A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Brother shot by sister

The case is being reviewed by the county prosecutor and the Missouri Child Fatality Review Program to determine whether any charges will be filed against the parents, Reinsch said.

The parents should be fried. I recommend the death penalty. Too bad it was not in Texas.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]

The parents should be fried. I recommend the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I only say that because I have never really understood why death itself is such a harsh penalty. Everyone dies, but not everyone has to live out the rest of their years inside a prison thinking about their responsibility for a dead child. Yes, I do realize some people argue that we shouldn't be supporting these people with tax dollars, but saving money shouldn't be a good enough reason for our government to execute someone, regardless of whether or not it really is the harshest penalty we have in this country.

From what I can gather in the article you provided, this accident really isn't unique. I'm not sure what else there is here besides neglectful parents and a gun accident. Certainly there is not enough to warrant a ban on weapons.

Are you saying we should ban handguns because some people are neglectful parents and/or morons?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Why don't we just drop a bomb on the whole county and then there will be no more tragic accidents. Your response is stupid by the way.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

You say this is a fine reason to ban weapons, indicating you blame the firearm for the death, then you say the parents should be fried, indicating you believe the parents' negligence is behind the fatality.

Why should the parents be punished if the fatality is caused by the existence of the inanimate object?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

So, what's the reason?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say this is a fine reason to ban weapons, indicating you blame the firearm for the death, then you say the parents should be fried, indicating you believe the parents' negligence is behind the fatality.

Why should the parents be punished if the fatality is caused by the existence of the inanimate object?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

So by your reasoning...

This link on infant, child, teen deaths in cars

Every parent who gets into a car accident should be fried.

More children die from accidental drownings or burnings than accidental gun deaths.

Want to ban bath tubs, 5 gallon buckets, kiddie pools, and stoves also?

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I know that the Freakonomics book has been talked about in the forum. For those dont know, another issue examined by the authors shows that having a swimming pool in your backyard is much more dangerous to children than having a gun in the house.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

This is a good web site that shows the comparisons of deaths

There are a lot more dangerous items that we live with than guns.

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I don't understand why you have to register a gun, take a gun safety class to get a concealed weapons permit, and you have to bear the consequences of having horrendous judgment and lack of common sense [if you own a gun]...

However, pop out a few kids that you can't afford, raise, or teach... and the government kicks you down with a few hundred a month.

WTF.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Risk v Reward.

Of the items mentioned only one has as its purpose the killing of others.

In this case we have a person who is employed in the corrections department. Presumably has above average knowledge of guns, some level of training, etc.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I buy guns to target shoot and rare/old ones to display on my wall as collection items. None were built to kill people. Thats as dumb as saying a knife is built to stab people, and its a fine reason to ban knives when someone gets stabbed.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

You can't argue with left-wing authoritarians who know what's best for you. They are the worst of all.

I leave you with this quote:
[ QUOTE ]
... a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - c.s. lewis

[/ QUOTE ]

natedogg

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]


... a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - c.s. lewis


[/ QUOTE ]


The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell.

-Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (1928).


The intellectual dishonesty of abhorring many freedoms that they personally disagree with is a continual theme among many that post on this forum.

-Zeno

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

But, wait a second.

You say risk v reward is the reason.

Compared to other things mentioned by etgryphon, the risk is lower than that of many more commonly used items.

You are implying that the reward of guns is the ability to kill people. I think that is a very shortsighted and kneejerk view of firearms, both historically and practically. I'm no member of the NRA, but firearms are nothing more than a tool of man, used in defense and provision since their inception. I have owned a gun for more than 10 years, and have killed no one with it, nor have I injured anyone with it.

No one would ever argue that an eight-year-old should be left alone with a loaded gun. But, what tool would be good to leave with an eight-year-old? You're telling me you'd leave a saw or a power drill with her? Come on, AC...open your mind a bit on this one.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can't argue with left-wing authoritarians who know what's best for you. They are the worst of all.



