Florida High School Shooting

[mect]

This thread must have set some record for stupid analogies. When you ingest bad food you are only hurting yourself.

I mean come on, use your brain.

EDIT: Every gun thread always seems to bring out this sort of stupidity. 'If you want to restrict gun ownership why don't you want to restrict literally every other thing in the world that might cause people harm!?!' We then for some reason have to trudge through endless examples like cars, alcohol, bad food, vaccinations, etc, as if gun rights supporters can find a single inconsistency that somehow invalidates the argument for gun control.

It's so incredibly dumb and so incredibly tiresome.

What everyone is really after but no one seems to be able to find is an analogy of something else that people enjoy doing for recreation that leads to a significant number of deaths for others.

 

[realibrad]

Protecting people from murder isn't the same thing as protecting people from bad choices. It's kind of funny how murder isn't allowed anywhere on the planet but unhealthy food isn't banned anywhere.

But hey, since you see no difference whatsoever between instant death by murder and slow death by clogged arteries, I think you need to speak up about this. Maybe start your own movement.

In his number he is including suicide deaths. It is thus his argument to help protect people from themselves. So if you are allowed to drastically shorten your life through obesity? How is it any different in terms of self harm.

I do see a difference. In this context, the argument is that we need to protect people against self harm. If that was not the case, he would not use his 30k number.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What everyone is really after but no one seems to be able to find is an analogy of something else that people enjoy doing for recreation that leads to a significant number of deaths for others.

Medical errors cause over 250,000 deaths a year in our country. Murders by firearms are a tiny percentage of it, but where's the OUTRAGE!
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

 

[Sunburn74]

Medical errors cause over 250,000 deaths a year in our country. Murders by firearms are a tiny percentage of it, but where's the OUTRAGE!
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Errors occurring when trying to save lives is what you're outraged about?

Lifetime odds of interacting with the medical system is 100%. There are 300 million Americans. All of them at some point will be hospitalized for something.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Errors occurring when trying to save lives is what you're outraged about?

Lifetime odds of interacting with the medical system is 100%. There are 300 million Americans. All of them at some point will be hospitalized for something.

Errors that cause over 250,000 deaths a year is a pretty good reason to be outraged. You're spewing hate over 17 deaths.

 

[realibrad]

I will not address the argument that if we seek to restrict guns we should also seek to restrict unhealthy food as it has the effect of increasing health care spending on an individual when that money could otherwise have been used to improve military readiness, which might someday possibly save someone else's life in a hypothetical future. I will not address this because it's one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in my life and it deserves nothing but mockery.

If you want to regulate guns that are used in mass murders then why don't you want to regulate showers without non-slip mats! After all, showers with non-slip mats lead to more slips and falls, those slips and falls lead to higher health spending, which is money that can't be used to improve ballistic missile defense so when North Korea nukes us 10 years from now we'll all die. I refuse to countenance gun control until we discuss BATH MAT CONTROL.'

Yeah, your response was expected. I am starting to question your ability to understand abstractions. The underlying principles are congruent and you are either unable to understand them, or so dishonest that you will not address them.

 

[fskimospy]

Should we also discount firearm suicides (~20,000) because they only hurt themselves?

.

No. We as a society have deemed it in our best interest to prevent suicides, after all.

You guys would be well served by actually trying to come up with arguments against gun control instead of endlessly trying to find some sort of inconsistency between how guns are regulated as compared to other things. Even if you found an inconsistency this would not in any way damage the case against guns.

 

[woolfe9998]

In his number he is including suicide deaths. It is thus his argument to help protect people from themselves. So if you are allowed to drastically shorten your life through obesity? How is it any different in terms of self harm.

I do see a difference. In this context, the argument is that we need to protect people against self harm. If that was not the case, he would not use his 30k number.

