I have decided that the truth is the following.

The purpose of designing guns is to shot bullets thereby giving humans the ability kill other humans quickly and efficiently.

Good night all.

It's good that you seem to have come around to recognising that without inclusion of its primary purpose as a weapon to kill, injure, or disable live targets, there's much that simply wouldn't make sense about guns and our relation to them.

Hopefully, you'll also be able to see that this similarly applies to innumerable other things, like candles and pens.

Here's your next task: admit that those who see banning guns as a threat to all of their rights are being unreasonable, given that it's an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Guns don't kill people on their own. — Thorongil

Oh right, I see. Thanks for that.

What the person holding it does with the ink is of no concern to the pen. — Sir2u

Are you sure about that? Because I thought that it was of great concern to the pen.

Good thing we've you two around to set us straight.

Gotta keep winding up this topic.

But your questions suggest that you haven't properly read or understood what I've written, and I don't see it as my duty to come running along to help you each time - especially when you can barely refrain from resorting to insults.

But your questions suggest that you haven't properly read or understood what I've written, — Sapientia

Do you really think that I don't understand what

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

means. :confused:

Answer the question if you can.
How do you know this, prove it to be true. So many millions of people just have to be wrong so that you can be right, not going to happen

especially when you can barely refrain from resorting to insults. — Sapientia

But I do restrain from insulting people, which might be something you should learn to do. What was that word you used? Oh yes, DINGBAT.

So either come up with an answer or shut up. Or are you scared to admit that you are blowing hot air.

I think we both know that I haven't actually called you or anyone else on this forum a dingbat.

Now, when you've composed yourself, please try to understand the following:

1. In contrast to what you said about not knowing whether those who see banning guns as a threat to all of their rights are right or wrong, I know that they're wrong, because they're wrong in the sense that it's an instance of the slippery slope fallacy. If you don't see it, then you don't see it. Some people are more adept at spotting fallacies than others.

2. I've criticised you before for inaccurately paraphrasing what you presumably think I've said or meant, and then turning that on me in the form of a loaded question, as if I'm somehow responsible for that. But I'm not, and yet you keep doing it. You know how to use the quote function, and you know how to copy and paste, so it's easily avoidable.

Like I've said, people buy guns knowing what their primary purpose is, and, typically, they don't expect to use them for that purpose except in emergencies. Your misleading simplifications of what I've said and your non sequiturs are not my problems, they're yours. I hope you can resolve your problems without relying on my help, because I do so begrudgingly.

1. In contrast to what you said about not knowing whether those who see banning guns as a threat to all of their rights are right or wrong, I know that they're wrong, because they're wrong in the sense that it's an instance of the slippery slope fallacy. — Sapientia

Not good enough. How is it an instance of the slippery slope fallacy?

I've criticised you before for inaccurately paraphrasing what you presumably think I've said or meant, — Sapientia

If you actually wrote properly no one would have to presume what you said, it would be clear. And who gave you the authority to criticize me. Just who do you think you are to take the liberty to do such a thing?

and then turning that on me in the form of a loaded question, — Sapientia

I am still not clear on what you mean by a "loaded question". My question was simple.

Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

All you needed was an answer the statement that "banning guns is an effective action".

This is something that you have repeated but never explained exactly what you mean by it. So how would it be effective.

"

You know how to use the quote function, and you know how to copy and paste, so it's easily avoidable. — Sapientia

What has this got to do with the price of jellybeans? Of course I know how to quote and copy/paste, that is how I have been answering your posts.

Like I've said, people buy guns knowing what their primary purpose is, and, typically, they don't expect to have to use them for that purpose except in emergencies. — Sapientia

To which I replied that by doing so it makes them potential killers. Due you deny that?

Your misleading simplifications of what I've said and your non sequiturs are not my problem, their yours. — Sapientia

I have stated things as you have written them, if there is any misleading it is not my fault that you have trouble expressing your thoughts. And I would certainly like to see an example of my non sequuntur, could you point some of them out for me.

Not good enough. How is it an instance of the slippery slope fallacy? — Sir2u

I don't care if it's not good enough for you. I don't have to meet your standard. It's an instance of the fallacy because it fits the description.

If you actually wrote properly no one would have to presume what you said, it would be clear. And who gave you the authority to criticize me. Just who do you think you are to take the liberty to do such a thing? — Sir2u

I did write properly and clearly. Michael understood what you failed to understand, which indicates that your understanding, and not my writing, is where the fault lies. And are you joking? This is a philosophy forum. What did you expect? I won't be going easy on you of all people.

I am still not clear on what you mean by a "loaded question". — Sir2u

Then look it up.

What has this got to do with the price of jellybeans? Of course I know how to quote and copy/paste, that is how I have been answering your posts. — Sir2u

Must I spell everything out to you? I find it hard to believe that you didn't catch my drift. The suggestion was that if you'd have done that instead of botched attempts at paraphrasing, then we could've avoided this problem. You should be questioning me on what I've actually said, rather than your version of it.

To which I replied that by doing so it makes them potential killers. Due [sic] you deny that? — Sir2u

We're all potential killers anyway, whether we buy a gun or not.

I have stated things as you have written them... — Sir2u

No, you haven't done so in what I'm objecting to. The evidence is there for all to see. You're in denial. And yes, I'm sure you would like me to jump through some more of your hoops, but I can think of better ways to spend my time.

It's an instance of the fallacy because it fits the description. — Sapientia

No it does not fit the description.

As for the rest.

Sappy said "Blah blah, yak yak"

Whatever, nothing of value there.

banning guns will not stop crime, killing, will not stop people from getting guns or make anyone safer. There was a crime recently where a mad man ran into a kindergarden and swang a machete at a bunch of people for some unknown reason. Also under this logic we would have to also ban nearly every tool and kitchen knife or tool with a sharp edge. Regulation of our guns is a good thing and training should be mandatory for all legal gun owners.

Regulation of our guns is a good thing... — SherlockH

Yes, it is. If more people saw it that way, then there'd be a better chance of getting the regulation required. The situation over there is to some degree comparable to how the situation used to be with smoking, when it was promoted and advertised on a much larger scale, and more widely viewed as a good thing, a cool thing to do, and not as harmful or dangerous as it actually is.

The land of the free and the home of the mass shooting.

most people are going for all or nothing though. Banning guns doesn't make sense. Regulation obviously makes sense. If we didn't have any guns we would still have crime. There is a number of other factors which go into shootings.

most people are going for all or nothing though. Banning guns doesn't make sense. Regulation obviously makes sense. If we didn't have any guns we would still have crime. There is a number of other factors which go into shootings. — SherlockH

I don't think that most people here are going for all or nothing, but rather somewhere in between. I think that most people here on my side of the debate are going for tighter regulation, because they recognise, as I do, that a total ban would be problematic as things stand. I view a total ban as an ideal. It would make more sense if things were different. And you totally misunderstand the goal if you think that it's to eradicate crime entirely. I can assure you that no one here is stupid enough to think that.

And I don't think anyone here on the other side of the debate is saying "do nothing".

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/09/heres-supreme-court-already-repealed-second-amendment/

I wanted to leave this here, just to give some perspective about where, say, I fall in the debate. This guy is to the right of me by a considerable margin.

And you totally misunderstand the goal if you think that it's to eradicate crime entirely. — Sapientia

Why is banning guns an ideal, then? Imagine that we do eradicate all crime. You would still apparently object to people owning guns. Why? You ought to know how bizarre that is.

Why is banning guns an ideal, then? Imagine that we do eradicate all crime. You would still apparently object to people owning guns. Why? You ought to know how bizarre that is. — Thorongil

What's bizarre is your reply. :brow:

Banning guns is an ideal because it's a better way of reducing gun crime, and accidents involving guns, and the more serious risk to survival that gun shot wounds cause when compared with wounds caused by other weapons such as knives, but there are even greater obstacles in the way than there are in the case of tougher regulation.

If the dire consequences that arise as a result of gun ownership and lax regulation did not arise - including the consequences relating to crime - and had no chance or very little chance of arising, then of course my position wouldn't be identical to my current position. I would see gun ownership as much less of a problem or not even as a problem. But that's pie in the sky.

Why is banning guns an ideal, then? — Thorongil

It is not an ideal but rather a goal by those who might be more short sighted than others. Even if a majority of American citizens could be convinced of it today, what happens in 20 years when our government has changed along with the rest of world? Who do we appeal to in order to get our rights of self protection back? And if they can take our right to self defense away, whose to say that we will even have our first right of freedom of speech left unaltered?
Crickets.....that is what you would hear from those in the role of power at the time. Allow the citizens of the USA to rearm themselves? In a time of crisis? Are you insane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71CSp8NJlc

This fellow seems to have a grasp of the issue.

Fortunately, the United States of America has a democratic political system with rigorous checks and balances which renders the dangerous notion of an armed citizenry redundant. I don't think that it's reasonable to base policy on paranoia and wild imaginings, as if the US has any real chance of becoming the next Syria. And, besides, as has been said numerous times now, an armed citizenry wouldn't stand a chance against the United States Armed Forces anyway.

I'd say that this is more than shortsightedness. I'd say that this is seeing things through a kaleidoscope of fear and ignorance. Stop with the scaremongering and do what's right. #NeverAgain

So how many fucking more times do we need to bring this damned thread up again?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts

Yep. A democracy that can't fix its issues.

There is some truth to the claim that if we illegalized all guns, there would very little difference in the death rate among gun rights advocates because they're not the ones getting killed by guns and, except in their wet dreams, they're not using guns in self defense. They just have guns for hunting, taking to the range, and for generally having a false sense of security, but they're not using the guns for harming people. And so from their perspective, they wonder why they ought give up their guns because others can't use their guns cautiously and safely.

It's like why do I have to stop chewing gum in class because a few others stick the gum under the desk sort of thing, except with guns and not gum.

And so from their perspective, they wonder why they ought give up their guns because others can't use their guns cautiously and safely. — Hanover

It is as logical as all of us having to give up speaking to one another in public because of a few people who cannot help themselves but scream "Fire" in a movie theater or a crowded casino.

It's like us all having to give up breathing because one person breathes by making annoying crow sounds, and then we all have to suffocate because of that one guy we'll call Keith. Yeah, thanks Keith. We're all dead because of you.

I thought that the article was interesting because it highlights the points I have been making.

There are just too many guns in the USA, the attitude of the people towards their guns and the fact that it is not the good majority of the people that are the problem but a very small percent that do.

If they start now with an educational program that teaches people the benefits of not having guns, start reviewing all of the people that already have them and begin a restrict control of who gets one in the future they might make a difference in a couple of generations.

If they start now with an educational program that teaches people the benefits of not having guns, start reviewing all of the people that already have them and begin a restrict control of who gets one in the future they might make a difference in a couple of generations. — Sir2u

They can't even successfully educate people in the basics of reading and arithmatic.

We don't need no education.