Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again -- you're lying to yourself.As I have said, that is nothing more than your opinion. Having an opinion is fine.Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"
Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.
Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.
I can predict a response.
First, it grandfathered previously manufactured guns. Of course to ban those meant a taking under the 5th amendment and would have required the gov't to pay owners for them. Assuming anyone turned them in
Second, it allowed loopholes in the features. So the gun couldnt have a 30 rd magazine sold with it but if you bought a 30 rd magazine it would still fit.
And probably others.
None of them would make the slightest difference in gun crime whatsoever, needless to say. But libs' response to failed policies is always "we didnt do it enough" or "we needed to spend more."
Reducing the number of guns available would make no difference to gun crime? Er, you might want to rethink that...
And we did the exact same thing here in America. It was called the Brady Bill, and it produced zero results. That's why when it came up for renewal, they turned the renewal down.
That's because it was a very watered down bill in the first place.
Lemme check. Nope, reducing the number of guns would not reduce crime. Actually the opposite is the case.
It is common sense that since licensing, background checks and turning in guns are all voluntary then people who know they will get caught will not do those things. Ergo, criminals will hold on to guns while honest citizens will lose them.
There is your common sense.
Again -- you're lying to yourself.As I have said, that is nothing more than your opinion. Having an opinion is fine.Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"
Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.
Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.
"Soundness" of an argument is not an opinion when that argument ids based on fallacy.
Arguments from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - such as yours - are inherently unsound
Now, if you find the testicular fortitude to actually post one of your "sound" arguments for consideration, I will demonstrate exactly how it is not.
You do realize that each state in our country creates their own gun laws, don't you? And those gun laws have proven to be ineffective in many of those states. In fact the largest terrorist attack since 911 happened in California; the strictest gun state in the country.
You do realize that each state in our country creates their own gun laws, don't you? And those gun laws have proven to be ineffective in many of those states. In fact the largest terrorist attack since 911 happened in California; the strictest gun state in the country.
why are we only talking terrorist attacks? Sandy hook, Columbine, Aurora have people who are less dead because terrorists didn't kill them?
It is common sense that since licensing, background checks and turning in guns are all voluntary then people who know they will get caught will not do those things. Ergo, criminals will hold on to guns while honest citizens will lose them.
There is your common sense.
None of those things are voluntary down here. Licensing is mandatory as are background checks and getting referees.
Now before you say "oh but criminals don't listen to those laws." What's the alternative? Get rid of all laws? No criminals follow the rules that's why they're criminals. Down here the consequences of getting caught make it not worthwhile. And when they get caught they pay the price.
That aside, how many people do you know who own firearms? Your country is awash with guns, that is why it almost seems an impossible task. I would say I have about 10-15 very good friends, and up to 100 other people I am in regular contact with. Not one of us owns or has access to firearm...
True. I f reducing the number of guns reduced crime then the opposite should be the case, right? More guns should equal more crime.Lemme check. Nope, reducing the number of guns would not reduce crime. Actually the opposite is the case.
Yeah, right...
They are voluntary. Someone has to go fill out a form or present himself for fingerprinting. Those are things he must do on his own. If he knows he has a record and wont pass he wont bother filling out the form or getting fingerprinted.It is common sense that since licensing, background checks and turning in guns are all voluntary then people who know they will get caught will not do those things. Ergo, criminals will hold on to guns while honest citizens will lose them.
There is your common sense.
None of those things are voluntary down here. Licensing is mandatory as are background checks and getting referees.
Now before you say "oh but criminals don't listen to those laws." What's the alternative? Get rid of all laws? No criminals follow the rules that's why they're criminals. Down here the consequences of getting caught make it not worthwhile. And when they get caught they pay the price.
That aside, how many people do you know who own firearms? Your country is awash with guns, that is why it almost seems an impossible task. I would say I have about 10-15 very good friends, and up to 100 other people I am in regular contact with. Not one of us owns or has access to firearm...
Yes. I ask that you post what you think to be a sound argument so I can show how it isn't, and you refuse to do so.We're going around in circles here.Again -- you're lying to yourself.As I have said, that is nothing more than your opinion. Having an opinion is fine.Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"
Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.
Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.
"Soundness" of an argument is not an opinion when that argument ids based on fallacy.
Arguments from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - such as yours - are inherently unsound
Now, if you find the testicular fortitude to actually post one of your "sound" arguments for consideration, I will demonstrate exactly how it is not.
True. I f reducing the number of guns reduced crime then the opposite should be the case, right? More guns should equal more crime.
But there have been more guns sold in the last 8 years than probably the last 20 combined. And yet the crime rate is lower.
Oops.
Yes. I ask that you post what you think to be a sound argument so I can show how it isn't, and you refuse to do so.
That, is you're running away from a challenge you know you have no hope to meet.
Disagree?
Post what you believe to be a sound position and I will show you how it is not.
They are voluntary. Someone has to go fill out a form or present himself for fingerprinting. Those are things he must do on his own. If he knows he has a record and wont pass he wont bother filling out the form or getting fingerprinted.
As for doing away with all laws, that is the standard reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You do away with laws that logically and demonstrably do not achieve even a modest amount of their aim. Like gun control.
It is impossible task to remove guns because yes, we are awash in guns. 300M at least in a country of about 350M I thank G-d for every one of them too. So we agree that getting rid of guns in the US is impossible, and that trying to reduce the number is foolish.
I dont think I know 20 people who dont own guns.
They are voluntary. Someone has to go fill out a form or present himself for fingerprinting. Those are things he must do on his own. If he knows he has a record and wont pass he wont bother filling out the form or getting fingerprinted.
As for doing away with all laws, that is the standard reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You do away with laws that logically and demonstrably do not achieve even a modest amount of their aim. Like gun control.
It is impossible task to remove guns because yes, we are awash in guns. 300M at least in a country of about 350M I thank G-d for every one of them too. So we agree that getting rid of guns in the US is impossible, and that trying to reduce the number is foolish.
I dont think I know 20 people who dont own guns.
They are only voluntary only in the way getting a driver's license is voluntary.
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact. And guess what? The vast majority are happy about it.
Yep, that is one point I do agree with you. If you were to get serious about gun control etc, then anybody taking it seriously would have to add a caveat that it would take time to work. Probably 10 years.
They are voluntary. Someone has to go fill out a form or present himself for fingerprinting. Those are things he must do on his own. If he knows he has a record and wont pass he wont bother filling out the form or getting fingerprinted.
As for doing away with all laws, that is the standard reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You do away with laws that logically and demonstrably do not achieve even a modest amount of their aim. Like gun control.
It is impossible task to remove guns because yes, we are awash in guns. 300M at least in a country of about 350M I thank G-d for every one of them too. So we agree that getting rid of guns in the US is impossible, and that trying to reduce the number is foolish.
I dont think I know 20 people who dont own guns.
They are only voluntary only in the way getting a driver's license is voluntary.
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact. And guess what? The vast majority are happy about it.
Yep, that is one point I do agree with you. If you were to get serious about gun control etc, then anybody taking it seriously would have to add a caveat that it would take time to work. Probably 10 years.
