A surtax on ammunition would also be very productive.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
There is already 10% federal tax on guns and ammo.— FatCat 🙄 (@sometingfishy) November 29, 2018
Shows how much these idiots know about the subject.— Glen Ely (@ldyvolsftbalfan) November 29, 2018
Yes, there is a tax on firearms and cartridges already existing. It did not dissuade the Las Vegas shooter from spraying thousands of bullets into a crowd. If the idea is that making something more expensive will lead to lower consumption of that product has any merit, then a surtax on ammunition should be productive. Perhaps, if you are discussing things in good faith and your aim is actually to decrease gun violence, then this would be a conversation worth having. But:Hence the “sur” part. But strut around anyway. Really, the tears are streaming down my face.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
Know what would happen? Private sales would increase, stores would decrease, and criminals would still be shooting people because they dont get their stuff legally. Just another unnecessary, unwarranted surtax that will benefit politicians.— FatCat 🙄 (@sometingfishy) November 29, 2018
Can’t argue with that kind of stupid. Just relax, the nurse will be by with your meds shortly.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
This is an individual that wouldn't understand how arguments work if one walked up and slapped him in the face with a rifle. So I abandoned good faith and simply rejected the premise of his NRA talking points. Talking points that have obviously never been challenged by anyone after they have escaped his pie hole.You cant argue against it because its accurate.— FatCat 🙄 (@sometingfishy) November 29, 2018
Argue against what, sweeping generalizations without supporting evidence? No, you made the assertions, you need to defend them.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
Private sales would increase because taxes don't have to be paid in a private transaction. Stores would lose business because people are purchasing more via private sale. Criminals don't buy their guns from the corner gun store. Not sure what is so hard to understand.— FatCat 🙄 (@sometingfishy) November 29, 2018
These nra talking points are nearly a century old, simply mouthing the words doesn’t make them true.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
No, it’s called intellectual laziness— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
“If” statements are always circumspect. Why are you so interested in making it easy for those criminals to get guns? Worried that when it’s your turn to shoot up a school it might be a minor inconvenience?— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
Only everything.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
It seems that the art of arguing with gun nuts seems to be expending as little effort as possible for each line while rejecting the premise of each of their assertions. The NRA and gun propagandists have presumable spent a lot of money and time crafting these "criminals don't care" frames and injecting them into the minds of followers. If you have spent your entire life with the intellectual crutch of merely accepting these talking points and never having them challenged or even spending a moment of critical thought on them, then it makes sense that they sound like "common sense." As much as "the sun rises in the east" but never asking why it does so. Telling them that the sun isn't actually moving and it is actually the Earth rotating into view of the sun fries circuits.As opposed to preening for your pal. You have been living in your own bubble so long that you don't realize how it looks to the normies. Everything you have written merely states that you don't want to inconvenience these nameless criminals and you love to see people die.— Tentacles of 🦑 (@TentaclesOfYest) November 29, 2018
No expert here, but I'm pretty sure when you claim to have won the argument you have really just given up. I could keep challenging him on who these criminals are, are they completely monolithic and sharing every attribute? Or is this simply a lazy, unfounded, and sweeping generalization without meaning? Most stories of gun massacres I read specifically state that the weapons and ammunition were bought legally, so I don't know what on Earth he is talking about. He sure got touchy after I deduced that he supports gun violence from his words didn't he? But I guess I will give him points for not calling me a libtard or communist.Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores. They don't care about surtaxes as it won't affect them. This has everything to do with taxing law abiding gun owners for criminal behavior. You have totally changed the direction of this conversation because you lost the argument. Good day.— FatCat 🙄 (@sometingfishy) November 29, 2018
After Glen stopped liking every reply from Fat Cat and nobody else stepped in to support the cat, his enthusiasm for making me cry started to wane. Just for future reference here is a chart of logical fallacies, it is one of many. Should we play bingo on it?
The fundamental components of argument are that the party making an assertion has to defend it. The other party has no need to prove the assertion is incorrect. To "win" your assertion must be supported with facts and evidence. Making assertions "all criminals obtain their guns illegally" without proof is called conjecture and is as hollow as regurgitating talking points without any understanding of what they mean.
Now for some obligatory book references:
Lakoff, because to negate a frame is to activate a frame (criminals don't obey laws).
Altemeyer, because gun nuts are almost by definition scared little rabbits who surrendered the ability to think critically and assess new information to fear a long time ago.
Charles, because the gun debate should have some actual facts and history.
Neiwert, because gun nuts really do inhabit a different, much more violent reality from the rest of us