Ok and?

That is a complete non sequitur reply. Yes guns and fire extinguishers are both effective only if you know how to use them. ANd??

What that does not infer or say there is equal need for a gun, fire extinguisher or grenade launcher in the home even though what you say is true.

It would be another failure in debate class.

The argument again is whether DEVICE A, B or C improves over all safety for the home or decreases overall safety as I have never not heard a gun owner who had a gun for protection and not just hunting, say it was NOT for safety reasons. Therefore the logical debate is then 'does it improve safety or not'?






lol. Again with Carlin meme.

Ok you convinced me.

No, I know tons of gun owners. I have no issue with that. My only issue is when I bump in to people who I find rationalize things and can convince themselves of misinformation or lies to hold to a position. That fascinates me.

The data is clear but they deny it all as they don't want to accept fact or truth.

I've engaged in many things in my life many consider risky and dumb. I always own them. But what I do NOT do, is rationalize a bunch of untruths so I don't have to feel bad. I just say YOLO. Its my life, i understand the risks and i choose to take them.


So clearly you need a debate class as what you are doing is factually the most basic form of an "Appeal to Emotion" and you do not understand that and thus will continue to deny it.


Posting a video where a person would die (conservatives like to use kids) as a reason to justify something that is otherwise not backed up by data is the definition of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

And if my grandmother had wings, she could fly.

Notice the hypocrisy here? No, I suppose you don't.


Clearly you should have taken a debate class in school so you wouldn't bring up debate classes on a forum.

I could use data of guns being used successfully in home invasions if that will make it less emotional for you?

Ironically, QP says things in almost every post that would get an 'F' in a debate class.

(I was on my debate team in college, so I know of what I speaketh.)

While I may have doubts about your moderation views, your condo views are spectacular!

Cuepee, I'm reading a very good book (so far, anyway) right now, which basically shows how it is impossible to change anyone's opinions with facts and logic, but it is very possible to change people's opinions (even on very divisive issues) by talking to them about their stories and asking about their emotions. What works in debate class rarely works in real life.

https://books.google.com/books/about...ok_description

A good debate will often encourage people to think, but seldom encourage them what to think.

Dennis Prager has often said the clarity is more important than agreement.

You think that's true? Facts and logic work quite well.

Faux logic can work quite well, too!

When was last time you changed someone's mind with facts send logic?

A couple of weeks ago.

Yes, very true. When was the last time you changed someone's mind with facts and logic?

Hmm, good for you then. Likely that person was considerably more intelligent than average.

Who the **** are you again? I don't believe in alternative facts and am not a Trumper. Why are there so many dips in here that do not understand that most people do not endorse 100% of a political party's ideals? Some of us do not even subscribe to any political party.

To the topic, what argument is QP putting forth that I disagree with? That guns are dangerous? Well, no ****. I've said it numerous times, and I guess I have to say it again: when one is thinking about bringing a gun into the home, he or she needs to consider all aspects and weigh all risks.

If you're talking about QP's "facts" that having a gun in the house makes a person become more and more paranoid, well, he has provided no facts - just speculation based on a friend of his.

6 year old shoots teacher with a gun.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...news-virginia/

No.

Because there is none.

There is a difference between you insisting I like vanilla ice cream best while i tell you I do not.


And me pointing out the FACTUAL DATA does not care about your feelings and what you tell yourself.

People can and do delude themselves on topics. Russians are deluding themselves on Ukraine right now and pointing that out to them, is not the same as telling them they like Vanilla best. We do not have to accept Russians are nazi hunting and can tell them they are wrong no matter what they WANT to believe.


So if someone cited 'safety' as the reason for bringing in a gun into their home, outside the very few specifically dangerous locations, then the FACTS do not care about your feelings nor opinion. The FACTS state you have endangered your family and made their death more likely and not less likely.

