A common argument used by gun control advocates is to point to accidental gun injuries and gun suicides. By invoking such an argument, you are saying that the government should, and has a right to protect individuals from themselves. If these people are going to remain consistent, they should also argue for the banning of tobacco, which kills a magnitude more people than all gun deaths combined. They might also want to look into banning swimming without lifeguards present -- as accidental drowning kills thousands. Diet regulation is also consistent with this mentality, as obesity kills an estimated 100,000 per year. Alcohol kills tens of thousands as well. Another common mentality is the sensationalized appeal to emotion centered around specific incidents like mass shootings -- which, although make up a tiny fraction of homicides -- are far more emotionally charged. Many people have the mentality of (if it saves one person's life, its worth it). Consider, then, banning extreme sports, and hunting, as well.
Perhaps we should also restrict axes and chainsaws. Plenty of people have had horrible accidents with those.
Yes, and the average person has no need for these tools. More reason to restrict them. People also dont need really big houses, fancy sports cars/more than a couple cars, and lots of other things.
And we should ban oral sex, since the leading cause of mouth cancer is oral sex now. Notice how no leftist is willing to even question the point of this thread.
Don't say this. If it were up to many Liberals, they would tell people what type of cars they were allowed to own, and how big their houses ought to be.
The pot-kettle thing is usually used to denote hypocrisy. What I was pointing out was the construction of a strawman argument. Since I wasn't trying to use a strawman argument I'm not hypocritical.
Which is why i support providing safety training and requiring it as a prerequisite to buying firearms or ammunition. Go take your class once per year on the "people's" dime. get your certificate and, after passing a background check, you can buy whatever firearm or ammunition you can legally own in any quantities. Training will work to reduce not only the incidents mentioned in the OP but will help gun owners remember to secure their weapons when not making theft and loss less likely.
whatever......useless and nonproductive as usual and not a response at all to the OP....I think Hypocrisy fits fine....eh?
Its no a strawman argument at all. Its the exact same principle. Why should the government protect people from themselves in the case of guns, but not other things? Requiring training is requiring people to guard themselves against themselves. If you are going to be logically consistent in applying this principle, you should also want people to be required to take safety training/have a certificate before using chainsaws, swimming without a lifeguard, wilderness activities, and hunting. In the case of smoking, for instance, by not banning it, you are allowing people to hurt themselves. The justification for requiring safety training and banning smoking is the same. The question is, is it your responsibility, and right, to protect someone else from hurting themselves with a gun. If you say yes, please be logically consistent.
Please, try not to twist yourself into such a knot demonstrating such a ridiculous point. How many people accidentally killed someone else accidentally with a chainsaw last year? In the last 50 years? How many people accidentally killed someone else while swimming last year? In the last 50 years? How many people killed someone else while rock climbing last year? In the last 50 years? Now how many people were killed last year because of the accidental discharge of a firearm? How many people killed or injured themselves in suicide attempts last year using someone else's firearm? How many people were shot and how many crimes committed using stolen firearms? This is a place where we can significantly reduce deaths and injuries from firearms with no impact on any 2nd amendment rights. Of course, you could depend on the far right to carry this fight but, given the recent events on DOMA, gay marriage, and similar issues I'd be hesitant to put all my eggs in that basket.
But the government DOES have a duty to minimise harm That is why there are warning labels on cigarettes (and here a LOT of legislation relating to where you can and cannot smoke) That is why we have seat belt laws, laws relating to labelling of foods etc Why should there be NO laws in relation to guns?
Hence why we make sure that people are aware of the dangers of alcohol and drugs. I certainly got enough of that as a kid. We also learn how to have healthy diets. We also make sure that you're old enough to buy a cigarette or a six pack, and you can't do it in certain areas. Why shouldn't we apply that logic to gun control? Make sure people know how to use a weapon properly, and make sure they're who they say they are.
You must not be very good at reading. The original post was about people who think the governments should protect people from themselves, not other people. Far less than the number who died from smoking, as well as second hand smoke. The question is, do you think government should protect people from themselves. If the answer is no, then the number is irrelevant. If you say yes, then it makes more sense to ban smoking, as the number of deaths are much higher. Stealing is already a crime. As for injuring themselves, same question as I posed in the OP. It is the government's place to protect people from themselves. Yes or no? If yes, banning smoking is the same principle as getting involved with guns. The same principle can be applied to diet regulation, as well. As for chainsaws, accidental swimming deaths, and extreme sports, the principle is the same -- protecting people from themselves. The only difference is the number of deaths. If you disagree with regulating these because of the smaller number of deaths, the example of smoking, and possibly diet still stands. If you one of the "if it saves one life, its worth it" crowd, then these are certainly prime candidates. 9% of inmates who had a gun had stolen it. This is also irrelevant to the original post, as well as your previous post. The question is whether government should protect people from themselves. To that end, you advocated mandated safety training. Safety training does not prevent criminals from stealing guns. Guns used in crime is also a completely different matter from people injuring themselves with guns. This thread is about government protecting people from themselves -- not about crime. Banning smoking would reduce deaths far more than anything to do with guns. As for the constitution, there is no protected right to smoke. I never said anything about the constitution. This thread is about whether government should protect people from themselves. I disagree with both the right and left on many things. Questioning whether government should protect people from themselves does not make me far right. Again, I will ask you -- if you support government protecting people from themselves in the case of guns, do you or do you not support government protecting people from hurting themselves with smoking, and possibly diet? Even if it did, calling someone far right is just as much of a non-argument as calling them far left.
The government does not require taking courses on tobacco and alcohol and diet. Being aware of the dangers also does not stop people from using them, or eating unhealthy. Again, if you think that government should protect people from themselves in the case of guns, why do you not support government doing the same in the case of tobacco, alcohol, and possibly diet? Given that tobacco is dangerous regardless of whether you take a safety course or not, if you are applying the principle that government should protect people from themselves, then it is only logical that more strict measures should be taken -- even to the point of an outright ban. Being 18 does not protect you from the risk of tobacco. Your implication that government is protecting people from tobacco, as well as alcohol and bad diet does not hold. Safety courses also do not prevent suicides, which means that if you want to protect people from themselves in the case of gun suicides, the only option is to ban guns outright. Same as tobacco -- the only practical means of protecting people from this is to ban it outright.
Health Class, and DARE. It doesn't actually protect you, you're right there. If you smoke, you might get lung cancer. But it's making sure people are aware, and therefore helping them to make an informed decision. If a five year old was around someone who smoked, he could know that he might get second hand smoke, and get out of the room. If he didn't know, he might get asthma. That's the difference we should try to replicate. No, it's the job of the people to protect themselves. But they need to know how to do so. Education does marvels, and since we have public education, make it a requirement on how to live a safe and responsible life. The better solution is to prevent them by making sure people are aware how to spot someone who's suicidal. Because prohibition worked?
I didnt participate in DARE, and we didnt learn about tobacco in health class. Health class is not universally required, and in my experience, it does a (*)(*)(*)(*) job anyways. Also, what they teach you in school is not the same as requiring adults to take a course and/or get certified before smoking, drinking, or eating. The question, again, is, should government do this (to protect people from themselves), or not? If gun safety courses and certifications should be required, so should courses related to smoking, alcohol, diet, and basically everything that has a risk of injury. Also, as I've said before, arguing for this rests on the argument that government should play a role in protecting people from themselves. If you think it should play a small role by mandating courses, why shouldnt it play a larger role? Why should it play a role, but only a small one? So mandated courses on suicide as well? No, if someone is willing to break the law to get the substance, it wont stop them. But thats not the point. If one thinks government should protect people from themselves, then taking measures against it is justified. How well it works is a different matter. Banning it would be an extreme measure that wouldnt have much effect, just like gun control doesnt have much, if any effect. The point I was trying to make was simply, as Ive said, that if government should protect people from themselves in the case of guns, then the same principle applies to tobacco, among other things. ~~~ Since you only support education, the question is, if for guns, then why not for everything else that poses a risk? And if you want one step taken, why not two, or three, or more?
So then wouldn't a good suggestion be to make sure people learn how to handle tobacco? Wouldn't it be a good idea in school to learn about those things? If you want to take it to that extreme, we pretty much do already. Cars, drugs, alcohol, biking, etc. All have some sort of government rules to them, and usually some type of education on how to do it. Cars, drivers ed. Biking, parents or classes. Because we have to let people do it for themselves? We can cut a steak for someone, but chewing it for them is rather disgusting. ... I'm sorry could we talk about something else here? Bad experience. But the problem is, it does work when you apply it to other things. A person who looks under eighteen needs to have ID in order to prove s/he is above 18 to buy cigarettes. And when you apply the knowledge that smoking is bad, it stops people from using tobacco. ~~~ I'm sorry could you rephrase your question, I'm not sure if I understand.
Yes, its good for people to learn about that. The question is, whether government should be the one involved/mandating it. I personally don't support government involvement. Educators and communities are the way to go -- not bureaucrats. When people are looking to government to solve problems, they will cease to do things for themselves. At best, the government is nothing more than a useless middleman in these situations -- regulating what people and communities can and should do for themselves -- and more effectively. And to return to my original point, if you believe that government is justified in mandating these things, in the name of protecting people from themselves, then much more is justified, under the same principle. Not aware of any government mandated courses on drugs. Driving puts others at risk, and does not fall into the category of protecting people from themselves. Alcohol -- nope, there is no mandated course or certification before you drink... Biking -- nope, no mandated course on that, either. I never disagreed that education didnt help. The question is whether government should protect people from themselves, in this case, by mandating and controlling that education. Say you believe government should protect people from themselves. To that end, you advocated mandated and controlled education/certification programs. But if you believe that government should be protecting people from themselves, why should it stop there?
I fundamentally disagree with that. Saying that it's government job to prevent people from doing anything that might cause themselves harm, could be used to justify nearly every form of tyranny. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23182523 Should the government ban tv, anime, manga, and computers with internet? These men are ruining their lives, sometimes for decades. Or maybe we should have personal responsibility over governmental paternalism.
You're struggling in the logic stakes aren't you? Tobacco is heavily regulated because of the public health issues. Why choose a subject which can only advertise the gains from gun control?
Huh? It's the oddest thing. The very things you have cited, I would cite as counters to your position. Alcohol? Kids routinely get alcohol with fake IDs. Same is true of smoking. And despite laws against driving with a cell phone, I see people doing it every single day when I commute to work and back. The idea that education is the key, is ridiculous. We've had now 30 years of saying smoking kills, and people still smoke. I know people who openly say they enjoy smoking, and don't care about the health effects. Same with people who drive cars without licenses. I've been hit twice by someone without a license. It doesn't help anything.
In terms of health and safety such intervention is standard. Indeed, more active regulations is predicted. Take safety at work. If you apply cognitive dissonance to the issue then imposed safety rules is necessary (as we can't even assume rational safety equipment will be used). Essentially gun controls aren't necessary, at least in terms of public health issues, if rationality can be assumed. Pissed young men, for example, aren't particularly hardcore in the rationality stakes! Its of course easy to say "so what? let them die!". I'm not sure the families involved would be so horribly blasé.
