Apparently, you cannot discern the difference between someone disqualifying himself as a thinking person and a non sequitur.
And should I also look at all the boxes of "evidence" that Big Tobacco's lawyers prepared in their heyday to "debate" the relationship between smoking and illness? Should I "debate" those "facts" to your satisfaction as well?
From your linked article: "1. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."This is a fantastic argument for those who can't tell the difference between one death and a dozen. Absolutely, a murderer can often kill one person or two with a knife before being stopped. But to really rack up those mind-blowing death counts – to make sure that many lives are destroyed and families ruined in the space of five or 10 minutes – you need a gun. If all you care about is apportioning blame and declaring that someone does or does not have murderous intent, then by all means, claim a knife and a gun are equivalent weapons. For those of us who are more worried about preventing unnecessary deaths than merely acknowledging the hate that resides in some people's hearts, however, the sheer amount of damage a gun can do is reason to limit who can get their hands on one" Absolutely agree. But since the vast majority of all gun related deaths are done with those who have illegally obtained a firearm, how would you stop this? I continue to ask this question over and over, and you and your friends continue to avoid answering it. This is because you have no solution other than a blanket statement like "Ban guns" which wouldn't affect the illegal ones at all. Not even one illegally owned gun. 2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime. The linked article that states "no mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian" is linked to a Mother Jones article that is factually incorrect. Oh, sure, no shootings that have occurred have been prevented - duh - because they already occurred. But there have been cases where shooters have stopped other killings. Many of them, in fact. I can list a few if you doubt me. This, of course, still ignores that it isn't law abiding people with weapons that tend to commit crimes - it is those who have gotten guns illegally. And no laws prevent this - or could prevent it. 3. "But, mental health!" Opponents of gun control love bringing up the problem of inadequate mental health care after a shooting. This is strictly for deflection purposes, as there is no indication that Republicans will ever work on meaningful reform for our mental health systems – which, it's true are woefully inadequate. It's an issue that only matters to them in the immediate aftermath of a shooting – then it's forgotten, until there's another shooting. Rinse, repeat. So because Republicans supposedly won't work on meaningful reform for mental health systems (no idea if this is true - I doubt it is not) then mental health issues aren't the cause of shootings? What kind of ridiculous reasoning is that? Said another way by the author: "Because Republicans won't work to fix mental health, mental health patients aren't to blame - guns are." Uh, yeah. "Also, the "mental health" gambit, in this context, is always vague. What exactly is the plan? Round up everyone with a mental health issue and put them under lock and key?" That has as much success as rounding up every firearm and putting it under lock and key! Congratulations, liberals! You've seen how fruitless your solution is by how fruitless rounding up mental patients is! "4. "Second Amendment, baby." Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers." Amusing rant. But it's still part of the Constitution. You can't just pick the amendments you don't like to arbitrarily delete and leave the ones you do like. There is a process to amend the Constitution. That's where your energy should be spent. Next?
i'll reply to each your points (busy right now), but just off top my head.. given your argument, why not arm all airline passengers to discourage hijacking? provide them weapons boarding, collect them on arrival?
Because there already is a system to prevent weapons from getting on a plane (which is a "clean" area). Additionally, there are armed air marshals on planes already. So by that reasoning, the government has admitted that putting people (air marshals) on a plane with a gun stops potential terrorists with guns. I'd ask you - why do we need air marshals? Shouldn't we just be able to have a law that says terrorists hijacking planes is illegal? Why do we need someone there with a gun?
Apparently you still cannot come up with any counters to the information presented in the Mises articles. Apart from "mises is stupid", of course.
That was a nice dodge, but it's not the same. No ones is arguing that smoking is not bad for you in the current age, and by the same token, the fact that someone once did argue that smoking wasn't bad for you has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument on guns. Unless, of course, you are trying to make an argument that smoking and guns are linked to lung cancer incidents. I'd be interested in hearing your argument for this.
I'm talking about gun rights. I'm not speaking with adoration about any gun - mine or anyone else's. Try to stay on topic.
Yeah, it kinda does. In time, the pro-gun argument, as it currently stands, will prove to be as specious as the pro-tobacco argument. It's already obvious to thinking people. "Debating" you on the matter serves no purpose other than to pass time fruitlessly, much like trying to "debate" a dyed-in-the-wool creationist on evolution. You're the jem of gun rights.