Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

So stop it - you're making anti-gun folk look bad. "With friends like you, who needs enemies?"

...ok so then what possible reasons would people give for support such a ban? And how am I making anti-gun people look bad by trying to justify an argument they came up with? It's not like I came in here saying it was a good idea, I don't think it is. But I can at least see the reasoning behind something like that, and if that isn't the reasoning behind it, well then I don't know what is and the position just got even more indefensible.

But so too are 50+ ammo magazines. I'm sure that was the figure Biden was referring to. If you take them away then gun collectors (who are just as nutty as people who collect swords and bayonets, that includes myself) will suffer all the same.

I'm not sure why you're trying to have a debate with me over a position I don't support... Again, my point was that people aren't stupid for supporting such a ban.

[Nadaka]

On bayonet's. Restoring the bayonet on a Chinese SKS is already illegal, by executive order of George Bush (#41).

[Owlbread]

On bayonet's. Restoring the bayonet on a Chinese SKS is already illegal, by executive order of George Bush (#41).

I am sure though it is not illegal yet to have a bayonet on a bolt action rifle or similar. Hell, I have one and I'm Scottish.

[GlyphGryph]

Good logic:
We should do x, because if we do x we will obtain good outcome y or avoid bad outcome z.

Bad logic:
We should do x, because you can't provide a reason I accept as valid as to why we shouldn't.


That second piece? The argument you keep making? Doesn't actually provide a justification for doing x. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's "God exists because you can't prove that he doesn't". It's irrational crazy-talk. And most people, when given two options with no justification, would avoid that one that involves imposing restrictions on freedom solely to impose restrictions on freedom.

What makes this worse, is that in this case you could easily make the good logic argument with even a modicum of evidence to support the position. It's not actually a hard argument to make. The fact that you'd go to argument Bad Logic is admitting that there isn't a good reason to ban them, but you want to anyway. (Whether or not you actually want to, this is what you are actually communicating when you make that argument)

If that's the justification for supporting the ban, those people who believe it ARE stupid, yes. And probably willingly so, to justify a preconceived belief, since you generally don't accidentally arrive at that sort of argument.

Luckily, I don't think that is actually the justification for most of those seeking it, and that they have a bit of intellectual honesty and are instead trying to make legitimate arguments.

Here's an example of a potential real argument:
"Extended magazines have been used in crimes before and likely will in the future. Evidence indicates while that the crime would have occurred even with this ban, he would have been unable to acquire a magazine and the body account would have likely been reduced. To save these lives in future occurrences, we should ban these."

[SalmonGod]

I wish people poured half as much passion into issues that result in many times more unjustifiable death...

[Leafsnail]

Bad logic:
We should do x, because you can't provide a reason I accept as valid as to why we shouldn't.

This isn't actually bad logic.  It just doesn't support doing x on its own.  If it's combined with what you've labelled as "good logic" it makes the case more compelling.

[Owlbread]

I wish people poured half as much passion into issues that result in many times more unjustifiable death...

Like letting North Korea exist as it is.

[Sheb]

I'm with SalmonGod here.Frankly, the US are so awash with guns that it'd take years to have an improvement, and that'd be with much more regulations than stupid stuff like those high-cap magazine. I wish Obama decided to spend his political capital on something else. Like climate change: I'd love to have something more on it that a cool speech at each inaugurations.

[Owlbread]

I'm with SalmonGod here.Frankly, the US are so awash with guns that it'd take years to have an improvement, and that'd be with much more regulations than stupid stuff like those high-cap magazine. I wish Obama decided to spend his political capital on something else. Like climate change: I'd love to have something more on it that a cool speech at each inaugurations.

But Sheb, something "Had" to be done.

[SalmonGod]

Clearing the air on bullshit like this, for instance, would go a long way towards saving many many more lives than any gun legislation.

[Nadaka]

I wish Obama would spend his political capital by making is the tea party can no longer hold the economy hostage. Until that happens, the US will always be teetering on the edge of doom.

[fqllve]

Bad logic:
We should do x, because you can't provide a reason I accept as valid as to why we shouldn't.

This isn't actually bad logic.  It just doesn't support doing x on its own.

Which I clearly wasn't saying if you read the first part of the post. In theory 100 round magazines are useful for mass shootings. Other than that the only reason I can see for owning one is because they look cool.

I'm pretty sure this is the argument for banning them.

[GlyphGryph]

This isn't actually bad logic.  It just doesn't support doing x on its own.  If it's combined with what you've labelled as "good logic" it makes the case more compelling.

Except... it doesn't? It literally adds nothing of value to the argument except, maybe, a shitty attempt to put the opposition on the defensive. Which is what most people would consider a dishonest tactic, not a well-reasoned argument. It's an accusation, and provides zero evidence for an action. Claiming that it DOES provide such evidence is what most people would call "a lie". I don't think a lie can ever really be considered "good logic".

You can make valid arguments that look like it, superficially, but there is literally nothing you can do to make that statement not bad logic.

[GreatJustice]

I wasn't talking about high capacity magazines, and 3D printed guns are really shitty.

Well, a few months ago they could fire off about 5 shots before breaking, and now they can fire up to 70. Plenty of room for improvement in the near future.

[darkrider2]

Honestly, I don't care if a gun collector gets his feelings hurt by some legislation.

Its simple really, just add a little part to the bill that goes "and we'll reimburse collectors for those guns that are now illegal". Though I'm sure even that would get cries from the other side of "The deficit is too big to spend!".  Or maybe they'd be silent for the first time ever since its their guys getting paid now.