ATF To Join NYPD In Fighting New York City Gun Crimes

I dont find needing a permit to own a fuggin gun to be considered aome egregious "control" unless the permit process becomes somehow unreasonable.

Id prefer the permit be necessary. It makes a lot of sense.
It's a waste of time and money. Things like that are for good honest people that have no intention nor desire to go postal, or to commit crimes. The bad guys laugh at such laws. Gun runners profit from such laws. And, the taxpayers are paying mega bucks to stop that which can't be stopped.
gun control and non gun control ....NOTHING will ever stop criminals...

Still its best to err on the side of caution from mentally disabled persons or unstable oersons from buying a gun free and clear of any process

I support universal background checks, which is not the same thing as saying that those who pass such background checks shouldn't be able to own guns.
I support the right to keep and bear arms, period. A disarmed citizenry is the worst thing that could happen to this country.

Have you been out in public ? 50% of the population (at a minimum) would be more of a danger with guns than any government we might have to repel.

Let's just be honest about this to, the US Army will NEVER back a despot, and without the Army , any takeover attempt would be stupid.

So from a realistic standpoint we simply vote the bums out of office and they are gone.
 
The OP's point clearly was about 12 feet over some of yall's head.

It would very interesting to see a major city like NYC drop all of it's gun bullshit for one year and see what it does to crime levels.

I mean 8M people policed by 40,000 cops , a criminal does have pretty good odds of not being confronted with a gun in NYC , so they are more likely to commit crime. That's just logical.

Where I live, we RARELY have home invasions or the like. Partly because of our demographics, and partly because EVERYONE has a gun in the house.

Cum hoc fallacy.

How's it a fallacy Pogo?

You are an idiot.

Only on USMB do you get a second fallacy before you explain the first one.
Wait, hang on, I smell an 'everybody knows' coming up.....

Criminals ARE obviously more unlikely to rob armed people.

There's my girl. Trifecta! :thup:

That's not up for debate.

Hey, look who's here! C'mon in Danth.

You can argue that the benefit of such is outweighed by the dangers of an armed populace. THAT is a valid debate.

There is however ZERO debate on whether the average criminal will avoid an armed person in favor of an unarmed one. They obviously will.

As with every rule, there are exceptions.

Aaaand right back to "it's obvious". Getting repetitive.

I'll only address the one I pointed out: it's a fallacy because your causation is assumed from nothing in evidence. Speculation. Not to mention the problematic term "everybody".

Now if you've actually interviewed "everybody" AND interviewed all those who might consider a B&E about why they didn't --- bring that in. But correlation ≠ causation.

Same is true for the OP.
 
SMARTERTHANTHEAVERAGEBEAR SAID:

“How's it a fallacy?”

Here's how:

“Cum Hoc is the fallacy committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously. In order to avoid this fallacy, one needs to rule out other possible explanations for the correlation.”

Logical Fallacy Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Consequently your argument is a fallacy, you incorrectly infer that because 'everyone has a gun in the house” home invasions rarely occur, when in fact there are other plausible possibilities for this.

As a result, you're in no position to call anyone an 'idiot.'
 
We're already an occupied city under constant surveillance living at the beginning of a military dictatorship
And yet you stay..

Bootstraps? Personal responsibility?

Youre by proxy in agreement wth it all by staying bud.

Normalcy bias. It's why Einstein was one of the few to flee Germany in 1933 and most others stayed thinking it will be OK again
 

Forum List

Back
Top