(December 9, 2013 at 11:41 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: And to change subjects, the notion that "if there was someone with a gun to shoot that guy then it wouldn't have happened" is fallacious. I could just as easily say that if there were no guns then he would not have been able to commit that act either. ..
Also, no one has addressed my previous set of questions and concerns.
You seem to love to engage in gun "philosophy" instead of gun reality. It's not fallacious, it is really the only way it would have actually occurred.
Its silly to say "what if there were no guns", the current reality is that there are guns, and many of them are in good hands and many of them are in bad hands. If you want to be silly like that why don't you say" what if bullets bounced off good people and only hurt bad people?" It makes only for wasted time discussing whimsy.
Climbing for a more academic level, what do you propose that we do from where we are?
The point of the line from whence this discussion thread came off was it was a pity that someone couldn't have stopped the man, WHO ALREADY HAD a gun, from killing the man and kids. I must take it from the lack of rational responses that the only practical way to have done this is with another gun. Yes, I was referring to the irony.
Find the cure for Fundementia!