Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

This idea that all weapons are equally capable is absurd.

How so? The weapons are made for specific purposes, the M4 is actually not the best weapon for the situation above, something like an MP5 would be better (which is why most hostage retrieval units carry those types of weapons). Are you saying that getting shot with a .45 ACP is going to kill you less than getting shot with an M4? I mean if you want to argue things this way then we should just ban all hunting rifles as most of them are higher powered than the lowly AR-15 (which is really a relatively low powered hunting rifle in drag).

Did you know that flamethrower ownership is only governed at state level and that in most states they are perfectly legal? I would think that's a much scarier weapon than a rifle, hell it is even more versatile as it can engage structures, personnel AND vehicles.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand the fallacy. Someone else has already done a good write up of it so I'll link to it.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_authority

Opinions are proven by facts, not what is "probably" true.


How so? The weapons are made for specific purposes, the M4 is actually not the best weapon for the situation above, something like an MP5 would be better (which is why most hostage retrieval units carry those types of weapons). Are you saying that getting shot with a .45 ACP is going to kill you less than getting shot with an M4? I mean if you want to argue things this way then we should just ban all hunting rifles as most of them are higher powered than the lowly AR-15 (which is really a relatively low powered hunting rifle in drag).

Did you know that flamethrower ownership is only governed at state level and that in most states they are perfectly legal? I would think that's a much scarier weapon than a rifle, hell it is even more versatile as it can engage structures, personnel AND vehicles.

My mistake. Obviously knives are just as deadly as nuclear bombs. How silly of me.
 
Opinions are proven by facts, not what is "probably" true.

So do you not believe that the Higg's Boson was discovered? You would need to trust in an authority (scientists at the LHC) to accept the fact that it has been found.

I would read the article I linked to.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll add to what I said. Spectre did not prove the point absolutely when he mentioned the opinions of Navy Seals, however he did provide evidence to its favor. You can't reject what experts in the field have said without provided evidence to dismiss them.
 
So do you not believe that the Higg's Boson was discovered? You would need to trust in an authority (scientists at the LHC) to accept the fact that it has been found.

I would read the article I linked to.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll add to what I said. Spectre did not prove the point absolutely when he mentioned the opinions of Navy Seals, however he did provide evidence to its favor. You can't reject what experts in the field have said without provided evidence to dismiss them.

And further, one cannot protest the use of same when one had immediately prior presented special ops troops using M4s as supporting your argument. It's the same appeal to authority, and just as valid. Which is why I used it in the first place.
 
The point of an argument is to try to get as close to the truth as we can. No one can ever know the absolute truth of any matter*, so the best we can do is find the most probable.

*We can know the absolute truth within the framework of some philosophies, but this is on account of them being limited and divorced from reality. Math for instance.
 
Opinions are proven by facts, not what is "probably" true.




My mistake. Obviously knives are just as deadly as nuclear bombs. How silly of me.

Incontrovertible fact - nuclear weapons have killed fewer people than machetes have, even if you limit the machetes to the last 20 years and use 1940-on for the nukes. Statistics would show that you are more likely to die from a machete than a nuclear weapon. It can be argued that, yes, a machete is more dangerous than a nuke just from looking at the numbers.
 
Last edited:
So do you not believe that the Higg's Boson was discovered? You would need to trust in an authority (scientists at the LHC) to accept the fact that it has been found.

I would read the article I linked to.

The source material is there for all to see. A claim is perfectly reasonable to accept if it is backed up by evidence.

I remember staying up to watch the announcement. The Atlas scientists, being proper skeptics, weren't even sure they found the Higgs. All they would say was "we seem to have found a new particle that is showing traits similar to what some predictions say we should see." (See the conclusion).

You see, 99.9 percent certain is still a much larger margin of error than quantum physicists are used to seeing. It took a while to get more certain. This was March 14th: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson


And further, one cannot protest the use of same when one had immediately prior presented special ops troops using M4s as supporting your argument. It's the same appeal to authority, and just as valid. Which is why I used it in the first place.

