Some people need cars for their jobs. -- "get a new job" Some people need cars because mass transit would in no way meet their needs, particularly if they're single parents -- "suck it up" Some people need cars because they're cheaper than living in the loop -- "you should just make more money" There are so many factors at work here...but for many, particularly living in a city like Houston, having an automobile isn't much of a choice.
No brainer. Lead paint toys already are banned. Look, before you cite every hazard or peril to mankind, let's look at the larger picture. People die in every way possible whether by accident or malfeasance. Even the air we breathe is toxic to a degree, in some places more than others. Handguns are not a necessary part of life and living. Their use and intent is inherently violent regardless of the "target practice" ideology. The sooner they are removed from the planet the better. When there are no handguns for criminals to use, victims no longer will feel the need to have them for defense.
1. Since you can make handguns from scrap metal with instructions from the internet, you will never completely remove them from the planet. 2. Supposing that you are right, and you can get a global government to melt every handgun down, don't you think that you are putting the police in a bad situation? (Either carry a long gun or not have lethal protection.) 3. How many millions of innocent people are you willing to sacrifice in the meantime, while the criminals and despots have weapons, and the populace doesn't?
You are right. They are built for recreation. Recreation is obviously more important to you than the right to self defense. It is not more important to me. This country is about self responsibility.
Don't create strawmen, MM. You could get a new job, you could move closer to your job, you could take the bus, you could car pool. You're being silly. Never said suck it up, I said you have a choice. Being a single parent doesn't have anything to do with it, other than pure convenience. You could make more money, you could get a job outside the loop, you could live in the loop, you could bike to park and ride. There is a difference between needing a car and needing a car to keep your current lifestyle completely intact. BS. When there are attainable alternatives it is a choice. Would it be a convenient choice for most people in Houston? Probably not - agreed. But that's a far cry from the conclusion that one MUST have a car. And as I said before, if someone's decision making criteria is choice vs impact, a car is a much more damaging choice than a handgun.
Take a look at the White manslaughter case in New York -- that is a case where the convicted father should have dialed 911 but instead chose to shoot some kid "defending" his family with a handgun. Now the father of the victim put out a veiled threat that White's son has find himself shot dead. It goes on and on, doesn't it?
I'm confused. -> <- You said swimming pools should not be banned, despite their inherent danger, because they are not designed for the purpose of killing, but for recreation. Now you are saying banning lead paint toys is OK, despite the fact that they are not designed for the purpose of killing (also recreational) but presumably because they are inherently dangerous. To reference your later given point, swimming pools are not a necessary part of life and living. You even later go back to the purpose of handguns for the reason they should be banned. You logic is not consistent. Either it is the purpose that something is built for that determines if it should be banned (as you argue with regard to handguns, what is the purpose of an AR-15 BTW?), or it is the inherent danger (as you argue with lead paint toys). If it is the former, lead paint toys should be allowed, along with all measure of inherently dangerous products (cars that explode when hit from the rear, etc.) If it is the latter, then swimming pools should be banned (along with various other legal but dangerous products, like cigarettes and hamburgers). In fact, of all of these products, the people are only guaranteed the right to one in the constitution, and that is the guns.
Should we look up incidents where people have successfully defended themselves from rapists, murderers, and thieves to counter the White case?
If you like guns or need them to feel safe, just use that as your reasoning. It makes sense. It's reasonable. It's understandable. But to compare guns to swimming pools and cars? What's next, saturated fats? I find it hard to agree with any guns. A step uncle of mine was cleaning his shotgun and accidentally left it loaded and blew his brains out in the living room infront of his two daughters and one son. I know, I know...his fault, whatever...but still.
I suggest you stop drinking in the middle of the day. I said, with a sarcasm sticker after it, "If swimming pools ARE BUILT TO KILL adults and/or children, absolutely! Of course, they are built for recreation, and accidents happen. You don't take a swimming pool along to commit a robbery, do you? Selling lead paint toys is proven malfeasance. As I said in a post later on, we can't put an end to "untimely" death s-- isn't that a great word pairing, kind of of like senseless murder -- but we can do what we can to prevent them. Handgun deaths are sometimes accidental, but the vast majority are deliberate.
I'm not creating strawmen. The lady who cleans my home...she has to have a car in order to get around to earn enough. The guy who mows my lawn is in the same boat, and then some, because he has to transport his equipment. There's no way I could do my job without a car. No way. My father was in outside sales...no way he could do his job without a car. I think it's beyond impractical to suggest you don't need a car because you can always just change your career or "make more money." I don't think that's remotely realistic. I think mass transit in this city is so bad that it's no merely a matter of convenience...depending on your job and your other obligations (children, etc). And as it applies to this thread...I think most Houstonians have FAR FAR FAR less choice in terms of their life from day to day as to whether they need a car compared to whether they need a gun. That's why I think the analogy is flat out awful. I can't begin to make a straight-faced argument that my need for a gun is anywhere in the same ballpark as my need for an automobile in this city.
I don't think you understand his argument. In fact, I'm willing to lay even odds that you didn't even read it.
Just as the number of accidental deaths by handguns is not statistically in the same universe as autos.
Could that POSSIBLY be because a far far far higher percentage of the population participates in the wonderful world of travel by automobile than participates in the wonderful world of playing with guns? I'm not totally one-sided on this issue. But this automobile metaphor isn't remotely persuasive to me.
That is one small factor. There actual number of functional guns are pretty similar to functional cars. (estimated 200 million for guns) But percent of population owning a gun is less. Cars are easier to be in accident. The other factor is autos are far more deadly. Simple physics. And in the end it does not matter why one is more deadly, just that it is.
one small factor??!! there are entire segments of the population that might go their entire life seeing a gun less than 10 times. i can look outside my window right now and count about 40 cars go by in 10 seconds. the impact of the automobile is absolutely greater than the impact of guns....but relating the two is apples and oranges.
It is relavant in the argument when one brings up how firearms should be banned because they are so prone to accidental deaths. If the actual number is less than say that of household chemicals, it is a valid point.
No, it's not. Because our need for automobiles far far far exceeds our need for guns. It's not close. It's not in the same ballpark or even in the same vicinity of the ballpark district.
