So, the gun was a determining factor in 'going the next step'? Probably THE determining factor in going the next step.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
"Going the next step" was, and that was completely unrelated to the gun.
Printable View
So, the gun was a determining factor in 'going the next step'? Probably THE determining factor in going the next step.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
"Going the next step" was, and that was completely unrelated to the gun.
No. The determining factor was Alex choosing to. Had he used the gun in an appropriate manner, the next step would not have happened. It was him, not the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
The determining factor was not Alex.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Alex is a constant in both situations.
The variable is the gun.
But the gun is not the problem.
The problem is that Alex is not responsible.
But I never said the gun was 'the problem'.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The problem was clearly Alex (and the mugger).
The gun was, clearly, a factor in the outcome.
You guys really seem to care about this fictional "Alex"
But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not guns should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
very much so a fictionalized story...the problem though is with alex and how he stooped low...the problem isn't with the gun...the problem is with the gun owner...who protecting his gf and himself...and won simply by having the gun....case in point
It's like a rock versus scissors. Too bad the thief didn't have some paper. :p
But I'm not arguing that guns should be banned, or not banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm arguing that this statement was incorrect.
Going the next step was completely related to the gun.Quote:
"Going the next step" was, and that was completely unrelated to the gun.
Which is why there are many people who feel that banning guns would lead to less guns (regardless of whether that means only the criminals would have guns) which would lead to less escalation which would lead to less shootings.
You would've been better off using an example in which the gun owner DID NOT then break the law. That's just serving up an easy one to the opposite side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
It was a very funny story, but I agree.
Fine, so you're arguing over something which really is not related to the point. So, I'm not going to argue over it anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
This relates it to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
The presence of the gun lead a person to do something that they would not normally do.
That is one of the arguments of people who favor a gun ban.
The "escalation" in this fictional example is, once again, fiction, and I'm sure that the people who would actually do what "Alex" did would be a small, small minority of responsible gun owners, so if it's they're concerned about the 0.01% of people like Alex who would take it too far, that's far from a good reason to ban firearms considering that it will only hurt people that choose to defend themselves by NOT taking the guns away from criminals. Advantage Thief.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
If we're going to use this situation as an example about how escalation is a significant enough problem to ban firearms, let's include your entire argument - that it would lead to less shootings. In this fictional example, the escalation didn't result in a shooting, so it's a moot point. So if we're going to treat this situation as if it's the norm (that everybody possessing a firearm will only escalate the situation), then let's also treat the situation that it will never result in a shooting.