4/20: Columbine Rememberance and Time to "Smoke the Vote" (?)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
And?

We're talking about Columbine here. If there were no guns, Columbine would not have happened. I never said Oklahoma City would not have happened. There would be less murder in the US if there were no guns. Not zero, less.
 
Z

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
And?



We're talking about Columbine here. If there were no guns, Columbine would not have happened. I never said Oklahoma City would not have happened. There would be less murder in the US if there were no guns. Not zero, less.
Click to expand...

You big city East Coast/Left Coast Democrats may not realize this, but much of America is still untamed. We here in the middle of the country are in imminent danger from ruffians, bandits, and savage Indians. Americans need guns to defend themselves.

Zephyr
 
S

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
And you argoument is retarded. Just because they chose to use guns does not mean if their was no-guns they would have said ah F- it I was going to go kill my self along with 13 other people.
 
Michael

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Infohawk - You have a poor grasp on what logical fallacies means.

By the strictest definition, no guns = no Columbine. Of course, the entire hsitory of the world would be different if guns never existed.

As has been pointed out, guns were already banned from the school and I'm pretty sure that minors were not allowed to have them as well.

The weapons used in the 9/11 attacks were box cutters and commercial aircraft.

There have been mass killings that did not involve guns and serial killings with nary a hint of a gun.

If you go beyond the narrow definition of Columbine, I think you would have a hard time proving that no guns = no killing.

Michael
 
R

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
Originally posted by: Infohawk
And?



We're talking about Columbine here. If there were no guns, Columbine would not have happened. I never said Oklahoma City would not have happened. There would be less murder in the US if there were no guns. Not zero, less.
Click to expand...

That's really nice and all, but let's be realistic here. Guns doesn't kill people, people kill other people. Those Columbine kids were crazy enough to plan on mass-murdering their fellow students, so I'm pretty sure they had other ways to kill their targets w/o the use of guns. (I.E. bombs, bombs doesn't have to be big to cause damage. A frag grenade/pipe-bomb in a crowded halfway can mow down couples of kids and maim many more. You can easily stuff a dozen in a bookbag and a couple in coat pockets.). We do need a stricter background check on sales of guns, but we don't need a complete ban on them. As for preventing Columbine from happening again, we just need to examine our society itself. It takes motives for someone to kill, and the two kids had suffered some severe psychological depression/harrassment to have embodied such killer-motive. We just need to put more effort in evaluating and monitoring troubled students. Also, something like this are bound to happen sooner or later. There are so many people/kids in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if there's thousands of kids thinking/planning on pulling another Columbine.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
"Of course, the entire hsitory of the world would be different if guns never existed. "
Not arguing with you there.

"As has been pointed out, guns were already banned from the school and I'm pretty sure that minors were not allowed to have them as well. "
Okay

"The weapons used in the 9/11 attacks were box cutters and commercial aircraft."
Okay

"There have been mass killings that did not involve guns and serial killings with nary a hint of a gun. "
Okay, that doesn't mean there would be LESS murder if there were no guns.

"If you go beyond the narrow definition of Columbine, I think you would have a hard time proving that no guns = no killing"
Yes, one would have a hard time proving that. I've never argued no guns= no killing. Try to read closely.

Check this out: I'm trying to help you: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/


One can be reasonable and be pro-gun BTW. But you're arguments have fallacies which are symptoms of sloppy thinking. Hence you are not being reasonable and pro-gun.


 
N

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,834
515
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
And?



We're talking about Columbine here. If there were no guns, Columbine would not have happened. I never said Oklahoma City would not have happened. There would be less murder in the US if there were no guns. Not zero, less.
Click to expand...

Funny, i thought we were talking about marijuana

;)
 
S

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Of course, the entire hsitory of the world would be different if guns never existed. "

Not arguing with you there.



"As has been pointed out, guns were already banned from the school and I'm pretty sure that minors were not allowed to have them as well. "

Okay



"The weapons used in the 9/11 attacks were box cutters and commercial aircraft."

Okay



"There have been mass killings that did not involve guns and serial killings with nary a hint of a gun. "

Okay, that doesn't mean there would be LESS murder if there were no guns.



"If you go beyond the narrow definition of Columbine, I think you would have a hard time proving that no guns = no killing"

Yes, one would have a hard time proving that. I've never argued no guns= no killing. Try to read closely.



Check this out: I'm trying to help you: "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/<B">http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
</a>


One can be reasonable and be pro-gun BTW. But you're arguments have fallacies which are symptoms of sloppy thinking. Hence you are not being reasonable and pro-gun.
Click to expand...

