Well, you could go with Hitler. But there's also others..
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi in his An Autobiography, pg 446
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.
Not that the OP isn't still dumb as ********, though... It's just not wrong because it's dumb. It's simply dumb and also wrong.
what he said
bu hdidn't arrive a true conclusion.
and if that was the case, then it should have been possible to point it out without out-and-out dismissing it for involving a fallacy.
the problem isn't that the OP is right or wrong, here, it's the Rules Lawyering that goes into declaring it wrong by default, since it contains one or more logical fallacies ( which is directly hypocritical, since dismissing it for no more than it containing a fallacy is in itself a fallacy ).
in short, if something's wrong, one should have the debate skills necessary to explain exactly why it's wrong, without having to resorting to trying to use "FALLACY" as a magical Make-s**t-Disappear spell.
Hmm... I think any argument should not be funded by another person's social appeal or lack thereof. While I think it is perfectly okay to "polish one's opinions" as it were, any sound argument is born from the simplest and purest of concepts. Instead of trying to use Hitler's notorious history to try to argue against gun control we should instead contemplate the unreasonableness of gun control. That is to say, it is the base-logic that needs to be the priority before the intellect of others is used to further or dampen an opinion or argument.
A few example questions would be:
1. Would gun-control stop people from killing?
No. As we can conclude from simple studying we find that if a person wants to kill, they will go to great and even usual lengths to do so. Regardless of who can be used as an example in this case, the base-logic is that people will do things regardless of how difficult society makes it. Guns simply make this tendency in disturbed individuals more convenient.
2. Would gun-control stop the influx of guns to buyers?
Again, no. Just like in the days of prohibition, a person will go to great lengths to attain their desires. In fact, I find it reasonable to suggest that gun-control would only disarm the population of people who would never misuse that right to begin with. Criminals would still be able to attain guns and thus only criminals would be armed, which in my opinion only gives the people they're trying to stop more power over innocent society. I base this opinion likewise not on the example of particular individuals but on the general statistic of the media and history.
*Laughs at the libtards*
So essentially instead of disputing the fact that dictators take guns away you attack just the argument without providing any information?
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Rwanda established gun control in 1994, 800,000 Rwandans were left defenseless and murdered.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. And that's a low ball.
nope. logical fallacy. you lose.
Bullshit; you're obtuse and lose. I didn't make an argument I just provided information. Prove my information wrong. I'm not advocating any argument now am I? Or are you going to assume I have an argument for you to claim as a logical fallacy? First off it is not a fallacy it is very true these genocides happened. Proof they didn't? Or are you another holocaust denier? As you can see there is a clear trend in gun control and genocide now isn't there. Are you able to deny that? Or does 1+1=2 just not compute with you?