Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
So, in the spirit of "not changing the subject", which gun control laws do you believe prevent crime? We'll discuss those.
Actually, not changing the subject would be to remain on topic for this thread, which is talking about forming sound, logical arguments. So no, I am not going to chase that rabbit trail. If you want to start a new thread, be my guest and I may contribute.
A weakness in how you present your argument is what my original reply to you was pointing out.
Big, generalized, absolute statements like this....
All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.
...are generally a bad place to start from, especially when you only make a general claim to "all the evidence," but don't actually cite any evidence.
Constructing logical arguments requires three things.
1. Claim - What you believe to be true
2. Evidence - The evidence that supports your belief
3. Impact - Why your claim is important
To counter a particular claim, you must either show that the evidence supplied is incorrect or does not actually support the claim.
Alternatively, you can argue that the IMPACT is actually not significant, that while the evidence may support the claim it doesn't really matter if it is true.
Unfortunately, it is very rare in discussions such as these for anyone to understand these ideas, much less be willing to follow through with them over the course of a discussion.
Tactics like refusing to answer questions, adding new claims to avoid having to defend weak claims and simply ignoring contradictory evidence or reasoning are much more common.