Let's talk about Gun Control!
- Thread starter Croc
- Start date
- Status
I made no argument in my comments on your post, you've projected a fallacy fallacy on me, which is a form of red herring (Ad hominem). Attacking me, instead of my words.
“a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.” You didn’t make an apparent counter argument to any of the arguments you referenced, but the idea of “fallacy, fallacy, fallacy”, you’re attempting to make the arguments invalid because they contain a fallacy. Just pointing out that the fallacy you pointed out in mine wasn’t even an argument (or well, wasn’t aimed to be)
This is some fallacy ception, and I want no more part of it.
I think the problem starts in your first sentence. By removing guns is such a simple phrase to exclaim yet just as impossible to act on. To respond to your actual point though, I believe that is completely true; but(!) people will still get guns and still cause just as big of a problem. Now that doesn't mean we aren't making progress to reducing mass shootings, but we are just as close to the current state then we will probably ever be to a mass reduction in shootings. I neither saying your solution isn't beneficial or in the wrong direction, but I feel that there is much more impactful and reasonable solutions than this.
*To add on to my point earlier, 40% of inmates caught in 13 states with the lowest regulations on ownership of firearms said that they obtained their guns illegally. 40% might not seem big to some, but 40% of people who have possibly done some kind of crime with a firearm got it illegally? That is quite the bit of people; and that's just those who are caught. So do I still think that by making guns completely illegal we will have less shootings, sure; but do I think it would drop the amount that much, no. And this can totally not apply to guns, but the general trend when supply goes down for something as huge as the gun market in America of all places, demand will (most likely) start to climb, causing people to find them in many different ways.
Last edited:
In my defense, I wasn't actually attacking or insulting anyone! Or if it appeared that way, it certainly wasn't my intent.
Looking back, I guess I was using the "threat" of insult to push people towards my argument (that a total ban isn't good). I was implying that if they thought so, they were being unintelligent and dishonest.
Regardless, I wasn't trying to put anyone down, my apologies if it seemed so!
And that's good, refer to my first comment on this thread.
The constitutional (assuming the 2nd amendment is irrelevant) removal of guns in the most armed nation is literally impossible. Look at the buyback programs in various shithole Democrat cities, they can only get back old antiques or hi points. The only way to effectively remove all guns in the US is to do it by force which will not happen so you anti-Americans should talk about a different solution.
Before just saying something outrageous, explain how it would be possible. Because "removing guns" from the US will not work.[DOUBLEPOST=1564975212][/DOUBLEPOST]
They would try to use a car most likely. Because it gives them tons of metal armor and is a damaging weapon when used as so.
The NRA pays people who already agree with them not the other way around. This statement makes the assumption that Democrats are pure-of-heart politicians that can not be bought with the NRA's dirty blood money. Don't have such a pretentious world view please.
Don't like what you called cities but otherwise this is very valid. I saw a news article on some dude making guns, selling them back, then buying more guns.[DOUBLEPOST=1564975345][/DOUBLEPOST]Well I'm off to bed, I'll respond to more tomorrow. Stay safe everyone!
Yeah guys were buying $50 hi points and selling them back to the police department for something like $150-$200.
- Status
