Dallas Church Shooting

[ElNono]

just need more gun laws and we can strive for better

Clearly the system failed. Let’s look the other way and throw our arms in the air and do nothing about it

[DMC]

I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question trying to determine what your actual position on gun control and safety actually is. The fact you can't fit my question into any reasonable construct of the fallacy proves my point.

Since you seem to be hung up on the boring part, let me be more explicit.

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?

Did you even read what you quoted?

You: Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.
You: Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

Reflect on your own statements. You created a strawman.

This mysterious "many gun advocates" claim needs to be supported. I cannot argue for or against this mysterious source.

[DMX7]

But my point is that neither you nor I can personally create the scenario you're talking about. A realistic measure beats wishful thinking.

Really? We can’t do ANYTHING to reduce the number of shooting incidents without our country becoming a dystopian police state the NRA wants you to believe our country would be with better gun control?

You are totally brainwashed by the far right propaganda.

[DMC]

Really? We can’t do ANYTHING to reduce the number of shooting incidents without becoming a dystopian police state the NRA wants you to believe we would live in with better gun control?

You are totally brainwashed by the far right propaganda.

Now the false dilemma..

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

brainwashed.. I've called for full bans on guns here and the left choked on their avocado toast.

[RandomGuy]

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.

When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Randomguy (Person 1) asserts that armed people will eventually stop a potential mass shooter, resulting in fewer casualties. (Proposition X)

DMC (Person 2) argues that Randomguy is "pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets" (Proposition Y).

[ElNono]

97.8% of public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones

Fake News.

[DMC]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Randomguy (Person 1) asserts that armed people will eventually stop a potential mass shooter, resulting in fewer casualties. (Proposition X)

DMC (Person 2) argues that Randomguy is "pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets" (Proposition Y).

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I did not present the argument that more guns everywhere was a solution - you did, after saying "armed people" you extrapolated that to "more guns". Then you asked me to defend it.

[DMX7]

Now the false dilemma..

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

Here’s one example of the simplest thing to start with... universal background checks, meaning no loopholes to avoid background checks on gun purchases (gun show, etc). You would know you have by implementing controls and then looking at the shooting statistics to see any measurable improvement. Not complicated...

[ElNono]

Just a cursory look at the FBI data from 16-17:

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...-2017.pdf/view

[DMC]

Here’s one example of the simplest thing to start with... universal background checks, meaning no loopholes to avoid background checks on gun purchases (gun show, etc). You would know you have by implementing controls and then looking at the shooting statistics to see any measurable improvement. Not complicated...

How can you personally enact universal background checks?

[ElNono]

Now the false dilemma..

What can YOU do to reduce the number of shootings? How would you know you have?

brainwashed.. I've called for full bans on guns here and the left choked on their avocado toast.

Full bans are not a solution either, IMO. There are solid examples to follow from different countries that still allow possession/ownership but keep a high bar and tight look at those individuals.

[DMX7]

How can you personally enact universal background checks?

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

[DMC]

Full bans are not a solution either, IMO. There are solid examples to follow from different countries that still allow possession/ownership but keep a high bar and tight look at those individuals.

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.

[Blake]

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

No he means you as in YOU individually because that's a real argument!

[DMC]

huh? Congress can, we’re talking about gun control law... meaning the legislature.

I asked what can you do. Congress isn't going to show up when that guy comes into the room with the shotgun.

[spurraider21]

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.

[DMC]

No he means you as in YOU individually because that's a real argument!

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

[Blake]

I asked what can you do. Congress isn't going to show up when that guy comes into the room with the shotgun.

Do you really not understand how our society works

[ElNono]

If we take an all nothing approach, we will never have a solution. There's no cure for cancer, but there are treatments and there's preventive steps like smoking cessation and avoiding carcinogens. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take these steps just because it doesn't cure cancer.

Are you trolling? Because that’s what SR21 was talking about earlier in the thread.

There’s no doubt that it will take a cultural shift for the US to come to terms with its gun fellatio problem. And in that sense I agree that it’s difficult to switch to a different model overnight. Not to mention, there’s certain regulations that probably won’t pass legal muster and won’t work. So it’s clear it’s going to have to be progressive and nuanced.

[DMC]

Do you really not understand how our society works

Do you not understand that society is a construct? That in reality we are all individuals? You cannot shoot society. You can shoot an individual. While congress is tied up doing what-the- -ever, individuals have the right to defend themselves - so sayeth the 2nd Amendment. It's still your right to not do so however. You have the right to wait for legislation and evolution to change society. Good luck with that.

[DMC]

Are you trolling? Because that’s what SR21 was talking about earlier in the thread.

There’s no doubt that it will take a cultural shift for the US to come to terms with its gun fellatio problem. And in that sense I agree that it’s difficult to switch to a different model overnight. Not to mention, there’s certain regulations that probably won’t pass legal muster and won’t work. So it’s clear it’s going to have to be progressive and nuanced.

SR21 was overlooking the act of mitigating a situation, like what was done in Dallas, by considering it's not a perfect solution. It should go without saying that, short of global ELE, there is no perfect solution.

[DMX7]

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

You're shifting your stance from you don't want Congress to act on gun control legislation (for whatever reason) to you think it would take too long for Congress to act.

[DMC]

You're shifting your stance from you don't want Congress to act on gun control legislation (for whatever reason) to you think it would take too long for Congress to act.

When did I say that?

I am discussing micro-solutions vs macro-solutions. The solution provided in Dallas does nothing to deter other shooters. It was a way to mitigate that event. That's all I can do as an individual. I could be one of those cowering behind the pews hoping someone does something, hearing shots and hoping the guy doesn't make it to me. Or I could be one of the several in that video who drew their sidearms and headed toward the chaos. It's a personal choice. Given the two choices (assuming fleeing is out), I choose to shoot back.

[RandomGuy]

Did you even read what you quoted?

You: Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.
You: Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

Reflect on your own statements. You created a strawman.

This mysterious "many gun advocates" claim needs to be supported. I cannot argue for or against this mysterious source.

Infowars is definitely an advocate for people having more guns, and tries to make the case.
https://www.infowars.com/18-little-k...make-us-safer/

NRA certainly goes down that route:
"Guns make colleges safer"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2009...colleges-safer

"women with guns make america safer"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2002...-america-safer

Which Is Safer? More Guns Or Fewer?
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2007...-guns-or-fewer

How about the "general position of the NRA"

Contentious issue

Gun rights advocates argue that having more guns in society makes people safer by deterring crime and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against would-be attackers. Gun control proponents argue that guns lead to more violence, not less.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/areas...hs-study-finds

The general stance can be found here:
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/guns-in-america

[Blake]

Of course it's a real argument. If those people in that church waited for congress to act, they'd all be dead (probably of old age if not shot).

what someone can do to individually to protect themselves has nothing to do with what we want to collectively do about gun control. Why are you acting like it does?