Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines? If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere? I find that the media glorifies guns more than anything.
You are way more likely to be killed by someone driving a car but you don't have an irrational fear of them. That's because every time you see a car in a movie or dramatic TV show or video game it is not used in an act of violence. This is more like if you were afraid of an ax all by itself. It's the threatening person holding the ax that is what you fear isn't it?
Why are you not calling for more ax laws, and have you never seen The Shining?
Guns aren't killing machines, people are. That's why gun control laws are entirely ineffective.
recreation, sustenance, and personal, self and national defense. Cars kill about 71 times as many people annually by accident than fatal gun accidents. There is your killing machine.
Your statistic is impertinent since I am not talking exclusively about accidental gun death. I'm slightly afraid being "on the road" for that reason. However, cars are not made to kill, yet guns are, and driving a car means accepting the risk, but going outside doesn't mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed. "sustenance, and personal, self and national defense..." These are good reasons depending on where you are, but in a city you don't need guns for sustenance, and you don't need assault weapons for self defense. You definitively don't need a gun for entertainment, and unlike a car with the justification of timely travel, entertainment is a poor reason to allow such dangerous tools to be used by civilians in non-rural areas. Heck, a shooting has happened since this conversation began at Maryland High School!
25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving. Going outside does mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed as does staying home.
I live in a city and I hunt. Semi auto sporting rifles like AR-15 are not assault rifles and are suitable for personal defense. I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment. Maryland has all the strict racist gun control laws your heart could desire, thanks for proving they don't work. Too bad there was not an armed teacher handy huh?
"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment." Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.
Ah, you think I fear guns, what a delightful strawman. To say that one or the other is the problem would be like saying that overpopulation is the result of too much sex or not enough birth control. Just replace overpopulation, sex, and birth control with mass shootings, guns, and gun control.
It's actually not a Straw Man, as the mockery is of your "logic" or lack of it:
Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines? If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere? I find that the media glorifies guns more than anything.
The premise you made is that people DON'T need media influence to fear killing machines because your Rhetorical is ANSWERED that people don't need to even have had the experience to base that fear on.
The point being is that you EVADED addressing the Rhetorical in kind with specificity to what you were arguing. The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines. You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns as, which is hardly GLORIFIED but demonized, and by your own opinion guns are used for....? (begging the question fallacy). Let me answer that for you: Killing People (glory hallelujah? is that your qualifier for glorified, mitigated to an utterly prejudiced function devoid of any meaningfulness by revoking context and impairing any real understanding by creating confusion and interpretation where clarity and quality (ex. qualify glorified with what exactly?).
I will do you one better and let you walk off as a reasonable example of "Nice strawman" after throwing up a strawman., if you can demonstrate that SOMEHOW my comment could be interpreted as a strawman, and I won't bring up what I said above about your opinion.
"The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines." Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns. Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people. "You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns..." No, this is what your side is doing, I am saying media is not necessary for people to fear guns.
Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns
This is where:
Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines?
You didn't talk about people with guns, you said clearly People don't need the media to fear killing machines. You didn't say people WITH killing machines.
Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people.
Wrong, it doesn't matter if guns were the results of people, the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people, but only guns. When you went to switch the topic to People with Weapons from People Fearing Weapons, you did so to rhetorically answer that guns are scary regardless of personal experience to reinforce the fear.
There is no "my side". Your imbecilic opinion thinks that the media Glorifies Guns, when in fact the media doesn't do ANY such thing, and attacks guns wanton while being portrayed in crime and lawlessness 24/7. There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying.
Yeah you are saying the same thing:
media is not necessary for people to fear guns.
The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines. (because guns are used only for killing).
You are strawmaning me by repeatedly ascribing views I don't hold to my arguments as if I'm the one derailing the argument. "...the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people..." There's your strawman, stop this or there is no point in continuing as you are arguing against something that isn't my position at this point. "The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines." Okay, well I'm talking about people with guns and so is everyone else I've ever heard talking about this. You're the only one talking about people fearing objects. "There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying." This is your opinion, mine is the opposite, but that is irrelevant because I'm talking about guns, and you're derailing it by bringing up the media after failing to explain why it's necessary to fear guns.
I didn't have to explain that it's necessary to fear guns, I never held the thought that guns or any other killing machines, or any other things should be feared, it's an irrational fear, a fear of things that have no volition. You, on the other hand, brought up the subject by Rhetorically asking why people need to listen to the media to validate their fear of killing machines. (things should be feared). If you can explain what you meant by that statement or what the POINT of it was I'm all ears, until then your a strawman planting fellow accusing me of pointing out that you indeed didn't resolve the logic of "Why should people needed media influence to fear killing machines" which puts up the strawman after opening the discussion directly on THINGS by themselves "to fear killing machines" that a Man with an ax is scarry regardless if you had a previous experience or not, which has nothing to do with why people should fear killing machines or why they shouldn't, well it has nothing to do with fearing killing machiens but with fearing people, so in other words why make a point about people not needing the media to tell them to fear killing machines.
You went even further in this by attaching the imbecilic opinion that Glorifying something means the complete opposite of the definition for that verb, which is not MY opinion because I have no problem recognizing what glorifying is and what it isn't or confusing that with an opinion, however valid or substantial.
Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines? If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere? I find that the media glorifies guns more than anything.
You are way more likely to be killed by someone driving a car but you don't have an irrational fear of them. That's because every time you see a car in a movie or dramatic TV show or video game it is not used in an act of violence. This is more like if you were afraid of an ax all by itself. It's the threatening person holding the ax that is what you fear isn't it?
