China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

[dianaiad]

It's really not, but even if it was, so what? How does that effect anything we're discussing?
Yes, I understood that, and your point is invalid as the comparison is so utterly inappropriate, it's a strawman.

Y'know, with all due respect, your declaring it as so does not make it so. Just sayin'.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Y'know, with all due respect, your declaring it as so does not make it so. Just sayin'.

Of course not. It's a strawman because of the reasons already explained.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My point with this thread was simple. He used a car to kill 6 people and no one really sees it as a big deal. If he used a gun to kill those people it would have been a big deal just because a gun was used.

No one sees it as a big deal?
It happened in Melbourne. It was a big deal.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The whole arguments are based on casualties. Number of deaths by a tool used by a human being.

Cars are just as relevant as guns and knives are, as with anything else that can kill.

Anti gun crowds have no overall perspective or focus on what they're talking about.

You're looking at the tools, others are looking at the real cause which is people themselves.

Actually it's entirely possible to look at both.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah tell that to police departments and governments.

So...people should have access to the same weapons as governments?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Actually it's entirely possible to look at both.

Not if one wishes to maintain the fiction that cars and firearms are comparable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not if one wishes to maintain the fiction that cars and firearms are comparable.

I was more surprised by the assertion that people are looking at the gun or people as the problem. That strikes me as self-serving most of the time I hear it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So...people should have access to the same weapons as governments?

Good luck getting a straight answer. The cognitive dissonance generated by the fact disallowing private ownership of weapons is something these types already believe in is palpable. Weapons prohibition is a continuum, and they hate that they are already on it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I was more surprised by the assertion that people are looking at the gun or people as the problem. That strikes me as self-serving most of the time I hear it.

When they can't maintain a logical argument against something they really wish they could, don't be surprised at what zaniness they come up with in terms over overwrought and overly contrived nonsense, coupled with willful misunderstandings and ignorances. Credit where due, they are slightly less intolerable than creationists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mean....like comparing the bird deaths as the result of wind farms as opposed to feral cats?

the problem with your argument here is that the strawman is really about the main use of cars vs. the principle use of guns. The fact is, more people....a great many more people, are killed by cars than by guns. If the reaction of those who claim to value human life over freedom is 'Ok, but we need cars to get to places, and you are taking my car away from me over my cold dead body!" then I cry hypocrisy.

But it isn't hypocrisy, because your argument fails to acknowledge the ratio of uses to deaths. And people DO get upset about deaths by car, and regulations ARE often put in place when deaths are caused by them. Cars serve a specific non-killing function that they achieve without killing or hurting anybody millions of times a day for a sizeable chunk of the human population. To say "they cause more deaths, so there should be more outrage" is pure false equivalence, because the RATE isn't even remotely the same. Again, to compare the two is absurd.

Actually, I rather like how cars are "regulated." in order to drive a car, someone has to get a license, and prove that s/he is capable of driving. If a health issue comes up that might impact the ability to drive, that license is suspended or outright revoked. If the driver doesn't have insurance, his/her license might be revoked. Many things could impact a driver's license. The rules for what a car must have to operate safely on 'the street,' are pretty strict.

Just applying driver's license rules to gun ownership would be a really good idea.

And I would say that's extremely reasonable.

That's my opinion anyway, but here the claim of 'strawman' just doesn't apply.

But it does, because nobody is arguing that it is purely the number of deaths that is significant enough to justify gun control, it's the rate at which they happen relative to other methods, coupled with the regularity with which they are used for mass murder. To say that gun control advocates are arguing based purely on the numbers killed, regardless of context or rates, is a strawman.

I was addressing hypocrisy here, not attempting to justify gun ownership by car ownership.

But it's not hypocritical, because I'm fairly certain gun control advocates are also supporters of car regulation. Where is the hypocrisy?

 

[dianaiad]

But it's not hypocritical, because I'm fairly certain gun control advocates are also supporters of car regulation. Where is the hypocrisy?

For one thing, 'gun control advocates' is a misnomer. those who call themselves that are really 'gun ban supporters.' They don't want regulation...shoot, I want that...they want guns utterly banned. Certainly those who CALL themselves 'gun control advocates' don't count me among 'em, because I'm for regulation, NOT removal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For one thing, 'gun control advocates' is a misnomer. those who call themselves that are really 'gun ban supporters.'

Again, no. This is another strawman.

They don't want regulation...shoot, I want that...they want guns utterly banned.

Well, if you're DEFINING them like that, then obviously they do. But I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about people who advocate gun control.

Certainly those who CALL themselves 'gun control advocates' don't count me among 'em, because I'm for regulation, NOT removal.

Uh huh. I think you're redefining terms and committing a kind of reversal of the "no true Scotsman" argument. In my experience, the vast majority of people who call themselves "gun control advocates" advocate "gun control", and very few advocate an outright ban. In any case, this tussling with definitions is irrelevant. I'm addressing gun control, not a gun ban.

 

[dianaiad]

Again, no. This is another strawman.


Well, if you're DEFINING them like that, then obviously they do. But I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about people who advocate gun control.


Uh huh. I think you're redefining terms and committing a kind of reversal of the "no true Scotsman" argument. In my experience, the vast majority of people who call themselves "gun control advocates" advocate "gun control", and very few advocate an outright ban. In any case, this tussling with definitions is irrelevant. I'm addressing gun control, not a gun ban.

In that case, what's your problem with me?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In that case, what's your problem with me?

The fact that you used strawmen, misrepresented facts, used poor arguments and mis-defined "gun control advocates".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People shouldn't be banned from the rights granted by the founding fathers. Just educated and capable to handle a tool that requires a great deal of responsibility and care when using them properly. It's why I go all Bushido in defending people's rights to own and bear arms.

Seeing how tightly controlled - and how tightly tied to social rank - weapons were in feudal Japan, I have no idea what "go all Bushido" could possibly mean in this context.

I assume you're not going for "depending who your father is, you're either forbidden from carrying weapons or required to carry a weapon... and you don't get to choose the type of weapon."