Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr
|
Disagree with;
#1 - While the basic gun safety rules are important. The last two paragraphs use an "Appeal to Definition" argument I find very counter productive in any debate. I am paraphrasing but the point being made is. Because people who believe it is not safe to have guns in schools don't know the first thing about gun safety, their ideology is invalid.
Its no difrent then a "scientific theory" vs "I have a theory"
#2 - A running theme in the article is the Ad hominem attacks. It shows that the article is written to appeal to the emotions of one side of the argument more then make any real substantiate claims.
#3 - This claim is
demonstratively false. Of course in this case the weapon was dropped. From a legal standpoint products need to be safe from an probable misuse, this includes dropping it.
The rest of the argument relies on the first point being actuate.
#6 - This is an odd point to make, in some ways it refutes #3. "A gun can fail mechanically and become less safe"
#10 - Less shots before reload allowing for return fire more often. And yes seconds matter. And if your spraying and praying for self defense you are doing it wrong. I believe for most people it really comes down to the balance between "I am target shooting and want to have fun" vs the annoyance of needing to reload. Jugging by our customers ammo habits its more about the target shooting.
The article makes a weird logical leap between someone who conceal caries, and there for is not a prime candidate for an extended magazine. And the hypothetical super criminal who is both hyped up on drugs and wearing body armor where one bullet might not take him down. Either way it does not actually talk about the reason for the magazine limit, just make an odd straw man argument against it.
#12 - Hollow Point vs FMJ bullets. the argument basically revolves around what do I fire into someone when I risk hitting others. Its inclusion in the list is just out of place and odd. I guess it's just to highlight restrictions on Hollow Point ammo.
#13 - The premise of the argument is wrong, not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows. Federally licensed sellers need to do a background check, while unlicensed sellers do not. This however varies drastically from state to state.
Its another "Appeal to Definition" fallacy. By saying it's not really a 'Gun Show' loophole its a 'private seller' loophole, does not address the substance of the counter arguments.
#14 - Is the worst point made in this entire article. It basically boils down to;
"universal background checks" happen even if there is no federal standard.
"universal background checks" do not work at some places for undefined reasons. Without any mention of parameters for success or failure.
"universal background checks" only happen in some places for some firearm types. They don't work because a person who passed used the gun for a crime. With an 'Ad Hominem' attack thrown in for an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy.
So "universal background checks" don't work and are annoying because they keep law abiding citizens from getting guns. A claim that is not even brought up int the previous three paragraphs.