|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Drift Woody 
Group: Members
Posts: 5321
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:32 am |
|
   |
It is totally fallacious to argue that stricter gun control laws should not be put in place because more people die from driving cars while drunk or talking on their cell phones, or from using hammers.
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
You are, in essence, arguing that nothing should be done to reduce deaths from gun violence or to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre because those fatalities are statistically small compared to hammers, etc.
That argument, by default, concedes that measures can be taken to reduce firearm mortality -- but shouldn't until the other causes of death are dealt with first.
It totally ignores the fact that measures have been taken to reduce driving fatalities, that new initiatives are implemented when deemed correct, and, more to the point -- passing sensible gun control laws (like closing the loopholes to backgrouind checks) will not detract the least from efforst in those other areas. Do you really think that doing nothing on gun control will result in greater efforts to combat drunk driving?
Of course, you can argue that new gun control laws would do nothing to reduce firearm fatalities. You can also argue that mere hunting rifles & handguns are insufficuent to overthrow our government when taken over by a tyrant, and that citizens have a constitutional right to own military assault weapons.
You'll get a lot of strong disagreement with those arguments, but at least you'd be debating the issue at hand instead of offering up a ludicrous fallacy.
In some respects it's quite amusing to read all these silly posts that we shouldn't do anything about saving lives from gun violence as long as more lives are lost due to accidents or irresponsible behavior in other areas. It's like you all get your talking points from the same source (probably the gun lobby) and go about parroting that nonsense without bothering to apply any critical thought of your own first.
But really, you need to stop. You're making fools of yourselves, and however amusing that may be we really need a serious rational discussion on gun control (which we have had, to some extent, in this forum).
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2380
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:51 am |
|
 |
They're intentionally muddying the waters because they know they have no logical argument against rational gun control laws.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15549
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:57 am |
|
|
Reason? When I want your reason I'll give it to you.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:58 am |
|
|
Woody, I stopped participating for a simple reason. My honest belief is that there are two sides to this debate and they each have a different goal. I own weapons that will be covered under any form of an assault weapons ban. I'm perfectly willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. I'm not willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that are absolutly no danger to their communities.
My belief is that the other side is ideologically led by groups like Bloomberg's MAIG and the Brady Campaign. Dianne Feinstein had her AWB ready before the CT shootings ever happened, she was just waiting for an opportunity to present it. Preventing violence is only an aside for them. Banning guns is their goal. Given that, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had.
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2380
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 10:08 am |
|
|
But it isn't two sides. Everyone who is not a lunatic believes in some form of gun control. I bet even Lonewolf is opposed to ex-cons owning guns, but the NRA has used the term "gun control" as a pejorative for so long that now even reasonable minded people start screaming and crying anytime any measure is suggested to monitor and control gun sales. We have more guns in our nation than ever before. We have more per capita than every other nation on the world. This fear that the "gummit" is going to take your guns is completely and totally irrational.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5321
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 10:21 am |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Jan. 12 2013, 8:58 am)
QUOTE Woody, I stopped participating for a simple reason. My honest belief is that there are two sides to this debate and they each have a different goal. I own weapons that will be covered under any form of an assault weapons ban. I'm perfectly willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. I'm not willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that are absolutly no danger to their communities.
My belief is that the other side is ideologically led by groups like Bloomberg's MAIG and the Brady Campaign. Dianne Feinstein had her AWB ready before the CT shootings ever happened, she was just waiting for an opportunity to present it. Preventing violence is only an aside for them. Banning guns is their goal. Given that, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had.
Jim,
I posted this thread for one reason:
To point out the fallacy of arguing against gun control on the basis of deaths involving hammers, driving automobiles, [fill in the blank here].
I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another generic thread about all the relevant issues concerning gun control, including the content of your post.
I'm just looking for agreement that deaths from hammers, trains planes & automobiles are irrelevant to the issue of gun control, so we can move on to more rational discussions in other threads.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 10:22 am |
|
|
Fair enough and I appologize for the derailment. Checking back out.
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39805
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 8:25 pm |
|
|
So the forum name and intent has been changed to Firearm Topics Only?
Missed that.
