The Logic Fallacy of Guns for Everyone

Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by pirhanna


well i wouldnt compare a suitcase nuke to a handgun, not even a minigun....so where is your logic...no disrespect kind sir, but you could have made more sense if you compared a rabbit to an ox...

A gun is for self defence...

A bomb is just murder-suicide

At what point do you STOP taking away things that are dangerous?

Actually makes just as much sense as declaring death illegal...

As I said in another thread......
Let us look at the Batman theater shooting.
Their were several theaters in the area.
The one this nut job chose was not the biggest, it was not the closest to where he lived, it was not the busiest or the most popular.
It was however the only one with a sign stating that no concealed weapons were allowed on site.
This guy intentionally chose a location where he knew law abiding citizens would not try and stop his plans.
Quad

PS
The other thread I posted this in was removed. Reading your op I think this one will soon follow.

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by pirhanna

 

well i wouldnt compare a suitcase nuke to a handgun, not even a minigun....so where is your logic...no disrespect kind sir, but you could have made more sense if you compared a rabbit to an ox...

I am providing a counterpoint to the myopic gun hysteria.
its not my job to teach you literary skills and critical thinking,

Try seeing something that isn't tacked to your nose.
Not everything is literal. Its an illustrative analogy showing
that the tools of killing are not all the same and that
having everyone armed to the teeth is not necessarily safer.
the point is to show that its not just about people killing people.
would you want everyone running around with their finger on a nuke trigger?
no of course not. There are limits to how much power of killing
and destruction should be permissable in society. There is a
line somewhere that is quite enough. And this is a real
issue that needs to be thought about critically without
resorting to parroted dialogue. Its not as simple to figure out
as somethinghanging from ones nose and neither is my apt
analogy.

reply to post by pirhanna


But, but, but... That's no fair making an argument like that. Not fair at all.


But seriously, you have a point, but access to weapons is only a portion of the problem with these shooting rampages in the USA. The US is a sick, soulless nation that thrives on violence of all ilks. Look at our blood-thirsty, child-killing military; now it is justifying killing kids who are digging in the dirt in Afghanistan. Look at t.v shows, movies and "literature". Look at video and computer games. Look at some of the popular and glorified sports, i.e. football, boxing and Ultimate Fighting. Look at how the country has been brainwashed and propagandized into believing that the US government has a right to torture and kill in the name of some dubious ongoing, un-ending war. Then there's the fact that just about the entire nation is strung out on psychotropic drug or another. Anyone who is surprised/shocked that these sorts of incidents occur here on a regular -- if not frequent -- basis just aren't paying attention.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by pirhanna

 

But, but, but... That's no fair making an argument like that. Not fair at all.

But seriously, you have a point, but access to weapons is only a portion of the problem with these shooting rampages in the USA. The US is a sick, soulless nation that thrives on violence of all ilks. Look at our blood-thirsty, child-killing military; now it is justifying killing kids who are digging in the dirt in Afghanistan. Look at t.v shows, movies and "literature". Look at video and computer games. Look at some of the popular and glorified sports, i.e. football, boxing and Ultimate Fighting. Look at how the country has been brainwashed and propagandized into believing that the US government has a right to torture and kill in the name of some dubious ongoing, un-ending war. Then there's the fact that just about the entire nation is strung out on psychotropic drug or another. Anyone who is surprised/shocked that these sorts of incidents occur here on a regular -- if not frequent -- basis just aren't paying attention.

Absolutely. weaponry access is but one issue in a long line of societal failures that led to tragedy. And it keeps happening. And everyone thinks it will change by doing the same thing over and over. It wont. There are a lot of things that need serious examination. This what I was going for. Real, critical thinking.

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.

LMAO

I get what your saying and doing unfortunately the gun nuts wont.

Good luck dude Ur gonna need it\

S&F

Originally posted by Planet teleX
A gun is for self defence...

A bomb is just murder-suicide

Guns can be use for murder-suicide too.
Bombs / explosives can also be used in mining and for many other non-lethal purposes.

Where as a suitcase nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.
Just saying

OP. I get your point, even though you're comparing apples with oranges...

Originally posted by Thisbseth
you made me LOL.....you really sound dumb, no offense and i apologize for any taken. but comparing a bomb to a gun is down right retarded....

No, it's not. Guns are made to kill people, so are bombs. It's a good point. The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is really stupid.

