Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Comicguy1

Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,164
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,415
Subj: Re: Fallacies.
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 at 01:12:29 pm EST (Viewed 163 times)
Reply Subj: Re: No, Still Ridiculous.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 at 05:38:49 pm EST (Viewed 181 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The obvious corollary to your point is to arm people in these places for self-defense, right? What else would be your point? Of course we just found out that there was an armed security guard at the Florida school shooting and the armed guard neither deterred the shooting in the first place nor stopped the shooter.
    No, the obvious corollary was that you can't say that guns have never stopped a mass shooting when almost all mass shootings happen when only the shooters themselves have guns. And yes, arming people in these places (NOT teachers, the proper people!) is a good way to go about lessening these things. Also, schools can be on lockdown, installed with metal detectors and a bunch of other safety precautions can be taken.


Again, 1 in 5 hospital shootings occur when someone takes the gun from an armed guard so these wouldn't happen in the first place had a gun not been present.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Because gun bans do work elsewhere. You yourself stated earlier that if there were very few guns, there be far fewer instances of gun violence. Handguns are banned in Japan. Japan has more than one third the population of the United States. Japan had 6 gun deaths in 2014. The United States had 33,599!!!
    Does Japan have our same culture, economic circumstances, laws and oh yeah, a  Bill Of Rights?


Since discussion of whether or not the Second Amendment should be changed is a part of this debate, it's irrelevant to cite the Second Amendment as a reason for inaction. And if you're saying Americans have a more violent culture than Japan, that's a case for Americans having fewer guns, not more.



    Quote:
    And they did have a ban on many assault weapons in the past, it didn't really have much of an effect, and DC had a 30-year-old ban on handguns. Since the Washington gun control law passed, violent crime there has gone UP, even though America's murder rate dropped. Also, there was a gun ban in Illinois once, but that was later deemed Unconstitutional. And there are some towns and cities that mostly require you to have guns, The comments about the drug war was how that didn't work out for drugs and alcohol.


Again, if guns can easily come from outside the area of a gun ban, it's not much proof of the bans effectiveness, is it? However, country-wide bans around the world work. It's inarguably proven.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      First, of course there is hatred for the deaths caused by alcohol. It's not a coincidence that Mothers Against Drunk Driving uses the acronym MADD. Alcohol is also pretty heavily regulated. You can't drink until 21 however you can buy guns before age 21. There are obviously strict laws against driving while drunk. And of course people misusing guns is a perfectly legitimate reason for other people not having them. If most people had a nuclear weapon, they probably wouldn't misuse it either, but that's not a reason that people should be able to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. If products are easily misused, then they are defective. All you are arguing here is that widespread gun ownership is worth over 30,000 people dying every year.
    Now you're being ridiculous again with the Nuclear Weapon example. No one outside of the Government is going to get a Nuke, guns have been part of the Constitution for centuries.


It's an analogy. Guns today are completely unlike guns when the Second Amendment was written:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? Automatic weapons are guns. If not, why not?


    Quote:
    I'm sure that there is outrage over all of the alcohol-related deaths and crimes, but no one is talking about banning alcohol.


Wrong. "Only" half of Arkansas, where I was born, is actually doing it:

https://psmag.com/news/gin-and-tonic-hold-the-gin

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans believe alcohol consumption should be illegal. But I'm not calling on a total ban of guns, just much heavier regulation.



    Quote:
    They misuse cars, knives, alcohol, sleeping pills, cell phones and a bunch of other stuff that causes death or harm to others or themselves. You can't penalize a perfectly law-abiding person from getting a gun just because someone else misuses it anymore than you can prevent someone who obtained a driver's license from driving because other people drive recklessly. There are some people who are not allowed to drive, and there are some people (Like convicted felons.) who can't have guns. If most people are able to responsibly handle guns, the problem is not with guns themselves. And again, most gun deaths are suicides. Suicide is obviously bad, but  it's not illegal. It's also very common among the elderly, who are often very sick and weak.


