The Logic Fallacy of Guns for Everyone

Originally posted by NinjaKitteh

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
reply to post by NinjaKitteh

 

Tell me what semi-automatic means to you.

You don't know what a semi-automatic weapon is??

semi-automatic - a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing.

Not single action, not bolt action, it requires no extra effort to fire off multiple rounds. Real hunters don't use them, real hunters don't need multiple shots to perforate their prey.

So you think the framers of the Constitution codified my right to hunt?

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by pirhanna

 

well i wouldnt compare a suitcase nuke to a handgun, not even a minigun....so where is your logic...no disrespect kind sir, but you could have made more sense if you compared a rabbit to an ox...

Quite a few pro gun people are comparing it with cars though, so why the hell not?

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against invading armies. At least once the genie got out of the bottle. Guns are also a deterrent. Criminals are cowards in the end. You never hear of mass killings at gun shows. Obviously they know it will not go well for them as everybody has a gun. If criminals think some teachers will have guns at schools they will not try anything at that school. The answer to mass killings is quite simply to have law abiding,trained citizens with guns there. This will not make sense to most but it is in fact the truth of the matter. More guns = less violent crime.

Originally posted by jimmiec
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against invading armies. At least once the genie got out of the bottle. Guns are also a deterrent. Criminals are cowards in the end. You never hear of mass killings at gun shows. Obviously they know it will not go well for them as everybody has a gun. If criminals think some teachers will have guns at schools they will not try anything at that school. The answer to mass killings is quite simply to have law abiding,trained citizens with guns there. This will not make sense to most but it is in fact the truth of the matter. More guns = less violent crime.

Why would a suicidal maniac even care if teachers had guns?? Most of these shooting sprees are started by someone who already knows they will not live through the day.

And the part about more guns=less violent crime is pure bull# or lies.
How do you explain that we don't have this problem here then?? Also explain why USA is ontop of the statistics.
I guess you are just more violent by nature?

reply to post by juleol

Well he chose a school in a town that banned guns. Why would he choose that one? All these mass murderers choose places that have gun bans. They are cowards.

reply to post by SpearMint

yes, firearm homicide has decreased in australia after the infamous shooting in 1997, but the overall homicide rate has stayed about the same per 100,000 and the crime rate has spiked dramatically.

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.

Here is the logic fallacy of your analogy.

How many people can actually afford to buy and afford to keep a nuke.It is not practical or cost effective for the reason people want to keep guns. chances are if you even can afford a nuke and keep one.. if you use it for self defense it will blow you up and everything you are trying to defend. defeating the purpose of why you wanted a nuke for self defense.

Not only that but if you do use it in a way where you are safe and your target is not that is an offensive weapon....that would make it an assault weapon and those are already illegal

slug head

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.

Wow you're a veritable genius. Amazing how nobody ever thought of this brilliant argument before.

Hey do you know what weapon was used in the worst school mass murder in history? Andrew Kehoe detonated three bombs and killed 38 kids. But I'm sure if we ban guns, it will stop that kind of thing from happening again, won't it?

Another one of the worst mass murders was committed by Julio Gonzalez by spreading gasoline at a club, setting it on fire, and killed 87 people.

So I guess we need to ban gasoline.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by juleol

 

Well he chose a school in a town that banned guns. Why would he choose that one? All these mass murderers choose places that have gun bans. They are cowards.

Yeah, give them a choice between an army base, a police station, or a gun free zone like an elementary school or a movie theater, and I wonder which one they will pick?

Hmmmmmmmm.........

i will be giving my gun up out of respect for the kiddies lying dead, ive never needed it for self defence anyway, and the chances that i will need it for this purpose are next none.

Originally posted by rgzing
Why don't you educate yourself before openning your mouth.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

Had to repost this as it seems it's glaring, cited, and peer reviewed proof that "gun grabbers are nuts" seems too powerful to even elicit a response. I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. C'mon all you enlightened, put these Harvard stiffs in their place. I mean Pfft! Harvard what do those dorks know?

reply to post by Tikitiboo


Nice sentiment, foolish plan. I have never needed my fire extinguisher, but I have one in the kitchen anyway. I have children at home. I would never be so irresponsible with the task I have been given to provide for and protect them. I don't have the luxury of such a foolish gesture. I have lost loved ones in automobile accidents, but I still own a car.

reply to post by pirhanna


People should be allowed to own whatever the government is allowed to own. They represent us, not US, not us represent them.

Who needs nuclear devices when people driving cars, people drinking, and baseball bats are already killing people abroad by far greater percentages than guns?

Originally posted by SpearMint
No you're missing the point. Both guns and bombs are made to kill people, if people being able to carry a weapon doesn't increase homicides then everyone should be able to carry a bomb if they want, because bombs don't kill people, people kill people, right?

But not everybody who owns a gun has the intention of killing people. Some people like to hunt, or go precision shooting, or skeet shooting. People still have the right to have hobbies.