I assume I've already lost you by now. Like, if you're even following along at this point . . . I'd be shocked.
Being an arrogant prick does not help get your point across.
I have not argued that any policy that fails to "completely" solve a purported crisis must be rejected.
Yes, you actually did.
I quoted your argument, all you did was knock down each proposal on the basis that there was a hole in it, then moved on to the fix to point out there there was a hole in the fix. Then you cartoonishly leaped to the end where we just admit that we want to seize everyone's guns, which would never work.
In fairness you never did actually state a conclusion here, but there is only one rational way to interpret this; that these proposals should not be implemented because they could not ultimately solve the problem.
If that's not what you meant to argue that's fine, but read you're own words, that's the implicit take away.
the examples I laid out above stand for the proposition that it is unequivocally wrong to simply assume that anything you come up with will actually achieve anything at all in the way of bringing about intended results.
Nothing about you're argument suggested that he was "simply assuming" anything. If that we're the case you would have challenged premises, instead you accepted them in a reductio ad absurdum.
Second, if your argument is that nothing "at all" will be accomplished by these proposals then it logically fails at the most basic level. Your counter point to the idea of background checks was to talk about how it wouldn't have stopped *this one* shooter, yet that's not the idea behind them. For background check to accomplish "anything at all" it would only need to stop one would-be shooter. You didn't even attempt to argue it wouldn't.
You did the same thing with your leap at the end that we stop all future gun sales, pointing out that there are millions of guns in circulation. Ok, but to accomplish "anything at all" the proposal would only need to stop one would-be shooter. You made no attempt to argue that every single wanna be shooter knows somewhere where they would be able to get a gun, which is what would have been needed to make that case.
So no, this was not your argument.
The gun control argument from ignorance is this: "If by implementing [policy (x)], we intend to achieve [result (a)], then [policy (x)] must necessarily achieve [result (a)]."
. . . even though there is no evidence whatsoever that [result (a)] actually will result from [policy (x)].
That's not what an argument from ignorance is.
Argument from ignorance is "I don't understand X, therefore Y". What you're portraying is a conflation of intentions and necessary results, as if they are one in the same. That's an absurd characterization of gun control arguments.
Gun control arguments follow basic logic. Things like "less guns = less gun violence". Or "making guns harder to get = less wanna be shooters will be able to attain one". They could be ultimately wrong, which I would love for any 2A advocate to explain, but there's no fallacy there unless you are strawmanning it.
And as far as the no evidence claim, that's just bullshit. I could pull out a treasure trove of statistics showing how laxed gun laws results in increased crime and shootings. But this is such a complex and convoluted issue that you could do the same thing and we'd be here for months sorting through it with undoubtedly no progress at the end, because with so many statistics to choose from we're both just going to gravitate towards the ones that affirm or worldviews. This is why I prefer to address this issue logically. Things like; explain how more guns = less gun violence. Stuff like that.
but to assume that the purported crisis itself even can be solved at the national level, or by any level of government. That is all such incalculably myopic stupidity.
Do you believe in laws?
