The Right to Bear Arms

[NeilF]

Wording an appeal to emotion fallacy slightly differently and combining it with a spotlight fallacy doesn't make the poor, non-evidence based argument any better.

Dunblane and hungerford were statistical anomalies, tragic ones, but anomalies never the less. Basing your arguments around anomalies is never a good practice.

Should we ban peanuts because a small number of children have a tragic allergic reaction to them? How many children is the ability to eat peanuts worth?

I'll repeat the simple question, as you refused to answer it , instead deciding to talk about peanuts (makes a nice change to shoelaces I guess)


If we spotlight Hungerford and Dunblane, had gun laws (such as todays) prevented Hamilton from owning his four (all legal) hand guns, is it possible that either the disaster wouldn't have happened at all, or at least may not have involved so many?


I'd suggest the answer to any rational person is of course yes... But let's see how irrational you can get...

 

[Dolph]

I'll repeat the simple question, as you refused to answer it , instead deciding to talk about peanuts (makes a nice change to shoelaces I guess)


If we spotlight Hungerford and Dunblane, had gun laws (such as todays) prevented Hamilton from owning his four (all legal) hand guns, is it possible that either the disaster wouldn't have happened at all, or at least may not have involved so many?


I'd suggest the answer to any rational person is of course yes... But let's see how irrational you can get...

You're begging the question though, why should we spotlight a tragic but statistically irrelevant event as justification for our gun laws? The assumption that this is necessary is not accepted by all parties, and your determination to force an answer to your loaded question only suggests that you can't argue the points I have actually raised. Stating it's a simple question does not mean it's a valid one, any more than if I asked you 'have you stopped beating your wife/girlfriend/partner?'

The answer, is, of course, that in the terms you have laid out, the risk of them being shot would have been reduced. The question is whether the risk is big enough to matter, or whether you are going for a 'think of the children' appeal to emotion fallacy. You can't argue that the children were less likely to be hurt, because to do so would imply a regression to the mean failure and fly in the face of the provided statistics (that you have not countered evidentially) that gun availability does not alter crime rates.

Why do you keep resorting to fallacy rather than evidence based debating?

Would you care to argue, evidentially, against the referenced position I have put across in this thread?

 

[Wicksta]

Do you ever wonder how many hours you spend each day arguing on the internet Dolph?

 

[robgmun]

To be honest i find it odd that people want to own something that's been specficily desgined to kill another human being.

And if someone whats something that badly then they need to be looked at closely

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Why Rob ?

I am a serving rozzer and also a keen shooter. Once a month I join others in the police gun gun club to shoot at 100, 200 and 300m ranges and this is all I shoot at. I don't hunt or shoot animals.

I don't have any thoughts of harming people or animals with it and I get a lot of enjoyment from being in the club.

Just because I plink targets once a month at targets, does that mean that I should be looked at closely ?

 

[robgmun]

If you're a policeman (or the army) then that's different, are you hoping to become part of the arm response unit? If so then it's a valid that you'd want to hone your skills for the protection of the public

But why should normal civilian have any interest in guns or swords? What business do they have in an interest in killing machines? Inferiority complex maybe?

 

[semi-pro waster]

But why should normal civilian have any interest in guns or swords? Inferiority complex maybe?

Because some of them are fascinating and beautiful objects? A genuine samurai sword is almost a work of art - sure, it can also kill people but they can be quite exquisitely made. I don't own a sword and have no real interest in doing so at the moment but I can see the appeal of them, I'd guess that people can find similar beauty in guns and that has nothing whatsoever to do with their lethal abilities.

Just because I plink targets once a month at targets, does that mean that I should be looked at closely ?

You should definitely be looked at closely but it's not because you do target shooting.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I have no interest whatsoever of becoming an authorised firearms officer. I wouldn't thank you to carry a gun and would seriously consider leaving the police if I was told that I had to routinely carry a pistol.

I also have no inferiority complex. I merely enjoy shooting targets.