[/ QUOTE ]

The worst of all are the sheep who mindlessly follow them.

I still vividly remember an incident in the 2000 elections, when Gore and WhatsHisName were wildly indignant about sex and violence in video games, pop music, etc, and calling for Congressional oversight.

I think it was CNN that was doing Mom in the Mall interviews. One Mini-van Mom said that she firmly agreed with Gore on this, because someone had to take responsibility for screening the games and music and stuff that her children bought.

If I had been there, I would have been sorely tempted to slap her upside the head, and say you're damn right lady, and that someone is you.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

In our society today the risk/reward for consumer goods is managed by the tort laws. When a fuel tank explodes in a car there is a lawsuit because of the injury.

We have reached the point with guns that there is no management of the risk/rewards for the gun industry. If the gun industry does not want child locks (it may add a few dollars to the cost) the NRA and the gun nuts trot out their mis-interpretation of the second amendment and the pols fall into place.

As there is no sanity in the pro-gun camp, the only sane position is to be against gun ownership.

Fortunately, I don't know a single person who owns a weapon. And most of them are highly intelligent people. There is simply no reason for a normal person to own a gun (and yes, IMO, that includes hunting animals, or displaying on a wall).

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

You may wish to pass along the quote (and it is a fine one) to Bush and to those who support going into Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi.

It is not applicable to my position. You may wish to understand why.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
The intellectual dishonesty of abhorring many freedoms that they personally disagree with is a continual theme among many that post on this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is something you "personally disagree" with do you be quiet or speak up? Specially as the freedom to own weapons is an invented freedom (kind of like the invented right of abortion)

I expected NateDogg's mischaracterization but not yours. However ....

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no reason for a normal person to own a gun

[/ QUOTE ]

Home defense.

This is a problem, but not the bulk of it.
 

This is a small problem, but not the biggest problem with guns in America. The problem is that many people in America are so fascinated by guns, and many more feel they are so necessary for public defense.

A good question to be asking ourselves is: Why do so many feel that guns are necessary in our society? Why is there such a large criminal class in the 'richest country in the world'?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Specially as the freedom to own weapons is an invented freedom (kind of like the invented right of abortion)

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom to own weapons is not an "invented freedom".

Rather, legal or societal restrictions placed upon the possession of ANYTHING are invented restrictions.

Why isn't this plainly, clearly, and stark-staringly obvious?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun. I also suspect I have lived in a lot more dangerous places than most posters on this forum. I offer three years in Johannesburg as one example.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no reason for a normal person to own a gun


[/ QUOTE ]


Home defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough for YOU, you mean. However there do exist many normal persons who are not like ACPlayer.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
In our society today the risk/reward for consumer goods is managed by the tort laws. When a fuel tank explodes in a car there is a lawsuit because of the injury.


[/ QUOTE ]

The same laws apply to firearms. They should not apply to properly functioning firearms used in the hands of careless or irresponsible individuals. Thank goodness we have laws going through Congress to address the stupidity of these lawsuits.

[ QUOTE ]

We have reached the point with guns that there is no management of the risk/rewards for the gun industry. If the gun industry does not want child locks (it may add a few dollars to the cost) the NRA and the gun nuts trot out their mis-interpretation of the second amendment and the pols fall into place.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no NEED to have to sell with a child safety lock. And I don't want some idiot in congress coming along and telling me that I have to USE the safety lock against my will. Thus, rendering my firearm USELESS in the moment of need.

[ QUOTE ]

As there is no sanity in the pro-gun camp, the only sane position is to be against gun ownership.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is the other way around. The gun control camp has no evidence that their policies do anything to help the problem of gun violence in America. They are ineffectual and ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, I don't know a single person who owns a weapon. And most of them are highly intelligent people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is part of your problem. Do you presume to have knowledge about an item that you have no experiance with or know people with knowledge of a firearm. Please take an NRA course SHOOTING firearms. I'll even pay for it for you. If you still feel like they can't be used responsibly, I will give you more respect because at least you tried firearms and are more well informed.

[ QUOTE ]

There is simply no reason for a normal person to own a gun (and yes, IMO, that includes hunting animals, or displaying on a wall).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply casuistic, cockeyed, dopey, fallacious, false, far out, fatuous, faulty, groundless, hollow, implausible, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsequent, inconsistent, incorrect, invalid, irrational, mad, meaningless, nutty, preposterous, screwy, senseless, sophistic, sophistical, specious, spurious, unconnected, unproved, unreasonable, unscientific, unsound, unsubstantial, untenable, wacky, without basis, and without foundation in rational thought.

I expected you to use your mind better AC. You have some great points and logical reasoning in your defense of the Kelo case (still disagree) and eminent domain. Whats the catch on this one?

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
We have reached the point with guns that there is no management of the risk/rewards for the gun industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they make a defective product, they can be held liable. If someone directs their product in a manner that it injures someone without malfunctioning, why would they be liable? If I attack someone with a circular saw and kill them, is the circular saw manufacturer liable?


[ QUOTE ]
As there is no sanity in the pro-gun camp, the only sane position is to be against gun ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because you can find a crazy person that supports something, the only "sane" course of action is to oppose it? That's pretty obviously poor logic.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had the need to use a fire extinguisher. I guess keeping one in my house is a waste.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]

I've never had the need to use a fire extinguisher. I guess keeping one in my house is irresponsible, dangerous and will cause me to go crazy on someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

To reduce the rate of death by accidental discharge of a firearm.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Brother shot by sister

The case is being reviewed by the county prosecutor and the Missouri Child Fatality Review Program to determine whether any charges will be filed against the parents, Reinsch said.

The parents should be fried. I recommend the death penalty. Too bad it was not in Texas.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because of someones stupidity and irresponsibility we are supposed to ban weapons?

Put the blame where it's due. Stop being an idiot and realize weapons are not the problem.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]


As there is no sanity in the pro-gun camp, the only sane position is to be against gun ownership.




[/ QUOTE ]

In the formal study of logic, this is a fallacy known as "begging the question". (As a pedantic aside, 99% of the people who use that phrase use it incorrectly.)

From Wiki:

[ QUOTE ]
In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted" Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy") in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your premise, that wanting to own a gun is insane, is used to prove your proposition, that not wanting to own a gun is sane. Your premise and your proposition are identical. With a plug for our host, the statement that 2+2=4 contains more information than your statement.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know a single person who owns a weapon. And most of them are highly intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another logical fallacy, this one called appeal to authority.

[ QUOTE ]
An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy.

This is the case when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not an expert on dental hygiene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement says (or implies):

1. I know some intelligent people (we won't get into that).

2. Those people don't own guns.

3. Therefore, no intelligent person owns a gun.

Well, I know some intelligent people who do own guns. So there, Mr. Smartypants. Nah nah nah nah. Refute that logic! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
We have reached the point with guns that there is no management of the risk/rewards for the gun industry. If the gun industry does not want child locks (it may add a few dollars to the cost) the NRA and the gun nuts trot out their mis-interpretation of the second amendment and the pols fall into place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This displays total ignorance of the issues, of guns, of gun safety, and of the way that the industry operates. Every reputable gun manufacturer provides some provision for locking a gun. Some build it into the gun, some provide a separate lock with every new gun sold. The industry objects to being told how they have to do it. They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use.

I would certainly rather have gun safety designed by the engineers at Winchester than by the likes of John Kerry or Ted Kennedy.

The impact of tort law is when victims of crimes are allowed to sue on gun manufacturers who were in no way responsible for the misuse of their product. If a fuel tank explodes, there may be reason to sue the car maker. If a drunk kills someone on the road, it is the fault of neither the car maker nor the brewer.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the reason?



[/ QUOTE ]

To reduce the rate of death by accidental discharge of a firearm.

