Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Seth]

Apples and oranges. You can have dozens of fire extinguishers around the house. Fire extinguisher deaths are very few a year.

No, it's an apt comparison. I have dozens of guns around the house, and some fire extinguishers. Neither have caused a single death. But I could beat someone to death with a fire extinguisher, or use it to defend myself against a physical attack by using it as a weapon.

Based on the logic of gun banners, fire extinguishers must be banned because they MIGHT be used unlawfully to kill someone.

The sole difference between a fire extinguisher (or baseball bat) and a firearm is the false claim that the firearm is "designed only to kill people."

This is not factually true, but even if it were, it's irrelevant because the point is not what the object is designed for, it's what it's actually used, or is usable for, and almost anything can be turned into an offensive weapon and used illegally to harm another.

The fact that SOME guns (a very, very tiny and ever-shrinking percentage of them) are used for criminal purposes does not mean (ie: there is causation OR correlation) that ALL guns are or will be used for criminal purposes. This is called the Fallacy of Composition:

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

In this case, as BG continues to insist:

P1 Guns are designed to kill people
P2 Law abiding citizens have guns
C1 Therefore, law-abiding citizens will kill people with guns

That's false logic.

There is no rational or logical connection between the fact that guns are designed to kill people and the conclusion that the possession of a gun by a law abiding citizen will result in that person killing someone.

The evidence in the record amply demonstrates that this is simply not true. As I've said, and BG and Jonno have ignored utterly, the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US has never been higher in all of history, and it continues to go up and up, and yet the violent crime and murder rate continues to drop.

How inconvenient for those who pander this particular fallacy.

[MrJonno]

The evidence in the record amply demonstrates that this is simply not true. As I've said, and BG and Jonno have ignored utterly, the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US has never been higher in all of history, and it continues to go up and up, and yet the violent crime and murder rate continues to drop.

As you completely ignore there is no such thing as a law abiding citizen , there are two groups of people those who have committed serious crimes and those who may do so in the future

[Coito ergo sum]

The evidence in the record amply demonstrates that this is simply not true. As I've said, and BG and Jonno have ignored utterly, the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US has never been higher in all of history, and it continues to go up and up, and yet the violent crime and murder rate continues to drop.

As you completely ignore there is no such thing as a law abiding citizen , there are two groups of people those who have committed serious crimes and those who may do so in the future

Those who have not committed serious crimes in the future (but, may in the future) are law abiding citizens.

[laklak]

I break the law all the fucking time. I smoke dope, I drive over the speed limit, I've even bought (gasp) privately hunted venison. I'm a real scofflaw, I guess. However, you're absolutely safe around me and my guns, unless you try to harm me or take my TV set or beat my dog. I'll shoot you then, if I can get the drop on you, but otherwise you're safer here then you are in yer mammy's loving arms. Actually, given the number of whacko, child abusing parents our there, you're one FUCK of a lot safer around here. At least you won't have to wait for the game warden to come round when the bear starts eating you.

[MrJonno]

Very few in the US, not much beyond fraud and deceit. You can't hawk a product based on lies, basically, but even if what you say is very tenuous and unproven, it can't be prohibited by the State. That's why late night television has commercial after commercial hawking various "supplements" that are strongly implied to cure almost everything. As long as it isn't an out-and-out bald-faced indisputable lie, they can get away with it

You mean you can aim alcohol adverts at children, you can aim TV tobacco adverts at anyone?

Oh I forgot in the name of free speech its ok for drug companies to advertise drugs for potential patients who of course are expert and rational 'customers' . Strangely enough most countries don't permit this and the US is the exception.

Luckily I don't have the disease of worship whether its guns, freedom liberty , you name it I don't worship. Every is relative and a compromise.


There isnt a lot of advertising for unarmed self defence in the UK, but if it did become a problem regulating commerical advertising has about to do with authoritarianism as regulating the water supply

[Tero]

However, you're absolutely safe around me and my guns, unless you try to harm me or take my TV set or beat my dog. I'll shoot you then, if I can get the drop on you, but otherwise you're safer here then you are in yer mammy's loving arms. Actually, given the number of whacko, child abusing parents our there, you're one FUCK of a lot safer around here. At least you won't have to wait for the game warden to come round when the bear starts eating you.

TV set? I would take a photo, nice Blog entry: These bozos were so poor they had to steal a TV set!

[Coito ergo sum]

Very few in the US, not much beyond fraud and deceit. You can't hawk a product based on lies, basically, but even if what you say is very tenuous and unproven, it can't be prohibited by the State. That's why late night television has commercial after commercial hawking various "supplements" that are strongly implied to cure almost everything. As long as it isn't an out-and-out bald-faced indisputable lie, they can get away with it

You mean you can aim alcohol adverts at children, you can aim TV tobacco adverts at anyone?

Very few. Regarding alcohol, they got around the free speech thing by having the industry create self-regulatory bodies. The rules about when and where to advertise are set by the industry through the SRO.

