Looks like another school shooting.....

IBDaMann said:
I'm looking at your argument here for compulsory defenselessness zones and it still looks pretty weak. You never explain how defenselessness somehow reduces violent crime, how deterrents to violent crime somehow increase violent crime or how everything on the internet somehow becomes true if it is called a "study".
Click to expand...

Obviously, the mere presence of a firearm increases the chances that said firearm will be fired. Whether accidentally or on purpose, whether at a bad person or at an innocent bystander. Having them in the hands of people with inadequate training multiplies those odds even more. Bullets fired from a gun don't discriminate nor do they always hit their intended target. They ricochet and sometimes they even pass through their intended targets and hit something or someone else.

All of that is part of the "common sense" you untruthfully claimed to subscribe to.

And besides, I've already explained all that but you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys any argument in favor of arming school employees, which itself is just a dodge by gun suckers to avoid the issue of children being gunned down in a place where they used to be safe, but now because of the gun lobby and the greedy gun industry, they no longer are.

It's obvious that you are an obtuse jackass who has no interest in common sense, truth, reality, etc.

You're just a bloviating jackass clown troll whose only value or worth, is as a punching bag and as an object of laughter and derision.
 
Nomad said:
Obviously, the mere presence of a firearm increases the chances that said firearm will be fired.
Click to expand...
This is one of the ZenMode family of fallacies, i.e. the presence of an atmosphere affects the temperature of the atmosphere ... therefore Global Warming!

I understand that you are logically inept, and that you are trying to accomplish the impossible through inane illogic, i.e. you imply that the presence of a deterrent to violent crime causes an increase in violent crime by arguing that the mere presence of the deterrent implies its availability to be used to deter violent crime, further implying a higher probability that violent crime will be deterred.

Ergo: Having a deterrent to violent crime increases the probability that violent crime will be deterred, implying higher incidence of violent crime. FALSE

Nomad said:
Having them in the hands of people with inadequate training multiplies those odds even more.
Click to expand...
FALSE If the presence of the firearm deters violent crime, the skill of the wielder is moot.

Nomad said:
Bullets fired from a gun don't discriminate nor do they always hit their intended target.
Click to expand...
If bullets are fired, we're no longer talking about the deterrence of a firearm and you are conflating semantics. Dismissed.

Nomad said:
And besides, I've already explained all that
Click to expand...
Yes, you have already conflated semantics multiple times and pelted this board with your stupid logical contradictions.

Nomad said:
but you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys any argument in favor of arming school employees,
Click to expand...
You have not destroyed any argument. You have failed to show that deterring violent crime increases violent crime. You are preemptively EVADING the issue of leftist legislation to compulsorily shoehorn children into being conveniently gunned down in a place where they should be safe ... and the kicker is that the leftists become filled with glee over every child death because that's the ticket they are looking for. They want to blame the deaths they created on the very institutions that seek to protect We the People. Why? Because leftists seek to abolish the 2nd Amendment and to usher in a tyrannical government. So whenever there is a shooting death that is not black-on-black (leftists don't give a shit about that and actually want all blacks to just fucking off themselves, or to return to slavery where leftists think they belong) leftists immediately rush to blame the gun lobby, the "greedy" gun industry (their Marxism speaks), the NRA, and any of We the People who don't relish the idea of perpetual defenselessness before violent crime. Leftists craft legislation to kill people, and to invoke fear and panic that causes people to cede more and more power to a tyrannical government.

Fuck you.

Nomad said:
but now because of the gun lobby and the greedy gun industry, they no longer are.
Click to expand...
Of course. Blame the purveyors of safety for the deaths you cause. Fuck you. It's obvious that you are an obtuse jackass who has no interest in common sense, truth, reality, etc, but who knows nothing other than to be a shill for the DNC and for all others who do your thinking for you.
 
Nomad said:
Obviously, the mere presence of a firearm increases the chances that said firearm will be fired. Whether accidentally or on purpose, whether at a bad person or at an innocent bystander. Having them in the hands of people with inadequate training multiplies those odds even more. Bullets fired from a gun don't discriminate nor do they always hit their intended target. They ricochet and sometimes they even pass through their intended targets and hit something or someone else.

All of that is part of the "common sense" you untruthfully claimed to subscribe to.

And besides, I've already explained all that but you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys any argument in favor of arming school employees, which itself is just a dodge by gun suckers to avoid the issue of children being gunned down in a place where they used to be safe, but now because of the gun lobby and the greedy gun industry, they no longer are.

It's obvious that you are an obtuse jackass who has no interest in common sense, truth, reality, etc.

You're just a bloviating jackass clown troll whose only value or worth, is as a punching bag and as an object of laughter and derision.
Click to expand...
Kind of like your posts there mere presence increases the chances stupidity will follow
 
Nomad said:
Stupidest thing I've ever read. :lolup:

Of course you reject them.

The people who produce them are generally experts who use empirical data and statistics.
Click to expand...
'Expert' worship. You mentioned no data or statistics. You obviously can't think for yourself.
Nomad said:
You're just some random idiot who doesn't know his asshole from a pothole.

I already have.

You have yet to present anything, much less an argument.

Just a lot of hot air as always.

You haven't made a valid argument or even an invalid one.

All you've done so far is talk about making an argument.

That's not an argument.

That's just running your mouth to hear the sound of your own voice.


You make this world dumber just by being in it.


One cannot debunk something that does not exist.

Like your non-existent, sham of an argument.


No, but I see you're competing for the job of trump's butt plug.


Explain exactly how the data cited in the linked reports I posted several posts back,are nothing more than "mistaken opinions". Exactly what do you base that bullshit statement on?

Explain exactly how the sources I posted links to are incorrect.
Click to expand...
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden fallacy. Sorry, dude. The burden of proof is on YOU. You cannot transfer it to someone else.
Nomad said:
I have.

Now it's your turn.

I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Numerous insults get you nowhere. You have provided no data. You have provided no statistical math. You have provided no names for your 'experts'.

Void reference fallacy. Insult fallacies. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden fallacy. No argument presented.
 
Nomad said:
Obviously, the mere presence of a firearm increases the chances that said firearm will be fired.
Click to expand...
Math error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Go learn probability mathematics.
Nomad said:
Whether accidentally or on purpose, whether at a bad person or at an innocent bystander. Having them in the hands of people with inadequate training multiplies those odds even more. Bullets fired from a gun don't discriminate nor do they always hit their intended target. They ricochet and sometimes they even pass through their intended targets and hit something or someone else.

All of that is part of the "common sense" you untruthfully claimed to subscribe to.

And besides, I've already explained all that but you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys any argument in favor of arming school employees, which itself is just a dodge by gun suckers to avoid the issue of children being gunned down in a place where they used to be safe, but now because of the gun lobby and the greedy gun industry, they no longer are.

It's obvious that you are an obtuse jackass who has no interest in common sense, truth, reality, etc.

You're just a bloviating jackass clown troll whose only value or worth, is as a punching bag and as an object of laughter and derision.
Click to expand...
Assumption fallacy (attempted proof by contrivance).

I own three guns. I carry one of them much of the time. No one has been shot by one.
 
IBDaMann said:
This is one of the ZenMode family of fallacies, i.e. the presence of an atmosphere affects the temperature of the atmosphere ... therefore Global Warming!

I understand that you are logically inept, and that you are trying to accomplish the impossible through inane illogic, i.e. you imply that the presence of a deterrent to violent crime causes an increase in violent crime by arguing that the mere presence of the deterrent implies its availability to be used to deter violent crime, further implying a higher probability that violent crime will be deterred.

Ergo: Having a deterrent to violent crime increases the probability that violent crime will be deterred, implying higher incidence of violent crime. FALSE

FALSE If the presence of the firearm deters violent crime, the skill of the wielder is moot.

If bullets are fired, we're no longer talking about the deterrence of a firearm and you are conflating semantics. Dismissed.

Yes, you have already conflated semantics multiple times and pelted this board with your stupid logical contradictions.

You have not destroyed any argument. You have failed to show that deterring violent crime increases violent crime. You are preemptively EVADING the issue of leftist legislation to compulsorily shoehorn children into being conveniently gunned down in a place where they should be safe ... and the kicker is that the leftists become filled with glee over every child death because that's the ticket they are looking for. They want to blame the deaths they created on the very institutions that seek to protect We the People. Why? Because leftists seek to abolish the 2nd Amendment and to usher in a tyrannical government. So whenever there is a shooting death that is not black-on-black (leftists don't give a shit about that and actually want all blacks to just fucking off themselves, or to return to slavery where leftists think they belong) leftists immediately rush to blame the gun lobby, the "greedy" gun industry (their Marxism speaks), the NRA, and any of We the People who don't relish the idea of perpetual defenselessness before violent crime. Leftists craft legislation to kill people, and to invoke fear and panic that causes people to cede more and more power to a tyrannical government.

Fuck you.

Of course. Blame the purveyors of safety for the deaths you cause. Fuck you. It's obvious that you are an obtuse jackass who has no interest in common sense, truth, reality, etc, but who knows nothing other than to be a shill for the DNC and for all others who do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on wasting all that time, effort and keyboard pounding on a load of shit that I did not read beyond the first sentence.

Anyone with even the slightest iota of logical thinking ability understands that ANYTHING being present increases the chances that it will get used. And the more often something gets used, the more chances are that it will get misused.

If your juvenile excuse for a mind cannot grasp something as simple as that, you should be in a nursing home.

Or better yet, a nursery school.
 
Nomad said:
Congratulations on wasting all that time, effort and keyboard pounding on a load of shit that I did not read beyond the first sentence.
Click to expand...
Not a waste of time at all. I didn't really post it for you but for JPP in general. We'll see if I get any "like"s or other comments.

Nomad said:
Anyone with even the slightest iota of logical thinking ability understands that ANYTHING being present increases the chances that it will get used.
Click to expand...
Anyone with even the slightest iota of logical thinking ability understands that you still have to link said increased probability to whatever conclusions you are pretending to argue. Since you don't have even the slightest iota of logical thinking ability, you don't understand this. I get it. I'm happy to work with you to help you sort this out. We'll go slowly. Baby steps.

Nomad said:
And the more often something gets used, the more chances are that it will get misused.
Click to expand...
At no point down this rabbit hole are you somehow relieved of your requirement to follow the rules of logic. Your unrelated statements remain insufficient to draw the conclusion that you are invalidly drawing. If your juvenile excuse for a mind cannot grasp something as simple as that, you should be in a nursing home, or better yet, a nursery school.

Let me know where you are confused and I'll gladly help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top