• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

bobtaftfan said:
So if Roof had used a car to crash into the church and kill a bunch of people, would liberals be calling for a ban on cars? How about if he had killed several people by giving them brownies laced with a deadly dose of tylenol? Would we be hearing cries from the left to ban tylenol?
Click to expand...

Checkmate, Gun-Grabbers! :thumbsup:
 
If you were going to be consistent with your logic, then you would call for the banning of cars, because cars kill and injure more people each year than guns do. And, yes, there are hundreds of cases each year of people using cars as weapons against other people--trying to run them over (sometimes succeeding), knocking them off bikes, driving away while the other person is next to the car so they get hit with a door or other part of the car, etc.

Similarly, there are thousands of stabbings each year. Why no call for knife ban or knife control? If the anti-gun crowd would be consistent in their logic, they would also be calling for bans on cars and guns.
 
bobtaftfan said:
If you were going to be consistent with your logic, then you would call for the banning of cars, because cars kill and injure more people each year than guns do. And, yes, there are hundreds of cases each year of people using cars as weapons against other people--trying to run them over (sometimes succeeding), knocking them off bikes, driving away while the other person is next to the car so they get hit with a door or other part of the car, etc.

Similarly, there are thousands of stabbings each year. Why no call for knife ban or knife control? If the anti-gun crowd would be consistent in their logic, they would also be calling for bans on cars and guns.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear then, you are calling for a ban on all those things (guns, knives, cars) in the service of being logically consistent? Is there an implied order/ranking? In other words, do you intend to ban them all in one fell swoop or one at a time to see how things go?

While I find the plan extremely ambitious, I must say I applaud the intent, even if I find it naive.
 
bobtaftfan said:
If you were going to be consistent with your logic, then you would call for the banning of cars, because cars kill and injure more people each year than guns do. And, yes, there are hundreds of cases each year of people using cars as weapons against other people--trying to run them over (sometimes succeeding), knocking them off bikes, driving away while the other person is next to the car so they get hit with a door or other part of the car, etc.

Similarly, there are thousands of stabbings each year. Why no call for knife ban or knife control? If the anti-gun crowd would be consistent in their logic, they would also be calling for bans on cars and guns.
Click to expand...

Funny but there are countries that are pretty much gun free that work just fine. I've not heard of one that bans things like kitchen knives or cars because these things are actually necessary tools for living in a modern world. Yes they can be used as weapons but that isn't their primary purpose.

The sort of "consistency" you are demanding is neither logical nor rational. People die from slipping and falling in the bathtub or shower. Should we ban bathtubs? Should we ban every useful object that has ever caused a death? Pretty soon everything would be illegal. There a cost/benefit calculation to make. Some people think the costs of guns outweigh the benefits, but they don't think the costs of knives or cars outweigh their benefits. So there's nothing logically inconsistent about the position of wanting to ban guns but not knives or cars.
 
Nonsense. I can slice a pizza with a gun.

I could also travel with a gun. "You drive me to Berlin right now or I kill you, you hear me?"
 
bobtaftfan said:
So if Roof had used a car to crash into the church and kill a bunch of people, would liberals be calling for a ban on cars? How about if he had killed several people by giving them brownies laced with a deadly dose of tylenol? Would we be hearing cries from the left to ban tylenol?
Click to expand...

Who is calling for a ban on guns anyway? Liberals? Name 'em.

Are they the extremes - the minority? I'd say so.

Why is it every time there's a mass shooting you people insist that liberals "want to take your guns" but you provide no evidence? How many guns have been banned on Obama's watch? Go ahead. I can wait till you count to zero.
 
As predicted, it turns out Roof wasn't a fail of the 2A but a failure of law enforcement to actually enforce laws already on the books.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
As predicted, it turns out Roof wasn't a fail of the 2A but a failure of law enforcement to actually enforce laws already on the books.
Click to expand...
A perfectly rational point. If all of the other mass shooting fit the bill then it would be a point beyond "hey, not in this incident".
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
As predicted, it turns out Roof wasn't a fail of the 2A but a failure of law enforcement to actually enforce laws already on the books.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the news that Roof was not arrested for a felony in the first place, and so there was never anything for a background check to find?

