Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 07:02 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 06:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, no. You actually are asking for justification for what the Supreme Court agrees is a Constitutional right.

It is very unlikely I could physically repel an intruder or even with a knife, sword, or baseball bat. With a gun I could.

That is all the justification I need.

I don't care about the notion of it being a constitutional right, I'm asking for justification of all the claims about needing it for self-defense etc

"That is all the justification I need"
Sounds like the same sort of anecdotal confirmation bias from theists Consider

What else do you want to hear from him? He already stated that his physical condition prevents him from utilizing other methods. Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is within the realm of his capabilities. Seems self evident.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KUSA's post
29-04-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 06:57 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  I gave you a clear and concise explanation.

With nothing to substantiate the claims, only assertions.

I have already described my living circumstances and physical condition which support my assertion.
Though you seem to think that I have a better alternative to a firearm, you have yet to support it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 07:05 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 06:58 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Get in line - it's delicious. Drooling

So i guess i am hunting moose. How to do it without a gun?

Well you are the so physically fit and possess finely honed martial arts skills. Just Karate chop the fucker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KUSA's post
29-04-2015, 07:05 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:57 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  With nothing to substantiate the claims, only assertions.

I have already described my living circumstances and physical condition which support my assertion.
Though you seem to think that I have a better alternative to a firearm, you have yet to support it.

More shifting of the burden of proof.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:06 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have already described my living circumstances and physical condition which support my assertion.
Though you seem to think that I have a better alternative to a firearm, you have yet to support it.

More shifting of the burden of proof.

No, I have supported my statement. Support yours or fuck off.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 07:09 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:02 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 06:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't care about the notion of it being a constitutional right, I'm asking for justification of all the claims about needing it for self-defense etc

"That is all the justification I need"
Sounds like the same sort of anecdotal confirmation bias from theists Consider

What else do you want to hear from him? He already stated that his physical condition prevents him from utilizing other methods. Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is within the realm of his capabilities. Seems self evident.

This proves the assertions that guns are the best form of self-defense (that was the initial claim, not for a specific set of circumstances or for a specific person)? This is evidence that no other form of self defense could be effective?

This supports the notion that guns are even necessary for self-defense or that incidences requiring the need for self-defense are frequent enough to justify them as commonplace?

This supports the assertion that if a natural disaster happens, things will go to shit and guns will be necessary?

This supports the assertion that weapons like assault rifles and equipment like high capacity magazines are necessary?

It's anecdotal testimony. If I don't buy that argument from a theist when they tell me they've seen miracles or talked to God, why would I buy that argument for any other topic?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:10 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More shifting of the burden of proof.

No, I have supported my statement. Support yours or fuck off.

Getting testy in your old age. I'll kindly fuck off when I'm damn well ready.

Stop shifting the burden of proof or shifting the goalposts. This is too much like an irrational conversation with a fundy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:11 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
There is a lot of extrapolating of one opinion and anecdotes to support a claim, with no actual supporting evidence or information.

All I'm asking for is the data or evidence to back this up.

Any studies published about this?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 07:33 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:02 PM)KUSA Wrote:  What else do you want to hear from him? He already stated that his physical condition prevents him from utilizing other methods. Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is within the realm of his capabilities. Seems self evident.

This proves the assertions that guns are the best form of self-defense (that was the initial claim, not for a specific set of circumstances or for a specific person)? This is evidence that no other form of self defense could be effective?

Almost anyone is physically able to use a firearm for defense, unlike nearly anything else (e.g. knife, cudgel, martial arts). You suggested pepper spray but you displayed an incorrect understanding of its capabilities, suggesting it was effective against multiple assailants while it in fact has to be directed at the face of each assailant.

Quote:This supports the notion that guns are even necessary for self-defense or that incidences requiring the need for self-defense are frequent enough to justify them as commonplace?

I did not claim they were necessary, just the optimal choice for most people.

Quote:This supports the assertion that if a natural disaster happens, things will go to shit and guns will be necessary?

Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Sandy.

Why do you think National Guard troops are deployed in the aftermath of a natural disaster? Command, control, communications, and security.

Quote:This supports the assertion that weapons like assault rifles and equipment like high capacity magazines are necessary?

Once again - I never made that claim.

Quote:It's anecdotal testimony. If I don't buy that argument from a theist when they tell me they've seen miracles or talked to God, why would I buy that argument for any other topic?

It was an illustration of the general principle of a firearm being the best choice for someone whose physical capabilities are not sufficient for other means.

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
29-04-2015, 07:42 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 07:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 07:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This proves the assertions that guns are the best form of self-defense (that was the initial claim, not for a specific set of circumstances or for a specific person)? This is evidence that no other form of self defense could be effective?

Almost anyone is physically able to use a firearm for defense, unlike nearly anything else (e.g. knife, cudgel, martial arts). You suggested pepper spray but you displayed an incorrect understanding of its capabilities, suggesting it was effective against multiple assailants while it in fact has to be directed at the face of each assailant.

Quote:This supports the notion that guns are even necessary for self-defense or that incidences requiring the need for self-defense are frequent enough to justify them as commonplace?

I did not claim they were necessary, just the optimal choice for most people.

Quote:This supports the assertion that if a natural disaster happens, things will go to shit and guns will be necessary?

Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Sandy.

Why do you think National Guard troops are deployed in the aftermath of a natural disaster? Command, control, communications, and security.

Quote:This supports the assertion that weapons like assault rifles and equipment like high capacity magazines are necessary?

Once again - I never made that claim.

Quote:It's anecdotal testimony. If I don't buy that argument from a theist when they tell me they've seen miracles or talked to God, why would I buy that argument for any other topic?

It was an illustration of the general principle of a firearm being the best choice for someone whose physical capabilities are not sufficient for other means.

More anecdotes and opinions. I know you're opinion, I'm well aware of it.

As for pepper spray, you have to point at the victim and fire, same as a gun. You'd have to be a good aim to use it to effectively stop your assailant, same as a gun. Yet, you're still claiming it can't be as effective as a gun for defense?

Look, if you don't have any actual data or evidence or studies to corroborate your claims, and all you have are anecdotes, then fine. But don't pretend you've got some iron-clad argument and that only your opinion can be correct. It's far too reminiscent of fundies.

This is why I like Jim Jeffries' point (one you reject because you don't like it, but he hits the nail pretty well). Guns are not the only form of self-defense, and nothing you've shown or said indicates they are the best. Nothing you've shown or said demonstrates they are necessary. It comes back to the one point, gun enthusiasts have one argument for guns "fuck off, I like guns." I believe you've even told me to fuck off.

Ironic, isn't it? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: