This actually strikes me as a bizarre variant of the slippery slope argument. Whereas the slippery slope fallacy opposes reasonable measures because unreasonable measures require those reasonable measures as a precursor, you are doing the exact opposite: you’re advocating unreasonable measures* because reasonable measures require those unreasonable measures as a precursor.
That seems equally silly to me. If we need some sort of gun control, then we need it, but we don’t need stupid gun control measures. I could propose right now that all guns be equipped with a loudspeaker that shouts, “HELP, HELP, I’M BEING OPPRESSED!” and waits 10 seconds before the safety is disengaged. That’s gun control, but it’s stupid. Saying that we need to do dumb stuff before we get anywhere reasonable is not true. Let’s start with the reasonable measures.
or at least suggesting others should be okay with advocating unreasonable measures
I agree that measures need to be taken. I don’t agree that ill-conceived measures should be taken. Rather, we should ask, “Would society be a net better place if we take this measure?”
Some measures I’m pretty sure would make our world better: universal background checks, for example, would probably keep a few guns out of the hands of criminals, and banning assault weapons would probably prevent a massacre or two (because even though non-automatics can be turned into automatics, every barrier you add to that process has the chance of being the specific barrier that stops someone). Some measures would probably make our world worse: confiscating guns would lead to a civil war. We need to evaluate each measure independently to figure out what its effects would probably be, not just assume a priori that every gun control measure is good, or that every gun control measure is bad.
No! No, I don’t! I don’t need to know a goddam thing except whatever the hell “dick rot” is and how to avoid it! All the rest of it I don’t know, don’t fucking need to know, and damn sure won’t know!
(Punch line from old, old joke: “That’s silly, surgery isn’t necessary, in a week at most, it will fall off all by itself!”)
What the hell do you mean “why is Feinstein anti-gun”? You really do not know what her motivation is? Bolding below is mine.
I’m sorry, but if I just mopped up the brains and blood of two trusted coworkers, whose death resulted in me getting a promotion… I’d still be working on gun control 30 years later, too. She’s almost the Gabbie Giffords of the late 1970s (only she didn’t actually get shot in the head, but it just as well could have been her). Perhaps her real motivation is that she does not want to find any more dead co-workers bleeding on the floor.
I don’t believe you. Unless you physically knew a person who died at Newtown, this is a ridiculous overreaction and/or exaggeration. This isn’t the sadness Olympics, people. You don’t get a medal for crying first, last, and loudest.
I won’t be back to the thread because this fucking debate has been done to death. Go find a dog or beer and hug or drink it, for christ’s sake. Worrying about political processes that you can’t influence is sooo 1960s.
Meh. I believe him. Being a parent often causes people to react irrationally to news of children getting hurt, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.
“ENOUGH IS A-FUCKING-NOUGH!” is what went through my mind.
But apparently it isn’t as the assault weapons ban is not going to pass. Even with a bunch of dead kids.
Bullshit. I said there were rabid, frothing anti-gun nutjobs posting outrageous bullshit about gun owners on this board. I was asked to provide a cite, and I did. You cannot reject my cite because the guy I cited is too much of a rabid, frothing anti-gun nutjob.
This is also bullshit. Numerous states have introduced legislation that proposes to ban private ownership of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons, etc., without grandfathering existing weapons. Just, they’re now illegal, turn them in by a certain date or you go to jail. The editorial page of the Hartford Courant, in my home state of Connecticut, argues that such a grandfathering clause is undesirable because it would reduce the effectiveness of a ban.
Regardless of whether these laws will pass today or not, it is simply false to claim that “nobody wants to take your guns unless you are a menace or potentially unbalanced.” These laws would take guns away from everybody*, and they’ve been put forward by elected legislators, not internet crackpots.
Fuck off. I have proposed several reasonable schemes in many threads on this board which would preserve gun owner’s rights while reducing violence. For instance, liability insurance for gun owners, and licensing requirements for gun owners. You and your crowd are the ones who ignore these proposals. Why? I suggest, because you don’t actually give a shit about preserving gun owner’s rights, you just think guns are bad and anything that limits gun rights in some way must be good.
In the link I posted, a moderator on this board posted the following:
Are you also going to dismiss this because RickJay is a nutjob?
I am not going to dig through the 500 pages of gun threads on this board to find more evidence. The point is, many reasonable people on this board who I otherwise admire, like and respect have made postings that imply gun owners, as a group, are murderous psychopaths who enjoy guns because of their capability for mass murder.
Well, I can see a ban on high capacity magazines. I can’t think of a realistic scenario where one might need a high capacity magazine. I wasn’t aware of any attempt to not grandfather in “assault rifles.” Registration of them, I can see, outright banning? That, I don’t support.
That was actually directed at Debaser, and not yourself. I support all the things you mentioned and welcome the ideas. I have a few of my own, such as mandatory in-person training for anyone who wants to possess a firearm.
And we’re back to arguing with an empty chair. I’ve flatly stated that the general intention is to regulate in a way that reduces gun violence in common sense ways. Of course, you jumped right to “You want to take away my rights!!!11!”
Sorry, this topic always gets me really riled up, because I tend to take statements directed at “gun owners” personally. You were being (relatively) civil to me and this was unjustified; please accept my apology.
The guy who committed those murders was a police officer, and he used a revolver! How this is a valid justification for trying to ban certain types of rifle and high-capacity magazines is beyond me. Or are you suggesting that her ultimate goal is in fact to ban all types of private gun ownership, and that her proposed assault weapons ban is just the first step? Hmm, where have I heard that before?
How many deaths at the hands of drunk drivers will it take to ban alcohol? Why do you not think “ENOUGH IS A-FUCKING-NOUGH!” whenever you hear of a child being killed by a drunk driver?
At this point I’m almost willing to agree to a full ban on alcohol, swimming pools and claw hammers if that’s what it takes for gun boosters to let that lame fucking argument die.
