Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 137. (Read 450551 times)

Gun control cannot, and does not, stop a single person with a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them.

It can, and does, only ensure that those without a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them, bleed.

I feel that gun control is needed in order to stop people that have a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them. Gun control has to be done to an extent is all.

Well that's a reasonable explanation.  I think everyone here has allowance for poor translations and such.

Sometimes (as above) I pose a question in a rhetorical sense.  That means it is for discussion, not that I have revealed my personal view.

And there are many arguments about Quantum Physics.  Show me some strings. 

(Lol...)

Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.

I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.

AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.

Adding "maybe" doesn't make your premise any less of a logical fallacy. I give you credit for learning how not to use exclusive language tho, at least you are learning something, even if it has nothing to do with guns. I said exactly what I said, I didn't imply anything. You can interpret what i said all day, but at the end of the day I said what I said, not what you interpret me as saying. I find it very ironic a gun control advocate is telling me to look at the big picture not a single spectacular event. It seems this is the favorite game of the gun control crowd any time one of these evens happen in the US. I guess when it happens in a country with strict gun control clearly it is just an outlier and should be disregarded. Funny how those standards flip depending on how it serves your bias against people having a right to self defense.

That's why I added the "maybe" in italic, because it's not a proof in itself as you can't prove anything concerning the violence/gun debate unless you make some kind of A/B testing.

And this is not a counter argument. You talked about racial diversity, I took it as a counter argument and explained why it's not enough to justify the difference of violent crimes rates. Not at all.
Then you came and say "I never said that" well of course but you implied it, proof is you're talking about it again here.

Do whatever you want I don't care. Fact is we got less violent crimes and less deaths every year, and gun control is a good explanation of this. I'm not saying it's the absolute proof, maybe other factors can explain it, but I don't see any factor important enough to explain it and you didn't provide any.

Oh and the Death Angels can say whatever they want and Donald Trump too, the people killed on that night were killed in a matter of seconds. Having guns wouldn't have changed a thing, it would probably have increased the number of deaths in fact because everyone was totally panicking! There was a lot of injuries on that day and the following days because people thought someone was a terrorist. In a restaurant there was a huge panick move because a lightbulb exploded.
Well think whatever you want but the guns wouldn't have done shit against the bombs or the 3 guys firing Ak-47 in the Bataclan. Unless there was some kind of psycho professional always ready to shoot even at a concert, maybe it could have done something... Like saving a dozen of life maybe. But what's sure is that the dozen of life that would have MAYBE been saved here wouldn't have repayed the thousands of killed you got everyyear because of gun freedom. In fact it wouldn't even repay the children that kill themselves by accident everyyear.
So no sorry but that's the wort kind of argument. Look at the big picture not just one spectacular event.

Actually I did offer a counter argument to you, just because you are too willfully ignorant to perceive it doesn't mean it did not happen. One example I gave that is a cause of violence is the diversity of the US population. You automatically assume that correlation equals causation, which is your argument I emboldened above. You assume that these statistics are accurate enough to be compared 1 to 1 when there are many vast differences between our countries not included in those statistics that you just brush aside in order to jump right to your bias of guns being the cause, not a result of violence. This is not "proofs", at best is is flimsy circumstantial evidence with no proof of correlation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I thought you would like this article considering it concerns your home country: https://www.rt.com/news/332608-guns-eagles-death-metal-paris/

I don't know what you mean by liberal, I don't consider myself as a liberal.
But it's not your imagination, conservatives having absolutely no argument (at least they don't bother bringing them up) they can only point out the logical inaccuracy with a zero tolerance like we were debating about Quantum Physics and not about social science and studies. Arguing would need to have arguments, evidence and to be able to think, which it seems they're not able to do. On the other hand I tend to sometimes go a bit too fast in my reasoning or to misunderstand/misinterpret some things. I consider it's better to go forward while not perfectly in the good direction than to don't move.

And you might have never though about it but not the whole world is English native, so it might be hard to be perfectly accurate...

Ah! Talking about logic? Well if you want to talk about logic, last time I checked I gave you proofs that USA society is much more violent and that could maybe be correlated to the gun freedom. And you never gave any argument to counter this.
And I seriously suggest you to read a bit more. Seems you have a lot to learn about communication if you know so much already about logic.

They could agree but that would need first to think about something which they can hardly do ^^

Yes, what I meant is that if people don't have guns, there won't be (as much, if any) gun casualties. You could agree that it works.

AKA the Holocaust & every other democide in history, perpetrated against disarmed and/or defenseless innocents.

People control would be better

I've never seen a polar bear where I live.  But I have heard rumors that some people have seen them where they live.

You can interpret all day if you want, your problem is that you repeated those internal interpretations as if they came from me. That is your gap in logic. You don't get to interpret my statements then attribute them to me. As for the rest of your statement I suggest you research logic before you pretend to teach me "the philosophy" of language.

I've never seen someone shot where I live. We don't have people roam with guns on the street. Maybe that's something isn't it?

Is it my imagination or do most liberal / conservative discussions consist of LOGICAL ERRORS (liberal) debating LOGIC (conservative)?

Sure does seem that way.

Well if I can't interpret your words in any way, your assertion is... Useless. Because if what you meant to say is just EXACTLY what you said, you just basically said "we have a higher diversity" without linking it to the subject. My only interpretation was to consider that your argument about racial diversity was to be linked to the higher violence in the USA. If it is not what you wanted to say then sorry for the interpretation. It's just that your statement is useless.

Sorry I thought you tried to add an argument. You were just posting without any goal. I'll stop interpreting whatever you say, though you should maybe read a bit of philosophy about the use of language because it seems you never understood the important part of language: words are MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED! Otherwise just talk to yourself. If you don't take into account what the person you're talking to then no need to talk.