MachiinesGunsAndFrenchCheese

MachiinesGunsAndFrenchCheese

Tags:

6 Responses Leave a comment

  • senpai71 2012.12.19 at 13:39 | Quote

    Hmmm. Without being able to see the graphic more closely, it appears that several of the weapons on the left-hand-side are NOT machine guns,but are merely (legal) automatic weapons. Indeed, the only reference to “Machine Guns” is in the actual name of the image file – the LHS simply refers to “Automatic Weapons”.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.12.19 at 14:02 | Quote

    I agree that the graphic isn’t crystal clear, which forced me to hedge a bit in my piece. But what is clear, is that machine guns are very difficult to obtain, and impossible for most.

  • senpai71 2012.12.19 at 14:26 | Quote

    Eric,

    I think that’s a little more than hedging a bit…

    You said “[...]See that graphic on this page, showing the stupidity of laws that make machine guns legal while certain French cheeses are illegal? Dumb, dumb, dumb. Machine guns aren’t the problem because access to them is so highly restricted.”

    Since the graphic is about guns, not just machine guns, let’s just change your statement (above) from “machine guns” to “guns”:

    “[...]See that graphic on this page, showing the stupidity of laws that make guns legal while certain French cheeses are illegal? Dumb, dumb, dumb. Guns aren’t the problem because access to them is so highly restricted.”

    Well now it doesn’t make sense at all – access to guns isn’t highly restricted at all! In fact, it’s now a pretty reasonable graphic, just like its author no doubt intended.

    I don’t want to sound smug, but remember the first sentence in your last paragraph: “If you want to persuade, don’t overstate.”

    I’d have to say you overstated somewhat, although perhaps this just shows that it’s hard to even discuss a subject like this without one’s personal feelings coming through.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.12.19 at 14:33 | Quote

    Since the graphic is about guns, not just machine guns, let’s just change your statement (above) from “machine guns” to “guns”:

    No, the title says “Automatic Weapons” under the picture. While the exact details of the weapons aren’t 100% clear, that is certainly the view the creator wanted to convey and I accept that for what it is.

    And access to automatic weapons (as opposed to semi-automatic) is highly restricted.

    Thus my comments about overstating the case

  • senpai71 2012.12.19 at 14:47 | Quote

    @Eric Turkewitz – Eric,

    Fair enough. I was looking at the actual weapons in the picture, some of which are absolutely NOT automatic weapons – in the lower half of the picture, I see a number of pistols (including at least one revolver).

    Whether this was an honest mistake by the graphic author or a deliberate deception, I don’t know. But while you’re looking at the title and doing an “Automatic Weapons vs. French Cheese” comparison (for which your “don’t overstate” point is entirely valid), I’m looking at it simply as a “Guns vs. French Cheese” comparison (for which your “don’t overstate” point is less valid).

    Unfortunately, had they simply titled it “Guns vs. French Cheese”, I think it would have had the same impact – pointing out the ridiculousness of banning certain types of cheese, whilst allowing relatively free access to guns. I suspect you and I agree on this.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.12.19 at 15:02 | Quote

    You are correct: If it was just guns v. cheese I wouldn’t have called it overstatement and wouldn’t have used it. It would have been fair comment about the our laws.

Leave a Reply


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.