ROTFL. You know, it's really hilarious to see the arguments gun freedom supporters normally use used by gun controllers. Of course, they are just as valid -- or would be, if the article was trying to claim that the gun control alone caused the increased crime. But it doesn't, at least not directly. Rather it is arguing that gun control is part of a whole set of public policies opposed to self defense which have lead to the increased crime.

In fact, the author uses this argument in its usual sense within the article, pointing out that even before Britain had gun control, it had a far lower crime rate than the US had. It's not the guns.

The magazine is, of course, biased. It's a political magazine. It's tagline is "Free minds, Free markets", which should give you some idea of its bias.

It's a magazine article, so the reasoning isn't as well developed as in an academic study. However, it doesn't even make the "post hoc" argument, let alone accept it as a fallacy.

Not every exampe of post-hoc reasoning is a fallacy. This one happens to be backed up by a number of studies on the subject.

And I'd like to point out that here in the Peoples Republic of Maryland, the right to carry our nifty new Glocks has been denied us. So we're guaranteed to be unarmed. Coincidence?

That said, a sidearm will NOT protect me or anyone else from a sniper at long range. But it WILL protect me from the trailer trash living across the highway from me.

I have been forced to draw my sidearm in my own defence twice in my life, and although I hope it never happens again, I want the ability to draw it should the need arise. The first time I was under fire and the second, I was saved from a serious beating. Who knows what's next?

Brian

"Propogadna" -- what "propaganda" sounds like if you have a really bad cold.

Since NRA-ILA is a civil-rights organization, working for the greater freedom of thee and me, roll on, "propogadna!"

Did you miss the joke?

Injustice?? My God, injustice?? Do you, Xugumad, grasp the monstrousness of what you've just said? These people were committing crimes, and were being fought against in accordance with good morals, which call for opposing evil acts. One of those cases was a case of attempted murder. To call fighting against someone who has no right to take your life "injustice" is not merely morally confused: it is downright evil, Xugumad. With that one sentence, you range yourself on the side of crime. You become not only a spokesman in favor of evildoing, you are exerting every fiber of your being to spread evil around more generally. You here try to persuade us evil is good, black white, that Ignorance Is Strength.

Well, we reject that and you should too. If you can't, may I suggest suicide? Evil should not be suffered to live, let alone to flourish.

Quote:

Fine distractionary tactic, too. Instead of the thread's title of 'how to get the sniper', where general firearm ownership would have done very little, the subject is being diverted to matters of principle. Very well and good, but how exactly are more liberal gun laws in the US vs. Britain preventing a criminal or insane individual from using his probably legal firearm to kill a large number of people? The illusion of safety that firearms provide is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period. X.

If that were such an "illusion," Xugumad, how then do you explain the savings of an estimated 2.8 billion dollars US annually to crimes stymied by the use of private arms? 2.8B is a shot in the arm for any economy, and keeping that 2.8B in remunerative circulation rather than as a defensive overhead expense or lost productivity and wealth from dead workers is a dollars-and-cents argument for keeping arms around. If it were such an illusion, Xugumad, how then do you explain that policemen everywhere go to the bother of carrying between one and two and a half pounds of gun on their hips? Over an entire workday and into the night, that adds up to a burden -- if it's some "illusion," would that burden be necessary? No, Xugumad, the "illusion" is that such keeping and bearing is somehow useless.

The Sixth Sense of humor
 

No, I did not, though admittedly the humor was some few minutes and posts a-dawning. I'm just dryly adding a bit to the jest.

'salright man. I just wanted to make sure that you knew I wasn't a typo-ing left nut. :)

I think what he meant was that "injustice" best describes being jailed after defending your home... not the actual defense of the home.

Well, on general principles one hopes so, but you sure couldn't prove it by me, the way Xugu put it. I wouldn't be caught writing it like that, for sure.

Curiosity compels me to wonder if your brushes with violence have anything to do with your attitude towards other people. For example you appear to label people as trash based on where they live. I spent a year killing and avoiding being killed with various weapons, but I haven’t felt the need to carry since nor be belligerent towards my neighbors based on who they are or where they live. I haven’t been shot at for 33 years. And I’ve been able to defuse beating situations with my mouth at least twice. Before you ask, I’ve never been able to afford to live in the “nice neighborhoods” until this last summer. I realize my experience is not universal, but then neither is yours, so I’m hesitant to base public policy on such narrow data aren’t you?

Funny, I'd wondered if your brushes with veteran's benefits had anything to do wuth your advocacy for socialized medicine. :-)

:confused: Hmmmmm no, but I don't remember posting anything about socialized medicine on this site -- Yet! But I am for a single payer system. Why?, brushes with 60 hr/wk jobs with no medical, brushes with 44 million citizens with no care and 40 Million more with inadequate care. Knowing the the US spends 14% of GNP on health care and the other industrialized nations spend and average of 7.5% of their GNPs and can provied care for everyone. I suppose that you have good bennies or enough dough to buy your own. Many don't!

How about asking for clarification rather than instantly flying into a rant that equates my opinions with pure evil?

The examples given were examples of injustice. Since the outcome of the examples given was how people defending themselves were punished by the justice system, the examples document something that is unjust, in my opinion. Thus, examples of injustice.

I wonder what the sniper victims' families think about gun control. I think some of them are on Donahue (today? this week?). I am sure it'll be easy to explain to them how the sniper's most likely legal firearm had nothing to do with destroying their lives. After all, the attacker could as well have murdered lots of people with a knife, and still remain unidentified and safe from a distance. Oh. He couldn't have, could he. Oh dear.

This thread was about the sniper. Its focus shifted to firearms. If anything, the fact that the sniper is being very careful suggests that he knows someone could shoot him with their legal concealed weapon, and is taking precautions. Which invalidates the theory that firearms provide protection from potentially insane people like him/them. The casual armed robber may very well kill you if he sees you going for a weapon, and the well-prepared attacker isn't even going to be affected by it, since he may very well land a fatal blow first to avoid retaliation. If anything, a well-armed populace will escalate the situation to where any robbery will start by attempting to subdue or neutralize any defensive capability.

Hurray. The solution to violence is more violence.

X.

He easily could have, he just would have had to go about it much differently, such as attacking people at night or in their homes when they are alone. People can always come up with different ways to do things, no matter what tools they have. Obviously this man is smart, if he wanted to do what he's doing with a knife he probably could. It might have taken longer but then again it would have been harder to link the killings.

Well, go back and read your posts in this thread. ON 10/22 you cited RAH, and then turned right around and suggested the government should buy guns for the poor. You said at the end of the post that if the people simply got together and demanded it the government would "provide" health care. You never responded to my point that the government never actually "provides" anything; it simply forces taxpayers to pay for stuff.
Acttually, no, I'm unemployed, and my COBRA has just run out. I sure don't have enough money to pay for someone **else's** health care.
Or their firearms. So you can peddle your socialism elsewhere.