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.

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.

Liberty is not the power of doing what we ought, but the right of doing what we want, and liking it. — Sapientia

:rofl: Like keeping our guns maybe? :rofl:

Ignorance is like bad teeth, keeping your mouth shut stops people from noticing you suffer from them.

If you don't want to fix problems, don't cause them.

The first I can agree with,but how do you figure on doing second? :wink:

Well, if I was old enough to drink... :halo: — Lone Wolf

:gasp: How old do you need to be where you live?

Good night all.

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.

Welcome to the charade. :party: — Sapientia

So take your games home with you and let us have a serious discussion.
The door is over there on the left, close it on your way out if you please.

You don't seem to have understood. — Michael

Oh but I do understand, I just think that it is wrong.

The primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires even if the vast majority of fire extinguishers are never actually used. — Michael

Actually the primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to make the environment non supportive to the fire thereby extinguishing the fire. That is why there are so many types of them so that they work in the different types of fires.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people even if the vast majority of guns are never actually used. — Michael

So you believe as well that all of those people actually bought the guns to kill people with? That is sad.
Read what I said to Sappy about that.

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people is as wrong as to say that the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to spray water or fire or powder and not to put out fires. — Michael

Your half right, just not the half you think. Why are you so sure that you are right?

I said,
"The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think."

You replied,

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

I then asked,
Question #1

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions? — Sir2u

This is the statement that I asked for proof of.

You answer with a link to this,

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Question #2:
What the hell has a slippery slope fallacy got to do with proving your statement. It makes absolutely no sense to say that asking for proof is any type of a fallacy. I think you are just blowing wind because, like every other time you have been asked to prove something you have no answer.

But if you think that I am guilty of this type of faulty reasoning, please show me where.

I presume you're talking about your own confusion. — Sapientia

Yes definitely, that is what I am talking about.

You have been going on for so long saying that guns were designed to kill people and that their purpose is to kill people that I find it hard to believe that so many people have bought so many guns with the intention of kill people, even though only in an emergency, and then just have them sitting there for years and years.
Do you really think that all of those people bought those guns to kill people with?

Because, if you say that guns are made for killing, that is the only reason that they have bought them for. That is a serious thing to say, that means that there are maybe 300 million killers loose in the USA just waiting for something to happen so that they can kill someone.

How about pens? Why, they were simply designed to spread ink, rather than to be used for writing. — Sapientia

That is exactly what a pen does, dispense ink. What the person holding it does with the ink is of no concern to the pen. And pens get used for drawing, tracing, marking and sometimes for cleaning ears Just like the gun, they have many uses.

as well as having quoted a few actual gun designers themselves — Sapientia

I created a machine gun- Mikhail Kalashnikov

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire - Richard Gatling

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

Rapid firing of bullets was the reason they invented the machines, what the would be used for is something totally different.

If you really want to stretch things, I guess that you could say that they were both actually try to save lives by inventing them. One by saving his countrymen the other by ending wars.

Now please don't start telling me how pathetic my way of thinking is and that you are the only one that is right, because that is bull. Your opinion on anything or your interpretation of what something means is just as valid as mine, unless as you keep on insisting there is absolute proof of something. "Enough analogies" are not proof of anything.

So lets get something straight right now, if you are not prepared to answer or have no sensible answer to Question #1 do not even bother answering Question #2 or even replying to this post. Because I do not want to read anything else unless you answer them.

Put up or shut up.

Just an inarticulate grunt to ban guns. — Thorongil

Come on mate, what did you expect from them. They have no idea how to even look at the problem never mind solve it.
But I have an idea that would solve the problem, the one here in the discussion not the one in the US, let's just pretend that we understand what they are gabbling on about and maybe they will get their self esteem up to a reasonable level and be able to live a normal life. It must be awful try to cover up ones inferiority complex all of the time by belittling other people.

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

If it is, then you need to explain how exactly most gun owners don't in fact use it in this way. — Thorongil

Because, in most cases, its primary purpose tends to be reserved for emergencies. — Sapientia

I just noticed this gem. Talk about confusion. I don't know what to think now. So many people have been blathering on about guns being made to kill and then Sappy says most people have them for emergency use only and that is why they do not get used for killing.
I would say that there is something wrong with someone's think processes.

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions?

I understand that, but if you're someone that screams at the top of your lungs about "muh freedumbs" and how terrible the government is, then throwing money at gun violence - through the government - makes a whole lot of no sense. — Buxtebuddha

So who is going to pay for the regulation or banning of guns. If you think that the government would just be throwing money at gun violence makes no sense then you must have another candidate to foot the bill.

Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society? — Buxtebuddha

Maybe the government would not be so gung ho to the idea of throwing money at gun violence but who is responsible for the safety of the people?

And this looks like what? Are we to stereotype and shame every "mentally ill" person into some category that says, "likely to shoot up a Waffle House" or "drive a minivan through cafes"? Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society? — Buxtebuddha

Are you beginning to actually see the problems I mentioned?

I agree that better policing is important, but as above, what does this look like? Are we to give police more power? What sort of power? Better training, more funding, what? Do we want to fund the NSA/HLS even more, which will mean the giving up of certain privacy privileges, other freedoms, etc.? — Buxtebuddha

The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think. And now it appears that you are also afraid of losing your rights and privileges. If it makes for a safer country and you are not doing anything wrong why would you be worried about someone listening to you phone calls?

So when are you going to uncover your plan to save America? We are all waiting for it.

So you really think that saying that I am wrong makes you right?

Got news for you, it does not. It only means that you have nothing at all to add to the conversation.

So you pass your useless life telling other people that that they are dumb while being totally unable to show any reasons why they are. You refuse to even, out of courtesy, read the thread where thy information you ask for is and then say that other people are "intellectually disingenuous". Have you looked in a mirror recently?

I will, because of your obvious inability to understand the situation, review my position one last time. After that I expect you to provide reasonable information as to why I am wrong or shut the hell up.

I believe that because of the number of weapons already in existence and in the hands of the general public there is no feasible method of a total ban on guns. The shear cost and man power required is beyond that of a government that cannot solve the health and homeless problems that exist.

Any general ban on sales will make no difference on the present situation and probably little on the near future. There are according to government statistics about 300 million guns in the USA and over five million AK47 type arms among them. The only difference a ban will make is that decent citizens will no longer be able to buy them, criminals will still be able to obtain them freely.

Making gun license obligatory is sort of ridiculous because it cannot be enforced. No one actually knows who has most of the guns, except those of the honest people that already abide by the law and get permissions. A ban would mean that these are the first people to be punished.

A ban on sales to people with possible or actual mental, criminal problems or lack of proper training seems to be the best way to go if any sort of a ban is to be imposed. Unfortunately that will come at a serious cost, people will have to be hired and trained to oversee the mental health, criminal records and adequate training of anyone that wants to acquire a license.

A lot of those that really want guns for ill use will be able to find them without this hassle so the sales ban will be limited to catching those that do actually apply for permits. Unless this method is instituted in a very strict way it will not work either as has been shown to several times already by fully licensed killers buying the weapons days before the deed.

Scientific study of why people kill would help with to prevent future mass murders. But who is going to foot the bill for this?

A proper education is another way to help alleviate the problem. I am sure you can figure out how this will help.

Over to you now, this is my opinion. Go ahead and show me where I am going wrong.

I would be more inclined to talk about it if I thought that there was a genuine reason behind your request, or if I thought that it would be productive. — Sapientia

Same answer as always when there is nothing to say. How can you know whether it would be productive or not until you tell us whatever you have to say.

But I think that you're already largely aware of the situation in the US, — Sapientia

I have no real information about the situation in the USA that what I read on the internet.

and I think that you're very much set in your ways and can't be reasoned with. — Sapientia

If I am given a real reason to believe something I will believe it. Try giving me a real solution to the problem of guns in the US, At least something better than those that I have proposed that you think are useless.

You've demonstrated in this discussion and others an unwillingness to concede, even when it would be reasonable to do so. — Sapientia

No, I have demonstrated that I am not going to be bullied into excepting your ides that I consider incorrect, just as you fail to concede even when it would be reasonable to do so.
Try coming up with some reasonable ideas and tell me about them, but please don't repeat "ban the guns" unless as someone recently said you are prepared to specify how this would be done.

Here, sweetie, I'll try this again. — Buxtebuddha

Try using a little less sarcasm in your writing, it might help people take you as a serious person. Even if you are not one.

If your solution to gun violence is to combat "dangerous, criminal and mentally ill" people, what are the ways in which these people are to be dealt with? — Buxtebuddha

I could answer as some people here do and reply that I have no idea because I am not in a position to make those decisions or that I am not a law maker so it does not correspond to to me to decide.

