Could Gun Control end up Lkie Prohibition of the 1920's?

Yes your Inaccuracies are consistent and I have answered your question. It is fruitless to attempt to convince you of your inaccuracies because no matter the proof you still illogically defend them. Your circular reasoning is boring. Just so you know what your discussions look like: (Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic.)

I reject your premise as fruitless.

 

I don't make inaccuracies as I ensure everything I say is supported by the evidence. There was nothing in your post worth responding to.

 

Attaboy CircularReiver

 

Aha, the master of circular reasoning

 

Try to shift the conversation along. Shift towards an evidence-based approach. For the crack, could you refer to one empirical study that links any perceived negative effects from gun control with Prohibition?

 

Isn't it funny how when a fella points out circular reasoning they get accused of circular reasoning, must be in some playbook written for for the antis eh?

 

Oh I don't know, seems you left out evidence based information from your side so there is no need to shift as of yet, For the crack...there seems to be no need for me to provide empirical evidence to refute circular reasoning eh?

 

So if I stipulate that the existence of kegally owned guns reduces the trandsaction costs of the black market, how do you measure the value or extent that this transaction will be reduced versus prohibiting citizens from protecting themselves and their families with legal firearms?

 

Red herring! I haven't referred to gun bans. I have merely acknowledged that the OP is illogical and its a little (just a smidgeon mind you) amusing that the pro-gunners have celebrated that illogic.

 

What a disingenuous answer. It is common knowledge that left wingers want to prohibit private ownership of firearms. Seldom will one of you admit that is what you want as your approach tends to be incremental infringement. I do not believe any one of you left wingers who claims you don't want to do exactly as I said. Your leftwing talking point site KOS says it all, How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process Now buzz off and go spread your propaganda elsewhere. Leftwingnut and rightwingnut trolls bring nothing useful to the forum.

 

I'm sure there will be some. There will also be right wingers that want that result. However, I haven't referred to gun bans. The transaction costs from illegal delivery would of course be higher with bans, but that's not a result that I've referred to

 

You may not have openly declared your wishes that gun ownership be banned to private citizens, but it is the common goal of liberals who tend to obfuscate that wish in favor of incrementalism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

 

Because I don't support such bans. The "they're trying to ban our guns" is a stance typically applied to herd folk in support of irrational gun policy.

 

Not at all. It is the intent of most leftwingers. You fit the mold of a leftwinger therefore I believe you do support a complete ban but like most other left winger you deny it in favor of incrementalism. IOW Reiver, I do not believe you.

 

Golly gosh, sounds like a proper conspiracy!

Back to reality, the "its about gun bans" is indeed the rhetoric chosen by those who want to fight rational gun control. They know that they can't go for valid rebuke, so they have to make the emotional pleas

 

Nothing more emotional than this plea which makes your ploy moot and useless: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

 

I don't bother with the emotional claptrap. I refer to the evidence, nothing more. You've not bothered with that pursuit. Fair enough. However, you've also deliberately tried to misrepresent my position. That shows a particular weakness of argument!

 

Actually all you do is deny that you accept what most left wingers want, incrementalism. I personally believe you are trying to separate yourself from prohibition only as a ploy to do the piecemeal approach suggested in KOS. Nothing you have said, not a single word proves you are not more straight forward about your opinions. So deny your claptrap, it serves no purpose but to elevate your subterfuge. Have a good day!

IOW reiver, I don't believe anything you say.

 

I'm not interested in the emotionalism. Sorry, you're on a loser again. If you do want to critique anything I do actually say then knock yourself out

 

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't believe a word you say, and the unfortunate thing is, you are such an arrogant self righteous bloviater you probably believe all of the garbage you spout.

What you CLAIM is not what your posts sound like, and you have never supported your assertions with scholarly works that panned out.

 

Your wasting time that could be spent at the range. More productive.

 

Yeah, I know, but when I run into such an error prone and arrogantly self righteous blustering bloviater I enjoy putting him in his place. The most important factor here is, on occasion in his attempts to put me down, he actually makes the mistake of saying something which effectively puts his himself down. But I'll never say

BTW, I am working on 78, so when I take my firearm to the field it is to shoot dinner. Now that deer season is over (I have about 100lbs in the freezer) I will look for another wild hog to join the 100 or so lbs of wild pork in the freezer. I still seldom eat supermarket meat.

 

The problem for you is that I won't budge from my strategy: the use of scholarly research to generate evidence-based conclusion. You can try and misrepresent and go for the assorted emotional pleas. It won't have any impact. I've already predicted everything that you will try as, let's be honest, its the standard approach preferred amongst those hiding from the evidence.

 

Hiding from the evidence? You have not produced anything remotely close to evidence, you just talk, that's all.
Produce one link that shows any evidence in your favor.

 

Then why don't you do it? Your strategy so far is to bloviate.

To the contrary, I have been open and I have linked you to solid support for my position.

I have to agree with you there, no truth put forward by anyone on the forum has had any impact on your arrogant self righteous attitude.

Of course you have, because you know I will always tell you the truth and offer strong support of my opinion while shredding your left wing diatribes.

I agree, why do you hide from the evidence? Why do you consistently use the economist who follow the socialist paradigm in the hopes someone will swallow that codswallop? Only you can change your approach such that your assertions are factual and properly supported; something that so far you have refused to do. Have a good day!