[/ QUOTE ]

That cannot even remotely be construed as a "fine" reason unless you hold that every product which sometimes results in accidental death should be banned irrespective of all other considerations (such as rate of occurrence, utility value, etc).

So, I'm still wondering to what ACPlayer was referring as being a "fine reason".

The use of automobiles results in a great many accidental deaths. Maybe ACPlayer should post a news story about a particular traffic fatality, which apparently occurred due to negligence or carelessness, and entitle it, "A Fine Reason To Ban Automobiles".

Yeah I think that would be a good thing for ACPlayer to get busy on right away;-)

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, because YOU haven't needed one, it's not good enough.
Well, I'm certainly convinced.

:rolls eyes in an obvious manner:

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You may wish to pass along the quote (and it is a fine one) to Bush and to those who support going into Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are hilarious. What does Iraq have anything to do with your authoritarian position on gun ownership?

I'm surprised you guys are bringing up Iraq in the mid-limit online forum in response to questions about start hand reqs!

[ QUOTE ]
It is not applicable to my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

The authitarian do-gooders NEVER think they are brining tyranny.

But they are. And you are one of them. You have made that plainly clear on this board.

natedogg

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply casuistic, cockeyed, dopey, fallacious, false, far out, fatuous, faulty, groundless, hollow, implausible, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsequent, inconsistent, incorrect, invalid, irrational, mad, meaningless, nutty, preposterous, screwy, senseless, sophistic, sophistical, specious, spurious, unconnected, unproved, unreasonable, unscientific, unsound, unsubstantial, untenable, wacky, without basis, and without foundation in rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, it is easy to look up a thesauraus and yet be wrong.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I have not offered a proof of the insanity of gun ownership. I made a statement of opinion. There is a difference. Hence your splendid and logical proof that my logic is incorrect, is, in fact, incorrect. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If a drunk kills someone on the road, it is the fault of neither the car maker nor the brewer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the jury decide. Not congress. This brings the gun safety into the protection of a free market. Protecting the gun makers from lawsuits is protectionism.

[ QUOTE ]
They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong about this. They want to build weapons at the lowest cost that they can get away with.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised you guys are bringing up Iraq in the mid-limit online forum in response to questions about start hand reqs!


[/ QUOTE ]

Say what! Drunk? High?

[ QUOTE ]
The authitarian do-gooders NEVER think they are brining tyranny.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post about begging the question.

Easy to sling mud. Hard to be rational.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
The use of automobiles results in a great many accidental deaths. Maybe ACPlayer should post a news story about a particular traffic fatality, which apparently occurred due to negligence or carelessness, and entitle it, "A Fine Reason To Ban Automobiles".

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe their are no news stories of young siblings killing each other with cars. Maybe thats the difference. Maybe thats why the argument that you can compare an everyday household object with a gun and say 'Look they kill by accident too' is lazy and flawed.

If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. If you want to convince me that the death of this young child was worth the benefits that general gun ownership conveys then by all means try. But please don't insult my intelligence with the 'if it wasn't the gun that killed him it could easily have been a car accident or the rat poison under the sink' angle.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is simply casuistic, cockeyed, dopey, fallacious, false, far out, fatuous, faulty, groundless, hollow, implausible, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsequent, inconsistent, incorrect, invalid, irrational, mad, meaningless, nutty, preposterous, screwy, senseless, sophistic, sophistical, specious, spurious, unconnected, unproved, unreasonable, unscientific, unsound, unsubstantial, untenable, wacky, without basis, and without foundation in rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, it is easy to look up a thesauraus and yet be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was an attempt to lighten the mood with the obvious...

So you willing to take an NRA course?

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong about this. They want to build weapons at the lowest cost that they can get away with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You both are right. To "get away with" it, the weapons they build will need to be safe, and they will need their customers to want to use them, or else they won't sell very many. What's so bad about minimizing costs?