Skip to main content

View Diary: Armed Society, Polite Society (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Crazy or careless people who choose guns as (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    their implements of harm won't do as much if they can't get as many guns or shoot as many rounds.

    Trying to separate the implement from the person is flaccid reasoning at best.

    •  If you are arrested for a DUI (0+ / 0-)

      ...they take away your license.

      They don't outlaw cars.

      •  Irrelevant distraction or completely (0+ / 0-)

        unrelated, poor analogy? Either way, your comment is effectively void of any meaningful contribution to the discussion.

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Punishing other law-abiding citizens for the acts of one deranged person who doesn't follow the rules?  You don't see the analogy?

          How about this one: painkillers.  An abusable substance.  They inflict a cost on society.  Do you ban painkillers? No.  You regulate who can buy them and where.  Cigarettes.  Alcohol.  Texting-by-phone.  Do I really have to keep going?

          Back to your apparent view.  By your philosophy, you would be comfortable with having crazy people wielding something slightly less deadly.  And then what?  Outlaw that?

          Best to identify those that are the problem and take action to prevent them access to ANY weapon.

          •  I see the analogy--that's why I dismissed it as (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            either irrelevant or an unrelated, poor analogy.

            You're committing two fallacies in your comment.

            In the first place you equate "harm with a high probability of death" to "inflict a (presumably financial, but including potentially other abstract 'harmful') cost." It's a completely different set of circumstances and conditions from using a tool designed explicitly to kill for its intended purpose.

            In the second you are deliberately mis-representing the gun control argument. Your straw-man is that gun control advocates argue that "we can eradicate violence by banning implements used to commit it." The actual argument is that "we can reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns by reducing the availability of certain categories of guns and ammunition." The argument (with a few exceptions) isn't even "ban all guns."

            So when you start out from a position of dishonest argument it's hard to take you seriously or feel like it's a productive use of time to engage you in rational discussion. It's unfortunate that your strawmen and irrelevant analogies are used so frequently.

            I'm a gun owner. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on firearm ownership or a repeal of the second amendment that made it possible. But I won't pretend, as you should not pretend, that "banning some guns and ammunition" is the same as "abridging [my] right to keep and bear arms." It just isn't.

            •  I see your point but, (0+ / 0-)

              I've been reading several of the gun regulation/ban articles over the last few days here.  I would say that of the comments in each article that I have read, about half do in fact attempt to make the argument that:

              ...we can eradicate violence by banning implements used to commit it.
              In regard to your personal view that:
              ...we can reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns by reducing the availability of certain categories of guns and ammunition.
              I am simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion.  If there are no assault rifles, what will be the new weapon of choice for mass murderers?  The obvious remedy would be that if you really wanted to "reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns" then why allow any guns at all?  Personally, I don't believe a serial killer needs a gun to kill lots of people (man in China used a knife to stab 22 children and an adult).

              If you believe this to be a straw-man, read some of your fellow poster's comments.  The straw-man army is pretty substantial ...

              •  No, you're substituting an argument you (0+ / 0-)

                made up and pretending I advanced it.

                And your strawman argument is still littered with fallacies.

                The new "weapon of choice for mass murderers" will irrelevant distraction from this discussion. We aren't talking about hypothetical weapons that may be used for mass murder. We are talking about actual weapons that actually have been, and likely will continue to be, used for mass murder, and what can be done to prevent or mitigate that.

                Moreover, the "man in China" you referenced didn't kill 22 people. He stabbed them. I haven't seen how many (or even if any) died. So you inadvertently help make my point: the gun control argument isn't "banning guns will prevent violence;" it's "banning some guns and ammunition will prevent or minimize the injuries and death caused by violence committed with some guns and ammunition." They are two completely different arguments, and yet you continue to insist they're both the former.

                •  You just want to think of the here and now. (0+ / 0-)

                  I get that.  No hypotheticals.

                  banning some guns and ammunition will prevent or minimize the injuries and death caused by violence committed with some guns and ammunition.
                  Well yes.  This is obvious.  If there are no assault rifles, no one will be killed by assault rifles.

                  But do you honestly think, if assault rifles are gone, but the number of deaths by fire arms in this country doesn't decline, that the banning of assault weapons did anything other then change the implements crazy people utilize to commit murder?

                  My query (hypothetical because I'm making a point) is do you then decide to ban the next most dangerous firearm?

        •  Not irrelevant, but quite different (0+ / 0-)

          Vehicles: no matter the driver (if any), when cops find drugs in the vehicle, it gets confiscated. I don't think there's any law like that for guns.
          DUI: I think there is a battleground involving suing bartenders. I don't think there's some thing like that for vehicles. Vehicle makers are sued, but for different causes (complaints). and when vehicle sellers are sued, the causes are very different.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site