Published: Wednesday, Jan. 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Curt. Wonderful sarcasm but liberals will be offended and confused by your
accurate demonstration of logic.
Curt,There are certainly reasonable analogies to be made between
guns and cars.Unfortunately, yours is not one of them. Makes
absolutely no sense.
Curt; see what I mean by JoeBlow's reaction?
Curt, I don't believe we should outlaw cars, but I realize that it is in
the interest of public safty that we regulate them. Cars have to pass safty
examinations. They must all have saftey features like seatbelts. You must
licence and register your car every year. People who operate cars have to pass
both a written and a functional exam. On the renewal every 5 years, there are
questions about health and an eye exam. There are some cars deemed not
street-legal (like a Formula-1 racecar). What practical measures for something
that can be so dangerous! We should apply those same principles to other things,
don't you think?
Mountain Man...acurate analogy..please. The only purpose for a gun is to kill.
The purpose of a car is not to kill..when mishandled they can kill, so society
heavily regulates all of the activities of driving that lead to mishandling (see
above responses). You know such tortured logic is the only reason
many of us hang around here..we refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout
this stuff without argument. I think it's going to be a fun year for us.
@ Omni scent. You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me
to bring you up to date. All guns have safeties, its a device that prohibits the
gun from firing until it is switched off. In every state, you must have a
license (concealed weapons permit) or at least a hunting license to carry a
weapon and there is a back ground check when you buy a gun and a functional
education class required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting
and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. Just as it is
illegal to drive Forumula-1 race car on the streets, there are existing laws
against many kinds of firearms such as fully automatic weapons. Again, the
problem isn't the good guys, its those bad guys who do not obey any laws,
including gun laws. Please explain why you think criminal will obey more gun
Pragmatistferlife. The purpose of my guns is to protect my family. The police
can't protect you or me any more than they protected those poor children in
Sandy Hook or those people in the theater or anyone else from criminals who want
to kill you! A gun in my hand is far better than a cop on the phone. That
is not only very logical but it is true! If you don't want to own a gun,
that's your privilege. Please stop trying to deny me my privilege of self
defense because as we have all seen, all the gun control laws in the world will
not stop bad guys from getting guns.I hang around here for the same
reasons you do, I refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout your stuff
Mountanman You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me to
bring you up to date. "All guns have safeties," FALSE"In every state, you must have a license (concealed weapons permit) or at
least a hunting license to carry a weapon" FALSE"there is a back
ground check when you buy a gun" Partially true, But not from Private
citizens (classifieds or gunshows)"a functional education class
required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting" FALSE and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. FALSE, unless your
referring to your hunting licence which has nothing to do with the gun, but
permission to harvest an animal. Please at least use the truth to
Re: ". . . limit vehicles."And don't forget -- gas
tanks that hold not more than 5 gallons.
Curt and MountanmanThanks for the laughs. This is a great analogy,
and the libs are going nuts. What fun.Too bad you are out of posts.
I am not an expert on guns and gun laws to pick it up for you. I guess we just
sit back an laugh at the circus about to commence.Bring out the
Volkswagen Beetle and filler-up!!!
Guns = Cars? It's a really dumb attempt at equivalence, but useful
nonetheless.You want to regulate guns the same way you regulate
cars? Fine by me.Take it on public streets? Register it and
license it. Also, pay taxes on it.You want to "fuel" it?
That's taxed, too.You want to operate it somewhere other than
on your own private property? OK, but you must be licensed to operate it.
Also, you must renew that license every few years, and pass a test to prove your
competence and understanding of the applicable laws.Oh - and if you
plan to take it off your private property then you have to have at a minimum a
liability insurance policy.Treat guns the same as cars? Sure. See
Blue said it perfectly. His comment, with its good sense and thinking behind
it, stands in stark contrast to many other comments here.
mountain man..just where did I say I was going to deny you the right to own
"a" gun. I would restrict some weaponry but that's a far cry from
denying you "a" gun. Secondly in order for your "gun" to be
more valuable than a cop on the phone..you would have to carry a loaded gun with
you at all times..from room to room..or have a loaded gun in every room. Now
you may just do that but if so I'm sure glad you live a thousand miles
away. By the way..my personal experience with this is a close friend..gun
enthusiast, active marine, who was awakened one night by a burgler downstairs.
