Holy shit how is this possible? French gun laws are some of the strictest in the world. How could a criminal possibly have got a gun in France? Thats illegal! It just does not make sense. Too bad these women were not carrying or they might have stood a chance against the assassin.
Wow man I don't know where you think you are but this is a politics forum. Everyone has an agenda, thats politics. You would not be complaining if I "twisted" this to fit your communist fairyland agenda. BTW twisted is the wrong word, I posted a news story and I commented on it. But on topic. Show me how France's gun laws helped these women?
I don't believe anything was twisted. He posted an arrticle about people being shot. Then used it as evidence of gun control not working. Its called making a rational argument and backing it up with sources.
"You would not be complaining if I "twisted" this to fit your communist fairyland agenda" What a assumption. We don't fully understand the circumstances yet, for all we know they went through the obstacle course of hell to acquire their own firearms. I agree though that I shouldn't be so brash. "But on topic. Show me how France's gun laws helped these women?" They didn't. but france has a 3.00 death rate compared to our 10.2, so I think it's helping some people. But for all I know that info could be wrong and I'm not against owning guns,.
I'm pretty sure a paid assassin is capable of getting a gun no matter what country he is in, so this is a pretty weak argument. If you tried to use this as evidence of the failure of gun laws in a piece of academic work you would be laughed at. In fact, gun laws are completely irrelevant in this case. Had no gun laws been in place, and all three women been carrying guns (unlikely) I very much doubt that they would pose any threat to a professional. Define rational
Rational means providing a thesis. Then supplying a premise (evidence supporting thesis) then forming a conclusion that can be drawn from the premises. Example of rational logic. Premise 1: my car is wet Premise 2: the sky is cloudy Conclusion: it rained Example of irrational logic. Premise 1: the lawn is green Conclusion: it rained In the second example a conclusion was drawn with little to no evidence supporting the claim. The lawn obviously got water because its green. But there could have been sprinklers. Also Google "logical fallacy" Ad hominem Red Herring Straw man These are examples of arguments that are irrelevent to discussion designed to distract one from the evidence
Having considered your definition of rational, I have concluded that James's argument was not rational.
Premise 1: people were shot in France Premise 2: France has strict gun control Conclusion: gun control doesn't work Its a rational argument where the provided premise leads to Tue conclusion. Don't confuse rational with correct. A rational argument simply means to provide evidence for a claim and that the claim actually can be derived from the evidence Sorry if my lawn example was bad
There's no confusion, just change the first premise: Premise1: Three women professionally assassinated in France Premise 2: France has strict gun control Conclusion: Gun control doesn't stop state-sponsored professional hitmen from getting guns (no kidding) And no, the claim was not derived from the evidence. The claim was reached first and the evidence was found suit it (badly).
Really ? The National Enquirer would be ashamed of this thread. Wake up call time. People get whacked in every country in the world. This was a professional hit. There is a story here that will surface with time. Stop trying to make it about guuuuunnnnns and laws regarding same please.
I don't think anyone, anywhere, ever, has made the claim that gun control will prevent 100% of gun crime. That IS an irrational argument. How about... Premise: France has strict gun control compared to the U.S. Premise: France has a dramatically lower rate of gun deaths compared to the U.S. Conclusion: Gun control can help to reduce gun violence. Do you think this is irrational?
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] I don't think anyone, anywhere, ever, has made the claim that gun control will prevent 100% of gun crime. That IS an irrational argument. How about... Premise: France has strict gun control compared to the U.S. Premise: France has a dramatically lower rate of gun deaths compared to the U.S. Conclusion: Gun control can help to reduce gun violence. Do you think this is irrational?[/quote] I think that's totally rational but when ever we talk about gun laws preventing violence we need to look up all violent crime before and after the laws were put up. Most people don't or won't listen and is the cause of many gun debates IMHO
^ Even then other factors would have to be accounted for. I'm not a researcher/scientist but coming up with a definitive answer seems quite difficult...if it's even possible imo.