There had been a lengthy conversation about martial arts and guns and compulsory insurance. Triforcharity then made what appears to be a startling confession that he can envisage a deadly threat from a 6 year old martial arts kid. There was no gotcha, just reaction to that comment.
When the hypothetical scenario is that someone or something "somehow was putting my life in danger", the reasonable hypothetical response is yes, I'd use whatever tools might be available to quell the threat. The question was posed to set up an opportunity to express indignation. The opportunity arose, the indignation was expressed. It was, as I said, a transparent "ask a stupid question" ploy. As a reasonable argument, it failed, the self righteous indignation expressed over the reasonable response notwithstanding.
It is reasonable to at least be concerned about a believed law abiding responsible gun owner who envisions shooting children because they know a martial art.
That is, of course, another blatant misrepresentation of the actual discussion, and as such, has no relevance to reality.
Add that to the crimes committed by the law abiding reasonable gun owners which have resulted in many threads on this forum, plus the studies of claimed DGUs and sorry, but reasonable law abiding gun owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. There should be insurance against that paid for by the gun owners.
Only insomuch as there should be insurance paid for by golfers for the occasion when law abiding reasonable golf club owners commit crimes with their golf clubs. We would likely all agree that being a reasonable law abiding golf club owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. The same applies to tire iron owners, baseball bat owners, butcher knife owners, hatchet owners, and those who own hands and feet, too, of course.
No, it is not a false equivalence to place all the implements people utilize to kill other people in the category of, well, implements people utilize to kill other people. The logical fallacy comes in separating out some particular instrument and treating it, or its owners, differently than the others. That's called special pleading, and although a staple in the arguments against gun ownership or for increasing restrictions on the law abiding citizens, it obviously has no place in an honest discussion.
That assumes there are two separate groups the always law abiding and the never. What happens when the law abiding make a mistake or go rogue? Who pays then? I say gun owners should.
In the United States, the person who perpetrates the crime should be held responsible. It is, of course, a ridiculous argument to suggest that people who have nothing to do with a crime be held responsible for it. Objectively it is just as ridiculous to argue that there should be insurance against using a pencil to kill someone and it should be paid for by the pencil owners. Or thallium owners, or owners of short lengths of rope, or nail gun owners, or people who own gasoline and matches, or blackjack owners... To pick out a particular implement or tool and apply different regulations to that tool is called special pleading. Again, it is not an honest ploy, and obviously has no place an an reasoned discussion.
I would not be so concerned about compulsory insurance if gun users legal or not who broke the law were full investigated prosecuted and punished. But enforcement seems poor and rather lenient towards gun users. The law appears to more forcefully applied to those who beat people up with bats and their fists than those who shoot, especially when the shooter is "law abiding and responsible".
Unsubstantiated opinion, arguments from incredulity, and appeals to ignorance do not constitute a reasonable argument.
Agreed, but I see both sides at it, not just the non gun owners. You are blind to the rubbish gun owners are capable of coming out with.
Clearly the arguments against gun ownership or for increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners are so empty that it is necessary to resort to personal attacks, hyperbole, strawmen, and misrepresenting reality rather than addressing the actual issues.
