Ridiculous Arguments for Gun-Control - Page 2

Ridiculous Arguments for Gun-Control

This is a discussion on Ridiculous Arguments for Gun-Control within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by FreeFalling Most of the anti-gun people I encounter lately seem to think that if guns are outlawed, all mental illness will instantly ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Ridiculous Arguments for Gun-Control

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeFalling View Post
    Most of the anti-gun people I encounter lately seem to think that if guns are outlawed, all mental illness will instantly be cured and it will be impossible to commit a violent crime. When I ask them what they'll do when a meth addict comes after them with a knife or a baseball bat they look at me like I have a third eye. Because sure, that's completely impossible.

    There's no way you can possibly respond to someone who's stupid enough to believe guns are the reason for the violence.
    Like the guy who got his face partially eaten by the guy on bath salts. But of course those incidents are rare the anti-gun crowd might argue, all the while making it look like the gun incidents are highly more common.
    EDC - Glock 21C, M&P Shield .40 OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,302
    Basically, every single argument I've heard for gun control amounts to the claim that prior disarmament of victims will equate to reducing the number of victims through the trickle-down disarmament of criminals in the process. Despite the fact that the existence/location of most of these arms isn't known, that the black market for weaponry cannot be stopped, and that porous borders that leak like a sieve won't allow a vacuum for weaponry to exist for long without filling it.

    Reduction of capacity.
    Elimination of the ability to quickly reload (ie, via magazine swaps).
    Elimination of the semi-auto cycling feature of most modern small arms.
    Elimination of heat shields on foreends (aka "barrel shrouds").
    Elimination of "pistol" grips on this or that weapon.
    Elimination of this or that feature of a blade (ie, assisted-opening mechanisms).
    Criminalization for carrying without registration/licensing.
    Criminalization for carrying loaded.
    Criminalization for carrying at X, Y or Z venue.
    Criminalization for daring to transport a weapon from here to there.
    Criminalization for ...


    When the only real criminality is: violent threats/harm to innocents, or the active/overt planning to accomplish such things.

    So long as we continue our farcical catch-and-release training program for criminals via our revolving door "legal" system, we keep our eyes off the ball. Criminalizing upstanding citizens won't accomplish a damned thing, beyond essentially keeping the "mob" at bay. (Surprise, surprise.)
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  3. #18
    GH
    GH is offline
    VIP Member Array GH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,544
    A bad guy gets caught committing a gun crime. He has no legal right to even posses a firearm. He's broken about a half dozen laws concerning guns. How do we solve that? We take the guns away from the honest citizens that have firearms. Do the antis even for a minute think that all the bad guys will give up their guns? How is that working out in Chicago?
    pittypat21 likes this.
    Glenn

    USN Submarine & UDT/SEAL Veteran
    1SG, US Army Retired - Airborne Infantry All the Way!
    Special Warfare Mentor
    M&P40, M&P40C

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by GH View Post
    A bad guy gets caught committing a gun crime. He has no legal right to even posses a firearm. He's broken about a half dozen laws concerning guns. How do we solve that? We take the guns away from the honest citizens that have firearms. Do the antis even for a minute think that all the bad guys will give up their guns? How is that working out in Chicago?
    Or even Los Angeles County? With CA gun control, you'd think homicides would be pretty low out there. But instead of LA County had over 3200 murders in 2012. I believe it's about 30 some odd per 100,000.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  5. #20
    Member Array Clodbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    205
    Some of you must have exponentially more patience than myself. I don't engage in these types of discussions with people who have vastly different opinions than my own. It usually just dissolves into circular logic, straw men, misrepresentation of cherry-picked data, and any other logical fallacy you can name. Nothing gets accomplished, no one's viewpoints are altered, and we all just walk away with a scowl and a headache. Maybe a respectful, informed dialogue with people who support gun control could aid in some way, but I don't know how. My hat is off to anyone who can dialogue with a gun control advocate and make any headway instead of just making headaches.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array DaRedneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    628
    You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
    "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRedneck View Post
    You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
    That's also not true. You can indeed reason people out of a position.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array Hodad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    1,666
    The laws on the books now, in some states, probably could use some tightening. In other states they could use some loosening.

    The feds should simply live with the intent of the 2nd Amendment and leave it up to the individual states to pass, amend and enforce gun laws.
    If you don't want to abide by a particular states laws try to avoid living, visiting or doing business in that state.

    If the laws in your state bother you then try to change them.

    For me, more thorough background checks and restriction of super high volume magazines (i.e. over 30 rounds) would not bother me at all.

    That being said, the real problem is we really can't trust our government (particularly the current administration) to stop at
    reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms. The old "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile", "camel's nose under the
    tent", "slippery slope" and all that stuff is a legitimate concern.

    I would rather err on the side of the rights of indivuiduals to own weapons for the purposes of self defense, shooting sports, collectibles
    and hunting than amend the 2A and other legislation to suit those individuals who oppose the ownership of firearms.
    "Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array DaRedneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    That's also not true. You can indeed reason people out of a position.
    Maybe you can reason with the ones that use reasoning but then again re-read my statement. They didn't use reasoning from the beginning. You cannot reason with the ones that strictly use emotion because their position is based on emotion and not reason to begin with. You will never reason Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, Whoopi, etc out of their emotional position. There maybe some you can reason out of their emotional position but not many. I do agree with you that you CAN reason people out of a position that they reasoned themselves into.

    Back to you OP, someone sent me a clip from that show The View and Whoopi was telling the audience that the assualt rifle is a weapon of mass destruction. WMD? Arrrrrgh!
    "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    The laws on the books now, in some states, probably could use some tightening. In other states they could use some loosening.

    The feds should simply live with the intent of the 2nd Amendment and leave it up to the individual states to pass, amend and enforce gun laws.
    If you don't want to abide by a particular states laws try to avoid living, visiting or doing business in that state.

    If the laws in your state bother you then try to change them.

    For me, more thorough background checks and restriction of super high volume magazines (i.e. over 30 rounds) would not bother me at all.

    That being said, the real problem is we really can't trust our government (particularly the current administration) to stop at
    reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms. The old "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile", "camel's nose under the
    tent", "slippery slope" and all that stuff is a legitimate concern.

    I would rather err on the side of the rights of indivuiduals to own weapons for the purposes of self defense, shooting sports, collectibles
    and hunting than amend the 2A and other legislation to suit those individuals who oppose the ownership of firearms.
    We do not need ANY more restrictions. What's the purpose of banning "super high volume magazines"? What would it accomplish? Why do we need more thorough background checks? The background checks already determine just fine if the purchaser can legally purchase a weapon. Legally purchased weapons are not the problem. More thorough background checks would solve nothing.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by DaRedneck View Post
    Maybe you can reason with the ones that use reasoning but then again re-read my statement. They didn't use reasoning from the beginning. You cannot reason with the ones that strictly use emotion because their position is based on emotion and not reason to begin with. You will never reason Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, Whoopi, etc out of their emotional position. There maybe some you can reason out of their emotional position but not many. I do agree with you that you CAN reason people out of a position that they reasoned themselves into.

    Back to you OP, someone sent me a clip from that show The View and Whoopi was telling the audience that the assualt rifle is a weapon of mass destruction. WMD? Arrrrrgh!
    Your first paragraph was already addressed to me, so not sure why you said "back to you"...


    But either way, I did read your statement. If people didn't use reason in the first place, than suggesting that using reason won't help is a little ridiculous. And we're not talking about Feinstein or Boxer, or Reid, or Whoopi, we're talking about people that we encounter on a day-to-day basis. I'm not trying to argue with Feinstein. I'm trying to argue with antis that I know. Those that are ill-informed can be persuaded by reason.

    And that is pretty funny, suggesting that an "assault rifle" is a WMD...
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array DaRedneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    628
    I meant to say "Back to youR OP" (back to your original post), I fat fingered it and left off the r.
    pittypat21 likes this.
    "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci

  13. #28
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    For me, more thorough background checks
    Perhaps, but what constitutes a more thorough check to what it is now?

    and restriction of super high volume magazines (i.e. over 30 rounds) would not bother me at all.
    It would bother me and I don't have any magazines higher than 30 rounds. Not a good compromise. You let them take something away like that and they'll start nibbling down until you see the things you think are important gone. What validity is there for restricting magazine capacity? None, whatsoever. There is nothing that a capacity ban would accomplish - absolutely nothing.
    Clodbert likes this.
    EDC - Glock 21C, M&P Shield .40 OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

  14. #29
    Member Array Clodbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    205
    "What validity is there for restricting magazine capacity? None, whatsoever. There is nothing that a capacity ban would accomplish - absolutely nothing."


    This is such a salient point that I had to copy and paste it so everyone can read it again. The idea that reducing magazine capacity would do anything at all to reduce gun violence is absurd beyond words.
    pittypat21 and Mjr_Fail like this.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568

    Re: Ridiculous Arguments for Gun-Control

    If you want to stop the nonsense, you must personalize gun ownership.

    It worked for the gay and lesbian rights groups.

    "someone you know, someone you work with, someone at your church, at your kids school (adult), has guns. And any one of those people would ACT to save you, themselves, or your children from a madman with a gun."

    But you want to stop, or deter them from being able to do so.

    You cannot legislate utopia.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

a ridiculous argument
,

abraham lincoln gun control

,
absurd pro gun control arguments
,

arguments for gun control

,

gun control arguments

,

gun control musket argument

,

gun control ridiculous

,
guns 2nd amendment ridiculous
,

ridiculous arguments

,
ridiculous arguments about gun control
,
ridiculous arguments for gun control
,

ridiculous gun control arguments

Click on a term to search for related topics.