Restriction of guns decreases crime” we could reject that with 90% confidence. Not that I would want to see gun restrictions put in place to test the stats, if it were more prevalent, it would allow greater confidence.

If a bartender, to use the drunk driving scenario were to serve someone who is obviously drunk another drink as he headed out to the road, does he have no responsibility for the actions of the true criminal - the drunk driver?

“How backward you think. You think that because there are bad people out there, who would steal things, that the good people must be held responsible.”

No I am saying that since there are people out there stealing guns and perpetrating crimes with them, the standard of safe storage that good people should follow needs to be adjusted appropriately. To blindly pretend that noting can happen to your gun if you leave it lying around is negligent, imo.

“YOU are responsible for your own safety, you cannot rely on the government, the police, or anyone else.”

How absurd. You are advocating eliminating ALL safety regulation for ALL products everywhere. I will admit that many government regulations are counter productive but that does not mean that the government has no place in public safety. Absurd.

“Drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car kills a lot more than guns (and drinking and driving never save lives as guns do).”

And alcohol is a highly regulated industry (as I have stated many times).

“Regulation working? Have you seen the number of deaths and injuries caused by drinking and driving?”

And have you seen the stats about the reduction of drunk driving deaths since stricter regulations have been enacted? Without alcohol regulation, we would be in a much worse state than we are currently. Room for improvement? Sure. But they are currently saving lives that much is clear.

And you’re right, I s’pose “circular” isn’t exactly the correct term.

You have the most backward thought process I’ve ever seen.

First, you want to assign blame to a victim for the crime perpetrated against them, or the consequences of that crime. If someone steals a gun from anyone, no matter where that gun was kept (even if it was hanging on a set of pegs above the fireplace mantel) it is the thief that is at fault, and only the thief that is at fault. Extending fault the the victim of that theft if the gun is used illegally is backward logic in the extreme. If your baseball bat is stolen, and they use it to kill someone, are you saying the victim of the theft is responsible?

How backward you think. You think that because there are bad people out there, who would steal things, that the good people must be held responsible. That is stupid thought. It is the same kind of thought that says a woman is responsible for having been raped. Scumbag lawyers have made themselves as sick as the rapist by attempting to portray a woman as being culpable for wearing “provocative” clothing.

Attack the victim — blame them for what the bad guys do. Yeah right.

As to this not being about the regulation of industry, again, you are either being naive on purpose, or worse. Drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car kills a lot more than guns (and drinking and driving never save lives as guns do). Do you *really* think the world is that stupid that they would not see through that argument?

Regulation working? Have you seen the number of deaths and injuries caused by drinking and driving? That’s like the police chief in the “no gun zone” at NIU saying they succeeded during the most recent shooting — a guy that was sadly not properly under medical supervision when he was taken off of drugs comes in, starts shooting, kills a bunch of people, then kills himself all before the police SWAT team arrives, and they declare success. THEY FAILED TO SAVE A SINGLE LIFE! If that is what success looks like, I’d hate to see what it would have taken to have him declare a failure. The police responded within 5 minutes, and the whole incident was over. The *only* thing that would have made a difference would have been if the students and professor could have been armed, and accurately and quickly (seconds, not minutes) returned fire.

You want safety? Get a gun, a concealed carry permit, get training. Get good training, not just a single day course, but something like what the following two groups provide:

NVT
or
PGPFT

YOU are responsible for your own safety, you cannot rely on the government, the police, or anyone else. That is the way it should be, because anything else is not safety, but an illusion of safety (unless you are so important to the government that they provide you with an armed bodyguard team — like the governor (state police) or the president (secret service). The rest of us are at the mercy of those who are merciless and do not care what the law says.

The swine that breaks into your home at night doesn’t care if he is breaking yet another law when he is already committing a felony. Sure, he’d rather know that you are unarmed and so all he has to do is be bigger, stronger, swifter than you (or carry a bat and get the first hit in). But suppose guns are regulated to the extreme, then you know the criminal that is breaking into your house could be armed, but you won’t be.

Remember, the government hasn’t been able to stop illegal aliens, cocaine, heroin, pain pills, child pornography, or any number of other things that are illegal from being brought into, or even manufactured in, this country — guns will be no different. All those things were regulated and/or outlawed, and they have not stopped being available to those that don’t care about the law. Doing the same thing, and expecting a different outcome is one definition of insanity. Do the same thing with guns and expect the criminals won’t be able to get them and you are being insane.

I thought you would give up on this sillyness after I gave thought to a better cause? You said start a thread and you’ld be there. Well, where are you? Still here pushing your gun regulations! Curtailing freedoms is againest the law till it becomes the law. Forget about being shot for the time being and be scared about something worthy. Like Osama-bama being the anti-christ (I didn’t come up with the term) and ruining our nation into the ground or, better yet, my thread on driving.

This has nothing to do with the regulation of the industry. If the person is above the legal limit, to drink and drive violates the regulation. The fact that people violate the regulation does not mean that there is no regulation. Finally, it may be illegal in some jurisdictions for bars to serve patrons who have had too much to drink already - I don’t know but I’ll bet it is. Clearly the bar has been found liable before for serving a drunk more alcohol which resulted in death.

“The idea that a person can have a single drink and still drive is within the law, as long as their blood alcohol level is low enough.”

An example of a well thought out REGULATION.

Thanks for the good example, Brian.

“I agree. This philosophy is what gun regulations should be designed around. I just do not trust you to voluntarily comply.”

That you don’t trust me is beside the point. I don’t trust you to vote properly — should I be able to regulate your voting?

I don’t trust you to drink responsibly. Do people lock up their car to make sure they can’t get to it if you have been drinking? That technology has existed for years, but it hasn’t been put in place because “it would cost too much” for the people that don’t drink and drive to be forced to put up with the extra cost because of those who do.

Gun control is no different. You don’t penalize those that are responsible because of those that are not. You don’t take away the rights of an honest person (with regulations) because there are dishonest people.

As far as drinking and driving are concerned, they are much *less* regulated than guns. Bars serve alcohol to people that drive to the bar all the time. The idea that a person can have a single drink and still drive is within the law, as long as their blood alcohol level is low enough.

And while you say that firearms are not very regulated, I would suggest you look through the code of Virginia. There are many references to firearms (i.e., they *are* regulated) in the code. Do the search …
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
That will bring up a list (one per line) much longer than my screen.

Firearms are in fact regulated. More hits than you get with automobile (it is more regulated than cars).

How is this circular reasoning?

Of course not, Jack. We both know bans don’t solve the violence problem.

Shall we ban guns here expecting a different result? That would be insanity.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO HANDLE AND SHOOT A WEAPON,

WHY ALL THE PARANOIA?

SEEMS TO ME YOU DID NOT LEARN VERY WELL.