Bridges Kill ... Ban Bridges, Response to an Anti-

[SomeGuy]

I am just pleased this and want to show it off to others.
(Long - I hit the character limit for comments)


From the Washington Post online comments:


The Argument:

digikc94@yahoo.com

I love when people make that argument. "well my son died from jumping off a bridge so lets ban bridges". Do you not realize that every other thing you sarcastically say we should ban serves other, useful, productive purposes. They don't just exist to kill people. The economic costs associated with guns are ridiculous. Think: hospital treatment, psychological rehabilitation, vocational productivity, ambulance fees, health insurance. All those costs are associated with the people who SURVIVE gun violence... It really is an unbelievable figure. Assuming you're smart enough not to try and make the first amendment right argument, or the slippery slope argument, you'll probably go for the "guns reduce crime" argument, which has some validity. The problem is no one is arguing to ban guns. So yes, unfortunately, you are an idiot.


My Response:

@ digike -

You raise a valid point with the bridge analogy. What happens with bridges is that we look at the situation and attempt to find a reasonable response. Something that is often done is to install a fence that makes it more difficult to access a point from which you can jump. This seems to be a common sense answer. It will not stop everyone that wants to jump, if they truly wish to kill themselves by jumping from a bridge, they will find a suitable bridge.

Guns, like bridges are just a tool. A gun gets a piece of lead from here to there, just as a bridge gets a car, or a person from here to there.

What is needed is a common sense solution. As a percentage of the population, those that own a gun, who kill or commit crimes with them is negligible. The problem is criminals with guns, so we should focus on removing guns from criminals. Criminals, by definition, have broken the law. So if we punish the criminal, using the current laws, we will have removed the criminal from the tool they used to wound or kill.

You state the cost associated with survivors of gun violence are unbelievable. What is unbelievable for you, might be believable to me, so I ask you for the cost, as a number.

I do not know the first amendment argument against guns, perhaps you were speaking of the 2nd Amendment, the one that states, "... shall not be infringed." I am smart enough to use the argument that the Constitution enumerates my rights, but I will not do that here, it is not needed. The 'slippery slope' argument is a fallacy, and is not part of the discussion.

I must respectfully disagree with the thought that a call to reinstate the so called 'Assault Weapons Ban', does not suggest the banning of guns.

I also must disagree with the use of 'idiot', it is not needed here or in any adult debate.

I submit that you are not an idiot, and simply lack enough information about the issues at hand.

It is an intensely emotional debate, we need to remove emotion from the solution.

 

[2AHokie]

Have to disagree that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when there is no logical progression or independent evidence to connect step 1 to some terrible final destination.

In the case of banning guns, there is a plainly visible progression and several politicians have outlined it publicly. We've even seen it happen in other countries. I personally would not concede this point.

Nonetheless, looks very good.

 

[zoostation]

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

 

[SomeGuy]

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

So very true - and a good laugh, thanks

 

[rh92]

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

Ban gravity!

 

[HKB]

Well it's not the fall that kills....it's the sudden stop at the end.

 

[crxtech]

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

that was great. Thanks

 

[usaf_joe]

It will not stop everyone that wants to jump, if they truly wish to kill themselves by jumping from a bridge, they will find a suitable bridge.

Why is this statement acceptable in almost ANY argument except when it comes to firearms? If a person wants to circumvent a law, or obstacle, they will. If I person has intent of committing an action, illegal or legal, they will find a way to do so.

Guns, like bridges are just a tool. A gun gets a piece of lead from here to there, just as a bridge gets a car, or a person from here to there.

Almost all tools can be used to do something harmful to another. Fvck it! Ban everything.

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

Amen! I'm so sick of hearing the anti's make the outlandish claims which begin with "The Founding Fathers never thought..." or "..never intended.." The Founding Fathers knew exactly wtf they were doing because they wrote the Constitution for the future based on the climate of the current time and past.

 

[zoostation]

Ok, go ahead and laugh Tea Party gravity owners. Sure. Everybody thinks gravity is a joke until they see a picture of Rosie O'Donnell in a bikini. Then they realize what an evil force gravity really is.

 

[SomeGuy]

Ok, go ahead and laugh Tea Party gravity owners. Sure. Everybody thinks gravity is a joke until they see a picture of Rosie O'Donnell in a bikini. Then they realize what an evil force gravity really is.

insert CompletePanic emote

insert ROTF emote here

 

[Dreago]

Ok, go ahead and laugh Tea Party gravity owners. Sure. Everybody thinks gravity is a joke until they see a picture of Rosie O'Donnell in a bikini. Then they realize what an evil force gravity really is.

insert CompletePanic emote

insert ROTF emote here

Insert bleach in eyes.....

Insert pencil in brain.....

 

[yellow97tt6spd]

Woah, woah, woah... don't ban gravity!.. "Falling" is how I get my kicks!

 

[ChrisD]

When a person resorts to name calling in an debate/argument, as has happened with you, they in fact have already lost.

 

[DarthZed]

Amen! I'm so sick of hearing the anti's make the outlandish claims which begin with "The Founding Fathers never thought..." or "..never intended.." The Founding Fathers knew exactly wtf they were doing because they wrote the Constitution for the future based on the climate of the current time and past.

Actually, there was a great deal of descension and debate among the founding fathers concerning the Constitution. They were in no way united on many issues contained in it, nor were they unanimous concerning the language in the document. The Constitution must be viewed in the historical context in which it was written. By a group of men from competing contentious states who had to hammer out an agreement that was acceptable to all.

And it isn't just "anti's". Proponents on both sides often try to infer Constitutional authority, where none exists, on issues important to them; based on language in the document.

 

[rizeld]

I got the fix it all. Ban life. Promote zombies.

 

[Brooklyn]

Actually, there was a great deal of descension and debate among the founding fathers concerning the Constitution. They were in no way united on many issues contained in it, nor were they unanimous concerning the language in the document. The Constitution must be viewed in the historical context in which it was written. By a group of men from competing contentious states who had to hammer out an agreement that was acceptable to all.

And it isn't just "anti's". Proponents on both sides often try to infer Constitutional authority, where none exists, on issues important to them; based on language in the document.

Ban the Constitution.... it does not work. Its only purpose was to limit government and it has failed. Lets try again. I call for a constitutional convention.. but lets only invite states we agree with this time

 

[Vile Shadow]

Have to disagree that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when there is no logical progression or independent evidence to connect step 1 to some terrible final destination.

In the case of banning guns, there is a plainly visible progression and several politicians have outlined it publicly. We've even seen it happen in other countries. I personally would not concede this point.

Nonetheless, looks very good.

And thats why liberals don't call themselves liberals anymore. Now they're "progressives".

 

[Saginaw]

Bridges don't kill people, gravity does. We need a common sense limit on gravity. The founding fathers never thought of 500 foot high bridges when they wrote the Constitution. My right to a false sense of security is just as important as your right to keep your feet planted on the ground when walking. People who say nothing can be done about gravity are just paid pundits of the powerful and corrupt gravity lobby.

I disagree! It is not gravity that kills, its the sudden stop! So I think we need legislation to ban all sudden stops from gravity off bridges.

that being said it was a good response SomeGuy