Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    I don't see how the argument was an appeal to emotion.
    "You would like to defend yourself"
    "Some one breaks into your house"

    Clearly an appeal to emotion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    "You would like to defend yourself"
    "Some one breaks into your house"

    Clearly an appeal to emotion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nothing emotional about it Aph, you're just making a logical leap of faith!

    The second one was just an example scenario that I thought up on the spot, since when was using examples in an argument forbidden?

    The first one is just simple human nature, self defence is natural, if a human feels under threat then they don't just stand there and take it, it's a simple fact, and yet again, not an appeal to emotion.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Nothing emotional about it Aph, you're just making a logical leap of faith!

    The second one was just an example scenario that I thought up on the spot, since when was using examples in an argument forbidden?

    The first one is just simple human nature, self defence is natural, if a human feels under threat then they don't just stand there and take it, it's a simple fact, and yet again, not an appeal to emotion.
    Prove human nature exists?

    And they are clearly appeals to emotion. Obviously because they frame it around 'you'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Prove human nature exists?

    And they are clearly appeals to emotion. Obviously because they frame it around 'you'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You still didn't actually state why the handgun worked.

    Wait. It didn't.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    You still didn't actually state why the handgun worked.

    Wait. It didn't.
    What?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Correlation does not equal causation.
    I will make this nice and simple for you.

    Making handguns legal makes them readily available for any criminal to buy one. Therefore with more criminals armed, gang fights will end up as shootings. More people die. Is that clear enough for you?

    You can speak of controls, but legalizing guns will just mean more weapons will end up on the black market, thus rendering all of your protective legislation useless.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    I will make this nice and simple for you.

    Making handguns legal makes them readily available for any criminal to buy one. Therefore with more criminals armed, gang fights will end up as shootings. More people die. Is that clear enough for you?

    You can speak of controls, but legalizing guns will just mean more weapons will end up on the black market, thus rendering all of your protective legislation useless.
    You are incompetent, you have come back to us with no evidence or arguments or even statistics.

    The handgun ban did not decreases homicide,it increased it.

    Let us present you with the same evidence again as you cannot read.


    Regulation should be justified, this regulation is not. Your arguments are pathetically weak and are of hypothetical situations that you dreamt up instead of empirical evidence and statistics. Crawl back when you have some actual arguments.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    You are incompetent, you have come back to us with no evidence or arguments or even statistics.

    The handgun ban did not decreases homicide,it increased it.

    Let us present you with the same evidence again as you cannot read.


    Regulation should be justified, this is not. Your arguments are pathetically weak and are of hypothetical situations that you dreamt up instead of empirical evidence and statistics.
    From a purely neutral perspective, without inputting on the actual policy being debated.

    That graph shows homicides by any method, not just firearms.

    Homicide statistics in graphs like that show the year they were recorded not the year they happened. So the 170+ deaths attributed to Harold Shipman in 2003 is an outlier, hence the big peak. Take those deaths out of the question and I'd be surprised if the rate PM in that year was above 15.

    Also I would assume the spike from 2000/2001 is because of all those Chinese people that died in the lorry on the way to the UK. Also consider that 50 or so from 2005 were July Bombing victims.

    Take out these 'events' and the graph looks massively different. Then consider the fact that killing by sharp instruments and kicking/punching are the two main methods of homicide with firearm homicides way behind, then the graph's weight in this argument is severely diminished.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    I will make this nice and simple for you.

    Making handguns legal makes them readily available for any criminal to buy one. Therefore with more criminals armed, gang fights will end up as shootings. More people die. Is that clear enough for you?

    You can speak of controls, but legalizing guns will just mean more weapons will end up on the black market, thus rendering all of your protective legislation useless.
    Show me that more guns = more homicide.

    Not more firearm homicide as that would then require you to explain why it is worse to kill someone with a gun than it is to kill someone with a knife or any other method.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    From a purely neutral perspective, without inputting on the actual policy being debated.

    That graph shows homicides by any method, not just firearms.

    Homicide statistics in graphs like that show the year they were recorded not the year they happened. So the 170+ deaths attributed to Harold Shipman in 2003 is an outlier, hence the big peak. Take those deaths out of the question and I'd be surprised if the rate PM in that year was above 15.

