Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.
It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
Ah well…
Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
“It’s not an ad hominem”
“My argument can no longer be againt the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally”
That is the literal definition of ad hominem. You just contradicted yourself. Well done.
As Hominem:
Source; Meriam Webster.
So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?
If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?
Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.
Your argument kind of tripped over its own shoelaces there.
Calling someone a liar can be relevant, but only if you prove it with evidence tied to the claim. Otherwise it’s still an ad hominem.
I liked your smug little exit line to dodge pressure. It’s the debate equivalent of throwing a smoke bomb and walking away like you won.