Time to ban hammers and clubs

[champu 1]

Quote

Paper is an animate object?

What? No.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Scissors.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If banning rifles is needed then hammers and clubs need to go first

All the data supports banning of handguns. I do not see your support for that.... But you posted the data afterall.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If banning rifles is needed then hammers and clubs need to go first

All the data supports banning of handguns. I do not see your support for that.... But you posted the data afterall.

No
The data shows only which tool is used more.
To say the data supports banning of any tool is an opinion

The rifle debate vs. the hammer was used to put the uselessness of doing that (banning any rifle) in the proper perspective

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,545]

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

I can just as easily say that we should eliminate hearts because heart attacks are a huge cause of death, but that's also BS.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

Reason and logic...so refreshing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

I can just as easily say that we should eliminate hearts because heart attacks are a huge cause of death, but that's also BS.

Wendy P.

So we are now moving on what might happen?

No Wendy

This is just a fear based point

We should also ban cars cause people can die
Childrens swings cause of what might happen

Jungle gyms
Bicycles

How far do you want the list to go on?

If we are worred about numbers then we better get rid of buses
and airplanes

Oh
and clip is a slang word that is incorrect

They are and always have been magazines

There are clips in some rifles

But I guess we must give up freedoms for the hope of more security in your world
Sorry
That dont cut it in my world

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

Reason and logic...so refreshing.

I guess someone will have to let you know when it is seen

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So we are now moving on what might happen?

No Wendy

This is just a fear based point

We should also ban cars cause people can die
Childrens swings cause of what might happen

Jungle gyms
Bicycles

How far do you want the list to go on?

If we are worred about numbers then we better get rid of buses
and airplanes

You are somewhat missing the point.

In Wendy's example above an item is banned, but there are many tools left to accomplish the basic purpose of the tool banned.

I know you don't agree with any type of ban, but in this case you are simply comparing apples to oranges.

[wmw999 2,545]

I finally looked up the difference -- my ex-husband and I always called it a clip in his .22 rifle, but that was because of how he was brought up. Interesting how people are always more willing to say I'm wrong, than to educate me as to what is right.

As far as logic, the debate is to see if there is logic in the point. Simply declaring it not to be so is not a valid debate technique, no matter what the radio commentators claim.

Honest debate, acknowledging the points the other side makes when they're valid, and incorporating them into your own thought process, is how progress is made. Simple declarations of party line are kind of like using role-playing scenarios as your only guideline in personnel situations -- they only work when people react exactly how you anticipate.

What is your counter to the justification for "assault weapon ban" being the limited point that a single weapon with a large number of bullets without reloading is potentially more lethal in a single-gunman scenario? Or do you just accept the Sandy Hook (and other similar) scenarios as collateral damage for necessary freedom?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So we are now moving on what might happen?

No Wendy

This is just a fear based point

We should also ban cars cause people can die
Childrens swings cause of what might happen

Jungle gyms
Bicycles

How far do you want the list to go on?

If we are worred about numbers then we better get rid of buses
and airplanes

You are somewhat missing the point.

In Wendy's example above an item is banned, but there are many tools left to accomplish the basic purpose of the tool banned.

I know you don't agree with any type of ban, but in this case you are simply comparing apples to oranges.

No I am not

Her's (and yours) is a fear based argument that looks at what might happen

You, and Wendy, would give up freedoms (in this case one listed in the Constitution) for a feeling of more security
This argument can be extended out to anything if allowed to move forward

Banning is a first step
But the ban misses the point to begin with
Banning only makes the one requesting the ban feel better while acomplishing nothing more

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No I am not

Her's (and yours) is a fear based argument that looks at what might happen

You, and Wendy, would give up freedoms (in this case one listed in the Constitution) for a feeling of more security

Uhm, I haven't seen an advocate for a total ban on guns. There is no specific right in the constitution on "assualt weapons".

Wendy and I commented on the basic logic you used in your argument, without declaring a position either way.

If anybody is using emotion in their debate, it is you.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I finally looked up the difference -- my ex-husband and I always called it a clip in his .22 rifle, but that was because of how he was brought up. Interesting how people are always more willing to say I'm wrong, than to educate me as to what is right.

As far as logic, the debate is to see if there is logic in the point. Simply declaring it not to be so is not a valid debate technique, no matter what the radio commentators claim.

Honest debate, acknowledging the points the other side makes when they're valid, and incorporating them into your own thought process, is how progress is made. Simple declarations of party line are kind of like using role-playing scenarios as your only guideline in personnel situations -- they only work when people react exactly how you anticipate.

What is your counter to the justification for "assault weapon ban" being the limited point that a single weapon with a large number of bullets without reloading is potentially more lethal in a single-gunman scenario? Or do you just accept the Sandy Hook (and other similar) scenarios as collateral damage for necessary freedom?

Wendy P.

and in this case you chose to frame the debate in a way that benifits your position
I reject that premise

But to move forward a couple of things need to be defined

What is an assault weapon in your mind?


Second

Why are you blaming a tool for the action of someone who's mind works much different than yours or mine

Third

I already posted that in the US hammers and clubs are used to kill more people than rifles of any type so, why ban the rifle and not the hammer

Simply because of more potential of killings?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No I am not

Her's (and yours) is a fear based argument that looks at what might happen

You, and Wendy, would give up freedoms (in this case one listed in the Constitution) for a feeling of more security

Uhm, I haven't seen an advocate for a total ban on guns. There is no specific right in the constitution on "assualt weapons".

Wendy and I commented on the basic logic you used in your argument, without declaring a position either way.

If anybody is using emotion in their debate, it is you.

So I will ask you the same question

What is an assault rifle?

And we are not talking about a total ban
We are talking about rifles

And for some reason, you and Wendy seem to think an assault rifle is evil

Why?
What is an assault rifle?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Second

Why are you blaming a tool for the action of someone who's mind works much different than yours or mine

Are you willing to continue this logic with other tools or only with guns?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So I will ask you the same question

What is an assault rifle?

Marc, you may want to read the original post by Wendy again:

Quote

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Second

Why are you blaming a tool for the action of someone who's mind works much different than yours or mine

Are you willing to continue this logic with other tools or only with guns?

Go for it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Lets follow your logic

Which of the following rifles are more deadly?

Both can hold more than 10 rounds but only one was banned the first time around

And also tell me what the difference is between them?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So I will ask you the same question

What is an assault rifle?

Marc, you may want to read the original post by Wendy again:

Quote

The rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.

Again
I reject the premise of this to begin with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,545]

What do you think is the rationale for an "assault" weapon ban?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What do you think is the rationale for an "assault" weapon ban?

Wendy P.

Irrational fear

and a hatred of guns

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,545]

So are all the points that were brought up during the debate for the original legislation lies?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Second

Why are you blaming a tool for the action of someone who's mind works much different than yours or mine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you willing to continue this logic with other tools or only with guns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Go for it

Would you be in favour of allowing Iran and North Korea to develop and own nuclear weapons?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Lets follow your logic

Which of the following rifles are more deadly?

Both can hold more than 10 rounds but only one was banned the first time around

And also tell me what the difference is between them?

Marc we aren't talking about the effectiveness of the AWB, or how it was drafted, worded, or implemented. We were talking about the rational behind it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So are all the points that were brought up during the debate for the original legislation lies?

Wendy P.

Basicly

Yes

And it is proven fact that it acomplished nothing

Canada just dropped thier long gun registration because it did nothing good

Why would we want to make criminals out of currently law abiding people to make some one just feel better with no real benifit to anyone

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln