Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[[DHT]Osiris]

gun owners own guns because its an emotional reaction... I feel fear therfore I will solve that fear by having a gun. I now "feel" safe. Im not safe. Infact I have a higher risk of death but as long as I feel safe I'm ok.

Understand the flawed sick minds of most gunowners?

Huh? Not every gun owner owns guns for reasons of self defense. You're making very strong assumptions about something.

 

[JSt0rm]

Huh? Not every gun owner owns guns for reasons of self defense. You're making very strong assumptions about something.

check my next post. But those people who do own a gun for "other reasons" should accept the fact that it makes them less safe. Just like a motorcyclist knows the motorcycle makes them less safe.

I hope you have become enlightened as to why a progun position is just flawed.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

now people who own guns for marksmanship or quickdraw competitions are a different thing.

Then temper your statements. You're all over the place, damning gun owners left and right, calling them pussies and cowards and maniacs and nutters, until you actually use the tiniest bit of logic then 'oh, except those normal, rational human beings that have them for reasons OTHER than murdering each other, not them of course'.

Your problem isn't with guns, or nutters. It's with fucking lunatics that shoot each other, or themselves (intentionally or accidentally).

 

[JSt0rm]

Then temper your statements. You're all over the place, damning gun owners left and right, calling them pussies and cowards and maniacs and nutters, until you actually use the tiniest bit of logic then 'oh, except those normal, rational human beings that have them for reasons OTHER than murdering each other, not them of course'.

Your problem isn't with guns, or nutters. It's with fucking lunatics that shoot each other, or themselves (intentionally or accidentally).

All gunowners are irrational. You wanted this conversation and you are getting it When the pro gun guys are pushed back on thier heels they turn to the no true scotsman fallacy. Its what you just did. Not these gunowners - no true gunowner would be the problem - your problem is with those people.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

All gunowners are irrational. You wanted this conversation and you are getting it When the pro gun guys are pushed back on thier heels they turn to the no true scotsman fallacy. Its what you just did. Not these gunowners - no true gunowner would be the problem - your problem is with those people.

I own a gun, no ammunition. I purchased it because the price inflated immediately after, and now it's worth far more than I paid; an investment opportunity. Does that make me irrational?

You're attempting to apply a template of 'gun owner' which covers every normal citizen, and every insane shitjob sniping children from rooftops, it's completely ridiculous and why this position can never gain traction. There's a billion equivalencies one could draw between a billion other circumstances whereupon one bad apple in the bunch should ruin the entire crop, according to your logic. That drum's been beaten a hundred times in this thread alone so I'll avoid it if possible, but stating that the insanity of the few is the responsibility, or better, the FAULT of the group, is intellectually disingenuous at best, and intentionally divisive and subversive at worst.

 

[JSt0rm]

I own a gun, no ammunition. I purchased it because the price inflated immediately after, and now it's worth far more than I paid; an investment opportunity. Does that make me irrational?

You're attempting to apply a template of 'gun owner' which covers every normal citizen, and every insane shitjob sniping children from rooftops, it's completely ridiculous and why this position can never gain traction. There's a billion equivalencies one could draw between a billion other circumstances whereupon one bad apple in the bunch should ruin the entire crop, according to your logic. That drum's been beaten a hundred times in this thread alone so I'll avoid it if possible, but stating that the insanity of the few is the responsibility, or better, the FAULT of the group, is intellectually disingenuous at best, and intentionally divisive and subversive at worst.

so you contributed to the problem of too many guns in the country because you could make money? Thats horrible.

To be clear anyone with a gun is a gunowner. Your cant chop that up into good guys and bad guys. That is a logical fallacy.

The reality is guns make all of us less safe. We will never need our plinkers to over throw the government. AND gunowners themselves are at an even GREATER risk. Even though they "feel" safe.

So we started this conversation because you thought that gunownership is the logical path. When it really isnt. Its the emotional path.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

so you contributed to the problem of too many guns in the country because you could make money? Thats horrible.

To be clear anyone with a gun is a gunowner. Your cant chop that up into good guys and bad guys. That is a logical fallacy.

