Chard wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 11:51am:



Which doesn't exist, by the way.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 11:50am:



And the buyer isn’t forced to buy a thing.

You’re making it sound like the poor old buyer has no choice.


“You'd have no problem with a company who manufactured such an item and then sold them to the parents”

The purchase is free choice.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 11:50am:


Please. I could make a more convincing case for outlawing cars based on that logic. After all, cars kill far more people in thus country than guns do. Worse, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majority of gun owners exercise their Second Amendment rights safely and responsibly. So why should the rights of around 100,000,000 citizens be infringed on when the number of people commiting crimes or otherwise being a danger to themselves or others is less than 1/100th of a percent of that number?


Quote:


And here comes the emotional appeal...

No, as a matter of fact the idea of giving up my rights for an illusion of safety so overly emotional people like you can pat themselves on the back sounds like a terrible idea. Even better, I can cite multiple examples of laws inacted and subsequently abolished that cake about thanks to the same irrational emotion-based thinking you just described, and in every instance, from the tailed assault weapons ban to the prohibition of alcohol, such measures either failed to have an effect or actually made things worse.

Chard wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:


How do you take emotion out of an issue like this? What are the ramifications of irresponsible gun ownership if not emotional? Grief, regret, horror etc. What do you think the desperation to hold on to gun rights is based on? Looks like a healthy dose of fear to me.

There is nothing wrong with emotion. Arguing emotive points does not make an argument less valid because rationality and emotion are not mutually exclusive. The problem is when an emotional response causes irrational thinking and there is nothing irrational about my point.

You're welcome.

Chard wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:


What hypocrisy DH?

SOB

FriYAY wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 11:59am:



It doesn't.

I've never said that the parents aren't partially to blame for this tragedy.  They clearly are. They're absolute idiots.

Chard stated: "The responsibility for this begins and ends with the kids parents."

I say: "The responsibility for this begins with the manufacturer, and ends with the parents."

I'm not letting the parents off at all.

However, the company have to shoulder some of the blame for designing and manufacturing a gun specifically for children.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:


It's easy. All you need to do is approach the subject like a rational adult.


Quote:


Doesn't matter simply because making laws based on emotions that vary from person is irrational.


Quote:


It's based on it being a right specifically granted to the citizens. Nothing emotional about it, most of us are just wanting to maintain our rights under the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.


Quote:


Fear of what? Paper targets and game animals?


Quote:


The irrationality comes from letting your emotion blind you to facts. You cannot be totally objective about something if your OODA loop is based in emotion.


Quote:


The irrational bit is where you tried to argue that 100,000,000 law abiding citizens should lose their rights because less than 1/100th of the population are idiots.

Chard wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:



What would you like it based on then?