So if someone makes more bad arguments for a certain side, it makes that argument invalid?
actually it kind of does. or I should say it weakens the argument.
If one cant' make a valid argument for a position, why should we believe that the position itself has validity? The same reasoning that made a bad argument seem valid is the same reasoning that led someone to accept that position in the first place. Indeed, being unable to make a credible argument and being unable to recognize that fact is indicative that one doesnt' really understand the issue.
That's why in debates, you do lose credibility for using fallacious arguments.
For instance...
Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.
so you assert. But assertion isn't evidence.
I mean when you wrote that, did you think to include what you meant by "gun control"? You know gun control is a blanket term for a host of laws and strategies, right?
Some efforts at gun control have failed for one reason or another.
But as a matter of fact, some have worked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/right off you started with an absolutist statement which is so easy to counter. All I had to do was find just one example of a gun control law that worked. Even partial success works for my point.
And if you couldn't for see such an obvious flaw, what other flaws in your reasoning could exist?
I mean here's another one that's really obvious...
Criminals operate on a black market that already illegally transports drugs and gun modifications into America or any other country. All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime, but most of those you can accomplish instead by using a sword or a knife.
For one if a law makes a crime "less likely" that's counted as working. So you just refuted your own statement while you were making it.
Also we can extend your logic to it's natural conclusion to all crimes. Murder, theft, insider trading, littering.. all of these do still happen despite laws against them. Since no law can be said to have a 100% success rate at prevention, then by that logic we should just stop having laws.
worse, you imply that criminals operate in some alternate universe where the actions in our universe can never affect them.
The point of laws is not to create a utopia where laws are never broken. that's a straw man. But if they help minimize the problem with tolerable consequences, that's a good law.
You will probably say that isnt' what you meant. I'll even believe you But that's where your comment led.
So how did you not notice that? What other blind spots do you have you arent' aware of?
A gun just makes it somewhat easier.
Somehwhat is a bit of a understatment. They make it a LOT easier.
I have personally used guns, bows and swords.
Two of those take quite a bit of practice and athletic ability to use successfully. One does not. Skill with a gun can improve one's ability but the bare minimum to us e a gun can be obtained pretty quickly(almost instantly.)
Not to mention guns are more lethal over all.
I mean, the main source of violence in the USA is gangs, poverty, lack of education, and ghettos.
No, you think that's the case. and it might be. But you provide no reason to believe that. You just assert it.
I mean, you could have provided some stats.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43Most violent crime involving guns are robberies. Gang violence is a serious problem but interestingly crime over all has been going down.
And here are some more stats from the CDC:
In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdfIF we look into the specifics we find that over half of all murders (75% of which involved a gun) the murderer and victim knew each other intimately (family member, boyfriend, friend, ect.) While males are more likely to be killed by guns, female victims overwhelmingly were murdered by their spouses or boyfriends. that would seem to steer away from the your gang violence is the primary cause theory. It would still be a factor in those situations. but it seems unlikely. And it isnt' helped by the fact that where motive was known, arguments were the leading cause, accounting for 41% of the murders. Murders committed in the course of a crime was 22%
So what does that tell us?
That most gun deaths are split between suicide and crimes of passion, in both instances the presence of a gun exacerbated an already bad situation. which means...
Guns simply give these people a means to be violent and deadly
Which is kind of the problem/point, isn't it?!
but they are generally not purchased from legal suppliers anyways.
And actually that's incorrect. Most guns are purchased legally. Even ones used in crimes. A common tactic is a straw purchase. And then the gun is "gifted" to whom ever paid the person for the gun. And this all perfectly legal as long as the gun hasnt' yet been used in a crime.
remember when I said that the majority of female victims knew their murderer intimately? Those guys aren't going into some black market for guns. (I doubt most of the them could find the black market) They go to the local pawn store and if necessary get a friend to buy the gun for them (assuming anything is stopping them from gettign the gun themselves)
America's had major federal restrictions on automatic weapons for a long time. Other stuff is state by state.
The Federal assualt weapons ban expired in 2004. Many state versions have either also expired or been over turned.
Not that it matetrs anyway since besides a small group that gravitated to them (spree killers for instance who wanted ahigh kill ratio) most murders were not using these weapons. Career criminals would not want something so showy and crimes of passion only need whatever gun is easiest to obtain.
Weapon restrictions and bans historically have more to do with government control.
Ok well lets think about that.
Which country would you say was more free during the 90s?
Great Britain? Or Iraq?
Now, guess which country had more guns in the hands of it's citizens and a thriving gun culture.
Give you a clue. Its the country where there were so many guns (being fired on american troops ) that a deeply conservative US president made a speech about how civilized nation don't need guns. (not that it really worked)
What really is a lesson from History is that dictators have a wide array of means to control their populace. Gun bans rarely play a major role since the populace at large supports the would be dictator (and uses their guns to back that support up)
(psst. it was Iraq.Yes I am sure the UK has some gun culture but not like Iraq's)A gun doesn't care how rich or poor you are, doesn't care if you are fat, skinny, or muscular.
Yes, regardless of physical ability, almost anyone can kill another with a gun. And guns are pretty cheap nowadays so even the poor can murder if they want too.
Oh sorry, was that not your point?
...It is an equalizer for those who who could not defend themselves without it and a terrible tool for those who cry tears of impotent rage.
And this is where we finally break down because to accept your premise requires thinking that westerns and dirty harry movies are accurate portrayals of real life.
Of course anyone who actually thought about it would realize the problem.
Guns are not shields. They do not stop bullets. What they do is allow one to fire back, assuming you have your gun on you ... and assuming you see clearly who is shooting at you ... and assuming they somehow missed hitting you in the first place ,,,, and assuming they gave you any chance at all.
That's a lot of assumptions. Even in a war zone that's difficult (which is why despite out gunning the enemy, we still have thousands of dead american soldiers)
Sure there might be exceptions where guns helped stop a would be murderer (especially if said murderer himself lacked a gun) but for the most part guns don't seem to really stop gun violence. Even you admitted that in a back handed way when you mentioned gang members. Who's more likely to be killed in gang violence? But who's also most likely to be armed?
Your statement fails even a brief amount of critical thinking.
And that's the problem. That was my point above. Thats what I was ranting about.
You didn't think about that. You didn't research to make sure what you said was valid or true.
You assumed it was because it fit what you wanted to believe.
Believe it or not my problem here isnt' people who make arguments against gun control.
It's people who make poorly thought out, ignorant, fallacious arguments against gun control
You could have made a decent argument.
You could have pointed that violent crime is actually decreasing (though we dont' know why it is decreasing, it still is even as gun ownership increases. We don't know that the two are related but you could have mentioned it if you had taken the time to look at the stats)
You could have focused on specific laws that you think wouldn't work. Not all guns laws are the same. Gun control doesnt' automatically mean banning guns.
You could have proposed more moderate gun control laws that would still protect what you think is your constitutional right. (
it's not as if we don't regulate other rights yet still possess them)
But you didn't. Instead you gave me a crap argument full of bad logic and fewer facts.
We could have had a nice dialogue about what gun control laws may work and what wouldn't or would go too far.
But instead I had to explain why almost everything you said is wrong. (
Which I am sure you will now ignore)
Or to put this in non PC terms....
many gun owners leave the impression they are idiots, unable to grok that they have a deadly weapon... all the while insisting I should trust them with said deadly weapon.
if you want me to be ok with your ability to kill another human being, don't make me think you're an irresponsible idiot. Because until you actually kill someone, I only have your words by which to judge your competency.