Well, the argument for hardcore gun nuts like my dad (who loves the 2nd amendment because we didn't have that in communist russia but is also logical about gun control) is the registration idea. Your name will be on a list which no doubt means it'll be watched by all the federal agencies, regardless of your intelligence or due diligence.
But can he tell why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch?
That sounds like exactly the the kind of argument my dad would make too. He was recently homeless for almost two weeks because he didn't trust Lambeth Council not to screw him over. Also because they're all Masons. He's a little paranoid.
Anyway, I'm sure you need to register to use a billion less dangerous things than guns. Frankly I think federal agencies should have access to that kind of info.
Edit: Not that I was being mean about your dad! I just mean he reminds me of mine!
Anything can be made deadly, which is why the argument is specifically bad. Most of these items (knives, cars, shoelaces, gummy bears) aren't designed for violence, whereas the gun is literally designed for violence and murder. People use it for target practice and other such activities now but one can argue that's even a misuse.
Some people say, "Oh, the usage of something can change despite it's origin."
It can but this obviously has not happened with firearms. They're still doing WACKY stuff like being used to end lives.
Trying to rationalize what, specifically? I'm not saying using knives instead of guns for deadly activities is okay. I'm shattering the argument that we shouldn't illegalize guns because "then we'd have to make everything illegal that's ever killed someone."
Also, where is the U?
Trying to rationalize what, specifically? I'm not saying using knives instead of guns for deadly activities is okay. I'm shattering the argument that we shouldn't illegalize guns because "then we'd have to make everything illegal that's ever killed someone."
That sounds like exactly the the kind of argument my dad would make too. He was recently homeless for almost two weeks because he didn't trust Lambeth Council not to screw him over. Also because they're all Masons. He's a little paranoid.Anyway, I'm sure you need to register to use a billion less dangerous things than guns. Frankly I think federal agencies should have access to that kind of info.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You haven't done anything to the argument, much less "shatter" it because nobody is using it as a slippery slope argument. The idea that weapons kill people instead of people killing people is asinine. Yes, it's easier to do it with a weapon but that only calls for tighter gun controls, gun education and practice, and nothing else.
No, I have. I just demonstrated that. Nobody? Nobody in this thread but I was discussing people in general and those I've encountered. I thought that was pretty goddamn obvious. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong in this thread when I decided to share my perspective/argument regarding firearms and their surrounding laws in America.
Yes, it's easier to do it with a weapon but that only calls for tighter gun controls, gun education and practice, and nothing else.
Okay, but that's the point. Why just skirt around and use words like "slippery slope" (which has no meaning. It wasn't even the fallacy I was discussing) and yap about how "asinine" something I DIDN'T say is?
Also, only? A device used to kill someone rather easily is a pretty big deal. You don't just solve it by implementing those techniques. It takes execution and cultural reformatting, on some level.
Where is the fucking U?
No, I have. I just demonstrated that. Nobody? Nobody in this thread but I was discussing people in general and those I've encountered. I thought that was pretty goddamn obvious. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong in this thread when I was sharing my perspective/argument regarding firearms and their surrounding laws in America.
Okay, but that's the point. Why just skirt around and use words like "slippery slope" (which has no meaning. It wasn't even the fallacy I was discussing) and yap about how "asinine" something I DIDN'T say is?
Also, only? A device used to kill someone rather easily is a pretty big deal. You don't just solve it by implementing those techniques. It takes execution and cultural reformatting, on some level.
Originally posted by psmith81992
No, you really have not, unless you can prove that the slippery slope opinion is the prevalent opinion. Otherwise you're just making things up..As usual.
I don't have to prove that, though. At all. I said it's an opinion I encounter commonly and one I was discussing. Also, it's not a slippery slope "opinion."
Skirt around what? I used slippery slope because that's exactly the reasoning you gave. I called your argument asinine because you simply said "moar gun control"! What aren't you getting here?
It isn't. If you believe so, explain yourself. Also, that's not "simply" what I said, unless you're really horrendous at reading.
Yes, it's called tighter gun controls and mandatory training before getting a license.
No, it is not that simple. At all. Not even remotely. Those are extremely important but don't pretend it's that simplistic. If you do, this discussion has nowhere to go.
I don't have to prove that, though. At all. I said it's an opinion I encounter commonly and one I was discussing. Also, it's not a slippery slope "opinion." That isn't the fallacy occurring when someone says, "Oh yeah? Knives kill people too. Should we ban knives?"
I understand that you're joking in this instance but some people have even proposed that we seriously ban knives because, "Well, they can kill people too! Ban cars! They can kill people too! Ban water! People can drown."
That is a slippery slope.
It isn't. If you believe so, explain yourself. Also, that's not "simply" what I said, unless you're really horrendous at reading.
