In neither your first nor your last example was I arguing any particular point. The second example is not argumentum ad hominem, but me pointing out facts. I can see how you may have misunderstood, however.

Mental note: Avoid arguing anything on Massassi.

Welcome to Massassi!

Ah yes, I - being at the disadvantage in our little conversation about logic and rhetorical movement - do find I am prone to confuse your 'facts' with poisoning the well. Clearly your list of informal fallacies from wikipedia and conditional pass in first year philosophy has me soundly defeated!

Oh no, now I've done it. I've done something silly in the eyes of Steven and Tibby.

I don't know how I'll contain my shame.

I'm just questioning why you would argue something so vehemently if you don't care about it.

I think the naysayers here just want to argue just for the sake of arguing, because their cynicism gives them an ego boost. I'll take sides with Bob the Masher, Steven, and Jlee. and even tibby.

You know, it is kind of demeaning when you guys keep saying stuff like that.
"Even Tibby, Oh look Tibby has a point, Hey Tibby said something good for once."
Can we please get past the... past? We're equals now.

Little of topic but it's been bugging me.

It was not my intention to put you on the bottom of the food chain, I dont consider you to be with those that are cynical and I meant that you are an equal as well.

That's fine, I'm just saying it's been happening a lot and even though it shouldn't, it bugs me.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_14269794

This happened a block a way from where my girlfriend lives.



Cooperation with criminals usually results in your personal safety eh?

It's not that I don't care about the issue. I don't care about the argument ITT. There is no point debating it, because there is no victory.

Adverb

S: (adv) suddenly, all of a sudden, of a sudden (happening unexpectedly) "suddenly she felt a sharp pain in her side"
S: (adv) abruptly, suddenly, short, dead (quickly and without warning) "he stopped suddenly"
S: (adv) on the spur of the moment, suddenly (on impulse; without premeditation) "he decided to go to Chicago on the spur of the moment"; "he made up his mind suddenly"

The truly amazing thing to me is how little compiled evidence exists online against concealed carry. If you Google "Arguments against concealed carry" you only find how to deal with some voiceless anti-gun talking points. No one bothers collecting accidents or incidents that have gone wrong with concealed carry weapons. It's almost as if it didn't require explanation that people shouldn't be taking guns around with them.

Yeah, right. That's actually just because accidents involving loaded guns just don't happen.

Or, alternately, the lack of compiled evidence may also indicate a lack of evidence to compile. This could easily be due to the lack of a cohesive counter-argument. That's not to say that the arguments are bad, but rather to say that there are so many DIFFERENT arguments that no one has been able to put together a solid enough and coherent enough counter-argument to be ABLE to compile evidence to support it. It's tough to say.

Let P, Q be statements such that P implies Q. In particular, P 'states' if there exists evidence for Q.

There is no evidence for Q, so P is false.
Is Q true? Is Q false?

We know that if P is true, Q must be true. We know nothing about Q if P is false; nothing is 'indicated.' This is a fallacy called argument from ignorance.

That's true. But it's hardly irregular; it's easy to test that any contradiction of a simple argument must be complex.

I'd be hard-pressed to believe that there hasn't been a single incident involving a CCW accidently misfiring or a weapon carrier mistaking an unarmed person as hostile and reaching for a weapon. It happens to the professionals. I don't know what the training to conceal carry is, but there's the mental aspect of how to react under pressure that cannot be trained by anything other than experience.

I personally am against open and concealed carry (though not gun ownership) for similar reasons as Antony. I used to live in a pretty shady town where violent crimes were pretty common and muggings/break ins against college students happened too frequently to make the campus news most of the time. While living there I never once considered owning a gun, even while walking through the streets alone at the dead of night. I especially didn't like thinking that there could be other college students with guns. A drunk college student with a gun scares me more than a gang member townie with a gun.

Granted. I worded it poorly by saying "indicated". I meant basically the same thing as you're saying. His argument is pretty silly...saying that there is no evidence of something so it's probably true is pretty illogical. I just meant that the lack of evidence COULD just as easily be because it doesn't exist...or as you said "We know nothing about Q if P is false".