Your argument is just stupid. It is like if i say if columbine high school was a mile down the street then Columbine wouldn't have happened because the shoots would be shooting up an empty field.

edit: where did all that extra space come from in the quote?
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
"Oh, as a hint, I'm not American and not pro-gun."
So? You are arguing against my arguments and I'm debating with you. Again, the person and the argument are two different things.

"Again with the logical fallacy BS. "
You are not into logic and reason are you? If you think it's BS then you refuse to understand logic and reason, and we can't have a meaningful conversation. Get over your pride and read up on logic. You will be a better person because of it.

"You're the one guilty of shallow thinking."
To quote you, just because you say something is so, doesn't mean it's true.

"You have failed to prove your assertions that "Columbine" would not have happened without guns."
Their bombs didn't go off. They couldn't have killed so many people with their bare hands. Their rampage would have failed without guns.
 
Michael

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Infohawk - Sigh.

Let me see, Jesuit education. Grew up where French was the main language (French trait - love logic arguments for the sake of it). Degree and 15 years of increasingly senior positions in a profession where logic and reasoning are important.

Of course, it is always possible to learn something new. You haven't taught me anything yet, though.

Michael
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
What my education has to do with Columbine is still unclear to me. I could be completely uneducated and still make a cogent argument about the causes of Columbine. Logic is not something French. It is a human capability you too should seek to develop. I am glad you say you are open to learning something new. I hope you really mean it. I highly recommend looking anywhere for a list of logical fallacies and investing some time in it.
 
N

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,834
515
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
What my education has to do with Columbine is still unclear to me. I could be completely uneducated and still make a cogent argument about the causes of Columbine. Logic is not something French. It is a human capability you too should seek to develop. I am glad you say you are open to learning something new. I hope you really mean it. I highly recommend looking anywhere for a list of logical fallacies and investing some time in it.
Click to expand...


I think the reference to your education might have somethign to do with your throwing it out in a different thread. The logical fallacy thing many will find humorous as it has been discussed repeatedly. Pretty soon ,if you're lucky ,maybe someone will write a "logical fallacy song " for you?

btw, I enjoyed you post and look forward to reading many more ( believe it or not, i read much, much more than I post) Please bring your sense of humor when reading P&amp;N, sometimes it's the only refuge when the discussion gets heated .
:beer:
 
S

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Which of your beloved logical fallacies would desprove my theory that if Columbine high school is a mile down the road and then the shoters would have shot up the corrent location, because that is what they did do, and leave the high school complete uneffected?
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
"I think the reference to your education might have somethign to do with your throwing it out in a different thread. "
That is incorrect. In another thread the poster by the name of xxxxJohnxxxx challenged me to PM me his education in response to me saying his analysis was shallow. I proceeded by explaining how our educations have nothing to do with with the argument at hand (the draft I believe but I could be wrong) (i.e., one can be well-educated and make poor analysis or vice versa).

If someone would like to write a song about logical fallacies, so be it. Hopefully it will bring more attention to an oft-neglected topic.

 
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Infohawk
So if we had fertilizer and gas, but no guns, Columbine would not have happened.
Click to expand...
That's begging the question. You are assuming the premise "Columbine would not have happened without guns" to be true in order to prove your conclusion that Columbine would not have happened without guns. It is absolutely 100% impossible to prove that the kids would not have used some other form of weapon.

Your argument runs thus: "Columbine could not have happened without guns; therefore without guns Columbine would not have happened." Do you see the circularity in that?

All you're doing is asserting the conclusion as a true premise that is used to support the conclusion. It's a valid argument, but it's not sound.

ZV
 
S

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
We could also put his argument in a more mathimaticly form
Columbine Massacare = Guns
So negate guns and you will negate the Massacare, but in reallity the equation for Columbine is a lot more complex.
 
B

BugsBunny1078

Banned
Jan 11, 2004
910
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
We could also put his argument in a more mathimaticly form
Columbine Massacare = Guns
So negate guns and you will negate the Massacare, but in reallity the equation for Columbine is a lot more complex.
Click to expand...
Im in pretty good shape physically. I'd wager I could walk into a school like that and kill more people with a knife than those kids did with guns. Even a hammer for that matter. Guns do not = murder. Guns are only tools . They shoot a projectile out. You can use them for lots of things. Say you want to put a small hole in a can for some reason that is 50 feet away. A gun is a nice tool for that. A Hilti gun can be used to shoot a nail at high speed into a steel beam. That is a tool for that. A hammer is a tool that can be used to drive a nail at slow speed into a piece of wood. That is a nice tool for that. Any one of these things could be turned on another person and used as a weapon. That doesn't mean we need to make the tool illegal to stay safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom