"The source contradicts my world view so I'll make moving the goalpost fallacies to discredit it."

>Joined today. >Not worth arguing with.

1. Only source available as major news sources won't discuss it 2. If the scumbag shot the unarmed officer then it would have been a crime. But should people really just let criminals do their thing? 3. A police officer has the equal chance of killing somebody innocent themselves. Cops are not highly trained marksmen and can make mistakes themselves 4. Millions of crimes are stopped each year with guns. Major media reports more crime than crime prevention which gives off the affect that gun related deaths/crimes are higher than situations where guns prevent crime

1. Maybe because it is either taken out of context, uninteresting as a whole or made up completely? 2. What about all the people who die due to guns being present? This isn't a major problem in other Western nations. 3. No, they aren't. Police officers, while they can make mistakes, receive training in these situations and are on average likely to be better marksmen in their respective fields. Their experience and training beats the everyday joe. You on the other hand are seriously suggesting that a random person on the street can A. Make a relatively quick decision on the nature of an activity without training. B. Beat a TRAINED police officer in both marksmanship and safety routines. C. Be equally successful in comparison to actual police officers. D. Be successful as a whole to be worthy of a nationwide vigilante program. ;complete bullshit. Maybe if you held your cops to be more accountable you wouldn't have a fetish for vigilante justice, but that is probably too socialist or regulatory for the average American legislature. 4. Source. And don't bring up that 2 million figure (Kleck?) about home intervention incidents, a Duke article has already discredited that.

It's not a problem in other countries because: A. They have a much smaller population/land area B. Not many people owned guns in those countries C. Their Constitution didn't guarantee the freedom to own guns D. Police confiscated all guns And also in places like the U.K, violent crime resulting with knives have increased so much after the near gun ban that people are wanting heavy regulation on kitchen knives. Criminals will simply stop at nothing. And since they are criminals, do you think if a gun ban did get passed in America then they would follow it? But notice where gun crime take place in America: A. Gun free zones such as school and military bases B. States/cities with strict gun laws like Detroit, Chicago, and NY C. Neighborhoods that are in low economic zones Rarely will you ever hear about a story of mass-shootings in places where the citizens typically carry more guns as criminals are smart enough to understand that it's a bigger possibility to get stopped by a law-abiding citizen in this city/state than that city/state And like police officers, many people who own guns spend their weekends/free time at the gun range practicing their accuracy skill. I've seen an ordinary Joe hit a target at 200 yards using iron sites in the center or within a 1 inch grouping. Plus many gun owners decide to take gun courses in order to learn better gun handling along with being able to know what to do in a situation with a violent criminal Funny thing is that I'm currently going to college in order to become a cop once I graduate. I fully know that I, or other cops, are not every where at every second and the citizen must make a decision (using a firearm) when seconds matter. So no, it;s not to socialist/regulatory. It's understanding that the people sometimes may need to make the right decision [url=http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/02/study-gun-owners-prevent-crime]And source[/url]

[quote]It's not a problem in other countries because: A. They have a much smaller population/land area [/quote] Irrelevant. FYI smaller land area implies greater population density, especially in European countries. That only increases the frequency of gun crime. Even then, you are 40x less likely to die due to a gun in Britain compared to the US. [quote] B. Not many people owned guns in those countries C. Their Constitution didn't guarantee the freedom to own guns D. Police confiscated all guns[/quote] This is a good thing, and exactly my point. [quote]And also in places like the U.K, violent crime resulting with knives have increased so much after the near gun ban that people are wanting heavy regulation on kitchen knives. Criminals will simply stop at nothing. And since they are criminals, do you think if a gun ban did get passed in America then they would follow it?[/quote] WRONG. I'm not sure where you guys get this crap but violent crime in the UK has been continually decreasing ever since the gun ban. And no, the UK uses a different definition of violent crime, so don't try to draw a direct comparison. I don't think you understand my argument, or human nature for that matter. A lot of crime is opportunistic, most criminals aren't exactly evil determined masterminds, the easy availability of firearms= more gun deaths. [quote] But notice where gun crime take place in America: A. Gun free zones such as school and military bases B. States/cities with strict gun laws like Detroit, Chicago, and NY C. Neighborhoods that are in low economic zones[/quote] 1. Gun crime in America takes place everywhere. The point of a gun free zone is to tell the average citizen to keep his guns away. B. Or cities in general. C. True, but this isn't relevant. [quote] And like police officers, many people who own guns spend their weekends/free time at the gun range practicing their accuracy skill. I've seen an ordinary Joe hit a target at 200 yards using iron sites in the center or within a 1 inch grouping. Plus many gun owners decide to take gun courses in order to learn better gun handling along with being able to know what to do in a situation with a violent criminal [/quote] Please reread what I said earlier. Again, cops have better training, so there are far more likely to make the right choice. My point on socialism/regulation was to point out that cops in the US have little accountability, but that doesn't mean vigilantism is any better.

1. Notice how he uses a fallacy and disregards the OP's actual argument. He displays the typical "source isn't good enough" argument, which is a clear example of a moving the goalpost fallacy because he doesn't have anything else to support his argument, so he simply calls it biased and goes to the extreme of claiming it's "made up". 2. Uses another fallacy to deviate from the actual argument. He goes off on another subject entirely instead of staying on topic. He ignores that gun crime is highly correlated to illegal firearms, and he ignores the fact that legal carriers are the ones who statistically assist more in thwarting crime, hence this scenario. 3. He claims people make mistakes, yet when cops are brought to the argument, he claims they can't make mistakes, even though they are actually people. Notice how he backpedals his entire argument based on human error. He forgets legal gun owners go through marksmanship training, and can have just as good marksmanship as officers. So not only does he make fallacies, he doesn't even know the facts. 4. Asks for a source yet provides literally none during his entire argument, and that's after he discredited the initial source in the OP that he failed miserably to discredit. Bonus: Instead of actually making a valid argument, he made a ton of fallacies and subsequently embarrassed himself and ended up looking like an idiot who failed miserably to beat the OP in an argument.

Good god, a second person whose join date is 7/1/14. The trolls are multiplying in an ever increasing rate.

Pointing out how you failed miserably at making an argument isn't the same thing as trolling. The fact that you has to resort to such a generic fallacy validates everything I said. Then again the OP already publicly embarrassed you by contradicting literally every point you made (most of which were off topic, fallacious, and inconsistent). Nothing will change the fact that you're incapable of debating properly. Good day.

Camnator? Is that you?

Good Lord you're a -blam!-ing idiot.