5 ms·
Why the strawman? It's a question of tradeoffs. Making seatbelts mandatory was a major step in preventing accidental deaths. Ensuring that pools are safer (whi
by mercurial 12y ago
Why the strawman?
It's a question of tradeoffs. Making seatbelts mandatory was a major step in preventing accidental deaths. Ensuring that pools are safer (which doesn't necessarily mean banning them...) would also be beneficial. As for gun safety, what's wrong with investigating how to prevent instances of mass murders which by now make a regular appearance in US news, since apparently the pro-gun lobby is too strong to outright ban weapons? Not to mention children playing with unsecured firearms.
- gnarbarian 12y agoIt's not a straw man, it's reductio ad absurdum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Just to be clear, I think that people should have the right to purchase these RFID guns, but I think any sort of mandate requiring them is bad news for a number of reasons. I'd be willing to investigate things like trigger locks or home safes or licensing IF we on the gun rights side of the discussion could get something too. Namely a repeal of the hughes amendment. Also this is something I think would be better dolled out state by state. People here in alaska don't want the same things that people in new york or california do.
- mercurial 12y agoIt's a strawman in the sense that it doesn't characterize my position correctly: in this case, I'm not pushing for "banning all the things", or even the things under discussion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can call mass murders "accidental deaths". They are all quite deliberate. As for the rest, I'm afraid that being from the other side of the pond prevents me from being familiar with the various US gun laws...