.
.
Do you gun law people also believe we should ban cars?
- Thread starter tango29
- Start date
.
.
If someone wanted, how many people could someone with a car kill? A lot more than 20 in 2 minutes.
Automobile transportation plays a far different role in our lives and our economy than do guns. Hypothetically speaking, a gun ban would have little material impact on the lives of Americans. Perhaps a few good old boys would cry in their beers and post here a call for insurrection. A car ban would have an extraordinarily outsized impact - most of it negative - on the lives of Americans.
You have employed the device of sophistry known as the fallacy of false equivalence: people with guns kill people; people in cars kill people. They are thus the same thing and should be subject to similar treatment. You are a sophist, and a darned lousy one at that!
But one good point you have made. You show the extraordinary limits of the mind of a gun freak.
You have employed the device of sophistry known as the fallacy of false equivalence: people with guns kill people; people in cars kill people. They are thus the same thing and should be subject to similar treatment. You are a sophist, and a darned lousy one at that!
But one good point you have made. You show the extraordinary limits of the mind of a gun freak.
>>You have employed the device of sophistry known as the fallacy of false equivalence<<
I would disagree. The argument against banning guns is twofold. One, we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a right the Supreme Court has defined to encompass weapons in common useage for defensive purposes. Two, we see a gun ban or onerous regulation as ineffective in achieving the stated goal of reducing violence.
The analogy to cars is more a reduction to absurdity argument. You seem well educated, so you can supply the Latin. The point being that you cannot ban everything in modern life that has potential for harm. Cars are far from the only example. I detailed a long list in another thread of risky endeavors that liberals protect, despite Obama's invocation of the "if it saves only one life" standard.
I would disagree. The argument against banning guns is twofold. One, we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a right the Supreme Court has defined to encompass weapons in common useage for defensive purposes. Two, we see a gun ban or onerous regulation as ineffective in achieving the stated goal of reducing violence.
The analogy to cars is more a reduction to absurdity argument. You seem well educated, so you can supply the Latin. The point being that you cannot ban everything in modern life that has potential for harm. Cars are far from the only example. I detailed a long list in another thread of risky endeavors that liberals protect, despite Obama's invocation of the "if it saves only one life" standard.
What are you a fucking ghetto matador?
Get a car and quit walking in the road.