10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Imperializt Russia]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

Straw man is straw.

It's not a strawman, you've made the exact same argument earlier and I've called you out on it.
Along with at least one other poster this thread.

Hell, I used to level that "argument".

[Alyakia]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

fuck it let's test this

guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents

we should ban guns

your challenge is to respond to these statements without changing your arguments and without making an argument that fits my straw man

[Gauthier]

"Today's forecast is going to be mostly cloudy with a 50% chance of rain in the late afternoon, and a 75% chance of another mass shooting in the downtown area."

[Allanea]

2 doesn't flow from 1.

Even if we granted gun availability contributed to massacres (a statistically unproven assertion), it doesn't necessarily flow we should ban guns.

For example, let's suppose that gun availability increased gun murders by only one dead person a year. It would be obvious to all that the loss of freedom involved in banning uns is not worth doing so - alcohol causes far more than 1 death per year and it is not banned, as do private swimming pools. It's clear we don't ban anything that's dangerous.

[Hydesland]

I'm knocking down your incorrect assertion that gun lobbyist and related groups have 'exploded' the amount of easily available guns and ammo by pointing you to two major laws passed with their support that restricted the supply of guns and ammo.

It doesn't do anything to knock down that assertion, because it demonstrably had little substantial impact on the amount of guns easily available, legally or otherwise.

Then you should have said such instead of what you said. You also would need to clarify why exactly the quantity restricted is irrelevant, should you wish to go with your original argument instead of this amorphous blob of changing meaning you are creating to hide behind now.

Quantity and availability are tightly linked, if less guns were produced and circulated, they would be less available. This should be obvious and not controversial, unless of course you have an ideological reason to hand wave it away.

I also know that, at multiple times in the last hundred years you so lament, the lobbies and groups you decry have compromised or given up their demands and accepted (even cooperated with passing on a number of occasions) rules and regulations which limit the supply of firearms and ammunition.
If you want to argue that's not enough, you have to actually make that argument not the one you were making.

You mean they've managed to shape legislation in the way they want. The fact that you even have to find "compromise" with these organizations is part of the problem. Let's not pretend that serious gun control legislation as seen in places such as Europe would ever have been possible in the US given the sway such organizations have over the public and politicians. They've created an environment where gun regulation is a huge uphill struggle.

[Alyakia]

2 doesn't flow from 1.

Even if we granted gun availability contributed to massacres (a statistically unproven assertion), it doesn't necessarily flow we should ban guns.

For example, let's suppose that gun availability increased gun murders by only one dead person a year. It would be obvious to all that the loss of freedom involved in banning uns is not worth doing so - alcohol causes far more than 1 death per year and it is not banned, as do private swimming pools. It's clear we don't ban anything that's dangerous.

this is the "fundamental difference between a gun and a car" phase, for those that are following

[Gauthier]

You mean they've managed to shape legislation in the way they want. The fact that you even have to find "compromise" with these organizations is part of the problem. Let's not pretend that serious gun control legislation as seen in places such as Europe would ever have been possible in the US given the sway such organizations have over the public and politicians. They've created an environment where gun regulation is a huge uphill struggle.

Plus the frequency with which the severely mentally ill can legally buy firearms to shoot up a bunch of people makes it clear that nobody gives a shit about keeping guns away from them, just making sure they can buy their own Call of Duty Anniversary Special when it goes on sale.

[BK117B2]

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

fuck it let's test this

guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents

we should ban guns

your challenge is to respond to these statements without changing your arguments and without making an argument that fits my straw man

By definition, without firearms nobody could ever be shot with a firearm.

We should not ban firearms. Person A's decision to do something bad does not justify violating the rights of Person B.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm knocking down your incorrect assertion that gun lobbyist and related groups have 'exploded' the amount of easily available guns and ammo by pointing you to two major laws passed with their support that restricted the supply of guns and ammo.

It doesn't do anything to knock down that assertion, because it demonstrably had little substantial impact on the amount of guns easily available, legally or otherwise.

Your ability to pull unsubstantiated, unprovable assertions more likely to be incorrect than correct from your asshole is impressive, but rather unhelpful at proving your 'point'.

Then you should have said such instead of what you said. You also would need to clarify why exactly the quantity restricted is irrelevant, should you wish to go with your original argument instead of this amorphous blob of changing meaning you are creating to hide behind now.

Quantity and availability are tightly linked, if less guns were produced and circulated, they would be less available. This should be obvious and not controversial, unless of course you have an ideological reason to hand wave it away.

You have still failed to demonstrate a positive impact on quantity of firearms by laws which decreased firearm availability. Which was, you know, your (original and incorrect) assertion.

I also know that, at multiple times in the last hundred years you so lament, the lobbies and groups you decry have compromised or given up their demands and accepted (even cooperated with passing on a number of occasions) rules and regulations which limit the supply of firearms and ammunition.
If you want to argue that's not enough, you have to actually make that argument not the one you were making.

You mean they've managed to shape legislation in the way they want.

No, I mean exactly what I said (unlike you seem to).

[New DeCapito]

This is just terrible.

Not that everyone needs guns, but schools could get armed security guards. 30 people shouldn't have been shot.

[Spirit of Hope]

You mean they've managed to shape legislation in the way they want. The fact that you even have to find "compromise" with these organizations is part of the problem. Let's not pretend that serious gun control legislation as seen in places such as Europe would ever have been possible in the US given the sway such organizations have over the public and politicians. They've created an environment where gun regulation is a huge uphill struggle.

