patrick.net

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

Several flaws in you logic. First, motorcycles serve many purposes other than speed.

Nothing that can't be done in safe and responsible manner, i.e. via car or, better yet, public transportation.

Same can be said of guns for weapons if you want to nick-pick.

Straw Man says

Second, motorcycles are far cheaper than cars and get far better gas mileage.

Their mileage is not that good, especially per passenger and especially compared to hybrid vehicles

Hybrid Motorcycle Gets 282 MPG

Not that good? Look, I know you want to make the position that guns are great and the government should not in any way interfere with your ability to gun any guns or ammo you want. And here's the thing, I don't even disagree with you. I actually haven't formed any opinion whatsoever about what laws, if any, should be applied at the federal, state, or local level. I'm completely open-minded on this issue.

However, open-minded doesn't mean I'll buy any bullshit argument from either side. In the abortion issue, when a pro-lifer says that doctors who perform abortions are heatless evil people, it's obviously bullshit. And when a pro-choicer says that the legality of abortion would not even be in question if men were the ones to get pregnant, that's an obviously bullshit argument as well. Such bullshit arguments do not persuade rational people like myself. In fact, they make the side proposing such arguments sound ridiculous. And it is a ridiculous argument to equate motor vehicles and weapons. They are clearly not the same thing.

Straw Man says

Sometimes killing is necessary for variety of reasons (hunting, war, self-defense) and at least with guns nobody has any illusion regarding their purpose.

Yes, but that is clearly not an argument that killing shouldn't be illegal unless necessary. Nor is it an argument for training a five year old in firearms or allowing him to possess one.

Straw Man says

Sure, we'll use this method when anyone and not just less than 10 governments can afford to buy and maintain a nuclear weapon.

Large corporations can already afford nuclear weapons. Individuals can afford ICBMs, landmines, and other weapons not allowed under law. It is ridiculous to argue that the law should allow people to possess any weapon whatsoever they want. The gun issue is not a debate over whether or not to draw a line between legal and illegal weapons as anyone who says that no such line should be draw sounds ridiculous. The question is where to draw the line and why.

In any case, regardless of where we draw the line on guns and other weapons, clearly a five-year-old is not responsible enough to handle deadly weapons, which is the whole point of this thread. This thread isn't about where to draw that line. This thread is a reaction to the ridiculousness of giving a young child a lethal weapon as a toy. Surely, no matter how much you love firing guns, you can see the absurdity of that? If not, I don't know what to say.

This stuff needs to be played in the media... If it convinces another person not to give a gun to a 5 year-old. Then this making headlines was worth it. You are never going to eradicate stupid people. But you can educate them or at least shame them.