I did not. I asked you a question and provided reference material because I wanted your opinion on it. I wanted to understand your argument. I did not claim that carbines were the ideal tool because those operatives were using them. That came later, but I did not use the video as evidence for it.


Incontrovertible fact - nuclear weapons have killed fewer people than machetes have, even if you limit the machetes to the last 20 years and use 1940-on for the nukes. Statistics would show that you are more likely to die from a machete than a nuclear weapon. It can be argued that, yes, a machete is more dangerous than a nuke just from looking at the numbers.

Attempts have been and are being made to quantify the lethality of weapons. http://books.google.com/books?id=_I...lity of a weapon&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false

Section XXX.

Per the (admittedly unsensitive) TLI, a 20 kiloton nuke is 2 million times more lethal than hand-to-hand.

It's in it's infancy, but it seems pretty clear per the models we have now that lethality does vary quite a bit from weapon to weapon, even if the values are imprecise (there's a good Navy thesis out there somewhere that analyzes the QJM but I can't find it).

But I've already come back when I said I was done, so really, I am done.
 
Last edited:
The source material is there for all to see. A claim is perfectly reasonable to accept if it is backed up by evidence.

I remember staying up to watch the announcement. The Atlas scientists, being proper skeptics, weren't even sure they found the Higgs. All they would say was "we seem to have found a new particle that is showing traits similar to what some predictions say we should see." (See the conclusion).

You see, 99.9 percent certain is still a much larger margin of error than quantum physicists are used to seeing. It took a while to get more certain. This was March 14th: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson

Unless you have the scientific training to understand completely that you are still trusting an authority.

The last paragraph of your post there is at odds with an earlier statement of yours.

Opinions are proven by facts, not what is "probably" true.

It is still probably true (though to a high degree of probably).
 
"Guns aren't bigger threats than knives" pretty much killed it for me.

They aren't *less* of a threat either.

Case in point: http://www.kget.com/news/local/stor...b-employee-in-the/mGKedRKb70Kc5xLYdms7mg.cspx

Reference: http://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...ive-tools/don-t-bring-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/

Further, ask any police officer who works a violent area which he fears more in the course of duty - a knife or a gun. Chances are, he will say something along the lines of 'they are equally dangerous.' Some will even go so far as to say 'knives.'
 
Further, ask any police officer who works a violent area which he fears more in the course of duty - a knife or a gun. Chances are, he will say something along the lines of 'they are equally dangerous.' Some will even go so far as to say 'knives.'
I don't think they fear the kind of knife that I was talking about in the first place:

They have got to be joking. :blink: A kitchen knife is a tool first and foremost, unlike a gun which is a weapon before all else.
As for switchblades and the like, sure, there's a link to violence. That's why there are innumerable laws (even in the US) and regulations banning them or allowing them only for certain purposes such as hunting and fishing. Makes you wonder why people demand that guns be kept available for everyone at any time, doesn't it?
 
Actually, that's exactly the kind of knife they have the most problems with. Aside from idiots carrying them, they are the most common weapon used in that most feared of police calls, the 'domestic disturbance.'

As for the switchblade laws, those were often passed around the turn of the last century as a form of immigrant control, switchblades being very popular among the 'low life' Southern European immigrants. Ones passed later were a direct (and failed) response to 1950s youth gangs. Further, as anyone looking at the TSA surrender/confiscation bins (or the auctions of said property) can tell you, it has had little effect on what knives people carry.

Nobody has called for 'guns to be available to everyone at any time' - just for the law-abiding citizen to not be restricted for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
What's truly incredible is that this has all been discussed numerous times in this thread and the gun control advocates typically neither refute these points with any factual data nor admit to being wrong; they tend to simply change the topic and try a different angle.
And calvinhobbes does exactly that, completely ignoring my post where I address his points.
 
