Thursday, February 5, 2009

If Guns Were Cars

I usually avoid these absurd comparisons because, well, they're absurd. They're like comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. However, in an attempt to comply with the wishes of the commenters who continually make these comparisons (especially you Bob), and who never miss an opportunity to accuse me of avoiding answering (that's you Weer'd), I've decided to give it a go.

So let's talk about cars.

Let's imagine there's a serious movement afoot to ban them. I'm talking about total ban. Those spearheading the movement are nothing less than fanatical in their untiring attempts to win support. Everyone knows how dangerous cars are. They pollute the environment; they're stolen from their lawful owners and used in crimes. All too often they're involved in deadly accidents on the highway, about which everyone understands the cars are not at fault, but as the banners love to say, "No cars, no accidents". Then, you've got the problem of law abiding car owners driving drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Again, this should not be blamed on the car, but since people are people, and even though the vast majority of car owners are responsible, you've always got that certain percentage who gives a bad name to the rest. Ban 'em all, says the Movement.

Fighting tooth and nail against the Movement is a more vocal minority who insist banning cars is not acceptable. These car enthusiasts feel eliminating cars would not address the problem. People would still use horses and bicycles for transportation, so you would still have accidents. They frequently refer to 19th century news articles in which horse-drawn carriages came thundering down upon an intersection only to crash into another vehicle or trample pedestrians. What about all the safety and convenience cars provide? We need them to protect our families, they cry. They will hear nothing of punishing the majority of lawful car owners for the sins of a small minority, even if those sins result in untold violence and bloodshed. Above all, the car lovers shout, it is their Constitutional right to possess cars. The Founding Fathers certainly would have specified so had cars existed at the time. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can hardly be achieved without cars, they say.

The interminable debate rages on, car apologists, despite their smaller numbers, are maintaining a clear lead.

One voice from among the Movement to Ban Cars suggests that since the actual existence of cars hangs in the balance, and since these opposing philosophies represent all-or-nothing positions, it is reasonable to say that as long as car enthusiasts continue winning the battle, they must assume responsibility for the problems resulting from their victory. Since cooperating with the Movement would so completely eradicate the problems (no one really believes in that nonsense about horse-drawn carriages causing serious accidents or the fact that defensive car use outweighs offensive), then car lovers are responsible, if not directly, certainly indirectly for those problems.

Does that make my position no guns clearer?

14 comments:

  1. One voice from among the Movement to Ban Cars suggests that since the actual existence of cars hangs in the balance, and since these opposing philosophies represent all-or-nothing positions, it is reasonable to say that as long as car enthusiasts continue winning the battle, they must assume responsibility for the problems resulting from their victory. Since cooperating with the Movement would so completely eradicate the problems (no one really believes in that nonsense about horse-drawn carriages causing serious accidents or the fact that defensive car use outweighs offensive), then car lovers are responsible, if not directly, certainly indirectly for those problems.

    ...right... where to begin.

    your "since [...] and since [...]" construction seems like hyperbole, because the thing you're implying logically follows? doesn't. that entire sentence is a non sequitur.

    it's also a dazzlingly weird leap of illogic for you; usually you're a clearer thinker than that. to see you mentally short-circuit this blatantly is out of character for you.

    you're also calling your opponents liars. unless when you claim that "noone really believes [...]", you're meaning to imply we're nobodies. either way you're insulting us.

    then you're calling us responsible for deaths and maimings we're not responsible for, with a totally illogical non sequitur as your only explanation.

    you're debating in bad faith, mike. your mind is closed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. +1 to Nomen.

    Sorry Mike, but just because you feel the comparison isn't valid doesn't make it invalid.

    Commonality - both are machines, both are tools used by people, both do not function correctly without the interaction of people, both are lawful to own, both are used illegally by very few of the people that own them.

    Gee, guess they have nothing in common.


    These car enthusiasts feel eliminating cars would not address the problem.

    I read someplace that it was calculated without cars replacing horses, New York City would be 14 feet deep in horse droppings. That was in the early 90s that I read it. And it included the possibility/probability of advances in removing the manure....still would be polluting the environment.

    So, is it worth it to go backwards for the sake of a few miscreants?

    Also, your analogy fails on the technology side. Not anyone can build a horse in their garage, but just about anyone can construct a firearm or car in their garage.

    Remember who and where the first cars were built? In people's garages. Can't turn back the hands of time.

    Now, you switch gears:
    All too often they're involved in deadly accidents on the highway, about which everyone understands the cars are not at fault, but as the banners love to say, "No cars, no accidents".

    So is the purpose of the ban(s) to stop people from having accidents or stop the misuse of the item?

    Can't argue that you want cars out of the hands of criminals then argue you are only doing it to save lives.

    They will hear nothing of punishing the majority of lawful car owners for the sins of a small minority, even if those sins result in untold violence and bloodshed

    Nice hyperbole there Mike. Actually the number isn't "untold" it is tracked and measured quite consistently.

