Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mass shooting in Albuquerque

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


You have said many things there, but how does this respond to my argument? If you want to begin to address the issue of gun-control, then let's back up . . . you attack my argument and show me where I'm wrong.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kissy princess
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


My argument is valid; it is basic logic not a word game. That there exist a variety of other forms of self-defense does nothing to undermine or rebut the argument.
edit on 21-1-2013 by kissy princess because: nada


Its a word game. or if you prefer a logic word game

If it was purely logical the premise wouldnt rely on excluding so many variables.
Your argument is only valid in a vacuum where only those facts exist, in the real world there are many buts and ifs
edit on 21/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Wrong. You fail to see that the premises include that arms serve as an (meaning one of many) important right (not the only) right of self-defense. They are held very serious for purposes of self-defense, yes, because of the damage they can inflict.

Logic and philosophy are what we do too little here at ATS; even you should have the sense to realize this and not be so hasty to brush it off as useless - your many arguments are trying to utilize this great tool of logic, but seem to fall short consistently as you seemingly never engage with logicians.
edit on 21-1-2013 by kissy princess because: comma



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


The thread seems pretty civil. It isn't really a discussion though. You are correct. It is being trolled by anti gun nuts who throw up fallacious arguments and then when debated simu state their argument or view is valid and then end it there. Refusing to actually have a legitimate debate or even admit very simple ground truths such as distinct cultural differences. Massive population differences. Racial and ethnic differences. Political realities andhistory are different.

So. What we end up with is a thread that devolves into

Anti gun nut : guns suck and are stupid and so are the people who use them
Gun nut: really? Lets discuss the social, cultural and economic conditions around violence and gun violence
Anti gun nut: my argument is valid. Guns sick and gun people are stupid why can't you see that?
Gun nut: why can't we discuss it
Anti gun nut: I already did. Guns suck and gun people are stupid. I don't need to discuss it further
Gun nut: nuh uh. You're stupid
Anti gun nut: I know you are, but what am I?


And so on. Not really uncivil. But pointedly useless.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 





One does NOT have the right to beat another person (Exception self defense). As that INFRINGES on the other person's rights. One does NOT have the rights to own a slave, because that INFRINGES on the other person's freedoms.


Hmmmmmm.........

So the guys who wrote about your "rights" basically didnt know what they were talking about and can be tossed aside.
If Im not mistaken they were all pretty much slave owners


Kinda ironic you all take the words of slave owners to be gospel when it comes to rights that suit your wants



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It was a matter of time.

Its time to ban kids.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kissy princess
 


Sorry but Im not really into little word games, I can play them though

1) killing people is bad
2) guns were invented to kill people
3) guns are bad

Using this "logic" prove guns arent bad



Logic and philosophy are what we do too little here at ATS; even you should have the sense to realize this and not be so hasty to brush it off as useless - your many arguments are trying to utilize this great tool of logic, but seem to fall short consistently as you seemingly never engage with logicians.


I agree and would love to do more philosophical and logic type debates but for the purposes of this type of argument they dont work. You cant compartmentalise the issue and still have a rational discussion
edit on 21/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


If someone wants to do harm on a mass scale, they will do it. It doesn't take a genius to make a bomb, and they're more effective. Whether his mother got them legally is not the issue, the issue is he killed to get them. Also, it's been stated that he tried to get his own guns first but was unable to.

Whether or not the economic angle is a good argument or not in your eyes, it's still a good point. Consider the amount of people who would be unemployed if they no longer had a job for any of the American gun companies. More unemployed leads to more poverty, more poverty leads to more crime, you can't deny that. There's a reason the ghettos are more dangerous than the suburbs.

Those stats are perfectly applicable, as the article I posted even goes into specifics such as robbery, mugging, and assault.

The fact is, you're more likely to be struck by lightning in the US than you are to be shot. 11,000 seems like a large amount, and I'm not trying to downplay that, but considering that there are 311,591,917 people in the united states, it's pretty small. If guns are so dangerous, the 88 guns to every 100 people should bring about a much higher gun death rate, shouldn't it?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 

Certainly, let's play.

I disagree with your first premise. Killing people isn't always bad. I believe that there are instances when the instance of killing is good, or at least warranted, such as in the instance of self-defense or self-preservation. Your first premise is false.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Anyway, I'm off to bed, been up all night. Later all.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Lets make an analogue of your argument:

1. Killing people is bad.
2. Karate was developed to kill people.
3. therefore, Karate is bad.

I know you don't believe nor agree with this as you advocated earlier the study of a martial art - or were you referring to Judo and other 'soft' martial arts that aim not to inflict damage?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 





One does NOT have the right to beat another person (Exception self defense). As that INFRINGES on the other person's rights. One does NOT have the rights to own a slave, because that INFRINGES on the other person's freedoms.


Hmmmmmm.........

