gun-fellator news: Missouri Bill Would Require All First Graders To Take Gun ed.

[spursncowboys]

It is only a post hoc fallacy if it is unproven that guns aren't involved in accidental gun deaths.

Props for trying to use and show good logic, but you failed rather badly in the execution.

I generally contend that most conservatives or people who call themselves conservative suck at constructing logical arguments, and constantly commit logical fallacies. Sorry but your post rather plainly added evidence to support that assertion. I don't think you understand what that fallacy means.

What a post hoc fallacy would look like in this case:

There was a gun in the home.
A child died in the home.
Therefore the gun caused the death.

or similar.

I hope that helps.

You should, if you are going to be serious about actually trying to catch real logical fallacies, go to this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Anything that you can actually show is clearly a logical fallacy, I will happily withdraw, and thank you for.

Otherwise... you simply add more evidence to my general assertion regarding "conservatives".

Well thank you for the help. ALthough it is correct, it doesn't mean that mine is incorrect. I used your websites to doublecheck . Maybe you should click on it. While your at it maybe you could bring in some kinds of facts. There by taking away my point that your entire post lacks them completely.

[b]RandomGuy[b]
If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

hmmm

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.

What can be disputed? Your opinion? Post hoc

[RandomGuy]

Well thank you for the help. ALthough it is correct, it doesn't mean that mine is incorrect. I used your websites to doublecheck . Maybe you should click on it. While your at it maybe you could bring in some kinds of facts. There by taking away my point that your entire post lacks them completely.
hmmm[/COLOR]

What can be disputed? Your opinion? Post hoc

(sighs)

[patiently]If it is a post hoc fallacy, ,then you should be able to easily fit it into the format.

Please, try to do so, and show me what you come up with.

Neither of these are really "opinion".

If you need proof that children are killed by mis-used guns, I can provide tens of thousands of concrete examples.Do you need proof that children are killed by guns, really? It isn't my opinion, but an observable fact, readily ascertained.

[spursncowboys]

(sighs)

[patiently]If it is a post hoc fallacy, ,then you should be able to easily fit it into the format.

Please, try to do so, and show me what you come up with.

Neither of these are really "opinion".

If you need proof that children are killed by mis-used guns, I can provide tens of thousands of concrete examples.Do you need proof that children are killed by guns, really? It isn't my opinion, but an observable fact, readily ascertained.

You're a pretentious idiot...You ness comes off well but not your information or your facts.

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

I would love to see you prove this...

[RandomGuy]

You're a pretentious idiot...You ness comes off well but not your information or your facts.



I would love to see you prove this...

[/B][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.

I also noticed that instead of trying to fit what I said into the "post hoc" fallacy, you simply changed the subject.



Make you a deal. I will back up my statement when you try to fit my statement into post hoc fallacy form, or, simply admit you ed up. You first, then I will go. Your claim, your burden of proof, and handwavy "you did it" bull doesn't cut it.

What is more important to you here, the truth or your ego? Man up and we can go on.

[DarrinS]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.

[DMC]

I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread. Kids take sex ed, does that mean schools are supporting kids having sex? Kids go through tornado and fire drills. Does that mean schools support kids being in fires and in tornadoes?

What exactly is the point or did someone just see "gun" and "kids" and "Missouri" and ejaculate their liberally tainted swimmers all over their keyboard and start a thread?

[spursncowboys]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.

I also noticed that instead of trying to fit what I said into the "post hoc" fallacy, you simply changed the subject.



Make you a deal. I will back up my statement when you try to fit my statement into post hoc fallacy form, or, simply admit you ed up. You first, then I will go. Your claim, your burden of proof, and handwavy "you did it" bull doesn't cut it.

What is more important to you here, the truth or your ego? Man up and we can go on.

What's with all the build up... Why can't you just explain your point from the beginning.

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

If you have guns, you will have accidents... Wtf!?? If you have a gun as in own? If you have a gun in your hand?
Accidents...What? Accidents involving alleged gun? Or just accidents in general like you fell down? If you cannot answer this, then we cannot debate any further.

Also I would love to see where you got this data to conclude this as facts. If you don't mind.

[mavs>spurs]

the op

[Wild Cobra]

I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread. Kids take sex ed, does that mean schools are supporting kids having sex? Kids go through tornado and fire drills. Does that mean schools support kids being in fires and in tornadoes?

What exactly is the point or did someone just see "gun" and "kids" and "Missouri" and ejaculate their liberally tainted swimmers all over their keyboard and start a thread?

I think that's what it is. So many people want their values and agenda taught in our schools like sex ed, political correctness, cultural diversity, etc. When it comes to gun safety however...

Again, I think it should all be determined at the lowest level possible. Let the communities decide.

[boutons_deux]

the op

translation from gun-fellator-ese: shoot the OP

[RandomGuy]

What's with all the build up... Why can't you just explain your point from the beginning.




[/B]If you have guns, you will have accidents... Wtf!?? If you have a gun as in own? If you have a gun in your hand?
Accidents...What? Accidents involving alleged gun? Or just accidents in general like you fell down? If you cannot answer this, then we cannot debate any further.

Also I would love to see where you got this data to conclude this as facts. If you don't mind.

[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

I will take that as "My ego won't let me admit I ed up, so let's talk about where I am sure you ed up."

Fair enough, although you would do well to man up and admit your ups when they happen. This is a life skill that is very much worth learning even outside of pointless message boards. Well meant and freely given.

On to the item you want to talk about, then.

Let me rephrase because it appears you are not quite understanding what I am trying to communicate.

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

Accidents happen.
We can both agree on this. I mean this in the most general sense. We trip and fall, we crash cars, wind knocks things over, etc.

Gun accidents exist.
We agree on this, I would hope. I can provide all sorts of youtube videos about this, if you wish. More than enough data to support that. Mechanical failure, human error, and negligence.

Accidents of all kinds involve children.
Need data for this statement?

Therefore, children will be involved in gun accidents.
This is meant in the most general sense, and flows logically from the previous statements. If you accept the first three statements as real and true, then you have to accept the conclusion.

I can very easily prove this.

You might be able to mitigate the risk, but not eliminate it.

I haven't even begun to address the issue of the sheer human malice factor involved in deliberately pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, and I can already logically and rightfully ask how many children you are willing to sacrifice to have guns. So, the unpleasant question remains. I have an answer to it, and it is "very few, and less than we lose now".

How many are you willing to sacrifice to be able to have guns?

[TeyshaBlue]

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.

Sorry, RG. I completely missed your response.

Cost-benefit analysis? Ummm. no.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis on any article of the bill of rights other than the conventional wisdom gut-check that was available to clear thinkers.
But now, we should do this to the second amendment or should we put them all under the scope?
I'm not sure of the argument your building here.

[TeyshaBlue]

Panacea? No. We would agree on that much.

As for whether we should do it or not, what do you think?

Of course we should do it. Incremental improvement is better than none. But it's importance as a tool is very over hyped.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would, for the most part, agree.

Would you say that the first and second amendment are equally important? Why or why not?

I would say no, simply because guns do not in any way guarantee liberty. If one wants to claim that, then you have to tell me why that is more effective than simply being enganged and informed in our democrative political process. Guns = lazy and ignorant way of guaranteeing liberty.

I do acknowledge that free speech can be used for evil purposes, like any tool, as you point out. Even so, the ONLY real use of the gun-tool is to kill people. Free speech is not quite as limited, and used for far more noble purposes.

Guns, as a tool, absolutely established our liberty. As a tool, they continue to do so. Our entire defense strategy is predicated upon this incredibly basic observation.
And just because a tool has a good purpose, doesn't mean it outweighs the negative, true.

[boutons_deux]

When Wars Come Home

Europe provides a clear contrast to the United States. Since World War II, as the United States became the sole superpower, Europe largely renounced militarism and war. Demilitarization is one of the reasons why many European countries, such as Sweden, have high levels of gun ownership for hunting and sports, but have one-tenth the US level of gun violence. Demilitarization weakens the cultural foundation of violence in civil society - If violence is not acceptable abroad, it can hardly be seen as honorable at home.