Why are you not calling for more ax laws, and have you never seen The Shining?
Guns aren't killing machines, people are. That's why gun control laws are entirely ineffective.
A car is used for transport, a knife is used for cutting, and a gun is used for...?
recreation, sustenance, and personal, self and national defense. Cars kill about 71 times as many people annually by accident than fatal gun accidents. There is your killing machine.
wrong, guns are used for killing, duh!
occasionally, but not often enough for that to be their designed or intended use. The average handgun in America is used in a homicide only once every 10,000 years.
Your statistic is impertinent since I am not talking exclusively about accidental gun death. I'm slightly afraid being "on the road" for that reason. However, cars are not made to kill, yet guns are, and driving a car means accepting the risk, but going outside doesn't mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed. "sustenance, and personal, self and national defense..." These are good reasons depending on where you are, but in a city you don't need guns for sustenance, and you don't need assault weapons for self defense. You definitively don't need a gun for entertainment, and unlike a car with the justification of timely travel, entertainment is a poor reason to allow such dangerous tools to be used by civilians in non-rural areas. Heck, a shooting has happened since this conversation began at Maryland High School!
25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving. Going outside does mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed as does staying home.
I live in a city and I hunt. Semi auto sporting rifles like AR-15 are not assault rifles and are suitable for personal defense. I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment. Maryland has all the strict racist gun control laws your heart could desire, thanks for proving they don't work. Too bad there was not an armed teacher handy huh?
"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment." Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.
Yes, the axe is a very scary killing implement, I fear things, not people.
Ah, you think I fear guns, what a delightful strawman. To say that one or the other is the problem would be like saying that overpopulation is the result of too much sex or not enough birth control. Just replace overpopulation, sex, and birth control with mass shootings, guns, and gun control.
It's actually not a Straw Man, as the mockery is of your "logic" or lack of it:
The premise you made is that people DON'T need media influence to fear killing machines because your Rhetorical is ANSWERED that people don't need to even have had the experience to base that fear on.
The point being is that you EVADED addressing the Rhetorical in kind with specificity to what you were arguing. The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines. You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns as, which is hardly GLORIFIED but demonized, and by your own opinion guns are used for....? (begging the question fallacy). Let me answer that for you: Killing People (glory hallelujah? is that your qualifier for glorified, mitigated to an utterly prejudiced function devoid of any meaningfulness by revoking context and impairing any real understanding by creating confusion and interpretation where clarity and quality (ex. qualify glorified with what exactly?).
I will do you one better and let you walk off as a reasonable example of "Nice strawman" after throwing up a strawman., if you can demonstrate that SOMEHOW my comment could be interpreted as a strawman, and I won't bring up what I said above about your opinion.
"The real strawman is your switching the subject from people fearing killing machines, to people fearing people WITH killing machines." Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns. Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people. "You then attach your ridiculously imbecilic opinion of what the media presents the guns..." No, this is what your side is doing, I am saying media is not necessary for people to fear guns.
This is where:
You didn't talk about people with guns, you said clearly People don't need the media to fear killing machines. You didn't say people WITH killing machines.
Wrong, it doesn't matter if guns were the results of people, the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people, but only guns. When you went to switch the topic to People with Weapons from People Fearing Weapons, you did so to rhetorically answer that guns are scary regardless of personal experience to reinforce the fear.
There is no "my side". Your imbecilic opinion thinks that the media Glorifies Guns, when in fact the media doesn't do ANY such thing, and attacks guns wanton while being portrayed in crime and lawlessness 24/7. There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying.
Yeah you are saying the same thing:
The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines. (because guns are used only for killing).
You are strawmaning me by repeatedly ascribing views I don't hold to my arguments as if I'm the one derailing the argument. "...the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people..." There's your strawman, stop this or there is no point in continuing as you are arguing against something that isn't my position at this point. "The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines." Okay, well I'm talking about people with guns and so is everyone else I've ever heard talking about this. You're the only one talking about people fearing objects. "There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying." This is your opinion, mine is the opposite, but that is irrelevant because I'm talking about guns, and you're derailing it by bringing up the media after failing to explain why it's necessary to fear guns.
So that is how you talk about people with guns? By mentioning that the media isn't necessary to fear killing machines?
Yes indeed: Not people With Guns.
I didn't have to explain that it's necessary to fear guns, I never held the thought that guns or any other killing machines, or any other things should be feared, it's an irrational fear, a fear of things that have no volition. You, on the other hand, brought up the subject by Rhetorically asking why people need to listen to the media to validate their fear of killing machines. (things should be feared). If you can explain what you meant by that statement or what the POINT of it was I'm all ears, until then your a strawman planting fellow accusing me of pointing out that you indeed didn't resolve the logic of "Why should people needed media influence to fear killing machines" which puts up the strawman after opening the discussion directly on THINGS by themselves "to fear killing machines" that a Man with an ax is scarry regardless if you had a previous experience or not, which has nothing to do with why people should fear killing machines or why they shouldn't, well it has nothing to do with fearing killing machiens but with fearing people, so in other words why make a point about people not needing the media to tell them to fear killing machines.
You went even further in this by attaching the imbecilic opinion that Glorifying something means the complete opposite of the definition for that verb, which is not MY opinion because I have no problem recognizing what glorifying is and what it isn't or confusing that with an opinion, however valid or substantial.