Gunshop employee charged

[jrandom]

Not forgetting cars CAN be weapons too...

So can [insert random object of choice].

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making. The primary reason for cars is transport. The primary reason for guns is killing stuff. They are both regulated on that basis, which is as it should be.

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

[Patrick]

So can [insert random object of choice].

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making.

No I wasn't...just making a small point...

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

Yes, it does.... but I was still just making a small point about cars (or any other item as you correctly point out) being turned into weapons...

[jrandom]

Yes, it does.... but I was still just making a small point about cars...

I wasn't taking a contrary position, just using the opportunity to belabour a point which I suspect has not yet fully sunk through the world's supply of overly-thick skulls.

Your post simply served as a Socratic foil for my dialectic exposition of truth.

[mstriumph]

Especially if the car is travelling at, say, 600 metres a second and was less than 500m away the last time you saw it...

WOW ...... where can i get me one of those??

[jrandom]

WOW ...... where can i get me one of those??

Dig a deep shaft, stick a nucular bum at the bottom, and park your car over the top.

[duncan_bayne]

... where would the intelligence be in having us all now congregate in the same room while each armed with a 9?

That's known as projection - projecting your own reactions and fears onto others. You may think that you'd be unable to control yourself from harming people while armed, but I prefer to do the other forum members the courtesy of assuming that they're responsible adults.

I know for a fact that I am, as I have had many an angry, heated conversation with someone while being armed myself (obviously not with a gun, being NZ, but with a knife & baton), and the disagreement never proceeded beyond the verbal. Why? Because being armed carries certain responsibilities, which I accept.

Chief amongst them are that one should obtain sufficient training to be able to use the weapon safely, that one should refrain from starting physical fights when armed (not that starting a physical fight is ever a good idea, but it becomes positively evil if you are armed), and that one shouldn't drink and carry - being armed and drunk is not a good plan.

By all means, if you think you're insufficiently mature to stay sober while armed, or worry that you might decide to assault someone because he insults yo' momma, please do refrain from going armed yourself. But don't force that choice on others.

[mstriumph]

So can [insert random object of choice].

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making. The primary reason for cars is transport. The primary reason for guns is killing stuff. They are both regulated on that basis, which is as it should be.

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

.... or, conversely:

A. Guns can kill people
B. Guns are strictly regulated
C. Cars, MacDonald's, unfenced rivers, ....... [etc. etc.] can also kill people, therefore .......................... ?

sublime or ridiculous ... how you see things depends on where you are standing .......

[mstriumph]

Dig a deep shaft, stick a nucular bum at the bottom.......................

are you volunteering?

[jrandom]

A. Guns can kill people
B. Guns are strictly regulated
C. Cars, MacDonald's, unfenced rivers, ....... [etc. etc.] can also kill people...

See, that's valid logic (A implies B, C equals A, therefore C implies B - my original post had 'C equals B, therefore C implies A', which was invalid).

There are shades of grey in that idea of 'killing people', of course. It's hard to point an unfenced river at someone and pull the trigger.

All things in moderation, including regulation.

I'm certainly prepared to argue that restrictions around motor vehicles and swimming pools are good ideas. Once the connection between a thing and its consequent harm passes a certain threshhold of tenuousness, probability and time delay, though, it becomes a strawman for the purposes of argument. The ideas of banning McDonalds or insisting on fencing around back-country rivers fall into that category.

[jrandom]

are you volunteering?

I like the way you think.

[Patrick]

The ideas of banning McDonalds or ....

They haven't yet???? Have you seen "Supersize Me" ???

[jrandom]

They haven't yet???? Have you seen "Supersize Me" ???

Yes, I've seen it.

I take the 'right to decide' position when it comes to letting people sell food that contains somewhat more fat and/or sugar than ideal.

McDonald's won't kill you. Sitting on your arse eating nothing but McDonald's will, and quite possibly faster than smoking a half-pack a day, too.

However, I gotta admit, after a two-hour training ride on my Trek, a couple of cheeseburgers and a banana shake just, well... hit the spot. Stupid to ban food based on arbitrary dietary guidelines. Much better to continue and extend efforts to grow an 'active lifestyle' culture.

[sAsLEX]

All things in moderation, including regulation.

My favourite was our decorative pool behind the flag pole, roughly 1 foot deep, inside a military base was required to be filled in due to the pool regulations..... a stones throw away there are 80 foot cliffs going in to the ocean!?


Blinded by bearacuracy *sp* some people!

[Big Dog]

That's known as projection - projecting your own reactions and fears onto others. You may think that you'd be unable to control yourself from harming people while armed, but I prefer to do the other forum members the courtesy of assuming that they're responsible adults.

I know for a fact that I am, as I have had many an angry, heated conversation with someone while being armed myself (obviously not with a gun, being NZ, but with a knife & baton), and the disagreement never proceeded beyond the verbal. Why? Because being armed carries certain responsibilities, which I accept.

Chief amongst them are that one should obtain sufficient training to be able to use the weapon safely, that one should refrain from starting physical fights when armed (not that starting a physical fight is ever a good idea, but it becomes positively evil if you are armed), and that one shouldn't drink and carry - being armed and drunk is not a good plan.

By all means, if you think you're insufficiently mature to stay sober while armed, or worry that you might decide to assault someone because he insults yo' momma, please do refrain from going armed yourself. But don't force that choice on others.

This is my point, the sensible ones would need no laws. The number of world wide murders is evidence that not everyone can be trusted.
Going out to arrest the and disarm those to stupid to disarm themselves is a bit like "shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted".
Fact: My reasoning for gun control is that those who cannot be trusted would not know to remain sober nor have the prescience of mind to disarm in case they came across alcohol.

I have no fear that I would harm others, I have a great deal of self control. I have no such faith in others before I have met them and had the opportunity to judge for myself.

If you do I suggest you get some life insurance.

[scumdog]

This is my point, the sensible ones would need no laws. The number of world wide murders is evidence that not everyone can be trusted.
Going out to arrest the and disarm those to stupid to disarm themselves is a bit like "shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted".
Fact: My reasoning for gun control is that those who cannot be trusted would not know to remain sober nor have the prescience of mind to disarm in case they came across alcohol.

I have no fear that I would harm others, I have a great deal of self control. I have no such faith in others before I have met them and had the opportunity to judge for myself.

If you do I suggest you get some life insurance.

How about car control???

After all, there's more cars than guns in NZ yet more people die from contact with cars than guns.

Make it as hard (and the penalties as harsh) to own a car as to own a gun.

The car importers might not like it when their market ran dry overnight.