Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[kabLe]

Is assuming that just because guns are banned legally that it would then be a direct cause to decreasing gun violence or that it would even work in our society because it worked (on a much smaller scale) in other countries not a hasty generalization? @BoM

 

weeds been illegal for almost 100 years if not longer and it’s only increased in use with states also saying fuck the federal government and allowing legal purchase. Is there any proof that this would not happen with guns and can you even make the argument that it would be effective without making a logical fallacy?

 

weed, heroine, any drug, prohibition, I’d say there’s more evidence that in American society the government saying the use of something that was heavily part of everyone’s lifestyle is banned has effectively done nothing to actually decrease its use so what evidence is there that in American society if somehow they banned guns that it would actually decrease the amount that there are in our country or their use without trying to draw a parallel to another society?

[jazzy]

1 hour ago, Gentoo said:

I didn't dodge this in Discord. I would use violence

Right, so just inferring here but I'm thinking here's your thought process:
 

Gun is a human right > Someone is attempting to take my human right away > I kill them, because it's my human right

 

The flaw in your logic is it's your opinion owning a gun is a human right. Just the same, wasn't it your opinion in another thread that abortion isn't an inarguable right? Sure is funny how abortion is arguable but gun rights aren't.

 

48 minutes ago, kabLe said:

weeds been illegal for almost 100 years if not longer and it’s only increased in use with states also saying fuck the federal government and allowing legal purchase. Is there any proof that this would not happen with guns and can you even make the argument that it would be effective without making a logical fallacy?

Weed's illegal federally and it's still regulated better than guns are. Just wanted to point out how hilarious that is. Also I think most people don't give a shit about weed given if your kid finds your weed stash they just get high. They find your gun they can kill someone. That's probably why everyone's so relaxed about it, you know?

51 minutes ago, kabLe said:

heavily part of everyone’s lifestyle

Big claim here- any validity to it? There's no federal register of gun owners in the US. But estimations come at around 30% of people polled as owning a gun. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Is it really part of "everyone's" lifestyle? They're certainly part of everyone's life, but lifestyle is an important distinction to make.

 

You're using what's called backwards induction. You're taking the end state of one thing and working backwards to prove the argument (Weed is still highly used despite being banned, therefore banning something doesn't work). There's nothing inherently wrong with backwards induction, except you're actively cherry picking the argument. Can a ban be circumvented? Sure, but just because something isn't 100% flawlessly reduced doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

I also would be careful of invoking prohibition into this argument, I don't really want to get into it too much but prohibition definitely worked, even after it was abolished. It wasn't a popular public opinion at the time, and it happening around the Great Recession helped create a lot of variables, but the science before and after prohibition doesn't lie: drinking levels were at an all time high in America pre-prohibition, and it took several decades to hit above that level. Prohibition curbed drinking, whether you want to add as many asteriks around that as you like, the data is there:

 

1 hour ago, kabLe said:

decreasing gun violence or that it would even work in our society because it worked (on a much smaller scale) in other countries not a hasty generalization?

On a smaller scale?
Other countries?

Bro, try the rest of the world. There are only like 4 other countries in the entire world that have as relaxed gun laws as we do. What makes you think the US is more different than the entire world?

[Gentoo]

1 minute ago, jazzy said:

Sure is funny how abortion is arguable but gun rights aren't.

Killing innocent children and abandoning responsibility for your actions and to your offspring = cringe

Defending your ability to protect yourself and family from external threats = swag

 

Please keep the outside unrelated discussions drawn for comparison to a minimum, it does nothing to further the comparison and just seems like you attempting to twist things to appear hypocritical in some way as if that nullifies the argument somehow.

[jazzy]

Missing the point. What makes your rights inarguable but others not? You're a hypocrite.

[Gentoo]

1 minute ago, jazzy said:

Missing the point. What makes your rights inarguable but others not? You're a hypocrite.

You're missing the point, I see mine as inarguable so I'll defend it with my life if I see necessary, I'm not opposed to others doing the same.

 

If you really want to play ball though, the right to defend against external potentially hostile or tyrannical powers is fundamental to preserving any inalienable or inarguable right - including abortion if you're inclined to feel that way, I think you really have to do some mental gymnastics to presume that someone doing something for you is inalienable though.

[jazzy]

20 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

I see mine as inarguable so I'll defend it with my life if I see necessary, I'm not opposed to others doing the same.

Your opinion of an inarguable right doesn't give you grounds to kill someone else just because they want to govern you. You realize you sound like a maniac right now? How are you any different from these people who shoot up city halls because they don't want to pay taxes?

20 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

If you really want to play ball though, the right to defend against external potentially hostile or tyrannical powers is fundamental to preserving any inalienable or inarguable right

So can I defend myself with a dirty bomb arsenal and a grenade launcher? Also I'd like to be able to buy an F-16 with working missiles.

 

Everyone has a right to defend themselves but there's no inalienable right you're allowed to any weapon you choose.

 

edit: Just to clarify, nobody is taking away your ability to defend yourself. They're taking away highly potent weaponry that can kill dozens in a matter of minutes.

[Gentoo]

6 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Your opinion of an inarguable right doesn't give you grounds to kill someone else just because they want to govern you. You realize you sound like a maniac right now? How are you any different from these people who shoot up city halls because they don't want to pay taxes?

See you on the news!

 

Why do you assume I would go out of my way to hurt people? I just want to live with my life and rights unmolested, and with the ability to defend myself from anyone who seeks to.

