NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15060698/

Another school shooting, althought they got the guy before he had the chance to kill himself. It's times like these that banning all guns except in very specific cases in the military is looking more and more like a good idea.

here here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15060698/

Another school shooting, althought they got the guy before he had the chance to kill himself. It's times like these that banning all guns except in very specific cases in the military is looking more and more like a good idea.

Right, because the problem is obviously guns, and not crazy kids who go around killing people.

Right, because the problem is obviously guns, and not crazy kids who go around killing people.

Could you please point out the last time a kid walked into a school a killed a load of people in the UK?

I wonder if either of these guys acquired their guns legally.

Right, because the problem is obviously guns, and not crazy kids who go around killing people.

If there's no access to guns, what can they do? Walk into a school with a 9-iron and rough up the place? The potential for destruction and really bad situations is greatly diminished in the absence of guns.

That said, we should stop this place from going to hell in a handbasket while we're at it.

Could you please point out the last time a kid walked into a school a killed a load of people in the UK?

Irrelevant. You're assuming the world is a petri dish and the only differences between the UK and the USA are that the USA doesn't ban guns.

If there's no access to guns, what can they do? Walk into a school with a 9-iron and rough up the place? The potential for destruction and really bad situations is greatly diminished in the absence of guns.


Well you know, if there's no freedom to move either, the potential for bad situations is even LESS! Everyone will be safe if we just lock everyone up!

While we're at it, freedom of thought is ungood.

Could you please point out the last time a kid walked into a school a killed a load of people in the UK?

When was the last time a kid walked into a school and killed a load of people in Finland, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US? I think the problem isn't so much guns, but something with US culture.

Banning guns won't do anything. They just might instead go on to make bombs, or something like that. Plus I like my gun :p. Although I do agree some guns, fully automatics, and handguns should be specially licensed or banned to the public.

Well you know, if there's no freedom to move either, the potential for bad situations is even LESS! Everyone will be safe if we just lock everyone up!

While we're at it, freedom of thought is ungood.

Jeez, we have the first logical fallacy here - and I can't put my finger on it. Slippery slope, perhaps. If we ban guns, we might as well ban movement? I'll go tell the people in Japan that they're no longer allowed to move because they don't have guns.

At least you managed to work the word "ungood" into a sentence, you doubleplusgood duckquacker.

Jeez, we have the first logical fallacy here - and I can't put my finger on it. Slippery slope, perhaps.

If we ban guns, we might as well ban movement? I'll go tell the people in Japan that they're no longer allowed to move because they don't have guns.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a coined political term.

What I am doing is argumentum ad reductio.

Using your own argument that justify the removal of one freedom, to justify the removal of others. If your argument is valid, it can certainly apply to others as well. The point is not to actually advocate what I've said or to say that banning guns IS banning anything else, it is to show that your reasoning is invalid.

When was the last time a kid walked into a school and killed a load of people in Finland, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US? I think the problem isn't so much guns, but something with US culture.

the difference between places like finland and canada and other such places where gun ownership is high and gun crime relatively low and the us where gun ownership is high and people are shooting each other willy nilly is that in finland and canada people own guns to protect themselves from wild animals and to go hunting whereas in the us people own guns to protect themselves from all the criminals and other scumbags they are told are rampaging through the neighbourhoods just a couple of blocks away from their pristine lawns and whitewashed fences. if their wasn't such a culture of fear and suspicion of your fellow human being in the us then there probably would be less people being so trigger happy with their weapons. consequently guns should be outlawed in the us becaus us americans are not responsible enough to handle them.

the difference between places like finland and canada and other such places where gun ownership is high and gun crime relatively low and the us where gun ownership is high and people are shooting each other willy nilly is that in finland and canada people own guns to protect themselves from wild animals and to go hunting whereas in the us people own guns to protect themselves from all the criminals and other scumbags they are told are rampaging through the neighbourhoods just a couple of blocks away from their pristine lawns and whitewashed fences. if their wasn't such a culture of fear and suspicion of your fellow human being in the us then there probably would be less people being so trigger happy with their weapons. consequently guns should be outlawed in the us becaus us americans are not responsible enough to handle them.

Micheal Moore?

f their wasn't such a culture of fear and suspicion of your fellow human being in the us then there probably would be less people being so trigger happy with their weapons. consequently guns should be outlawed in the us becaus us americans are not responsible enough to handle them.

So, you're saying the kid who shot up his principle, did it out of fear and suspicion of his fellow human being because he is told by the government that there are criminals out there beyond pristine picket fences and manicured lawns?

Somehow, I doubt the police will say that that was his motive.

If there's no access to guns, what can they do? Walk into a school with a 9-iron and rough up the place? The potential for destruction and really bad situations is greatly diminished in the absence of guns.

That said, we should stop this place from going to hell in a handbasket while we're at it.

There is no such thing as "no access to guns". Heroin is a schedule 1 drug in the USA. It's completely banned in every state. Yet tons of it still make it across the border.

