Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

Strawman phrased as a question. It would be effective action, under the right circumstances. Otherwise it would likely be unsuccessful or even counterproductive. So it's about working towards achieving the right circumstances, and that's where I'm interested in sensible and practical suggestions.

It usually is when followed by a funny little face, that's a dead give away. :wink: — Sir2u

:meh: Like that?

More research needs to be done to try and find out why people feel the need to kill each other, the findings would probably apply to more than just guns and be more beneficial in the long run. — Sir2u

Because we are depraved.

Sapientia: the owl who cried strawman.

We call him "Quick Draw Straw." Let every outlaw of straw beware!

Strawman phrased as a question. — Sapientia

Wrong, it is a simple question that needs a simple answer.

It would be effective, under the right circumstances. But the right circumstances would first need to be achieved, and that's where I'm interested in sensible and practical suggestions. — Sapientia

Simple and practical suggestions seem to be in short supply right now. Maybe knowing what the "right circumstances" are might help. Would you care to enlighten us about them?

I once thought I straw a man made out of stalks of grain in the distance, but before I could confirm, 'ol Quick Draw gunned him down in a flash and then flew away.

Like that? — Lone Wolf

Yep, you got the hang of real quick.

Because we are depraved. — Lone Wolf

Speak for yourself young lady, I am just crazy. :lol:

Sapientia: the owl who cried strawman.

We call him "Quick Draw Straw." Let every outlaw of straw beware! — Thorongil

You know, there's a simple test to check whether an alleged strawman is actually a strawman. Show me where I claimed what was suggested.

I'll let Sir2u handle that. I was shedding light on the frequency with which you accuse others of concocting strawmen of your position.

Wrong, it is a simple question that needs a simple answer. — Sir2u

Wrong. It was clearly a loaded question. Don't play dumb. My response is to recognise it as such.

Simple and practical suggestions seem to be in short supply right now. Maybe knowing what the "right circumstances" are might help. Would you care to enlighten us about them? — Sir2u

I don't think I need to enlighten anyone here. We already know about American gun culture and factors which play into that, like the NRA.

I'll let Sir2u handle that. I was shedding light on the frequency with which you accuse others of concocting strawmen of your position. — Thorongil

Sure, and I suppose you weren't suggesting anything, either. No one is suggesting anything at all.

Funnily enough, the frequency of which I accuse others of strawmanning my position corresponds with the frequency of which my position is strawmanned.

If I have they correct definition of strawman

A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.
A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the other side.
A straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

Then it was not a strawman because it was not even an argument.

Can you tell me what the first definition is when you type "strawman" into Google? And then, can you tell me what I said about how you phrased your strawman? And, can you tell me, what's a loaded question?

Wrong. It was clearly a loaded question. Don't play dumb. My response is to recognise it as such. — Sapientia

Being a loaded question does not make it a strawman. But why do you think it is loaded?

I don't think I need to enlighten anyone here. We already know about American gun culture and factors which play into that, like the NRA. — Sapientia

No problem, you suggested that there might be "right circumstances" that would make it effective to ban guns so I thought that you might know what they were. Sorry about that.

Can you tell me what the first definition is when you type "strawman" into Google? — Sapientia

No. I never use google.

And then, can you tell me what I said about how you phrased your strawman? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

And, can you tell me, what's a loaded question? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

Don't play dumb. — Sapientia

Being a loaded question does not make it a strawman. But why do you think it is loaded? — Sir2u

Ah, I see what you're doing. Let's see: do play dumb.

Ah, I see what you're doing. Let's see: do play dumb. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

If you say that this is a strawman, then in some way it is supposed to be refuting an argument that you made by refuting something else instead. Exactly what is being refuted here?

But let's not get into discussing little things like this.

I think that your idea about there being some sort of condition or circumstances under which gun banning might be accomplished sounds interesting. Could you expand upon it a bit?

If you say that this is a strawman, then in some way it is supposed to be refuting an argument that you made by refuting something else instead. Exactly what is being refuted here?

But let's not get into discussing little things like this.

