The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....
- Thread starter anthony87
- Start date
You can kill a hell of a lot more people with a car than you could with a gun, but cars are far easier to obtain and drive around in than guns.Bhaalspawn said:
Lets destroy all guns and go back to swords and spears. Of coarse then people would be advocating against spear rights, which means then we should destroy spears too.
Wait I know what will lower crime significantly, when your born we cut off your hands and legs, and take out your teeth completely.
I think I found the solution to crime.
In a more serious note.
The criminal element will always get a hold of guns. Go to Japan, police don't have guns, citizens don't have guns, but i bet you dollars to Doughnuts you'll be hard pressed to find a yakuza member without one.
How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?
Anti gun rights people may be coming from a good place, I doubt they see it as limiting are freedom but Helping the community. However it doesn't, it just guarantee's that no citizen will ever squash a crime or protect their family from a criminal who has a gun.
Also a militia is important for the defense of a country. Just saying.
Wait I know what will lower crime significantly, when your born we cut off your hands and legs, and take out your teeth completely.
I think I found the solution to crime.
In a more serious note.
The criminal element will always get a hold of guns. Go to Japan, police don't have guns, citizens don't have guns, but i bet you dollars to Doughnuts you'll be hard pressed to find a yakuza member without one.
How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?
Anti gun rights people may be coming from a good place, I doubt they see it as limiting are freedom but Helping the community. However it doesn't, it just guarantee's that no citizen will ever squash a crime or protect their family from a criminal who has a gun.
Also a militia is important for the defense of a country. Just saying.
You know the two basic steps to any revolution?The_Critic said:
Step 1 - give firearms to the common man
*revolution happens*
Step 2 - take those firearms away from the common man (we don't want another revolution, now do we?)
Care to make a wild guess who used that? You got it - Communists! Everyones favorite extreme left
Oh, and Nazis too, just so we're not one-sided and have some extreme right What I'm saying is that professional military and police force are important for the defense of a country. Militia is as much of a liability as a fighting force. Unless all you have is militia, then you're fucked either way.
OT: I'm actually one the fence on this topic. I somewhat understand where both sides are coming from, but don't agree with either completely.
Why not just use non-lethal ammunition where applicable? If you're good enough shot to get in a head shot, it's gonna stop whoever you're shooting at quite nicely without risking charges of murder/manslaughter in self defence (laws of my country are kinda fucked in that regard) and several broken ribs hurt like hell anyway.
Fairly apt, also covers the most common rhetoric used by the extreme right.
But do you know the most meaningless argument for gun control?
"We're not allowed guns here, and our gun crime is really low."
...in a small(er than half a continent) country where manufacture and importation of guns has been heavily restricted for decades. Wouldn't work in the US.
The one argument against heavy gun control laws that I've never seen struck down is
"Change the laws, the number and rate of manufacture of guns remains the same. So that means a bigger black market for 'em."
or, as it's usually put
"Take away the citizenry's guns, and the only people who have guns (outside of government employment) are criminals."
...and yeah, total R&P thread.
But do you know the most meaningless argument for gun control?
"We're not allowed guns here, and our gun crime is really low."
...in a small(er than half a continent) country where manufacture and importation of guns has been heavily restricted for decades. Wouldn't work in the US.
The one argument against heavy gun control laws that I've never seen struck down is
"Change the laws, the number and rate of manufacture of guns remains the same. So that means a bigger black market for 'em."
or, as it's usually put
"Take away the citizenry's guns, and the only people who have guns (outside of government employment) are criminals."
...and yeah, total R&P thread.
Just out of curiosity here, when has having guns available ever prevented citizenry from being oppressed by the government? They didn't stop anything from Washington's whiskey taxation straight through Slavery & the Gilded Age right to the NSA reading all your e-mail. Even in the Revolutionary War it was the pre-established state militia that did the fighting, not random guys with a gun in the closet.
Does anyone have any concrete examples of Second Amendment rights being used to make the government back off from proposed oppression? I'm not trying to be anti-gun or anything, I'm just curious.
Does anyone have any concrete examples of Second Amendment rights being used to make the government back off from proposed oppression? I'm not trying to be anti-gun or anything, I'm just curious.
It's kind of clear that Cracked isn't always 100% serious when they write an article since they do alot of literal-versus-figurative statement humor. However, some of this appears to be rather-seriously arguing semantics while dodging the point. And I don't think they addressed Secret Counterpoint #5: "Yeah, but can you actually CONTROL the guns in this country?". This being the site that also informed me that people make homemade guns. Answer? No, not really. It's not a matter of arguments for or against control are meaningless... It's that people do not know how to make them deep and understandable to a proper degree. Even if you argue the Charlton Heston line (taken too literally in argument #4), it was suppose to be a point that the gun is not EVIL, even if it is an instrument of war and death. It is a machine that requires the actions of the person to make it bad. It's the same threadbare association as with video games, trying to make the machine the problem when it is still the individual. You have to make the PEOPLE understand.
