So not only do you ignore the many gun control advocates who have argued, with varying degrees of sincerity, for a system of gun ownership and registration that directly parallels the way we handle motor vehicles; you also just can't imagine any sort of qualitative difference between a motor vehicle and a weapon that could or should impact the way they are viewed and regulated (not to mention tagging on the shitty argument that X is worse than Y so you cannot do anything about Y until you fix X); and you can't fathom why individuals and society at large might be willing to accept some risks more than others for any reason other than the number of deaths...
So not only do you ignore the many gun control advocates who have argued, with varying degrees of sincerity, for a system of gun ownership and registration that directly parallels the way we handle motor vehicles; you also just can't imagine any sort of qualitative difference between a motor vehicle and a weapon that could or should impact the way they are viewed and regulated
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read some of my past posts. I'm very much for gun control. I hope the Dems can come up with some non-shitty legislation that will get passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
(not to mention tagging on the shitty argument that X is worse than Y so you cannot do anything about Y until you fix X)
Well, one can do something, but is it reasonable to? Shouldn't larger problems be dealt with first? Or is size a bullshit standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
and you can't fathom why individuals and society at large might be willing to accept some risks more than others for any reason other than the number of deaths...
Oh, I know people are myopic fools.
We spend trillions fighting a War on Terror when we could be investing that money in medical research and healthcare (or any number of other worthwhile endeavors) and save, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of lives per year.
This sounds awfully close to an appeal to popularity on your part. Why is society right?
Or perhaps you just need to be unwilling to bet your life on your own infallibility.
Better stop driving a car, then.
Or riding in one: you're trusting someone else to not make mistakes.
Indeed: you are just as dead when you stab yourself to death with a butter-knife. So we might as well keep our assault-rifles in the kitchen drawer.
Is it possible to talk about guns without using absurd arguments? Or to reply to my actual point?
Tell me, which causes a greater number of casualties each year:
Automobile accidents (hell, not even DUI related, just from inattention or other human-error) or accidental gun deaths?
That's right, automobile accidents.
If you don't see that cars are more dangerous than most guns, you must not have been paying attention in physics class.
Plug in the mass of a car and its speed into the kinetic energy equation and get frightened at just how much "kill you" is bound up there. Assuming you even know what joules are.
If you've never been a pedestrian on a crosswalk and had to jump out of the way of an incompetent driver that almost ran you over, like I had to do, then perhaps it's understandable why you're not respectful of cars.
You started with an absurd argument, I merely used my example as a way of pointing that out. Your argument implies that there is no pertinent difference between a portable, purpose-built device for killing things with the press of a trigger and a means of transport that causes accidents.
On the other hand, a car is just a device that immature people use to run over things by accident, drunk for example, and with much more kinetic energy than a bullet.
But there are morally upright people like the good Dr. Gatling who just wanted to prevent unnecessary bloodshed by building a rotary barrel device that could be operated by a single operator, had an electric motor and a frequency of metal projectile ejection of about 3000 min^(-1), and that in 1910, which was so crazy that even the Army didn't know what to do with such a nonsensical gadget. And what do we end up with? BZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You started with an absurd argument, I merely used my example as a way of pointing that out. Your argument implies that there is no pertinent difference between a portable, purpose-built device for killing things with the press of a trigger and a means of transport that causes accidents.
How does my argument imply that? All I was responding to was Crumb with his "not trusting one's own life to one's own infallibility", which almost everyone does all the time from driving cars to making sure they don't eat spoiled food.
Of course there's a difference between automobiles and guns.
As for me, though, I don't really care what kills me--the result of deadness is the same no matter what causes it.
You started with an absurd argument, I merely used my example as a way of pointing that out. Your argument implies that there is no pertinent difference between a portable, purpose-built device for killing things with the press of a trigger and a means of transport that causes accidents.
What you did was to ignore the context of Kashmir's point to make it absurd. The absurdity you focused on was all about your false version of Kashmir's point, not Kashmir's point.
Kashmir was specifically talking about Crumb's point about being "unwilling to bet your life on your own infallibility". Just because you decided to expand the context of his counter argument doesn't mean the actual issue can reasonably be ignored.
I'm not betting my life on my own infallibility when I get in a car.
That's why I wear a fucking seatbelt. Every time.
And why we have airbags in our cars. And all sorts of other safety measures.
And I stop at stop signs and traffic lights even when it doesn't seem that anybody is coming from the other directions.
Guns and cars aren't equivalent and it's a stupid analogy because the differences between them are so huge.
You think airbags and crumple zones are 100% effective? You think most people who are mangled to death in wrecks weren't wearing theirs?
They help at low enough impact velocities, but I'm guessing you've never seen what a car looks like after it was in a wreck on an interstate highway at 70mph.
You think airbags and crumple zones are 100% effective? You think most people who are mangled to death in wrecks weren't wearing theirs?
Actually whether or not someone was wearing their seat belt seems to be the the main factor in whether they live or not. Sure it's not 100% but the statistics of those not wearing their seatbelts are pretty grim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kashmir
They help at low enough impact velocities, but I'm guessing you've never seen what a car looks like after it had a wreck on an interstate highway at 70mph.
I've actually seen someone walk away from one (and not on the Race track) human bodies are funny.
You think airbags and crumple zones are 100% effective? You think most people who are mangled to death in wrecks weren't wearing theirs?
No, did I say or imply that they were though?
You said I'm betting on my own infallibility. I would say wearing a seatbelt is a very obvious sign that I do not think I'm an infallible driver and that I'm not betting on that.
I am taking a risk, but I'm not betting that I'm infallible.
Quote:
They help at low enough impact velocities, but I'm guessing you've never seen what a car looks like after it was in a wreck on an interstate highway at 70mph.
For someone so sensitive about his arguments being called stupid, you sure like to make condescending remarks all the time.
I've driven plenty and, yes, I've seen crumpled cars. But as it turns out, I was not making the stupid argument you put in my mouth, so it's irrelevant.
As for me, though, I don't really care what kills me--the result of deadness is the same no matter what causes it.
Bullshit.
Aside from considerations of how much one would physically hurt over another*, no I really don't care.
As you cannot possibly know how I view things aside from what I type while serious, you are in no position to dictate how I really feel about it. Unless you have ESP powers--in which case I direct you to James Randi and his million dollar prize.
*e.g., being burned to death would hurt a lot more than being shot in the head, so I'd prefer being shot in the head.
I am taking a risk, but I'm not betting that I'm infallible.
What would someone have to do to make looking down the barrel of a gun as taking a risk, but not be betting their life on their infallibility?
Would carefully checking, rechecking, and re-rechecking to make sure that the magazine is completely empty and no round is chambered qualify as due diligence?
Is it just not possible? If so, what reasonable grounds to restrict this to just guns, and not driving cars, rappelling, swimming in deep water, scuba diving or any other human activity that has a certain element of risk that cannot be removed?
Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad
For someone so sensitive about his arguments being called stupid, you sure like to make condescending remarks all the time.
Linear Mode
