StarDestroyer.Net BBS

They claim that if guns go away, violent crime will magically disappear.

MKSheppard wrote:They claim that if guns go away, violent crime will magically disappear.

I was wondering when you'd show up.

Eleas wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:They claim that if guns go away, violent crime will magically disappear.

I was wondering when you'd show up.

Well, what do you expect on a thread titled "logical fallacies"?

In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."

Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve
bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

Lets make a deal:

I'll let you smoke all the dope you want, and shoot up as much
heroin as you want, because after all, it's your body.....in excahnge
for my right to own whatever the fuck I feel like....even Swiss
Solothurn 20mm anti-tank rifles.

MKSheppard wrote:

Eleas wrote: I was wondering when you'd show up.

Well, what do you expect on a thread titled "logical fallacies"?

Funny, the rest of... well... the entire board, understood the context. That being generalized logical fallacies. I expected people to list their (least) favorite logical fallacy, not the reasons for their existence. We already know yours to be guns and marching music, Shep. Reposting it as you do is just redundant.

Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve
bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

I think I'll trust the word of Rev. Falwell before I trust your sources, Shep.

Lets make a deal:

I'll let you smoke all the dope you want, and shoot up as much
heroin as you want, because after all, it's your body.....in excahnge
for my right to own whatever the fuck I feel like....even Swiss
Solothurn 20mm anti-tank rifles.

No deal.

Firstly, I don't even smoke regular tobacco. The most powerful substance I've ever abused is called Red Bull.

Your right to own whatever the fuck you light? Cute. Next thing you do, you'll point to your god given right to do whatever the fuck you want to whomever the fuck you want.

Hey, maybe you'll even hit the next person you fire at with your automatic rifle... just like last time?

The first person to name the logical fallacy that Eleas just committed gets a cookie!

White Cat wrote:The first person to name the logical fallacy that Eleas just committed gets a cookie!

My, what a masochistic way to introduce oneself.

White Cat wrote:The first person to name the logical fallacy that Eleas just committed gets a cookie!

Appeal to authority? Slippery slope?

Perhaps, though I think 'appeal to authority' is a bit of a stretch.

I think that Eleas was trying to describe the American gun culture; even if MKSheppard isn't the kind of maniac described in Eleas' fictional scenario, there are many others with MK's viewpoints who just might (or have) go that route. I would provide info and sources but I'm just too damned lazy; and I don't mind if I get torn for it 'cause I'm not in a real debate here.

Oh, and White Cat, dude... seriously. Fine and good if you want to DEBATE Eleas' logical fallacies, but just dropping a pseudo-flame isn't the best way to do it, especially as your first goddamned post. Couldn't you have found a better use for it?

First logical fallacy used against self defense is to concoct an outrageous
sequence of events, such as how the criminal can just walk up behind
you and put a gun to your head, and your pistol will be useless.

When that's exploded, such as in the case where a man woke up with
a gun to his head, and managed to shoot and kill his assailants, the
anti-freedom folks move on to their second (and most popular) logical
fallacy: concocting outrageous and improbable accidents with guns.

This ignores the fact that firearms accident rates have declined sharply
over the years.

A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

http://www.guncite.com/

An excellent site for exploding many strawman arguments used by
anti-freedom folks.

EDIT: It is also infuriating when someone as smart as Wong, who likes
to rip into creationists, et al, falls for media propaganda concerning the
so-called "gun show loophole".

http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/vie ... w&start=15

Darth Wong wrote: I thought you could buy them with no red tape at all from gun shows. Wasn't this one of the loopholes people were talking about?

Oh, for fuck's sake! Shep, if you want to start a(nother) thread about gun control, do it on the off-topic forum. You know perfectly well that you're hijacking this particular thread by ranting at length about specific issues rather than talking about fallacies in general.

Don't make me use my sith powers on you.

Darth Wong wrote: Don't make me use my sith powers on you.

Fuck you, Wong. There are so many logical fallacies used by
gun control activists, it isn't even fucking FUNNY. Like making
outrageous claims and generating an incredibly improbable
chain of events that results in a fatal gun accident.

It's kind of funny, how you can be so brutal against creationists,
trekkies, and idiots in general who use the same kind of logical
fallacies that the anti-freedom movement uses, yet you can't see
the goddamn fallacies in what they say.

Raziel wrote:Perhaps, though I think 'appeal to authority' is a bit of a stretch.

