| theprof00 said: I'm a psych major and I wouldn't be posting this information or my views if I wasn't a hundred percent sure that it was true. This is just one source of many, but for a forum I'm not going to waste my time doing research. I have planted the seed and it's up to you to decide whether or not it is worth it to YOU to find out the truth for yourself. (not just you bronco, but the plural "you") |
This is a debate, if you're not willing to participate and convince people then step out without asserting that you're correct and implying that we are to simple or daft to understand. A simple "I don't have the free time to invest and I think we should agree to disagree for now" will do just fine. If everyone else can make their case and back it up I don't see why you should be any different...
Next:
"I know all about correlation and the variables and this is one of the most credible sources.
So far we have looked at two
one showing that countries with higher gun control have fewer murders.
The second one is this one showing gun crime going down as gun control increases."
You never made your case for this correlation, you showed reduced violence numbers and then asserted that it was caused by gun control laws. This is not a factual case, this is an opinion.
Next:
"It IS a very complicated subject, but in this scenario it is much better to err on the cautious side than the other way around. At one point it was pretty much legal to murder people.
There are so many horror stories involving guns, and sometimes you really have to think about what is actually happening behind the scenes."
I agree that it is complicated but this appeal to the precautionary principle is an extremely nebulous and insubstantial argument. In what specific ways should we err on the cautious side? By removing guns altogether? By getting rid of gun sales at pawn shops, flea markets, and gun shows? There is no way to respond to this effectively without specifics and indeed the entire argument is boiled down to essentially saying "I didn't completely prove my case so everyone assume I'm right based on the assumption that by assuming I'm right we are in fact erring on the side of caution. You have to prove that gun control is effective before you can assert it is the safe way to proceed for the precautionary principle. There is plenty of studies both sides on this issue.
Next:
"My GF's sister's old boyfriend from Colorado was a serial cat murderer (they found out later). He was a normal kid, but really fucked her up mentally. She got a call from the government recently saying that he had applied for a job as a border police and they wanted a recommendation.
People like this exist. The way gun laws are in this country actually makes murder legal in many many instances.
Some time ago a man saw two guys breaking into someone's house. He went over there with a shotgun, without calling the cops beforehand, and killed them both. This is not right. Even by religious standards, noone is allowed to take the life of another."
As I stated previously, there are people out there in the world who are capable and determined, but this does not constitute a justification for removing the rights of the majority to deal with the potential threats of an extreme minority.
As for the "makes murder legal" bit, I think you need to expound on that argument if you want to assert something like that. You're probably referring to self-defense, but I'll let you explain.
As for your religion argument I must admit this line of reasoning seems extremely irrelevant to me, but if you want to pursue it we should find out which religions this actually is and is not true for.
Finally:
"A 7 year old shot himself in the face recently at a gun show when he was shooting an uzi!!
This kind of thing needs to end"
Gun accidents happen just like car accidents and are equally tragic. But it is safety features and parenting that are the real answers, not legislation.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
