• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kurt Russell blasts gun control push: “I think it’s absolutely insane”

MickeyW said:
“If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind,” he began. “I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane.”

Kurt Russell blasts gun control push: ?I think it?s absolutely insane? « Hot Air
Click to expand...

This is known as a "straw man argument." No one is, or should be, alleging that gun control will somehow change the point of terrorists. It COULD hamper their ability to be deadly - and it COULD alter the mindset/ability to be deadly of non-terrorists.
 
MrT said:
This is known as a "straw man argument." No one is, or should be, alleging that gun control will somehow change the point of terrorists. It COULD hamper their ability to be deadly - and it COULD alter the mindset/ability to be deadly of non-terrorists.
Click to expand...

yet the California shooting incident is being used by banoid politicians to justify all sorts of idiocy that would have not impacted those two killers at all

sort of like what CT did after the Lanza rampage-not one of those stupid post-Sandy Hook laws would have made one spit's worth of difference
 
TurtleDude said:
yet the California shooting incident is being used by banoid politicians to justify all sorts of idiocy that would have not impacted those two killers at all

sort of like what CT did after the Lanza rampage-not one of those stupid post-Sandy Hook laws would have made one spit's worth of difference
Click to expand...

Again, straw man. No one is, or should be, arguing that new regulations will somehow impact past events. You need a time machine.

However, the new regulation COULD make a future attack that does not follow the exact same timeline/method less likely to occur or less deadly
 
MrT said:
Again, straw man. No one is, or should be, arguing that new regulations will somehow impact past events. You need a time machine.

However, the new regulation COULD make a future attack that does not follow the exact same timeline/method less likely to occur or less deadly
Click to expand...
\

that seems to be a justification for banning all guns isn't it
 
TurtleDude said:
\

that seems to be a justification for banning all guns isn't it
Click to expand...

Are you asking if it could be a justification or if I am using it to justify a gun ban?
 
MrT said:
This is known as a "straw man argument." No one is, or should be, alleging that gun control will somehow change the point of terrorists. It COULD hamper their ability to be deadly - and it COULD alter the mindset/ability to be deadly of non-terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well... Having read your post, I admit you are an expert in straw man arguments, and will therefore acquiesce to the adage that "it takes one to know one".

As for the "COULD". Can you elaborate on that? In what way could gun control hamper a terrorist's ability to be deadly?

A reminder of Russell's statement from the linked article:
“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell retorted. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”
Click to expand...

Given that terrorist have used all the methods mentioned and also used methods such as poison gases, I would be interested in the less deadly concept. Is a person killed by gas less dead than a person killed by a bullet?
 
TurtleDude said:
the former
Click to expand...

Sure, it could be used in order to make a justification that is not particularly strong relative to the cost of the policy proposal.
 
natsb said:
Well... Having read your post, I admit you are an expert in straw man arguments, and will therefore acquiesce to the adage that "it takes one to know one".

As for the "COULD". Can you elaborate on that? In what way could gun control hamper a terrorist's ability to be deadly?

A reminder of Russell's statement from the linked article:


Given that terrorist have used all the methods mentioned and also used methods such as poison gases, I would be interested in the less deadly concept. Is a person killed by gas less dead than a person killed by a bullet?
Click to expand...

I don't recall Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 terrorists shooting a single person.
 
natsb said:
Well... Having read your post, I admit you are an expert in straw man arguments, and will therefore acquiesce to the adage that "it takes one to know one".
Click to expand...

This point implies that I made a straw man argument myself somewhere...was it in this thread or elsewhere?

natsb said:
As for the "COULD". Can you elaborate on that? In what way could gun control hamper a terrorist's ability to be deadly?

A reminder of Russell's statement from the linked article:

Given that terrorist have used all the methods mentioned and also used methods such as poison gases, I would be interested in the less deadly concept. Is a person killed by gas less dead than a person killed by a bullet?
Click to expand...

Guns are some of the easiest weapons to obtain, use, and achieve a lethal result. Of course you can kill through other methods, some with much more lethality (although harder to obtain and use - gas and bombs) and some with more availability (although harder to achieve a lethal result - cars and knives). If a gun control policy makes it harder to obtain a firearm or makes it very difficult to obtain a certain type of firearm that is usually more lethal, then the gun control has hampered the terrorist's ability to be deadly.

You wanted to know why it could hamper their ability to be deadly. Now please refrain from the response, "Well they could just get it off the black market or find another way to kill." I do not believe it is possible to pass any policy proposal that will guarantee that a terrorist is unsuccessful.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't recall Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 terrorists shooting a single person.
Click to expand...

I can recall more than 300 instances of mass shootings in the United States from this year alone.
 
MrT said:
I can recall more than 300 instances of mass shootings in the United States from this year alone.
Click to expand...

that has been debunked by FBI statistics
 
TurtleDude said:
that has been debunked by FBI statistics
Click to expand...

Not debunked - just a quibble about the definition of "mass shootings" because there is in an inherent difference between a terrorist-induced mass shooting designed to harm or kill a group of people randomly and a domestic/criminal dispute that resulted in multiple people being shot or killed.

But there is also a common thread - namely the guns, bullets, and the 4+ people that were shot.
 
MrT said:
Not debunked - just a quibble about the definition of "mass shootings" because there is in an inherent difference between a terrorist-induced mass shooting designed to harm or kill a group of people randomly and a domestic/criminal dispute that resulted in multiple people being shot or killed.

But there is also a common thread - namely the guns, bullets, and the 4+ people that were shot.
Click to expand...

Does that include attacks with pellet guns? Joking aside, how many of those 300 or so "mass" shootings involved "assault" weapons? I am guessing but I would wager you could count them on one hand.
 
MrT said:
Not debunked - just a quibble about the definition of "mass shootings" because there is in an inherent difference between a terrorist-induced mass shooting designed to harm or kill a group of people randomly and a domestic/criminal dispute that resulted in multiple people being shot or killed.

But there is also a common thread - namely the guns, bullets, and the 4+ people that were shot.
Click to expand...

how many of those mass shootings involved people who were in legal possession of the firearm say 5 minutes before they started shooting?
 
TurtleDude said:
how many of those mass shootings involved people who were in legal possession of the firearm say 5 minutes before they started shooting?
Click to expand...

Not a clue.
 
BretJ said:
Does that include attacks with pellet guns? Joking aside, how many of those 300 or so "mass" shootings involved "assault" weapons? I am guessing but I would wager you could count them on one hand.
Click to expand...

So you want to ban handguns?
 
TurtleDude said:
most illegal shootings are perpetrated by people who have felony records
Click to expand...

So they were perpetrated by individuals that were deprived of their 2nd amendment rights by unconstitutional laws?
 
MrT said:
So they were perpetrated by individuals that were deprived of their 2nd amendment rights by unconstitutional laws?
Click to expand...

depends. someone losing the RKBA due to their state banning felons from having guns is not unconstitutional

the point you are avoiding is that most of the gun crimes are perpetrated by those who cannot own any guns

crap like assault "weapon" bans or magazine limits only harass people who can legally own guns and not those who cause most of the problems
 
MrT said:
So you want to ban handguns?
Click to expand...

Not at all. But why single out a firearm that has been used a fraction of 1% in all firearms homicides except as a political ploy?
 
BretJ said:
Not at all. But why single out a firearm that has been used a fraction of 1% in all firearms homicides except as a political ploy?
Click to expand...

Because addressing the primary source of gun violence is a non-starter.
 
MrT said:
Because addressing the primary source of gun violence is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

So it is "look like we are doing something" feel good, political theatre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom