|
|
#41
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? 
|
|
#42
10-06-2005, 09:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] Thank you. I'm totally convinced by your rationale. You should do this for a living.
|
|
#43
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.
|
|
#44
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 ]
|
|
#45
10-06-2005, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks. My main disagreement with the pro gun lobby is this in a nutshell. I believe there should be more regulation, they believe less. The problem I have with MMMMMM's line of argument is the comparison of apples and oranges. Guns are designed to kill, cars are not. Asparin is designed to relieve a headache not the head from the body. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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 ] The two statements are not incompatible. Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US.
|
|
#46
10-06-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. [/ QUOTE ] So if you're not willing to take responsibility for the defense of your home and family, who will? The police? LOL
|
|
#47
10-06-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) Guns also save lives 2) Rights are worth some cost in lives. We could probably save more lives in other ways, too, if we were to give up more of our rights, but it wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
#48
10-06-2005, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) Guns also save lives 2) Rights are worth some cost in lives. We could probably save more lives in other ways, too, if we were to give up more of our rights, but it wouldn't be worth it [/ QUOTE ] 1) Allowing loaded weapons to be easily accessable in a home environment does not. Quite the opposite as the news report points out apparently. 2) I agree with the sentiment. I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does.
|
|
#49
10-06-2005, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) Guns also save lives [/ QUOTE ] 1) Allowing loaded weapons to be easily accessable in a home environment does not. Quite the opposite as the news report points out apparently. [/ QUOTE ] Really? One incident reported in one story *proves* your position? [ QUOTE ] 2) I agree with the sentiment. I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does. [/ QUOTE ] So self-defense is not a right? Imposing a rule that says "we allow you to defend yourself, but not in this particular manner" is surely a restriction of self-defense.
|
|
#50
10-06-2005, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does. [/ QUOTE ] Ask this of all the shop owners and citizens in LA after the King riots, or of all the unarmed people stuck in New Orleans after Katrina. Better yet ask the people from Luby’s café in Texas: too young to remember? Here: On October 16, 1991 at Luby's Cafe in Killeen, Texas, gun control laws had deadly consequences for 23 people who were murdered by a lone gunman. A young doctor was helpless to protect her parents from being murdered when during the killing spree she remembered that her gun was in her car because it was illegal for her to carry it in her purse. Another example: Gun control laws also proved fatal on the morning of August 23, 2000 for the Carpenter children who lived in a rural community in California. Even though all five Carpenter children knew how to shoot, California law requires that guns be locked away from them. The children were left defenseless against an intruder armed with a pitchfork. The doors and windows had been barricaded and the phone lines cut. The intruder started stabbing 14- year- old Anna when 9-year old Ashley drew him away. He began stabbing Ashley who died while yelling at her older sisters to go. The girls thought of the gun, but they couldn't get to it since it was locked away. The three oldest girls escaped and ran to beg a neighbor for his rifle. He said no because the government would take it away from him. Authorities were called and arrived five to ten minutes later. But it was too late for 9-year old Ashley who died from 138 pitchfork wounds and 7-year-old John William who died with 46 wounds. Lastly: how many people in those airliners on 9/11 wished that their cell phone was a gun?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