Oh I forgot in the name of free speech its ok for drug companies to advertise drugs for potential patients who of course are expert and rational 'customers' . Strangely enough most countries don't permit this and the US is the exception.

Those prescription medications require prescriptions. The patient isn't deemed the expert, but when he or she goes to the doctor, then the doctor may or may not find the drug warranted.

Luckily I don't have the disease of worship whether its guns, freedom liberty , you name it I don't worship. Every is relative and a compromise.

I don't worship those things either. Your religion seems to be just assessing what feels wrong to you at any given time, and then suggesting that it ought to be banned for everyone. I reject that religion, too.

There isnt a lot of advertising for unarmed self defence in the UK, but if it did become a problem regulating commerical advertising has about to do with authoritarianism as regulating the water supply

You advocated banning "encouraging" people to train in self-defense like karate or other martial arts. That's what I suggested is authoritarian.

[Coito ergo sum]

However, you're absolutely safe around me and my guns, unless you try to harm me or take my TV set or beat my dog. I'll shoot you then, if I can get the drop on you, but otherwise you're safer here then you are in yer mammy's loving arms. Actually, given the number of whacko, child abusing parents our there, you're one FUCK of a lot safer around here. At least you won't have to wait for the game warden to come round when the bear starts eating you.

TV set? I would take a photo, nice Blog entry: These bozos were so poor they had to steal a TV set!

Maybe lack has a 70 inch plasma that costs $2000? A lot of people would steal that, probably.

[Jason]

I installed a 72" plasma TV a few years ago.. Major pain the in the ass to move, let alone get it up on the wall.

If I was a thief in a home where I knew the residents were home at the time I'd choose small items of value. Maybe come back a few weeks later with a van and three buddies to steal the TV when the family is gone on vacation.

[MrJonno]

You advocated banning "encouraging" people to train in self-defense like karate or other martial arts. That's what I suggested is authoritarian.

Not much to say about that as its basically opinion but I absolutely don't consider controlling advertising to be authoritarian, I also absolutely did not say karate or martial arts should be banned , I said they shouldnt be promoted as a form of self defence (and most the time they arent, they are advertised as keep fit/sport)

[Coito ergo sum]

You advocated banning "encouraging" people to train in self-defense like karate or other martial arts. That's what I suggested is authoritarian.

Not much to say about that as its basically opinion but I absolutely don't consider controlling advertising to be authoritarian, I also absolutely did not say karate or martial arts should be banned , I said they shouldnt be promoted as a form of self defence (and most the time they arent, they are advertised as keep fit/sport)

... my attitude no one should be allowed to prepare for self defence whether its with a gun, knife or karate

Now, this does not mean that only advertising should be banned. It says "no one should be allowed to prepare..." --- eliminating advertising doesn't mean people are not going to prepare for self-defense. People don't just do things because of advertising.

So, either you do think people should be allowed to prepare for self defense, and just that specific advertisements should be band - or, you don't think they should be allowed to prepare for self defense.

You've clarified above that this is what you mean. But, if you mean advertising, then saying "no one should be allowed to prepare" throws ambiguity into your position, as does your later statement that no one should be allowed to "encourage" people to prepare for self-defense. Encouragement could come in the form of parental guidance, a friend's recommendation, or a blog about working out and training for self defense (as opposed to "advertising").

To me, it sounds borderline retarded to ban advertising karate for a purpose. I mean -- "learn how to fight so you can defend yourself" or "learn how to fight." What's the difference? And, just because you don't say it in an advertisement doesn't mean people aren't going there for that purpose, and it doesn't mean the guy teaching the course isn't teaching them self defense. Karate is karate. You're supposed to learn how to practice karate. It's not different because you fight in a ring.

It's like not being able to advertise "learn boxing for strength, stamina and self-defense!" but being able to advertise it for "learn boxing for strength, stamina and to impress the ladies." You're still boxing, FFS.

And, there is nothing wrong with learning to defend oneself, no matter how many times you say it -- being able to defend oneself does not mean one is more likely to arbitrarily beat people up.

[MrJonno]

Basically most martial arts including boxing are not suitable for urban self defence, no harder to mug Mike Tyson than me, you go up to him and stick a knife at his throat ask for his wallet. In fact I would put my chances higher of not getting hurt as I would hand it over without an argument and he is more likely to be suffering from excessive testosterone than me

So I'm not sure you can prepare for self defence only falsely try to get other people to

[MrJonno]

I would not what to see an advert like the one below, don't think much can be done to regulated web adverts, but anything in print like this should be banned

http://www.ukselfdefence.com/

[Jason]

Would you be OK with guns if they were marketed as promoting hand-eye coordination rather than self-defence?

[MrJonno]

Would you be OK with guns if they were marketed as promoting hand-eye coordination rather than self-defence?

Hiring guns to use at a sports club and fire at non human targets is fine by me (British laws on this are a little excessive but nothing in life is perfect)