|
|
#31
10-05-2005, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
As there is no sanity in the pro-gun camp, the only sane position is to be against gun ownership. [/ QUOTE ] In the formal study of logic, this is a fallacy known as "begging the question". (As a pedantic aside, 99% of the people who use that phrase use it incorrectly.) From Wiki: [ QUOTE ] In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted" Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy") in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. [/ QUOTE ] Your premise, that wanting to own a gun is insane, is used to prove your proposition, that not wanting to own a gun is sane. Your premise and your proposition are identical. With a plug for our host, the statement that 2+2=4 contains more information than your statement. [ QUOTE ] I don't know a single person who owns a weapon. And most of them are highly intelligent people. [/ QUOTE ] Another logical fallacy, this one called appeal to authority. [ QUOTE ] An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. This is the case when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not an expert on dental hygiene. [/ QUOTE ] Your statement says (or implies): 1. I know some intelligent people (we won't get into that). 2. Those people don't own guns. 3. Therefore, no intelligent person owns a gun. Well, I know some intelligent people who do own guns. So there, Mr. Smartypants. Nah nah nah nah. Refute that logic! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] We have reached the point with guns that there is no management of the risk/rewards for the gun industry. If the gun industry does not want child locks (it may add a few dollars to the cost) the NRA and the gun nuts trot out their mis-interpretation of the second amendment and the pols fall into place. [/ QUOTE ] This displays total ignorance of the issues, of guns, of gun safety, and of the way that the industry operates. Every reputable gun manufacturer provides some provision for locking a gun. Some build it into the gun, some provide a separate lock with every new gun sold. The industry objects to being told how they have to do it. They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use. I would certainly rather have gun safety designed by the engineers at Winchester than by the likes of John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. The impact of tort law is when victims of crimes are allowed to sue on gun manufacturers who were in no way responsible for the misuse of their product. If a fuel tank explodes, there may be reason to sue the car maker. If a drunk kills someone on the road, it is the fault of neither the car maker nor the brewer. 
|
|
#32
10-05-2005, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, what's the reason? [/ QUOTE ] To reduce the rate of death by accidental discharge of a firearm. [/ QUOTE ] That cannot even remotely be construed as a "fine" reason unless you hold that every product which sometimes results in accidental death should be banned irrespective of all other considerations (such as rate of occurrence, utility value, etc). So, I'm still wondering to what ACPlayer was referring as being a "fine reason". The use of automobiles results in a great many accidental deaths. Maybe ACPlayer should post a news story about a particular traffic fatality, which apparently occurred due to negligence or carelessness, and entitle it, "A Fine Reason To Ban Automobiles". Yeah I think that would be a good thing for ACPlayer to get busy on right away;-)
|
|
#33
10-05-2005, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
Not good enough. I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun. [/ QUOTE ] Ah, because YOU haven't needed one, it's not good enough. Well, I'm certainly convinced. :rolls eyes in an obvious manner:
|
|
#34
10-05-2005, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
You may wish to pass along the quote (and it is a fine one) to Bush and to those who support going into Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi. [/ QUOTE ] You guys are hilarious. What does Iraq have anything to do with your authoritarian position on gun ownership? I'm surprised you guys are bringing up Iraq in the mid-limit online forum in response to questions about start hand reqs! [ QUOTE ] It is not applicable to my position. [/ QUOTE ] The authitarian do-gooders NEVER think they are brining tyranny. But they are. And you are one of them. You have made that plainly clear on this board. natedogg
|
|
#35
10-06-2005, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
This is simply casuistic, cockeyed, dopey, fallacious, false, far out, fatuous, faulty, groundless, hollow, implausible, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsequent, inconsistent, incorrect, invalid, irrational, mad, meaningless, nutty, preposterous, screwy, senseless, sophistic, sophistical, specious, spurious, unconnected, unproved, unreasonable, unscientific, unsound, unsubstantial, untenable, wacky, without basis, and without foundation in rational thought. [/ QUOTE ] See, it is easy to look up a thesauraus and yet be wrong.
|
|
#36
10-06-2005, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
I have not offered a proof of the insanity of gun ownership. I made a statement of opinion. There is a difference. Hence your splendid and logical proof that my logic is incorrect, is, in fact, incorrect. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ] If a drunk kills someone on the road, it is the fault of neither the car maker nor the brewer. [/ QUOTE ] Let the jury decide. Not congress. This brings the gun safety into the protection of a free market. Protecting the gun makers from lawsuits is protectionism. [ QUOTE ] They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use. [/ QUOTE ] You are wrong about this. They want to build weapons at the lowest cost that they can get away with.
|
|
#37
10-06-2005, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised you guys are bringing up Iraq in the mid-limit online forum in response to questions about start hand reqs! [/ QUOTE ] Say what! Drunk? High? [ QUOTE ] The authitarian do-gooders NEVER think they are brining tyranny. [/ QUOTE ] Read the post about begging the question. Easy to sling mud. Hard to be rational.
|
|
#38
10-06-2005, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
The use of automobiles results in a great many accidental deaths. Maybe ACPlayer should post a news story about a particular traffic fatality, which apparently occurred due to negligence or carelessness, and entitle it, "A Fine Reason To Ban Automobiles". [/ QUOTE ] Maybe their are no news stories of young siblings killing each other with cars. Maybe thats the difference. Maybe thats why the argument that you can compare an everyday household object with a gun and say 'Look they kill by accident too' is lazy and flawed. If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. If you want to convince me that the death of this young child was worth the benefits that general gun ownership conveys then by all means try. But please don't insult my intelligence with the 'if it wasn't the gun that killed him it could easily have been a car accident or the rat poison under the sink' angle.
|
|
#39
10-06-2005, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is simply casuistic, cockeyed, dopey, fallacious, false, far out, fatuous, faulty, groundless, hollow, implausible, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsequent, inconsistent, incorrect, invalid, irrational, mad, meaningless, nutty, preposterous, screwy, senseless, sophistic, sophistical, specious, spurious, unconnected, unproved, unreasonable, unscientific, unsound, unsubstantial, untenable, wacky, without basis, and without foundation in rational thought. [/ QUOTE ] See, it is easy to look up a thesauraus and yet be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] It was an attempt to lighten the mood with the obvious... So you willing to take an NRA course? -Gryph
|
|
#40
10-06-2005, 08:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] They want the option to build a safe product in a manner that they deem efficient and that their customers will use. [/ QUOTE ] You are wrong about this. They want to build weapons at the lowest cost that they can get away with. [/ QUOTE ] You both are right. To "get away with" it, the weapons they build will need to be safe, and they will need their customers to want to use them, or else they won't sell very many. What's so bad about minimizing costs?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
