Sabas11 wrote: ClipsFanSince98 wrote:
This statement is so incredible ignorant, wow. Few days ago it took a guy with a "demonized" AR-15 freaking 32 seconds to kill 9 people and hit another 14 people with bullets. So imagine the bodycount if it was five minutes instead of 32 seconds.
And you are really trying to downplay this with some bull argumenting about machine guns, fully/semi automatic rifles blabla ajd how they are not that bad in comparison to real machine guns. And the AR-15 is just demonized and its JUST 400-500 rounds per minute. Well, was enough rounds per minutes in Las Vegas too.
No need to strawman. I'm arguing that using the word "machine gun" to describe semi automatics is woefully ignorant. It's like politicians who interchange illegal immigrant with legal immigrant. They are NOT the same thing in the slightest. It doesn't mean an AR-15 cannot wreak havoc. As for Vegas, not even remotely the same. The AR-15 used in Vegas had a bump stock and other mods for increased firing rate and capacity. Not to mention he was shooting for over 10 minutes and exposed Vegas' totally inept law enforcement response. The security guard was shot 6 whole minutes before he even started the rampage on the people in the concert. How did law enforcement not get to him at that point? The police didn't even show up to Paddock's room until he stopped his rampage and had committed suicide.
Again, none of which offers any sort of logical solution. All this kind of stuff is... is emotional reaction and cries for change, without any path to get here. It's no different than the media trotting out "women and children" constantly. It may as well be considered marketing TBH. Let's come up with some logical solutions my man.
Sorry but your appeal to logic falls on deaf ears when you start using the slippery slope argument (did someone say emotional reaction?) and keep bickering about what constitutes a dangerous weapon.
A slippery slope is not always fallacious. I am well aware of the fallacy. That does NOT mean a slippery slope, especially with well documented evidence doesn't exist. I can list off dozens of examples of a slippery slope with the government in regards to giving them an inch and they take a mile. I gave one very valid example in the Patriot Act from George W to show what I was referencing. A slippery slope is NOT the premises of my argument necessarily, just an example of the consequences of giving the government more power based on what we've seen historically.
Here is an excerpt from an article that defines it pretty nicely.
"A slippery slope argument is merely a claim that “A will lead to B” either as an inevitability, as an increased probability, or as a logical outcome. Slippery slope arguments are often misunderstood, and many people mistakenly think their use is always logically fallacious. As a general rule, if someone summarily dismisses a slippery slope claim, he or she is probably not the type of person who understands how arguments work. (For instance, there are numerous legal precedents where people have argued that accepting legal decision A will lead to B and have been proven correct.)"
In other words, a slippery slope can either be fallacious or not. I gave a good example of what I was comparing to as a point of reference and therefor don't believe the way I used it was fallacious. The US government has a LONG track record of abuse of power and rights.