I can vouch, I've SEEN him insult someone.
This is the truth. I don't know why it's so hard to understand.
Democracy in Tennessee
- Thread starter RxCowboy
- Start date
I get what you are saying and I appreciate the dialogue without resorting to bumper sticker slogans or ad hominem attacks. But, I think you're missing my main point here.
When the conversation turns to adjusting our regulations on guns, the overrused and oversimplistic phrase, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." seems to come out of the woodwork. A similar phrase is not used in the cases I listed for other regulated issues. Why not? Because we need laws in place to curb the malice of people and the inherent danger of the "agents of death" you referenced.
I tried to clarify with this statement about regulations:
- Your point about pharmaceutical grade cocaine doesn't debunk this point. You can argue it actually supports my premise since people don't commonly recite a phrase like "Cocaine doesn't kill people. People kill people."
- Your claim that I failed in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum (reducing the opposing argument to its absurdity) assumes my claim is that gun violence is solely due to the guns themselves. On the contrary, I'm saying we need to address both the human factor and the regulatory aspect. I think the argument that "people kill people" is factually accurate but still does not eliminate our need to regulate "agents of death" in order to ensure the public safety.
- To drive this home... people kill people with guns, cocaine, pesticides, lack of seat belt safety, semi trucks, and biological weapons. This is why we have laws addressing each of these. Ensuring the laws sufficiently address the danger associated with each of these "agents of death" is an important role of governance. One that many other nations appear to have dealt with better than we have. It should not be shirked simply because people are the ones using the "agents of death" to inflict tragic pain and suffering on others.
There's a big difference between "hard to understand" and "easy to fall for."I can vouch, I've SEEN him insult someone.
This is the truth. I don't know why it's so hard to understand.
Yes, there is.
So why aren't automobile manufacturers required to install a breathalyzer on each and every auto produced? Would that infringe on people's rights too much? Or is it because people who are going to drive drunk are going to figure out a way around it?
Breathalyzer isn't an equivalent here. There are TONS of regulations on cars that are sensible requirements and restrictions. There are sensible restrictions that could be placed on assault-style guns. Same with extended magazines (both of which the shooter in Allen used). This would be similar to not allowing people to drive vehicles on public roads unless they are street-legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards
Jon Stewart argues it much better than I do:
why are cars allowed to go triple digits. nobody needs to go that fast.
Cars drive mostly on state run roadways. Or nationwide highways. Guns and cars don’t compare because cars can be regulated because the roads they drive on.
That said. The only people that will abide by gun control laws are those that would not kill anyone anyway.
That said. The only people that will abide by gun control laws are those that would not kill anyone anyway.
Again, tell me specifically what laws will make people safer from my guns and I will be on board with you. Tell me specifically how restricting me from gun ownership will make anyone safer and I will be on board with you. Tell me why municipalities that already have the strictest gun laws in the country have the most gun violence and what laws could be enacted to curb that violence and I will be on board with you. What we get instead is "we must do something" and reductio ad absurdums. People kill people and it is already against the law to do so regardless of what they use to do so. How can we make it more against the law to do so?I get what you are saying and I appreciate the dialogue without resorting to bumper sticker slogans or ad hominem attacks. But, I think you're missing my main point here.
When the conversation turns to adjusting our regulations on guns, the overrused and oversimplistic phrase, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." seems to come out of the woodwork. A similar phrase is not used in the cases I listed for other regulated issues. Why not? Because we need laws in place to curb the malice of people and the inherent danger of the "agents of death" you referenced.
I tried to clarify with this statement about regulations:
Side note: this is really horrible timing. The slaughter in Allen, TX happened within a 20 minute drive from my house. My 16 year old son practices soccer roughly 1/2 a mile from that outlet. My wife works 1/4 mile from there. I attend a weekly Bible study 2 miles from there. We shop there often. We almost went there on the day of the shooting. This insanity is happening at a rate in the US that other first-world nations are not experiencing. Australia has a ban on these assault rifles. We used to. The explosion of mass shootings happened after the ban on assault-style weapons was lifted in 2004. I am all for the 2nd Amendment, but it needs to be respected with a sense of pragmatism that balances our right to bear arms with others' right to life.
- Your point about pharmaceutical grade cocaine doesn't debunk this point. You can argue it actually supports my premise since people don't commonly recite a phrase like "Cocaine doesn't kill people. People kill people."
- Your claim that I failed in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum (reducing the opposing argument to its absurdity) assumes my claim is that gun violence is solely due to the guns themselves. On the contrary, I'm saying we need to address both the human factor and the regulatory aspect. I think the argument that "people kill people" is factually accurate but still does not eliminate our need to regulate "agents of death" in order to ensure the public safety.
- To drive this home... people kill people with guns, cocaine, pesticides, lack of seat belt safety, semi trucks, and biological weapons. This is why we have laws addressing each of these. Ensuring the laws sufficiently address the danger associated with each of these "agents of death" is an important role of governance. One that many other nations appear to have dealt with better than we have. It should not be shirked simply because people are the ones using the "agents of death" to inflict tragic pain and suffering on others.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Gary Indiana is a freaking suburb of Chicago and Wisconsin is easily with in driving distance so when they still have easy access to guns the laws in Chicago won’t matter.
You're really blaming Chicago violence on Indiana and Wisconsin? Really?
Tell me what new law or restriction will actually get illegal guns that are already on the streets of Chicago off the streets of Chicago.
Jesus did you even read past a sentence in any of my posts. A lot that has been proposed has been mental health.
And when there is a gun in the house it is used on the owner/occupant way more than using it for self protection. And most of those are suicide and accidental shootings.
How do you get the illegal guns that are already on the streets of Chicago off the streets of Chicago?
There are numerous programs that will lessen the amount out there. And your are correct that it won’t remove all but if the choices are do nothing and have it stay the same or do something and have some get off the street then I’m going to choose the latter because doing nothing is being complicit imo.
