|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: for the record (re: guns thread) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Jon writes:
quote: If you're going to draw that analogy perhaps you should answer this question: why not require licenses and registration to own and/or operate guns the same way we do for cars and driving? W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is a fundamental difference in cars and guns. Owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT.
While driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a Right. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Well, yeah Jar, I've heard that argument before. But you can't justifiably compare cars to guns to make your case then cry "rights vs. privileges" just because your analogy wss carried further than you intended.
Free speech is a constitutionally-protected right, too, but in some cases you need a permit to exercise it. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, yeah Jar, I've heard that argument before. But you can't justifiably compare cars to guns to make your case then cry "rights vs. privileges" just because your analogy wss carried further than you intended. Free speech is a constitutionally-protected right, too, but in some cases you need a permit to exercise it. Not quite true. There are limits on how you can use free speech, and a very few limits on where you can use free speech. The comparison between free speech and owning or carrying a gun is more like the following. Laws limit using free speech inappropriately, for example shouting fire when there is no fire. There are also laws limiting the inappropriate use of guns. No one has objected, as far as I can tell, to laws limiting the inappropriate use of guns. There are also laws limiting where free speech can be exercised. Those laws get tested in the courts constantly. Some stand up, many do not. The current situation is the same where guns are concerned. For example, in most States it is illegal to carry a gun where alcoholic beverages are consumed. Carry is also limited in most government buildings. Laws covering the inappropriate use of either free speech or guns already exist. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Laws covering the inappropriate sale of guns are not so common, and are generally opposed by the gun lobbies. For example, the gun show and private sale loopholes. Laws covering the inappropriate storage of firearms are also not so common. All those rules that you listed about how you use and secure your firearms are great, so why shouldn't we legislate them as a requirement for ownership of firearms? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT. Not quite. Carrying "arms" is. As I asked before, and perhaps you missed it, how do we define "arms"? It is all weapons? Some weapons? Is it "those weapons I want to own, but not those the next guy wants"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
jar writes me:
quote: I think it's true but it's another poor analogy. I don't see anything else to disagree with in your post. My main point was that you can't use the car / gun comparison on one hand and reject it on another. Jon seemed to be saying that because it makes no sense to blame a car for an accident that was obviously caused by a drunk driver, it likewise makes no sense to blame a gun for a murder that was committed by a cold-blooded killer. I'm saying that the analogy is so misleading as to constitute sophistry. There are a number of reasons why, the most important of which we haven't even hinted at. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
For example, in most States it is illegal to carry a gun where alcoholic beverages are consumed. I am aware of absolutely no states in which it is illegal to have a gun in your house if you also have alcohol in your house. This may be true for bars, but certainly not true for homes. If it were, there would certainly be a decline in gun related deaths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Show me this as a valid flow of logic, and I'll accept your point...You're missing the point, in technical terms. Its the same 'flow of logic' as 'guns don't kill people...people do'. As with any argument of 'x doesn't kill people...'. My point, that you missed, was that you cannot special plead for guns. That is the point of logic I was attempting to convey.
You want the restrictions, how about you tell us where you want that line to be drawn, and we can debate from there. Are you telling me that you do not want restrictions? You are happy for everyone to own high explosives and nuclear weapons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Are you telling me that you do not want restrictions? You are happy for everyone to own high explosives and nuclear weapons? I have absolutely no problem with people having high explosives, grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, swords, spear, bows and arrows, even frisbees. I have no problems with folk owning most any personal arm. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What about surface-to-air missiles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You are happy for everyone to own high explosives and nuclear weapons? You once again must point out where I said this was okay. I think I asked you to do it earlier, but you still haven't. I also made the point to Nuggin, who seemed to be arguing with the same shoddy logic as what you're using now, but he too has yet to bring up a quote, or even something that would imply I felt that way. Why is what you're arguing a fallacy? Well, I say that it should be okay to own weaponry, firearms. You then try to apply that general principle to a very specific--and insane--case, when you say that based on my logic everyone should own nukes. I mean, we can all agree that murder is generally wrong, no? But what if you were face to face with the SS, wanting to take you off to a death camp? In that specific case, would killing that person still be wrong? Specific cases require specific sets of moral judgements that are different from those used to judge general cases. So, to repeat my question: Where did I ever say it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons? Until you answer that question, or retract your fallacy, I'm afraid this debate can go no further. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why is what you're arguing a fallacy? Well, I say that it should be okay to own weaponry, firearms. You then try to apply that general principle to a very specific--and insane--case, when you say that based on my logic everyone should own nukes. Where do people get this crazy idea that "reducto ad absurdum" is a logical fallacy? There's actually nothing fallacious about it, and indeed, the "proof by contradiction" is one of the most widely-used syllogism forms in logic.
Specific cases require specific sets of moral judgements that are different from those used to judge general cases. Begging the question, though, is a logical fallacy. I'd tighten up your logic a bit, Jon, before I went off accusing others of fallacies that aren't. Just a suggestion. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
This has been explained at least twice, but I'll explain it again for you because apparently you've missed it.
So, to repeat my question: Where did I ever say it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons? You're arguement is: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore we should not restrict gun ownership." Our point is that you can substitute any lethal weapon for "guns" and still have a valid first sentence. So, "knives don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict knife ownership" is an equally valid principle using your arguement. So to, "nukes don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict nuke ownership." The question we are asking is just how far you are willing to take your principle. Since, you yourself has said that guns are just an item and have no intent, it stands to reason that you would also believe the same thing about nukes. If you do not believe the same thing about nukes, it's up to you to explain why this is the case, since it is in opposition to the point you posted. And as you are so fond of saying "Retract!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you don't think that if there was free and easy access to C4, more innocent people would be killed? What about a nuke in every home and sarin gas on every desk?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024