European levels of gun control aren't possible in the United States because the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and protects against the state, and has struck down laws more lenient than some that exist in Europe.

2 doesn't flow from 1.

Even if we granted gun availability contributed to massacres (a statistically unproven assertion), it doesn't necessarily flow we should ban guns.

For example, let's suppose that gun availability increased gun murders by only one dead person a year. It would be obvious to all that the loss of freedom involved in banning uns is not worth doing so - alcohol causes far more than 1 death per year and it is not banned, as do private swimming pools. It's clear we don't ban anything that's dangerous.

this is the "fundamental difference between a gun and a car" phase, for those that are following

What is the fundamental difference? Both kill around 30,000 in the United States every year, though guns only injure ~100,000 compared to cars ~2,000,000.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't think it's really possible to challenge that a personal car is of greater societal use than a personal firearm.

[Alyakia]

fuck it let's test this

guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents

we should ban guns

your challenge is to respond to these statements without changing your arguments and without making an argument that fits my straw man

By definition, without firearms nobody could ever be shot with a firearm.

We should not ban firearms. Person A's decision to do something bad does not justify violating the rights of Person B.

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

[Romalae]

As an American university student, I have to say that it is definitely a real concern that someday a campus shooting will occur.

The Texas legislature recently passed a campus open-carry law that'll allow concealed handguns on my campus. That bothers me. Permit or no permit, I don't like the idea of other students being armed on campus. Forget the lack of trust, what about an accidental discharge? What if someone without a permit gets a handle on the weapons?

I guess this is just a reality we will have to live with nowadays in America.

[Alyakia]

What is the fundamental difference? Both kill around 30,000 in the United States every year, though guns only injure ~100,000 compared to cars ~2,000,000.

because one can be used as a weapon and one is a weapon except when you explicitly don't use it. reference 30 years worth of this shit for more information.

[Gauthier]

As an American university student, I have to say that it is definitely a real concern that someday a campus shooting will occur.

The Texas legislature recently passed a campus open-carry law that'll allow concealed handguns on my campus. That bothers me. Permit or no permit, I don't like the idea of other students being armed on campus. Forget the lack of trust, what about an accidental discharge? What if someone without a permit gets a handle on the weapons?

I guess this is just a reality we will have to live with nowadays in America.

Call of Duty Society is a Polite Society.

[Jamzmania]

As an American university student, I have to say that it is definitely a real concern that someday a campus shooting will occur.

The Texas legislature recently passed a campus open-carry law that'll allow concealed handguns on my campus. That bothers me. Permit or no permit, I don't like the idea of other students being armed on campus. Forget the lack of trust, what about an accidental discharge? What if someone without a permit gets a handle on the weapons?

I guess this is just a reality we will have to live with nowadays in America.

I would feel safer in the knowledge that my campus is not vulnerable.

[Alyakia]

As an American university student, I have to say that it is definitely a real concern that someday a campus shooting will occur.

The Texas legislature recently passed a campus open-carry law that'll allow concealed handguns on my campus. That bothers me. Permit or no permit, I don't like the idea of other students being armed on campus. Forget the lack of trust, what about an accidental discharge? What if someone without a permit gets a handle on the weapons?

I guess this is just a reality we will have to live with nowadays in America.

I would feel safer in the knowledge that my campus is not vulnerable.

no campus i have been on has guns but i feel safer because i don't live in a country where this shit regularly happens

[BK117B2]

By definition, without firearms nobody could ever be shot with a firearm.

We should not ban firearms. Person A's decision to do something bad does not justify violating the rights of Person B.

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

[Alyakia]

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

the idea that not letting people have weapons openly is a punishment is a fallacy

[Gauthier]

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

Now if only the leadership douchebags in organizations like the NRA would grasp that keeping the seriously disturbed from getting a hold of a gun is not the first stage in Nazi Confiscationfest.

[BK117B2]

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

the idea that not letting people have weapons openly is a punishment is a fallacy

That wasn't the question. Why don't you try answering the question asked, instead of inventing your own to answer?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As an American university student, I have to say that it is definitely a real concern that someday a campus shooting will occur.

The Texas legislature recently passed a campus open-carry law that'll allow concealed handguns on my campus. That bothers me. Permit or no permit, I don't like the idea of other students being armed on campus. Forget the lack of trust, what about an accidental discharge? What if someone without a permit gets a handle on the weapons?

I guess this is just a reality we will have to live with nowadays in America.

I would feel safer in the knowledge that my campus is not vulnerable.

I would feel safer knowing some asshole actually doesn't have a gun on campus.

I'm actually fucking glad I don't have to step into a Texas campus ever again with this shit. If I have to be sure to get a gun, get appropriate licenses, and conceal carry a gun to college then I am no safer than what I was in El Salvador where someone could just take out their gun and kill me just because they don't like me. Fuck that.

[Alyakia]

the idea that not letting people have weapons openly is a punishment is a fallacy

That wasn't the question. Why don't you try answering the question asked, instead of inventing your own to answer?

have you stopped beating your wife?

you can't answer a question if the question is based on a false premise

[Jamzmania]

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

Now if only the leadership douchebags in organizations like the NRA would grasp that keeping the seriously disturbed from getting a hold of a gun is not the first stage in Nazi Confiscationfest.

No one is against that, it's simply the fact that anti-gun people always say, "We just want to make sure bad guys don't get guns!" While at the same time making it harder and harder to legally get guns; which only hurts the law abiding.