Two Killed as Van Rams Into Small Crowd in Münster, Germany

[Dashinka 24,767]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

You really don't understand  what a false equivalence is...this is getting kind of funny at this point. Now I don't want to explain it because it's funny to watch.

 

Well actually knives are a little bit less logically flawed to compare to guns.

 

It goes back to our discussion on the definition of an assault weapon.  The actual weapon is immaterial to the discussion as anything can be used by a person intent on committing assault.  Your assertion that the initial discussion of banning assault vans being a false equivalence is wrong because the assault is based on the person, not the weapon, so forming a logical equivalence between banning guns and banning vehicles that are used to injure and kill intentionally is correct. 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

It goes back to our discussion on the definition of an assault weapon.  The actual weapon is immaterial to the discussion as anything can be used by a person intent on committing assault.  Your assertion that the initial discussion of banning assault vans being a false equivalence is wrong because the assault is based on the person, not the weapon, so forming a logical equivalence between banning guns and banning vehicles that are used to injure and kill intentionally is correct. 

Still false.

 

The van and the gun may have a similarity in that they can and are both used to kill.

 

That similarity doesn't mean they share a second similarity, that they should be regulated the same way (or not regulated).

 

That argument distills them both down to far too basic forms to be helpful in the discussion. They each have different core purposes, and the means at which you acquire them, and why, are so wildly divergent that they can't be treated the same just because they can both be used to kill.

 

That doesn't even include a consideration of the magnitude at which they are both used a weapon, which on it's own would invalidate your argument but isn't really a false equivalence issue.

[Dashinka 24,767]

Just now, bcking said:

Still false.

 

The van and the gun may have a similarity in that they can and are both used to kill.

 

That similarity doesn't mean they share a second similarity, that they should be regulated the same way (or not regulated).

 

That argument distills them both down to far too basic forms to be helpful in the discussion. They each have different core purposes, and the means at which you acquire them, and why, are so wildly divergent that they can't be treated the same just because they can both be used to kill.

 

That doesn't even include a consideration of the magnitude at which they are both used a weapon, which on it's own would invalidate your argument but isn't really a false equivalence issue.

That is a matter of opinion, and as we are seeing, the MDL is turning toward controlling other potential weapons, knives first, but I am sure, vehicles will be around the corner.  As to the core purpose of an implement, that really doesn't matter at the point when a choice is made to use it as a weapon.  Many leftist governments believe they can control an event by control/ban hence the call for these actions against the inanimate object, but in reality, a person intent on doing harm will just find something else. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Unidentified said:

So according to your logic we're going to ban anything that has ever killed anyone. Frying pans, pillows, pencils, bricks.... pretty much anything. I know you're scared of someone taking away guns but this is about a mentally ill man killing people in Germany, not what's going on in the US at the moment. 

My posts don’t call for a ban on anything.  

I’m not scared of anything being taken from me.

It happens in the US every single day.

[Unidentified 2,930]

38 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

My posts don’t call for a ban on anything.  

I’m not scared of anything being taken from me.

It happens in the US every single day.

And you don't think it would be nice if these things didn't happen at all or with less often?

[Dashinka 24,767]

4 hours ago, Unidentified said:

So according to your logic we're going to ban anything that has ever killed anyone. Frying pans, pillows, pencils, bricks.... pretty much anything. I know you're scared of someone taking away guns but this is about a mentally ill man killing people in Germany, not what's going on in the US at the moment. 

Actually, I think what is being said is that when dealing with MDL political types on issues like this, the fear is the slippery that slope society will start on when government tries to control anything.  Take a look at London, the leftist mayor wants to control knives and caustic fluids since they already control guns.  Cars and trucks are a favored assault weapon of may terrorist groups, when will the call go out to ban those as well?  The whole point is that regardless of the government's intention it will not change a person if they are intent on assaulting someone else.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

24 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

And you don't think it would be nice if these things didn't happen at all or with less often?

Of course it would.  But until we discover a way to control mentally ill folks or people with murderous intent before they commit the crime, it’s pretty much impossible to prevent, wouldn’t you say?

[bcking 3,157]

51 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually, I think what is being said is that when dealing with MDL political types on issues like this, the fear is the slippery that slope society will start on when government tries to control anything.  Take a look at London, the leftist mayor wants to control knives and caustic fluids since they already control guns.  Cars and trucks are a favored assault weapon of may terrorist groups, when will the call go out to ban those as well?  The whole point is that regardless of the government's intention it will not change a person if they are intent on assaulting someone else.

Everything should be controlled to some extent, but how you decide to what extent should be on an individual basis. It's false to argue that because they can be both used as a weapon, you either regulate them the same or don't regulate either one. It is far more complicated than that. You have to balance the risk of the item as a weapon, vs. the necessity for that item to be easily accessible to people. We may disagree with that balancing act when it comes to guns, but it is still a different issue than for motor vehicles, or knives, or pretty much any item. 

 

Everything can be used as a weapon, that doesn't mean you can treat every item equally. That is the false equivalency here.

[bcking 3,157]

30 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Of course it would.  But until we discover a way to control mentally ill folks or people with murderous intent before they commit the crime, it’s pretty much impossible to prevent, wouldn’t you say?

So should people be able to buy a heavy explosives at their local home depot? What about a nuclear weapon?

 

Using it with murderous intent is up to the person, not the item.

 

(Another false equivalency, as an example).

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

So should people be able to buy a heavy explosives at their local home depot? What about a nuclear weapon?

 

Using it with murderous intent is up to the person, not the item.

 

(Another false equivalency, as an example).

So you DO get the basis of the problem, you just wish to argue with me.  Fair enough.  

I am not advocating banning ANY item that can be used as a weapon, because I realize that people who want to do harm will just move onto a different weapon and continue to murder.  

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So you DO get the basis of the problem, you just wish to argue with me.  Fair enough.  

I am not advocating banning ANY item that can be used as a weapon, because I realize that people who want to do harm will just move onto a different weapon and continue to murder.  

Sorry bud I was just repeating you. I should have put it in quotes.

 

We already regulate many things. And should regulate each thing based on it's individual merits and not pretend things are equivalent just because they are all possible weapons.

[Dashinka 24,767]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Sorry bud I was just repeating you. I should have put it in quotes.

 

We already regulate many things. And should regulate each thing based on it's individual merits and not pretend things are equivalent just because they are all possible weapons.

Does it matter to the person being assaulted that a baseball bat like a firearm can be used for recreation too?

[Unidentified 2,930]

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Of course it would.  But until we discover a way to control mentally ill folks or people with murderous intent before they commit the crime, it’s pretty much impossible to prevent, wouldn’t you say?

Well help for mentally ill  doesn't exactly seem to be the highest priority for many countries. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does it matter to the person being assaulted that a baseball bat like a firearm can be used for recreation too?

I have asked several people who were beaten to death by a baseball bat, and every one seemed to think it was actually worse than being shot by a gun.

[jg121783 3,921]

I don't think comparing something like an AR15 (Let me help the gun grabbers here. An AR15 is NOT an M16.) to a van is a valid comparison. Both are specially shaped chunks of metal and plastic. Both can be used to kill people but that is not the intended purpose for either one (An M16 is intended to kill people in war or law enforcement. An AR15 is intended for hunting, target shooting and home defense.). A VAST majority of AR15s and vans are used for their intended purposes which is NOT killing innocent people. Should we ban or heavily restrict one chunk of plastic and metal over another because some rabid gun grabbers think it looks scary? I would say no. I would say we should look at the people that kill innocent people by whatever means and ask how we can address the mental health issues they have.