another school shooting

[woolfe9998]

It appears you do not know what you are talking about. Insurance companies define sports cars. For example, the Scion tC is considered a sports car, even though it has very little power and got a very high crash test rating. The reason was because it had two doors. Neat right?

If some insurance companies are raising rates on cars based on having 2 doors when the cars are testing safe, they are being stupid. But that is not really our concern. Our concern is whether the government would ban sports cars based on some insurance company definition, or for that matter, any other definition. You wouldn't ban an artificially defined class of car because the state shouldn't ban things based on what they're called. You'd ban or require certain safety features. Which is precisely what we already do.

Oh, you don't? So you are okay making it legal with two kids age 12 having sex? I personally think that is below any reasonable age, but you do not?

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yet there is no inconsistency in my reasoning. Regardless of effectiveness, we must ban sex involving children, and non-consensual sex, because those things are morally wrong and victimize participants.

As to the effectiveness of bans, I would point out that a low percentage of rapes are reported, and among those reported, a significant number are likely guilty people who are not convicted because of proof difficulties. Whatever effectiveness the laws have is mainly in their deterrent effect. That said, we still must ban them.

As for totally banning all sex, which by the way, is what you originally suggested, no, it's never going to work. Not even close. Besides the obvious drive we all have to engage in it, there's practically no way to ever punish someone for consensual sex because it's almost always going to happen behind closed doors and no one is going to report it. It'd be like trying to ban rape if it was impossible for the victim to ever report it.

You do realize at the outset you said nothing about child sex or sports cars, right? You said, and I quote, "cars, sex, drugs..."

If you want to talk about banning a subset of certain things, then say that at the outset instead of shifting the goal posts. Be aware that since we already do have bans and regulations in place for many of these things, it makes it rather irrelevant to the issue of guns. The argument, why ban guns if we're not banning x doesn't really work if x is already banned. Both child sex and rape are already banned, and no one really disagrees about that, so...

 

[mxnerd]

What we need is a Robocop for each school.

No human with a gun can be trusted.

 

[realibrad]

If some insurance companies are raising rates on cars based on having 2 doors when the cars are testing safe, they are being stupid. But that is not really our concern. Our concern is whether the government would ban sports cars based on some insurance company definition, or for that matter, any other definition. You wouldn't ban an artificially defined class of car because the state shouldn't ban things based on what they're called. You'd ban or require certain safety features. Which is precisely what we already do.

No, you have gotten lost. The argument was that cars like guns can be misused and your counter to that was cars were too important to the economy. I thus brought up sports cars and asked what about banning those as they cause far more accidents in terms of cars and are far less important to the economy. You asked how I would define sports cars and I said the way insurance companies do. The hypothetical was not about how to define them, but if we could ban things that are not important to the economy because they are often misused and harm people.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yet there is no inconsistency in my reasoning. Regardless of effectiveness, we must ban sex involving children, and non-consensual sex, because those things are morally wrong and victimize participants.

As to the effectiveness of bans, I would point out that a low percentage of rapes are reported, and among those reported, a significant number are likely guilty people who are not convicted because of proof difficulties. Whatever effectiveness the laws have is mainly in their deterrent effect. That said, we still must ban them.

As for totally banning all sex, which by the way, is what you originally suggested, no, it's never going to work.

No, I never suggested banning sex. You either have a poor memory or did not understand at all what you read. The issue brought up by jack was that because guns are misused we should ban them. I asked about other things that can be misused and harm people and one of the things I brought up was sex. I did not say we should ban sex, but asked how we can ban guns and not something like sex given his reasoning.

I never once said we should ban sex. Feel free to go back and reread all of what I have said. Its not long.

Not even close. Besides the obvious drive we all have to engage in it, there's practically no way to ever punish someone for consensual sex because it's almost always going to happen behind closed doors and no one is going to report it. It'd be like trying to ban rape if it was impossible for the victim to ever report it.

You do realize at the outset you said nothing about child sex or sports cars, right? You said, and I quote, "cars, sex, drugs..."

If you want to talk about banning a subset of certain things, then say that at the outset instead of shifting the goal posts. Be aware that since we already do have bans and regulations in place for many of these things, it makes it rather irrelevant to the issue of guns. The argument, why ban guns if we're not banning x doesn't really work if x is already banned. Both child sex and rape are already banned, and no one really disagrees about that, so...

Again, you have gotten lost. The original issue was how can we ban guns for the reason that guns can be misused and not ban other things. That does not imply that I want to ban the other things. I was simply looking for a coherent argument as to how we can ban guns given that reason and not ban other things for that same reason. You seem to be under some impression I have said something that has not actually been said. Its weird actually.

 

[woolfe9998]

No, you have gotten lost. The argument was that cars like guns can be misused and your counter to that was cars were too important to the economy. I thus brought up sports cars and asked what about banning those as they cause far more accidents in terms of cars and are far less important to the economy. You asked how I would define sports cars and I said the way insurance companies do. The hypothetical was not about how to define them, but if we could ban things that are not important to the economy because they are often misused and harm people.

No I haven't gotten lost at all. Jack said guns should be banned. You mentioned "cars, sex, drugs" as other things which can be misused in the wrong hands. You were suggesting that his logic is inconsistent if he doesn't support banning those other things. I pointed out that there are good reasons we don't want to ban those other things. I used your exact formulation of "cars, sex, drugs" to address each in turn and explain why. You then shifted the goal posts to sports cars, and I explained that there is no rational reason to ever ban an artificially defined class of cars when you can ban or require certain features on all cars. So again we are down to things which are already being done.

No, I never suggested banning sex. You either have a poor memory or did not understand at all what you read. The issue brought up by jack was that because guns are misused we should ban them. I asked about other things that can be misused and harm people and one of the things I brought up was sex. I did not say we should ban sex, but asked how we can ban guns and not something like sex given his reasoning.
I never once said we should ban sex. Feel free to go back and reread all of what I have said. Its not long.

Yes, you suggested banning sex hypothetically in an attempt to argue that Jack's logic was inconsistent. I didn't say you actually want to ban it. I'm saying you were arguing that Jack was being inconsistent if he supports banning guns but doesn't support banning sex. I pointed out that this was a bad argument because we can't effectively ban all sex, especially not consensual sex between adults. You then started talking about children having sex, once again a goal post shift. But that too is a bad argument because we already ban it and it's a good bet that Jack agrees with banning it so, again, no inconsistency in his logic.

Again, you have gotten lost. The original issue was how can we ban guns for the reason that guns can be misused and not ban other things. That does not imply that I want to ban the other things. I was simply looking for a coherent argument as to how we can ban guns given that reason and not ban other things for that same reason. You seem to be under some impression I have said something that has not actually been said. Its weird actually.

I know exactly what it does and doesn't imply. You were trying to catch another poster on a supposed logical inconsistency but failed to do so because your analogies aren't very good.

We don't need a single "coherent argument." Refuting these analogies will suffice. All that must be done is to point out how these other things are different from guns for meaningful reasons, or point out that some of these things are already banned anyway.

You do realize that all of these others things being raised in this gun control discussion: cigarettes, alcohol, cars, sex. drugs. fatty foods is a different issue with it's own set of considerations, right? Some are easier or harder to ban. Some cause more or less harm. Some cause deaths by murder which isn't the same as slow deaths from unhealthy habits, etc. There are plenty of good arguments against gun banning. I'm just not on board with these arguments by analogy to other things because these things are all too different from guns.

 

[jackstar7]

Please refer to Post #100 in this thread.

 

[realibrad]

No I haven't gotten lost at all. Jack said guns should be banned. You mentioned "cars, sex, drugs" as other things which can be misused in the wrong hands. You were suggesting that his logic is inconsistent if he doesn't support banning those other things. I pointed out that there are good reasons we don't want to ban those other things. I used your exact formulation of "cars, sex, drugs" to address each in turn and explain why. You then shifted the goal posts to sports cars, and I explained that there is no rational reason to ever ban an artificially defined class of cars when you can ban or require certain features on all cars. So again we are down to things which are already being done.

No, you are lost. He did not just saying guns should be banned and then stop. Jack said guns should be banned because people may start out using them in a responsible way, but they may not stay that way. If the justification for banning something is that sometimes people misuse them, then what about the other things where the vast majority of people are responsible but sometimes they are not. He gave his justification for banning guns, but the justification would seem to include other things unless he has more context to give. I thus asked him how some examples that I quickly thought of would not require a ban, while still leaving guns to be banned.

You then explained that cars should not be banned because they are a major part of the economy. I then expanded upon that and asked then what about sports cars, which seems analogous to a partial gun ban. You said that sports car is an artificially defined class, but by that logic so are assault rifles vs hunting rifles which makes things even more confusing.

The point is, Jack gave his justification initially as ban them because even responsible people may become irresponsible. If that is the root of his argument, then how does that not apply to the other things.

Yes, you suggested banning sex hypothetically in an attempt to argue that Jack's logic was inconsistent. I didn't say you actually want to ban it. I'm saying you were arguing that Jack was being inconsistent if he supports banning guns but doesn't support banning sex. I pointed out that this was a bad argument because we can't effectively ban all sex, especially not consensual sex between adults. You then started talking about children having sex, once again a goal post shift. But that too is a bad argument because we already ban it and it's a good bet that Jack agrees with banning it so, again, no inconsistency in his logic.

Again no. I did not hypothetically suggest banning sex. I asked why not ban it which is different in a non-arbitrary way. It is true that if his logic held true that there would be a justification, but what I asked is why not because I believe the argument is flawed. My question also inherently leaves the door open that it might be a coherent argument that just needs to be fleshed out. That said, there is a difference between asking why not and saying we should.

I know exactly what it does and doesn't imply. You were trying to catch another poster on a supposed logical inconsistency but failed to do so because your analogies aren't very good.

Wrong again. I care little for catching anyone on this forum in anything. You assume I care beyond the argument. While it is true that I believe his position is likely illogical, I also am open that he might be right. If I truly thought I was right, then I would have given my opinion and moved on. The fact that I am continuing this should be evidence that I wanted to truly understand his position. Why else would I have spent so much time? If I thought I had already caught him, then it makes no sense to me to continue.

We don't need a single "coherent argument." Refuting these analogies will suffice. All that must be done is to point out how these other things are different from guns for meaningful reasons, or point out that some of these things are already banned anyway.

We don't, but I would like to have one for my personal reasons. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You seem to have created a narrative that does not exist.

Also, refuting my arguments does not mean there is or is not a coherent argument, it just means my analogies would be flawed.

You do realize that all of these others things being raised in this gun control discussion: cigarettes, alcohol, cars, sex. drugs. fatty foods is a different issue with it's own set of considerations, right? Some are easier or harder to ban. Some cause more or less harm. Some cause deaths by murder which isn't the same as slow deaths from unhealthy habits, etc. There are plenty of good arguments against gun banning. I'm just not on board with these arguments by analogy to other things because these things are all too different from guns.

Yes, all those things are unique, but, they also have things in common. What people are attempting to do is look at those issues in a more abstract way and trying to find a logic that would fit all these different things. The reason you do this is because when you don't fully understand the implications of your actions you get unintended consequences. Analogies, even if they are imperfect can help exemplify details that may be missed in some discussions.

There are plenty of arguments that are good, but there are plenty of arguments that are not good. As you know, I am not against far more control of guns than we have now, but I also want logic to drive policy.

 

[jackstar7]

I didn't say some of what you just ascribed to me. So please stop it.

 

[Muse]

Like people are.

So what is something that should be banned in society like how you want with guns? I can think of many things that people use/do that are fine when responsible people do it, but sometimes they do bad things.

Cars. Sex. Drugs. ect.

OK, so where do you draw the line, buddy?

 

[pmv]

Well, we live in a complex world, and all of those things can show a clear link to harm to others.

As for combining them, well, I don't do drugs.

You have sex while driving?

And 'can show a clear link to harm to others' seems deliberately vague, as if intended to conceal the important issues. Everything, including life itself, can 'show a clear link to harm to others'. That's the logic of Judge Death (out of Judge Dredd). Declare life itself to be a crime, then.

The point is how easily and commonly, in practice, in reality, a given item can and is used to cause such harm. Plus, secondarily, how much benefit said item accords to all. (I'm in a minority in thinking 'cars' don't do a whole lot better on that test than do guns, but sex and drugs clearly don't come close).

 

[realibrad]

OK, so where do you draw the line, buddy?

You don't ban, you restrict. So for sex, you must require two consenting parties. That gets murky when it comes to age, because, many under 18 would be able to consent, but not all. I would favor basically giving out a sex permit to anyone that is under the age of 18 if they can demonstrate sufficient mental maturity. How that would be done I am not sure.

Cars we already do this. Cant stop people from doing bad things 100%, but what we do now seems to be a good enough balance.

Drugs should be like sex, and legal for anyone that can consent.

Also, I'm not your buddy pal...

 

[realibrad]

You have sex while driving?

And 'can show a clear link to harm to others' seems deliberately vague, as if intended to conceal the important issues. Everything, including life itself, can 'show a clear link to harm to others'. That's the logic of Judge Death (out of Judge Dredd). Declare life itself to be a crime, then.

The point is how easily and commonly, in practice, in reality, a given item can and is used to cause such harm. Plus, secondarily, how much benefit said item accords to all. (I'm in a minority in thinking 'cars' don't do a whole lot better on that test than do guns, but sex and drugs clearly don't come close).

No, not driving but for sure in a car.

I agree people should be able to decide. Just because bad people or reckless people might use those things should not prohibit everyone from using them.

 

[Muse]

I have used many guns, and never once tried to kill something. How is that possible?

Well then, the epidemic of mass shootings in the US of A (that's where it is, yes, the country that has 5x the gun ownership of the next most citizen armed developed nation), has not yet spread to you and your personal arsenal. Whoop die doo. What a relief!

Hey, peoples, don't feed the trolls!

 

[brycejones]

Brad, you're being an asshole.

Are you shocked by this? I put him on ignore, he takes all sides of an issue and argues just to argue.

 

[jackstar7]

Are you shocked by this? I put him on ignore, he takes all sides of an issue and argues just to argue.

Not shocked, no. I do think I have something figured out about him and was hoping that a little feedback would help him course correct.

I may be better served ignoring him as well.

 

[realibrad]

Well then, the epidemic of mass shootings in the US of A (that's where it is, yes, the country that has 5x the gun ownership of the next most citizen armed developed nation), has not yet spread to you and your personal arsenal. Whoop die doo. What a relief!

Hey, peoples, don't feed the trolls!

Lol right. So me living 20 min from parkland and its not yet gotten to my area.

Also, I just gave my foundation for gun restriction, or did you miss that?

 

[realibrad]

I didn't say some of what you just ascribed to me. So please stop it.

Ok, what did I say you said that you did not say?

 

[realibrad]

Not shocked, no. I do think I have something figured out about him and was hoping that a little feedback would help him course correct.

I may be better served ignoring him as well.

Not super helpful if you don't explain. I also will likely miss a comment directed to me if its not a reply to my post or include the @realibrad. I think your post was more of you just wanting others to know your opinion.

 

[deathBOB]

Guns for the vast majority of people do not exist to kill people. They are for fun, or for defending. Even in terms of defense, they are not bought to kill, but to defend and if needed kill.

What a ridiculous statement. Were you smacked on the head with a gun as a child?

 

[Younigue]

Are you shocked by this? I put him on ignore, he takes all sides of an issue and argues just to argue.

I haven't put him on ignore yet but I've threatened to. He's exhausting! But hey, he believes he's an intellectual dynamo. I try to be amused by it. I'm failing.

 

[realibrad]

I haven't put him on ignore yet but I've threatened to. He's exhausting! But hey, he believes he's an intellectual dynamo. I try to be amused by it. I'm failing.

No, not only do I not believe I'm an "intellectual dynamo", I also don't believe I'm above average. I think what makes me different is mainly what I find interesting. I personally enjoy taking arguments and seeing if it holds up to extremes and if not, then why. Most seem to have arguments that generally work and then drop it. That is what seems to be annoying. I think the biggest issue is that people assume that my poking and prodding is something more than me trying to understand.

 

[realibrad]

What a ridiculous statement. Were you smacked on the head with a gun as a child?

Do you mind telling me why you think its ridiculous? I obviously did not think so when I posted it, but I can find no reason as to why I'm wrong if you just say its ridiculous but don't explain why.

 

[umbrella39]

I think you like the sound of your own voice way too much...

 

[jackstar7]

Not super helpful if you don't explain.

I don't think it's my place to make your personal business everyone's business.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think it's my place to make your personal business everyone's business.

What? You said I was being an asshole, and that you did not say some of the things I attributed to you. How would you have to make my personal business everyone's business?

 

[jackstar7]

What? You said I was being an asshole, and that you did not say some of the things I attributed to you. How would you have to make my personal business everyone's business?

Because I think I have a reasonable guess about why you approach conversation the way that you do, but I think it would be in poor form to make that guess publicly.