    Also I would assume the spike from 2000/2001 is because of all those Chinese people that died in the lorry on the way to the UK. Also consider that 50 or so from 2005 were July Bombing victims.

    Take out these 'events' and the graph looks massively different. Then consider the fact that killing by sharp instruments and kicking/punching are the two main methods of homicide with firearm homicides way behind, then the graph's weight in this argument is severely diminished.
    The point is the homicide rate as a whole unless you believe that being shot and killed is worse than being killed in any other way
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It won't let me paste the image but the firearm homicide rate dipped slightly then increased drastically SoggyCabbages
    http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mur...fter-gun-bans/
    See the link above.

    The point is that there is no correlation between guns and homicide as commonly perceived. I am not saying more guns equal less deaths but the graph illustrates there is no correlation. Less guns don't equal less deaths. As there is no correlation the regulation is not justified.

    Also soggy Adam_1999 was supposed to address the points but he is clearly stupid so cannot.

    I do commend you for making some valid point soggy!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    It won't let me paste the image but the firearm homicide rate dipped slightly then increased drastically SoggyCabbages
    http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mur...fter-gun-bans/
    See the link above.

    The point is that there is no correlation between guns and homicide as commonly perceived. I am not saying more guns equal less deaths but the graph illustrates there is no correlation. Less guns don't equal less deaths. As there is no correlation the regulation is not justified.

    Also soggy Adam_1999 was supposed to address the points but he is clearly stupid so cannot.

    I do commend you for making some valid point soggy!
    For the member of the MHoC who promised to change his attitude, calling other members stupid is not the way to go about changing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    joecphillips
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    The point is that there is no correlation between guns and homicide as commonly perceived.

    Less guns don't equal less deaths.
    First all there is the simple common sense argument: legalizing handguns means there are more guns in circulation. More guns = more shootings. Imagine if we have a population of 100,000 people and there are say 500 gun owners. This may result in 50 shootings. If we double the number of gun owners, we double the number of shootings.

    OK! I made those numbers up to illustrate my simple common sense point: more guns equals more shootings.

    Now let us look at real figures. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    The first graph of gun crimes in england and wales does show a rise in between 2005 and 2005 - I don't know why - but gun crime has plummeted since then to a level which is approximately half that of the period 1990 to 1995. Are you really telling me that legalising guns will result in gun crime levels staying the same?

    We have to remember that many of those gun incidents are air rifles or guns loaded with blanks (see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...7#.WQDjtjPTXqA). Let us look at a more accurate metric of how effective banning guns - homicides due to guns.

    Look at the graph showing gun homicides in Scotland. If we draw a line of best fit of that graph and ignore the period 2004 to 2006 which seems anomalous, we see that there has been a clear decrease in murders where a gun was used.

    On another note, can anybody here point me to a chief constable of major police force who has said that legalizing handguns will not affect gun crime? Can you find anybody on our police forces who think that legalising guns will have no effect on gun crime?

    Cast your minds back to dunblane, where thomas hamilton killed 16 5 and 6 year year olds with HIS LEGALLY HELD COLLECTION OF HANDGUNS. Do you want to more kids dead in school shootings? Would that spice up your day?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    First all there is the simple common sense argument: legalizing handguns means there are more guns in circulation. More guns = more shootings. Imagine if we have a population of 100,000 people and there are say 500 gun owners. This may result in 50 shootings. If we double the number of gun owners, we double the number of shootings.

    OK! I made those numbers up to illustrate my simple common sense point: more guns equals more shootings.

    Now let us look at real figures. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

    The first graph of gun crimes in england and wales does show a rise in between 2005 and 2005 - I don't know why - but gun crime has plummeted since then to a level which is approximately half that of the period 1990 to 1995. Are you really telling me that legalising guns will result in gun crime levels staying the same?

    We have to remember that many of those gun incidents are air rifles or guns loaded with blanks (see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...7#.WQDjtjPTXqA). Let us look at a more accurate metric of how effective banning guns - homicides due to guns.