But as I have said before, I have explained how I think these things could be accomplished. Go back and read them.

All that you have done so far is throw the coals in the laps of "scientific institutions", — Buxtebuddha

Which is a hell of a lot more than you have done yet.

not once providing any substance that might prove your solution right. — Buxtebuddha

How do you propose anyone prove that they are right without the proposal first being carried out, that is really pathetic. What I suggested is a possible way to solve the problem, I have never stated that it is the only way nor that it will work.
And the truth is I don't have to prove anything to you, it is you that is saying that I am wrong so it is up to you to prove that I am.

Please explain why my idea would not work, after you have read them of course.

As you say,

If you cannot do so, say so. If you will not do so, then I'm done speaking to someone so intellectually disingenuous. — Buxtebuddha

So sad, especially from someone that tries to act as an intellectual.
So far in this conversation your contribution has amounted to little more than "you are wrong" "you are incorrect" and a few insults.
Let us hear how to solve the problem from a true intellectual, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

And that means that it was designed with the capacity of being used to kill lots more people than was previously possible, otherwise none of it makes any sense.

So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. — Sapientia

No, they were designed to shoot lots and lots and lots of bullets. What the stupid people did with those bullets is not the gun's problem. If the people decided that it's purpose was to kill then that is the people not the gun, all the gun can do is shoot bullets not make decisions about where the bullets go.

Case closed. — Sapientia

That is the simplest way to admit that you are wrong. You don't even want to talk about those "circumstances" you mentioned?

I asked you how you would carry out the solution you've proposed and you've yet to answer. If you want to sidestep providing any substance to your argument, fine. — Buxtebuddha

I had already answered your question, in case you missed it here it is again.

Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill, and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u

The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so? — Sir2u

I'm more interested in what you support, seeing as I asked first, I think you should tell before I do. — Buxtebuddha

I have stated my position several times, if you do not understand then please feel free to ask for clarification on any of the points I have made.

As I've been trying to do, you need to explain why your alternatives will make the difference. — Buxtebuddha

Once again, I have already explained everything in previous posts, feel free to go back in the thread and read them. As for you trying to explain, how can you explain your position when you have not even stated what it is.

At present, you've made baseless assertions, so I have no reason to take you seriously until you do. — Buxtebuddha

At present, you've made absolutely no valid assertions, so I have absolutely no reason to take you seriously even if you do.

What? :lol: How about you respond to the content of my reply, thanks :up: — Buxtebuddha

I did reply, if you cannot understand it I am sorry.

I don't support a blanket ban on all firearms, but nice try. — Buxtebuddha

So exactly what is it that you do support?

I thinking banning AR-15's is also a solution sought in fixing a problem. Do you disagree? — Buxtebuddha

No I do not disagree. But I think that is roughly the equivalent of closing the barn door after the chickens, pigs and horses have run away. There are supposedly 5,000,000 AR-15's in the USA. Would banning the sales of them now really make that much of a difference? And it would not be cheap to remove those already out there.

I thought the point was obvious. He designed a gun, not just to shoot bullets, but to shoot bullets at people. Otherwise none of it would make any sense whatsoever. — Sapientia

I think you should read what he said again.

"and consequently, exposure to battle and disease would be greatly diminished."

His purpose in designing it was to stop or at least reduce killings in the battle field. He thought that if people new that it was useless to fight against a machine like that they would stop doing it.

Battle fields are where soldiers fight, not where people have guns in their houses. And again we come to the real problem, it is the people that decide upon the target, not the guns.

Focused by whom? The government? And do you want the government going even deeper into the bowels of healthcare and what constitutes mental illness? — Buxtebuddha

"What ever is necessary for the health and safety of the citizens" is the motto of those that believe banning guns is the solution to killings, so why should they complain about a thing like that?

Ah, yes, just throw money at the problem. I'm sure the government will spend it wisely, :up: — Buxtebuddha

So taking all of the guns off the people will be done for free? I have already discussed this in previous threads, you can read about it there. And I really do not think that any scientific investigation into what you consider a serious problem is "throwing money at the problem". I would call it seeking a solution.

Here's someone who actually designed a gun, basically saying that he designed it so that it could kill lots more people. — Sapientia

What is your point? It was not his fault that his gun was used by a bunch of idiots for purposes other than what he wanted it to do. He thought that the simple threat of a weapon like that would end the wars.

