Gun Control on the "Slopes"

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by SmilinSilhouette, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    FindMuck posted:
    Sometimes that arugment is legitimate, sometimes its not, just like any other argument. I think a slippery slope argument for gun control is more convincing than a slippery slope argument for say, gay marriage. Why? Because people will die if is made easier to get guns simply because it will be easier for wackos to get guns, and because guns are a weapon and are therefore dangerous if not deadly. Their purpose is to destroy things. As for gay marriage that argument isn't valid because most people who use it say it is the beginning of the degredation of society...but then that is something that is entirely opinion and not fact, where as the argument for gun control is based on fact and not opinion.

    My reply is that FMs ideas on gun control, as represented above, are his opinion and not fact.

    FM please go ahead and review the statistics on gun crime in jurisdictions where gun control regulations have been relaxed to make it easier for law abiding citizens to be armed and to defend themselves and get back to me. Or post your statistics demonstrating that taking guns from law abiding citizens reduces gun crime.
     

  2. FindMuck

    FindMuck Registered Member

    Defend themselves? From what? I lived in a warzone for the first 9 years of my life and even I didn't need a gun to defend myself. Why don't you provide your statistics because you are using them to back up your argument. Until then, you don't need a gun to defend yourself unless you live in Somalia, Chechnya, or the Gaza strip.

    If its easy to get guns, its easy to get guns, just like when its easy to get crack its easy to get crack, there is a reason that crack is illegal and that its hard to get guns, and that's because if the wrong people get them they can endanger the lives of others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010
  3. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

  4. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Its a fight fire with fire scenario. If society if rife with the misuse of guns then you need guns to protect oneself. If society is not then there is no need to introduce them as that would only exasperate the former.
     
  5. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    Would this be the slippery slope argument or just a sign of paranoia, stretching conclusions and applying illogical fallacies to match the insecurities and lack of arguments?
     
  6. FindMuck

    FindMuck Registered Member

    Can you explain it in your own words? I'm not about to read 31 pages of something that isn't for school. I've made a sound argument that you still haven't refuted.
     
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    This logic works for everything from guns to butter knives. It's a very weak stance.
     
  8. FindMuck

    FindMuck Registered Member

    Wait wait...so its a weak argument to say that guns hurt people and therefore they are dangerous and careful attention should be kept to who gets them?

    Wow...okay...so I guess we should allow 3 year olds to drive then right? I mean same thing right? What about people with multiple DUIs?
     
  9. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    I could, but I'm not about to write 31 pages unless I'm being
    paid to do so. :). I will however copy and paste a quote from the reference:

    "liberalizing concealed-carry laws drives down rates of confrontational crime, with the effect most pronounced in the counties where the problem of criminal violence is worst. Apparently, when more people are on the streets packing heat, criminals tend to redirect their predatory activities into lines where they are less apt to meet armed resistance. The results of the Lott-Mustard study, updated by several years and amplified by the analysis of additional variables, are the core of More Guns, Less Crime."

    I don't see any sound argument, you stated the obvious: guns are
    dangerous and without them there would be less danger. The same could be said about automobiles, yet few would agree that they should be banned.
    ------
    Have you ever been to Detroit? If not you should come visit sometime!
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010
  10. FindMuck

    FindMuck Registered Member

    So petty criminals are the only ones who use guns? Most people who use guns for the intent of harming people couldn't give a shit if someone else has a gun, and what if we're not talking about petty crime? That's only one example, and it doesn't even define what crime means to them or what kind of crime their talking about. Plus do you know how many problems people have from living in a militaristic society? If people didn't have guns in the first place they wouldn't need to protect themselves from them.


    Yes I stated the obvious, which also happens to be a good reason for why guns should be highly monitored. :-o Cars are not made for the express purpose of destroying things, guns are, that's the difference.
    ------
    No but I also know that Detroit is way safer than the places I have lived and I still didn't need a gun. In fact one time I got shot simply for having a gun on me...which goes directly against your idea that if everyone has guns people are less likely to use them because they might get shot...but whatever. :lol:
    ------
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010

Share This Page