[Kieran]

Nothing will change as long as long as the Republican party keeps sucking up to the NRA for money. Our politicians have blood on their hands. Kids are gonna keep getting shot at recess and in class, and some people are so lost they thing having more guns will somehow lower gun violence (lol). 

 

Not even going to entertain certain individuals in this thread because they're so lost.

[kabLe]

43 minutes ago, jazzy said:

Right, so just inferring here but I'm thinking here's your thought process:
 

Gun is a human right > Someone is attempting to take my human right away > I kill them, because it's my human right

 

The flaw in your logic is it's your opinion owning a gun is a human right. Just the same, wasn't it your opinion in another thread that abortion isn't an inarguable right? Sure is funny how abortion is arguable but gun rights aren't.

 

Weed's illegal federally and it's still regulated better than guns are. Just wanted to point out how hilarious that is. Also I think most people don't give a shit about weed given if your kid finds your weed stash they just get high. They find your gun they can kill someone. That's probably why everyone's so relaxed about it, you know?

Big claim here- any validity to it? There's no federal register of gun owners in the US. But estimations come at around 30% of people polled as owning a gun. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Is it really part of "everyone's" lifestyle? They're certainly part of everyone's life, but lifestyle is an important distinction to make.

 

You're using what's called backwards induction. You're taking the end state of one thing and working backwards to prove the argument (Weed is still highly used despite being banned, therefore banning something doesn't work). There's nothing inherently wrong with backwards induction, except you're actively cherry picking the argument. Can a ban be circumvented? Sure, but just because something isn't 100% flawlessly reduced doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

I also would be careful of invoking prohibition into this argument, I don't really want to get into it too much but prohibition definitely worked, even after it was abolished. It wasn't a popular public opinion at the time, and it happening around the Great Recession helped create a lot of variables, but the science before and after prohibition doesn't lie: drinking levels were at an all time high in America pre-prohibition, and it took several decades to hit above that level. Prohibition curbed drinking, whether you want to add as many asteriks around that as you like, the data is there:

 

On a smaller scale?
Other countries?

Bro, try the rest of the world. There are only like 4 other countries in the entire world that have as relaxed gun laws as we do. What makes you think the US is more different than the entire world?

I'm almost positive that our country is the only country where the people gave rights to the citizens and the government is there to protect them. Isnt that why we are called the American experiment? Every other government gives their citizens their rights but we are by the people for the people? Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as I'll admit I'm not the most educated on that. But if that's the case, then other countries citizens don't have inalienable rights in the same respect that Americans do. Are we not the only republic with democratically elected representatives?

 

I don't find that graph accurate. According to the graph your saying NOBODY between 1919-1933 drank alcohol at all? It was illegal and nobody was like hell yeah man me I drink that shit every day. I could be reading that graph wrong but to me it says 0 liters were consumed by American citizens between those time frames which is A B S O L U T E L Y wrong and therefore that graph is not accurate? Prohibition was such a failure they reverted it? Also, I don't see anywhere in the bill of rights that says alcohol consumption was an inalienable right that shall not be infringed upon.

 

Considering we are "the american experiment", I would say uhhh yeah, we are different from the rest of the world. Isn't that why everyone still wants to come here? You can say that we aren't as popular as we used to sure, but anyone who escaped real authoritarianism will tell you this is absolutely the land of opportunity unlike most other countries. Freedom to bear arms being apart of that uniqueness. By saying there are only 4 other countries that have around the same gun laws (which i dont know which countries but I'm like 99.99% positive they don't have the same population or as many guns in total as we do, which again, makes us unique)

 

You say prohibition worked but they obviously only did it for about 15 years for a reason, most likely because it didn't work. I don't think historically that graph is accurate nor do I think you would find one that is accurate because again, I doubt in 1925 people were like, I'll tell this guy the absolute truth that I'm still drinking alcohol and in 100 years they'll no I was on the right side of history. I digress.

 

Sure you could say that weed is mostly harmless, on the other hand it could be categorized as a mind altering substance, same as heroin, which is why its also categorized the same as heroine...that harmless drug to the federal government is worse than cocaine. 

 

You also did not address my point about you using a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume that just because it worked in other countries who have a different way of life and a different governmental setup that it would work in America? I'm going to hold you to that. You also then used another hasty generalization to make the same assumption again.

 

"What makes you think the US is more different than the entire world?"

We are also very different from the rest of the world. We are probably the absolute most diverse country on Earth. I don't see any other country even entertaining taking in as many people from different backgrounds as we do, and if you do, in most countries you have to assimilate to them. Whereas our country promotes diversity of cultural background. Or is China more culturally diverse then us? This doesn't have anything to do with the gun debate but more just prove that you saying because x worked in the rest of the world it would work here. You don't take into account anything about the American way of life other than because of that way of life we probably won't ever ban guns but you still think it would work if we did.

[kabLe]

13 minutes ago, Kieran said:

Nothing will change as long as long as the Republican party keeps sucking up to the NRA for money. Our politicians have blood on their hands. Kids are gonna keep getting shot at recess and in class, and some people are so lost they thing having more guns will somehow lower gun violence (lol). 

 

Not even going to entertain certain individuals in this thread because they're so lost.

Republicans are willing to hear the lefts argument whereas the left thinks they are the god.

 

If you can't acknowledge your opponent you will never find common ground.