Ooh, this manages to be an example of several fallacies at once. Let's examine them. 1. Red Herring. The original quote was satirizing the comparison of guns with locks and guard dogs, when clearly the relevant difference is guns KILL PEOPLE. No mention was made of guns being the cause of The Fall or whatever. 2. Straw Man. Again, if I had said anything that implied that guns were the cause of violence to begin with, then this would be a viable piece of sarcasm. I didn't, so it's a misrepresentation of my views. 3. False Dilemma. The implication is that because there was violence before guns, adding guns makes no difference. This is patently and obviously false. Good job! I hope you pull this out again when somebody invents a biological weapon that anybody can cook up in their back yard, and spout it with your last gagging breath as the human race goes under. (Your turn - I'm sure I violated SOME rule of argument there.) Incidentally, serious question: if the second amendment covers automatic weapons, what doesn't it cover? Does it cover a suitcase nuclear weapon? What if I don't feel secure without it?
Please explain the point. Are you implying that guns are as useful for non-lethal purposes as matches and cars? Second hand smoke is not really an analogy you want to make, because smoking has been made illegal in a vast number of places precisely because it leads to fatalities. In other words, Americans have been remarkably accepting on restrictions to their freedom for the general good. If only gun nuts were as reasonable as smokers. Alcohol - they tried that and invented organized crime. Because people expect to get high. Strange as it may seem to Americans, people do not expect to own guns to the same degree. I doubt the black market in guns would seriously rival the black market in anything mind-altering.
There are lots of ways to kill people. In the wrong hands, almost anything can be a weapon. And if you don't think the black market in guns isn't massive, then I have no idea what to tell you.
Especially ACTUAL FUCKING WEAPONS. The thing is, they're designed for it. Clearly there are too many restrictive gun laws. Won't somebody see sense?
No debate there. I've been to Flint. Damn. I couldn't imagine a place more dangerous than between Michael Moore and an all you can eat buffet. Vaya con Dios.
max..... you're smarter then this bro. What if, what if, what if? Those things don't, guns do. I respect everybody's opinion, but had that freak not had a gun in his hands today, people would be alive........ would love to see anybody argue that.
One can design almost anything to be a weapon. Why are guns special? You can't stop someone who wants a gun from getting one, any more than you can stop someone who wants a joint from getting one. How are more restrictive laws going to change anything but keep people from getting guns who would use them for self-defense?
Let's take a look at your arguments here: 1. Red Herring. The original quote was satirizing the comparison of guns with locks and guard dogs, when clearly the relevant difference is guns KILL PEOPLE. No mention was made of guns being the cause of The Fall or whatever. Except you attempted to rebuff his point by pointing out the horrors of a world war. guns KILL PEOPLE just as wars KILL PEOPLE and wars have been KILLING PEOPLE for thousands of years. With or without guns. Period. 2. Straw Man. Again, if I had said anything that implied that guns were the cause of violence to begin with, then this would be a viable piece of sarcasm. I didn't, so it's a misrepresentation of my views. Outlandish sarcasm begets outlandish sarcasm. If you are not implying that guns are the cause of violence, then what is the point of removing them entirely? If violence will still exist, what exactly are you implying? 3. False Dilemma. The implication is that because there was violence before guns, adding guns makes no difference. This is patently and obviously false. No it's not. There was violence before guns (knifes, swords, rocks, sticks) and there will be violence after guns. Do you think people will suddenly stop killing each other? That's rather naive and childish.
people spaz out and stab people all the time, there really is no way of knowing this guy wouldnt have came to the mall with a samurai sword or any other number of weapons or devices
How many people here would be cool with running with "what if" scenarios if we were arguing about LMA's post play? Nobody? Okay then. Please apply the same rigor to arguments about weapons that you do about LaMarcus Aldridge.
Have no idea what this dude's motive was (remember, though, he offed himself), but my initial response to you might be, say, suicide bomber?