No, it is not that simple. At all. Not even remotely. Those are extremely important but don't pretend it's that simplistic. If you do, this discussion has nowhere to go.
It's a lot simpler than saying "cultural reformatting".
Originally posted by psmith81992
That is a slippery slope.
Well, then there's... It's not a slippery slope. The slippery slope says that a relatively small event leads to a much larger event via a chain reaction. Where are you getting this from people saying, "knives kill people like guns do?"
That's basically all you said. You even gave out half assed statistics without any sources, without any correlation or causation, etc.
There's roughly a dozen in Japan, over two dozen in England (more in total deaths, not including homicides, at around one hundred deaths from firearms) and nearly eleven to thirteen thousand in the U.S. (in homicides alone, not counting the rest. The total firearm-related death rate in America is closer to thirty fucking thousand per year.)
(LOL, check it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)
Correlation and/or causation in reference to what? Are you actually just saying words for fun? This is a noble but minuscule and ineffective effort to actually discuss an issue.
It's a lot simpler than saying "cultural reformatting".
Again, this isn't what I "just" said. It was a portion of what I had said. Is this what's going to happen when you respond to me in the future? Cherry picking what I've said to you purposely and foolishly? You're lucky I am even responding to you, considering you're a lying sack of shit.
For example, even though I've been generous enough to answer you, watch this:
Where's the U?
Well, then there's... It's not a slippery slope. The slippery slope says that a relatively small event leads to a much larger event via a chain reaction. Where are you getting this from people saying, "knives kill people like guns do?"
There's roughly a dozen in Japan, over two dozen in England (more in total deaths, not including homicides, at around one hundred deaths from firearms) and nearly eleven to thirteen thousand in the U.S. (in homicides alone, not counting the rest. The total firearm-related death rate in America is closer to thirty ****ing thousand per year.)(LOL, check it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-deaths/260189/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)
Again, this isn't what I "just" said. It was a portion of what I had said. Is this what's going to happen when you respond to me in the future? Cherry picking what I've said to you in order to be a fool? You're lucky I am even responding to you, considering you're a lying sack of shit.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The slippery slope is "well if you're banning A then ban B, then ban C, etc". Try to keep up.
That's not what they're saying, though. They're saying you should ban one if you're going to ban the other on the merit that they kill as well as guns do. That's not a slippery slope.
A slippery slope would be if it was SUGGESTED that we do but the question is, "Should we ban A because we banned B?" In any case, that would be the fallacy specifically and not the device. They're separate.
Would you mind proving correlation or causation? Thanks dear.
Relating to what, kid?
Crying like a little ***** just proves to everyone that once again, you're unable to formulate a cogent argument.
Where's the U, though? Actually? Tell me what happened to it.
That's not what they're saying, though. They're saying you should ban one if you're going to ban the other on the merit that they kill as well as guns do. That's not a slippery slope.
Relating to what, kid?
Lolwut? You're asking him to prove correlation and causation between high numbers of firearm-related deaths and the ready availability of firearms in America? Compared to the tiny numbers in countries without easy availability.
Isn't that like, trained-chimp level obvious?
My ****ing cat could figure that out, lol.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You mentioned banning water because it causes people from drowning. That made it a slippery slope.
That's the fallacy. You said, "Oh, the slippery slope opinion."
It is DIFFERENT, as a logical device than as a fallacy.
Simply stating "look, gun deaths" does absolutely nothing for your point, son.
I haven't just done that. Stop. Cherry. Picking.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Lolwut? You're asking him to prove correlation and causation between high numbers of firearm-related deaths and the ready availability of firearms in America? Compared to the tiny numbers in countries without easy availability.Isn't that like, trained-chimp level obvious?
My ****ing cat could figure that out, lol.
I doubt your cat could figure that out and I'm asking him to prove things without just throwing out numbers.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Lolwut? You're asking him to prove correlation and causation between high numbers of firearm-related deaths and the ready availability of firearms in America? Compared to the tiny numbers in countries without easy availability.Isn't that like, trained-chimp level obvious?
My ****ing cat could figure that out, lol.
No, you have to remember he hasn't asked that. He's literally just told me to prove it and has not been specific with what he wants.
Originally posted by The Renegade
That's the fallacy. You said, "Oh, the slippery slope opinion."It is DIFFERENT, as a logical device than as a fallacy.
I haven't just done that. Stop. Cherry. Picking.
But you have. At least Janus offered legitimate suggestions. Your entire conclusion was the equivalent of "Boo guns" I mean "cultural reformatting" is some great terminology. So is "anal beads". Putting two words together doesn't make them a solution.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I doubt your cat could figure that out and I'm asking him to prove things without just throwing out numbers.
Don't you talk shit about my cat dude he'll kick you ass and then sniff the **** out of it, b*tch.
You're asking him to prove correlation and causation. Between what, if not that?