posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
That is NOT actually a legitimate argument against the reality that without guns, there'd be no gun violence.
Fallacious argument. It's recursive, self perpetuating, feeds into itself. It's a circular argument, because of the inclusion of the word "guns"
in the phrase "gun violence", Of course there would be no "GUN violence" without guns! There would no effect on VIOLENCE, however. The tools would
change, and people would continue to make each other's heads collapse.
Addressing "gun violence" does nothing to address the root, which is VIOLENCE. All it does is disarm the weaker souls, and make them easier prey for
I laugh at the phrase" gun violence". I just can't help it. There is no case, at any point in history, or at any point on Earth, or at an point
satisfying both of those criteria where a gun has committed an act of violence. NONE. Never, ever, nowhere. There is no such thing as "gun
violence". You might as well be discussing "ink pen violence" or "garbage can lid violence".
Guns are inanimate objects. No gun has EVER gotten up of it's own accord and gone to rape, plunder, murder, and ruin. NEVER. It's a ridiculous
phrase, and a sad misuse of the English language. It's very clearly a propagandistic phrase, satisfying the emotional appeal over rational appeal of
Your argument is a ridiculous use of a ridiculous phrase designed solely to win an argument without reasoning, by self-perpetuating and feeding into