No, suicide isn't the same thing as eating unhealthy food either. The problem with guns is that they're a quick and easy method to commit suicide when in many cases if the person in question didn't have the easy method he might not have done it then and there, and changed his mind the next day. The thing about suicide is that the desire for it is often fleeting. That's why there's a waiting period to buy handguns in most states.

By contrast, any risk that you gradually expose yourself to over time is something you have all the time in the world to think about. You can decide at any time to stop eating McDonald's every day. But if you put a bullet through your head it's irreversible even if you would have changed your mind 2 hours later. A better analogy would be if you died the instant you ate those french fries, or became irreversibly and terminally ill in one instant. If that was the case, I assume we would ban french fries.

All that being said, you do realize that many of the liberals who support gun control also want to put a tax on sugar and other unhealthy foods, right? Go take a look at the Seattle sugar tax thread. Many liberals are all about protecting people from themselves. It's something I don't really support.

 

[HomerJS]

Medical errors cause over 250,000 deaths a year in our country. Murders by firearms are a tiny percentage of it, but where's the OUTRAGE!
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Heart disease is the #1 killer in the US

So by all means let's stop cancer research

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, your response was expected. I am starting to question your ability to understand abstractions.

You shouldn't! I evaluated your abstraction and found it to be extremely dumb. Considering that's accurate it shows my ability to understand abstractions is doing just fine. You may want to put some more work into them after you finish studying up on the definition of pedantry though.

The underlying principles are congruent and you are either unable to understand them, or so dishonest that you will not address them.

'X costs money, therefore X costs lives, therefore we must discuss X in a conversation about gun control' is a transparently stupid argument to make and I'm not going to bother addressing it. If you continue to press on about it I'm more than willing to continue making fun of you about it though. Let me know!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No. We as a society have deemed it in our best interest to prevent suicides, after all.

You guys would be well served by actually trying to come up with arguments against gun control instead of endlessly trying to find some sort of inconsistency between how guns are regulated as compared to other things. Even if you found an inconsistency this would not in any way damage the case against guns.

Actually Oregon, California, Washington D.C., Colorado and Vermont have passed assisted suicide laws. I sure wish that Victor Cruz had committed suicide instead of killing those 17 people.

 

[fskimospy]

No, suicide isn't the same thing as eating unhealthy food either. The problem with guns is that they're a quick and easy method to commit suicide when in many cases if the person in question didn't have the easy method he might not have done it then and there, and changed his mind the next day. The thing about suicide is that the desire for it is often fleeting. That's why there's a waiting period to buy handguns in most states.

By contrast, any risk that you gradually expose yourself to over time is something you have all the time in the world to think about. You can decide at any time to stop eating McDonald's every day. But if you put a bullet through your head it's irreversible even if you would have changed your mind 2 hours later. A better analogy would be if you died the instant you ate those french fries, or became irreversibly and terminally ill in one instant. If that was the case, I assume we would ban french fries.

All that being said, you do realize that many of the liberals who support gun control also want to put a tax on sugar and other unhealthy foods, right? Go take a look at the Seattle sugar tax thread. Many liberals are all about protecting people from themselves. It's something I don't really support.

Why do you think it is that gun control discussions so often veer into these ludicrous analogies?

 

[realibrad]

No, suicide isn't the same thing as eating unhealthy food either. The problem with guns is that they're a quick and easy method to commit suicide when in many cases if the person in question didn't have the easy method he might not have done it then and there, and changed his mind the next day. The thing about suicide is that the desire for it is often fleeting. That's why there's a waiting period to buy handguns in most states.

By contrast, any risk that you gradually expose yourself to over time is something you have all the time in the world to think about. You can decide at any time to stop eating McDonald's every day. But if you put a bullet through your head it's irreversible even if you would have changed your mind 2 hours later. A better analogy would be if you died the instant you ate those french fries, or became irreversibly and terminally ill. If that was the case, I assume we would ban french fries.