Edit: Stat, you're right, there are plenty of incidents of accidental discharge in the home, fatal, injury, non-injury, whatever the case may be. I have definitely read a few about accidents due to CCW, if you read JLee's link from the NRA (the blog with news articles about CCW related incidents) then you'll find a few of them. I think one was even on the first page. The question is, why haven't they been compiled into a cohesive counter-argument? We can't know that. Sure, maybe it's because "it's obvious" as you say, but since when has that ever been a common argument on important social issues? I think it's more LIKELY (although again, there is no way to know) that there is little to no compilation or statistics for these incidents because they are so few as to be worthless...or at least worthless to the counter-argument.

Usually, yes.

So, once he has been 'suddenly shot', shoot them back? Problem solved. Your posts continue to carry no relevence. Jonk, grow a penis and start exercising your inalienable rights, instead of being a spineless pussy. I don't see how you honestly think anti-gun laws would solve anything in our country.

I suspect you have never been seriously injured before. I also suspect you've never been in any sort of fight. Am I right?

Ad hominem.

Owning a restricted (concealable) weapon in my country is a felony unless you have taken the CRFT and have been awarded a PAL for restricted weapons. Transporting a restricted (concealable) weapon without an ATT is a felony. Carrying a restricted weapon that is loaded and unlocked outside of your home or in a licensed firing range is a felony.

These restrictions personally affect me. I am fine with them.

Ad hominem.

You misunderstand.

I believe anti-moron laws would solve problems in your country.

You being penisless and spineless is totally relevant to this argument. By the way, If you didn't know this in your infinite wisdom already -- using latin phrases in every day conversation just makes you sound like a douche. Despite your belief that it makes you sound more intelligible, it does not. It makes you sound like a pompous ***. Anywho by the sound of your country's laws, it sounds like you guys didn't exercise your rights early enough to defend yourselves from them being taken away. I'm sorry you're bitter.

I take your silence to mean that your expectation of how someone should behave in an emergency is entirely based on the movies you watch too many of.

Unfortunately the anti-intellectual movement has failed to give us any vulgar synonyms for "brain," but be assured that I wish you would grow one with the same sentiment that you believe I need to "grow a penis."
It is interesting, however, that you believe I am a "pussy" because I am not afraid to live without being constantly armed. Seems backwards somehow, doesn't it?

Intelligent.

If I wanted to sound intelligible I obviously wouldn't be using Latin.

Haha.. douche.

Ad hominem.

I wish I could unequivocally define myself as the biggest douche on the forum, but alas you win again JONK. I bow before your masterful display of intellectual prowess.

You know, indicating that Jon`C has no penis in one post, and then branding him a douche, a device that by design spends a lot of time around pussy, is very interesting. I like where you're going with this. So he's dickless, but very large and spends his entire existence around pussy. Tell me more.

Ad hominem.

you guys make me giggle.

Haha, awesome.

…_…|..____________________, ,
……/ `—___________—-_____|]= = = = = D
…../_==o;;;;;;;;_______.:/
…..), —.(_(__) /
….// (..) ), —-”
…//___//
..//___…

~~POST THIS IN EVERY THREAD IF U THINK CCW SHOULD B LEGAL IN EVERY STATE~~

Everyone chill....esp. you Elite Warrior. You all know what's gonna follow if you decided to ignore me...and I'm itching for the ban button but I'm being nice tonight.

Edit!

SHUT UP DALF YOU ANTI-GUN ANTI-FREEDOM COMMIE-FREEDOM GUN SUCKER

PS AD HOMINEM

Dalf, why must you try to kill all fun?

If San Diego's stadium wasn't a gun free zone, maybe the Chargers could have beaten the Jets.

If you think The Q is a gun free zone, you need to go to a Raiders-Chargers game. Pack a nine-mil. You will need it.

After all, somebody's got to shoot Philip Rivers.

What suicidal fool goes somewhere he needs to bring a gun to? (I'm talking about innocent civilians of course -for a given value of innocent)

I refuse to call it by it's new name, it's still Jack Murphy stadium to me