The Logic Fallacy of Guns for Everyone

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Yes, but you can't control who's using them purely for self defence.

In other countries there are required mental health checks and such to maintain a license.

In countries with gun control you don't need a gun for self defence.

I live in Australia. That's bullocks.
Gold Coast Sniper
Gun Crimes
Stolen Firearms
Sydney's Gun Crime




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Taking away guns from people isn't going to stop anyone that's going to go on a killing spree, or simply come unglued:

Chinese knife attack injures over 20, some of them children

The more inventive people will fabricate home-made bombs, or something else equally terrifying with easy-to-follow plans on the internet using easily obtained very common and unregulated house-hold ingredients.

Taking away guns, or anything construed 'dangerous' leaves all the dangerous stuff in the hands of criminals that are going to continue having guns and dangerous items regardless of what regulation there might be.
Taking away guns neuters the public from having means by which to defend themselves.

Should we expect round-nosed plastic scissors and only round-nosed plastic scissors in stores now too?

At what point is the government going to stop playing 'helicopter mommy'?

edit on 15-12-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


Something the gun nuts seem to be missing is
20 INJURED Vs 27 DEAD plus how many injured!!!!!
Now imagine if the chinese nutter had a gun.

Ill take a slash to the face over a bullet to the head anyday



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


If 1 person in that school building could use a gun like the rest of us can use a pencil, 20 children wouldn't be dead tonight. Every school should have a conceal and carry person who knows guns.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Originally posted by SpearMint
Yes, but you can't control who's using them purely for self defence.

In other countries there are required mental health checks and such to maintain a license.

In countries with gun control you don't need a gun for self defence.

I live in Australia. That's bullocks.
Gold Coast Sniper
Gun Crimes
Stolen Firearms
Sydney's Gun Crime


Do you seriously think those few things wouldn't happen if everyone had guns? It would be a lot worse.


By the way you spelt bollocks wrong, a bullock is a young bull.
edit on 15-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 
Please refrain from calling people on here "gun nuts".
The only nutters are the ones on the news.

I am pro-rights. I don't own a gun.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.



the fallacy of your argument

Knives kill people, therefore ban all knives

TA DA!



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


There are millions of gun enthusiasts in the US, millions of people who hunt, millions who know thier weapons of choice, and are familiar with other guns. They can count shots, they know what number of bullets different guns carry, they can tell the weapon by the sound of the shot.

They are familiar with the weapons that are used against law-minded citizens by criminals. They don't flinch, they can hunt even the human animal.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 
Please refrain from calling people on here "gun nuts".
The only nutters are the ones on the news.

I am pro-rights. I don't own a gun.


Apologies

I struggle to think of a better or more polite term for people who insist in the face of all evidence and logic that guns being everywhere is a good thing.

Ill try and use "Pro gun people" in future



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Do you seriously think those few things wouldn't happen if everyone had guns? It would be a lot worse.

You're avoiding my premise. In gun controlled countries there are still guns.


By the way you spelt bollocks wrong, a bullock is a young bull.

Wow. Your argument just gained incredible ground



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Originally posted by SpearMint
Do you seriously think those few things wouldn't happen if everyone had guns? It would be a lot worse.

You're avoiding my premise. In gun controlled countries there are still guns.


By the way you spelt bollocks wrong, a bullock is a young bull.

Wow. Your argument just gained incredible ground


Yes but very few, look at the gun murders in Australia compared to the US.

That was a side point, hence "by the way"...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 

This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
 

This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.


So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX
You missed the entire point. A bomb can never be used for self defence. It would kill you, which completely negates the comparison.

Yes a gun can do both, sadly. But a gun can also prevent a murder-suicide by a third party onlooker.

When was the last time you heard of explosive mining being conducted in a shopping mall?

Yeah I know. I was being pedantic, sorry about that.

I didn't miss your point, I said a suitcase nuke bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, i.e obviously not something you would use for self defense. So there you have it, we are singing from the same hymn page, though it seems I'm a little off tune



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
 

This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.


So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?

Are you suggesting that in order to murder you MUST have a gun?
I think it's more likely that a criminal would prefer their victim to NOT own one.


Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data: Australiawide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria,
homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent. (Up until the government gun grab, figures
for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well
as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)

Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed
"self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect
themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up
their military-style weapons.)

From:
Gun Control



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
 

This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.


So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?



are there more criminals, per capita, in the US or Australia?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
 

This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.


So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?

Are you suggesting that in order to murder you MUST have a gun?
I think it's more likely that a criminal would prefer their victim to NOT own one.


Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data: Australiawide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria,
homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent. (Up until the government gun grab, figures
for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well
as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)

Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed
"self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect
themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up
their military-style weapons.)

From:
Gun Control


Of course not, but guns increase it. You're not even paying attention to what I say, or answering what I have to say, you're asking silly questions. I don't see what that quote has to do with anything, it's meaningless in this context because it's all based on Australia's previous stats and still no where near as high as the US.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:



Only 1 year of data, from decades ago?
Thats your argument??

How about the long term trend of increasing gun control...


link



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
 

United States 4.2 in 100,000
Australia 1 in 100,000

Wiki



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Planet teleX
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:



Only 1 year of data, from decades ago?
Thats your argument??

How about the long term trend of increasing gun control...


link

or, how about you look at homicides in the US over the last 30 years, where there has not been gun control, homicides have dropped...............DRAMATICALLY

edit on 15-12-2012 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
 

United States 4.2 in 100,000
Australia 1 in 100,000

Wiki


cheers, though I was referring to criminality overall- I would agree and say that there are more criminals in the US than the likes of Australia

Also, get a graph of homicides in the US over the last 30/40 years, when there has been no gun control, and see how homicides have dropped





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join