Breaking - Oregon college shooting

[missmuffet]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

The same guy with a bad temper would use anything as a weapon.  People kill people in all kinds of ways all of the time.  Not having a gun would not stop someone with a hot temper from killing.  It would only change how he killed.

That is true but in the heat of the moment at a gas station and that person ahead of you is taking too long a gun is a temptation.It has happened.Or road rage.

[missmuffet]

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

 

That would be the solution coming from someone who is a gun advocate.A gun is what started all of this.

No it didn't   a mentally deranged person started this....    and a stable trained armed person could have ended it quite quickly....

 

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

 

Yes,a mentally deranged person who unfortunately had access to a gun.I think it is impossible to keep guns out of their hands since there are so many on the street who will illegally give them a gun.

People use guns, and knives, natural gas and propane bombs.....     guns may be handy, but other things would fill in just as easy with the smallest of planning.       I posted a story about a city in China where they killed about 30 people and injured 140 more with knives.....   it's hard to get guns in China.    If  a person studies just a short time in sword use, they could kill hundreds before they would be stopped without another good swordsman or a good guy with a gun.

Personally I've gotten a bit too old to be fighting, and military injuries keep me from running, so to keep up with the young bad guys I carry a little .380 most of the time.    Home is quite a bit larger.

It is a lot faster I would think to get rid of a numerous amount of people with a gun than a knife.Maybe something better would be a bomb.

 

You can kill just as many people as this guy did, with a knife if you are going after innocent people that are unarmed.

 

With just one person with the knife and a room full of people?I doubt that.

[shoes_untied]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

you are going to hear all kinds of things.     I would disagree that anyone who shot down a few people is a "good guy"    unless they deserved it.

Thus the circular argument that I sighted earlier.  As soon as a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime with a gun, they are no longer a good guy and can't be used as an argument that guns are only a danger in the hands of criminals.  That is a tidy argument, I will give you that.  Unfortunately it makes no sense.

[Guest shiloh357]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

The same guy with a bad temper would use anything as a weapon.  People kill people in all kinds of ways all of the time.  Not having a gun would not stop someone with a hot temper from killing.  It would only change how he killed.

That is true but in the heat of the moment at a gas station and that person ahead of you is taking too long a gun is a temptation.It has happened.Or road rage.

It may have happened, but the point is that not having the gun wouldn't making any difference.  You can kill with your car.  Should people with bad tempers not be allowed to drive?  Road rage often ends up with people being run off the road too.  I see a lot of fist fights that come from road rage or people who don't like standing in line at a grocery store or something.

And how  would you keep a gun out of the hands of a person with bad tempers?   You wouldn't have any test to determine that until they lose control.    The answer is not banning guns.

[other one]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law?  The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories.  Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

 

It isn't guns Peep...   it's people.

The 2014 Kunming attack was a terrorist attack^[3][4][5] in the Chinese city of Kunming, Yunnan, on 1 March 2014. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators^[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.^[4][6] The attack has been called a "massacre" by some news media.^[7][8][9]

At around 9:20 pm local time, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station.^[10] Both male and female attackers were seen to pull out long-bladed knives and proceed to stab and slash passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants^[11][12] and captured one injured female. In the afternoon of 3 March, police announced that the six-man two-woman group had been neutralized after the arrest of three remaining suspects.^[1][8]

No group or individual stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack.^[13]Xinhua News Agency announced within hours of the incident that it was carried out by Xinjiang separatist terrorists,^[14] while Time and The New York Times reported that Uyghur Muslims were involved in the attack.^[3][15] The government of Kunming also said the attack had been linked to Xinjiang militants.^[10][16] Police said they had confiscated a black, hand-painted East Turkestan flag at the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

This is another argument fallacy that always comes up in gun discussion.  To say it is people and not guns is a fallacy off attribution.  When people complain about guns they are not attempting to state that there are not evil motives behind people committing these horrific crimes and that guns plan and launch the attacks on their own. They are complaining that these evil people have access to such effective killing tools.  I don’t know about you but I would be willing to bet that just about everyone here, if faced with the situation of being attacked would rather a person be armed with a knife than a gun.  They are not equivalent.  One is more affective which is the same reason many of you want to own one for self-defense instead of relying on just a knife. 

 

If it was all about intent then shoot, the whole hunting industry would be turned up-side-down.  Why spend the money on a gun for deer hunting when you could just go out with a knife (or hammer as I have also seen compared with a gun as just a tool) and get your deer?  Hopefully you see how ridiculous that sounds and while people aren’t as fast and agile as deer, it is still about the effectiveness of the tool.

 

I would disagree with your assessment of knives and guns....   I've taken several defense classes and I would much rather a person come at me with a gun rather than a knife, especially if they seem to know what they are doing......    unless they are just out to kill you up front, it is much easier to take a gun away from a person than it is a knife.....   but if they are just going to kill you outright, you aren't going to stop either and a gun hurts much less than a knife.

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law?  The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories.  Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

do you ever listen to Barbra Boxer....    or Harry Reid....    I'm not going to the trouble of posting video's here, but I've heard them both many times tell people they want to outlaw all guns...

 

BTW, it's much easier to take a gun away from someone than a knife...    and if the person is just out to kill you it's not likely you can stop either.....   but guns tend to put body parts into shock and are much less painful than knife wounds....    So I would much prefer you come at me with a gun......      let me get 4 to 5 feet from you in front, and you are mine with a gun, but it's usually really messy if you are able to get a knife away from a person and even if you are lucky enough to do so it usually causes seriously damages one or both hands and arms.....

Other one.  If this is the case, why aren't people opting for knives to protect themselves as opposed to guns.  It seems as though, if your assertion is correct it appears you have solved the whole issue.  Just carry knives and you will have an advantage over people with guns.

Because anyone with any sense will not let you get within six feet of them with a knife.....   you certainly won't me.....    so if you are going to take me out you better do it from at least ten feet out......  and that wouldn't matter if you are armed with either.....     I don't know if you are aware, but if you let someone with any knowledge get within ten feet of you with a six inch knife, you can't stop them from killing you even with a large caliber gun.  If they get that close, you first have to stop them from killing them and then shoot the perp.  To stop a person with a knife with a knife you have to be really good.

 

[missmuffet]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

you are going to hear all kinds of things.     I would disagree that anyone who shot down a few people is a "good guy"    unless they deserved it.

Thus the circular argument that I sighted earlier.  As soon as a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime with a gun, they are no longer a good guy and can't be used as an argument that guns are only a danger in the hands of criminals.  That is a tidy argument, I will give you that.  Unfortunately it makes no sense.

The gun advocates are in denial and they have a ton of defensive arguments.

[other one]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

The same guy with a bad temper would use anything as a weapon.  People kill people in all kinds of ways all of the time.  Not having a gun would not stop someone with a hot temper from killing.  It would only change how he killed.

That is true but in the heat of the moment at a gas station and that person ahead of you is taking too long a gun is a temptation.It has happened.Or road rage.

that's crazy...

[other one]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

you are going to hear all kinds of things.     I would disagree that anyone who shot down a few people is a "good guy"    unless they deserved it.

Thus the circular argument that I sighted earlier.  As soon as a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime with a gun, they are no longer a good guy and can't be used as an argument that guns are only a danger in the hands of criminals.  That is a tidy argument, I will give you that.  Unfortunately it makes no sense.

The gun advocates are in denial and they have a ton of defensive arguments.

and anti gun people are living in a fantasy world

[shoes_untied]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people.

The same guy with a bad temper would use anything as a weapon.  People kill people in all kinds of ways all of the time.  Not having a gun would not stop someone with a hot temper from killing.  It would only change how he killed.

