High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[itsmejeff]

Thanks for the historical revisionism... have anything else to prove that non-existent point? The Clinton administration pursued aggressive gun control laws and support for gun control laws was actually far higher during the 1990s... even more than now after all these shootings.

And the laws came after reductions in crime. do you not understand cause and effect? (Why even as at this point?)

And now we have the red herrings... to prove the non-existent argument. Nobody was talking about police selling weapons. And thanks for bringing up one article about a drug addicted cop. Obviously they need to do more psychological and physical testing on cops... Chris Dorner proves that all too well. And it's nice someone will bring up one article about one guy and try to prove a bigger point.

not proof of anything. Just pointing out that enforcement requires police action.

They need to uniform and effective. This would increase public safety and reduce crime, as has been the case in countries with stronger gun control laws.

Uniform? Why? The US is a union of many different states. Not everyone lives in urban areas (you probably hate people who do not). The realities of life in Alaska as not the same as they are in New York City, child. you may not know what Alaska is, but that is not my problem.

Oh yes, so lets get rid of all our laws while we are it... and stupid people are liberals? OH yes, more nasty insults from someone trying to build up the same old intellectually lazy arguments. The gun culture has failed. And nobody is suggesting a magic wand solution... the right wing argument though is a total and complete failure

No, let us not just institute laws to appease the stupid and those who do not understand math and science.

with those direct insults and uncovered offensive comments, you will not survive the month in this sub forum. CE&P holds to higher standards than that and personal insults are not tolerated.

I never insult (except when I refer to someone as an "American", which likely the worst insult possible). I merely point out poster's lack of logic. Is that really a bad thing?

I am a logical person. I do not believe in emotions (psychopaths ftw! it is funny because we are generally more successful). I want things that work and make sense.

 

[Rolyo85]

Your calling everyone "child" or commenting on their reasoning abilities - apart from having the opposite of the intended effect and actually making you sound like a helpless petty kid - are direct insults and will lead to you being banned. It's just a heads up, not an opening for an argument.

So far you've shown little logic and a lot of pretentious condescension, but that's never a good replacement for a solid argument.

 

[HenryReardon]

Guns do kill people. .

No they demonstrably do not. Even in a language as sloppy as English admittedly is, words do have meaning, and the statement
that guns kill people is false.

 

[HenryReardon]

- are direct insults

The truth is never insulting. Unless, of course, you're infected with the cancer of political correctness.

 

[Rolyo85]

The truth is never insulting. Unless, of course, you're infected with the cancer of political correctness.

The truth is nobody's domain, or discussions would not exist. So refrain from sharing "truths" that are just code for "you're an inferior idiot".

 

[Rolyo85]

No they demonstrably do not. Even in a language as sloppy as English admittedly is, words do have meaning, and the statement
that guns kill people is false.

For fuck's sake, stay relevant. Trolling the topic out of orbit is so pathetically juvenile!

 

[HenryReardon]

The truth is nobody's domain, QUOTE]

It most certainly is when dealing with absolutes.

 

[palemale]

The truth is never insulting. Unless, of course, you're infected with the cancer of political correctness.

Aren't you guilty of political correctness here? Saying guns don't kill people is foolishness and just towing the NRA politically correct line. In the ordinary understanding of the English language, guns kill people.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose I build a wall alongside my property, but do a sloppy job. Five years later, the wall topples over, killing a passing pedestrian. What or who killed the pedestrian, the wall or me? I would be the agent of the pedestrian's death because I was negligent in building the wall. Do you say palemale killed the pedestrian or the wall killed the pedestrian?

 

[HenryReardon]

In the ordinary understanding of the English language, guns kill people.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose I build a wall alongside my property, but do a sloppy job. Five years later, the wall topples over, killing a passing pedestrian. What or who killed the pedestrian, the wall or me? I would be the agent of the pedestrian's death because I was negligent in building the wall. Do you say palemale killed the pedestrian or the wall killed the pedestrian?

To say that guns kill people is an inaccurate statement.

In your example, palemale killed the pedestrian, not the wall.
The wall, like guns, is an inaminate object and cannot take premeditated action.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, he's deliberately focusing on pointless semantics to derail the topic. Because that's what trolls do.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Step 1: Say thing based off common sense/watercooler logic
Step 2: Expect everyone to agree
Step 3: If they don't agree insult them, call them child and make blanket accusations of ignorance

Repeat as necessary.

 

[HenryReardon]

No, he's deliberately focusing on pointless semantics to derail the topic. Because that's what trolls do.

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

 

[Rolyo85]

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

Actually, when the debate is about a particular murder tool, the former is the accurate one, since it focuses on the tool rather than the irrelevant identity of the perpetuator.

But it was endearing to watch you try to be condescending while having a "gotcha" grade school linguistic moment...

 

[HenryReardon]

Actually, when the debate is about a particular murder tool, the former is the accurate one, since it focuses on the tool rather than the irrelevant identity of the perpetuator.

...

You still don't get it or are you simply dissembling? The first statement is never accurate, and the debate, such as it is, is being deliberately misdirected toward the tool rather than the perpetrator, the identity and motives of whom are never irrelevant. Never.

 

[Benvolio]

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

 

[Rolyo85]

You guys INSIST on lowering the conversation to this level of argument? Seriously?

Fine, have it your way. Another topic successfully murdered with trolling.

 

[Telstra]

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/

 

[Rolyo85]

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

After careful consideration, I think it's the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Could also be the "fallacy" fallacy.

Though ultimately, the only thing those guys are truly capable of, are straw men.

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

Aside from the other logical problems with this statement that others have drawn attention to, you are capable of a whole level of mass killing with firearms that you are not capable of with a knife or bat.

By your same reasoning that nothing is wrong with the weapons, only the person who uses them, why can't I have a nuke?

I REALLY do want one.

 

[tigerfan482]

Ooh, nice way to switch in midstream, from civilian sources to the military.

Way to try and make a point and then totally ignore you tried to make it when it is refuted.

Let me just remind you of what you said:

Very few weapons from the US get to those countries -- they get far more from each others' militaries, which leak guns like a gum machine 'leaks' gumballs.

So yes, my point was completely relevant to the topic YOU brought up.

The Second Amendment doesn't talk about "precision guided missiles or NBC weapons".

It also doesn't talk about assault rifles. Or handguns. Or muskets. Or shotguns. It talks about "arms" which everything above, including precision guided missiles and NBC weapons, falls under.

Of course not -- they know they can't go there overnight, which is why they stir up emotions every chance they get in order to try to pass laws which have nothing much to do with the issue they're crying over but a lot to do with making it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, sir. To argue that someone is in favor of something when they haven't actually said or done anything to support that is an argument of convenience and doesn't hold any water. Also, the framers of the Constitution made no mention of it being super simple to obtain the arms that people have a right to bear. On the contrary, they actually explicitly stated that the militia holding those arms should be "well regulated" which, at least in my mind, means that regulations are fair game. As long as the right isn't being denied (which we determined earlier no one has tried to do), then there is no problem.