But what does this have to do with gun control? — Michael

If it was easier to tell when people were not fit to own guns then the police would be able to act against them. That is called gun control. Science could give them the tools they need.

If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha

I have never said that I am against gun legislation, what I have said is that I do not see how it will help as the people here are proposing to do it. A total blanket ban on arms will not work. It is not cost effective, it will not stop killings by people that want to kill, and as far as many people in the USA are concerned it is a violation of their rights. All of this has been explained in previous posts.

Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill, and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands.

Nobody is doing that. — Michael

By saying that guns need to be banned you are saying that they are to blame for the deaths, that if they did not exist there would be no problems.

The legislature is quite capable of passing gun control legislation whilst scientific institutions look into how to prevent house fires. — Michael

The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so?

Well, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets is like saying that the purpose of a car is to burn fuel to spin wheels. It's nonsense. — Michael

If you say so.

That's how they behave, but their purpose isn't their behaviour. Their purpose is the primary use to which they were designed to serve. In the case of cars it's transport; in the case of guns it's killing and/or hurting people. — Michael

Guns are designed to shoot bullets, people decide whether to shoot at a target on a shooting range, a deer in the woods or people in the street. It is silly to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of people.

I ask again; so? — Michael

You say that you want to improve health and safety right, would it not make more sense to look at the things that cause more deaths each year first and solve those problems before moving on to the smaller stuff.

Do we then expect to fall back into that darkness or sleep? — frank

A rather poetical way of describing life and death, but yes that is basically what it is all about.

I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcasm. — Michael

A true statement is rarely sarcasm. People decide what to do with artifacts, they have no choice in the matter

Health and safety. — Michael

Health and safety of whom? More people are affected directly and indirectly by cigarettes, booze and drugs. And lets not forget the people killed in car crashes, house fires and industrial accidents.
Everyday sickness kill more people than guns.

Besides, I reject the premise that not being able to own a gun is a punishment. — Michael

Never said it was, but banning guns means that you have to take away the ones that do exist. And that is punishment.

There's an aspect of us that's unknown. Agree? — frank

There are lots of things we don't know.

That's why the suggestion is to ban people from possessing guns. :brow: — Michael

But why should all of the people be punished for the sins of the few?

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

No, the primary purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. What the people do with them is something else.

I think that the fact that not too many people actually pick up a telephone to talk to their representatives in the local and national governments shows that the majority of the people have little interest in solving the problem. Or maybe they do not see it as a serious problem.

Dolphins are interesting? How so? Could you expand upon that a bit? — Sapientia

Way to go man.

That really does show how interested you are in having a serious discussion.

Wait a minute, does that answer fit the description of a strawman?

Ah, I see what you're doing. Let's see: do play dumb. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

If you say that this is a strawman, then in some way it is supposed to be refuting an argument that you made by refuting something else instead. Exactly what is being refuted here?

But let's not get into discussing little things like this.

I think that your idea about there being some sort of condition or circumstances under which gun banning might be accomplished sounds interesting. Could you expand upon it a bit?

Can you tell me what the first definition is when you type "strawman" into Google? — Sapientia

No. I never use google.

And then, can you tell me what I said about how you phrased your strawman? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

And, can you tell me, what's a loaded question? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

Wrong. It was clearly a loaded question. Don't play dumb. My response is to recognise it as such. — Sapientia

Being a loaded question does not make it a strawman. But why do you think it is loaded?

I don't think I need to enlighten anyone here. We already know about American gun culture and factors which play into that, like the NRA. — Sapientia

No problem, you suggested that there might be "right circumstances" that would make it effective to ban guns so I thought that you might know what they were. Sorry about that.

If I have they correct definition of strawman

A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.
A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the other side.
A straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

Then it was not a strawman because it was not even an argument.

Like that? — Lone Wolf

Yep, you got the hang of real quick.

Because we are depraved. — Lone Wolf

Speak for yourself young lady, I am just crazy. :lol:

Strawman phrased as a question. — Sapientia

Wrong, it is a simple question that needs a simple answer.

It would be effective, under the right circumstances. But the right circumstances would first need to be achieved, and that's where I'm interested in sensible and practical suggestions. — Sapientia

Simple and practical suggestions seem to be in short supply right now. Maybe knowing what the "right circumstances" are might help. Would you care to enlighten us about them?