Time to ban hammers and clubs

[rushmc 23]

Quote

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.

That is the point

There is NONE!

"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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

the nuke stawman
I wondered how long before this one came up

"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

Quote

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.

That is the point

There is NONE!

You think a whole bill was drafted, implemented and enforced with absolutely no rational behind it?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

That is the point

There is NONE!

You think a whole bill was drafted, implemented and enforced with absolutely no rational behind it?

Yes

It was an irational knee jerk solution looking for a problem

"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

Quote

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?

the nuke stawman
I wondered how long before this one came up

You are going to have to explain to me how it is a strawman.

Nuclear weapons are tools. Tools that are "allowed" to be owned by some countries and "banned" for other countries, mostly based on the ideology of the country (how they think).

The banning is mostly based on the large amount of destruction possible with nuclear weapons.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You think a whole bill was drafted, implemented and enforced with absolutely no rational behind it?

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


Yes

I don't think we can have much rational discussion about it then.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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?

the nuke stawman
I wondered how long before this one came up

You are going to have to explain to me how it is a strawman.

Nuclear weapons are tools. Tools that are "allowed" to be owned by some countries and "banned" for other countries, mostly based on the ideology of the country (how they think).

The banning is mostly based on the large amount of destruction possible with nuclear weapons.

That is a debate of soverenty and global power
It has nothing to do in any way with banning a rifle or hand gun

"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

You think a whole bill was drafted, implemented and enforced with absolutely no rational behind it?

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


Yes

I don't think we can have much rational discussion about it then.

You got it
To the gun banners this is an emotional argument

It is impossible to have a logical discussion with anyone wanting to ban guns

Why? because the banners think if guns were banned no Sandy Hooks would ever happen

Not true

Tell me what you think a rational argument would be to ban 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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That is a debate of soverenty and global power
It has nothing to do in any way with banning a rifle or hand gun

Right, it has to do with the logic you used and your willingness to extend that same logic to other issues.

Since you are not, the original argument is therefor not supported by the logic presented and probably emotion based.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That is a debate of soverenty and global power
It has nothing to do in any way with banning a rifle or hand gun

Right, it has to do with the logic you used and your willingness to extend that same logic to other issues.

Since you are not, the original argument is therefor not supported by the logic presented and probably emotion based.

No

It is a straw man to drag the debate off point

Because you cant win it

You can not provide any rational point to ban rifles

Assault defined or not

"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

It is impossible to have a logical discussion with anyone wanting to ban guns

Why? because the banners think if guns were banned no Sandy Hooks would ever happen

Not true

Tell me what you think a rational argument would be to ban guns?

You are talking about absolutes, declare something impossible but then want to try anyways?

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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?

the nuke stawman
I wondered how long before this one came up

You are going to have to explain to me how it is a strawman.

Nuclear weapons are tools. Tools that are "allowed" to be owned by some countries and "banned" for other countries, mostly based on the ideology of the country (how they think).

The banning is mostly based on the large amount of destruction possible with nuclear weapons.

--------------------------------------------------
The discussion of nukes is pointless in this thread.

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

the banners think if guns were banned no Sandy Hooks would ever happen

I rather doubt that.

Do insurance laws mean that no uninsured wrecks ever happen? Why do insurance companies carry "uninsured driver" as one of the options?

With anything as large and complex as a country (any country), nothing will ever be a 100% fix for anything. But saying that therefore there is no point to government is still stupid -- the idea is to make it better for the majority of people in that country, and accept the ones for which it doesn't work.

That's why different countries have different laws. That doesn't make them "wrong" and "right." It just makes them different.

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

It is impossible to have a logical discussion with anyone wanting to ban guns

Why? because the banners think if guns were banned no Sandy Hooks would ever happen

Not true

Tell me what you think a rational argument would be to ban guns?

You are talking about absolutes, declare something impossible but then want to try anyways?

I have asked you more than once for your rational to ban assault rifles

Yet you refuse or cant answer it

Make your own definition of an assault rifle and then tell me what you think the benefit would be or what it would acomplish

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

[regulator 0]

Marc,

There is no reasoning with an unreasonable person.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

the banners think if guns were banned no Sandy Hooks would ever happen

I rather doubt that.

Do insurance laws mean that no uninsured wrecks ever happen? Why do insurance companies carry "uninsured driver" as one of the options?

With anything as large and complex as a country (any country), nothing will ever be a 100% fix for anything. But saying that therefore there is no point to government is still stupid -- the idea is to make it better for the majority of people in that country, and accept the ones for which it doesn't work.

That's why different countries have different laws. That doesn't make them "wrong" and "right." It just makes them different.

Wendy P.

So Wendy

What would a ban accomplish?

"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 2,587]

Quote

The discussion of nukes is pointless in this thread.

Actually, it wasn't -- it was intended to illustrate a point about the means of debate, which was one of the things being discussed. Since this thread isn't on-topic, a meta-discussion about valid means of debate is well within bounds.

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

No

It is a straw man to drag the debate off point

It was an argument based around your logic Marc. The logic was extended. Clearly that isn't off point.

On a seperate note, I don't want to ban all rifles and see no rational to ban all rifles.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Marc,

There is no reasoning with an unreasonable person.

I am giving them the chances and oportunities

But they refuse to answer

I will even let them define what an assault weapon is

Why? because it makes no difference

"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

It is a straw man to drag the debate off point

It was an argument based around your logic Marc. The logic was extended. Clearly that isn't off point.

On a seperate note, I don't want to ban all rifles and see no rational to ban all rifles.

I just asked you to define what you would ban, why you would ban it, how you define that you would ban and what the ban would acomplish

Either you can

or you cant

or your refuse to try and do it

Why?

"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 2,587]

I'm not sure a ban would accomplish what the people voting for it would hope it to accomplish. It might reduce the likelihood of a single gunman in a mass killing scenario, but certainly wouldn't eliminate it.

But I wasn't ever debating for an assault weapon ban. I was just trying to get the debate onto non-emotional ("they hate all guns") basis.

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

I'm not sure a ban would accomplish what the people voting for it would hope it to accomplish. It might reduce the likelihood of a single gunman in a mass killing scenario, but certainly wouldn't eliminate it.

But I wasn't ever debating for an assault weapon ban. I was just trying to get the debate onto non-emotional ("they hate all guns") basis.

Wendy P.

Again Wendy

You have hit on the point

There is no logical non-emotional why to support a ban

And you have pretty much admitted that in this post

"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

I just asked you to define what you would ban, why you would ban it, how you define that you would ban and what the ban would acomplish

Marc, you have already declared this:

Quote

It is impossible to have a logical discussion with anyone wanting to ban guns

Why would I have a discussion with you, that you have already deemed impossible?

[wmw999 2,587]

That is not what I'm saying. A non-emotional point for a ban is the one I pointed out in my initial point in this thread. I'm not saying I think it works well enough to justify a ban, but it's definitely a non-emotional point for a ban.

Debate that, don't just move all over the map, dodging and declaring me to be pro-ban, then anti-gun, and everything else it takes.

You seem to define people by what you perceive them as being for or against. Maybe it's not all that black and white.

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

Again Wendy

You have hit on the point

Which was that your comparison to a ban on hammers and clubs was invalid.