rampage841512
New member
Do you see the implications that Sean Taylor's murder was just another instance of black on black crime? I've bolded it for you.
Well, I don't. The only implication there is that the crimes might be related, or that maybe what goes around does come around sometimes. And that is only if the individual reader chooses to view it that way. I would have assumed it was a "you may remember him from when he..." kind of statement, but I'd have to ask the author of the article to know for sure.
How is black on black crime implied in the article you linked? I didn't see any references to race or implications that race might in some way be related.
Then there is this:
Quote:
More than 70 million responsible tax-paying citizens own more than 200 million guns in this country. Let me make that number a little more meaningful: If you stand in front of your house and look at the house to the immediate left and right, there's an almost 100% chance that one of these three abodes has at least one gun inside.
I don't think there's a formal definition for the above babble. I'll just call it, "playing the stats game." The 70 mil and 200 mil numbers, while true, do not work as premises to the conclusion. The unstated premise is the assumption that the 70 million citizens, who own guns, are distributed evenly across every part of this country. 1 out of every 3 citizens in Alaska, 1 out of every 3 in Wyoming, and 1 out of every 3 in San Francisco. That's just... well, stupid.
I would think you would be smart enough to see that this is nothing more than attempt to get people to visualize how many guns there are in the US. Since your previous posts lead me to believe you are smart enough to see that, I guess you where just assuming that no one reading this would be smart enough to figure it out but you, leaving you free to make your underclassed opponent in this little tiff look like a fool? There is, in fact,
. The key word here is 'chance.' The premise is stated as a probability that anyone with the slightest knowledge of mathematics will know does not always translate to the real world. But it doesn't have to because the statement is what you call a thought experiment.an almost 100% chance that one of these three abodes has at least one gun inside.
Going back a little further:
Many gun accidents involve the gun being transported from one location to another. Swimming pools suffer from a tendency of being cemented into the ground.
And yet swimming pools still kill more people. So, as he said before, where should the focus be placed, on pools or guns? The anti arguement is: guns cause a lot of death, so guns should be made to go away. The obvious response to this is: pools cause more death, so why shouldn't they be made to go away as well. The idea is to point out how absurd getting rid of all the guns would be by equating them to pools.
I know, it doesn't really matter. But that's not the point. I know guns are legal, and should remain so (with a few less restrictions, in my opinion), because the right to keep and bear arms is a right that is protected by the Second Amendment. Like I said, I know that, but it's not the point. The point is convincing people in a democratic republic that it should remain so. And some of those people don't care that it's a right (or don't think it is) and would gladly trample it even more than they do now if all protections where removed. Having a right is one thing, being able to exercise it is something else entirely. Without the legal protection to exercise a right, having it becomes a moot point. Then all that is left is the decision to live without exercising it, or to fight (either through the legal system of a corrupt government and society or physically) in order to form a new govenment and legal system in which the right it protected.