 

[robgmun]

Because some of them are fascinating and beautiful objects? A genuine samurai sword is almost a work of art - sure, it can also kill people but they can be quite exquisitely made. I don't own a sword and have no real interest in doing so at the moment but I can see the appeal of them,

You know what, i will have to give you that, samurai swords are beautiful works of art. But i'm happy to see real ones in a museum

I'd guess that people can find similar beauty in guns and that has nothing whatsoever to do with their lethal abilities.

That i just find odd and cannot get my head round that one. Beauty in guns? Riiiiggghhhttt

 

[Von Smallhausen]

You should definitely be looked at closely but it's not because you do target shooting.

But darling, we only met the once.

* cries *

 

[NeilF]

The answer, is, of course, that in the terms you have laid out, the risk of them being shot would have been reduced.

Thank you, so agree if Hamilton had instead been here today, there's a good chance he would not have been able to carry out the massacre he did in the 90s...

You've just demonstrated the thinking of many supporter of the current laws. If we agree the laws would more than likely have prevented Hamilton from shooting over thirty people, then how is that in any way a bad thing. Without the current laws a number of other shootings may well have taken place over the past decade. Why risk it!


At this point you'll bring up statistics, likelyhoods, and that guns don't affect crime or murder rates. But you've just this very second agreed that Hamilton most likely would have been prevented with todays gun laws... There was a massacre that most likely would have been prevented.

Of course people can still obtain guns (eg: illegally) today, but as people have repeatedly said, why risk actively handing guns out, sometimes to the very sort of people you do not want to have them (eg: Hamilton), when in return guns seem to bring no benefits to society to offset this risk.


Yes, statistically, things like Dunblane are unlikely, but how many are too many, when as you've agreed yourself, they are possibly avoidable by todays sort of laws. Personally I don't see enough benefits in allowing guns to see 30+ people (children) in a school shot for example. If your statistics mean that you are happy, fair enough. I, and most people in this country are not. And to be frank, how dare you criticise them for this...

 

[robgmun]

In comparison, how many school shootings have there in in America in the last 13 years?

 

[semi-pro waster]

That i just find odd and cannot get my head round that one. Beauty in guns? Riiiiggghhhttt

Perhaps beauty is the wrong word (although what I find beautiful other people may well not and vice versa) but as a piece of engineering they can be absolutely amazing with their precision tolerances and incredible efficiency.

But darling, we only met the once.

* cries *

I know, we must do it again.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Indeed.

 

[NeilF]

Why do you keep resorting to fallacy rather than evidence based debating?

Would you care to argue, evidentially, against the referenced position I have put across in this thread?

The point at hand infact is your clear disregard for anyones opinion that's not inline with yours. Worse still you then feel obliged to in effect insult these individuals again, for simply having a different opinion never mind how valid it is.

You've agreed that had Hamilton instead been around today, that more than likely he would not have been able to carry out the massacre as he did in the 90s. This is nothing more than logical and common sense. You therefore are agreeing that todays laws can prevent such disasters.


But still you throw your 'fallacy' word (amongst others) repeatedly at people who support this approach, even when you yourself have agreed that it can work.


The reason why I've spotlighted Dunblane is to pin you down. It seems to have worked...

 

[RDM]

To be honest i find it odd that people want to own something that's been specficily desgined to kill another human being.

And if someone whats something that badly then they need to be looked at closely

Does this just apply to guns or does it apply to all items that have been specifically designed to kill another human being?

 

[britboy4321]

Does this just apply to guns or does it apply to all items that have been specifically designed to kill another human being?

Before you say it .. at the start, bows were designed for hunting animals.

Guns, at the start, were designed for killing people.

I personally can't think of anything at the moment that was originally designed for killing people, that should be legal to own.

 

[robgmun]

I'm in shock, i agree with Britboy!

 

[britboy4321]

I'm in shock, i agree with Britboy!

Jees I'm in shock to. Can I please change my mind on whatever I said?

 

[RDM]

Before you say it .. at the start, bows were designed for hunting animals.

Guns, at the start, were designed for killing people.

I personally can't think of anything at the moment that was originally designed for killing people, that should be legal to own.

To paraphrase yourself, I wasn't asking you. Run along and play.