He grabbed his gun and blew the heck out of his house missing the burgler all
nine times. In the meantime his wife had called the police who responded while
he was re-loading and difused the situation..that's the anecdote I have to
make my bayesian probablity prediction. A true story.
Chris and Monty: The laugh here is that since neither of you has ever taken a
logic class you can't see your entire "cars are like guns" is a
classic of example of false logic that would give your opponents the win in any
high school debate. Alas, the comment boards of newspapers have no such rules
and the megaphone is the same size for a real logician and a ranting partisan
who will stop at nothing (including faulty logic) to make a point. If you want to play the game, Blue makes excellent logical followup questions
to your attempt to discredit gun control. Yearly registration, special taxes for
ammo, taxes for the excess cost to society as a whole for you to exercise your
"freedom". Hey wasn't it one of your side who said: "Freedom
isn't free"? You brought up excellent points for the non-gun crowd to
work on, because all of your concern about mental health and video games will
disappear as soon as the heat is off for gun restrictions.
I love the author's analogy. Let's roll with it but turn it around
just a bit.Let's require all gun owners to be licensed and have
to periodically take a proficiency test in order to maintain their license.Let's require all gun owners to acquire liability insurance on each
and every gun they acquire. If their gun causes any kind of harm or damage,
their liability insurance covers the costs of that damage.And
let's tax guns and ammo and dedicate those taxes collected to cover the
costs of providing security at schools and other public venues against those
guns and gun owners.
Satire is a useful means to make a point. Swift, Twain, and Mencken were great
at it. The reductio ad adsurdum approach to an alleged double standard is a
fine form of satire when properly applied (see Swift's "A Modest
Proposal"). Unfortunately, Curt misses the boat here. Satire doesn't
work when your foil undermines your case rather than buttressing it. As Blue
and omni scent have pointed out, automobiles are already heavily regulated
because of their potential lethality when misused (and fatalities are an
unintended byproduct of car use, not the specific intent as is the case with
guns). The gun/car analogy only points towards more regulation of guns as the
logical conclusion. It is not a compelling argument. It fails as satire.However, to continue beat the dead car/gun horse...There were 1.1
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven in 2009. Assuming an average
speed of 30 mph (accounting for iding time, etc.), this works out to 1.1
fatalities per 33 million hours of vehicle use. I doubt that the statistic has
been measured, but what is the comparable value for firearms (fatalities per
hour of use)? Any takers?
Whoops--- 100/30 = 3.3 (not 33). Mea culpa. Gotta watch those decimal places.
In the author's sarcastic analogy, he suggests that we limit car
ownership/possession to only the police, military and government officials.
This is a red herring.I know literally hundreds of people who
support increased regulation on gun ownership. I don't know a single
person who supports a complete ban on private ownership of every kind of gun.
Certainly there are people in this country who do believe that all private
ownership of any kind of gun should be banned. But those people are a very
small minority. It isn't all or nothing. We already have bans
against private ownership of nuclear bombs, missile launchers and such. We can
include in the list of banned arms such things as assault style rifles and
high-capacity ammo clips.
The DesNews specializes in printing ridiculous analogies, as long as they are
conservative analogies, but I repeat myself.
Exactly merich,I am for reasonable gun restrictions, but if ANYONE
introduced legislation restricting my right (or your right) to own a gun for
protections, I would be out protesting loudly.So, while you can find
some on the left who will advocate total firearm bans, they are by far the
miniscule minority. Will any of you "lefties" admit to wanting a total
gun ban? By contrast, MANY on this DN board in the past have
advocated that there should be absolutely NO restriction on the type of gun you
own, the number of guns, or places that you should be allowed to carry it.How many of you fall into this category?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments