Talking of straw arguments Vin, your we need to get rid of guns because more guns=more gun violence is top of the list.It goes without saying that by and large you get more of one thing, you get more of another.You get more cars, you get more road traffic accidents.You get more drunk people you get more fights.You get more knifes you get more knife violence.Technically speaking you could logically say if I get rid of A then therefore I will have less B. But it ignores the totality of the situation. It is the it is pink so it is a pig argument. For example all women who give birth to children with defects eat food while they are pregnant. Therefore logically if you stop women eating while they are pregnant, you get less children with defects. Whereas this is correct, are you obtaining the desired results. Less guns may = less gun violence per se, but does it obtain the desired results of less overall violence? Thus far you have not shown that. In fact there are more studies that show MORE guns in the hands of legitimate and responsible owners = LESS overall violence. Isn't that more desirable than simply patting ourselves on the back and saying "look we are more civilized because we don't have guns" while people drop like flies around us?
Good points and fair points from a true pro-gun advocate, Spartan. To start with, it is asinine and dishonest for anyone to disagree that more guns=more gun violence, as you note, and yet there are many on these pages who disagree with the TRUISM. lol. That disagreement comes from FEAR . . fear that giving in on any point opens the door for who knows what . . .Next, the difference between guns and cars is cars have a very high social utility, guns have a very low social utility. Essentially, one can barely survive in the US without a car, the only LEGITIMATE reason to have a gun is self-defense or sport. Sport has such a low social utility that it is not even worth discussing. Self-defense has some social utility, but as I illustrated in another thread not so much that we should have nearly UNFETTERED access to guns . . . which is what you have in this country because of loopholes. It does not matter if you have 10,000 gun laws in Chicago if I can just drive outside the city to get a gun. It doesn't matter if I have to go through a background check to buy a gun in a brick and mortar building IF I can buy one online without any screening. There are substantial restrictions on using a car and on drinking . . . almost no restrictions on gun ownership because of loopholes. As I illustrated in another thread, I could go online legally right now and arrange to buy an "assault rifle" without even showing my ID. I cannot do the same legally with alcohol. That is absurd.Next, this is the most important part of your comment:"Whereas this is correct, are you obtaining the desired results. Less guns may = less gun violence per se, but does it obtain the desired results of less overall violence?" If as you acknowledge and as any honest reasonable person would acknowledge "Less guns may = less gun violence" then reducing access to guns is worthwhile as a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. Again, right now we have nearly unfettered access to an item with a very low social utility . . . and your reference to knives illustrates the point to perfection. Is it possible that a reduction in gun violence would be met with an increase in knife violence? Sure, but here is the key difference GUNS ARE FAR, FAR MORE DEADLY THAN KNIVES. A knife can be an effective weapon to kill someone and someone can die by accidental use of a knife and someone can kill themselves with a knife BUT a gun is way, way, way more effective . . and particularly more effective as it relates to killing MULTIPLE PEOPLE. You can do it with a knife, but a gun is way more effective. There is a reason that there are many video games about guns and almost no games featuring knives. There is a reason that many mass killers who were before their act relatively gun novices choose a gun over a knife . . and in many cases an "assault rifle." Guns are much more lethal than knivesLastly, this comment is false, at worst, and highly, highly questionable at best: "In fact there are more studies that show MORE guns in the hands of legitimate and responsible owners = LESS overall violence. " That is simply untrue, BUT even accepting it as true for the sake of argument, its is grossly UNREALISTIC to be almost meaningless. The movie theater shooter here in Tampa was a "legitimate and responsible gun owner," the world is also filled with stupid people and this country is filled with many, many people who would NEVER arm themselves . . . so the notion that the what we need is MORE guns in the hands of "responsible" gun owners is absurd on its face and not a legitimate counter for that reason, not to mention that "more guns= more violence" so having more guns in the hands of "legitimate and responsible gun owners" means more opportunity for the movie theater shooting (by a legitimate/responsible gun owner), more guns to be lost or stolen, more guns for an unknowing child to happen upon, more crimes of passion that end in death etc. You cannot logically disconnect the two.The current state of affairs in this country is that there is almost unfettered access to guns and it is that way BECAUSE OF MONEY. It is NOT a 2nd Amendment issue, it is portrayed as that by an entity that defends the interest of gun manufacturers and sellers and by an entity that counts on people like many of the posters in these thread. "Legitimate and responsible" gun owners like you Spartan are going to be trampled by the overreaching of the gun manufacturers and sellers and their nearly mindless drones.. Guns serve a legitimate purpose, but no so legitimate to have 300 million and almost unfettered access.Like I said, fair points, well made too.
You lose, spartan and the rest of the "band of misfits" win.Vin will post in this thread again even though he started his own gun thread to discuss the issue because it was ignored. lol
You lose, spartan and the rest of the "band of misfits" win.Vin will post in this thread again even though he started his own gun thread to discuss the issue because it was ignored. lol
silly ^^^^ Spartan did not lose, he won. Spartan and I disagree, but we disagree on the substance, most of the others here NEVER even post on substance . . . which was the point of the other thread. That's fine . . it's not a contest and it is everyone's prerogative to do as they choose, but let's not call it something it is not and then compound it with this silly falsehood:
Vin will post in this thread again even though he started his own gun thread to discuss the issue because it was ignored. lol
I started another thread as a joke and to illustrate a point that some of the others helped prove, not because I was being ignored. If everyone ignored ny SUBSTANTIVE posts that would be fine. Don't think so, let's try it?. The strange thing is anyone who read the other thread honestly would see that it was a joke with a point, so I juts don't get the benefit of posting something that is patently false? For what purpose? Same thing with the nonsense, for what purpose? Its okay that people disagree on a subject. I am not running for an elected office, I am just posting my thoughts on a message board . . . people decide how they respond . . . I just don't get the purpose behind the ridiculous nonsense . . at some point it has to at least get tedious, right?
Vin will post in this thread again even though he started his own gun thread to discuss the issue because it was ignored. lol
That's amazing. You can predict the future.
Vin will post in this thread again even though he started his own gun thread to discuss the issue because it was ignored. lol
That's amazing. You can predict the future.
right behind . . .as usual . . . see my other comment to Olaf in the other thread because it applies to you as well . . . why do you guys even care so much?
