On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:37:38 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:00:15 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

Hmmm. "Ad hominid"? Is that someone who opposes all primates? Or only
the ones who think they're being logical? g


Oh look, the spelling police! OK officer, it's "ad Hominem". Aren't
spelling flames ANOTHER form of such?

You don't seem to know what either means. I thought you were taught by
the Jezzies?

Everyone I know who was taught by Jezzies thinks he knows all about
logic. But I've never seen a single one who does.

If I say "Tom is a jerk," that's ad hominem. If I say "Tom's question
is nonsense," that is not.

Arguing "To the man" means that I'm disparaging your character, and
that therefore you aren't to be believed. An example would be "Tom
beats his wife, so don't believe anything he says." If I say that you
said something foolish, that's not ad hominem.

The Jezzies would be annoyed with you, Tom.

--
Ed Huntress