Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="perfecxionX" data-source="post: 7407791" data-attributes="member: 572854">Sorry it took me a few minutes of looking at your argument to make sense of what was wrong with it.  I believe it can be simplified to: P-criminals dont abide by laws, C-therefore gun laws dont affect criminals.   This is called a tautology.<a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tautology" target="_blank">Tautology - New World Encyclopedia</a>.Your argument is necessarily true, it can never be false because the conclusion simply restates the premise.  Its like me saying nuclear weapons aren't dangerous in the hands of a competent country.  This is a true argument(ignoring the exception of accidents, something that can also happen with guns), but in reality a competent country can become an incompetent country.  My tautology will still be true, but the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe has become very high.  If no countries have nuclear weapons there is 0% chance that a nuclear war will occur.  It is mathematical certainty.  In the same way a law abiding gun owner can buy a gun and then later very easily become a non law abiding gun owner.  Also in the same way 0 guns in the hands of 0 people give 0% chance of gun violence.  And as gun ownership increases the chance of gun violence consequently increases.  I hope you can now see why your argument is ultimately useless.With that said, let me say that i do not support an entire ban on guns.  I support more laws making it difficult for people to get guns, particularly concealable or high rate of fire weapons that make it easy for a crazy or dangerous person to hurt a lot of people in a matter of seconds.  Even more specifically, i support laws that make it difficult for people who are more likely to commit gun violence to obtain guns, such as convicts or the mentally ill.  Do even you think it should be easy for someone like jared loughner to get a hold of a high-cap glock?One last thing- i referenced data from a study that was published in a reputable academic journal.  That doesnt mean it is necessarily an unflawed study but thats why i include citations- if you want to pick apart the methodology or conclusions you are more than free to do so.  I wouldnt be surprised if that study does in fact have problems with it.  You can, and should, do the same thing with the claims youve made.  Just make sure they are from credible sources (academic journals or governmental reports), cite them, and if i am skeptical about the conclusions or data i have the choice to look closer at the given study.</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list