Numbers for future reference [W:430]

[Black Dog]

Every state has reasonable restrictions and guidance on cars and pools and hammers and hoes and tractors and airplanes, etc. Why not guns?

So you are saying...

Waiting periods, age limits, background checks, straw purchases being illegal, ATF checks and rules for dealers, silencers and fully automatic weapons being heavily restricted is not reasonable? Hmmm? How many other rights are as restricted?

 

[vegas giants]

I have already shown you have nothing to offer but fallacy nonsense. Your wanting to switch the debate to pools is another perfect example.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Until you have a real argument backed up by more than hyperbole and fallacy we are done here.

I did not bring up pools. I responded to it. Do you have me confused with someone else?

 

[vegas giants]

So you are saying...

Waiting periods, age limits, background checks, straw purchases being illegal, ATF checks and rules for dealers, silencers and fully automatic weapons being heavily restricted is not reasonable? Hmmm? How many other rights are as restricted?

Almost every right has numerous restrictions

 

[JamesBY]

So you are saying...

Waiting periods, age limits, background checks, straw purchases being illegal, ATF checks and rules for dealers, silencers and fully automatic weapons being heavily restricted is not reasonable? Hmmm? How many other rights are as restricted?

Thank you. You make my point, and the rules are reasonable not restrictive.

 

[Black Dog]

I did not bring up pools. I responded to it. Do you have me confused with someone else?

No. Again with more fallacy argument, lol.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a misrepresented version of that position.

You have a nice day. Your posts are just to stupid and not worth the effort of any kind of real debate.

 

[Rucker61]

You don't get to decide for everyone what is reasonable, engorceable, constitutional, effective or necessary

This is a debate forum. We can debate the Constitutionality, effectiveness, enforceability and reasonableness of any suggestions posted here.

 

[Black Dog]

Thank you. You make my point, and the rules are reasonable not restrictive.

No you said...

Every state has reasonable restrictions and guidance on cars and pools and hammers and hoes and tractors and airplanes, etc. Why not guns?

Implying in no uncertain terms that states in comparison do not have reasonable gun control laws.

Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.

 

[Rucker61]

Thank you. You make my point, and the rules are reasonable not restrictive.

Why are these reasonable?

 

[JamesBY]

No you said... Implying in no uncertain terms that states in comparison do not have reasonable gun control laws.

Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.

That is not what I inferred, and no reasonable person would agree. Why should the states not have reasonable restrictions?

Your strawman fallacy is a false interp of what I wrote.

 

[JamesBY]

Why are these reasonable?

Why are they not?

 

[vegas giants]

No. Again with more fallacy argument, lol.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a misrepresented version of that position.

You have a nice day. Your posts are just to stupid and not worth the effort of any kind of real debate.

I accept your insults as concession of defeat

 

[JamesBY]

The status quo is where a discussion begins.

If the status quo of restrictions on gun ownership is in question, then the questioners have to offer a case why not.

No one defending the status quo has to answer a "why not" opening by the affirmative.

 

[vegas giants]

This is a debate forum. We can debate the Constitutionality, effectiveness, enforceability and reasonableness of any suggestions posted here.

I agree completely. You are entitled to your own opinions....but not your own facts

 

[JamesBY]

I accept your insults as concession of defeat

His anger is based on a Straw Man fallacy that misrepresents what he said.

A number of board members do that because they can't attack the poster openly.

 

[Black Dog]

That is not what I inferred, and no reasonable person would agree. Why should the states not have reasonable restrictions?

You just showed my interpretation to be true. Look at your statement...

Why should the states not have reasonable restrictions? - JamesBY

As a follow up to this...

Every state has reasonable restrictions and guidance on cars and pools and hammers and hoes and tractors and airplanes, etc. Why not guns?

Your interp is false.

Not according to your own statements.

Again intellectual dishonesty will get you noplace.

 

[Black Dog]

I accept your insults as concession of defeat

That's fine with me. You have to live with yourself not I. :lamo

 

[JamesBY]

blackdog has used a strawman fallacy to misrepresent what I posted above. That is a clear loss for him.

States have reasonable, constitutional restrictions on guns.

That won't change.

 

[vegas giants]

His anger is based on a Straw Man fallacy that misrepresents what he said.

A number of board members do that because they can't attack the poster openly.

I am always open to civil debate. Some on here get very frustrated when their argument fails

 

[JamesBY]

Many of them, since they are not supposed to attack the other poster, result to Strawman Fallacy instead.

 

[Black Dog]

His anger is based on a Straw Man fallacy that misrepresents what he said.

Yes he did misrepresent what I said but that is no reason to be angry.

A number of board members do that because they can't attack the poster openly.

This is absolutely not true ad I can attack him directly as can anyone else. There will be consequences, would not be the first time.

 

[vegas giants]

That's fine with me. You have to live with yourself not I. :lamo

I am always open to civil debate. If you are not then you are not

 

[JamesBY]

Yes he did misrepresent what I said but that is no reason to be angry.



This is absolutely not true ad I can attack him directly as can anyone else. There will be consequences, would not be the first time.

That is absolutely true, many strawman because they are afraid of the penalties of attacking personality.

 

[Black Dog]

blackdog has used a strawman fallacy to misrepresent what I posted above. That is a clear loss for him.

States have reasonable, constitutional restrictions on guns.

That won't change.

You obviously have no clue what a straw man is. I did not misrepresent what you posted. It is clear that you feel state's need more gun control laws, is it not? If that is the case, then the ones in place are not enough, correct? You said states have reasonable laws for cars etc, so you feel they are reasonable and did not suggest in any way they need more, unlike guns.

Now this is a yes or no question. Do you feel state's need MORE gun control laws, yes or no.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I guess its beyond your ability to understand that gun bans won't change suicides or people already banned from owning guns from shooting others. So the bannerrhoid movement is focusing on a very small number of gun deaths and that is why the BM is doomed to fail as a crime control movement. rather we know the BM is designed to attack lawful gun owners who, in terms of percentages, are statistically irrelevant when it comes to firearms crimes

Pure drivel, it's already been shown that imposing an obstacle to suicide drastically reduces the number of suicides. On more than one occasion. Say whatever else you want, but it's pure NRA propaganda to assert that people will still find a way to kill themselves without a gun. A gun is an easy button, available at the exact time you shouldn't have an easy button. It gives you no time to second guess, or consider the consequences. It's not about reducing the ways of killing oneself, its about curbing the impulsive nature of the decision.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/can-obstacle-prevent-suicide

This has always been my point, the NRA and its lackeys are all about propaganda. You all will say or do anything, and in the long run people will eventually get tired of your bull****. The NRA endangers gun rights more than any leftwing liberal ever could. People can only listen to the numbers are justifiable so many times, while watching 1 child a week die from a gun because the NRA prevents laws that punish irresponsible people when they don't store their gun properly.

1 child is killed every day from an accidental shooting in the U.S. - National | Globalnews.ca

The numbers are not justifiable, not in the slightest. Because this is human life we're talking about. And if you and the other tiny dicks over at the NRA don't stop preventing people from finding ways to make guns safer, you will find you need another way to compensate when people get tired of your bs and do serious damage to gun rights just to spite you and your whackjob organization.

 

[Rucker61]

Why are they not?

Since I asked you first, and it's your position, perhaps you can address why they are reasonable.