Guns. Yee haw!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:31 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 04:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. Fallacious arguments are ineffective.
They don't achieve whatever desired effect was intended, unless the intent is to piss off the other person and make him think you're a jackass. Drinking Beverage

Except his argument wasn't fallacious and I believe you mistook his argument as being an anti-gun argument when all he was doing was attacking the logic of "I want it=I'm entitled to it," which is fallacious.

If he was stating that one couldn't own guns because one had no entitlement to nukes, that would be a fallacious argument, but it's not the one he made.

Still nope.
Wanting something that is arguably reasonable to possess is not comparable to wanting something that is inarguably unreasonable to possess.
It is a statement that is absurd to make.

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
25-05-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The ridiculous sparring contests over guns annoy me. The issue is that gun politics are not a black and white thing. Chas and I are both pro-gun, but I disagree significantly with this stance on them. Vosur and, say, TBD are both anti-gun, but I suspect would also have different stances on the matter.
The debate shouldn't be anti or pro gun as that is a position which starts off with the answer.

The debate should be about personal and public safety, the investigation should lead us to the answer which may or may not be gun restrictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
25-05-2014, 07:54 PM
Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 02:29 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  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.

As evidenced by the UK, who have
banned guns, locking folding knives, with no change to their violent crime rate, and are now trying to ban kitchen knives.

Quote:According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI — Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013...an-the-us/

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
25-05-2014, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 08:20 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 07:31 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Except his argument wasn't fallacious and I believe you mistook his argument as being an anti-gun argument when all he was doing was attacking the logic of "I want it=I'm entitled to it," which is fallacious.

If he was stating that one couldn't own guns because one had no entitlement to nukes, that would be a fallacious argument, but it's not the one he made.

Still nope.
Wanting something that is arguably reasonable to possess is not comparable to wanting something that is inarguably unreasonable to possess.
It is a statement that is absurd to make.

I agree, and you are still misunderstanding my argument. In fact, I know you are missing my point because my point was expanded upon by Mathilda, and I can see you agree with her position. Her argument is just a more in depth analysis of what I've been saying all along. The conditions that make owning a gun "arguably reasonable" ARE the justifications for ownership, not "because I want it." Conversely, the conditions that make it "inarguably unreasonable" to possess a nuke override the "I want it" defense for entitlement. This is what I've been trying to convey the whole time; desire by itself does not grant entitlement in any circumstance, other conditions must be assessed.

However, as I've already indicated Vosur actually misinterpreted Drunken Druid's statement and so did I. He was not actually defending his right to own a gun with "I like it and I want it," but was rather explaining why he decided to acquire one. The second clause "and nobody should tell me otherwise," which dealt with his entitlement to own a gun, was unrelated and never defended. Vosur and I incorrectly linked the two.

Therefore, one is indeed not legally entitled to own a gun for simply "wanting to," but this was never the original argument made in the first place.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
25-05-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 07:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The ridiculous sparring contests over guns annoy me. The issue is that gun politics are not a black and white thing. Chas and I are both pro-gun, but I disagree significantly with this stance on them. Vosur and, say, TBD are both anti-gun, but I suspect would also have different stances on the matter.

These insipid threads full of pedantic debates about what constitutes an argument and over who made what fallacy, don't do anything but get people pissed off at each other.

I'm starting a Boxing Read thread.

We disagree significantly? Pray tell. Consider

I practically guarantee it:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...uns--25725

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:21 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 07:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
Quote:According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI — Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013...an-the-us/

1.2 million violent crimes in a population of 318+ million.
1.94 million violent crimes in a population of 63+ million.

Here is a interesting bit of info for you rampant.a.i : the UK government actually manipulates it's violent crime rates. What they do is if a man commits anything more than a single violent crime in succession, when the government reports the statistics, they count it as one.

For example: A man commits 5 separate acts of armed robbery but the 5 separate acts are only counted as one "violent crime" for the governments statistic purposes. this applies for almost all violent crime in the UK.

When one gets his violent crime rate statistics directly from the Police (before the government does it's magic) the violent crime rate is as much as 6 to 8 times higher depending on the area.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
26-05-2014, 05:52 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(25-05-2014 08:19 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  We disagree significantly? Pray tell. Consider

I practically guarantee it:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...uns--25725

Are you sure you're not talking about someone else? Huh

I agree with that post nearly 100%; I don't know why you would think otherwise. Consider

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
26-05-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(26-05-2014 05:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 08:19 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I practically guarantee it:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...uns--25725

Are you sure you're not talking about someone else? Huh

I agree with that post nearly 100%; I don't know why you would think otherwise. Consider

Huh, for some reason I had you pegged as being a bit more "NO REGULATION, PERIOD". Maybe my memory got distorted; I took a long break from this forum.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(26-05-2014 10:58 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 05:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you sure you're not talking about someone else? Huh

I agree with that post nearly 100%; I don't know why you would think otherwise. Consider

Huh, for some reason I had you pegged as being a bit more "NO REGULATION, PERIOD". Maybe my memory got distorted; I took a long break from this forum.

Your memory is questionable - have it checked out. Big Grin

I'm the guy who keeps trying to have a calm, rational discussion of gun regulation, but the threads always seem to go down the rabbit hole. Dodgy

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
26-05-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Guns. Yee haw!
(26-05-2014 11:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 10:58 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Huh, for some reason I had you pegged as being a bit more "NO REGULATION, PERIOD". Maybe my memory got distorted; I took a long break from this forum.

Your memory is questionable - have it checked out. Big Grin

I'm the guy who keeps trying to have a calm, rational discussion of gun regulation, but the threads always seem to go down the rabbit hole. Dodgy

You live in the third strictest gun law State in the US and I live in the seventh. Oops wrong thread. Wanted to respond to Phaedrus' thread.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: