Every Argument Against Commonsense Gun Control Broken Down to Its Idiotic Nonsense

Regardless of which side of the aisle on which one sits, it is impossible for any logically thinking human being not to acknowledge that gun violence has become our national scourge. Yet the deification of guns, based on the unassailable doctrine of the Second Amendment, has evolved from a political right into our state-sanctioned religion.

These horrific tragedies couldn’t convince the congregation of the National-Rifle-Association-Church-of-Christ to move an inch closer to commonsense gun control. The die-hard believers will resist any step toward gun regulations, with counterarguments based on flawed logic, devoid of facts. So we decided to examine them one by one with an objective eye.


1 Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

While this is true, an overwhelming number of people who kill people use guns. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s statistics show that 69 percent of the homicides in 2014 were from gun deaths. The rate is steadily rising. While it is true that people are causing a rise in violent crime for the second year in a row, that they are using guns to commit these crimes is an unavoidable fact.

The number of mass shootings, injuries and even unintentional shootings has risen every year since 2014, according to the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive. There is only one common thread in all of these statistics: guns.

Until we hear about an outbreak of mass spooning incidents or the growing number of drive-by knifings, let’s acknowledge that people kill people ... with guns.

Almost always with guns.

2 The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to our guns.

For the sake of argument, let’s take the Second Amendment and apply its literal, fundamentalist meaning to where it states this: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There isn’t a single mainstream politician holding office in the House or Senate who has put forth a proposal to repeal the Second Amendment. So we can eliminate that argument there. Full stop.

Having said that, every other argument is based on how we regulate Americans’ right to bear arms as we do every other freedom.

We all enjoy the right to free speech, but there are libel, perjury and slander laws that limit what we can say when it might injure others. We are guaranteed the freedom of assembly, but we must apply for parade or protest permits or risk being arrested for obstructing traffic and impeding the rights of others. Our rights to vote, privacy and even sex are all regulated by certain caveats. You must be 18 to cast a ballot. Police can search your underwear drawer with a warrant, and you can’t just grab a woman’s private parts without her consent. (Unless you’re running for president or an Alabama Senate seat.)

3 It’s a “slippery slope.”

This might be the stupidest argument ever. The National Rifle Association would have you believe that once we allow the government to register weapons, limit the size of gun magazines or enact background checks, jackbooted thugs will kick down our doors and confiscate our firearms.

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

You know why jackbooted thugs will never kick in your door and take your guns (aside from the fact that no one has ever told me where I can get a pair of those door-kicking jackboots)? Because lawmakers have already limited the kinds of weapons a person can own. You can’t buy an anti-aircraft gun or a Pershing tank. The government will always have bigger weapons than yours.

Plus, I’m still waiting for Barack Obama to come take my guns. I’ve always wanted to meet him.

4 If guns are against the law, then only criminals will have guns.

It is true that 34 percent of mass shooters were prohibited from owning weapons. But that also means 66 percent of mass shooters used legal firearms. What if laws simply reduced the numbers by one or two mass shootings per year?

Fact: States with magazine-capacity restrictions experience fewer mass shootings, according to CNN.

Fact: States that require background checks on all firearm sales have lower gun-related deaths per capita than states that don’t, according to data from the CDC, the NRA and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Fact: A correct, thorough background check would have prevented Dylann Roof from legally purchasing the guns he used in the Charleston, S.C., church shooting. A national ban on assault weapons would have prevented Devin Patrick Kelley from purchasing the Ruger AR-556 that he purchased legally from Academy Sports & Outdoors in San Antonio, Texas.

In fact, when we analyzed the Washington Post’s list of U.S. mass shootings since 1966, semi-automatic, assault-style weapons were used in incidents that resulted in 253 deaths.

How about the small number of crimes that would be prevented if people were turned away because of mental-health issues? What about the number of potential killers who would change their minds during a three-day waiting period? What about the number of lives that would be saved by smaller-capacity magazines?

Based on the logic of “Criminals don’t care about gun laws,” why make any law? Why should there be laws against rape or murder, since murderers gonna murder and rapists gon’ rape?

Hey, I thought all lives mattered.

5 How is that strict gun regulation working out in Chicago?

Chicago is white people’s No. 1 argument against everything, including gun control. According to them, even with its strict gun laws, Chicago is a big, bad bogey monster filled with murderous thugs who will gun you down at any time. It is the most dangerous city in America.

Except that it’s not.

Using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting data, Chicago ranks 25th in murders per capita, far behind cities like Jackson, Miss.; Savannah, Ga.; and Kansas City, Kan. In fact, when you look at PoliticIt’s ranking of states with the toughest gun laws, of the 24 cities with higher murder rates than Chicago’s, 15 of them are in states with gun laws laxer than Illinois’. Chicago’s population dwarfs most of the other cities, which is why we hear more often about the large numbers of deaths in the Windy City.

But according to the numbers, Chicago ain’t got shit on Birmingham, Ala.

6 The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Gun advocates live under the delusion that they are all John Wayne waiting for a bad guy to ride into town. The truth is, a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun. Even though the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooting allows them to cling to that myth, facts say otherwise.

A 2015 study of FBI and national crime by the Violence Policy Center (pdf) concluded that people are more likely to cause an accidental death than prevent a crime when pulling a gun in self-defense. The Washington Post reports that for every justifiable homicide using a gun, there are 34 criminal suicides, 78 gun suicides and two accidental deaths.

Yes, it is true that an FBI report on active shooters between 2000 and 2013 (pdf) shows that 3 percent of those incidents were stopped by a civilian with a gun ...

... but the same report shows that 13 percent of those events were halted by unarmed citizens.

You know what else stops bad guys with guns? Fewer guns for bad guys. Making it more difficult for bad guys to acquire guns. Senators and members of the House who aren’t lackeys of the terrorist organization called the NRA.

Perhaps the most effective weapon against a bad guy with a gun is the one thing we all seem to lack:
Common sense.


Full article: https://www.theroot.com/every-argument-against-commonsense-gun-control-broken-d-1820327119

What's an assault weapon?

Is that your only response to the whole article? Jeez. You’re losing your touch dude.

eddie wrote:Is that your only response to the whole article? Jeez. You’re losing your touch dude.

I try to be brief and take one point at a time.

You want a novel, one of those long winded chaps will be around soon.  

But my question is relevant.

Okay I don’t know the answer to your question and I also don’t care.
Pick another point to discuss?

eddie wrote:Okay I don’t know the answer to your question and I also don’t care.
Pick another point to discuss?

No one really does. That's the problem.


Why did he blow off Chicago's gun problem by saying it's 25th in murders? That pretty damn high in a country with as many cities as we have. I can assure you the people in those neighborhoods of Chicago think murder is a serious issue.

'...Until we hear about an outbreak of mass spooning incidents or the growing number of drive-by knifings, let’s acknowledge that people kill people ... with guns...'


London Bridge/Borough market...

Seven people were killed after three terrorists drove a white van into pedestrians on London Bridge, then leapt out and started stabbing bystanders...

Maddog wrote:What's an assault weapon?

Considering you do know, means to me you are deflecting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Until we hear about an outbreak of mass spooning incidents or the growing number of drive-by knifings, let’s acknowledge that people kill people ... with guns...'


London Bridge/Borough market...

Seven people were killed after three terrorists drove a white van into pedestrians on London Bridge,  then leapt out and started stabbing bystanders...

So guns and knives are thus a problem in homicides then?

That we also need to ensure better protection for civillians through either accidents or homicides with cars?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:What's an assault weapon?

Considering you do know, means to me you are deflecting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

If you read your link, you will see that the definition changes depending on who you ask.

Some would say the AR with a 30 round mag is an assault weapon and it's no longer an assault weapon with a 10 round mag.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Considering you do know, means to me you are deflecting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

If you read your link, you will see that the definition changes depending on who you ask.  

Some would say the AR with a 30 round mag is an assault weapon and it's no longer an assault weapon  with a 10 round mag.

You claimed my ignorance on guns and you know full well how in the US an assualt weapon can be refered to

So stop feigning ignorance on something you do know how it can be referred to

Its just poor misdirection to the points at hand

Murderers are the problem...

Tommy Monk wrote:Murderers are the problem...

And what leads people to commit murder?

Can someone address the article?

Maddog, why are you getting into technicalities?

eddie wrote:Can someone address the article?

Maddog, why are you getting into technicalities?

Because he does not want to actually take on the points at hand

I will though

Access to guns is not the main problem.

Realative crime and hate are the major problems here and combined with access to guns, leads to a high homicide rate with guns.

No matter where you look in the world, it takes a number of factors that lead to high homicide rates.

Where the main factor constantly is relative poverty

Look at relative poverty, in our main cities. You see gangs have formed for centuries based on the high levels of inequality between people. Where people are mainly poor. There is low crime rates. Where its mainly Middle Class, low crimes rates. Where its rich mainly low crime rates. Its when there is a mix, as in cities, that we see a high level of crime. In the US its with guns and over here with gangs and knives.

You also have the problem of hate, another major factor that leads to crimes.

Its addressing both hate and relative poverty, that is the key to reducing crime

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Murderers are the problem...

And what leads people to commit murder?

Themselves... and their own intent...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


And what leads people to commit murder?

Themselves... and their own intent...

That is what led to 6 million jews being murdered then?

Not centuries of antisemitism, through teachings like Lutheranism?

In other words hate, envy etc?

Waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Waffle...

So you are basically conceding to my points

Why not just wave a white flag of surrender. As that is effectivelly what you are doing when you say waffle.

Maddog wrote:What's an assault weapon?

one designed for killing Humans
so Pistols, Semi Automatic rifles etc

eddie wrote:Can someone address the article?

Maddog, why are you getting into technicalities?

I agree with the OP

eddie wrote:Can someone address the article?

Maddog, why are you getting into technicalities?

Because that's what was brought up.

That's the problem with all these ideas. At some point you have to get technical and write a law that is legal and can be enforced.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Can someone address the article?

Maddog, why are you getting into technicalities?

Because that's what was brought up.

That's the problem with all these ideas. At some point you have to get technical and write a law that is legal and can be enforced.

Poor excuse

At some point, you will always exhaust poor excuses, as you are doing

Lets take this...

There isn’t a single mainstream politician holding office in the House or Senate who has put forth a proposal to repeal the Second Amendment. So we can eliminate that argument there. Full stop.

Having said that, every other argument is based on how we regulate Americans’ right to bear arms as we do every other freedom.


What additional regulations on guns shall we have. And "common sense" regulations won't cut it.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Because that's what was brought up.

That's the problem with all these ideas. At some point you have to get technical and write a law that is legal and can be enforced.

Poor excuse

At some point, you will always exhaust poor excuses, as you are doing

Everyone's a fucking critic eh?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Poor excuse

At some point, you will always exhaust poor excuses, as you are doing

Everyone's a fucking critic eh?  

Indeed, but are you not also one?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Everyone's a fucking critic eh?  

Indeed, but are you not also one?

Not only do I like the 1st and 2nd amendment, but at times I exercise the 5th.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Indeed, but are you not also one?

Not only do I like the 1st and 2nd amendment, but at times I exercise the 5th.

But you are also a critic, yes?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Not only do I like the 1st and 2nd amendment, but at times I exercise the 5th.

But you are also a critic, yes?

I plead the 5th.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

But you are also a critic, yes?

I plead the 5th.

How does that have any bearing in the UK?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I plead the 5th.

How does that have any bearing in the UK?

I'm not in the UK, and this thread is about the US.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

How does that have any bearing in the UK?

I'm not in the UK, and this thread is about the US.  

lol, copout and a surrender to my points

Do you want to reconsider?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not in the UK, and this thread is about the US.  

lol, copout and a surrender to my points

Do you want to reconsider?

Nope. Some things are better left unsaid.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

lol, copout and a surrender to my points

Do you want to reconsider?

Nope. Some things are better left unsaid.  

One word mate

Bollocks

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:
Okay I don’t know the answer to your question and I also don’t care.
Pick another point to discuss?

No one really does.  That's the problem.  


Why did he blow off Chicago's gun problem by saying it's 25th in murders?  That pretty damn high in a country with as many cities as we have. I can assure you the people in those neighborhoods of Chicago think murder is a serious issue.  

I know what an "assault weapon" is...

So does nicko..
And Fred..
And most likely Victor does, too..

I don't give a fuck if you do or not, Dopeydawg.

I know that a lot of journo's and reporters don't have a clue -- plenty of times over the years I have seen them mis-labelling AR-14s and '15s as "machineguns", and when gun amnesties are on down here, newspapers and TV stations like to splash around images of weapons previously collected by police..