Europe provides a clear contrast to the United States. Since World War II, as the United States became the sole superpower, Europe largely renounced militarism and war. Demilitarization is one of the reasons why many European countries, such as Sweden, have high levels of gun ownership for hunting and sports, but have one-tenth the US level of gun violence. Demilitarization weakens the cultural foundation of violence in civil society - If violence is not acceptable abroad, it can hardly be seen as honorable at home.

The military has been directly involved in shaping cultural at udes for centuries. Since 1916, Junior ROTC, for example, which now operates in 1,645 high schools, has tried to mold civilian society and bring military moral messages to America's young. JROTC defines its mission as "The study of ethics, citizenship, communications, leadership, life skills and other subjects ... focusing on character building and civic responsibility ... being presented in every JROTC classroom."
The power of military culture in civilian life is not lost on the gun industry. It knows that 50 percent of all sporting rifle owners in the US are present or former veterans or work in law enforcement. The industry is now actively working to increase that percentage, targeting veterans and their families with advertising, particularly for the kinds of assault guns veterans used in the service, which the gun industry argues are both necessary for the safety of your family in your neighborhood and for fun in civilian life. They highlight that gun use is part of the fabric of US cons utional and moral values and makes our society morally exceptional.

As spelled out in Shooting Industry Magazine in July 2012, the industry praised the social network of "America's modern veteran," involving "hundreds of thousands of dads, brothers, uncles, wives, sisters, aunts, cousins and extended family and friends, who served or are serving in Iran and Afghanistan. They are respected and admired. They carried firearms to protect our country. That factor, that imagery, has had a huge positive impact on how firearms are viewed in our country."

The military does not act alone in causing gun violence. Gun violence is partly a response to poverty, but it also has roots in American culture. America enshrines gun ownership as a fundamental right in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The gun culture is particularly important in the South and the West, where it evolved largely to keep blacks and Native Americans in their place. In fact, one of the motives for passing the Second Amendment was to establish patrols to capture escaped slaves. Today, the South and the West are the regions that have the highest rate of domestic gun violence and the largest percentage of their population in the military, as well as the most military bases and the strongest support for military adventurism.

The military does not act alone in causing gun violence. Gun violence is partly a response to poverty, but it also has roots in American culture. America enshrines gun ownership as a fundamental right in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The gun culture is particularly important in the South and the West, where it evolved largely to keep blacks and Native Americans in their place. In fact, one of the motives for passing the Second Amendment was to establish patrols to capture escaped slaves. Today, the South and the West are the regions that have the highest rate of domestic gun violence and the largest percentage of their population in the military, as well as the most military bases and the strongest support for military adventurism.

Military societies cannot reproduce themselves without sustaining the commitment to guns and the morality of gun violence in the larger society. In his Farewell Address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the penetration of the values and economic interests of the military-industrial complex into the heart of civil society.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14...wars-come-home

The NRA, along with tea baggers and Repugs, and the 2nd-Amendment-Liberty!-Freedom! gun culture, is a stain on American civilization.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, RG. I completely missed your response.

Cost-benefit analysis? Ummm. no.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis on any article of the bill of rights other than the conventional wisdom gut-check that was available to clear thinkers.
But now, we should do this to the second amendment or should we put them all under the scope?
I'm not sure of the argument your building here.

I have come to the conclusion that our current cons ution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic do ent sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.

The second amendment would be one of the things I would simply get rid of, as its purpose has long ago lost its meaning and relevence. I don't think there is any "right" to own such things, any more than there is a "right" to possess nuclear weapons. People should be allowed, under limited cir stances to own firearms though, just like people may drive cars if they prove mentally and physically capable.

Conventional wisdom of 1791:
Gun = smoothbore, frontloading musket

Conventional wisdom of 2012:
Gun= fully automatic assault rifle.

Kind of hard to have a mass shooting when you ROF is 1rpm, with practice, c'est va? THe world has changed in innumerable ways since our nations founding, yet some people think our cons ution shouldn't.

The cost of swimming in an ocean of guns is a steady stream of dead children and adults, because we have made murder far easier for those who wish to commit that act than we should. This is a clear example, readily verifiable and quantifiable, of the cost.

I will ask you, what is the benefit? Be ready to defend that answer, if you want to be a proponent for keeping the 2nd amendment.

[RandomGuy]

Guns, as a tool, absolutely established our liberty. As a tool, they continue to do so. Our entire defense strategy is predicated upon this incredibly basic observation.
And just because a tool has a good purpose, doesn't mean it outweighs the negative, true.

We used guns to overthrow a monarch. We have used guns to fight other monarchies, fascist dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes.

Name functioing democracy in which a tyrant whose rise to power within his country was stopped by armed rebellion.

Quite frankly our fear that something horrible *might* happen drives us to accept horrible things happening all the time.

Doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff.

Lastly, I could use a screwdriver as a tool to bang nails, and it would do that. That doesn't mean that it is the best tool for the job.

Can you think of other methods to prevent the rise of tyrants? If so, what would they be?

[TeyshaBlue]

I have come to the conclusion that our current cons ution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic do ent sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.

The second amendment would be one of the things I would simply get rid of, as its purpose has long ago lost its meaning and relevence. I don't think there is any "right" to own such things, any more than there is a "right" to possess nuclear weapons. People should be allowed, under limited cir stances to own firearms though, just like people may drive cars if they prove mentally and physically capable.

Conventional wisdom of 1791:
Gun = smoothbore, frontloading musket

Conventional wisdom of 2012:
Gun= fully automatic assault rifle.

Kind of hard to have a mass shooting when you ROF is 1rpm, with practice, c'est va? THe world has changed in innumerable ways since our nations founding, yet some people think our cons ution shouldn't.

The cost of swimming in an ocean of guns is a steady stream of dead children and adults, because we have made murder far easier for those who wish to commit that act than we should. This is a clear example, readily verifiable and quantifiable, of the cost.

I will ask you, what is the benefit? Be ready to defend that answer, if you want to be a proponent for keeping the 2nd amendment.

Good points, RG. I think we have some common ground but I'm a bit reluctant to chunk the existing doc for a complete rewrite. #1. I don't think our Congress could do this. #2. Were I to attempt a bloodless coup, invalidating the cons utional protections would be step#1.

[TeyshaBlue]

We used guns to overthrow a monarch. We have used guns to fight other monarchies, fascist dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes.

Name functioing democracy in which a tyrant whose rise to power within his country was stopped by armed rebellion.

Quite frankly our fear that something horrible *might* happen drives us to accept horrible things happening all the time.

Doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff.

Lastly, I could use a screwdriver as a tool to bang nails, and it would do that. That doesn't mean that it is the best tool for the job.

Can you think of other methods to prevent the rise of tyrants? If so, what would they be?

notsurifsrs. A functioning Democracy can't give rise to a tyrant. A dysfunctional one certainly could.

[spursncowboys]

I have come to the conclusion that our current cons ution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic do ent sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.

So you think the clowns in congress who couldn't vote in a budget, for four years and counting, can do better than our Founding Fathers?

[boutons_deux]

So you think the clowns in congress who couldn't vote in a budget, for four years and counting, can do better than our Founding Fathers?

that's the problem, as outdated as the Cons ution is, Congress is so ed that it would never fix it. iow, America is ed and un able, in permanent, unstoppable decline, as the 1% and corps bleed the wealth from the 99% and rape the environment.

[mavs>spurs]

oh hi

[mavs>spurs]

^hit ya knees trick..time to fellate this big gun

[Clipper Nation]

The Cons ution is automatically "outdated" and needs replacing because I don't agree with it!

[boutons_deux]

Congressman Says Americans Need Guns To Protect The Nation From Sharia Law

guess who?




http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...om-sharia-law/