|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 14 2013 05:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 04:33 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 04:23 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:15 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 14 2013 04:10 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 04:03 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 03:57 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:49 mcc wrote:On May 14 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 03:25 stuneedsfood wrote:
[quote]
I think its reasonable to criticize people for it. The fear of confiscation is getting in the way of preventing 33,000+ deaths annually. I'd love to hear these ideas you have that will prevent all gun deaths because as far as I know nothing short of a magical spell that makes all guns disappear could do that. Half/quarter/... is not worth it ? Because otherwise you are just nitpicking and missing the point. I'm open to hearing your ideas also. I haven't heard anyone present anything realistic that will actually have an effect on violence. Background checks on private sales are the only thing decent I've heard and I don't believe that will have very substantial effect on violence. Until socioeconomic problems are dealt with, especially for minorities, violence will be around in excess. Basically, the ideas of universal background checks, required reporting of stolen guns, and a national gun registry seek to tie each gun to its owner. This puts a lot more liability on the shoulders of gun owners, because it can be traced back to you. Basically this is intended to limit the number of legally owned guns which go into the hands of felons. A registry in addition to mandatory background checks sounds like they could be effective in keeping people from selling guns to felons but do you really think a registry is even remotely realistic? It will be decades or longer before even a slight majority of people would support that. It will be less than decades before the NRA runs out of funding, the majority of gun manufacturers are out of business, and everybody prints their guns at home. The NRA is not the only or even the main reason people are opposed to registries. You can thank basically every gun registry being used as a step towards removal of guns for that sentiment. As for your assertion that 3D printing will cause gun manufacturers to go out of business, I think that's some pretty magical thinking. 3D printing will be regulated heavily well before it ever becomes within an ordinary person's reach. Brazil, Canada, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary and the rest of the alphabet would like a word with you. Notice I kept a few (like australia) excluded because they did a handgun ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics Most of those are not really fair given the context of what I said. Most of the countries you listed have only enacted national registries in the past few years and still grow stricter on gun laws, give it time. As for Canada you're flat out wrong. Firearms act of 1995 made many types of guns illegal and the registry was used track them down. All you did was go down the list and pick ones that say they have registry and guns available. You didn't even check to see if the registries were actually used to remove certain guns(but not all) as in the case of Canada. What I should have said is there is precedent for using registries to collect guns from citizens and many countries have done just that so it is justified that people would be leery of a registry.
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other?
|
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other?
Think about your statement for a moment...
|
On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment...
But it is so much easier to attack strawmans!
When your opponent says we should be aware of gun bans in countries that had registries the logical assumption is that what he really meant is "gun registries = gun bans".
|
On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans!
I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying.
|
On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason.
|
Continue to fear a gun registry, despite the fact that the US government has already forcibly upheld the 2nd amendment when the city of New Orleans instigated gun confiscation.
While you fear the opposite of what has happened in the past, people die needlessly every day.
Your irrational fear >> thousands of lives
|
On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying.
Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else.
edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because
On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason.
X_X oooook
|
Don't worry magpie. I read your post, and it makes sense.
|
On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o
Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o
|
On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook
He was shown that not all countries with gun registries has lead to gun bans. Which means registries leading to gun bans is false argument. Correlation does not imply causation--in other words, his argument is false. I'm sure in your mother tongue "X_X oooook" is a valid response but are you really going to suggest that correlation implies causation?
|
On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o
What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument.
|
On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument.
That's the strawman you are attacking lol
Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/
|
On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/
You mean when he said this?
On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment...
Specifically this?
"Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. "
Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens"
This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button.
|
On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button.
I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension.
To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody?
|
On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=510#10188
He's probably referencing that which I rectified in my next post that he ignored so that he could attack a stance I didn't mean to take when I wasn't clear in my previous post.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=510#10200
|
On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook
His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed.
There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban.
You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban.
|
On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button.
Oh, I thought you were talking about a previous post. If you're talking about that post you really have crappy reading comprehension and are definitely straw manning me.
|
On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody?
Read his sentence again.
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one
He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans.
That is a false argument.
In fact, read the rest of what he says.
"Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally."
He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it.
"Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary.
So please, stop backtracking.
|
But isn´t telling someone he´s straw manning a strawman in itself? Oo i´m confused about you people because the logic behind this statement
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason.
is absolutly ok in my eyes. Oo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
