Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
The first is too tin-foil hat for me.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why. A non-trivial contingent withing the gun control advocacy movement supports a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, and many who claim to advocate “common sense gun laws” point to Australia as a model, in which firearms were confiscated. Gun rights supporters are not eager to make it easy for them to act out their wishes.
pnewton said:
The second is a fallacy which is used all the time. Do nothing if you can’t do it perfectly?
Click to expand...
What useful purpose would a gun registry that is only 20% accurate serve? New York instituted a registry for assault weapons a couple years ago. They had about 5% compliance. How useful is that registry?
 
Theo520 said:
So you invoke the “No True Scotsman” to defend your position, excellent use of logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, it is not that fallacy. I am familiar with it, more than you if you think this is No True Scotsman.

What did was point out an error that I see in the comparison of the United States to all other nations in history. Gun confiscation has not happened in democracy. That is not a No True Scotsman. Democracies are demonstrably different that totalitarian regimes. The only lesson I see from history to be learned here is the need for more lessons in history.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
What did was point out an error that I see in the comparison of the United States to all other nations in history. Gun confiscation has not happened in democracy. That is not a No True Scotsman. Democracies are demonstrably different that totalitarian regimes. The only lesson I see from history to be learned here is the need for more lessons in history.
Click to expand...
You are relying o the Scotsman fallacy. The Government that have practiced confiscation were the legal government of their country, it’s irrelevant whether they got there with the exact same election process. And the Nazi party did assume power through an election by the people…
 
pnewton said:
What did was point out an error that I see in the comparison of the United States to all other nations in history. Gun confiscation has not happened in democracy.
Click to expand...
Australia is a democracy and they adopted a gun confiscation program in 1996. The instituted a mandatory buy-back (i.e. confiscation) of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
 
I just looked that up, and the mandatory buy back was on prohibited weapons only:

• a calibre that is greater than .38”, (unless the handgun is used to participate in a specially accredited event, in which case a handgun of up to .45” calibre will be permitted).
• a barrel length of less than 120 mm for semi-automatic handguns and 100 mm for revolvers and single-shot handguns; and
• a magazine/shot capacity that exceeds 10 rounds.

Yet you have a valid point. On the other hand, that ended their mass shootings, a point pro-life people should consider.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
pnewton:
In a democracy? No, it has not been shown. Comparing the United States to Nazi Germany, for example, is too tin foil hat for me.
Click to expand...
So you invoke the “No True Scotsman” to defend your position, excellent use of logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Whether you consider Nazi Germany a democracy or not, the fact remains there are enough substantial differences in the structure of our government and theirs to justify the claim that total confiscation is extremely unlikely.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Whether you consider Nazi Germany a democracy or not, the fact remains there are enough substantial differences in the structure of our government and theirs to justify the claim that total confiscation is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
The enlistment oath sworn in the military is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is a legitimate difference.
 
pnewton said:
Yet you have a valid point. On the other hand, that ended their mass shootings, a point pro-life people should consider.
Click to expand...
Correlation does not equal causation, and it didn’t end mass murders which look like their occurring at roughly the same rate as before the Port Arthur massacre, though with fewer shootings and more arson attacks. I’m not sure that’s much of an improvement from a “pro-life” perspective.

 
LeafByNiggle said:
Whether you consider Nazi Germany a democracy or not, the fact remains there are enough substantial differences in the structure of our government and theirs to justify the claim that total confiscation is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
How so? The NAZI came to power through a regular election, then implemented new laws and regulations that took away rights of the citizens. Of course something similar could happen in our democracy or with any other elected Govt.
 
Road-Worrier said:
Correlation does not equal causation, and it didn’t end mass murders which look like their occurring at roughly the same rate as before the Port Arthur massacre, though with fewer shootings and more arson attacks. I’m not sure that’s much of an improvement from a “pro-life” perspective.
Click to expand...
I would think an reduction would be good.
 
I think in a few months, this issue will not help those who are supported by the NRA that are running for Congress. For every person killed, hundreds are touched. Kill enough people, and the NRA will eventually lose some of their clout.
 
pnewton said:
I would think an reduction would be good.
Click to expand...
But there wasn’t a reduction. There have been exactly the same amount of mass killings in the 20 years since they passed their confiscation as their where in the 20 years before. Only the weapons used have changed slightly, fewer shootings and more stabbings and arson attacks.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Whether you consider Nazi Germany a democracy or not, the fact remains there are enough substantial differences in the structure of our government and theirs to justify the claim that total confiscation is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
It has already happened here.
 
“School shootings have decreased in recent years,” as noted by Ben Shapiro.
 
pnewton said:
Which one killed thirty-five people? Making killers less deadly is kind of the point.
Click to expand...
Point Arthur was an outlier for Australia. If you look at the number of victims in mass murders before and after Port Arthur, you see that arson attacks post Port Arthur have actually been more deadly than the shooting attacks prior. Of course, you also ignore the government sponsored massacres of Australian Aboriginals in which hundreds were killed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top