The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[MrFanti]

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

[filghy2]

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

[MrFanti]

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

[trish]

Neither argument is logical without additional hypotheses. In a cost/benefit analysis one should weigh benefits against costs as well as argue the costs and benefits considered are exhaustive. Accusations of hypocrisy are premature until you have successfully accomplished this task.

[Stavros]

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

If you want to ban abortion, then logically you want to ban war.

If abortion is banned because it kills the unborn child, war must be banned because it kills the born child.
Guns kill babies, therefore guns must be banned (because I assume you don't want to ban humans, who breed and own guns).

[Aticus100]

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

Is there anything at all that you have to add to the debate aside from this? I mean anything whatsoever?

By your logic we should not waste a penny on curing cancer because heart disease kills more people so until heart disease is completely eradicated, all efforts to cure cancer are pointless.

[broncofan]

There's no way Mr Fanti's analogy is relevant since nobody here seriously recommended banning guns. What people are recommending is the kind of common sense regulation we have for other harmful products. Why should one product be exempted from life-saving regulations? Even if its ownership is constitutionally protected, it can still be regulated to prevent unlawful and/or dangerous uses.

So why are we discussing this phantom issue? May I suggest that Mr. Fanti has nothing to say about gun control that doesn't completely misrepresent the opposing viewpoint.

[Ts RedVeX]

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

[Stavros]

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

Because they were so badly treated by their masters they snapped and killed them, the event in Sicily known as the First Servile War

According to Diodorus Siculus, politically influential slave-owners, often Roman equites (sort of like a horse-bore Knight) did not provide enough food and clothing for their slaves. The slaves turned to banditry to survive. The poorer Sicilians were the sufferers. Several decades of increasing tension finally broke out into war as the slaves revolted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites

So, as was to be expected, the Roman authorities took sides with the landowners, the businessmen and the elite against the slaves who created their wealth, though the ban on slaves bearing arms is not constant throughout the age of the Roman Empire.

And, curious is it not, that the first legal measures to control the ownership of guns and firearms in the USA was the panic that set in after the Civil War when white people became terrified that freed slaves seething with rage and resentment would go on the rampage throughout the South with the guns they acquired during the war. Gun control: imposed on slaves and black people, lifted on white people.

[Ts RedVeX]

Then had the slaves had arms their masters would not be able to treat them so badly, would they? Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice. Nowadays, we do not have that choice as we are already born slaves. Taking arms away from us takes our civilisation a few thousand years back in time.