In the narrowest technical sense, licensing and registration aren’t permission (you can drive on completely private property without them), but a means to track driver and vehicle in order to ensure responsibility. Licensing of firearms would theoretically be OK if that well hadn’t been completely poisoned. Driving is more akin to public carry; can you imagine someone being forbidden to own an automobile, unless they passed a test first? Or even worse, only licensed chauffeurs and taxi drivers being permitted on the road?
Silly word games.
Banal sophistry really isn’t a good tactic. It just makes you look like you’re evading, mainly because that’s what you are doing.
Are you in favour of regulations to control who can drive a car? Yes or no.
If Lumpy can provide some cites for the concept that Messrs. Daimler and Benz created one of the first, if not THE first, workable manufactured automobile with the sole and expressed purpose of murdering other people with it, then the argument is quite valid.
However, I do feel it’s highly unlikely that this cite exists. On the OTHER hand, I for one would love to see some cites proving that firearms were created for the sole purpose of perfecting target shooting.
Similarly, people have been wading into water for …uh… 15-20,000 years to be conservative? At some point they at least learned to doggie paddle enough not to drown. So. Man-made bodies of water of size sufficient to “swim” in have existed for a very long time. Were they invented for the sole purpose of drowning everyone who stepped into them? If so, please provide cite.
See how this goes? You cannot equate a device invented to transport humans that does in fact contain some danger with a device that was invented primarily for the purpose of more efficiently killing living things than the other options that existed when firearms were first invented.
Gun advocates are very fond of tossing out the swimming pool and/or automobile straw men. In point of fact, both of these examples have exactly nothing to do with the deep and wide river of blood ( and brains. Let us not forget the brains ) flowing in this country because of the N.R.A.
Very tough pill to swallow.
But, but- please by all means- I’d be very interested to read cites on the motor car or swimming pool questions I’ve raised above.
I’ll answer when you answer whether regulations should control who can own a car.
All killing is not murder. If you don’t understand that then there’s no common ground for discussion.
Are you saying people should have the right to own guns, but if they want to operate them they should be regulated?
It would not bother me for one fucking second if there was a license scheme for who could own a car, quite possibly tied to a driving license scheme, or owned a valid race permit, or had filled in a form saying they were a car enthusiast, or were a company who need multiple cars, or were a dealer in cars, or whatever. Of course with cars we don’t need to, because we can easily check them as they go around their daily use, and check the people who are driving them are properly licensed.
So, now we’ve dealt with the strawman and the sophistry, will you kindly answer the fucking question? Are you in favour of regulations to control who can drive a car? Yes or no.
If I am very much mistaken, it actually is. Causing another person’s death, whether with malice aforethought, immediate intent or accidentally, is still considered some degree of murder. Killing another person to protect yourself or a third party may be justified, but it still gets examined in terms of murder. You are welcome to quibble over the difference between “murder” and “homicide”, but in jurisprudence as well as in reality, the difference is at best vanishing.
I do not believe that you are permitted to decide who may or may not participate in this discussion.
Ok, so now we know where you stand. You want to know why gun owners seem paranoid? Because of people like you, who evidently would have no problem with limitlessly regimenting society; to which I reply “fuck you with fishhooks”.
It’s not a strawman or sophistry because you’ve created a false equivalence, which I addressed upthread. I’m entitled not to answer a “have you stopped beating your wife” question.
The hullaballoo over the Martin-Zimmerman case was in part over the fact that in Florida law, making someone dead is not ipso facto murder. Zimmerman didn’t have to produce an affirmative defense, the state had to show that his actions were murder.
I didn’t, I merely pointed out the minimum common ground necessary for any debate. If two positions are axiomatically irreconcilable, there’s no point in wasting breath.
Once more with feeling. Are you in favour of regulations to control who can drive a car? If so, why is that not “limitlessly regimenting society”
Let’s be honest. You will continue to refuse to answer this, because it blatantly fucks up your position. You are happy to accept that there should be checks on who can use a car. You would not entertain for a second that just anyone should be able to get behind a wheel, without showing they are safe to do so.
But you are not an honest person, so you are not capable of admitting this in a discussion. Instead you have to claim it’s a loaded question, or try to play word games, or otherwise hope that the question will go away somewhere it won’t trouble you.
First rule of gun debates: treat every question as if it is loaded.
It’s more like assume every question is an secret attack, and respond accordingly.
[Moderating]
Lumpy, saying “fuck you” to othe posters is a violation of the Pits language rules. Please avoid doing this in the future. No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
This is not a secret attack. It is a clear and I think entirely valid attack on his claim that:
It is beyond argument that this statement is incorrect, just by pointing out all of the things that we do restrict people from doing, with good reason. I am not allowed to buy explosives. I am not allowed to drive a heavy goods vehicle on a public road. I am not allowed to practice medicine. If Lumpy honestly believed his claim above, he would be appalled at this restriction of my personal liberty, but acknowledging these restrictions are valid rather fuck up his previous argument.
You have to feel a bit sorry for him really. That level of cognitive dissonance has to hurt.
Right.
A simple question like:
“Are you in favour of regulations to control who can drive a car?”
Is a “secret attack”
Only because it shows how stupid the position of unrestricted access to guns without regulations is.
Carry on.
Good, less we read of you the better off we are. Save your breath, cupcake.
You also might want to read the heading of the forum in which you are posting. “The BBQ Pit”. We have rules here. They are not the same rules of engagement as exist in “Great Debates”.
:dubious:
same shit, different day,
Admittedly, children shooting themselves or a sibling is a statistical insignificance. I would be more concerned about the drooling adults who let it happen. These people really ought not be allowed to own guns in the first place. Requiring significant certified training before allowing gun purchases does not seem to me to be unreasonable, because I would feel a lot more comfortable out there knowing that those carrying knew what they were doing.
Freedom is not a one-way street.