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.

A bit bulky.
I'd prefer to carry around a small test tube vial of the plague.

It would be perfectly safe.

Vials of the plague don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefore everyone should be able to carry around a vial of the plague.

Taking away guns from people isn't going to stop anyone that's going to go on a killing spree, or simply come unglued:

Chinese knife attack injures over 20, some of them children

The more inventive people will fabricate home-made bombs, or something else equally terrifying with easy-to-follow plans on the internet using easily obtained very common and unregulated house-hold ingredients.

Taking away guns, or anything construed 'dangerous' leaves all the dangerous stuff in the hands of criminals that are going to continue having guns and dangerous items regardless of what regulation there might be.
Taking away guns neuters the public from having means by which to defend themselves.

Should we expect round-nosed plastic scissors and only round-nosed plastic scissors in stores now too?

At what point is the government going to stop playing 'helicopter mommy'?

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by Planet teleX
A gun is for self defence...

A bomb is just murder-suicide

Guns can be use for murder-suicide too.
Bombs / explosives can also be used in mining and for many other non-lethal purposes.

Where as a suitcase nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.
Just saying

OP. I get your point, even though you're comparing apples with oranges...

You missed the entire point. A bomb can never be used for self defence. It would kill you, which completely negates the comparison.

Yes a gun can do both, sadly. But a gun can also prevent a murder-suicide by a third party onlooker.

When was the last time you heard of explosive mining being conducted in a shopping mall?

Originally posted by Druscilla
Taking away guns from people isn't going to stop anyone that's going to go on a killing spree, or simply come unglued:

Chinese knife attack injures over 20, some of them children

The more inventive people will fabricate home-made bombs, or something else equally terrifying with easy-to-follow plans on the internet using easily obtained very common and unregulated house-hold ingredients.

Taking away guns, or anything construed 'dangerous' leaves all the dangerous stuff in the hands of criminals that are going to continue having guns and dangerous items regardless of what regulation there might be.
Taking away guns neuters the public from having means by which to defend themselves.

Should we expect round-nosed plastic scissors and only round-nosed plastic scissors in stores now too?

At what point is the government going to stop playing 'helicopter mommy'?

edit on 15-12-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

That doesn't prove anything, of course homicide rates will decline, at the moment the US's is very high due to gun murders.

Are scissors made to kill people? They have a necessary purpose. Guns have one purpose.

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by Planet teleX
A gun is for self defence...

A bomb is just murder-suicide

Guns can be use for murder-suicide too.
Bombs / explosives can also be used in mining and for many other non-lethal purposes.

Where as a suitcase nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.
Just saying

OP. I get your point, even though you're comparing apples with oranges...

You missed the entire point. A bomb can never be used for self defence. It would kill you, which completely negates the comparison.

Yes a gun can do both, sadly. But a gun can also prevent a murder-suicide by a third party onlooker.

When was the last time you heard of explosive mining being conducted in a shopping mall?

No you're missing the point. Both guns and bombs are made to kill people, if people being able to carry a weapon doesn't increase homicides then everyone should be able to carry a bomb if they want, because bombs don't kill people, people kill people, right?

"When was the last time you heard of explosive mining being conducted in a shopping mall?"

Bomb control is working!

Originally posted by SpearMint
No you're missing the point. Both guns and bombs are made to kill people,

You said bombs were also made for mining.
Can't guns also be made for self-defence?

Originally posted by SpearMint
if people being able to carry a weapon doesn't increase homicides then everyone should be able to carry a bomb if they want, because bombs don't kill people, people kill people, right?

Do you think that if people were allowed to carry bombs around they would start turning into psychopaths? Or would even want to carry one around?

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Originally posted by SpearMint
No you're missing the point. Both guns and bombs are made to kill people,

You said bombs were also made for mining.
Can't guns also be made for self-defence?

Originally posted by SpearMint
if people being able to carry a weapon doesn't increase homicides then everyone should be able to carry a bomb if they want, because bombs don't kill people, people kill people, right?

Do you think that if people were allowed to carry bombs around they would start turning into psychopaths? Or would even want to carry one around?

edit on 15/12/2012 by Planet teleX because: (no reason given)

Yes, but you can't control who's using them purely for self defence. In countries with gun control you don't need a gun for self defence.

And no, the psychopaths are given the tools they need, just like guns.