Duly noted.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4888
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 8:57 pm |
|
|
Regardless of your perceptions, I haven't been arguing against gun controls but asking why all gun control proponents are so outspoken for stricter gun control while basically blowing off the many 10s of thousands more deaths from alcohol and texting as being less important.
Shouldn't public funding be spent on the biggest killers first? Or how about proportional spending based on the ratios between them? But I doubt that would go over very well since that would put GC spending at the very bottom of the list.
Hammers VS rifles. The point wasn't and isn't that hammers are deadlier than rifles but that banning high cap mags and "assault" rifles will statistically have zero effect on overall gun deaths.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39805
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:57 pm |
|
|
"massacre as a school should involve an emotional response"
Personally? I'd prefer an effective response. Shrug.
Oh and "effective" would be FAR from "nothing". IMHO anyway. Ymmv.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 765
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:59 pm |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:58 am)
QUOTE Woody, I stopped participating for a simple reason. My honest belief is that there are two sides to this debate and they each have a different goal. I own weapons that will be covered under any form of an assault weapons ban. I'm perfectly willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. I'm not willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that are absolutly no danger to their communities.
My belief is that the other side is ideologically led by groups like Bloomberg's MAIG and the Brady Campaign. Dianne Feinstein had her AWB ready before the CT shootings ever happened, she was just waiting for an opportunity to present it. Preventing violence is only an aside for them. Banning guns is their goal. Given that, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had.
Drifty,
I think Jim is spot-on. I believe there is a large segment of the elite that thinks only the military, police, and their body guards ought to have firearms and have made it a passionate cause to use any event as a pretext to work toward the goal of taking them away from anyone else.
Hence the alcohol, texting, hammer analogies. If a drunk, having become intoxicated on vodka, rams a school bus and kills several children, Sen. Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg don't make repeated announcements that beer and wine are OK but distilled beverages need to be banned.
I must commend you on pick-up on this concern/line of reasoning by those of us on the opposite side of the issue from the side you are on.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39805
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 10:29 pm |
|
|
'But you did it first!'
Really? That's your foundation?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4550
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 11:04 pm |
|
|
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 10:36 am)
QUOTE
(BillBab @ Jan. 12 2013, 10:29 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:51 am)
QUOTE They're intentionally muddying the waters because they know they have no logical argument against rational gun control laws. Still waiting for something resembling a "rational" gun control law You've been offered many examples but you'd rather goose step behind the NRA than look at anything from a logical point of view. Your biggest fear seems be that should you say something halfway sensible for once that you might be called a RINO.
No...i have been "offered" the same old tired, worn out, sill, stupid laws
Nothing that makes any sense....not yet!
Gun laws have been piling up for years
Then tide has slowed lately, but they continue to be crafted by people thet have ZERO understanding of firearms
Thus, they are doomed to be innefectual
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4550
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 11:06 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:59 pm)
QUOTE
(JimInMD @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:58 am)
QUOTE Woody, I stopped participating for a simple reason. My honest belief is that there are two sides to this debate and they each have a different goal. I own weapons that will be covered under any form of an assault weapons ban. I'm perfectly willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. I'm not willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that are absolutly no danger to their communities.
My belief is that the other side is ideologically led by groups like Bloomberg's MAIG and the Brady Campaign. Dianne Feinstein had her AWB ready before the CT shootings ever happened, she was just waiting for an opportunity to present it. Preventing violence is only an aside for them. Banning guns is their goal. Given that, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. Drifty, I think Jim is spot-on. I believe there is a large segment of the elite that thinks only the military, police, and their body guards ought to have firearms and have made it a passionate cause to use any event as a pretext to work toward the goal of taking them away from anyone else. Hence the alcohol, texting, hammer analogies. If a drunk, having become intoxicated on vodka, rams a school bus and kills several children, Sen. Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg don't make repeated announcements that beer and wine are OK but distilled beverages need to be banned. I must commend you on pick-up on this concern/line of reasoning by those of us on the opposite side of the issue from the side you are on. Regards,
exactly right
The people with armed security cannot possibly understand why anyone would need to protect themselves
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4888
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 11:15 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 12 2013, 7:06 pm)
QUOTE
(Montanalonewolf @ Jan. 12 2013, 5:57 pm)
QUOTE Regardless of your perceptions, I haven't been arguing against gun controls but asking why all gun control proponents are so outspoken for stricter gun control while basically blowing off the many 10s of thousands more deaths from alcohol and texting as being less important.
