China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

[danieldemol]

Ah. So your stand is that it is OK to ban something that is used to kill few, but being just fine with something that kills hundreds of times more---because you like your car?

Gotcha.

No you didn’t get me, I said its because we need cars, not because we like/want them, if they were purely a like only they would have already been banned

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No you didn’t get me, I said its because we need cars, not because we like/want them, if they were purely a like only they would have already been banned

They are convenient, but in many cities they actually aren't needed due to the availability of other transportation methods. And, indeed, many people get by without one.

 

[danieldemol]

They are convenient, but in many cities they actually aren't needed due to the availability of other transportation methods. And, indeed, many people get by without one.

Even in those cities you would still find tradespeople and other types who do need a car

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even in those cities you would still find tradespeople and other types who do need a car

Some types, yes, but not everyone. Some types of people have reasons to legitimately need this or that, but not everyone has that same need.

 

[MonkeyFire]

End your bigotry over your anger today and be happy.

 

[We Never Know]

Cars aren't normally used with the intention of hurting and killing. It isn't even a part of their design. Guns, on the other hand, are designed and exist solely for causing injury and death.

See post 106

 

[Salvador]

You mean, nobody is screaming 'BAN CARS?"

If supporters of the green new deal were to have their way, almost every car would be banned.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

See post 106

And? People's screwed up priorities and failure to notice larger trends and bigger pictures isn't my problem. Guns are designed to hurt and kill. Cars aren't. And, realistically, people probably wouldn't be talking much had someone killed 6 people with a car or gun. Most gun deaths get zero media and public attention.

 

[Salvador]

A car's intended use isn't killing people.

Not all guns are designed primarily for killing people: for example, some types of shotguns or rifles are primarily intended for hunting in the woods.

 

[Curious George]

Intention does count for a lot. Cars aren't designed to destroy. Dynamite is.
Truly, however, we are not nearly as strict as we should be when it comes to driving. There is a clear and present case of public safety at hand, and too many people who have demonstrated they are unfit for driving yet they are allowed to legally do so. Drunk driving, for example, should be a crime that brings harsh, unyielding, and unwavering consequences, but so very often they get barely a slap on the wrist in comparison to the potential for risk great and severe harm they put others at. If someone becomes a habitual traffic offender, there should be no possibility for them to get their license back.

Lol, it is destruction now. Is there any system behind this thought or are you just making it up as you go along in an attempt to justify what you like and what you don't. I would be curious to hear your actual thoughts after you have taken time and put effort in them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would be curious to hear your actual thoughts after you have taken time and put effort in them.

You apparently aren't because you completely ignored them. Or is it a comprehension issue given juvenile jabs and dismissals are what you resort to?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah you keep supporting that.

Can't argue against it, I see. Really, you'd be better off trying to understand it rather than getting angry that you can't disprove it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Explain why this is a strawman.

@ImmortalFlame already provided an excellent explanation.

China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

Comparing firearm related homicides to vehicular homicides is comparing things so dissimilar it becomes a strawman argument.

 

[Curious George]

You apparently aren't because you completely ignored them. Or is it a comprehension issue given juvenile jabs and dismissals are what you resort to?

There was no juvenile jab in there. Maybe a dismissal, but a justifiable one after you dodged the point.

If you don't believe me there is not much I can do about that.

Cheers

 

[Twilight Hue]

@ImmortalFlame already provided an excellent explanation.

China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

Comparing firearm related homicides to vehicular homicides is comparing things so dissimilar it becomes a strawman argument.

Hardly. The car has been weaponized for a long time now.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hardly. The car has been weaponized for a long time now.

Yes. And if we compare the number of times cars are used as a weapon, vs the number of times they are used for lawful means, then compare THAT comparison with the comparison of the number of times firearms are used lawfully with the number of times THEY'RE used as a weapon, the strawman becomes obvious.

But please, do continue your willful misunderstanding and trying to construct some semblance of an argument from out of context, cherry picked examples.

 

[dianaiad]

@ImmortalFlame already provided an excellent explanation.

China: Man intentionally drives into crowd. Kills 6

Comparing firearm related homicides to vehicular homicides is comparing things so dissimilar it becomes a strawman argument.

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

You were not, I see, getting my point at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Not really, no.

You were not, I see, getting my point at all.

No, I understood your point just fine. That's how I know it was a strawman.

 

[dianaiad]

Not really, no.

Yes, really, it is the same thing. It's precisely the same thing.

No, I understood your point just fine. That's how I know it was a strawman.

Ah.

No, I don't think so. My point, you see, wasn't about birds or guns. It was about how it seems perfectly acceptable to pull this sort of thing against a debate opponent, and only becomes a 'strawman' when someone uses it against you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, really, it is the same thing. It's precisely the same thing.

It's really not, but even if it was, so what? How does that effect anything we're discussing?

Ah.

No, I don't think so. My point, you see, wasn't about birds or guns. It was about how it seems perfectly acceptable to pull this sort of thing against a debate opponent, and only becomes a 'strawman' when someone uses it against you.

Yes, I understood that, and your point is invalid as the comparison is so utterly inappropriate, it's a strawman.