The reality is guns make all of us less safe. We will never need our plinkers to over throw the government. AND gunowners themselves are at an even GREATER risk. Even though they "feel" safe.

So we started this conversation because you thought that gunownership is the logical path. When it really isnt. Its the emotional path.

Sigh, then I guess we'll beat the drum again.
Anyone with a car is a car owner, ergo people doing bad things with cars is the responsibility of all car owners, and cars should be restricted.
Repeat for pet owners.
Repeat for knife owners.
Repeat for <insert anything that can be used to injure or kill a person, in any way imaginable>.

Again, you're applying a template to others. I don't feel any more or less safe because I have a gun with no ammunition in the home. It's essentially a valuable hunk of wood and metal, akin to an antique chair that fits in a closet.

I never said gun ownership is a 'logical path', I originally stated that introducing emotion to a logical argument is by definition illogical.

 

[pmv]

Sigh, then I guess we'll beat the drum again.
Anyone with a car is a car owner, ergo people doing bad things with cars is the responsibility of all car owners, and cars should be restricted.
Repeat for pet owners.
Repeat for knife owners.
Repeat for <insert anything that can be used to injure or kill a person, in any way imaginable>.

Again, you're applying a template to others. I don't feel any more or less safe because I have a gun with no ammunition in the home. It's essentially a valuable hunk of wood and metal, akin to an antique chair that fits in a closet.

I never said gun ownership is a 'logical path', I originally stated that introducing emotion to a logical argument is by definition illogical.

Yup, cars should indeed be restricted, and car owners as a group do bear some responsibility for the carnage cars cause - if only because car owners tend to act as a collective lobby against measures to reduce the damage cars do.

Knives also should be, and are, restricted, but there isn't really a 'knife lobby' and the degree of restriction that is practical is far lower than for cars or guns, as knives are both more necessary and also lower-tech so much easier to manufacture (and conceal). Licencing knives isn't remotely practical, but other restrictions already exist.

Same goes for pets - dogs in particular can be a serious danger, and there are plenty of restrictions on more exotic pets for many obvious reasons. Pet keeping is strongly regulated and people are regularly prosecuted for failing to abide by the rules.

Did you have a point? What was it supposed to be?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yup, cars should indeed be restricted, and car owners as a group do bear some responsibility for the carnage cars cause - if only because car owners tend to act as a collective lobby against measures to reduce the damage cars do.

In what way? I've never been asked to vote on measures regarding vehicles, their properties, or ownership, wrt the common good and protection from violence. Those things come from the manufacturers and/or lawmakers, with or without input from constituents.

Knives also should be, and are, restricted, but there isn't really a 'knife lobby' and the degree of restriction that is practical is far lower than for cars or guns, as knives are both more necessary and also lower-tech so much easier to manufacture (and conceal). Licencing knives isn't remotely practical, but other restrictions already exist.

Same goes for pets - dogs in particular can be a serious danger, and there are plenty of restrictions on more exotic pets for many obvious reasons. Pet keeping is strongly regulated and people are regularly prosecuted for failing to abide by the rules.

Pet keeping is strongly regulated? Where? When has an owner ever been held responsible for the actions of a pet? I, as part of a group of two other children, got mauled by a 120lb Chow when I was a child, and the animal wasn't even taken from the owner because 'it was the first offense'. The closest thing to regulation is 'you cannot own a tiger, unless you have a lot of money'. Any of the 'normal people animals' are completely unrestricted, even if they're 200lb slabs of muscle and teeth.

Did you have a point? What was it supposed to be?

Just that regardless of current regulations and restrictions, if the same logic used by @JSt0rm is applied to any other $thing, it's universally rejected and dissected, just as you just did, but when applied to guns, everyone who isn't a gun owner tends to think it's completely logical, rational, and 'something' should be implemented immediately.

 

[ivwshane]

What I meant was, you're stating that his stance would be changed to the 'correct' viewpoint, if he was emotionally affected by the event. That's a dangerous road to walk down, as it leads to reactionary legislation.

That's because the right bases their policies on emotions and not facts. That's why they believe in "Muslim bans", no abortions, cutting taxes, anti immigration, etc. All of those policies fail on a factual basis and are purely emotionally driven.

