|
|
|
|
#2
10-05-2005, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#3
10-05-2005, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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;-)
|
|
#4
10-06-2005, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
10-06-2005, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. [/ QUOTE ] We can keep each person locked in a personal padded cell, doped up on drugs, immobilized. That would REALLY reduce accidental deaths. Sound good to you?
|
|
#6
10-06-2005, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Aspirin is a common household object which isd responsible for may deaths per year, accidental and otherwise. [ QUOTE ] If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. [/ QUOTE ] Banning aspirin would reduce accidental death. So if I post a news story aboyt a child's accidental overdose, it's a "fine reason" to ban aspirin? By the way aspirin also kills sometimes even when not overdosed. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] The latter is not what I was trying to suggest. I'm saying that looking only at costs--and especially only one incident of cost, without putting it into statistical perspective-- is inadequate, in part because it takes not benefits into consideration. Not to mention the question of rights.
|
|
#7
10-06-2005, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I won't insult your intelligence. Maybe the correct way to view this is simply regulating dangerous products -- and restricting their use in such a way that we can minimize accidents. --With guns, we can use gun cases and trigger locks to reduce accidents. While this does somewhat restrict their legitimate use -- the savings in life may justify it. --Back to automobiles. We could go back to the 55 mph speed limit -- that saved lives. But I think 40,000 deaths is still too high. We should reduce it to 40 ... or better yet 30. No, make it 5 mph -- that will save all 40,000 lives! It is within our power to do this. Picking any number higher than 5 would mean you believe there is an acceptable casualty rate as a trade-off for utility. And this can't be, since ... [ QUOTE ] If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#8
10-03-2005, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#9
10-03-2005, 09:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
10-03-2005, 09:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