So the guys who wrote about your "rights" basically didnt know what they were talking about and can be tossed aside.
If Im not mistaken they were all pretty much slave owners


Kinda ironic you all take the words of slave owners to be gospel when it comes to rights that suit your wants


In regards to slaves they were wrong, people are on occasion WRONG, hence why we have the amendment process. That is why we have the checks and balances in our government that the presidents of late ignore on a whim.

You don't invalidate the whole document, because one line of reasoning is wrong.

The right to use ANY tool necessary for defense and self preservation is NOT to be infringed. Seems to be pretty straight forward to me. All a gun does is even the playing field when used for self defense. I am disabled, I cannot take martial arts, if I get attacked I am at the mercy of the attacker without a means to even the playing field.

I woman is not on an even playing field with a larger man intent on harming her without a gun. You would take this away, and make us victims by your rationale. If you don't see the illogic of that then there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, so the only thing we end up with is a petty war of words. That by definition is pointless and hollow if you ask me.



edit on 21-1-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: typo



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kissy princess
 


Its not false its a matter of opinion but if we're playing that way




2. A firearms prohibition would be a significant violation of the right of self-defense.


No it wouldnt, it would simply be removing 1 of many possible options for self defence and not in anyway a violation.

your 2nd premise is false



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


More typical liberal progressive activist trolling nonsense.

Develop straw man arguments. Ignore actual statistics and make things up. Call the opposition names.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 





You don't invalidate the whole document, because one line of reasoning is wrong.


Nor should you look at it as infallible when you admit that it was written by flawed men




The right to use ANY tool necessary for defense and self preservation is NOT to be infringed. Seems to be pretty straight forward to me. All a gun does is even the playing field when used for self defense. I am disabled, I cannot take martial arts, if I get attacked I am at the mercy of the attacker without a means to even the playing field.


Ahhhh yes, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!
When you condone criminals and mentally unstable people having guns then bring this up, the 2nd says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED therefore when you deny a crim or psycho a gun you are denying their basic inalienable rights YOU B@STARDS!!!!!!!!!!




I woman is not on an even playing field with a larger man intent on harming her without a gun. You would take this away, and make us victims by your rationale. If you don't see the illogic of that then there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind ever so the only thing we have left is a petty war of words. Kinda hollow and pointless if you ask me.


I agree its pointless and hollow with most but oh well,

People in Australia and the UK do fine without guns, even women and people with disabilities.
We also do fine without the school and mall shootings.

I understand the logic and it always comes down to fear or at least using fear to justify a fetish.
If you take my gun away you leave me at the mercy of Criminals, the Gov, drug cartels, aliens etc etc etc



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Anti gun nut says: no YOUR premise is false
Gun nut says: No YOUR is
Anti gun nut says: no YOURS is; infinity

Entertaining thread.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


More typical liberal progressive activist trolling nonsense.

Develop straw man arguments. Ignore actual statistics and make things up. Call the opposition names.


LMAO

Dude it kinda sounds like your describing exactly what youve done in every one of your posts on this thread, even pro gunners think as much.

Have a star for making me laugh




Anti gun nut says: no YOUR premise is false
Gun nut says: No YOUR is
Anti gun nut says: no YOURS is; infinity

Entertaining thread.


Fell free to move as not only are we boring you but youve had absolutely nothing of any substance to add.
Despite your obvious self centred nature and confessed boredom we are not here to entertain you.

DOnt let the door hit you on the way out of the thread
edit on 21/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   


Ahhhh yes, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!
When you condone criminals and mentally unstable people having guns then bring this up, the 2nd says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED therefore when you deny a crim or psycho a gun you are denying their basic inalienable rights YOU B@STARDS!!!!!!!!!!


A criminal by definition had given up his right to arms. This is not an argument to further your point of view....sorry.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 

Regarding your response to my objection, may I point out that there either is a fact of the matter concerning the morality of murder, or there isn't. In other words, moral virtues are nothing more than a matter of personal opinion, or they are not. What are your thoughts on objective ethics?

Second, you cannot attack premise 2 of my argument without disqualifying premise 1 of my argument. If one takes away an option of self-defense, which is intimately tied into what liberty-rights one possess, then we dilute, even corrupt the meaning of a 'liberty' right, such that a violation to the integrity of the said right does occur. For example, I could chop off one of your fingers, but you would still have the use of your hand; nonetheless, a violation of the integrity of your hand has occurred.

Regarding liberty rights in the field of Ethics, some philosophers argue that the right to bear arms is an intrinsic right - in other words, the framers of the Constitution here were only describing a right that simply exists, and is not granted by lawmakers. Take a look here:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-1-2013 by kissy princess because: FORGOT SOMETHING



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


And what about schizophrenics who havent hurt anyone or committed crimes?

Should they have guns?






top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join