High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[bankside]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

which category did this post fall under?
link below:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

It's actually "Red Herring" presented in the form of "Slippery Slope."

 

[bankside]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Here is why comparing the US to those 'third world' countries is legitimate: what the US shares with them and not with Europe et al is a culture that believes that violence is a legitimate avenue to decision-making.

 

[HenryReardon]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

Makes perfect sense, given that certain elements in society have long been pushing the agenda that people aren't responsible for their actions. Gotta blame it on something, so enter guns.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

 

[tigerfan482]

Semantics, perhaps. Pointless, no.
Which of the followig statments is more nearly accurate?

Uncle Joe was killed by a gun;
or
Uncle Joe was killed by a man wielding a gun.

The latter of the two statements is accurate; the former is misleading.
Which is what the anti-gun crowd is attempting to accomplish: gain support using misdirection

Both statements are accurate. Uncle Joe died from a bullet wound which was caused by a man firing a gun. Without the man, the gun most likely would not have caused the bullet wound and without the gun, the man most likely would not have caused the bullet wound. They're two dependent parts of the same issue. Without people using them, guns won't shoot people. However, without guns, people also will not shoot people.

 

[Rolyo85]

Makes perfect sense, given that certain elements in society have long been pushing the agenda that people aren't responsible for their actions. Gotta blame it on something, so enter guns.

Yeah, nobody here has said this. It's entirely in your head, and you're responsible for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

Again - you're applying a proposition nobody has made. It's in your head. You're trying to reduce a complex concept into a shallow idiotic fallacy, so that you can make it easy to rebuff. We call that straw man.

 

[HenryReardon]

. Without people using them, guns won't shoot people. However, without guns, people also will not shoot people.

That may well be, but if a maniac is determined to dispatch a fellow human being, he or she will find a way.

 

[andysayshi]

Correct, but without a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine, he will not be so capable of killing 20 school children in less than 60 seconds, as happened at Sandy Hook.

 

[Benvolio]

So, you have stopped arguing that guns kill people, including your a Uncle Joe, so this thread can be closed. I hope he is feeling better now that we have resurrected him.

 

[Rolyo85]

That may well be, but if a maniac is determined to dispatch a fellow human being, he or she will find a way.

And that way is way more likely to be 100% less efficient than shooting them with a gun, leaving a 100% higher chance for survival. For reference - the Chinese guy who attacked kids with a knife and managed to heroically kill... not a single one. How many of the Sandy Hook kids would be alive now if Lanza only had a knife?

- - - Updated - - -

So, you have stopped arguing that guns kill people, including your a Uncle Joe, so this thread can be closed. I hope he is feeling better now that we have resurrected him.

Are you seriously ABSOLUTELY incapable of contributing to any discussion, or do you just not want to?

 

[xbuzzerx]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Some do. Namely the ones raised in a heavily gun promoting culture, usually but not always either military or smalltown/hunting backgrounds, and a hefty dose of American myth think that individuals can (and perhaps SHOULD) solve everything themselves, at the point of a gun if necessary.

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

And I threw it right back at you in that if we cannot control weapons because what the weapons can do to others is not the weapon's fault but the individual, then why can't I have a nuke?

 

[HenryReardon]

. How many of the Sandy Hook kids would be alive now if Lanza only had a knife?

[
?

How many of them would be alive now if one or more of the teachers had been armed?

 

[Benvolio]

Hey, Dorner is an Obama fan. Don't blame the right for his gun culture. We don't have a gun culture. We simply are not willing to surrender our Constitutional rights, and this is one.

 

[tigerfan482]

How many of them would be alive now if one or more of the teachers had been armed?

Although impossible to actually know, I'd say not very many more. There may even be a few more dead. I would also say there'd be one or more additional teachers dead since it is very likely that the teachers would be the first shot by the gunman had the practice been to arm teachers. That is why you see reports of armed police officers and soldiers that are killed. People with guns don't deter people like Adam Lanza who leave the house in the morning with guns intending to die. Whether they kill 10 people or 100 people doesn't matter to them and they damn sure aren't afraid of being shot by someone who might have a gun.

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

... yeah, but... that wouldn't have stopped him from getting screwdrivers and croquet mallets.

 

[maxpowr9]

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

Culpability rested with the mother and her failure to secure her guns or even having firearms in the house with an unstable person. She got her unfortunate justice.

 

[tigerfan482]

Culpability rested with the mother and her failure to secure her guns or even having firearms in the house with an unstable person. She got her unfortunate justice.

Which is why I'd rather the government take big strides towards limiting what guns can be sold and owned as well as extensive background checks of people buying guns. I don't want to put my faith in the fact that every idiot out there that can easily obtain a gun properly stores it and keeps it away from loonies. While you or I may have seen Adam Lanza as a nut job waiting to do something stupid, he was mommy's little angel who can solve his problems by going to the gun range to let it all out.

 

[HenryReardon]

Gun culture isn't a constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned are they part of a militia? Because the second amendment was originally about militias.

The term 'gun culture' is a total liberal fantasy.

The second amendment is about being able to protect oneself and one's family, especially from tyrants, and it's particularly important now that we have a certified tyrant residing at 1600 Pennsylania Avenue.

 

[tigerfan482]

The term 'gun culture' is a total liberal fantasy.

The second amendment is about being able to protect oneself and one's family, especially from tyrants, and it's particularly important now that we have a certified tyrant residing at 1600 Pennsylania Avenue.

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

 

[mightbe]

Reardon:

I'll concede that in getting Obama we have a man that can actually put a bloated military to use (it was scary enough with the incompetent twat that preceded him), but he's no tyrant. Half of what he does is Bush revisited--but just because Bush committed atrocities does not really make him a tyrant either. Just an abuser and manipulator. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with personal protection. It had everything to do with the possibility of staging a recapturing the country by using a well-regulated militia in the late 1700s and early 1800s. It has not really been relevant after that time. We only know when it became irrelevant in hindsight.

Gun culture didn't even exist until the 1970s. That was when the NRA turned from being the good neighborly people who taught you how to shoot a gun for sport to the advocacy of removing all restrictions on firepower. There have always been enthusiasts, but when you get to the point that the enthused is now the fanatic, a line should have been crossed. Unfortunately, we did not even realize a line had to be drawn until it was too late. Now that people have crossed where the line should have been, they won't give it up. It was never theirs for the taking, but the 1980s policies didn't even consider the possibility of stopping things where they should've been.

It's a fantasy only in the sense that what you think we consider it is a fantasy. It's not a gun-centric culture. It's a gun-surrounded culture.

This is where I take a quasi-utilitarian stance: People are smart. The public is stupid. It's panicky, impulsive, irresponsible, temperamental, illogical and dangerous. Better to treat people like the public. Better safe than sorry.