Obama Admin comes out against breed bans using the same arguments pro-gun people use against gun ban

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Regardless, you still don't grasp the underlying concept. It does not matter what is being banned but rather that,

A), bans don't help upon closer examination

B). Excuses for bans are illogical across the board.

I think we have been down this path before?

Should we ban private ownership of Nuclear Weapons? It is not far-fetched, you already have teen-agers building Nuclear Reactors.

Teen Builds Basement Nuclear Reactor
www.popsci.com...

Chemcial Weapons?

Child Slavery?

Should we ban anything?? The argument that if something does not work ALL the time, then it works NONE of the time is a fallacy in itself.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Should we ban anything?? The argument that if something does not work ALL the time, then it works NONE of the time is a fallacy in itself.

No. Where there is no harm to person or property there is no crime. Bans on things are a futile attempt at pre-crime. They dont work. They've never worked. As much has been admitted in this administrations response to breed specific legislation.

Originally posted by James1982



BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS! BANS!BANS!BANS!BANS!

Will make him dance.













second line

Originally posted by Indigo5

(A) Each is able to kill
(B) Of those that kill...the vast majority do not.

I would argue they are different in that...
Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles are
inanimate objects/tools,
engineered and manufactured by people
specifically designed tools/inanimate objects to maximize it's precision and capacity for killing. Guns are both designed and marketed for how accurately they fire, how many shots can be fired without re-loading, how quickly it fires, ease of use etc. etc. No one ...well maybe some...pets thier gun, bonds with it as a living creature etc.

Gun's don't slobber or play fetch.

While dogs are living, breathing creatures...pets. Not an "inanimate object" as you have touted...nor an object manufactured for a singular use....launching lethal projectiles with rapidity and accuracy.

Otherwise...When was the last time some unstable, skinny, young man walked into a grade school and killed 22 Kids and teachers with thier dog?

Actually you're right about guns and dogs. You are more than 3x as likely to be injured by a dog as a gun. If you take out acts of suicide and gang violence the distance becomes much greater. So, it would actually seem that we should be more worried about your dog than my gun. My gun is locked in a safe location unless it is on my hip and does not fire unless I operate the mechanism.

A dog is a being with it's own mind, will, and survival instincts. It lacks the cognitive process to think through matters when angry. They can and do attack of their own free will and they usually end up hurting children.

If you want to cut back the number of gun injuries you can address what the UN calls one of the three main reasons for gun violence, organized crime. You address the issue of organized crime in the inner cities and mental health services for the chronically depressed and you can make real change. Bans will not work, they cause more organized crime. They provide an incentive for criminals.

To stop dog bites you would have to lock away large portions of the dog population so that they never get near humans. The other answer - as a 28 year veteran of breeding told me - Is to kill the dog when it bites and then kill all of it's offspring to ensure the DNA coding is gone. That insures that a mentally unstable or overly aggressive dog doesn't pass on genetics that make it more likely to attack.

Unfortunately some breeds have been overly bred for fighting, guard duty, and aggression. The strongest and meanest were bred most often early on and it has effected overall genetic coding. The veteran dogmen and even a couple of vets have admitted to that. Which in the long run actually makes a dog much more dangerous to a random person than a gun.

reply to post by Indigo5


The argument isn't that no ban is righteous. That is a typical straw man. The argument is, bans that don't work but unduly limit a person's self determination, human rights, right to property, or other basic and natural rights are wrong. They do not stop the bad behavior they only increase the incentive for other crimes against the rights previously mentioned. Plus they strip the person of a certain amount of self determination.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The argument isn't that no ban is righteous. That is a typical straw man.

No...that is percisely what the poster I responded to (along with others) contend.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
The argument is, bans that don't work but unduly limit a person's self determination, human rights, right to property, or other basic and natural rights are wrong. They

If your premise was true then I would agree.

Many bans past and present are futile...the claim that banning certain weapons from public ownership has not effect fails IMHO.

I am not for banning "guns" et al. I am for regulating whom can own guns....and yes...certain types of guns.

reply to post by Indigo5



I believe that banning any gun is pointless. A gun is an inanimate object that will do nothing but sit on the shelf unless acted upon.

A nuclear weapon is different because if improperly maintained it severely effects the rights of others to life and property. High explosives tend to get unstable with age and can cause the same issues.

Banning murder never stopped murder. It was more about recognizing the value of human life and creating stability in society. You violate a man's right to life and you pay the consequences.

Do I believe you can regulate who owns a gun, to an extent. Some people have proven they can't handle their freedoms. Just look to violent felons. Others can't handle them due to mental deficits. I wouldn't want an 80 year old Alzheimer patient, or a 21 year old that has been committed three times for manic depressive disorder to buy a gun. However, banning rifles because of cosmetic features, magazine size, or polymer furniture will not make a difference.

Bans don't work, they only serve to set limits on freedom. They serve as guide posts and when you cross them you pay a consequence. That is why they must be used only to outlaw violations of another person's right.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Banning murder never stopped murder. It was more about recognizing the value of human life and creating stability in society. You violate a man's right to life and you pay the consequences.

Puhleeeese...You don't think if murder was legal the murder rate might just jump a little??

But yah...If your standard of "working" is something NEVER happening...then you are right.

And that bit about well maintained Nuclear weapons?

It's be OK for the public to own Nuclear Weapons as long as it was well maintained and inspected regularly?

reply to post by Indigo5


Nope because the tax burden such a regulatory entity would place on others. Then you would be limiting someone's right to property, their income that they earn. Plus, some other reasons. The long term consequences of nuclear weapons affects the rights of generations to come. The short term cost to innocent life when use without coordination would be catastrophic and possibly have international repercussions.

I consider myself a consequentialist libertarian with some deontological libertarian leanings. I don't disagree with laws, I just disagree with laws that unduly restrict a person from achieving their full potential mentally, physically, spiritually, or economically without strong reasons and proof. You won't get me running around on the extremes about nuclear weapons and the like.

Right now the numbers and proof don't support the AWB or magazine limits.