None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
I don’t understand what the kidney one is about.
Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I’m completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.
Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn’t their main use. My neighbor can’t kill me because he’s mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.
Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.
It isn’t. There’s nothing rhetorical about saying that something is so dangerous no one should have access to it, even if they are “safe” with it, because of the risk it posses to society.
Whats the rhetorical principal involved here?
He’s also just being immature. He’s spamming me, replying to the same comment multiple times, quoting what I’m saying in bold as if it’s an argument. One of his replies sitting in my inbox is just him saying “fucking liberals” lmao. The guys is clearly an idiot, no need to defend him.
So there’s two things here, first, arguing that something almost 100% safe is dangerous because people have been hurt or died when it was involved is absolutely a rhetorical technique. It’s famously one of the ways people talk up the various satanic panics. That doesn’t mean your wrong or shouldn’t feel how you do, but it’s what you’re doing.
Second, he’s playing to the crowd because he recognizes that arguing online is a spectator sport. Neither you nor him are trying to convince each other, you’re trying to convince the people reading along. What he’s doing when he says “fucking liberals” is speaking directly through the mic hanging from the rafters. It’s what happens before he does the moves everyone watching knows by name: The CIA Already Admitted It stunner, the Armed Agents Of The State turnbuckle slam and the People’s Elbow (that one was just too good to pass up lol).
If you feel like he being immature it’s because you’re being clowned on. He may be an idiot, but he’s making you look like a fool.
Although I agree with most of what you said, guns are inherently not safe.
We are talking about something that is 100% unsafe and needs to be carefully handled at all times. Simply goofing off with them can get you killed. And on top of that, they are being used to maliciously hurt innocent people and a tool for crime.
Yes, the shootings and accidental discharges are the outliers, but I never pretended any different. I’m saying those cases are enough to justify real bans, that the 99.9% of “safe” gun owners need to deal with it and accept the small sacrifice. There is a clear and direct link to how easily accessible guns are and the abnormal amount of shootings. If I was asked to give up my paintbrushes to stop school shootings, I would in a heart beat.
The few cases are enough to justify broad policy changes. Not everything is anecdotal fallacy just because it doesn’t happen often, that would make all our safety measures and precautions based on rhetoric.
I’m not gonna try to convince you because like I said, an argument on the internet is for the reader, not the participants.
If you truly believe that guns should be banned, people shouldn’t have them and recognize that most gun owners will refuse, have you considered how would be best to go about disarming the American populace?
Id ban all sale of them and offer generous buybacks. You can’t actually disarm a population, everyone just ends up saying they dropped their gun in a lake.
I’m guessing you have some thoughts on this, where do you think the line is? What regulations would you accept?
None of those things are remotely comparable to guns lol. Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
I don’t understand what the kidney one is about.
Cars are central to our society, it would collapse without it(although I’m completely for phasing them out). Their main use is transport, not killing people.
Everything else you mentioned only affects the person using it and killin isn’t their main use. My neighbor can’t kill me because he’s mad about his job and is eating too much whip cream.
Guns are made to kill. People are using it to kill innocent people. No one needs a gun(except certain professions and I’m clearly not talking about banning it for then). Go back to posting pictures.
name a profession you think needs a gun more than the working people need guns, please.
That’s easy since working people don’t need guns.
Infantryman, swat, police(but the UK policemen don’t have them so probably not after a few years of a gunless society), ice cream truck driver
they do if a landlord tries to evict them or the pinkertons try to break their strike.
fucking liberals.
Lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU&pp=ygUVbG92ZSBtZSBpJ20gYSBsaWJlcmFs
Nice try but adults are able to easily spot rhetoric.
Are you okay there buddy?
Your argument against gun ownership by tying it to deaths not caused by the overwhelming majority of gun owners is a rhetorical technique.
The person you’re replying to has been putting “argumentation for me but not for thee” examples pulled from your comments in big giant letters.
It isn’t. There’s nothing rhetorical about saying that something is so dangerous no one should have access to it, even if they are “safe” with it, because of the risk it posses to society.
Whats the rhetorical principal involved here?
He’s also just being immature. He’s spamming me, replying to the same comment multiple times, quoting what I’m saying in bold as if it’s an argument. One of his replies sitting in my inbox is just him saying “fucking liberals” lmao. The guys is clearly an idiot, no need to defend him.
So there’s two things here, first, arguing that something almost 100% safe is dangerous because people have been hurt or died when it was involved is absolutely a rhetorical technique. It’s famously one of the ways people talk up the various satanic panics. That doesn’t mean your wrong or shouldn’t feel how you do, but it’s what you’re doing.
Second, he’s playing to the crowd because he recognizes that arguing online is a spectator sport. Neither you nor him are trying to convince each other, you’re trying to convince the people reading along. What he’s doing when he says “fucking liberals” is speaking directly through the mic hanging from the rafters. It’s what happens before he does the moves everyone watching knows by name: The CIA Already Admitted It stunner, the Armed Agents Of The State turnbuckle slam and the People’s Elbow (that one was just too good to pass up lol).
If you feel like he being immature it’s because you’re being clowned on. He may be an idiot, but he’s making you look like a fool.
Although I agree with most of what you said, guns are inherently not safe.
We are talking about something that is 100% unsafe and needs to be carefully handled at all times. Simply goofing off with them can get you killed. And on top of that, they are being used to maliciously hurt innocent people and a tool for crime.
Yes, the shootings and accidental discharges are the outliers, but I never pretended any different. I’m saying those cases are enough to justify real bans, that the 99.9% of “safe” gun owners need to deal with it and accept the small sacrifice. There is a clear and direct link to how easily accessible guns are and the abnormal amount of shootings. If I was asked to give up my paintbrushes to stop school shootings, I would in a heart beat.
The few cases are enough to justify broad policy changes. Not everything is anecdotal fallacy just because it doesn’t happen often, that would make all our safety measures and precautions based on rhetoric.
I’m not gonna try to convince you because like I said, an argument on the internet is for the reader, not the participants.
If you truly believe that guns should be banned, people shouldn’t have them and recognize that most gun owners will refuse, have you considered how would be best to go about disarming the American populace?
Id ban all sale of them and offer generous buybacks. You can’t actually disarm a population, everyone just ends up saying they dropped their gun in a lake.
I’m guessing you have some thoughts on this, where do you think the line is? What regulations would you accept?