If There Would Be Less Shootings If Everyone Had A Gun...

Does that mean there would be less drug addiction if everyone had easy access to cocaine and heroin?


See how retarded the above sounds? Well, that is just as retarded as the opinion that more guns will stop the shootings. More guns won't stop shootings, they will ENCOURAGE more shootings, just as more drugs will encourage more drug abuse.

I don't understand why the NRA don't understand the painfully obvious.

 

You're using the War on Drugs argument wrong. Which is why it doesn't make sense, naturally.

 

Having seen the main man speechify the other day the reason the NRA don't understand the painfully obvious is because they're insane and a danger to all of humanity. Hardly rocket science. Keep up this false 'debate' though, it's really funny watching people rationalise and justify their legless positions.

 

America's solution is to allow more drugs. My example makes perfect sense. If more guns will prevent gun violence, then logically, more drugs should stop addiction, and drug related violence, no?

 

Progressive leftists...both the "originals" and the modern incarnation.... have always considered the Constitution a legless list of gentle suggestions.

 

Let's try a little experiment. Accurately and honestly state your opponent's position on this issue.

Why do pro-gun people believe that more guns would prevent gun violence?

Then see if the drug analogy still makes sense. If not, then you shouldn't have posted it. If so... well, I'd like to see that.

 

But more guns wouldn't prevent gun violence, it would encourage it.

 

No, all you've done was just created a strawman. The acknowledgement that banning guns doesn't work because people will still pursue guns, no different from drugs.

Also, I don't think anyone argues that more guns will prevent gun violence. If they do, I'd like to see it. The general argument is that more guns prevents crime.

But if you frame it any way you want, you can make it sound silly.

 

I asked you to state your opponent's position. Until you can do that, you do not have a position of your own.

 

And who is my opponent? You want to say what the idiots at the NRA said? Well, they are wrong.

 

Because the firearms industry pulls their strings.

 

What is the proposed logic behind the belief that more guns will lead to less violence? I expect that you are already noticing the absurdity behind this analogy, which is why you won't answer my question.

So, do you now wish to retract the gun/drug analogy proposed by this thread? Or shall I continue my line of reasoning without your cooperation?

 

Compared to other similar nations, the U.S.A. more plagued with gun violence to an exponential degree. And in comparison we proliferate guns here like candy to kids.

It's about money here, not lives saved.

Pretty obvious to me.

 

It is absurd, which obviously makes my point absurd, which is the point. Your argument is just as silly as mine.

 

Drug related violence, maybe. Addiction, no.

 

I'm sure you would rather trade Australia's high rape and assault violence for America's high gun violence.

But then you would be accused of being a woman hater. And we can't have that...

 

Very well. Your lack of cooperation in answering a simple question is noted. Consider: if you can not simply articulate a certain position on an issue, then how are you qualified to determine whether or not you agree with it? If you don't even know the position, how do you choose?

Pro-gun types believe that a population full of armed citizens would create a scenario under which each armed citizen is afraid to use his weapon for criminal purposes because other armed citizens are going to be able and willing to match his force and stop him.

Now, you are free to disagree with that and debate against it. But you should at least understand what you are debating against. Your drug analogy shows that you do not understand your opponent's position and it is therefore impossible that you have even considered alternative views, rendering your opinion irrelevant, since it was apparently chosen arbitrarily and not following any sort of research into the issue.

Let's now consider your drug analogy to see if it fits. Consider a population in which every citizen is high on drugs and carrying drugs in their pockets. Sounds like college. Anyway, what aspect of this scenario could feasibly prevent another from doing drugs? Since there is none, this analogy between guns and drugs is shown to be a false analogy.

All posting this has done is revealed that you have chosen a position without even considering the alternatives, which is bad form and certainly unscientific.

 

OK. Here it is in all it's glorious relevance:

 

See post above.

 

No, using the correct analogy, if making drugs illegal would stop drug use, then making guns illegal would stop gun use. You can see the painfully obvious failure of your argument.

 

No. Why submit such a stupid assumption? Please, be reasonable.

 

There's nothing to articulate because to do so would be to enter into a false debate where those who promote gun use get to act like they have validity at the table.

 

Well, America is way down in the statistics when it comes to Assault, Rape, Robbery and Burglary when compared to OECD countries with higher gun control laws.

You have to pick your trade off, but gun free zones don't work any way to slice it.

 

Question is, why don't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

.

 

I believe if drugs were legal, much of the problems with guns/violence now associated with drugs would all but vanish. With that, there would be a better understanding among the general populace about these drugs. They would quite cheap compared to the now high black-market prices. Strength and content would also be known so, no accidental overdoses. The lure of adventure would also all but vanish as they (drugs) would be just another regulated product like alcohol.