or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 73

post #1081 of 1722

what do mosquitos have to do with antibiotic resistance? malaria is a parasitic infection. and there's no vaccine as of yet.

post #1082 of 1722
Malaria is only a problem in sub-Saharan Africa.
post #1083 of 1722
Mosquitos transmit malaria

But we can also direct outrage towards bacteria or hell why not adaptation as an abstract process , that's what's keeping these lil monsters around
THe WHO is warning about TB making its way over with strengthened resistance
post #1084 of 1722

anyways, guns and cars are certainly comparable: they are, after all, both artifacts of our civilization, both inherently dangerous (regardless of intent i don't know why that needs to precipitate comparison), both cause (to me anyways) unacceptable human casualties, and yet they're choices that we've made as a society about freedom, personal responsibility, and government intervention. 

 

mosquitos are part of the natural environment. no equivalency.

 

where is your rhetorical issue again?

post #1085 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Mosquitos transmit malaria

But we can also direct outrage towards bacteria or hell why not adaptation as an abstract process , that's what's keeping these lil monsters around
THe WHO is warning about TB making its way over with strengthened resistance

Blacks have the sickle cell to fight off Malaria. Both are armed with weapons.
post #1086 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

So why not mosquitos? They cause a million deaths a year, one child every 30 seconds.
Extreme anti-biotic resistance is on the rise, meaning malaria (and other infections, TB is a big one) will simply be less and less curable.

This is still comparing two very different things and it still doesn't address my earlier point -- normalize by intent to do harm to others, and maybe by the number of folks who have guns and how often they use them vs cars and how often they're used.

In any case, it's not an equivalence issue , that because don't get mad about one thing your concerns regarding something else are invalid. It's a flawed and reductive way of thinking that, carried out to its logical conclusion, is hopeless.

First of all we don't compare malaria deaths to firearm deaths because we are using an American viewpoint. We don't have that problem in America, it's non existent.
Using cars as a comparison is useful. Both are pieces of technology that kill human beings. You will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon it you try to hit somebody with your car. Both have a similar proliferation in our country, hundreds of millions being owned and/or used yet automobiles kill far more people than guns do. The difference is we don't have an amendment in the bill of rights explicitly granting us the right to drive anything, we do, however, have an amendment in the bill of rights that guarantees us the ability to own and operate firearms as a last resort protection against a government that is trying to take away said rights.
post #1087 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

anyways, guns and cars are certainly comparable: they are, after all, both artifacts of our civilization, both inherently dangerous (regardless of intent i don't know why that needs to precipitate comparison), both cause (to me anyways) unacceptable human casualties, and yet they're choices that we've made as a society about freedom, personal responsibility, and government intervention. 

mosquitos are part of the natural environment. no equivalency.

where is your rhetorical issue again?

Look outside in any city, you see hundreds of cars at any given time. Cars are continually in use , and they are a very integral part of the economy. People in many places rely on them to go to and from work. So the frequency and overall use of cars is massive. I assume this isn't the case with guns. So if you want to make an arbitrary comparison between two random artifacts of civilization you need to account for such things.

Intent also factors into acceptability of danger for a society. It's not so far fetched an idea that, if vehicular homicide was rampant, there would be a lot of noise favoring car regulation.

I don't see how you can ignore these aspects of you want to make an honest comparison?

In any case, "civilization" isn't independent of environment, and disease or the vector by which it can propagate is just another arbitrary topic you can throw in to this absurd comparison
post #1088 of 1722
Yeah, and all of these integral parts of the economy (businesses) require armed Brinks truck drivers to keep bad guys from fucking with that system.
post #1089 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Look outside in any city, you see hundreds of cars at any given time. Cars are continually in use , and they are a very integral part of the economy. People in many places rely on them to go to and from work. So the frequency and overall use of cars is massive. I assume this isn't the case with guns. So if you want to make an arbitrary comparison between two random artifacts of civilization you need to account for such things.

Intent also factors into acceptability of danger for a society. It's not so far fetched an idea that, if vehicular homicide was rampant, there would be a lot of noise favoring car regulation.

I don't see how you can ignore these aspects of you want to make an honest comparison?

In any case, "civilization" isn't independent of environment, and disease or the vector by which it can propagate is just another arbitrary topic you can throw in to this absurd comparison

So based on your mindset nothing can be comparable unless the characteristics of the two things being compared are statistically perfect?
post #1090 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post

So based on your mindset nothing can be comparable unless the characteristics of the two things being compared are statistically perfect?

what ? this question isn't entirely clear, re-read what i said, it should be obvious enough. you need to normalize to account for frequency and extent of use, otherwise obviously there will be a zillion times more car related deaths because there are that many more cars in use, and that much more often, than guns.
post #1091 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

what ? this question isn't entirely clear, re-read what i said, it should be obvious enough. you need to normalize to account for frequency and extent of use, otherwise obviously there will be a zillion times more car related deaths because there are that many more cars in use, and that much more often, than guns.
Exactly how do you account for gun use? Amount of bullets used, amount of times at a range? Etc. does bolstering a weapon count as using a weapon or does only firing a weapon count? Does the implicit defense of your home by way of owning readily available firearms count as active firearm use in a passive way? this isn't recorded information so it's an impossible question to ask. What would you consider a fair comparison to gun violence?
post #1092 of 1722
if you've been following what I've said from the beginning, you'd know that now we're going in circles.

the discussion is on gun violence--which I think everyone admits is an issue--so why is there a need to compare it to anything in the first place? if it's more or less than something else does it make it less bad or worse ? there is a problem, and the solution doesn't fall in comparative rhetoric because that just provides fodder for both sides to exaggerate or mitigate what's being discussed.

if you think gun violence is not an issue, that's a separate argument which still doesn't rely on cars, but i've not yet heard anyone propose this.
post #1093 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

if you've been following what I've said from the beginning, you'd know that now we're going in circles.

the discussion is on gun violence--which I think everyone admits is an issue--so why is there a need to compare it to anything in the first place? if it's more or less than something else does it make it less bad or worse ? there is a problem, and the solution doesn't fall in comparative rhetoric because that just provides fodder for both sides to exaggerate or mitigate what's being discussed.

Because there is a desire to legislate gun control laws when they are a disproportionate number of deaths compared to other things in the United States as well as they are fucking protected in the bill of rights. Proponents of the second amendment wouldn't compare it to anything if the issue wasn't coming from the left as if gun violence is a grave concern. If your main goal is minimizing civilian deaths there are an umpteenth amount of other things killing Americans that could be dealt with that don't violate the constitution. It's the left that started the debate, if you respect the bill of rights, this argument is over before it begins.
post #1094 of 1722
Maybe we should just make people have to get a certification...call it a license...with some basic training for ownership, and if you show you're not qualified/responsible enough for ownership, society should block you from access to ownership and use.

Hey! That statement works for both cars and guns!
post #1095 of 1722
So you're doing what I just said, which is to shift the focus onto other issues to avoid discussing this properly. Because there are other bad things, this bad thing shouldn't be talked about.

By the way, didn't I acknowledge the excess of other causes of death in my post on the last page when quoting Piobaire? I did. Which tells me you're either trolling or just responding without reading and just clinging to the stone-carved amendment perspective so as to bash America-hating lefties confused.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.