Challenge for GOP Presidential candidates.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your logic is bad. Reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy

Gun ownership is at all time high, murder rate is at an all time low. Would it be logically sound to say that more guns makes us safer? But assuming (since it's not logically sound) that more guns do indeed make us safer, would it be logical to conclude that more guns should then be allowed carte blanche everywhere regardless of circumstances?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://thetrashwhisperer.blogspot.com/2014/06/guns-venn-diagram-that-explains-it-all.html

 

[Moonbeam]

Gun ownership is at all time high, murder rate is at an all time low. Would it be logically sound to say that more guns makes us safer? But assuming (since it's not logically sound) that more guns do indeed make us safer, would it be logical to conclude that more guns should then be allowed carte blanche everywhere regardless of circumstances?

I have noticed that hitting myself in the head with a hammer hurts, and that when I stop, my head gets better. I have logically concluded, therefore, that hitting myself in the head with a hammer makes my head hurt. This habit I have of hitting myself in the head with a hammer has led me to put hammers everywhere and their greater availability makes it easier for me to hit myself in the head. I have logically concluded, therefore, that as long as I want to enjoy the privilege of my habit, hammers should be available everywhere. My reasoning is always impeccable. I love reason because it allows me to think exactly like I want to. That's even how I define what reason is.

 

[werepossum]

But MY gun will always be the biggest baddest most loudest banging behemoth of a gun that comes with a wheelbarrow and tripod as standard equipment, along with all of that other bling and blang that absolutely sets it apart from all the rest so that I can defend myself a lot better than anybody else who needs to defend themselves.

My huge gun will also come with a huge well endowed amazon that's able to shoot my gun so that the muzzle blast alone will blow the stubble off of any chinny-chin-chin that's within ten yards of the explosion.

I despised at your plan for the first paragraph, but the second paragraph did sorta pull me in . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

http://thetrashwhisperer.blogspot.com/2014/06/guns-venn-diagram-that-explains-it-all.html

That has the same effect on me as a hammer. Thanks!

 

[sportage]

Well, it's almost time for the Iowa caucuses.
Does anyone know how this works?
Do you have to wear pants?
Bring a dead chicken?
A bucket of corn?

 

[HomerJS]

Gun ownership is at all time high, murder rate is at an all time low. Would it be logically sound to say that more guns makes us safer? But assuming (since it's not logically sound) that more guns do indeed make us safer, would it be logical to conclude that more guns should then be allowed carte blanche everywhere regardless of circumstances?

The number of guns owned is at an all time but the number of people who own guns hasn't changed much.

 

[shady28]

The number of guns owned is at an all time but the number of people who own guns hasn't changed much.

The surveys are mostly borked as far as gun ownership.

For example, if I ask "Do you have a gun in your home?" the answer is quite different from "Do you own a gun?" which is in turn different from "Is there a firearm on your property?".

Another interesting trend - during a Democratic presidency the number of people who refuse to provide an answer aka "No Opinion" to a question of ownership increases significantly. I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of those who refuse to answer the question do in fact have a gun at least on their property.

This poll breaks it down and no, it hasn't changed much in the past 25 years.

 

[MongGrel]

The surveys are mostly borked as far as gun ownership.

For example, if I ask "Do you have a gun in your home?" the answer is quite different from "Do you own a gun?" which is in turn different from "Is there a firearm on your property?".

Another interesting trend - during a Democratic presidency the number of people who refuse to provide an answer aka "No Opinion" to a question of ownership increases significantly. I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of those who refuse to answer the question do in fact have a gun at least on their property.

This poll breaks it down and no, it hasn't changed much in the past 25 years.

Might even be a fair amount who own guns who say no gun...

 

[shady28]

Might even be a fair amount who own guns who say no gun...

I agree. A lot of people would be motivated to say no, for similar reasons to those who refuse to answer. This wouldn't just be those with a Felony who aren't supposed to own a firearm, it may be those who buy from an individual and aren't sure if it's legal, and hence may not trust the motivations behind a survey.

If someone had surveyed me 3 years ago and asked if I had a firearm in my home I would have said no, which would have been true. But I have had a 308 Enfield at my parents farm for many years. So my answer would have hosed up a weak survey.

My 'impression' from recently buying and talking to firearms dealers is that there are many new gun buyers, not just repeats.

 

[Strk]

I like how people try and question the OP's logic, yet argue in another thread that guns should be allowed in mental hospitals and medical professionals should be banned from asking about guns.

 

[glenn1]

I like how people try and question the OP's logic, yet argue in another thread that guns should be allowed in mental hospitals and medical professionals should be banned from asking about guns.

So long as the 2nd Amendment exists there will be the need for rules to determine when and how firearms can be borne. Just as with speech and other rights the proper way is to presume they should be allowed and carve out special instances where they should be restricted or prohibited. Many of the same reasons would underlie the logic of when it's sensible to limit both speech and carrying firearms - we limit the right of people to shout "Fire" in theaters not because we object to saying the word "fire" but rather it would lead to panic in an area where egress routes are limited and evacuation difficult; the same rules logically apply to guns when the same conditions apply. Whether the potential panic caused by a gun in a theater represents a logical fear by others is a different matter, but we need to account for it. That factor might be extreme and require mitigation in a situation like a stadium with 75,000 other people. On the other hand in open public spaces we might more properly ask the fearful person to just remove themselves from the person they fear, just as if I were out in public and saw a Jehovah's Witness trying to talk with me I'd avoid them; we don't limit the free speech rights of the Witness to help ease MY discomfort or irrational fear of them.

Likewise other examples of areas currently or being considered for gun restrictions can be examined for soundness. Mental hospitals - maybe we can allow in areas without patient contact and restrict in areas with patients to limit their potential to somehow capture the weapon. Again, as with most subjects it's not binary and the left is supposed to be famous for seeing the "nuance" in situations, why would you not see that nuance here?

Schools? Sounds good in theory but is it really helping? You shouldn't really be hiring teachers or staff who would be homicidal so their access to weapons should be moot whether it's a firearm or murder by spanking paddleboard. Students are already prohibited by law and school policy from carrying firearms, so declaring it a "gun free zone" is pointless. Visiting adults (parents, delivery drivers, etc.) are infrequent and I would argue a low-risk to allow to exercise their concealed carry rights within the school. A terrorist or homicidal maniac won't obey the "gun free school" sign so that's moot.