Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

And do you know why there was so much news coverage about the 15 year old? Because it is a RARE event here. We have also not only prosecuted the person who originally obtained the gun but the guy to passed it to the young kid.

How would you know if a police shooting was from radicalisation over there - you have so many per year that it would be difficult to tell

 

They contribute proceeds from sales. They are able to contribute because Americans vote with their wallets and purchase guns.

Of course they contribute to an organization that protects their interests, again, the same as any other industry.

What's unethical is that you pretend they are doing something different than everyone else.

The reason they are successful is that the American people make them successful, either through purchasing a desired product, or by donations and memberships.

 

Then is it democracy that you fear?

Having never stated country of origin or location, it is unwise to believe that I am from the united states, simply because I do not support your position in this discussion.

Then you are saying that the laws of the nation of Australia are so easy to subvert, a minor who is legally classified as a child could do such?

Who is to say that I am not already within the nation of Australia? No information pertaining to myself has ever been given, as it has never been of any relevance to any discussion. For all you know we could easily be neighbors living across from one another.

 

And yet it still happens despite your laws, despite your tiny population, despite your lack of minority violence and gangs that plague the US. A 15 year old child who wanted a gun found it quite easy to get around every gun regulation you have. A CHILD CIRCUMVENTED YOUR MUCH LAUDED GUN CONTROL REGULATIONS. That was worth saying twice.

The people who go on shooting rampages in this country are people that slip through legal cracks that should have stopped every single one of them, but did not.

 

Strawman

No one has ever claimed that laws eliminated crime

If you had been following this you would have found there was a group - not just one 15 year old - and we have rounded up all of the members and charged them

And most of your shooting rampages have been legal gun owners

 

It's a strawman that we keep saying gun laws don't stop criminals, and you keep saying we need more laws? I think you need to re-read the definition of a strawman argument.

Most of our shooting rampages have been psychopaths that should have been caught by NICS, and were not, because having a law and making sure it works are two different things. The rest of them have been terrorists despite what the government tries to cover up.

 

Stop proposing gun laws that only affect the law abiding and we'll have reason to think otherwise.

If it is legal for someone to buy a gun, no gun control law will prevent them from doing so.
So... what's your solution?

 

Stop complicating the obvious, we absolutely know the gun industry supports the NRA and the second amendment. WE DONT CARE! We support the second amendment. We are the customers! The fact that the gun industry pumps millions into the NRA is a good thing. Your acting like your telling us something we don't know.

 

Trying to think of somehow to explain logical fallacies so that they will be understood

Give it up as hopeless

Oh! Dear! We have gone from logical fallacies to conspiracy theories

Now I know I am talking to a right wing American

 

Again - let me give you an analogy and a question so that you can get an idea of why this is morally bankrupt

Would you take a medication whose only recommendation for use and research had been done by the company selling it?

 

Here since you couldn't come up with a logical fallacy I'll give you the 101 version.

All cheaters sit in the back row. Johnny sits in the back row. Therefore, Johnny is a cheater.

How does that correlate to the fact that laws themselves, especially laws that aren't enforced, do not stop criminals hell-bent on murder?

So are you suggesting that the Fort Hood shooter event should have been classified as a "workplace violence incident"? How about the Chatanooga shooter? Was that classified appropriately as a terrorist attack? No.

How about the college shooting in Umpqua? Why was this guys history erased from the internet within a couple hours of the shooting?

There are many examples of the government covering up or hiding things from the American people. You can call it a theory all you want if that makes you feel safer.

 

Stop - I am killing myself laughing - yet another example of logical fallacy at work?

Errrr - yes. Given that A is a true statement then B must also be true. This logical fallacy only works if you are applying a non generalist statement to a random sampling

It doesn't that is my point - but then it was never expected to hence the straw man fallacy

No - again strawman or reading into a statement what is not actually there; My objection was to the contention that the government is misclassifying mass shootings

ANY time a question like that is raised one knows that a conspiracy theory is about to be hatched - possibly it was erased because IT WAS NOT TRUE? Or maybe because it was because a member of the family decided to threaten law suits? Lots of explanations that do not involve government conspiracy

Why? I mean it has been my lifelong experience that the average bureaucrat would not lift his bum to fart let alone chase down things to "hide the truth".

 

Thanks for letting me know you don't know a logical fallacy when you see one.

A does not follow B, since there may be 10 seats and 8 cheaters. While Johnny does sit in the back row, and all cheaters sit in the back row, it does not mean that Johnny is a cheater.

Laughing now?

Incidentally, the government calling a terrorist attack a "workplace violence" incident IS government misclasification.

 

Then why are you not calling for their involuntary commitment, to ensure that they cannot purchase a firearm? Why do you not support doing something about the individual who is apparently dangerous?

 

Invalid question because your intimating that you don't have a choice. You fully have a choice to own a gun or not.

 

Because if we committed every individual who was emotionally or psychologically compromised we wouldn't be able to house them or care for them.

Thems the facts.

 

It is interesting that you initially stated, "Meanwhile somewhere out there is another mentally ill individual who will carry out another mass shooting, with a documented mental health record, and who will purchase his weapons completely legally to carry out murder. But no one wants to do anything about it." Yet, when Xenamnes gave you a solution (e.g. involuntary committing people who are obviously dangerous), you state that such a proposal cannot be done. It seems that you are frustrated that nobody is offering solutions, but when someone does offer a feasible solution, you dismiss it entirely. Let me ask you then, what is your solution to this problem?

 

Personal protection isn't a legitimate reason for gun ownership? Hmm. I suppose Australia isn't one of the British colonies that rebelled from Britain and their tyrannical empire.. maybe that's why it wouldn't be considered a legitimate reason.

To me, owning my AR -15 (with multiple 30 round magazines, a retractable stock and a single point sling ), and my 9mm handgun (which features a 17 round magazine) is more than just about protection against every day thugs. It's more than just protection against a psycho or somebody who's looking for some extra money for their next fix.. it's about what's really going on behind the curtain that were all blinded from. There's conspiracy theories everywhere and less than a quarter of them are believable, but it still makes you wonder what political agenda somebody really has. We've had the same debates for the past 30 years.. it makes me wonder why we can't get past those debates.. we have career politicians in office for the same amount of time.. pumping their corporate motivations into our government and our every day life style. Some day, that corporation might just come after the American people for cheap labor or free science experiments.. it sounds crazy, but do you really know what's being discussed in the top secret quarters of the white house? But if you watch which corporations are most wealthy, you'll see which ones have the heaviest hand in politics.. and they're also corporations that have committed atrocities against people in other countries.. what will stop them from bullying us? 5.56mm rounds will.

And it's not just about that either. It's about being self sufficient. Feed yourselves. Prepare your own food. Find your own food that isnt loaded with chemicals. Guns are weapons, yes. But they are tools of preparedness. You don't know what's coming tomorrow.

When you get rid of the guns.. will the violence disappear?

 

Still not seeing how ridiculous your "just legalize it and it will solve the problem" argument is I see.

 

Exactly. Your argument is that the (weak) laws we have restricting guns don't work therefore we should have no gun laws.

It's like saying the laws we have restricting murder don't work therefore we should have no more murder laws.

But you don't see how silly your argument is, do you?

 

The reason you dodged is self evident.

 

We don't have weak laws. The law against murder is pretty damn strong is it not? Regardless of how you kill someone you're already committing one of the most heavily penalized crimes possible.

If someone is willing to ignore laws against murder, why would they observe lesser laws?

The issue is one of violence. Unless and until violent and mentally ill people are locked up, there will continue to be murders. If guns are taken away so that people can't defend themselves, there will be even more murder.

 

I really don't understand why you do not understand the simplicity of the concept and the inanity of your response.

-Laws against murder were not created to prevent murder, but to punish people that commit it.
-Laws against felons having guns were not created to prevent felons from having guns, but to punish them when they do.
-Laws passed with the purpose to prevent felons from acquiring guns will fail to achieve this purpose because it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent felons from breaking the law.
-Laws that do not achieve their stated purpose, especially those that only limit the rights of the law abiding, are unnecessary; unnecessary laws, when they conflict with the rights of the law abiding, violate the constitution.

 

I was not speaking of murder in my reference to weak laws.

Some won't. Some will.

The issue I was addressing was the fallacious position that since some people will get guns anyway we should even try to restrict their accessibility.

 

That is completely wrong. Of course one of the reasons to prevent murder is to prevent it.

No, the goal is also to prevent them from having guns in the first place as well.

Depends on how comprehensive the law and how strictly enforced.

Again, you're making the fallacious argument that because a prohibition is not 100% effective, it should be nullified or eliminated.

Every law is broken. If that were the test, we should have no laws against anything.