There is also a point when damage to eating is irreversible. The question is if people should be able to engage in things that are a danger to themselves and society. Owning a gun is not inherently dangerous to anyone, but life is not a vacuum. Guns have a link to increased harm. The question is what argument can be formed to limit the impact of owning guns, and what the underlying principles of that argument would also apply to.

So if the argument is that guns pose a danger to society and individuals, what argument can be formed that does not impact things like food? Or should it also include restrictions on food?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What everyone is really after but no one seems to be able to find is an analogy of something else that people enjoy doing for recreation that leads to a significant number of deaths for others.

To play devil's advocate, how 'bout food allergies?
https://www.foodallergy.org/life-food-allergies/food-allergy-101/facts-and-statistics
8 allergens make up the majority of ~200k hospitalizations and ~20 child deaths per year in the US. A very limited number comparatively speaking, but is that acceptable for continuing to have the freedom to eat, specifically, milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, wheat soy, fish, and crustacean shellfish?

Again, purely hypothetical, playing devil's advocate. No judgement from me either way.

EDIT: Link regarding child mortality, scroll down to 'food allergy mortality'
https://www.allergyhome.org/blogger/food-allergy-mortality-the-elephant-in-the-exam-room/

 

[realibrad]

You shouldn't! I evaluated your abstraction and found it to be extremely dumb. Considering that's accurate it shows my ability to understand abstractions is doing just fine. You may want to put some more work into them after you finish studying up on the definition of pedantry though.

You think you evaluated the abstraction, and then tried to apply it. You did however fail as exemplified by what you then responded with.

"I will not address the argument that if we seek to restrict guns we should also seek to restrict unhealthy food as it has the effect of increasing health care spending on an individual when that money could otherwise have been used to improve military readiness, which might someday possibly save someone else's life in a hypothetical future. I will not address this because it's one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in my life and it deserves nothing but mockery."

Your argument hinges on a straw man that you then used to disprove. Military readiness is partly a function of money but its also a function of soldiers. Fat soldiers are not going to be as effective. So, your abstraction ability is clearly flawed because what you ended up using was not an abstraction but the application of the abstraction. So what you actually demonstrated was that you cannot argue through abstractions. You may want to reexamine what an abstraction is.

'X costs money, therefore X costs lives, therefore we must discuss X in a conversation about gun control' is a transparently stupid argument to make and I'm not going to bother addressing it. If you continue to press on about it I'm more than willing to continue making fun of you about it though. Let me know!

And here we see further proof that you did not understand the abstraction. It was not just about money which you incorrectly seem to believe.

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/unfit-to-serve.pdf

So again, your inability to understand the argument has caused you to miss the point completely.

 

[realibrad]

What everyone is really after but no one seems to be able to find is an analogy of something else that people enjoy doing for recreation that leads to a significant number of deaths for others.

How about distracted driving and cell phones? How about alcohol related deaths to the individual and due to things like drunk driving?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Gun haters, Fvck your feels.

I don't hate guns at all. As a technical person, in fact, I think they're pretty awesome. Don't let that stop your daily cup of rage. Delicious.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How about distracted driving and cell phones? How about alcohol related deaths to the individual and due to things like drunk driving?

Eh those things are already illegal (as is shooting people, I guess). Technically alcohol as a whole would also fall into that litmus test though. It's purely recreational (aside from some silly superstitious rituals) and also contributes to an extremely large number of deaths/injuries each year.

 

[realibrad]

I don't hate guns at all. As a technical person, in fact, I think they're pretty awesome. Don't let that stop your daily cup of rage. Delicious.

That is the boat I find myself in. I like guns and have had many fun times with guns. I also am a rational person and can see that guns can be used for great harm and not everyone should have equal access to them. The idea that just because its given in the Constitution does little for me but seems to be of great importance to others. Its the idea and argument of why we should have the right which I debate over. If you are defaulting to "its in the Constitution" then you are missing the point.

 

[fskimospy]

You think you evaluated the abstraction, and then tried to apply it. You did however fail as exemplified by what you then responded with.