Shouldn't public funding be spent on the biggest killers first? Or how about proportional spending based on the ratios between them? But I doubt that would go over very well since that would put GC spending at the very bottom of the list.
Hammers VS rifles. The point wasn't and isn't that hammers are deadlier than rifles but that banning high cap mags and "assault" rifles will statistically have zero effect on overall gun deaths. Get with the program. The deaths don't matter. That much is clear even through the fog of emoting. Newtown's murders may have been the match but the current flames are feeding off other fuels a long, long ways away from there now. Skepticism need not apply, just show up with your pompoms and join in the cheer leading.
The numbers of deaths from each is the point.
But 20 kids all at once in one location makes far more of an emotional impact than the same number one at a time each day of the year and in scattered locations. But even when something similar does happen (re: my post about the drunk hitting the bus killing 27), the outrage still isn't nearly as bad as when a gun is used.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7238
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 11:39 pm |
|
|
Woody,
You make good points.
I have no problems with disagreement. I realize that forum members are going have different positions on issues - sometimes extremely different, and I'm okay with that. But these half-brained analogies to gun control that have been brought up again and again are just absurd in my mind. And no matter how hard some have tried to explain why they're absurd, the explanations have been wasted on those who have no desire to listen.
It sort of reminds me of explaining something to one of my teenagers over and over again, but they just don't get it. At some point, I just have accept the fact that they're just not going to get it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Bass
Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 7:20 am |
|
|
Land Rover
QUOTE The NRA and its supporters would rather do anything than get into a rational discussion about sensible gun regs
+1
The NRA knows, as most of us do, that the ONLY "sensible" solution is to ban ALL guns as London has done. The bans can start with "assault rifles" or whatever - then move on to other types of guns. But the objective is a gun-free America.
Starting small, with "reasonable", "common sense", and "reasonable" laws and regulations and bureaucratic requirements is the only way to change America's gun culture. Each seemingly small law, regulation, or bureaucratic requirement is a step toward that goal. Americans are unlikely to vote for a ban on all guns, but will over time, vote for or accept enough "reasonable" requirements and regulations that guns are effectively banned. Just look at how cities like Chicago have effectively banned legal ownership of all guns.
As they have in the past, the NRA will eventually have to back down. The calls for support from many of their own members for each "sensible" seemingly small law, regulation, or bureaucratic requirement will divide them.
Rome wasn't built in a day - and it may take an entire generation to completely bans guns in America too.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 7:47 am |
|
|
(Drift Woody @ Jan. 12 2013, 10:21 am)
QUOTE
(JimInMD @ Jan. 12 2013, 8:58 am)
QUOTE Woody, I stopped participating for a simple reason. My honest belief is that there are two sides to this debate and they each have a different goal. I own weapons that will be covered under any form of an assault weapons ban. I'm perfectly willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. I'm not willing to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people that are absolutly no danger to their communities.
My belief is that the other side is ideologically led by groups like Bloomberg's MAIG and the Brady Campaign. Dianne Feinstein had her AWB ready before the CT shootings ever happened, she was just waiting for an opportunity to present it. Preventing violence is only an aside for them. Banning guns is their goal. Given that, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. Jim, I posted this thread for one reason:To point out the fallacy of arguing against gun control on the basis of deaths involving hammers, driving automobiles, [fill in the blank here]. I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another generic thread about all the relevant issues concerning gun control, including the content of your post. I'm just looking for agreement that deaths from hammers, trains planes & automobiles are irrelevant to the issue of gun control, so we can move on to more rational discussions in other threads.
Clearly, while you have some agreement, by no means is there a consensus for this idea. Some of us see NO difference in the very criminal act of the drunk driver slamming his weapon, vehicle, into a buss and taking out 27 people. For those dead there remains no difference. For us the difference is one was under the influence of alcohol, and the other was under the influence of psychotropic drugs.
It IS very legitimate to point out that nobody ever argues for banning the automobile. What is argued is for tougher restrictions on offenders. We all want to see less/no deaths to DUI. That's why people should be registered not guns.
And deal with the elephant in the room. Mental health problems.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
