Acceptable Gun Laws

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,

I expect better from you as well. These positions you espouse are ridiculous and I think we have battled these issues before but I will go back to it until Al or somebody closes the thread.

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.

I didn't bother to refute it because it is silly. There you go again equating firearms with unrelated items like propane gas. At least in TN if you keep storage facilities of anhydrous ammonia (which you have to have a permit to buy) there are indeed rules and regulations about how you must store it. The propane tank example isn't worth a comment.

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.

Well, I guess the NRA which won't pursue repealing the NFA or FOPA '86 has that same feeling, the Military which developed them to kill lots and lots of people and who carefully control them and won't let soldiers use them without fairly extensive training feel the same way. Please!

Neither I nor the government have to prove anything to you Webley. In other threads you have been presented the evidence but you simply won't accept it. The fact is nobody is going to change your mind because it is made up. No problem, I disagree and those weapons are still restricted. I know from another debate we had you still believe the militia still exists. It doesn't, but you are free to believe it if you wish. I say all this because no matter what reason or evidence you are presented with will make no difference and you will simply present another strawman or false analogy argument to counter it.

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.

Maybe you are the one who can't see the forest for the trees. The only support for nonregulation of these type weapons is a small minority of the gun culture. Same with the militia. Now I know that just because a few believe something doesn't by itself make the position wrong but I really haven't seen any illuminating arguments coming from your camp either. I do see a lot of strawmen and false analogies but the wind of scrutiny blows them over. Have you got anything new to offer?

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."

This isn't debate club. The evidence is clear and what I am challenging you to do is acknowledge what you already know to be true. I provided evidence of lack of helmet use and the costs involved and you ignored it with no comment. It is clear then to me that whatever support I present will also be ignored and so why should I waste my time providing you something you already know to be true?

This is a simple attempt to argue from authority, but that authority does not impress me with regards to the current discussion.

Nor does any evidence that contradicts your opinion impress you either. However, to me it is clear from your arguments that you seem to lack a bit of experience that would probably give you a more complete perspective and so we wouldn't need to explain things like why a firearm is inherently dangerous and a full auto machine gun is more dangerous than a .22 bolt action rifle. The military would have provided a bit of that.

Blatantly out of context. The items you mentioned in the passage that I quoted were not firearms.

and you are still wrong. Read it again. I didn't say illegal but regulated in keeping with the OP.

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.

And intelligent enough to see strawmen, red herrings and false analogies in others arguments which is why I continue to call you on it.

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

and leave the sophistry behind.

I think you are being a bit disingenous here Webley, sophistry is about all I have heard from you on this issue. We have debated this before but feel free to go back and read the threadin L&P...again.

If there is really no danger to the public of civilians possessing all types of military weapons and the logic of that is so crystal clear then why are they not legal today? I guess the rest of us are just too slow to see it.

As I said before and will repeat. You can do better than this.

 

[Webleymkv]

TG, I must say I'm disappointed. Each and every point I've made has been clearly and directly stated and then re-clarified multiple times. Rather than directly refute my points, however, you have chosen to engage in ad hominem attacks (though subtle and cleverly disguised), argument from authority, red herrings, strawman arguments, and other such sophistry.

It is becoming clear through both this debate and those we've had in the past regarding the NFA and militia that you have certain a priori beliefs regarding the intent of the founders and the constitution and no evidence that I can provide will sway you (hence my recognition of these beliefs as a priori). A priori beliefs are one thing, I have a few myself, but I am disappointed that you would resort to sophistry rather than engaging in our debate openly and directly.

That being said, this debate is rapidly turning in a direction that I don't wish to follow. Our arguments are resembling rational debate less and less and mud slinging more and more. Because this sort of behavior is against the rules of the forum, and because this is not the type of debate I want to partake in, I will leave this discussion now before it completely leaves the high road and descends irreversably to the low.

 

[Al Norris]

With that, ladies and gentlemen, this thread has reached its end.