Charlie Kirk. A patriot and man of God, or major douche?

Does that DoubleR fellow normally make false comparisons to support his claims? I am noticing a pattern about him.

And Kirk really was not some radical at all, it wouldn’t be justified even if he was some white nationalist or something but this guy was just a normal conservative advocating views more or less in line with half the country…

Yeah, I see DoubleR's portrayal of Kirk as a "Nazi" cartoonish at best and malicious at worst. On one hand, it's refreshing to know the truth about your radical wings, but at the same time, it is quite scary.

this is an option available to only a tiny sliver of the population so it cannot be put forward as a reasonable solution to a societal problem.

Plenty of schools already have taxpayer-funded armed guards. It's possible to scale that up, but it depends how much you're willing to spend on safety.

Yeah, I see DoubleR's portrayal of Kirk as a "Nazi" cartoonish at best and malicious at worst.

Sure me where I portrayed Kirk as a Nazi. I'll wait.

Nothing in your link refutes what I've argued, and it is common sense than when you generalize any group with characteristics that do not apply to the majority of that group, you are being sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.

You really need to go back and read it then. It's only two paragraphs. I'm not sure how you missed it.

Occam's razor is the test of whether your analysis is founded on that primary pillar.

I would be interested for you to provide a citation of a reputable source that explains Occam's razor to be a test where the simplest explanation is the only reasonable choice, as opposed to the preferable choice.

...you offered it as your explanation for what you're seeing. That means out of all other explanations, you think this is the most reasonable one.

You are the one incorrectly using Occam's razor in order to limit the number of possible answers, which is why we are talking about possibilities at all. All I'm doing is explaining why you're wrong. I am also pointing out how there is historical precedence to show that your misuse of Occam's razor fails on a practical level as well.

It is your misunderstanding of generalizations and Occam's razor which has caused your misunderstanding of my point. We're never going to get anywhere unless we can get past that.

Sure me where I portrayed Kirk as a Nazi. I'll wait.

It's not rhetoric to call a spade a spade, reality matters.

Disgusting dude...really disgusting.

You really need to go back and read it then. It's only two paragraphs. I'm not sure how you missed it.

I am well aware of what you said in your two paragraphs, I'm not sure if you are. Here, from post 32 for context:

"And control of the population is another reason the Left pushes gun control. Not all on the Left see it this way, but a disarmed population is much easier to control as a totalitarian government. All they need to do is..."

"Not all on the Left see it this way" is in no way a suggestion that the group you're talking about is not representative of the majority. In fact if that were your position you wouldn't have phrased it this way, you would have referred to them as a segment of the left rather than framing your characterization as "the left" before creating this exclusion. That's communication 101.

You are the one incorrectly using Occam's razor in order to limit the number of possible answers

No, I'm not.

Occam's razor doesn't limit the possibilities, it doesn't even address what the possibilities are. Occam's razor measures the assumptions within given explanations and deems the explanation with the fewest assumptions to be the most reasonable out of those provided.

What I have argued is that the most reasonable explanation is the only explanation that should be asserted or accepted as the probable truth. If you don't believe in that then you don't believe in reason itself.

To assert more than one explanation as your position is, by definition, to not take a position on what you think the explanation is. But that's not what you did. You clearly asserted what you think explains the left's stance on gun control. I'm criticizing that assertion as being a violation of Occam's razor. So either explain why Occam's razor shouldn't be accepted as the proper test (without strawmanning it or my construction of it) or adjust your position.

Disgusting dude...really disgusting.

Yes, I agree. It is disgusting that the political right is where almost every racist, nazi, and fascist resides, and that these are not tiny fringes of these movements. Very disgusting indeed, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

I'm glad you stopped faking ignorance so everyone knows.

My views have been clear and consistent throughout. If you think something has changed you're clearly not reading.

It's like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand everything I say. As fun as it is to keep explaining fundamental concepts and basic interpretation to you, I just don't really feel like doing it anymore.