Hitler ate sugar!dangoball said:You know the two basic steps to any revolution?
Step 1 - give firearms to the common man
*revolution happens*
Step 2 - take those firearms away from the common man (we don't want another revolution, now do we?)
Care to make a wild guess who used that? You got it - Communists! Everyones favorite extreme left
...
Of course, Hitler didn't come to power in a revolution, and the Nazi government relaxed gun laws that were already in place (provided you weren't Jewish et al), so obviously all those sugar eating, gun owning non-revolutionaries who aren't Jews are Nazis.
I kinda think the sophistication might be what the author was getting at, not the number of categories of weapons.Mick Golden Blood said:
Up here in Norway, one of the political parties recently tried to get a debate going about whether or not the police should carry guns with them at all times. The debate stopped dead when the police said that they wouldn't actually want to carry guns. Keep in mind that this was only a few months after an heavily right-wing extremist killed 77 people(most of which were teenagers).The_Critic said:
Miraculously, we still have fewer deaths, and crimes, per capita than the US has. And that goes for every other country you listed there, as far as I know.
With that being said, I don't believe gun regulations are a core factor of the crime rates: you don't need to look further than Canada for that. At the same time, I still think the US gun regulations are dumb, and that having them tighter would prevent accidental injuries and deaths. I also have no reason to believe that carrying a gun would help you against an armed robber in most cases, unless you're constantly carrying an armed firearm [http://i.imgur.com/pDHHz.jpg].
I didn't find it, this guy [http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?s=&showtopic=358340&view=findpost&p=9206489] did.thaluikhain said:
..no, don't ask. I honestly don't want to know. D:
edit: okay, the page is borking itself up. Just scroll up. Also, the thread of awesomeness is awesome.
Because 999 out of 1000 times, guns aren't needed at all. I mean, since almost nobody carries guns, there's no real point for the police to carry them either. I believe the argument the police departments made was that all it does is unnecessary distance police from other citizens.imahobbit4062 said:
In the special situations where firearms are needed, they're obviously accessed, but you see about five cases of that per year in this country. And even then, the guns are just a stop-gap for the special forces to arrive and do the job.
The only reason the police really needs firearms in the US, is because every criminal is guaranteed to have them.
Your cimes are lower but also you population is lower. The more people you have in a nation, the more crazies you'll likely stumble upon.Naeras said:
Actually, I don't think all yakuza will have a gun. They probably will have a few in the office, but not have them on then all the time.imahobbit4062 said:
Any suspicious people get questioned on the street in japan, and in you have a gun or knife on you you immediately get arrested. So, even yakuza will not have one on them.
Also, not only do the police not have a gun, but the military (which the Japanese can't call the military) do not get many opportunities to practice using real artillery.
They dont even get budget to purchase BB pallets and air guns so they have to spend their own money to buy stuff like that. And you know where the budgets actually gets spent? On the U.S. military and their guns. weird...
I live in Australia.
I have never seen anyone but a policeman or woman holding a gun.
The worst violence I have ever encountered was a knife threat.
The stupidest possible fucking argument about banning guns is that they are just as easily accessible when illegal.
No.
They aren't.
There is a black market....
Do you know how to access the black market now?
Who would you go to obtain cocaine?
Would you ask your local shop owner?
The second stupidest is "if they don't use a gun they use another weapon?"
Like, what, a knife? A baseball bat? Try killing 12 people and injuring 50 people with those things. And the people in this thread saying they could kill 50 people with a car. How? Where? Would you drive into a shopping centre? Killing yourself in the process? Sorry but real life isn't like grand theft auto, you cannot kill people with a car like you can kill people with a gun.
Arguments against gun control are beyond the realm of intellectual discussion, they are retarded. Arguing for the existence of a ridiculously deadly and easy to use weapon is like arguing for Mutually Assured Destruction and atomic weapons.
I.. Just... ARHGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I have never seen anyone but a policeman or woman holding a gun.
The worst violence I have ever encountered was a knife threat.
The stupidest possible fucking argument about banning guns is that they are just as easily accessible when illegal.
No.
They aren't.
There is a black market....
Do you know how to access the black market now?
Who would you go to obtain cocaine?
Would you ask your local shop owner?
The second stupidest is "if they don't use a gun they use another weapon?"
Like, what, a knife? A baseball bat? Try killing 12 people and injuring 50 people with those things. And the people in this thread saying they could kill 50 people with a car. How? Where? Would you drive into a shopping centre? Killing yourself in the process? Sorry but real life isn't like grand theft auto, you cannot kill people with a car like you can kill people with a gun.
Arguments against gun control are beyond the realm of intellectual discussion, they are retarded. Arguing for the existence of a ridiculously deadly and easy to use weapon is like arguing for Mutually Assured Destruction and atomic weapons.
I.. Just... ARHGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH