By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine on 23 August 2019
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

So you get the point and then talk about things that are not the point.  Why? 

It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns.  It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric.  You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point).  I retorted that your logic equally meant we could ban guns (also, not the point).  I never said we should ban them.  It was a continuation of your own logic based on the nullification. Banning them or arming everyone has nothing to do with the point.

Oh, and your plastic bag / insurance fraud analogy?  That's a non-sequitur.

"It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns. It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric."

>And I think you actually strengthened NRA rhetoric: the gun as a non-factor means banning guns will achieve nothing with regards to deaths. You stated earlier

"The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric."

>If I were an NRA member, I'd add "Yes! I will happily claim guns are neither the problem nor solution: they're a non-factor! So leave guns out of this topic! Don't even bring them up!"

"You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point)."

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?