TG, I really expected better from you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I've never said that
Sure you have. You started in post #84 by building two strawmen.
First, this whole idea that I have advocated making laws based on feelings which is a kind of put down implying those like me who might advocate regulating firearms as overly emotional and irrationally scared of firearms and not logical. After that subtle smear, then going right into the German Shepard's teeth and SUV emissions which was the second strawman.
Pretty lame. Nowhere, in any of my posts have I advocated feelings having anything to do with whether we should regulate firearms. I spent many decades around firearms and military weaponry and been in combat. I am not afraid of firearms but I am opposed to untrained, unrestrained people having access to things like explosives and heavy military weapons with little or no regulation not because I feel bad about these weapons but because I know the damage they can do with irresponsible/evil handling. That is knowledge and experience, not a feeling.
In post #48, you stated that your neighbor should not be able to own a rocket launcher or C4 because that infringes upon your right to be safe. I countered that a tank of anhydrous ammonia or a leaking propane cylinder could also represent a significant threat to your safety should theybe misused or simply neglected. Because you did not argue this point, I presume that you do not refute it. However, as you've not advocated making the items I mentioned illegal while maintaining that the items you brought up should be, one must logically conclude that rocket launchers and C4 in the wrong hands make you feel unsafe while propane tanks and anhydrous ammonia do not. I have seen the destruction that intentional misuse or even simple accidents with propane cylinders and anhydrous ammonia can cause and it makes me nervous when I'm around these items. If I said that these items should be illegal or restricted as heavily as C4 and Rocket launchers because they represent a threat to my safety, I would probably be laughed out of the room, even though they really do represent a significant threat to my safety if misused. Your perception of something's potential danger, and the resulting lack of a feeling of safety, in and of itself is not sufficient justification to ban something.
You brought C4 and Rocket Launchers (both non-firearms) into the discussion, I simply used
your own example to illustrate my point. Just because you percieve one type of gun to be more dangerous than another does not make sufficient justification to ban it, you have to prove that the ownership of that gun represents a public safety hazard that is significantly greater than the ownership of another. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do that.
Also, with regards to your military service, that really has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. One does not have to serve in the military to be able to understand the possible consequences of misusing firearms nor anything else. This is a simple attempt to argue from authority, but that authority does not impress me with regards to the current discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
and I challenge you to point out where I have
That was easy. Go to this thread;
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=299021 which is one you started awhile back. There are so many of them there that I couldn't list them all but here are a few; Posts # 51, 76, 78, 93, 196. On and on and you added shovels I think at one point to the list. Trying to argue that firearms are not inherently dangerous because they possess no will of their own which is not what inherently dangerous means.
Oh come now, surely you are able to see that nowhere in any of those posts did I say that a car, SUV, canine, or shovel is
just as dangerous or more dangerous than a firearm. You've taken my posts completely out of context, and I think we both know that. In the majority of the posts I reference, I am simply using example of other items to demonstrate that a firearm is not the only tool that can be dangerous if misused, nowhere do I state that these other instruments are equally dangerous. Either you can't see the forest for the trees or, more likely, you're trying to use mere illustrative examples as red herrings to draw the discussion away from the inherent weakness of your own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets.
I have and it is quite self evident to a thoughtful person that as our society has evolved and grown more complex many actions individuals take, that years ago would have had no impact on others, do so today and therefore make many of our actions subject today to regulation.
Here you partake of three different fallacies all at the same time. First you "beg the question" by simply contradicting me and restating your own claim rather than actually providing any support. Secondly, by saying that it is "self evident to a thoughtful person" you engage in a subtle ad-hominem attack but suggesting that anyone who dones not see it your way must not be thoughtful. Finally, there is an extremely subtle appeal to ignorance within your ad-hominem attack as it is a challeng to me to either find your support for you or prove your claim to be wrong as being unable to do so would suggest that I am not a "thoughtful person."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.
The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?
Blatantly out of context. The items you mentioned in the passage that I quoted were not firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.
I am not putting words in your mouth, just exposing your argument with your words. Such strawmen arguments play well with hard core gun enthusiasts but they don't with the voting majority public. There are lots of gun control laws I oppose but I do look at the reality of firearms in that they are weapons, designed to kill and are inherently dangerous and are recognized as such by business, insurance companies and non-gun owning people. I do not try to trivialize that by saying that this recognition is based purely on irrational emotion and that there is no logic or rational thought involved.
You most certainly are. You are attributing statements to me that I never made and have made very clear that the meaning you seem to take issue with and want to refute was not intended in the statement you are so quick to partially quote or take out of context. By attributing something that I never said to me and then refuting it in a devastating way, you are by definition partaking in a strawman argument.
Webley, you appear to be pretty smart and debate well, I think you can build a better case opposing gun control than using these tired old strawmen. Of course I am assuming you want to have real change in gun laws and are not just playing to the crowd on this forum. If you wish for those changes I recommend you drop the comparisons of firearms to anything other than what they are; dangerous weapons designed to effectively kill people. If you don't, all your other arguments will fall on deaf ears.
Likewise, you appear to be quite intelligent: certainly intelligent enough to take the context of a statement into account when interpreting it's meaning and purpose. I think you and I both know that my mention of items other than firearms was meant for nothing more than illustration and that focusing on them as you have is nothing more than a red herring. Point of fact, you introduced non-firearms into this discussion (specifically C4, rocket launchers, and motorcycles) but I agree, let's get back to firearms and leave the sophistry behind. Perhaps you would explain to us exactly how an MP-40 represents a significantly greater public safety hazard than a Kel-Tec Carbine with a 33-round Glock 18 magazine or why it is so much more dangerous for a college student with a valid CCL to carry on campus rather than at Wal-Mart as these are the types of laws that I take issue with.