"I will not address the argument that if we seek to restrict guns we should also seek to restrict unhealthy food as it has the effect of increasing health care spending on an individual when that money could otherwise have been used to improve military readiness, which might someday possibly save someone else's life in a hypothetical future. I will not address this because it's one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in my life and it deserves nothing but mockery."

Your argument hinges on a straw man that you then used to disprove. Military readiness is partly a function of money but its also a function of soldiers. Fat soldiers are not going to be as effective. So, your abstraction ability is clearly flawed because what you ended up using was not an abstraction but the application of the abstraction. So what you actually demonstrated was that you cannot argue through abstractions. You may want to reexamine what an abstraction is.

And here we see further proof that you did not understand the abstraction. It was not just about money which you incorrectly seem to believe.

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/unfit-to-serve.pdf

So again, your inability to understand the argument has caused you to miss the point completely.

There are not enough facepalms. The idea that:

1) someone eating unhealthy food,
2) leading to diminished physical capacity to serve
3) leading to decreased US military readiness
4) leading to more US deaths in some hypothetical future war

somehow needs to be addressed in a discussion about:

1) people murdering each other with guns

is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. This is my last response on this topic other than to make fun of you for thinking it was a good analogy.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually Oregon, California, Washington D.C., Colorado and Vermont have passed assisted suicide laws. I sure wish that Victor Cruz had committed suicide instead of killing those 17 people.

A fair point, but assisted suicide is only for the terminally ill AFAIK, and it requires counseling and is not given immediately. It's not for someone who is depressed and decides in the moment to put a bullet in his head when he might have changed his mind the next day. I think those are two different situations. I see no reason every state shouldn't allow a doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but I do see why we would want to prevent depression induced suicides among the non-terminally ill.

At some point, I do think suicide the the non-terminally ill is a choice, however. I'm only on board with not making it easy for them. Make them think about it at least for awhile because they may change their minds.

 

[realibrad]

Eh those things are already illegal (as is shooting people, I guess). Technically alcohol as a whole would also fall into that litmus test though. It's purely recreational (aside from some silly superstitious rituals) and also contributes to an extremely large number of deaths/injuries each year.

And the argument goes that we should accept that sometimes people will do bad things, and that we should not remove all things fun just because someone might get hurt. Sometimes we can remove fun things because its too much of a risk, but that is a hard line to draw sometimes. In this case, there are multiple things to look at and its fucking complex.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And the argument goes that we should accept that sometimes people will do bad things, and that we should not remove all things fun just because someone might get hurt. Sometimes we can remove fun things because its too much of a risk, but that is a hard line to draw sometimes. In this case, there are multiple things to look at and its fucking complex.

I agree. We've got a pretty high cost for freedom, and while I personally feel it's worth it, I understand not everyone feels that way. I'm always just curious about how 'the other side' thinks on matters.

 

[woolfe9998]

Your argument hinges on a straw man that you then used to disprove. Military readiness is partly a function of money but its also a function of soldiers. Fat soldiers are not going to be as effective. So, your abstraction ability is clearly flawed because what you ended up using was not an abstraction but the application of the abstraction. So what you actually demonstrated was that you cannot argue through abstractions. You may want to reexamine what an abstraction is.

Forget the abstraction. Let's talk about reality. Do we actually have a serious problem with a lack of military readiness due to soldiers being overweight? I mean, like actually in the real world...

 

[realibrad]

There are not enough facepalms. The idea that:

1) someone eating unhealthy food,
2) leading to diminished physical capacity to serve
3) leading to decreased US military readiness
4) leading to more US deaths in some hypothetical future war

somehow needs to be addressed in a discussion about:

1) people murdering each other with guns

is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life. This is my last response on this topic other than to make fun of you for thinking it was a good analogy.

Yep, again ignoring the abstraction. I really do think you are just unable to understand at this point.

Also, those are not ideas. Those are attributes.