Again this same argument of false equivalency that I pointed out earlier.  It's about the effectiveness of a killing tool in the hands of a person with ill intent.  If you think the tool doesn't make a difference then why carry a gun to defend yourself.  Sling shots and knives are far cheaper.  Not having a gun certainly would decrease the likelihood that a person with a hot temper will be able to kill for many obvious reasons.

[missmuffet]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law?  The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories.  Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

 

It isn't guns Peep...   it's people.

The 2014 Kunming attack was a terrorist attack^[3][4][5] in the Chinese city of Kunming, Yunnan, on 1 March 2014. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators^[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.^[4][6] The attack has been called a "massacre" by some news media.^[7][8][9]

At around 9:20 pm local time, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station.^[10] Both male and female attackers were seen to pull out long-bladed knives and proceed to stab and slash passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants^[11][12] and captured one injured female. In the afternoon of 3 March, police announced that the six-man two-woman group had been neutralized after the arrest of three remaining suspects.^[1][8]

No group or individual stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack.^[13]Xinhua News Agency announced within hours of the incident that it was carried out by Xinjiang separatist terrorists,^[14] while Time and The New York Times reported that Uyghur Muslims were involved in the attack.^[3][15] The government of Kunming also said the attack had been linked to Xinjiang militants.^[10][16] Police said they had confiscated a black, hand-painted East Turkestan flag at the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

This is another argument fallacy that always comes up in gun discussion.  To say it is people and not guns is a fallacy off attribution.  When people complain about guns they are not attempting to state that there are not evil motives behind people committing these horrific crimes and that guns plan and launch the attacks on their own. They are complaining that these evil people have access to such effective killing tools.  I don’t know about you but I would be willing to bet that just about everyone here, if faced with the situation of being attacked would rather a person be armed with a knife than a gun.  They are not equivalent.  One is more affective which is the same reason many of you want to own one for self-defense instead of relying on just a knife. 

 

If it was all about intent then shoot, the whole hunting industry would be turned up-side-down.  Why spend the money on a gun for deer hunting when you could just go out with a knife (or hammer as I have also seen compared with a gun as just a tool) and get your deer?  Hopefully you see how ridiculous that sounds and while people aren’t as fast and agile as deer, it is still about the effectiveness of the tool.

 

I would disagree with your assessment of knives and guns....   I've taken several defense classes and I would much rather a person come at me with a gun rather than a knife, especially if they seem to know what they are doing......    unless they are just out to kill you up front, it is much easier to take a gun away from a person than it is a knife.....   but if they are just going to kill you outright, you aren't going to stop either and a gun hurts much less than a knife.

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law?  The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories.  Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

do you ever listen to Barbra Boxer....    or Harry Reid....    I'm not going to the trouble of posting video's here, but I've heard them both many times tell people they want to outlaw all guns...

 

BTW, it's much easier to take a gun away from someone than a knife...    and if the person is just out to kill you it's not likely you can stop either.....   but guns tend to put body parts into shock and are much less painful than knife wounds....    So I would much prefer you come at me with a gun......      let me get 4 to 5 feet from you in front, and you are mine with a gun, but it's usually really messy if you are able to get a knife away from a person and even if you are lucky enough to do so it usually causes seriously damages one or both hands and arms.....

Other one.  If this is the case, why aren't people opting for knives to protect themselves as opposed to guns.  It seems as though, if your assertion is correct it appears you have solved the whole issue.  Just carry knives and you will have an advantage over people with guns.

Because anyone with any sense will not let you get within six feet of them with a knife.....   you certainly won't me.....    so if you are going to take me out you better do it from at least ten feet out......  and that wouldn't matter if you are armed with either.....     I don't know if you are aware, but if you let someone with any knowledge get within ten feet of you with a six inch knife, you can't stop them from killing you even with a large caliber gun.  If they get that close, you first have to stop them from killing them and then shoot the perp.  To stop a person with a knife with a knife you have to be really good.

 

I have been through defensive training and we were taught not to go within ??? It has been so long ago I forgot how many feet we were to stay away from the attacker with a knife.