Guns. Yee haw!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
I love guns. I've been a hunter for 62 years [started when I was 5 years old]. I worked for a custom rifle builder and I still build many of my own rifles. I have a gun room, not a gun cabinet, in my house and I have approximately 100 guns at the current time.

Disciplined shooting is one of the most relaxing sports there is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Black Eagle's post
24-05-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 01:43 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Nope
.

You really don't see that you have made an argument by asking that question?
"Nope" as in "No, you don't get 10 points" or as in "No, that's not the fallacy I was thinking of"?

I can see why you would think I was making an argument, but my post wasn't intended to be one.
Ok. So what was the point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Ok. So what was the point?
The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
24-05-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Ok. So what was the point?
The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.
Yeah that's not likely to happen...
Perhaps because guns aren't weapons of mass destruction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
24-05-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 02:34 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.
Yeah that's not likely to happen...
Perhaps because guns aren't weapons of mass destruction.

I mean I could change guns to puppies. Will that get you to re evaluate your position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
24-05-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Ok. So what was the point?
The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.

Which would make it an argument. Dodgy


Wrong fallacy, no points.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
Guns and WoMD - um....not the same thing. Argument is invalid.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
25-05-2014, 02:29 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
I believe what Vosur was trying to say was that you can't own anything you want just because you want it.

As far as the gun issue is concerned, what I see is extreme positions on both sides. You will often hear a Greek person go like "Another school shooting? Stupid Americans, that's what you get when you make guns legal."

It is a fact, though, that it's far easier for someone to find a gun anytime in the US than, say, in Greece.

I personally don't mind guns, but I would agree with their legalization in my country only if it was under strict regulations, accompanied by the appropriate education.

Without education, you don't even need guns to make killers and sick people. Kitchen knives will do just fine.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like undergroundp's post
25-05-2014, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 09:30 AM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(24-05-2014 06:46 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:18 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I have a gun because I like guns and I want to own them and I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I can't.
How do you not see the problem with this statement? Try replacing "gun" and "guns" with "WoMD" and see if that helps. Consider

(24-05-2014 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 06:46 AM)Vosur Wrote:  How do you not see the problem with this statement? Try replacing "gun" and "guns" with "WoMD" and see if that helps. Consider

Let's see who can identify the fallacy in this argument.

10 internet points to the first one to do so.

False comparison, I suppose? One wouldn't have any reasonable purpose to hold a nuke, but one could have justifications for owning a gun.

But it's only stating a fallacy if he was using such a line of logic to justify banning guns (which would also imply a slippery slope). He isn't making an argument to ban guns for that reason. He stated what the intention was:

(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Ok. So what was the point?
The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.

"I like it and want it and nobody should tell me otherwise" is what he is attacking. He isn't saying that one couldn't justify owning a gun simply because one couldn't justify owning a nuke, he's saying that "I like it and I want it" isn't a justification in itself and used the WMD as an example of why. A case can be made for why the government cannot withhold something from you, but simply demanding to have legally sanctioned access to something for no other reason than "I want it" is never sufficient on its own.

Hence, Vosur's point still stands.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
25-05-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 09:01 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 06:46 AM)Vosur Wrote:  How do you not see the problem with this statement? Try replacing "gun" and "guns" with "WoMD" and see if that helps. Consider

(24-05-2014 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  Let's see who can identify the fallacy in this argument.

10 internet points to the first one to do so.

False comparison, I suppose? One wouldn't have any reasonable purpose to hold a nuke, but one could have justifications for owning a gun.

But it's only stating a fallacy if he was using such a line of logic to justify banning guns (which would also imply a slippery slope). He isn't making an argument to ban guns for that reason. He stated what the intention was:

(24-05-2014 02:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The point was to get you to re-evaluate your justification for allowing people to own guns.

"I like it and want it and nobody should tell me otherwise" is what he is attacking. He isn't saying that one couldn't justify owning a gun simply because one couldn't justify owning a nuke, he's saying that "I like it and I want it" isn't a justification in itself and used the WMoD as an example of why. A case can be made for why the government cannot withhold something from you, but simply demanding to have legally sanctioned access to something for no other reason than "I want it" is never sufficient on its own.

Hence, Vosur's point still stands.

Well. I also want hamburgers only because I like them and nobody should be able to tell me I can't. Why else would I want hamburgers? But this is apparently not justification for allowing hamburgers. I want guns for the same reason. Because I like them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: