Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 305 (399673)
05-07-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jon
05-06-2007 11:25 PM


Jon writes:
quote:
I have yet to hear of anyone blaming cars when they lose loved ones in DUI accidents.
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.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 05-06-2007 11:25 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:05 AM berberry has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 305 (399680)
05-07-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by berberry
05-07-2007 10:16 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by berberry, posted 05-07-2007 10:16 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by berberry, posted 05-07-2007 11:29 AM jar has replied
 Message 156 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2007 2:56 PM jar has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 305 (399682)
05-07-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
05-07-2007 11:05 AM


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.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:46 AM berberry has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 154 of 305 (399683)
05-07-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by berberry
05-07-2007 11:29 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by berberry, posted 05-07-2007 11:29 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 05-07-2007 12:30 PM jar has not replied
 Message 157 by berberry, posted 05-07-2007 2:57 PM jar has not replied
 Message 158 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2007 3:00 PM jar has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 305 (399690)
05-07-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
05-07-2007 11:46 AM


you won't reply, but I'm going to comment anyway
quote:
Laws covering the inappropriate use of either free speech or guns already exist.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:46 AM jar has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 156 of 305 (399713)
05-07-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
05-07-2007 11:05 AM


Not Quite
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:05 AM jar has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 305 (399714)
05-07-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
05-07-2007 11:46 AM


jar writes me:
quote:
Not quite true.
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.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:46 AM jar has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 158 of 305 (399715)
05-07-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
05-07-2007 11:46 AM


Need to be clearer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 11:46 AM jar has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 305 (399732)
05-07-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jon
05-06-2007 5:55 PM


Re: The Blame Game: Step Right Up; Take Your Shot!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 05-06-2007 5:55 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 5:43 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 05-07-2007 6:13 PM Modulous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 160 of 305 (399741)
05-07-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Modulous
05-07-2007 4:49 PM


Re: The Blame Game: Step Right Up; Take Your Shot!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2007 4:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 05-07-2007 5:49 PM jar has not replied
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 1:52 AM jar has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 305 (399744)
05-07-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by jar
05-07-2007 5:43 PM


Re: The Blame Game: Step Right Up; Take Your Shot!
What about surface-to-air missiles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 5:43 PM jar has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 305 (399749)
05-07-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Modulous
05-07-2007 4:49 PM


Re: The Blame Game: Step Right Up; Take Your Shot!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2007 4:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2007 6:35 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 164 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2007 11:59 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 2:14 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 168 by Nuggin, posted 05-08-2007 3:53 AM Jon has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 305 (399752)
05-07-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
05-07-2007 6:13 PM


Re: The Blame Game: Step Right Up; Take Your Shot!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 05-07-2007 6:13 PM Jon has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 164 of 305 (399772)
05-07-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
05-07-2007 6:13 PM


Jon, it's been explained
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!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 05-07-2007 6:13 PM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 165 of 305 (399779)
05-08-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by jar
05-07-2007 5:43 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by jar, posted 05-07-2007 5:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 9:50 AM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024