    Look at the graph showing gun homicides in Scotland. If we draw a line of best fit of that graph and ignore the period 2004 to 2006 which seems anomalous, we see that there has been a clear decrease in murders where a gun was used.

    On another note, can anybody here point me to a chief constable of major police force who has said that legalizing handguns will not affect gun crime? Can you find anybody on our police forces who think that legalising guns will have no effect on gun crime?

    Cast your minds back to dunblane, where thomas hamilton killed 16 5 and 6 year year olds with HIS LEGALLY HELD COLLECTION OF HANDGUNS. Do you want to more kids dead in school shootings? Would that spice up your day?
    Is gun crime somehow worse than ordinary crime? Would you prefer to be stabbed and killed or shot and killed?

    Can you point me to other similar school shootings in the uk?
    Nice appeal to emotion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    fleky6910 Calling other people stupid does not make you right. It just denigrates you and your arguments. You are not going to convince anyone of your points when you insult them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    fleky6910 Calling other people stupid does not make you right. It just denigrates you and your arguments. You are not going to convince anyone of your points when you insult them.
    You have made absolutely no points, simply appeals to emotion and the argument to authority (the idea that only police constables (experts) can provide accurate opinions on their field.)

    These are rudimentary logical fallacies, please practice your rhetorical style and debating skills before challenging us again, you are clearly out of your league, and I'd advise you to stop before you embarrass yourself any further!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    You have made absolutely no points, simply appeals to emotion and the argument to authority (the idea that only police constables (experts) can provide accurate opinions on their field.)

    These are rudimentary logical fallacies, please practice your rhetorical style and debating skills before challenging us again, you are clearly out of your league, and I'd advise you to stop before you embarrass yourself any further!
    Did you read the guardian article? All your figures are there. Of course, police constables are not the only experts in their field. The first person I will report a crime to you will be you. I am sure that you'll do a great job.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam_1999)
    Did you read the guardian article? All your figures are there. Of course, police constables are not the only experts in their field. The first person I will report a crime to you will be you. I am sure that you'll do a great job.
    Your whole argument is gun crime = worse than all others, can you explain why that is?

    Is it worse to be shot to death or stabbed to death?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    An extremely valid argument.. if your a libertarian. For those of us who are not, your asking us to indulge your desire to change the status-quo without offering any real basis for why that would be in either our or the nations self interest. At face value, greater handgun ownership does not look especially attractive.
    This whole "status quo=perfection, liberty is :innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent:" argument is an interesting one especially when it comes to dictators. It's also the problem with looking at something at face value, ultimately that means looking at it in accordance with ingrained biases and on an emotional basis rather than looking at evidence. In many respects it is somewhat reminiscent of the de Tocquville quote on equality vs liberty (Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.) however it being shifted to changing nothing vs liberty, to you it seems liberalisation is bad unless it can be demonstrated to be specifically good as opposed to liberalism being good unless demonstrated specifically bad, which is a bizarre state of mind to me for somebody who lives in a country that can truly call itself a liberal democracy that has never fallen to the dictators
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Is gun crime somehow worse than ordinary crime? Would you prefer to be stabbed and killed or shot and killed?

    Can you point me to other similar school shootings in the uk?
    Nice appeal to emotion
    Gun crime vs knife crime has nothing to do with this. I was merely making the point that less guns = less murders by guns. Do you have any evidence to prove that banning guns will increase knife crime? I find the notion that the lives saved by banning guns will cancelled out by an increase in knife crime ridiculous.

    Yeah, the emotion thing has been mentioned to me before, but the idea of excluding emotion completely when making an argument is wrong for me anyway. I made that emotional appeal because I meant it. If you don't believe in your arguments and you don't imbue them with that belief, the argument is no longer an argument. You aren't here because a cold part of your mind has concluded that legalising guns is good, you are here because you are passionate about your beliefs.

    I included the Dunblane example because the perpetrator had committed that crime because he had handguns which he owned legally.

    You want me to name another mass shooting? The hungerford massacre in 1987 which killed 16 innocent people. The firearms amendment act that followed it banned semi automatic rifles, but it didn't ban handguns. If it had, Dunblane would not have happened.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 17, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.