30,000+ gun deaths a year obviously prove that Americans cannot responsibly handle guns. Knives, sleeping pills, and cell phones don't cause nearly as many deaths as guns. Cars almost cause as many deaths but cars are heavily regulated. Guns are not. Guns should be.



Again, 1 in 5 hospital shootings occur when someone takes the gun from an armed guard so these wouldn't happen in the first place had a gun not been present.>

Okay, first of all, what's your source for this? Secondly, how often do hospitals have mass shootings? The other thing that you said was the word STOLEN, as in illegal! There's also no implication as to whether or not the shootings would have happened if armed guards were there or not. We do know that mass shooters almost always target places WITHOUT guns. Also, one in 5 is not a majority.


Since discussion of whether or not the Second Amendment should be changed is a part of this debate, it's irrelevant to cite the Second Amendment as a reason for inaction. And if you're saying Americans have a more violent culture than Japan, that's a case for Americans having fewer guns, not more.>

It's not at all irrelevant, because one reason people are resistant about gun restrictions is BECAUSE of the Second Amendment! Comparing our country to others if other countries don't have a Bill Of Rights (The big Elephant in the room.) is meaningless. Besides, a lot of violence is committed by means aside from guns, guns just get most of the media attention and are politicized.

Again, if guns can easily come from outside the area of a gun ban, it's not much proof of the bans effectiveness, is it? However, country-wide bans around the world work. It's inarguably proven.>

Where is your proof that the guns in Washington that are being used in crimes are coming from outside the area? In Chicago and Detroit, that MIGHT be true, but Washington has had bans on guns for a looooong time, and the crime rates there DON'T go down (But they do in other states. ). Also, there are states out there (Mostly southern states.)that are big hunting states and have very lax gun laws but have very low crime or murder rates. And yes, if bans have been removed due to their ineffectiveness or have been ruled unconstitutional, that kind of does point to a ban being ineffective. There's also the black market, so even if guns were banned (Not going to happen anytime soon.), it will just open the black market more and make them more money.


Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? Automatic weapons are guns. If not, why not?>

There have been certain guns that have been banned in the past, very few murders are committed with an automatic weapon anyway. If you want to ban CERTAIN kind of weapons, that's different. I believe that some are already banned.

Wrong. "Only" half of Arkansas, where I was born, is actually doing it:

https://psmag.com/news/gin-and-tonic-hold-the-gin

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans believe alcohol consumption should be illegal. But I'm not calling on a total ban of guns, just much heavier regulation.>

Okay, I didn't know about Arkansas, but STATES are different than Congress and the Federal Government. It sounds kind of stupid (The alcohol ban.), but certain states have more leeway on these kind of things. The 1 in 5 statistic is not a majority, and 1 in 5 Americans believe that homosexuality is a sin, that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, and a bunch of other BS. The main point is that there's no debate as to whether alcohol should be banned. Also, if you can accept that there are towns in Arkansas that ban alcohol, you should also accept that there are cities and towns that more-or-less require you to own or carry a gun.

30,000+ gun deaths a year obviously prove that Americans cannot responsibly handle guns. Knives, sleeping pills, and cell phones don't cause nearly as many deaths as guns. Cars almost cause as many deaths but cars are heavily regulated. Guns are not. Guns should be.>

You're taking about gun deaths and lumping everything into one (A fallacy.), ignoring suicides and self-defense. All of those other things also cause a lot of deaths, nobody is arguing that people can't handle knives because there are people out there who stab other people or cut themselves. Also, guns are regulated (No, there is no "Gun-show loophole. They have to do background checks there AND online transactions. PRIVATE sales are different!), you can't sell to convicted felons, you have to conduct background checks, you can't sell to people who got dishonorably discharged, etc. It's perfectly okay if you want guns banned, but let's not fall into propaganda or distortions or emotional rhetoric here.






Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software