And where half the weapons in the photo's are still perfectly legal, and are obviously only there for extra effect.

Maddog wrote:Lets take this...

There isn’t a single mainstream politician holding office in the House or Senate who has put forth a proposal to repeal the Second Amendment. So we can eliminate that argument there. Full stop.

Having said that, every other argument is based on how we regulate Americans’ right to bear arms as we do every other freedom.


What additional regulations on guns shall we have. And "common sense" regulations won't cut it.

 

I suggest you have a look at the current gun laws down here..

Probably the main difference to your current lifestyle --  you would need to register your guns;  to register those guns you also need a shooter's licence; to get that license you will have to pass a gun handling and safety test; to do so you must join a local shooting or pistol club and do a short course..


Guns must be kept securely locked away when not in use or in transit;  pistols require an approved safe.

Some weapons are restricted, some are prohibited, mag sizes are restricted..


Bows and spearguns don't have to be licensed,  yet...  Crossbows are prohibited in most states..

Flick knives, propelling knives, "butterfly" knives, star knives and knuckledusters are also prohibited.
As are concealed/hidden swords and knives (e.g. within walking sticks or staffs..).

I just wish I had kept renewing my shooters licence back in the 1980s --  would have avoided a lot of rigmarole if I wanted to go and get a fresh licence now..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No one really does.  That's the problem.  


Why did he blow off Chicago's gun problem by saying it's 25th in murders?  That pretty damn high in a country with as many cities as we have. I can assure you the people in those neighborhoods of Chicago think murder is a serious issue.  

I know what an "assault weapon" is...

So does nicko..
And Fred..
And most likely Victor does, too..

I don't give a fuck if you do or not,  Dopeydawg.

I know that a lot of journo's and reporters don't have a clue --  plenty of times over the years I have seen them mis-labelling AR-14s and '15s as "machineguns", and when gun amnesties are on down here, newspapers and TV stations like to splash around images of weapons previously collected by police..

And where half the weapons in the photo's are still perfectly legal, and are obviously only there for extra effect.

Is an autoloading shotgun an assault weapon?

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No one really does.  That's the problem.  


Why did he blow off Chicago's gun problem by saying it's 25th in murders?  That pretty damn high in a country with as many cities as we have. I can assure you the people in those neighborhoods of Chicago think murder is a serious issue.  

I know what an "assault weapon" is...

So does nicko..
And Fred..
And most likely Victor does, too..

I don't give a fuck if you do or not,  Dopeydawg.

I know that a lot of journo's and reporters don't have a clue --  plenty of times over the years I have seen them mis-labelling AR-14s and '15s as "machineguns", and when gun amnesties are on down here, newspapers and TV stations like to splash around images of weapons previously collected by police..

And where half the weapons in the photo's are still perfectly legal, and are obviously only there for extra effect.

Is an autoloading shotgun an assault weapon?

if it is Semi Auto without a manual action then yes.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I know what an "assault weapon" is...

So does nicko..
And Fred..
And most likely Victor does, too..

I don't give a fuck if you do or not,  Dopeydawg.

I know that a lot of journo's and reporters don't have a clue --  plenty of times over the years I have seen them mis-labelling AR-14s and '15s as "machineguns", and when gun amnesties are on down here, newspapers and TV stations like to splash around images of weapons previously collected by police..

And where half the weapons in the photo's are still perfectly legal, and are obviously only there for extra effect.

Is an autoloading shotgun an assault weapon?

It has been rated as such in Australia since the 1990s...

Only police, military and suitably-licensed security guards carry them..
And some professional pig shooters, with the suitable permits..

Before the Port Arthur massacre down in Tasmania, private gun owners could buy them; now they can't..

I knew people back in the 1990s who owned Mini-14s, M-15s, M1 carbines, SLRs and/or auto' or semi-auto (i.e. pump action..) shotties, who had to surrender some of their guns.

They weren't too happy, as they lost money after the compo' was factored in.

I had a Navy colt Revolver no: 1675 converted from rim fire to centre fire, supposed to be worth around £2000, I had to hand it in ! I waited over a year for compensation, was sent a cheque for £765 !

When I was in Nam I used a Pump action .12 bore firing Buckshot, I think it was made by Ithica? For close fighting in the Jungle it could not be beaten, [ 20 inch barrel]