Exhibit A would be their stance on gay marriage, they are totally against it until it affects them personally (see dick Cheney).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's because the right bases their policies on emotions and not facts. That's why they believe in "Muslim bans", no abortions, cutting taxes, anti immigration, etc. All of those policies fail on a factual basis and are purely emotionally driven.

Exhibit A would be their stance on gay marriage, they are totally against it until it affects them personally (see dick Cheney).

I don't know that @JSt0rm is right-leaning, but I do agree with you wrt many Republicans.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sigh, then I guess we'll beat the drum again.
Anyone with a car is a car owner, ergo people doing bad things with cars is the responsibility of all car owners, and cars should be restricted.

Could you pick a worse example? All car owners are responsible for each other via insurance. And cars are restricted. Thats why you need a license to drive.

Try harder.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't know that @JSt0rm is right-leaning, but I do agree with you wrt many Republicans.

I just broke down to you why gun owners for the most part own guns for emotional reasons. You resist this not because of logic. Know that. You resist this because it doesnt conform with your preconceived ideas. Emotional.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Could you pick a worse example? All car owners are responsible for each other via insurance. And cars are restricted. Thats why you need a license to drive.

Try harder.

And I have no issue with a myriad of licensing and insurance requirements for guns. Your logic is 'gun owners are pussies, just take all the guns away because of the bad eggs, they're just insane nutters anyhow'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I just broke down to you why gun owners for the most part own guns for emotional reasons. You resist this not because of logic. Know that. You resist this because it doesnt conform with your preconceived ideas. Emotional.

So now it's 'for the most part'? Are you backpedaling? I thought all gun owners were just insane nutter cowards?

To be clear anyone with a gun is a gunowner. Your cant chop that up into good guys and bad guys. That is a logical fallacy.

All gunowners are irrational.

gun owners own guns because its an emotional reaction... I feel fear therfore I will solve that fear by having a gun. I now "feel" safe. Im not safe. Infact I have a higher risk of death but as long as I feel safe I'm ok.

Understand the flawed sick minds of most gunowners?

Gun owners are pussies.

You're the only one here with preconceived notions, regarding gun owners and gun ownership. You can't even imagine a world outside your own, and therefore that world has no rights, and no privilege. You'd just as soon see anything you do not agree with washed away.

 

[JSt0rm]

And I have no issue with a myriad of licensing and insurance requirements for guns. Your logic is 'gun owners are pussies, just take all the guns away because of the bad eggs, they're just insane nutters anyhow'.

See thats a straw man. I never said to take all the guns away. You are an emotional being who uses logical fallicy as argument in what should be a logical argument.

 

[JSt0rm]

So now it's 'for the most part'? Are you backpedaling? I thought all gun owners were just insane nutter cowards?





You're the only one here with preconceived notions, regarding gun owners and gun ownership. You can't even imagine a world outside your own, and therefore that world has no rights, and no privilege. You'd just as soon see anything you do not agree with washed away.

You are getting agitated that you are losing your gun debate.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're the only one here with preconceived notions, regarding gun owners and gun ownership. You can't even imagine a world outside your own, and therefore that world has no rights, and no privilege. You'd just as soon see anything you do not agree with washed away.

More strawman. You need to be smarter.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

More strawman. You need to be smarter.

How is that a strawman? Do you know what that word actually means? I'll freely admit the crap up above about cars, dogs, and knives was a strawman argument, only built after forewarning, but I hardly see how pointing out that your refusal to view a point from more than one angle makes you incapable of reaching an informed conclusion. That's not what a strawman is.

You are getting agitated that you are losing your gun debate.

The only agitated one here is the one calling others 'pussies' and 'cowards'. I think you actually fear guns, like you specifically fear the evil that others may or may not commit on your person, and blame guns for that potential evil.

See thats a straw man. I never said to take all the guns away. You are an emotional being who uses logical fallicy as argument in what should be a logical argument.

Also not a straw man, you said 'restrict guns' a few posts up, and by your statements in this (and other) threads, I took that to the logical conclusion that you'd prefer guns to not be in the hands of normal citizens, aka 'remove guns'. You've very clearly stated in the last two pages that gun owners are just cowards and/or mentally unstable anyhow, so that part certainly wasn't a strawman either.

 

[momeNt]

Why do the merits behind the reason to own a gun even enter into this kind of discussion? Why do gun owners need to accept it statistically makes them less safe? Also with the increase in the amount of guns owned in recent years, and the age of that study, and the DECLINE in firearm related deaths, is there even any evidence suggesting that that is still true?

 

[zinfamous]

Violent crime rate

Murder rate:

The assault weapons ban ended in 2004. Why didn't murder rates climb and climb?

Isn't this also the same period that liberals were taking all our guns, causing more criminals to have more guns and more crime and murders?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why do the merits behind the reason to own a gun even enter into this kind of discussion? Why do gun owners need to accept it statistically makes them less safe? Also with the increase in the amount of guns owned in recent years, and the age of that study, and the DECLINE in firearm related deaths, is there even any evidence suggesting that that is still true?

It doesn't need to, but the horses get trotted out every time anything happens involving a gun.
1) guns aren't needed
2) people do bad things with guns
3) bad things wouldn't happen without those guns
4) get rid of guns

Which turns into people fighting over each point separately regardless of merit, logic, or reason, and each point branches into a thousand new cascading points, among which is the merits of gun ownership rolling off point number 1.

 

[momeNt]

Isn't this also the same period that liberals were taking all our guns, causing more criminals to have more guns and more crime and murders?

Actually it wasn't. Post 2004 the big push was for owning a gun for self-defense, push for concealed carry. In 2003 only Vermont had concealed carry laws, now look how many have concealed carry laws with national concealed carry being talked about.

Gun purchases have skyrocketed during this time because there was constantly a "liberal taking all our guns" rhetoric being talked about that is only really happening in New York and California where high capacity magazines will be illegal to own as opposed to legal to own if you purchased them before their ban. Previous laws nobody would be made a criminal overnight, but increasingly there are laws that are being voted on and sometimes passed that criminalize current owners.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Actually it wasn't. Post 2004 the big push was for owning a gun for self-defense, push for concealed carry. In 2003 only Vermont had concealed carry laws, now look how many have concealed carry laws with national concealed carry being talked about.

Gun purchases have skyrocketed during this time because there was constantly a "liberal taking all our guns" rhetoric being talked about that is only really happening in New York and California where high capacity magazines will be illegal to own as opposed to legal to own if you purchased them before their ban. Previous laws nobody would be made a criminal overnight, but increasingly there are laws that are being voted on and sometimes passed that criminalize current owners.

It could also be that general improvements in quality of life, along with general changes to culture within groups who have traditionally had a greater propensity for violent gun-related crime, have resulted in less crime in general and less gun crime specifically. Completely unrelated to levels of gun ownership, gun 'protection potential', or anything else related to guns specifically.

 

[JSt0rm]

How is that a strawman? Do you know what that word actually means? I'll freely admit the crap up above about cars, dogs, and knives was a strawman argument, only built after forewarning, but I hardly see how pointing out that your refusal to view a point from more than one angle makes you incapable of reaching an informed conclusion. That's not what a strawman is.


The only agitated one here is the one calling others 'pussies' and 'cowards'. I think you actually fear guns, like you specifically fear the evil that others may or may not commit on your person, and blame guns for that potential evil.

Also not a straw man, you said 'restrict guns' a few posts up, and by your statements in this (and other) threads, I took that to the logical conclusion that you'd prefer guns to not be in the hands of normal citizens, aka 'remove guns'. You've very clearly stated in the last two pages that gun owners are just cowards and/or mentally unstable anyhow, so that part certainly wasn't a strawman either.

you telling me what my argument is is a strawman. For instance...

"You can't even imagine a world outside your own, and therefore that world has no rights, and no privilege. You'd just as soon see anything you do not agree with washed away."

Now if I defend that position as mine you have successfully used a strawman fallacy.

You are an emotional human being trying his hardest to be the logical one. You aren't. Your argument was doomed from the start. Its actually kinda boring debating guns because the pro gun side has literally the worst arguments.