By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 06 January 2018
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:
Zkuq said:

I literally said getting rid of the existing guns is the really hard part. You compared guns and thieving in a logically unsound way, and that is the only part I wrote about. The solution to the gun problem is simple and effective but really, really hard to pull off. There doesn't exist anything similar to the thieving problem: Beyond countering the criminals, there just isn't anything comparable to banning most guns. And just to make this clear: I'm not even slightly suggesting that banning guns is a viable solution. I'm saying it's a solution that would most likely work if it could be pulled off, but nothing similar exists to solve the thieving problem.

As for your last point, I'm aware of that. Tools used for thefts have more immediate legit uses though. The tools used for thefts have everyday use in a lot of jobs. The use for guns is on a level that isn't really comparable. I'm not saying whether either is better in the long run, but in the short run, almost nothing would change if guns were largely banned - but a lot would change if tools used for thefts were banned.

"I literally said getting rid of the existing guns is the really hard part."

1. your wording was ambiguous


"You compared guns and thieving in a logically unsound way"

2. no i'm saying that both result in an unsafe environment that necessitates preparations, how is that logically unsound?

3. what logical plan are you suggesting to take away the millions of guns already in circulation? if you don't have one then we are faced with the above condition correct?

 

" I'm saying it's a solution that would most likely work if it could be pulled off"

4. work with regards to what? stopping people from causing harm to each other? if the motivation drive is strong enough then they'll just resort to making homemade bombs with pressure cookers or whatever

the majority of murders as far as i know are caused by objects other than guns such as knives, that does not mean that guns should not be more regulated but i'm saying that its not really a solution to people wanting to harm other people

 

" but a lot would change if tools used for thefts were banned."

5. the same applies for the billions of people who have collectively faced government tyranny in the past and will in the future

perhaps if the jews had guns back in 1930s germany, their oppressors would have been deterred from fucking with them

1. It was not. You drew your own conclusions. I said exactly what I meant and nothing else.

2. You did not. You said this:

if someone said... "-_- can you really believe bro that they are selling locks for property instead of dealing with the thief problem?" that would be dumb right?

You compared potential solutions in a logically unsound way.

3. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy, nothing else.

4. It's funny how homicide rates are much lower in other western countries with tighter gun laws. I guess you have an explanation for that then?

5. I know, like I said. I was explicitly talking about short-term implications. Long-term implications of more restrictive gun laws are interesting though.