Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 12:59pm

Darktroop07

Darktroop07

668 posts

All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a terrorist bombing/nuclear plant meltdown/asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth to make more, and more people fearful of terrorists/industrial scale nuclear reactors/Ceres-class asteroids hurtling towards Earth.

  It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 4:52pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

So? It has no bearing on the severity of the issue, as demonstrated.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 5:39pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

So? It has no bearing on the severity of the issue, as demonstrated.

His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 10:44pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

That would be a logical conclusion, but I'm fairly certain he means to argue something to the contrary.

 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 9:29am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,798 posts

gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

A lethal weapon, according to USLegal for example, is "Any firearm, device, instrument, material, or any other substance that is capable of producing great bodily harm or death from the manner it is used or intended to be used."

A casualty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary for example, is "A person killed or injured in a war or accident."

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."


last edited Jun 22 2014 09:37 am by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 9:52am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,798 posts

I only found two definitions of "gun nut." One was on Urban Dictionary (hardly a valid source) and one was on Rational Wiki (which calls it a "snarl word," which means "a derogatory label that can be attached to something, in order to ignore it or hate it without guilt." This is a biased label with no practical meaning.")

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument, unless we are expected to use your personal interpretation of them as valid material. Through using the actual definition of the words (I took the liberty of using the Oxford English dictionary definition of "proliferate"), you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."


last edited Jun 22 2014 09:54 am by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 1:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."

No. A lethal weapon is exactly what you stated above. Proliferating them, whether they be guns, knives, bows and arrows, bombs, or anything else, will never reduce the amount of violence caused by them. It can only increase the potential for injury.

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

I was referring to the people who are constantly ranting about how they'll shoot anyone who tries to take their guns and that everyone should be armed so we can all just engage in a firefight whenever anyone tries to do something and that they'll rise up in revolution and etc.

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument,

Wasn't particularly making an argument.

you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Although casualties does not have to refer specifically to a war or accident, only some kind of event.


last edited Jun 22 2014 01:11 pm by Kasic
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!