Religion of peace strikes again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

No, it's not a guarantee that no one will ever have them. But it makes it harder, which means it's possible that lives can be saved. It means that some people won't have them, that might have them if they were legal.

When seat belt laws were passed, the critics said "just because it's illegal to not wear a seat belt, doesn't mean that some people won't still choose not to wear them". And they are 100% right...despite the law, some people don't wear seat belts. But some obey the law, and people are alive because of it. Seat belt laws don't reduce auto fatalities to zero, but that doesn't mean they don't have a positive impact.

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Man oh man...

I agree, banning possession isn't the same as forcing you to do something...

But I'll say two things..

(1) those two things are similar in this regard...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd. No law is perfect. Laws against murder, don't prevent 100% of murders, but it would be asinine to use that as an excuse to do away with anti-murder laws. But if the law does some good, and is constitutional, it may be worth enacting. Saving some lives isn't as good as saving all lives, but it's better than nothing.

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd.

I've actually never heard anyone say this....

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.