Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...

[DaveJ]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave

 

[Grand Mal]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave

Can you define, or even recognize, logic?

 

[Phys251]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave

Why Rule 2? Otherwise we're just arguing from our personal opinion. That goes for both sides of the gun debate.

 

[EdwinWillers]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave

How about articulating a premise, a debate topic other than the impossibly general "Gun Control?"

 

[Scatty Kitty]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

 

[Gozaburo]

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

Objectively bad argument because it can be flipped on itself.

1. Governments have an interest in protecting individual liberty and self-defense.
2. Guns/firearms are tools for self-preservation as much as they are for harm.
3. If the government prioritizes individual liberty and self-defense, and guns serve that purpose, then restricting firearms undermines citizens’ ability to protect themselves.
:. Governments should not overly regulate guns/firearms, as doing so restricts citizens’ fundamental rights and ability to ensure their own survival.

 

[SkyChief]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.

To me, Gun Control is hitting what I aim at, so naturally I'm a strong proponent for Gun Control, and to me, it makes sense. I would hope that other gun owners exercise Gun Control.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

The 2A rights don’t include the right to shoot (or shoot at) another person, thus (sufficient) “gun control” laws already exist.

 

[Mycroft]

Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...​

Sure.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?​

 

[Fearandloathing]

...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave

Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

The logic therefore is that Americans plan to kill other Americans.

If the only reason to have one is to kill another human and it is against the law to kill another human being then is not logical to insist on owning a hand gun. is not involved Every reason I have heard of keeping a kill machine made no ****ing sense whatsoever.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

My question is what is it about the Great USA that makes people so frightened of each other?

The only people who insist on having murder weapons at hand at all times. That's kind of sick when you think about it.

 

[Gozaburo]

Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

The logic therefore is that Americans plan to kill other Americans.

If the only reason to have one is to kill another human and it is against the law to kill another human being then is not logical to insist on owning a hand gun. is not involved Every reason I have heard of keeping a kill machine made no ****ing sense whatsoever.

Well America is the most powerful empire in human history and Canada is some irrelevant geopolitical backwater that chops trees and makes syrup or something.

Apparently America is doing something right.

 

[RF667799]

Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

The logic therefore is that Americans plan to kill other Americans.

Your logic and your "ifs" fail just because you start with a lie.

If the only reason to have one is to kill another human and it is against the law to kill another human being then is not logical to insist on owning a hand gun. is not involved Every reason I have heard of keeping a kill machine made no ****ing sense whatsoever.

 

[SMTA]

Can you define, or even recognize, logic?

Snort. Nope.

 

[SMTA]

How about articulating a premise, a debate topic other than the impossibly general "Gun Control?"

Arguing based solely upon opinion without verifying facts will accomplish nothing of value.

 

[SMTA]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

This isn’t about you.

 

[RF667799]

This isn’t about you.

But in the very first sentence in that post, she exposes the flaw in her thread. Her premise, argument, and conclusion are all the same.

 

[Noodlegawd]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used.

Yes you did. You just pretended that you didn't.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

Totally untrue.

 

[Cosmo]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.

That sometimes requires killing certain citizens, however. Hence cops have guns.

2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.

Guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects don't have meanings or intents. People have intents and assign meanings to things. One man's mass murder instrument is another's target-shooting toy.

3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.

Government regulates lots of things. It's the extent and manner of regulation that's in question.

:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

 

[Sweden]

Well America is the most powerful empire in human history and Canada is some irrelevant geopolitical backwater that chops trees and makes syrup or something.

Apparently America is doing something right.

Another example of the USA (not 'America') is rich delusion. A standard of living - and armaments - only made possible by stupendous borrowing from other states. Trump is only making a dreadful US economy worse still with his economically illiterate tariff obsession.

 

[LouC]

Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...​

Absolutely not.

 

[stealthycat]

So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.

see? first poster can't even follow the rules !

why? because

1. our Fed Govt allows cars, drugs, knives, swimming pools, atv's, sugar etc etc ... death is ok in the USA and the big one? abortion - 65 million dead because of that one. This one is FALSE

2. if guns/firearms were meant to kill, the 175 million gun owners with 450 million guns would kill thousands daily and each year, sportsmen spend billions of hours in the field with guns in our hands ... and we don't kill people, so this one is FALSE

3. The Govt DOES put common sense gun laws in place, we have them, right along side common sense knife laws, hammer laws, auto laws etc. So this one is FALSE



The core problem is always one thing - violent people/violent acts. That's it, period, end of story. Literally everyone could carry an AR strapped to their backs every day ... and if nobody is violent? no issues at all. Guns don't assault, guns don't make people violent. They can be used in acts of violence, yes, like knives can be ..... but the core problem isn't the weapon.

 

[Gozaburo]

Another example of the USA (not 'America') is rich delusion. A standard of living - and armaments - only made possible by stupendous borrowing from other states. Trump is only making a dreadful US economy worse still with his economically illiterate tariff obsession.

Fortunately the jury is still out on whether or not modern monetary theory is real. Most economists agree it is legitimate and so the debt is a signal of American strength at least as much as it is a sign of its perceived weakness.

You see, unlike geopolitically irrelevant countries like Sweden, the US doesn’t need to play by conventional rules of war and economy because we’re the global empire. Furthermore, countries like Sweden are effectively American vassals, so it’s actually in your interest that the US economy is flourishing and the dollar is strong. If the dollar crashes, Swedes are going to suffer just as much as Americans will.

Don’t get me wrong - I totally get the impotent seething from the vassal states. It must really suck not having true autonomy over your own nation.

 

[soylentgreen]

The 2A rights don’t include the right to shoot (or shoot at) another person, thus (sufficient) “gun control” laws already exist.

The 2A does not specifically mention the word gun. One has to assume that is an intent. Just as one would assume that a well regulate militia which is specifically mentioned is not there to just shoot targets.