    The aspect that you won't face is how often the tools are used defensively or even for recreation.

    It is a multi-million (Billion?) dollar industry in hunting alone. Shooting sports adds more.

    How about when the ban on cars goes into effects talking about how many jobs are going to be lost because people can't get to work safely or on time?

    How about talking about when the ban on cars goes into effect how many lives will be lost due to the inability to transport people to emergency care quickly.

    You listed only a very few of the positive benefits of cars while highlighting the very few negatives of them. Same with firearms...you only see what you look for...negativity.

    those sins result in untold violence and bloodshed. Above all, the car lovers shout, it is their Constitutional right to possess cars. The Founding Fathers certainly would have specified so had cars existed at the time.

    I hearby declare since the Founding Fathers didn't expressly mention the internet or blogs, I am placing your blog under a ban. Please refrain from posting any more articles until such time as the Constitution can be amended to include blogging in the 1st Amendment.

    Kinda RIDICULOUS isn't it Mke?

    One voice from among the Movement to Ban Cars suggests that since the actual existence of cars hangs in the balance, and since these opposing philosophies represent all-or-nothing positions,

    Sorry Mike, but this is a FLAT OUT LIE.

    Let me say that again, if you consider the pro-car/gun side to be all or nothing, you are either lying or flatly ignorant of the truth.

    There are thousands of laws on the record limiting the right to keep and bear arms. From the restrictions on fully automatic firearms down to the licensing to carry a firearm concealed. Heck in some states the right to purchase a firearm is VOIDED.

    Please stop lying about the unfettered right we enjoy. It isn't an all or nothing position and you know it.

    Since cooperating with the Movement would so completely eradicate the problems

    Seeing how other countries have implemented the Movement's Goals and the problems haven't been eradicated, isn't this another lie?

    Thanks for giving me the opening to present some countering information to this piece of non-sense.

    (no one really believes in that nonsense about horse-drawn carriages causing serious accidents or the fact that defensive car use outweighs offensive)

    Dare you to read this Mercilessly Plan, Relentlessly Prepare,
    Violently Execute
    at Xavier Thoughts blog and tell me that the defensive use doesn't outweigh the CRIMINAL use. Not offensive, but CRIMINAL Mike. There is a difference

    Me appearing in shorts and no shirt is offensive....people using firearms to rob or murder is criminal.

    Read the post Mike, everyone else, tell me that we should allow the Hesslers in the world to not be met with the most lethal defense possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. +1 to Nomen and Bob, Besides the goofy post about Amy Winehouse and Sarah Palin, this may be your worst post yet.

    Why? You propose an analogy to support your idea that guns should be banned/heavily restricted, but yet you don't even support your own analogy, because you DON'T belive in banning cars.

    So you claim the two are similar (and put it a ton of logical fallacies that Nomen and Bob so artfully outlined) but you support one, and don't support the other, tho claim their equal?

    You're way better than this, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  4. weerd, it's not that he doesn't believe cars should be banned --- that's just an example he's using.

    mike's trying to explain his anti-gun stance by substituting something else for "guns", in the hopes that this will make his logic more apparent and, presumably, more obviously convincing.

    i think it makes it more obviously apparent his logic is flawed; even if he did believe cars should be banned, the argument he's trying to use here... doesn't flow; his conclusions don't follow from his premises the way he seems to think they do.

    and, in the process, he manages to either call us all liars (without supporting evidence for that libel), or dismiss us all as nobodies. so not only is his logic lousy, but his rhetoric sucks ass too!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yep, banning those cars will stop people from using gasoline to attack others....we can't do it soon enough


    Police in Los Angeles are searching for a man and a woman who they say set an exotic nightclub dancer on fire, leaving her clinging to life.

    The suspects doused the woman with some type of flammable liquid at about 1:30 a.m. Thursday outside the Babes & Beer nightclub in the Tarzana area of the San Fernando Valley, police said.

    Police identified the attackers as Rianne Celine Theriault-Odom, 27, and Nathaniel Marquis Petrillo, 22, police spokesman Richard French said. Police said they were frequent patrons of the club and positively identified by witnesses.

    Deputy Police Chief Michael Moore said the victim is in grave condition.

    "Given the condition of this victim, they may be responsible for ultimately her murder," Moore said at a news conference Thursday. "This is a terrible, terrible attack."

    The victim is a 27-year-old mother of two young children, Moore said.

    The nightclub's Web site advertises "intimate dining" and "seductive nightlife." A message left on the club's answering machine was not immediately returned.