And calvinhobbes does exactly that, completely ignoring my post where I address his points.
I've just been busy doing other stuff. Anyway, I've just had a look at that post and decided that it isn't worth my time. I particularly liked the part where you omitted a key word when you quoted me to counter a point of mine:

Excluding blanks that you may have fired: when was the last time either of you used a gun for anything but delivering potentially lethal bullets to a target?
I've never used a gun in an attempt to deliver a "lethal bullet" and I hope I never do. I prefer to shoot at paper.
That sort of thing makes a discussion impossible.

The problem is this: I'm actually rather indifferent towards gun control in the US. But the anti-GC crowd still manages to post enough rubbish to make me reply to this kind of thread from time to time. In this case, all I needed to do was express my disbelief that people are mulling over bans on certain kitchen knives and hey presto, along came the cavalry.:blink:
 
You, however, also ignored where I pointed out that I had recently used a firearm to launch non-lethal projectiles.
 
I've just been busy doing other stuff. Anyway, I've just had a look at that post and decided that it isn't worth my time. I particularly liked the part where you omitted a key word when you quoted me to counter a point of mine:


That sort of thing makes a discussion impossible.

The problem is this: I'm actually rather indifferent towards gun control in the US. But the anti-GC crowd still manages to post enough rubbish to make me reply to this kind of thread from time to time. In this case, all I needed to do was express my disbelief that people are mulling over bans on certain kitchen knives and hey presto, along came the cavalry.:blink:
Including the word "potentially" in my post would have made no difference :dunno: Rounds aimed at paper are neither lethal nor potentially lethal. I shot 50 bullets out of my revolver yesterday afternoon and not a single one was "potentially" lethal, not unless you're about to say that I killed a tree by shooting paper.


What's truly incredible is that this has all been discussed numerous times in this thread and the gun control advocates typically neither refute these points with any factual data nor admit to being wrong; they tend to simply change the topic and try a different angle.
Now, stop blatantly ignoring my post and let's see some factual data that is contrary to what I said. Specifically, I would like for you to explain why assault weapons are "the most dangerous" guns and why they are more dangerous than knives, even though the latter kills far more people every year. Oh, and do explain what a "potentially lethal bullet" is because, like I said twice now, I only shoot at paper targets. Facts and statistics, please.
 
Including the word "potentially" in my post would have made no difference :dunno: Rounds aimed at paper are neither lethal nor potentially lethal. I shot 50 bullets out of my revolver yesterday afternoon and not a single one was "potentially" lethal, not unless you're about to say that I killed a tree by shooting paper.

Actually including the word potentially makes a huge difference. Today I was operation a potentially deadly machine that kills over 30,000 people every year in the US alone. I am of course talking about my personal vehicle...
 
You, however, also ignored where I pointed out that I had recently used a firearm to launch non-lethal projectiles.
Fine, here goes:

Three weeks ago for me. Shotguns are versatile things. In addition to shot, they can throw slugs, line launching projectiles, rubber rounds, tear gas, tazers (yes, tazers), flares, gel rounds... list goes on and on.
You may have used projectiles that are less dangerous than live bullets, but they're still substantial objects exiting the muzzle at very high speeds - are they not? In any case, who is suggesting a ban on shotguns? Certainly not me - but to even get to a point where this starts to be a discussion, there would have to be an agreement that guns are inherently dangerous. Their purpose is to accelerate chunks of material to speeds that turn those chunks into dangerous projectiles.

Rounds aimed at paper are neither lethal nor potentially lethal. I shot 50 bullets out of my revolver yesterday afternoon and not a single one was "potentially" lethal, not unless you're about to say that I killed a tree by shooting paper.
Do I really have to recommend a Google search for "shooting range accidents"? Every bullet is potentially lethal, by its very design. You can limit that danger and you can behave responsibly, but a bullet is still inherently more dangerous than a kitchen knife - unless, maybe, if you fire that kitchen knife out of a gun.

Now, stop blatantly ignoring my post
:rofl: This isn't boot camp, you know?

Facts and statistics, please.
Why? What good would that be? Whatever on this blue marble that we live on would change your opinion on guns?
 
Top