If my observations of your sophistry were incorrect or of low quality, please share why. In this context, was your comment not relative privation? Red herring? Appeal to hypocrisy? Straw man? Please help me. After all, I took the time to point out your poor form so that you may do better in the future.
LOL, Japan even prohibits the ownership of "swords." Australia, has, a population of under 26 million that doesn't officially allow firearms for personal protection. Yeah let's copy that example.
I find that folks that generalize societal positions by labeled groups like "conservatives" and "liberals" are hard to have a meaningful discussion with. It's made worse when it's an attempt to derail the current discussion. Are there not "liberals" that consider both alcohol and guns a threat to safety? Or neither? Or feel one issue is important and not the other? Can't the same be said for "conservatives"? See the logical fallacies of your statements? If you want to talk about the public safety threat of alcohol consumption, start a thread about it. Stop dragging the dead fish around this thread, please.
OT..OT...OT... As of 2020, 138 Films and 162 Television shows have been shot in the city.[ We are nicknamed Hollywood East. You would be surprised how big the film industry is. Screen Gems basically runs their east coast operations from here. ...Even dating back to Matlock which was almost exclusively filmed here to imitate Georgia. Our architecture is a huge reason. Hunger Games Iron Man 3 Empire Records Scream Cape Fear YaYa sisterhood Hudsucker Proxy I Know What You Did Last Summer Dawsons Creek One Tree Hill Matlock And many many more.
I'll stop when you can find something meaningful to say about gun control other than if only America was a completely different country with a different history and a different bill of rights and everyone thought the same way I do.
Incidentally there was no "logical fallacies" in my statement, and stop pretending you have some insight into proper logical form. I didn't say liberals shouldn't about gun reform, I said if the concern was public safety, why aren't liberals more concerned about alcohol abuse. Perfecty valid.
Yes. In the real world, there are tradeoffs involved with gun control policies. It's true that Australia doesn't permit firearm ownership solely based on personal protection. Then again, our homicide rate by guns per capita is 3,000% more than their's. So maybe it's working. Perhaps there's less of a need for a gun for personal protection if the other guy doesn't have one as well? Regardless, it's a public policy we can learn from.
Actually, appeal to hypocrisy and red herring are illogical fallacies. The other two violations you committed were the logical ones. Wouldn't you agree? FYI... this thread is about gun violence as a public safety issue, not public safety in general. Stop propping up straw men.
You don't even know what you're saying. What we're doing is rhetoric, on a message board. Oh you used the ad hominem fallacy in the first paragraph of comment 43, I guess I win. I have studied formal logic, I doubt you have. All you have proven is that you have nothing meaningful to say on the topic of gun control.
One difference is that folks aren't drinking other people to death. We also don't see lots of stories about children accidentally drinking themselves to death if they get their hands on their dad's liquor bottle. Of course, giving alcohol to kids or forcing someone to drink alcohol are illegal, as they should be. A big problem we have seen relating to voluntary intoxication is with drunk driving. Lots of resources have been spent on public campaigns and law enforcement to discourage drinking and driving and increase the social stigma and criminal penalties. I've heard stories of older folks say the cops used to give people warnings and even drive them home back in the day. That has all but ended because people got tired of seeing drunk drivers kill people. Even police are getting arrested for DUIs these days. This doesn't even get to things like seatbelt laws and efforts to make cars safer to reduce traffic fatalities. I'd also submit that human beings are probably wired to view violence differently compared to other things which pose safety risks. We cringe at the horror and inhumanity of mass shootings and terrorism, for example, despite the total number of deaths from those things being relatively lower. But we have little control over whether we are a random victim or our loved ones may be a random victim. If we only evaluated total fatality numbers to set our priorities, we'd be talking more about the dangers of fast food and finding ways to make dangerous jobs safer.
This is demonstrably false. Drunk drivers kill other people and people are more much likely to commit violent crimes, including assault, rape, and murder, while intoxicated. And people are much more likely to be victims of violent crime while intoxicated. Women are much likely to be victims of sexual assault. The exact number of violent crimes that happen due to alcohol probably isn't known, but it is clear alcohol abuse is a threat to non-drinkers in a way that fast food is not a threat to healthy eaters. I'm personally from a child abuse situation related to alcohol, and I know many others who are as well. You couldn't be more wrong with this analogy. Alcohol, Violence, and Aggression - Alcohol Alert No. 38-1997 Alcohol-related crime - Wikipedia. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/drunk-driving-statistics/
I had a client who was trying to retain me on a new case and was going to raise funds by pawning some of his guns. As a very modest collector, I told him to give me a list of what he had and what the pawnshop was going to give him. If he had anything I wanted, I'd allow him more off his bill. The only thing of interest was a Smith & Wesson .44 magnum with the 8" barrel, the Dirty Harry revolver. He came in to drop it off and was obviously depressed. When I asked him what was wrong, he said he was attached to it as that was his home defense weapon. I had to double check, but my memory was correct...he lived in a trailer park. I confronted him with that fact, but he didn't understand why, so I asked him what would have happened if he had fired and missed. You could kind of see the wheels turning and the light finally came on..."That could have created a problem." No kidding.
"I find that folks that generalize societal positions by labeled groups like "conservatives" and "liberals" are hard to have a meaningful discussion with." is not ad hominem. It's an opinion on my difficulty in interacting with a type of person who uses gross generalizations. I didn't claim or imply your argument was invalid. Now that's a good example of ad hominem! You attacked my credibility by implying that my statement is not valid because I may lack the same level of expertise in sophistry, instead of actually challenging my assertions on merit. Do you think your statement is also an appeal to authority fallacy? I dunno... you're the expert! I have plenty to say about gun control, I just don't want to talk about your red herring topic of alcohol consumption or engage in your other bad faith commentary. mmmm... alcohol... I think I'll have another drink.
I talked about drinking and driving but fair point that many violent crimes which aren't traffic related involve alcohol. Gun-related deaths are probably easier to quantify since the bullet itself is directly causing the death as opposed to a substance impacting human cognition and behavior which then results in violence. I have little doubt, for example, that most bar fights wouldn't happen if everyone in the bar were drinking coke or tea. We do regulate alcohol, to include the percentage of alcohol being sold. We require liquor licenses for those who sell liquor. In most places, the drinking age is 21, so we're banning younger adults from buying and consuming it. We have laws against public intoxication. Bars can be sued despite various dram shop protections if, for example, they sell to a minor or known drunkard. We went through Prohibition, and I don't think most people want to go back to that, but there are counties around the country that are still dry and don't allow alcohol to be sold. I'm not for banning guns but do think regulations make sense given the amount of damage that guns can do. With things like serial killers, serial rapists, mass shootings, and terrorism, I think part of the fear and concern is that people feel they have very little control over potentially being a random victim. In contrast, with things like bar fights, date rapes, and domestic violence, they might feel more control over what bars they go to and at what time, who they choose to date or be in a relationship with, etc. Obviously, this doesn't apply to kids since they simply have to rely upon their parents or guardians to keep them safe. Personally, I think alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, for example, yet marijuana is still illegal in lots of places, and we lock people up for that. Sometimes our laws seem to be based more upon traditional norms or politics than data.
I appreciate your dispassionate commentary. Public safety issues vary in severity, complexity, and urgency, and we need to be able to address them simultaneously. It is not always the case that the most severe public safety issues are the easiest to solve, or that the most urgent issues are the most important. As you noted, public perception drives our priorities and use of resources. We do, however, have the capacity to address multiple issues at the same time. Now about that drink....
