Guns DO *cause* violence (analogy)

[Starred]

edit: srs thread. If you're not willing to discuss this reasonably don't post

If you were a thief, let's say a thief that mugs people in the street, are you more likely to attempt a mugging if you thought that you'd be successful, or unsuccessful?

If you wanted to kill someone, are you more likely to attempt to kill them if you thought you'd be successful/unsuccessful?

Since you're more likely to successfully kill with a gun as opposed to other means (eg stabbing), guns cause homicide

[ruminative]

If you REALLY want to kill or rob someone, you will do it regardless imo.

[ffguitarist14]

[Starred]

If you REALLY want to kill or rob someone, you will do it regardless imo.

You're only in that mindset because the means to do it with high success are available to you

[Srben]

This thread sucks.

[sices]

Do you really think that Charleston ******* would have taken out 9 people without a gun?

[Cmac2014]

If you REALLY want to kill or rob someone, you will do it regardless imo.

This.

[FannySkelper]

they didn't *cause* the violence, they were the means to violence.
The individual *caused* the violence.

[Starred]

they didn't *cause* the violence, they were the means to violence.
The individual *caused* the violence.

"cause an increase in violence" then

[bezarker]

[tng83]

Whether you have a knife or gun, are you more lor less likely to attack someone that may have a gun?

[ffguitarist14]

"cause an increase in violence" then

[InstantLoser]

Just shut the fuk up OP.

[Starred]

Whether you have a knife or gun, are you more lor less likely to attack someone that may have a gun?

concealed carry in USA: ~3%

If I'm a low-life scum, I'll take those odds

[Starred]

Just shut the fuk up OP.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/kw5u55E.jpg[/ig]

Unless you have something insightful to contribute, GTFO my thread

[tng83]

concealed carry in USA: ~3%

If I'm a low-life scum, I'll take those odds

So youre either suggesting we need much more CC. Or you think people on the street getting robbed are the only people who use firearms for protection.

[Phoenix9369]

This thread sucks.

^^^

[Starred]

So youre either suggesting we need much more CC. Or you think people on the street getting robbed are the only people who use firearms for protection.

The problem is you can't MAKE people have cc, so saying we "need" more cc is irrelevant. And no I'm not saying that

[Dukakis2016]

So you think this *******, or maybe someone Supreme, would just have sat at home and done nothing if they didn't have a gun?

Didn't someone Supreme even use a knife to kill his roommates before he left to shoot people?

[Starred]

So you think this *******, or maybe someone Supreme, would just have sat at home and done nothing if they didn't have a gun?

Didn't someone Supreme even use a knife to kill his roommates before he left to shoot people?

1. Yes, that's exactly what people with severe mental illness do outside of the USA
2. In the rare cases where they do go out and kill people, they use less lethal means that result in fewer casualties
3. This isn't just relevant to mass shooting, but most crime involving a gun, for example holding a store up at gun point

[shibby19]

Do you really think that Charleston ******* would have taken out 9 people without a gun?

No, he would have taken out more. He would have looked at alternative means to kill, likely causing more death and destruction. I'm not saying guns reduce violence, but if someone wants to kill, they'll do it by any means possible.

[BullStampede]

So you dont want to address why this person wants to mug someone, just that he cant do it with a gun.

**** you.

[Rhotic]

Weak analogy (logical fallacy). Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

[Starred]

No, he would have taken out more. He would have looked at alternative means to kill, likely causing more death and destruction. I'm not saying guns reduce violence, but if someone wants to kill, they'll do it by any means possible.

If that were the case, why don't they use more lethal means in the first place? Isn't these guys' objectives to cause as much death as possible?

So you dont want to address why this person wants to mug someone, just that he cant do it with a gun.

**** you.

Why can't you do both? And the whole point of this thread is that not having a gun is an influencing factor in him NOT doing anything in the first place, not just that he "cant to it with a gun"

[ppself]

Whether you have a knife or gun, are you more lor less likely to attack someone that may have a gun?

Yes, and no.

Look at cops. They get shot at. Look at soldiers. They get shot at. And these are trained men and women that are getting attacked by other people.

But if those men and women in the church, praying. Where allowed by the federal government to have their firearms on them. I think it could have swayed things differently.

This is why I find it odd. That in the US. All these mass murders. Happen in places that have signs and federal laws that ban firearms on the premises. You don't hear this crap happening in a gun shop (it does happen though) or in the middle of a police station.

Either way. Evil with flourish, no matter what weapons you take away from it.

[CaptChip40]

Do you really think that Charleston ******* would have taken out 9 people without a gun?

If someone else there had a gun he never would have gotten to nine.

[taf1968]

So . . . cars cause accidents because without a car, you'd more likely be on a bike and therefore less likely to drive drunk, text and drive, daydream and drive, speed, have road rage, etc?

OR

Is it that irresponsible people and criminals act with malice/negligence no matter what and the issue is them and their choices of action and not the object itself? I'll go with this one.

[Starred]

Weak analogy (logical fallacy). Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Forget the analogy. My argument is this: if you feel you're more likely to be successful at something, you're more likely to do it, and vice versa. It's quite simple.

[ffguitarist14]

Forget the analogy. My argument is this: if you feel you're more likely to be successful at something, you're more likely to do it, and vice versa. It's quite simple.

You've been going full retard since the OP. At no point have I seen any sign of improvements. Because of this, I'm out.

[Starred]

So . . . cars cause accidents because without a car, you'd more likely be on a bike and therefore less likely to drive drunk, text and drive, daydream and drive, speed, have road rage, etc?

OR

Is it that irresponsible people and criminals act with malice/negligence no matter what and the issue is them and their choices of action and not the object itself? I'll go with this one.

Not analogous to what I said at all. You're talking about accidents. Crimes have INTENT - intent to be better off financially/relationship-wise/promote ideology etc.

You've been going full retard since the OP. At no point have I seen any sign of improvements. Because of this, I'm out.

[img]http://wac.7725.edgecastcdn.net/807725/website/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mark-cuban-called-this-the-worst-shark-tank-pitch-ever.jpg[/ig]

Bye.