When was the last time a kid walked into a school and killed a load of people in Finland, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US? I think the problem isn't so much guns, but something with US culture.

Don't forget that just because of sheer statistics, the US ought to have 57 times as many school shootings as Finland, simply because the US is 57 times larger (population wise) than Finland.

the difference between places like finland and canada and other such places where gun ownership is high and gun crime relatively low and the us where gun ownership is high and people are shooting each other willy nilly is that in finland and canada people own guns to protect themselves from wild animals and to go hunting whereas in the us people own guns to protect themselves from all the criminals and other scumbags they are told are rampaging through the neighbourhoods just a couple of blocks away from their pristine lawns and whitewashed fences. if their wasn't such a culture of fear and suspicion of your fellow human being in the us then there probably would be less people being so trigger happy with their weapons. consequently guns should be outlawed in the us becaus us americans are not responsible enough to handle them.

Actually, the reason people where I live own guns are exactly the reasons you listed for Finland, Canada, etc. Hunting is a $2 billion industry in my state, and roughly 750,000 people (out of a total population of ~10,000,000) participate in the deer rifle season alone.

Not all Americans are as irrationally scared of their shadow as many of the right wingers on this forum. I own a pair of rifles, but I'm not in the least worried about using them for home defence. In fact, when I'm not using them they get trigger locks on them and if I'm going away they get locked up and hidden.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, it’s a coined political term.
It is indeed a fallacy (also known as the floodgates fallacy); wrongly assuming that permitting or forbiding a course of action will inevitably lead to the occurance of further related and undesireable events. It may not neccessarily be invalid or even unsound, but the slippery slope is certainly a very poor argumentative technique.

It is indeed a fallacy (also known as the floodgates fallacy); wrongly assuming that permitting or forbiding a course of action will inevitably lead to the occurance of further related and undesireable events.

Nowhere in my argument did I assume that banning guns leads to banning anything else. I think you missed the point of my argument.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a coined political term.

What I am doing is argumentum ad reductio.

Using your own argument that justify the removal of one freedom, to justify the removal of others. If your argument is valid, it can certainly apply to others as well. The point is not to actually advocate what I've said or to say that banning guns IS banning anything else, it is to show that your reasoning is invalid.

The argument of "use the same argument to ban something" as argumentum ad reductio (argument to reduction, I assume...sorry, not a Latin student) forgets that some thought would go into any ban, including some measure of cost-benefit analysis. If we ban movement, we lose an awful lot more than we gain. If we ban guns, many people would make the opposite claim. No one is arguing to ban hands just because they can be used as weapons; hands can also save lives. In some manner, guns could save lives, but guns are designed to kill. To save a life with a gun is to take a 747 out on the highway - it can be done, sure, but it's not what they were made for.

Also, I would hardly call having a gun to be a "freedom." Local governments are not within their rights to ban guns, but they are within their rights to mandate them. Being required to carry a gun is far more of an imposition than being barred from carrying one. Aside from that, there exist weapons that are not as lethal as guns that may do the same job, though I don't quite know how they work (tasers or stun guns...not clear on how those things work and if they are really lethal to anyone who doesn't have some sort of heart condition.) Either way, carrying a gun is a huge fricking responsibility. I also can't honestly think of a good reason to allow guns, even in the police force, at this point in time. It's not like a poorly-trained private militia with a box full of AK-47s can really stand up to the U.S. Army. Frankly, our votes are more powerful against the government than any collection of firearms.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15060698/

Another school shooting, althought they got the guy before he had the chance to kill himself. It's times like these that banning all guns except in very specific cases in the military is looking more and more like a good idea.

Oh yeah. That's a fucking GREAT idea! Make all civilians defenseless in the face of violence. Sigh!

It's times like these that banning all guns except in very specific cases in the military is looking more and more like a good idea.

Great idea.

Then the military can slaughter a docile populace at will.

So, you're saying the kid who shot up his principle, did it out of fear and suspicion of his fellow human being because he is told by the government that there are criminals out there beyond pristine picket fences and manicured lawns?

Somehow, I doubt the police will say that that was his motive.

i wasn't talking about that guy's individual motives. maybe you just want me to tell you that americans are just all fucking nutjobs and should all be locked up in padded cells just in case they decide to go on a killing spree so that you can throw the 'you're an enemy of freedom' shit at me too. but i'm not going to do that cuz that would be flamebaiting and i can understand now already from your posts that you are never going to hear any argument against free gun ownership cuz you believe it's your inalienable right to own a machine designed for killing and nothing is going to sway you, not even cheap taunts.

Could you please point out the last time a kid walked into a school a killed a load of people in the UK?

Would Canada do?

Actually, the reason people where I live own guns are exactly the reasons you listed for Finland, Canada, etc. Hunting is a $2 billion industry in my state, and roughly 750,000 people (out of a total population of ~10,000,000) participate in the deer rifle season alone.

