Uh huh

Yeah you did

I can refute them, but unfortunately you were already being insulting.

The problem of acid attacks is just that. A problem. One that people are actively trying to fix. Nobody thinks acid should not be regulated. Only the weirdest kind of psycho collects different vials of acid based on their ability to stop humans.

The number of acid attack deaths, even in the worst affected countries, are insignificant vs the number of deaths caused by gun crime and gun suicide. Never the less, I still think it’s an issue that needs regulation.

I do not think acid should be banned. I do not think guns should be banned. So you can throw away those arguments as far as I’m concerned. In your terms, you knocked down the straw man. I’m bored of arguments revolving around logical fallacies. They make me cringe because they remind me of myself in my 20s. Over 30 years ago now. It doesn’t interest me to try to outlogic people.

Anyway, where we we? I believe we’ve covered a few mistakes with logic, but I’m happy to point out some more…

If there are plenty of other ways for people to hurt other people, and the other ways are so convenient, why are you so worried about not having a gun - simply use the other things to protect your family? Silly idea? Why?

The fact is, guns are used for few useful purposes that don’t involve hurting things. Either you’re target shooting, doing Robert Deniro impersonations in front of the mirror, or maiming and killing things.

Giving sources of incidences where gun control procedures fail is not helping me believe in your critical thinking skills. Why? Because there isn’t just one path to take. There isn’t just one way to try and lower the number of injuries and deaths. You don’t just give up trying to cure illnesses because one method didn’t work.

You tell me I don’t know anything. You tell me I don’t use logic. You call me “you people” and attack points i haven’t made. You have basically not demonstrated any logical thinking skills at all. You haven’t made a single valid point.

Meanwhile my days are filled with all kinds of experiences related to gun crime. A baby was shot through because he was being held by the target grandmother. Police obliterating people’s limbs because they want the biggest harm possible in their firearms, people still alive with missing faces, amputation both traumatic and because of infections. Kids with one eye missing who were out shopping with their parents 30 minutes ago . Crowds of weeping family members on the street outside the ED. Gang members pushing past security to try and finish off the murder they started. Wounds that you can see through. Threats of gun violence towards me and my coworkers.

All I want is for this to happen less. You don’t. By your actions and your stance, you want it to either stay the same or get worse. Not only that, you want it for other countries too.

Approaching mental health issues is a valid path. Nobody argues against that. You have a responsibility to do more.

You vastly overestimate your own skills in that department, acid man.

Only insults then? Ok.

How so? Why don’t you have a real argument instead of hurling crap insults, acid man?

“I know how to think critically” insults and belittles

I really don’t think you would know

Oh I’m smart enough thank you. Just because you’ve read an online guide to logical fallacies, doesn’t make my personal experience irrelevant, it makes it an anecdote. Its written as food for thought (we’re talking zero cases out of multiple thousands of orthopedic gun shot wound injuries). I dont have a duty to refute anything. This isn’t debate class. If you want to do that, then why dont we roll back to square one when you mentioned acid attacks as if their prevalence is equal to gun crime in America and that guns would solve the problem somehow. A completely ludicrous claim if ever there was one.

Yawn (asshole)

What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?

I help fix patients who have been shot. Don’t lecture me about solving problems. I’m part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.

Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.

Here’s a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.

I don’t even know where to start.

There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.

So…problem solved?

Which side of the argument are you actually on?

This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!

Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!

The best way to stop a good guy with a gun is to shoot first (in countries where there’s a good chance you might be shot if you’re committing a crime)

It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.

I choose to protect my body by you not having guns.

Edit: I don’t, but I think you can see the error in your argument now.