Just had a logical argument on Facebook with some count. Why can't they use logic?
It was another person's status but here is our back and forth: count:
Give me one good reason that any law abiding citizen needs a clip with more than 10 rounds. Me:
You using the word "clip" shows how misinformed you are. A device that holds rounds in a firearm is called a "magazine."
Secondly, why are we setting terms for the good guys who follow the law when bad guys operate out of the scope of the law 24/7? I think if I were to be attacked or my house were to be invaded, I would be the one being victimized, not the criminal. Why should the criminal be victimized and allowed an advantage when he is the one hurting me?
Third, if you were defending your own children, why would you need to be handicapped if the criminal wasn't? What if you were facing multiple attackers? Criminals don't care about the law and never will. They will try anything in their power to take from good law abiding citizens, even if it means taking their life too.
And in case you didn't know the definition of a criminal:
adjective \'kri-m?-n?l, 'krim-n?l\
Definition of CRIMINAL
: relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>
I don't see anything about them following laws count:
Yes Bapple, I am not an expert in gun terminology. If magazines with fewer rounds can save the life of one innocent child it is worth it. 60per cent of people in the country are in favor of this. Doesn't that tell u something. Anyone opposed to such a ban is insensitive to the tragic death of those babies. Me:
This argument again?
More children are killed by abusive parents than firearms every year.
More children are killed by drunk drivers than firearms every year.
More children are killed by blunt objects than firearms every year.
More children are killed by fists and legs than by firearms every year.
"But if it saves 1 life"... Yea right.
If you really want to help protect children, get to the ROOT of the problem. Guns are not the root of the problem. They are merely tools.
______, way to dodge by comments. I'm trying to have a real discussion with you.
Also, your last statement is a fallacy. Just because one is opposed to a ban does not make said person a baby killer. This an obvious appeal to emotion. count:
The fewer such guns that are in circulation the less chance of them falling into the hand of criminals. It is quite logical. The more of these Me:
So because it would make you "feel better", we should disarm law abiding citizens? And just because it "scares" you, we should disarm law abiding citizens? Just making sure I have this straight... count:
The solution is not more guns. We need to reduce the # in circulation. Also I take offense to your demeaning our president. I am so proud of the logical, level headed, compassionate manner that he has responding to one if the greatest tragedies of our timer and I am so proud that I, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for him. Me:
Well congratulations. I am glad you felt you made the right decision. But just because criminals should not have weapons does not mean that I should be disarmed and handicapped from defending myself.
Tugging at peoples' heart strings is not a logical, level headed, compassionate manner, I'm sorry. It is a display of emotional appeal to sway the position of people in the middle and people who don't know any better.
"If you care about the children, support this legislation." That is an appeal to emotion and holds no water. Just because you oppose any measures of gun control does not mean you hate children.
I respect your right to choose not to own a gun but I don't feel that should be projected back at me.
If TL;DR then don't read it and tell me I won.
This post was edited on 1/16 at 6:32 pm