Not all Americans are as irrationally scared of their shadow as many of the right wingers on this forum. I own a pair of rifles, but I'm not in the least worried about using them for home defence. In fact, when I'm not using them they get trigger locks on them and if I'm going away they get locked up and hidden.

well done, you have your sanity. but you're practically in canada anyway so you don't count :p

Do not take away my guns because of the actions of a few.

Oh yeah. That's a fucking GREAT idea! Make all civilians defenseless in the face of violence. Sigh!

oo eut's so wound up he used a real swear word :eek:

Great idea.

Then the military can slaughter a docile populace at will.

Oh please, like the populace would have a chance in hell anyway. We would have to get every gun we could scrounge up AND hijack a doomsday device to have a fighting chance against the forces of the U.S. military.

Granted, that's at full strength. The military's over in Iraq now. Of course, the populace would splinter off, and trying to counteract the military would become an exercise in futility. If the military wanted to slaughter us, they would just go and do it.

Nowhere in my argument did I assume that banning guns leads to banning anything else. I think you missed the point of my argument.
Nowhere in my post did I wade into the murk of gun legalistaion. I was merely pointing out that slippery slope is indeed a fallacy.

The argument of "use the same argument to ban something" as argumentum ad reductio (argument to reduction, I assume...sorry, not a Latin student) forgets that some thought would go into any ban

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The "thought" seems to be, "Someone killed another person with a GUN! Get rid of GUNS!" It's fear-inspired scapegoating. Scapegoating of an inanimate object, no less. It completely ignores the FACT that these crimes happen for a REASON, and that reason is NOT "gun ownership." It would be wise for us as a nation to seek out the actual reasons children seem to want to kill other people, instead of hoping to ban things and solve all our problems.

If we ban movement, we lose an awful lot more than we gain. If we ban guns, many people would make the opposite claim. No one is arguing to ban hands just because they can be used as weapons; hands can also save lives. In some manner, guns could save lives, but guns are designed to kill.

Hands are designed to kill, or how else do you think humans eat? Killing with tools, skinning and gutting the carcass, cooking it. Ban hands? :p

Seriously, smoking cannabis doesn't kill anyone, but it's banned. Smoking tobacco does and it's legal. I'm not seeing logical consistency in the history of banning things out of fear.

To save a life with a gun is to take a 747 out on the highway - it can be done, sure, but it's not what they were made for.

I beg to differ. They were designed to save lives by killing those who would kill the owner otherwise. As are all weapons.


Also, I would hardly call having a gun to be a "freedom."

The freedom to own a gun is indeed a freedom. A=A.

Either way, carrying a gun is a huge fricking responsibility.

Sure, it is, as is driving a car, or voting.

It's not like a poorly-trained private militia with a box full of AK-47s can really stand up to the U.S. Army.

Hrm, that's what they said about the Vietnamese too, but we don't seem to occupy Vietnam for some reason.

Frankly, our votes are more powerful against the government than any collection of firearms.

Yeah, but no vote is going to convince an armed intruder to leave your house at 3 am.

i wasn't talking about that guy's individual motives.

Of course not, you were making a huge generalization that has no basis in this subject or, really, in reality.

maybe you just want me to tell you that americans are just all fucking nutjobs and should all be locked up in padded cells just in case they decide to go on a killing spree so that you can throw the 'you're an enemy of freedom' shit at me too.

You could do that if you wanted, but I don't go around throwing Bushisms at anyone except in an ironic mood.

but i'm not going to do that cuz that would be flamebaiting and i can understand now already from your posts that you are never going to hear any argument against free gun ownership cuz you believe it's your inalienable right to own a machine designed for killing and nothing is going to sway you, not even cheap taunts.

Cheap taunts aren't going to sway me, no.

And why do you and others always emphasize "design?" Guns are designed to kill, but how many people are killed by guns compared to those killed by cars? Cars aren't designed for it, they just happen to be very good at it. Apparently design doesn't really mean all that much, it's use. For example, using a gun to defend yourself is fine. Using a gun to shoot your school is not. Oops, radical idea.

Nowhere in my post did I wade into the murk of gun legalistaion. I was merely pointing out that slippery slope is indeed a fallacy.

Then, according to your definition of slippery slope, my argument wasn't it. :)

Then, according to your definition of slippery slope, my argument wasn’t it. :)
Congratulations. I just wanted peeps to keep up their knowledge of fallacies, that’s all.

Banning guns will not solve this problem in any way, an only embolden an already power hungy government.

When was the last time a kid walked into a school and killed a load of people in Finland, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US? I think the problem isn't so much guns, but something with US culture.

Which is exactly why US and guns don't mix. But it's too late to do anything now.

Banning guns will not solve this problem in any way, an only embolden an already power hungy government.

Who, as I said earlier, would walk all over us, guns or no guns.

Right, because the problem is obviously guns, and not crazy kids who go around killing people.
Every country has crazy kids, but only America's have guns.

Every country has crazy kids, but only America's have guns.

Yeah okay. I'll remember that next time a 10 year old Iraqi kid shoots someone.