Again, I am not arguing about any particular example of gun control, I am discussing a logical framework for having the discussion. I don't believe a discussion about specific policies can be had when you are asserting that the benefit doesn't matter if there is any cost whatsoever. That is a non-starter.

And again, I am not sure why you are continually asserting that I am the one who is positing emotional arguments. None of my arguments have been based in emotion. They have all been based in a logical framework which utilizes a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether something is positive or negative. On the other hand, the only rationale you have given for your argument is how you feel and the fact that people like their guns. That argument lacks a logical framework and hinges exclusively on emotion.

And here, instead of actually engaging with me and acknowledging the fact that there is no objectivity within your perspective, you just pull out blatant logical fallacies. You take a hard swing at a slippery slope fallacy before completely strawmanning my argument and making it into something that i never said. I never asserted that you are a bad person or that it would be good if someone was killed with an illegal gun. That has not been my argument, and only tells me that you do not plan on having an honest discussion here.

I will repeat what we are discussing here one last time:

I am trying to understand what logical framework is utilized to make decisions on what you consider to be good gun control and bad gun control. You have repeatedly failed to produce any standard which is not entirely arbitrary. It seems to me, that what is good is whatever you feel is good and what is bad, is whatever you feel is bad. That is not a valid argument and does not provide any assistance in the attempt to prevent people from being victimized.

I have given you several chances to counter this point. You have not even attempted to. I struggle to understand how you are unable to see exactly how empty your position is.

The argument started out as guns needing to be at the very least more regulated, if not banned altogether, because some people are scared, which means the reasoning was based mostly on feelings, and you want to solve this only using logic?

You say you're only using logic, yet you clearly think some random people dying due to guns is a bad thing. Why? If you felt nothing and feelings weren't being taken into account, then some random people dying from random gunshots wouldn't matter. Why do they matter? Feelings maybe?

Just imagine the random humans who are shooting some random birds right now just for the hell of it. Logically speaking, is that a problem that needs to be solved? Some random birds getting shot here and there out of an estimated 300 billion. Do they matter and would something need to be done about that? Do they matter as much as humans, logically speaking? If you cut down a few random healthy tree's, does it matter? Did those tree's feel anything? Are tree's less important than humans?

If you were only using logic and had to answer whether every human being dying all at once would be a bad thing, your answer would have to be, 'no, it's no big deal, the planet and all the other species will just go on as they did before us'. If every human dying all at once doesn't matter, then some here and there out of 8.0 billion surely wouldn't matter either.

Logically, feelings must be taken into account when you're talking about life and safety.

EricHiggin said: 

"It's partially how I think and feel myself, obviously, but also how everybody else thinks and feels as well. The thinking part matters much more than the feeling part though."

Where do I say I'm only using my feelings? Am I just as justified as you since I think you're mostly using your feelings and don't find your logic all that logical? What makes your responses more legitimate than my responses? Your judgement? That's quite fair and unbiased don't you think?

I think you're a little too focused on my logical framework considering your own is certainly questionable in this case.

George Carlin apparently warned the US about someone like Trump about 15 years ago.

When you get to the point in the argument where you have to argue that human life is meaningless and murder is actually not a bad thing, there really is no point in continuing the argument. You have taken to arguing against universal truths in order to justify the fact that there is no logic within your perspective.

Yes, murder is bad.

I don't feel the need to go into much depth to demonstrate that, because that is quite possibly the worst argument, and it is one that you almost certainly don't stand by yourself. If that were to truly factor into your logical framework, there would be no reason to have any laws whatsoever.

If we can't at least agree that murder is bad, why should I have a conversation with you? Why should I have a conversation with someone who so obviously doesn't wish to do debate honestly?

Governor of Texas:

I'm EMBARRASSED: Texas #2 in nation for new gun purchases, behind CALIFORNIA. Let's pick up the pace Texans. @NRA http://blog.chron.com/narcoconfidential/2015/10/texas-request-to-buy-guns-tops-1-million-for-year/

And another mass shooting today, that 'old' tweet must hurt.

If murder is bad, why do we murder 300 million cows per year? If an alien race shows up and easily murders 8 billion humans for food because of the food chain hierarchy, is that ok? Would that be a bad thing? Maybe they only murder some of us for now and herd the rest for later. Would that be better?

You are the one who only wants to use logic.

Since we're talking about universal truths, how exactly did the universe come into being?

Murder is bad because of feelings. Until you can agree with that, I guess there's no point in continuing as you said.

The agreement that human life or the life of cattle is important is not universal. On one hand, society agrees that the murder of cows is acceptable and the murder of people is not. But neither have been universally true.

While rare, there are some locations where the killing of animals IS illegal and meat is banned. But currently, 

There is a tradition backed industry based around the growing and slaughtering of cattle. Society has determined this to be perfectly fine. but there is no universal agreement on it. Some believe the slaughter of cattle is despicable and that society should end it immediately.

On the murder of humans, society has universally agreed that it is abhorrent.

But the social acceptability of things is a matter of groupthink. I think it can be argued that harming others is objectively wrong based on the pain and suffering that occur, which is objectively negative relative to the individual. So the acceptability of the killing is a matter of an acceptable evil decided on by the consensus of the society. For example, there are few who would voluntarily kill a cow to get their meat, especially with their bare hands or a small weapon - using a gun or some kill chamber is less connected to the empathy. Anyway, I think most people would find killing a cow deeply disturbing and traumatic; but paying for a hunk of meat doesn't have that same attachment to the deed of killing a cow. Other people lack empathy toward the cow and will kill them. Other people lack empathy toward other people and will kill them (hitmen, mass shooters, American Snipers). But generally speaking, society has collectively decided killing cows for the meat industry is alright, but killing people is a horrific crime. It doesn't mean that killing people shouldn't be a horrific crime, I can't see any reason why it would be anything else, but it means that yes, humanity is a species of hypocrisy when we have societies and groupthink; at the same time, we seem to have the ability to justify anything with profit and progress.

Why? Buying a gun doesn't mean you're going to hurt people.

Not surprised, 45 has consistently shown us that he really doesn't have an understanding of anything he talks about. His willful ignorance and lack of understanding as illustrated in the tweet are portrayed through his more dedicated supporters as well. You present them with facts and knowledgeable experience and instead of learning and changing their opinion, they will go on as if they never heard anything.

Disagree with a lot of this. Society has not said that killing humans is abhorrent. We have the death penalty and we kill each other all the time for simple resources and other frivolous things. We may like to think this is how we feel but actions speak much louder than words.

It could be argued that harming others is wrong but then we have to get into what sort of harm is being caused. Pain and suffering can not automatically be assumed to be a bad things. There's lots of pain and suffering that causes people to be better than they were before. To grow from it and learn. It's not always so black and white as pain and suffering = bad.