Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
1) Yes they are, ..the Pep Boys from this forum and the NRA among others want NO new laws at all.
2)wow, in this situation I will disagree with you.
3) Saving the life of one child never gets old you want to regulate guns like we do cars and drivers or even pools hell yes fine with me. News Flash ....bubble wrap is protection
4) Nope that's the old sky is falling defense ..the 'Second Amendment "scare the public that the government will kick open their doors and take their guns is BS and anyone that preaches it knows it's a lie. Do the back ground check if the gun buyer is clean he gets his gun, simple.
5) Turn around, nope just answering your question. I want the laws and they will help ...will it stop everything no,...see #4
6) Bet you if I ask any one parent from Newtown .....they would side with me in saying you're the one wrong. So to answer you if it stops one death and the people still get to shoot and use guns that want to, then yes enact the laws.
CR, while I appreciate your approach on the subject I also reject your summation at the end , I think they are all great starting points. I'm still waiting to hear one good argument in sacrificing children for the sake of no new gun laws or background checks?
|
1) again, you change the statement. true, new gun laws are looked at with much scrutiny, but only because there are existing laws. You originally said, no laws period. New gun laws ought to be vetted very carefully, not inspired by emotional (usually flawed) situations.
2) I said that it's easy for an unaffected person to see a flaw in a law. Your response was "wow". So, not knowing much about you, except that you are a Giants fan, let me use this example. Suppose New York passed a law that says all NYJets fans are not mentally sane enough to drive on Sundays. The law doesn't affect you as a NYG fan, but surely you would question the merit of the law. Again, my point in this was only to refute your original statement that a person had no reason to be against a gun law because it didn't directly affect them.
3) We can and do regulate guns, even more stringently in some aspects than cars(ie no background check for a drivers license). Certainly, you could save one more child if the law required no distractions like video players, music, eating of fast food meals, in a moving vehicle, but that is, by most accounts, to much of an infringement on personal choice. There is a rational line, which is not defined by "saving one more child", that laws should be derived from.
4) Last I checked background checks are required for any commercial sale? You shift your argument to suit your needs, or you don't understand what is really being proposed. And again, the main point, which you deflect, is that all gun laws should be vetted against the 2nd amendment and whether a right is infringed. When it is being infringed, you have to answer more questions than just is it a popular sentiment, and look more deeply at the underlying causes.
5) no comment.
6) and if you ask one parent whose babysitter let their child die due to negligence at a pool they will want better regulations, and if you ask one person in the hospital for some horrible disease do they want better regulations, they will say yes. Emotional distress does not, and will not ever, in my opinion, lead to better laws.
In answer to your last question, none of the laws that are being discussed would have prevented Newtown. One child should never be a statistic, but the phrase has become overwhelmingly used to justify steps and laws that are rationally illogical, and ineffective.
To ask a question off of your question, what is the line for the number of children saved?
if last year 1000 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 100 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 10 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 1 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
At what point does "x" need to be outlawed completely, because even 1 child died due to it.
I am not saying that you don't do reasonably, and well thought out steps towards protecting life, but please don't use the argument if it saves just one, because it's an intellectually bankrupt, and emotionally charged, method of persuasion.