We've heard it before. Here's how it works. Gunloon wants to argue how prohibition of something, anything fails to 100%, completely eradicate undesirable things is a failure. Commenters TS , aZred have all attempted this logical fallacy.
If we use the same logic, we could easily say that since medicine fails to cure each and every patient--medicine doesn't work.
Actually there is a right wing meme that medicines are only designed so that patients have to keep taking them. They are never actually cured. I heard it on that stupid Coast to Coast night time radio with George Noory. I guess what we need is a fountain of youth.ReplyDelete
1. I'm glad that heroin is illegal.
2. If I wanted to buy a gun illegally, I would have no idea whatsoever as to who to ask.
"2. If I wanted to buy a gun illegally, I would have no idea whatsoever as to who to ask."ReplyDelete
Ask Eric Holder. He's made quite a business of illegally selling guns.
Jade, my argument is that it hasn’t worked AT ALL to eradicate undesirable behaviors- unless of course by “undesirable behaviors” you mean preventing or dissuading good people from using guns for self-protection. Gun control has worked quite well to that end. If you had a 90% success rate, or a 50% success rate, or even a 10% success rate you could start building a good argument. As I said before, gun control has been the blood letting of medical practice.ReplyDelete
In short, to argue like Jadegold- you have to make up what the other person said.
TS: Then you have the task of explaining why countries with varying degrees of gun control have been successful in controlling--or at least having better stats--gun violence.ReplyDelete
Second, you'll have to explain why cities like NYC have pretty decent gun violence numbers as compared to cities like NOLA.
Your argument remains silly; you attempt to argue something doesn't work because it doesn't work 100% of the time. Yet, you advocate a position that actually makes you less safe 100% of the time.
Jade: “Your argument remains silly; you attempt to argue something doesn't work because it doesn't work 100% of the time.”ReplyDelete
Jade, you have never looked at the big picture for gun control. You look at specific places that satisfy your ideal but you don’t even examine the time variable- that countries with low violence had the same low violence before these laws were enacted, or in the case of NYC, that they had high violence rates under the same laws and the drop corresponds chronologically with the drop we have seen over the whole nation.
My contention, as it has always been, is that there is NO CORRELATION between gun control and violence/murder/suicide rates. If there is no correlation, it stands to reason that there will be some places that have strict laws and low crime. There will also be strict laws and high crime as well as lax laws and low crime. That is what “no correlation” means.
I could use your same arguments to say that peanut butter consumption leads to high levels of violence. I could examine the per capita peanut butter consumption rates across cities, states, and other countries and then point to low crime examples that don’t ingest this violence inducing product and then say “it works some of the time”.
TS, The "undesirable behaviour" we're trying to "eradicate" is not gun ownership, it's gun wonership by dangerous and irresponsible people.ReplyDelete
The rest of you may be inconvenienced, at worst, but you won't be denied anything.