So you are accepting a delusion to justify your decision. And many people cannot handle that truth so they reject it despite having no factual way to counter it.



those who have weak positions do not want forums or discussions generally to be based on debate class structures of proof, substantiation and logic and i get that. Most forum people who argue think it is about emoting and facts do not matter as much as what I 'FEEL' matters and they know debate class structure dismantles 'feelings' as being of value. So i do understand your stance.



Sure please cite the stats so we can compare them to increased suicide and domestic murder stat increases because surely you know this HAS TO BE an on balance assessment. You need to look at what improves safety and what harms safety equally and see what bringing a gun into the home ultimately resorts in.

I am all about my views and everyone who knows me knows that. I will trade off floor space and security features for a better view. You can far more and nicer space in a converted loft (former warehouse or something) in the middle of the city. Gorgeous units full of amenities at the same price or a smaller place, with less amenities and higher condo fees for a view.

I always choose the latter and always have even if Land o Lakes will tell me i am wrong and would choose security, because he does and thus thinks he can speak for others as he is so secure in his opinion that, that is the choice all make, that he can speak for them.

It is a weird dynamic you will see on this forum browser. People telling other people what they like or prefer because they are so convinced by their own opinion they think they can tell others they are wrong. i've literally had a poster tell me I read and used an article for my position when i told them that position was common and i heard it first from a podcast being discussed by experts. Nope, they said. I got it from the article. They were convinced they knew better than me.

that happens all the time here, and i refer to it as the Carlin Meme fallacy, appropriately.

A lot of people who are against gun control seem to think a better way to protect schools is with armed security guards or armed teachers.

I wonder what they would think if either one had shot down the first grader after he pulled a gun on his teacher?

What if the goal is simply to expose a person IS wrong and not convince them to think something else, as you know that is often futile in forumland.


There are a small number of people who can see when a person is wrong, when exposed via debate tactic logic, even if they do not want to admit it due to 'sides'. Most here are emotive arguers and thus what they WANT to believe can actually shape what they will take in and hear and actually believe and there is generally nothing you can do with that type other than expose them to others who are logical.

I was just reading about that. It says the 6 year old has been arrested. wtf!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...t-shot-teacher

If that's true then anyone involved in the decision should be sacked. A six year old who somehow gets a gun is a victim not a criminal.

I have presented two aspects.

First is the FACTUAL one that in the argument of someone arguing they are bringing a gun in to the house for safety reasons and to protect their family that is simply wrong in any 'on balance' exercise of logic and facts, save for maybe some dangerous outlier scenarios, i am not even sure would tip the balance in America, but we can just say there MIGHT BE some.

No one has attempted to counter that factual argument or say it is wrong.


I have presented what is absolutely my opinion and not tried to push it as other. That is my view that for most, who are not getting a gun for hunting, and are getting it out of a thought of 'safety for family and self', that, that is driven by an underlying fear, akin to winning the reverse lottery.

If you go out to get a hand gun to 'protect your family' you have, at some level, thought the benefit of bringing the gun in, for safety reasons, is a positive one. If you did not, you would not, as far as I can logic out.

So then you either did not KNOW the risks of bringing in the hand gun and acted out of ignorance to those INCREASED risks, or you might have known but hand wave them away (delude yourself) as you really want a gun regardless, even if you are endangering your family.

What people who make the latter decision typically do not want to so is fully consider that decision. No one wants to think "i am endangering my family as i cannot make a logic based decision to balance risk' and as such when you raise this with them, they get super defensive as you force them to think of something they try to never to think of so they can remain in group 1, ignorant of the risks.

Kind of like when you tell people who never consume conservative media that they are parroting "right wing talking points". You assume you know where they got their ideas.

I think that is an unproductive goal, it accomplishes nothing, and may even turn others more firmly against your side.

What do you think should be done with the child? Leave him with the parents who either gave him the gun or allowed him to get it easily?

I'm sure they haven't thrown him in a jail with adults. Most likely they have him in a nice place with a child psychologist keeping an eye on him.

Trying to change peoples mind about a position they took is an order of magnitude harder than changing how they will take future positions.

Tying them to previous bad decisions is a terrible mistake.