Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur.

??

Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not

Oops .. then the premise/assumption/claim on which the logic operated
must be a false one.


Either that or your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

If the logic was good but the conclusion silly ....

Then something ain't right!


and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one.

Reducto ad absurdium...

If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety
that
is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody
has
any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to
achieve


If the least gun deaths occur when everyone is armed then by logic any
other
condition would result in more gun deaths. According to the premise any
other situation would result in more gun deaths not fewer. You can't
improve
on the least.

How odd to have all those dead folks when nobody was armed ...

Right, and that should tell you that there is something wrong in your
initial statement. However, you can have a valid premise and conclusion and
still be wrong. All that means is the logic is correct. It doesn't mean the
argument or statement is true. In this case that is what is going on. The
logic is okay but the statement is still wrong.



It would be good to have the most gun deaths?


I know it doesn't make sense but that is what follows from your premise. See
what you get when you start off on the wrong foot g.



No, but your logic is flawed. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
As
you said, you have the least gun deaths when everyone is armed. Least
means
least.

Reread all of this subthread G.


I did, and it still comes out nonsense.


According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed.

According to the logic.



At least according to your argument. It can be logical but still not make
sense.


Simple gunlogic 101. Probably NRA certified true.

Don't know about the NRA, not a member.


It doesn't get better than that. Right?

So the gunnutz tell us.

Maybe, but what do the gunrationalists say about it? It's not better for
everyone to be armed. There are too many idiots out there. But for a
reasonable man it's a lot better to have a gun and not need one than need
one and not have it.

At least 8 to 1 odds against.

Which just goes to show that a reasonable argument or true statement is not
always supported by statistics. Sometimes the statistics say things that are
not supported by facts. In this case your statistics say one thing but the
truth lies somewhere else. You might find statistics that back up your
argument but history shows that when no one has a gun violence is just as
frequent, sometime more so. Because violence isn't determined by what tool
is available to harm someone with. It is determined by the intent of the
perpetrator. That hasn't changed in 10,000 years either.

Hawke