I think that your idea about there being some sort of condition or circumstances under which gun banning might be accomplished sounds interesting. Could you expand upon it a bit? — Sir2u

Dolphins are interesting? How so? Could you expand upon that a bit?

You're exactly right! May I add that for those with the energy, contacting other representatives can't hurt.

I still don't understand why people fail to notice that without a person holding it, a gun is as dangerous as a paperweight. — Sir2u

That's why the suggestion is to ban people from possessing guns. :brow:

A truck can be a weapon, too. — Thorongil

There's a difference between something being used as a weapon and something being designed as a weapon. The primary purpose of a truck is for transport, and the benefits of that use outweigh the risks of it being misused for violence. Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people.

The claim being made is that instruments designed as weapons – particularly when very effective – are too dangerous to be allowed, except in certain circumstances and with strict regulations.

Your analogy is a bad one that attacks a strawman (as if the pro-gun control argument is just that anything that can hurt people ought be banned).

Speak for yourself young lady, I am just crazy. :lol: — Sir2u

:naughty:

Dolphins are interesting? How so? Could you expand upon that a bit? — Sapientia

Way to go man.

That really does show how interested you are in having a serious discussion.

Wait a minute, does that answer fit the description of a strawman?

I think that the fact that not too many people actually pick up a telephone to talk to their representatives in the local and national governments shows that the majority of the people have little interest in solving the problem. Or maybe they do not see it as a serious problem.

That's why the suggestion is to ban people from possessing guns. :brow: — Michael

But why should all of the people be punished for the sins of the few?

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

No, the primary purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. What the people do with them is something else.

No, the primary purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. What the people do with them is something else. — Sir2u

I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcasm.

But why should all of the people be punished for the sins of the few?

Health and safety.

Besides, I reject the premise that not being able to own a gun is a punishment.

I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcasm. — Michael

I don't think it is, which I find quite concerning. It shows the extent that some people are willing to go to.

Elephant? What elephant? :monkey:

I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcasm. — Michael

A true statement is rarely sarcasm. People decide what to do with artifacts, they have no choice in the matter

Health and safety. — Michael

Health and safety of whom? More people are affected directly and indirectly by cigarettes, booze and drugs. And lets not forget the people killed in car crashes, house fires and industrial accidents.
Everyday sickness kill more people than guns.

Besides, I reject the premise that not being able to own a gun is a punishment. — Michael

Never said it was, but banning guns means that you have to take away the ones that do exist. And that is punishment.

Yeah, let's ban house fires and everyday sickness. Another pointless point.

Unless one is being paid by the NRA, I wonder what one gets out of trying to deemphasise the problem. :chin:

A true statement is rarely sarcasm. People decide what to do with artifacts, they have no choice in the matter — Sir2u

Well, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets is like saying that the purpose of a car is to burn fuel to spin wheels. It's nonsense. That's how they behave, but their purpose isn't their behaviour. Their purpose is the primary use to which they were designed to serve. In the case of cars it's transport; in the case of guns it's killing and/or hurting people.

Health and safety of whom?

Everybody.

More people are affected directly and indirectly by cigarettes, booze and drugs.

So? As I said to Thorongil, the claim isn't just that things which happen to be dangerous (whether by accident or misuse) ought be banned, but that things designed to kill and/or hurt people ought be banned.

Besides, there are already bans on things like drugs precisely because they're dangerous, and I would say that in a lot of case these bans are warranted for that very reason.

And lets not forget the people killed in car crashes, house fires and industrial accidents.
Everyday sickness kill more people than guns.

I ask again; so? I don't understand how the existence of accidents is supposed to undermine claims that gun control is a good thing.

Never said it was, but banning guns means that you have to take away the ones that do exist. And that is punishment.

I reject the claim that taking away guns is a punishment. If anything it's just the rescindment of a privilege.

I ask again; so? I don't understand how the existence of accidents is supposed to undermine claims that gun control is a good thing. — Michael

What I gathered from Thorongil is that these are attempts to make our position look absurd by trying to associate it with absurd, half-baked suggestions which fall apart upon analysis.