Cartooniverse introduced these “tangential” issues. Since no one else stepped in to advise him how tangential they were – including you – I chose to refute them. I agree that the claim that nothing kills quicker than guns is not relevant to the overall issue of what our policy for gun control should be.
But leaving the claim unanswered did, somehow, seem to hurt the cause of Second Amendment rights.
Riiight, we’d never ban weapons purely because they were the latest, greatest, threat to public safety [cough] switchblades, nunchaku, Balisong/butterfly knifes, box cutters (before 9-11), etc, etc, etc. [/cough].
CMC
Just to be clear then, you think the AR15 should remain perfectly legal? Glocks too? How about 30 round magazines?
What does “perfectly legal” mean? Available in vending machines?
I’ve long suspected that gun cleaner is a neurotoxin, and the evidence continues to mount.
How long does this “Just askin’ questions” thing go on for? Just give us the complete list now.
I think this is the part of the Perry Mason show where I break down in the witness chair and confess.
Guns are different from explosives in that they are a tool that translates impulse into action.
I mean if you have a gun at your nightstand and you’re at the lowest point in your life, your wife left you, your child married a musician, you’re about to go bankrupt, and your job is about to find out that you’ve wasted nearly a decade arguing on the internet instead of working… if you’re at that lowest point and a gun is within arm’s reach, it takes three seconds of poor impulse control to do something stupid.
How long does it take to build a bomb?
Of course the individual death can be faster or slower. Painful or painless. The injuries horrific or trivial. But explosives don’t have anything to do with this argument.
As for your silly, “And the average person doesn’t murder anyone, by homemade bomb or AR-15 rifle.” that is certainly true, but distracting and meaningless. Most killers would never build a bomb. Shit, most people can’t make an omelette.
I think pro-gun and pro-gun control can all agree that Kable is far too daft to trust with pointy scissors, much less a firearm.
Thank you for leading us to consensus.
And if you’re standing on the subway platform as a train is coming in, it takes less than a second.
Yeah, but who wants to pay for a fare they’re not even going to use?
Trains are more different from guns than bombs are from guns. A raging fire and a hat both keep my head warm, but that doesn’t make them similar.
Yes. But both trains and guns are similar in the specific respect Lobohan offered up: the potential of dealing out death upon only a momentary rush of murderous, or suicidal, feeling.
I don’t think most people picture a train as a painless death.
In any case, a subway isn’t where most depressed people hang out. It’s home. Where the guns are.
And it isn’t my point either. My point was that a gun is easy. Building bombs is hard.
The original point was that suicide by gun is easier than suicide by bomb.
You responded by pointing out that suicide by train is also easier than suicide by bomb.
While true, this is not really a relevant comparison, because bombs and guns are similar items that are designed and manufactured for the primary purpose of destruction. Trains, however, are not. I can also leap off a building, which could be relatively easy depending on how many tall buildings with public roof access there are in your area, but that is not a relevant comparison either, because a building is very dissimilar from a gun or a bomb.
Why is their dissimilarity so important? In this matter, why aren’t we focusing on their similarity: to wit, their role in making suicides easy?
In other words, you appear to advance the argument that because guns facilitate suicide, we should accept some sort of regulation of them. I point out trains (and now add tall buildings) as equally atttractive to would-be suiciders. You dismiss them because they aren’t guns. True, they aren’t – but since the rationale you advance is their role in suicides, why is their difference from guns so dispositive?
And by the way – does a person have a right to commit suicide, or not?
Because trains are useful items that contribute to the public good. Guns are not. I would class them more along the lines of a fun toy, with the exception of hunting weapons.
Edit to add a response to your subsequent question:
I would say “not” under our current system. Currently, assisted suicide is illegal (at least, I think so - maybe not in all states?) so if you commit suicide you’re causing work and/or trauma for emergency responders and the like who have to deal with the aftermath. I might support legal assisted suicide under some circumstances. I think there’s an ongoing GD thread about that topic already, though.
These people make me sick. WTF is their problem?
And iTunes apps, apparently.
But that’s simply how you would class them. I disagree. Guns are also useful items that contribute to the public good, in my view.