Dylann Roof was arrested and charged only with misdemeanor drug possession. The Lexington County (S.C.) criminal records site reports, under “Charges,” that Roof was charged with “0179-Drugs / Poss. of other controlled sub. in Sched. I to V – 1st offense.” Charge code 0179 refers to misdemeanors. S.C. Code § 44-53-370(d)(2) provides that possessing a Schedule III substance (here, suboxone) is a misdemeanor leading to at most six months in jail. The arrest report confirms that this is what Roof was arrested for.

It appears, however, that the South Carolina records at first incorrectly listed the charge as a felony, according to the Greenville News (Nathaniel Carey). “A spokeswoman with the State Law Enforcement Division said Roof’s criminal record incorrectly listed the pending charge as a felony due to a data entry error. The record has since been corrected to reflect it is a misdemeanor, she said.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/
 
bobtaftfan said:
So if Roof had used a car to crash into the church and kill a bunch of people, would liberals be calling for a ban on cars? How about if he had killed several people by giving them brownies laced with a deadly dose of tylenol? Would we be hearing cries from the left to ban tylenol?
Click to expand...

If he killed them with a nuke, would those bleeding hearts argue that nukes should be banned from private use ?

Oh, wait...
 
theprestige said:
Challenge accepted.



I name marplots.

Now what?
Click to expand...

If you don't say it three times into a mirror, I don't have to show up.

I dispute the "calling for a ban" bit. Rather, it's an intellectual exercise about a hypothetical. Something like: "Nuclear war would considerably reduce the number of people who die from diseases related to old age."

Or, if you like, what a famous dead Greek said about it:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
 
marplots said:
If you don't say it three times into a mirror, I don't have to show up.

I dispute the "calling for a ban" bit. Rather, it's an intellectual exercise about a hypothetical. Something like: "Nuclear war would considerably reduce the number of people who die from diseases related to old age."

Or, if you like, what a famous dead Greek said about it:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
Click to expand...

You said that a ban was better than the middle ground. I'm willing to take that at face value until you get around to developing your idea clearly as a hypothetical position you don't actually hold.
 
theprestige said:
Challenge accepted.



I name marplots.



Now what?
Click to expand...
Jesus H Christ.

How about someone that can do something about it? Nobody. How about answering the other question - how many have been banned under Obama's watch? None.

The fact is that there won't be any great movement to ban guns. Period. If Sandy Hook didn't do it, nothing will. All the idiots who think "librulzzz are out to git yer gunzz" are just that.

Idiots.
 
theprestige said:
You said that a ban was better than the middle ground. I'm willing to take that at face value until you get around to developing your idea clearly as a hypothetical position you don't actually hold.
Click to expand...

Glad to help. Here is the context (the post I was responding to):

Jrrarglblarg said:
As predicted, it turns out Roof wasn't a fail of the 2A but a failure of law enforcement to actually enforce laws already on the books.
Click to expand...

marplots said:
That's why a ban is so much better than the middle ground.
Click to expand...

Arguably, a total ban would be easier to enforce and more effective than something less stringent. For example, take kiddie porn, which is banned completely in my country.

If, as a citizen (or a cop), I see kiddie porn, I know instantly there is a crime being committed. No need to investigate any nuances. The default is "crime here." Not so with a gun regulation without a total ban. So, in the context of law enforcement, a ban is "better."

Naturally, in this comparison, I am not taking the perspective of the person who enjoys having kiddie porn. From that perspective, a ban is worse.

I hope that clears it up?
 
marplots said:
Glad to help. Here is the context (the post I was responding to):





Arguably, a total ban would be easier to enforce and more effective than something less stringent. For example, take kiddie porn, which is banned completely in my country.

If, as a citizen (or a cop), I see kiddie porn, I know instantly there is a crime being committed. No need to investigate any nuances. The default is "crime here." Not so with a gun regulation without a total ban. So, in the context of law enforcement, a ban is "better."

Naturally, in this comparison, I am not taking the perspective of the person who enjoys having kiddie porn. From that perspective, a ban is worse.

I hope that clears it up?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Thank you much!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom