Reply With Quote
Your inability to look further than the surface is the reason we are even talking so I'm glad you learned something today.
Then you shouldn't have pre-destroyed your argument.
Your inability to look further than the surface is the reason we are even talking so I'm glad you learned something today.
Pilot training? PFFFFFFFT! Who gives a about regulations that contribute to safety? I’ll fly a in plane if I want to, ain’t nobody gotta train me!
Strawmen.
Your ability to pre-destroy your argument is the reason you're so easily dismissed.
I WILL SHOOT ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WHO TRIES TO TAKE MY FLYING FREEDOM
No, he broke down his position quite well.
Meanwhile, after I stated that it was a factor you are pretending that I don't want it to be a factor at all.
So it’s a factor when it’s convenient for your side of the argument. Gotcha.
:Lol agenda
perspective
What do you call it when they hit someone, like the bicyclist recently hit by a self driving car?
I call it not a drunk driving death.
How does a gun protect you? Be specific.
Step me through this one. Assume I don't know what guns are and describe the specific actions and what happens in "protection" situations in as much detail as possible.
a whole four pages dedicated to a false equivalence.
Hobbies, generally, provide some health benefits, insofar as they help with stress and enjoyment.
A moral standpoint however, the overall risks of death and injury have to be considered when looking at a population as a whole, and weighed against the harm.
Such things can be, are routinely are, quantified in a scientific setting.
One huge problem here though, is that there is no federally funded research on gun violence, due to restrictions put in place after lobbying for, wait for it, the gun manufacturing lobby, the NRA.
If you want to credibly make this argument, you will have to fund research into the health benefits of gun ownership.
Until then, it is an easily dismissed saw, and obviously spurious.
Do you think making bad arguments is an effective way to debate public policy?
I just mentioned the high likelihood that it would because hobbies generally do and you agreed with that. It could be wrong but it's save to say that. It's a especially worth mentioning when you probably didn't even consider it when bringing up the health benefits to alcohol. So most likely guns have health benefits. You agree with that. That's worth bringing up in a discussion.
Sure the risk of death has to be considered but if you consider it then come to conclusion to ban guns then it's very inconsistent with many other products. Which ultimately means that the consideration wasn't based on the death and injury from guns. Which why you'll see Australia push policy on a insignificant amount of murders and be silent on 100's of drunk driving deaths that occur yearly.
Oh bomb building is healthy if it's a hobby. Neat.
This is beyond re ed
You know good and well how guns protect someone. That doesn't mean hurting someone won't happen in the process which I think is what you want by explaining it to you like you are 5. The fact is the vast majority of guns are not bought to go hurt someone. They are in fact used for the purpose of protection. Hurting someone is a part of that protection. If I take self defense classes are you going to say that "I'm training to hurt people"? I doubt it even though hurting someone is a component of self defense. Therefore I conclude that statement is just a warped narrative.
Save me the irrelevant comments, please.
Just because it's a hobby doesn't mean that it will be healthy. It's a likelihood that can be stated about most hobbies. Especially, when you hear people talk about said hobby as a stress relief, as being fun, making them feel powerful, knowing that the hobby makes them more active, connects them with friends, etc.
I don't know anyone that deals with bombs. I have no context for that hobby.
I said rather specifically I didn't. Feel free to provide proof that guns as a hobby specifically have ANY health benefit.
Then show a scientific study comparing this benefit to the population as a whole, to the deaths. Scientifically, statistically, it is very likely the harm will VASTLY outweigh any benefits, even if in evidence, simply due to the nature of using populations.
Such modest health benefits, even if youcould prove a link, are certainly minor, and occur far in the future, and ONLY to the people using them.
Deaths from firearms cut short lives by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product.
It's about competing interests (state interest in safety vs personal freedom). Building the argument as black or white (ban or no ban) is disingenuous.
There's plenty of gray in between, and it's about finding a careful balance between the competing interests. This happen at every level where there are competing interests: alcohol, abortion, guns, free speech, search and seizure, etc.
Regulation is how you get to balance that, and we already have regulation in all those areas.
Deaths from firearms cut short lives by decades, and effect people who aren't using the product.
That last bit there clips your moral argument out from under your feet when it comes to your flawed comparison to alcohol.
Gun violence affects others. Alcohol is a self-harm with some benefits.
To draw a moral equivalence is, therefore, rejected on that basis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