I think that Eleas was trying to describe the American gun culture; even if MKSheppard isn't the kind of maniac described in Eleas' fictional scenario, there are many others with MK's viewpoints who just might (or have) go that route. I would provide info and sources but I'm just too damned lazy; and I don't mind if I get torn for it 'cause I'm not in a real debate here.

Oh, and White Cat, dude... seriously. Fine and good if you want to DEBATE Eleas' logical fallacies, but just dropping a pseudo-flame isn't the best way to do it, especially as your first goddamned post. Couldn't you have found a better use for it?

Thanks for the support, Raz. But, sad to say, I wasn't describing a fictional scenario. I wouldn't have brought it up but for the fact that Sheppard went out of line a while ago. Among other things, he answered a fairly neutral point of mine with a cute little story where he blew my kneecaps out. That, mind you, was after it had gotten out that he had, in fact, fired upon his father with a rifle when said father threatened to take away his guns. That fact is no story, it is not speculation; it is what happened. Confirmed by his own words, courtesy of Google.

He promised he'd never go down that road again. But anyone with eyes to read what he writes can see that he's already well on the way.

As for the other people who mistakenly try to apply debating fallacies to my statement: you've erronously assumed I would even attempt to debate him.

To call someone a psychopathic nutjob is technically an ad hominem attack. Well, tough shit. Sometimes, a psycho's just a psycho.

Eleas wrote:That, mind you, was after it had gotten out that he had, in fact, fired upon his father with a rifle when said father threatened to take away his guns. That fact is no story, it is not speculation; it is what happened. Confirmed by his own words, courtesy of Google.

Jesus Christ snorting a line of Crack, that makes the 1245573th version I've
heard. GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS RIGHT, PEOPLE.

MKSheppard wrote:

Eleas wrote:That, mind you, was after it had gotten out that he had, in fact, fired upon his father with a rifle when said father threatened to take away his guns. That fact is no story, it is not speculation; it is what happened. Confirmed by his own words, courtesy of Google.

Jesus Christ snorting a line of Crack, that makes the 1245573th version I've
heard. GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS RIGHT, PEOPLE.

Then inform me. Exactly what little part of the fact that you fired at your own dad did I misoverhear?

Eleas wrote: Then inform me. Exactly what little part of the fact that you fired at your own dad did I misoverhear?

You're the l33t HaXXor, you figure it out with your sources on google.com.

Oh yes, what Eleas is doing is an ad hominem attack

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Don't make me use my sith powers on you.

Fuck you, Wong. There are so many logical fallacies used by
gun control activists, it isn't even fucking FUNNY. Like making
outrageous claims and generating an incredibly improbable
chain of events that results in a fatal gun accident.

It's kind of funny, how you can be so brutal against creationists,
trekkies, and idiots in general who use the same kind of logical
fallacies that the anti-freedom movement uses, yet you can't see
the goddamn fallacies in what they say.

Wow you're rabid.

Howedar wrote:Wow you're rabid.

Must have been that racoon I ate for breakfast

MKSheppard wrote: You're the l33t HaXXor, you figure it out with your sources on google.com.

Maybe you're too far gone to understand this, Shep, but I'll make the effort none the less: To any sane person, the mere fact that you fired upon your father tells us all we need to know.

MKSheppard wrote: No actually, I'm only a psychopath when you try stealing my
property, attempting to break it, or trying to mug me.

Then I'll kill you without a thought, and leave your body for
the police to clean up tomorrow morning.

Just so noone thinks I'm quoting out of context, this thread can be found in its entirety at Google, which pretty quickly sidetracked to a discussion about mental health.

The way I understood it, to Shep's mind, he was perfectly justified in firing upon his father.

Oh yes, what Eleas is doing is an ad hominem attack

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm

That would matter if I was actually trying to debate you. What I am doing is telling you, again, that your repentence act on ASVS was a fucking act, and that Chuck and all the rest were perfectly justified in ignoring the sad fact of your existence.

I wished I could too, but there is no killfile on this board, and quite frankly, your prescence here offends me.

Edit: Changed the word "quote" to "thread".

Eleas wrote: I wished I could too, but there is no killfile on this board, and quite frankly, your prescence here offends me.

Still continuing with ad homimem attacks? If my presence here offends
you, tough fucking SHIT! DEAL WITH IT!

EDIT - Nice work, quoting a thread from a fucking YEAR ago......well before
my repentance on ASVS.

MKSheppard wrote:

Eleas wrote: I wished I could too, but there is no killfile on this board, and quite frankly, your prescence here offends me.

Still continuing with ad homimem attacks? If my presence here offends
you, tough fucking SHIT! DEAL WITH IT!

I am dealing with it. I informed you of the fact in the clearest possible terms. Just so we're both clear.

EDIT - Nice work, quoting a thread from a fucking YEAR ago......well before my repentance on ASVS.

Sheppard, we both know you didn't mean a single word of that fucking repentance. Mere weeks afterward, you began spewing the same intolerant fascist bullshit that characterizes the majority of your posts. What the fuck are the rest of us supposed to think?

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Don't make me use my sith powers on you.

Fuck you, Wong.

Pray your death isn't really painful.

Eleas wrote: Sheppard, we both know you didn't mean a single word of that fucking repentance. Mere weeks afterward, you began spewing the same intolerant fascist bullshit that characterizes the majority of your posts. What the fuck are the rest of us supposed to think?

Idiot. Do you even KNOW what the word "fascist" means?

Oh, I don't mean the part about where they taught you in school
that it was synomyous with "right-wing", but the historical meaning:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fascist

adj.

often Fascist Of, advocating, or practicing fascism.
Fascist Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Fascism

fas·cism Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

often Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Oppressive, dictatorial control.

If I really was a fascist, I would be calling for MORE gun control, as
only the STATE should have the power over life and death, not
common citizens.

As for intolerance, fuck tolerance. I was at my parole agent's office
today, and what do I see? A homeboy sitting in the chair next to
me wearing a tee-shirt with a picture of another homeboy on it,
and the words "Tyrone - RIP 2001" on it. When I saw that shirt, I thought
"Good riddance to a stupid nigga who tried to play the street life and
got his ass capped for it."

Am I supposed to express sympathy for street scum? When you spend
9 months in jail, you see a lot of scum up close.

MKSheppard wrote:Fuck you, Wong.

OK, fine. Be that way. I'm splitting this thread hijacking attempt into the Off-Topic forum where it belongs.

There are so many logical fallacies used by
gun control activists, it isn't even fucking FUNNY.

The same goes for creationism, but that doesn't mean the details of creationist arguments should be discussed at length in a "which logical fallacy do you hate the most" thread. At most, you should give the name of a fallacy and then mention a creationist application of that fallacy as an example. In your case, you didn't even bother naming a fallacy; you simply leapt in with:

MkSheppard wrote:They claim that if guns go away, violent crime will magically disappear

By the way, as long as you're going to call me out on this, let's break down your habitual use of flamebait logic fallacies, shall we?

Who is "they"? I don't recall anyone claiming that there will be zero violent crime if guns go away, and it is certainly not the position of any mainstream proponents of gun control. Do you know what that is, Shep? Yep; it's the strawman fallacy.

But wait! There's more!

Like making outrageous claims and generating an incredibly improbable chain of events that results in a fatal gun accident.

Fatal gun accidents do happen; they are observation, not theory. Decades of aggressive gun-safety public education campaigns have reduced the risk, but the risk is there nonetheless; a gun is inherently dangerous, just as industrial chemicals are dangerous (and regulated, I might add). Any attempt to claim otherwise is in defiance of reality.

It's kind of funny, how you can be so brutal against creationists, trekkies, and idiots in general who use the same kind of logical fallacies that the anti-freedom movement uses, yet you can't see the goddamn fallacies in what they say.

Who said I can't see the fallacies in what they say? Have you ever seen me agree with gun control extremists that all guns should be banned? No! So drop the fucking strawman. I'm starting to get tired of your one-note act. By the way, what fallacy were you committing there? Take a guess; yep, it's the "black and white" fallacy, in which you presume that since I'm not with you, I must be with the other extreme of the gun control spectrum.

Let's see what other fallacies you casually throw our way while pretending to be discussing logic instead of your one-note gun mantra, shall we?

MkSheppard wrote:First logical fallacy used against self defense is to concoct an outrageous sequence of events, such as how the criminal can just walk up behind you and put a gun to your head, and your pistol will be useless.

When that's exploded, such as in the case where a man woke up with a gun to his head, and managed to shoot and kill his assailants, the anti-freedom folks move on to their second (and most popular) logical fallacy: concocting outrageous and improbable accidents with guns.

So the "criminal tends to draw his weapon first" argument is "exploded" by one case? Can you say "hasty generalization fallacy?" Of course you can. One does not need to be a combat expert to know that whoever draws his weapons first has an obvious and sizable tactical advantage, and that person tends to be the criminal. It is possible to get lucky, or for the criminal to be an idiot and look away. But that does not "explode" the argument, any more than an underdog victory in one battle "explodes" the notion that superior numbers are an advantage.

Improved gun safety is one of the reasons that gun accidents have dropped over the last few decades, and guns are safest when they are kept locked up and unloaded in the house, not when they are kept loaded and under your pillow at night, ready to be used at a moment's notice.

MkSheppard wrote:http://www.guncite.com/
An excellent site for exploding many strawman arguments used by anti-freedom folks.

Guess what this is: it's a variation on the "complex question fallacy", in which two points are conjoined into a single proposition (OK, it's not phrased as a question, but you get the point). Instead of describing gun control advocates as gun control advocates, they become the "anti-freedom folks". I had no idea that to be a gun control advocate, you had to be an opponent of freedom in all its forms! Even the most wacko asshole gun control people (like Rosie O'Donnell, for example) aren't against all freedom; they're just against guns. This "guilt by association" trick is a very common rhetorical technique in the political arena (he already used it previously, when he accused opponents of handgun proliferation of being "against self-defense"; it is possible to be in favour of self-defense without necessarily promoting handgun proliferation).

Oh yes, what Eleas is doing is an ad hominem attack

Actually, it isn't. It's a personal attack, but a personal attack is not an ad hominem fallacy unless it purports to refute your points. Eleas made that personal attack in response to a rhetorical question on your part, not a logical argument. The original exchange:

Eleas wrote:

MkSheppard wrote:I'll let you smoke all the dope you want, and shoot up as much heroin as you want, because after all, it's your body.....in excahnge for my right to own whatever the fuck I feel like....even Swiss
Solothurn 20mm anti-tank rifles.

No deal.

Firstly, I don't even smoke regular tobacco. The most powerful substance I've ever abused is called Red Bull.

Your right to own whatever the fuck you light? Cute. Next thing you do, you'll point to your god given right to do whatever the fuck you want to whomever the fuck you want.

Hey, maybe you'll even hit the next person you fire at with your automatic rifle... just like last time?

Sorry, but you were just ending your post with a rhetorical flourish, and Eleas used the opportunity to attack you. He did not claim to refute any particular logical argument by doing so.

MkSheppard wrote:If I really was a fascist, I would be calling for MORE gun control, as only the STATE should have the power over life and death, not common citizens.

Yet another fallacious attempt to join two separate ideas together; it is possible to be fascist without being a gun control advocate; Mogadishu is a good example of that. And of course, you tacitly admit this elsewhere when you claim that Israel is not fascist despite virtually outlawing private gun ownership among Palestinians in the occupied territories. Hmmm ...

In any case, your liberal and gratuitous use of logical fallacies puts the lie to your claim that you leapt into that logic fallacies thread with the intent to discuss logic rather than your obvious attempt to subvert it into a continuation of your omnipresent one-note gun mantra. That's why I split this into a separate thread.

Hahaha, excellent read, excellent Imperial Smackdown (tm).

Darth Wong wrote: Who is "they"? I don't recall anyone claiming that there will be zero violent crime if guns go away, and it is certainly not the position of any mainstream proponents of gun control. Do you know what that is, Shep? Yep; it's the strawman fallacy.

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

Opponents of gun restrictions often argue that even seemingly modest restrictions are the first step towards total bans on all guns or all handguns.

Some proponents of gun restrictions mock this: No-one is talking about gun bans, they say -- the slippery slope concern is groundless. In the words of Martin Dyckman, associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 12, 1993, at 3D), "no one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns. You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed."

Who is right here? Is it true that no-one is seriously proposing broad gun bans? Is it true that the slippery slope concern is just a bogeyman? Here are a few relevant quotes on this point. (All of them have been verified by me, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, with help from our excellent law library.)

My favorite quote:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

******************

Different site.......

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime.

The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991.

A 6-month grace period would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun . After the grace period's expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed.

Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally licensed professional security guard services; and federally licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers.

The Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now.
--- Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 -- Hon. Major R. Owens ( Rep. NY, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Source: The Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

(empahsis added by me)

Gotta go away for the weekend, but I WILL BE BACK.