|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Redirected reply
Edited by Jon, : delete msg.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
3) At this moment, starting next month (7/15/2015), the American Government is starting a military joint exercise called "Jade-Helm-15". In several States, they have closed Walmart Stores and are using the space to amass military equipment. The premise of the exercise is to prepare the military for "urban set up and combat." There are currently trains of box cars with shackles on the inside, traveling across America. I just never realized how all these things go together before: The Corporate demons of WalMart open a store in a small town and drive out all the other business; they realize their business is going poorly and close down themselves, forcing everyone to drive fifteen miles to get to the nearest WalMart. Liberal democrats attempt to restrict popular access to guns. An increasing economy brings about more rail traffic. And to the conspiracy loons this means that the evil liberal democrats are shutting down WalMarts to make room for military store houses, taking away people's guns to disarm them, and rolling out prisons on rails across the country. All to build up to the day when swarms of big gub'ment soldiers march out of abandoned WalMarts to rape and pillage. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter if you aren't willing to present supporting evidence.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
And that means that we don't place the whole responsibility on the drunk. A bartender can reasonably conclude that a patron has had enough and we do hold him responsible to some extent for the patron's actions if he continues to serve alcohol to the patron. Maybe we don't extend that responsibility to the brewmaster or the truck driver but the fact is that we, as a society, do recognize that the responsibility does extend beyond the individual. A nonsense comparison. The bartender's responsibility is the same as the responsibility of someone who tries to enforce a contract signed by someone clearly intoxicated, or the person who tries to defend herself from the rape charge by claiming that the thirteen year old boy gave consent.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
If ANY child is killed by a gun that his parents bought to "protect" him, there's something wrong. Much like if he is killed in a car that his parents bought to drive him to boy scouts?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
No, not much like that. A car DOES take you to boy scouts while a gun DOES NOT protect you. A car is an effective and useful tool. A gun (when purchased for protection) is not. People do protect themselves with guns. Nobody who buys a gun for protection thinks it will end up killing their own child. Nobody who buys a car to go to boy scouts think they'll be in an accident that kills them.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
To make the statistics meaningful and fair of course, we have to correct for the number of crimes that would happen with some other weapon were no gun available; likewise we must figure out how many times someone would defend themselves with something other than a gun.
This would tell us the true impact removal of guns from the equation would have on the ability of people to defend themselves and the ability of others to commit crimes.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
My bad.
I thought you wanted an adult conversation.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You may think so but the rest of society does not. They are called Dram Shop laws (for bars and restaurants) and Social Host Liability laws. At a bar or at your neighbor's home, if they let you get drunk and then you go out and kill someone with your car the bar and the neighbor are held as responsible as you are for your actions. And these have nothing to do with the initial serving of alcohol. They relate, specifically, to the establishment serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated, the presumption being that an already intoxicated person lacks the faculty to weigh, properly, the risks of consuming additional alcohol.
or the person who tries to defend herself from the rape charge by claiming that the thirteen year old boy gave consent. Talk about a nonsense comparison. Both situations deal with whether the person involved is capable of giving consent. Don't cry at me just because you can't connect the dots.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If we all based everything we did on statistical probabilities, we'd sit at home all day doing nothing.
Instead, though, we ignore the dangers of the world, real or imaginary, in favor of living our lives in a manner of our choosing.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Not thinking about the consequences is exactly what people are saying is wrong. And that argument applies to pretty much everything that has risks. When you went to pick up supper, did you really weigh the risks that you were more likely to die in a car accident than you were to die from not eating supper tonight? Statistics are good, but it is pretty ridiculous to think we can all live our lives by themor, indeed, that we do.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
An initial serving? And this has nothing to do with what ringo was talking about. Are you literate? The bartender is liable when serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated. The bartender isn't liable when he serves alcohol to someone who isn't clearly intoxicatedhe isn't liable for the first drink, but he does become liable for the drinks in excess of your intoxication past the point of being able to consent to further drinks.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The above misses the mark of being analogous to the statement about gun risks by quite a bit. These two statements are both accurate and analogous:
But that's not what I said, Percy. What I said (at least in the part you quoted) is that you are more likely to die in a car accident when going to pick up supper than you are to die from skipping supper that night. Yet we all go to pick up supper. And some of us actually do end up dying in a car accident on our way to do so. My point is that we don't live our lives according to the golden rules of statistical probabilities. Sometimes we weigh in the probabilities, but other timesmany other timeswe simply ignore them. So citing statistics of how likely someone is to shoot off their own foot with a gun vs. defend themselves is no more effective at deterring gun ownership than citing statistics that someone is more likely to die in a car accident picking up supper is effective at deterring people from eating supper. Bottom line: there is more involved in the decision to own a gun than just the probabilities of XYZ.
It's worth mentioning again that over 50,000 people used to die in vehicle related accidents every year in the US, but now despite a greater population and many, many more miles driven per person, less than 30,000 people die every year. This is primarily due to improved vehicle safety features, primarily in automobiles. Guns could be made safer, too. Absolutely. And people could be trained to use them more safely too, as they are with automobiles.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not sure why you think you have an effective argument there. You can decide to ignore the statistics, but the statistics clearly say that owning a gun increases your risk of being a gun victim. What argument? I am simply pointing out that real people don't live their lives by the strict standards of statistical probabilities. The statistics that owning a gun is more likely to get you shot than protect you have as little bearing on some folks' decisions to own guns as the statistics that you're more likely to die in a car accident than starve to death skipping one meal have on the decision to go get supper, i.e., none. Folks bringing statistics into the debate need to be honest about the relevancy of the statistics and their overall weight in the decision-making process of regular human beings.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024