In response to:

John Lott Destroys CNN's Soledad O'Brien on Gun Free Zones

Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 3:52 AM
Not sure I understand your argument. Both statements are true. Had there been someone armed in the school, they might have stopped him, but if it was known that there was someone armed in the school, perhaps he wouldn't have gone there at all. Banning guns doesn't prevent murder. Look at Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. So yes, if everyone was packing, someone could still murder lots of people with a bomb vest or some other explosive device. In a crowd they may even get a few shots off before being brought down. What you have done is stated our arguments, made an obvious statement, then provided no counterargument. That was a very productive post.
NovusOrdoSeclorum Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 10:24 PM
And yes, someone could make a bomb vest if guns are legal, regulated, &c. It seems, though, that fewer people would have the balls to do that, especially considering what cowardly scum those are that do things like this in the first place. Look at the UK: 6.6% of homicides by guns to our 60%, with a murder rate less that a third of ours. Looks like the gun ban does in fact prevent a number of murders. Yes, guns don't kill people, but some wimpy btch like the POS who did this may have lacked the cajones to use a different means.
NovusOrdoSeclorum Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 10:20 PM
Argument 1: More people armed = safer society, so guns should be legal. 2: Killers will find ways to kill if guns are banned, so guns should be legal.

Naturally, killers will find ways to kill if guns are legal, if there are no gun free zones, what have you. Thus, the argument that more armed civilians equates to a safer society fails if you believe that killers will find ways to kill no matter what.

Huntjunky: When guns are banned, regulated, or mandated, murders will still occur. More guns does not mean less likelihood of atrocities like this.

My argument is not based on the premise that a gun ban will cause the millions of guns in the US to disappear, nor am I even is support of an all-out ban.
Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:49 AM
Perhaps I would understand your point better if you rephrased the second argument. You said "The second is a counter to arguments in support of increased restrictions." Well, so is the first. If anything they compliment each other. Then you end with a blatantly obvious statement about murderers still murdering in a fully armed society. This is also true. So 3 true statements. You have effectively stated our argument. Perhaps you believe, that we believe that gun ownership will make evil just go away. Nobody yet has made that argument.
Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:26 AM
Both of the "Conservative arguments" just go to prove that any gun restrictions are ineffective.
Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:25 AM
Um...no. They are both simply true statements. How does the second argument negate the first? They have nothing to do with each other. A man walked into an unarmed school and killed people with a weapon, one that was specifically banned from the premises. Gun murder in a gun free zone. Effectively guns were banned on the premises, yet it still happened. So yes, when guns are banned, a determined murderer will still find a way to kill people.
Your argument is based on the premise that if guns are banned, they will just magically disappear. The guy could have just as easily made a bomb vest and murdered everyone that way, or pulled an Oklahoma city. So your argument, such as it is, is ridiculous.
NovusOrdoSeclorum Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:10 AM
The point, since it needs to be spelled out for you, is that your arguments are exclusive of one another. The first argument fails because of the second.

The first is a main argument in support of maintaining the status quo or easing restrictions. The second is a counter to arguments in support of increased restrictions. Using the second argument invalidates the first as explained, pointing to fallacies in both arguments.

Mass shootings in the United States have at least one thing in common: they all happen in in gun free zones. Yesterday economist and author of More Guns Less Crime John Lott went on CNN with anchor Soledad O'Brien to discuss why mass shootings occur in gun free zones. O'Brien as usual, wasn't interested in factual data Lott was presenting and continually cut him off as he was making his points.

John Lott, the gun advocate who recently had a heated encounter with Piers Morgan, spoke to Soledad O'Brien on Monday morning — continuing to make his pro-gun...