    Of course that identifies another problem with banning cars, what to do with all the cars in the country now...and the ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm, Nomen, I've never heard of anybody using an Analogy that way. Usally I see it as comparing two similar things that are rarely compared (such as comparing perscription drugs to guns, as both are designed to do good but can be abused, but are both restricted.....also as a general rule my stance on 'script drugs and guns are quite similar), or Bob's analogy of Cars to guns, as cars can and are used to kill, but because they do so much good to society it would be foolish to ban them....like guns.

    I guess there's some confusion here, Mike will have to explain himself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did it even occur to any of you that the post was meant as a light-hearted attempt at humor? I thought it was pretty funny, actually, but I guess you need a sense of humor to get it. How about this, speaking of gun control? A new law that people totally devoid of the normal sense of humor which helps in simple communications with other humans, cannot own a gun. You guys are too easily offended and therefore at risk of hurting someone with your weapons. It's just an idea. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike,

    You miss the point here when you talk about us having no sense of humor.

    Here it is in plain unvarnished terms:

    WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BANNING GUNS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LEAVING ME DEFENSELESS AGAINST CRIMINALS, SOMETHING THAT I DON'T FIND FUNNY AT ALL.

    Was that large even for you to read?
    Was it simple enough for you to read?

    Also, I'll add in a manner which can not be misunderstood or missed:

    AT NO POINT WAS I OFFENDED BY ANYTHING YOU SAID.

    I simply pointed out the fallacy of your analogy, light hearted or not, the analogy between banning cars and banning firearms is apt.

    You failed to make your case! Heck, I could have argued your points better then you could have.


    I'll change a few words and make a counter proposal that will end the problem faster:

    How about this, speaking of gun control? A new law that people totally devoid of common sense and any knowledge on the subject which helps in simple communications with other humans, cannot talk about the subject.

    There, that just shut down 99.999% of all gun control advocates including you.

    Mike, Convince me I'm wrong. Go through each of my points and offer a counter argument. I'll make you the same deal as Weer'd.

    Convince me I'm wrong, using facts, logic, data, reasoning, about the 2nd amendment and I'll give up my firearms. I'll become a gun grabber like you....if you can convince me.

    Nothing in your analogy or any other argument has done that.

    Refute the points we raise with something more then "I believe" or
    "I think" or "There should be a law".

    ReplyDelete
  9. you make a post like that... then go on to explain it as having been a "joke"... and accuse US of having no sense of humor?!

    glass houses, mike. glass houses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    Let's combine two meme's here.

    You say that the misuse of firearms by some is a reason to reduce the availability, correct?

    Would that apply to other activities/actions? If people misuse/abuse them, then actions should be taken to reduce the availability of activity?

    How about abortion and this case from Buffalo News

    http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

    Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion
    By CHRISTINE ARMARIO
    Associated Press Writer

    Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

    Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

    Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

    What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

    Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.


    Had the abortion clinic not be so easily available, an infant would be still alive today possibly.

    Now I am not arguing for the banning of abortion. Just trying to apply your logic to the problem.

    Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

    "It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.



    Isn't this the same with firearms...there are people out there who misuse firearms, responsible people would like to keep them from being used in illegal manners....but what can effectively be done to control free will?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nomen, You said "you make a post like that... then go on to explain it as having been a "joke"... and accuse US of having no sense of humor?!

    glass houses, mike. glass houses."

    What I actually said is, "the post was meant as a light-hearted attempt at humor." You make it sound like I said, "Oh, forget it, I was only kidding."

    It was just what I said it was, and you guys all took it so seriously it was ridiculous. Bob told me why in all caps. OK, I get it. But remember I prefaced the whole thing by saying these comparisons are absurd, they're apples and oranges, so how can you possible take them so seriously? That's my point.

    And then, just when I thought we were starting to communicate, look at the latest comparison Bob put up there. I mean, give me a break will ya?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike,

    Please explain in simple terms and words why the comparison is invalid because obviously I, and many others, disagree.

    Please explain why the comparison between the misuse - criminal deeds--in the abortion case and the misuse--criminal deeds-- of firearms isn't appropriate.

    I think you are running from the issue.

    I'll challenge you again. Take my argument apart point by point and show my how it is wrong.

    Give you a break Mike? How about giving us a break from your repeated calls to disarm us?

    From your repeated calls to impose restrictions and costs you aren't willing to bear on any other right...such as abortion.

    Show me how I'm wrong instead of simply telling me it is what you "feel".

    You are completely entitled to your opinion...but you are calling for changes in society, in my ability to enjoy a sport, in my ability to protect my family. Shouldn't that call for change require more song lyrics:

    Feelings, nothing more than feelings,


    (Now that was a light hearted attempt at humor )

    ReplyDelete
  13. So Mike it was all a joke that also is a response to how I claim you avoid actually confronting the issues on gun control???

    So either you're bullshiting us, and this shitty post was for real (and is nothing but logical fallacies) or your response to our calls for you to be more serious about this issue is to joke.

    Either way this is Not good, and well below what I expect from you.

    ReplyDelete