The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....
- Thread starter anthony87
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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
I'm guessing this is the sound of scrambledeggs being killed by a man in a car armed with a baseball bat.scrambledeggs said:
Pity, I actually agreed with him...
scrambledeggs said:
You do realize a black market isn't an actual place, like a costco or a flea market? Right? That "Black Market" is a generic term for any selling of illegal goods?
Ergo, (phrasing this so hopefully I'm not breaking Escapist TOS) IF one were to buy weed in this country, that is the "black market". So yeah, some people do know were to buy cocaine, those people probably have 5 different contact numbers in their cell phone.
If people can buy illegal drugs, why wouldn't they be able to buy illegal weapons? So you're argument is invalid... Also yeah, lets ban all the guns and then when a shoot happens we have absolutely NO way for the cops to identify ownership of the weapons... cause yeah, that makes sense.
Also for your 2nd argument about alternate murder methods,
*AHEM*
ARE YOU AWARE THAT COLUMBINE WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A BOMBING AND NOT A MASS SHOOTING? The body count was suppose to be much much higher, and the only reason why it wasn't is because Eric Harris screwed up slighting making his pipe bombs. This is exactly why I facepalmed the other day when Micheal Moore was on TV and he said the explosives argument was a completely different beast. NO IT'S NOT!!!!
... Oh and bombs are ridiculously easy to make too, you don't even need a black market for it, it's as simple as going to a hardware stores. Good look banning all those weapons too.
Now call me crazy, given a choice, I'd rather be in a situation with one lone gun man then a deranged Unabomber. Fact of the matter is, so long as the weapons are legal we can try to regulate them and also eliminate the demand on the black market.... Which again, you seem to think is a literal place, do you get all your facts about the world from family guy?
I'm not for the absolute ban of gun sales, however several things need to be done. Close the Gun Show Loophole (In a gun show everyone acts as a private owner selling to other private owners, not a store the gun sale practically acts as an act of donation from one to another, which means no backround checks no waiting period and no taxes on the sale.)
There should be a numerical limit the amount someone can buy per period of each type with an exception for store owners who would of course be licensed. (I.E. I couldn't go buy thirty pistols in a month, Thirty Rifles, Thirty Shotguns) Because most illegal gun sales start as legal ones, i.e. I'd go buy in bulk and sell to criminals out of my house or, back of van if you want to be a gun runner thats all you have to do.
There should be a ban on certain gun accessories like there is with silencers. (Clip extensions, non-full metal jacket rounds, especially in pistols, except in very rare cases a pistol is not used in hunting then its typically revolvers anyway.)
There should be a limit to the amount of ammunition one can purchase per month the only exception would be at firing ranges, in which the individual must use or discard all excess ammunition beyond their alotted monthly amount.
There should be a ban on assault weapons. (Only hunting caliber rifles and shotguns, along with only pistols that would count as semi-automatic not fully automatic should be legally available to the public.)
These controls are meant to do two things, one limit the illegal gun sales in the country the gun show loophole dose not affect legal gun owners in any real way beyond ensuring a waiting period and making them pay taxes. It's biggest purpose is a situation where one can buy guns without a backround check.
The limit to amount of guns sold is really to limit the underground market for guns, as guns are manufactured products from large industrial work places they are not something that can be efficiantly home manufactured. Thus every illegal gun probably started as a legal gun. Three Rifles, Three Pistols and Three Shotguns are far more then one private buyer will need to aquire in a month however a criminal seller would most likely make purchases in the twenties per month this limit would severly limit underground criminal sellers in the United States.
The limit to acessories and ammunition serves one purpose, to stop mass slayings we have in many cities a limit to how much cold medicine you can buy which has actually effectively hurt the meth trade, the same princple applies to ammuniton and the fact that like the Aurora slayings the killer had far more then one standard clip. Extended clips and large caches of ammunition is standard for most of these crimes, they should not hurt hunters because to hunt one would typically only discharge on average two rounds per their intended prey, shooting wildly into the woods after all would scare off the game.
There should be a numerical limit the amount someone can buy per period of each type with an exception for store owners who would of course be licensed. (I.E. I couldn't go buy thirty pistols in a month, Thirty Rifles, Thirty Shotguns) Because most illegal gun sales start as legal ones, i.e. I'd go buy in bulk and sell to criminals out of my house or, back of van if you want to be a gun runner thats all you have to do.
There should be a ban on certain gun accessories like there is with silencers. (Clip extensions, non-full metal jacket rounds, especially in pistols, except in very rare cases a pistol is not used in hunting then its typically revolvers anyway.)
There should be a limit to the amount of ammunition one can purchase per month the only exception would be at firing ranges, in which the individual must use or discard all excess ammunition beyond their alotted monthly amount.
There should be a ban on assault weapons. (Only hunting caliber rifles and shotguns, along with only pistols that would count as semi-automatic not fully automatic should be legally available to the public.)
These controls are meant to do two things, one limit the illegal gun sales in the country the gun show loophole dose not affect legal gun owners in any real way beyond ensuring a waiting period and making them pay taxes. It's biggest purpose is a situation where one can buy guns without a backround check.
The limit to amount of guns sold is really to limit the underground market for guns, as guns are manufactured products from large industrial work places they are not something that can be efficiantly home manufactured. Thus every illegal gun probably started as a legal gun. Three Rifles, Three Pistols and Three Shotguns are far more then one private buyer will need to aquire in a month however a criminal seller would most likely make purchases in the twenties per month this limit would severly limit underground criminal sellers in the United States.
The limit to acessories and ammunition serves one purpose, to stop mass slayings we have in many cities a limit to how much cold medicine you can buy which has actually effectively hurt the meth trade, the same princple applies to ammuniton and the fact that like the Aurora slayings the killer had far more then one standard clip. Extended clips and large caches of ammunition is standard for most of these crimes, they should not hurt hunters because to hunt one would typically only discharge on average two rounds per their intended prey, shooting wildly into the woods after all would scare off the game.
i agree this is not why the UK has an easier time with gun control. It has an easier time with gun control because unlike the US the UK really has no gun culture unlike the US which was basicly founded by it. Now the fact that the UK is like 10 times smaller (in land mass) then the US doesnt hurt ether.J Tyran said:
Clip extensions?Sean Steele said:
Hollowpoint ammunition is often cited as being safer because it has less chance of going through a target and hitting something behind it.
Define "assault weapon". Also, for that matter "hunting calibre". The 5.56 NATO is based on, and almost identical to the .223 Remington, which is used for hunting.Sean Steele said:
Fully automatic weapons are very heavily restricted in the US, only ones registered before May 1986 can be legally owned by civilians.
Not true. In fact, several WW2 weapons such as the Sten were designed to be made in garages by not terribly skilled mechanics. Because of that, it was vitally important to test fire your Stens before using them...but they were used successful by Commonwealth forces. The USSR built even simpler weapons during the sieges.Sean Steele said:
I don't have statitics on people making their own weapons due to weapon bans, but it happens at least to an extent. In my country, they found a weapons cache including home made variants of the Owen gun (which was locally used in preference of the Sten).
And how many of them are used in violent crimes, from a percentage standpoint? It's miniscule. Most violent crimes involve handguns and shotguns, because they're the most widely available. In fact, the majority of folks that own assault rifles (or the semiautomatic versions of them) know enough about guns to use them safely.Jack the Potato said:
There's no such thing as a gun that is "for use in violent crime." And it's not about why someone "needs" an assault rifle. It's about whether or not the actions of very, very few (those who use assault rifles in crimes) should be used to limit the freedoms of the many.
The government doesn't limit how much alcohol I buy until AFTER I have committed a crime with it. The government does not restrict my access to my vehicle until AFTER I have committed a crime with it. So it is, and should be, with firearms. Punish the criminal.
(I don't mind having systems in place that make it easier to punish the criminal, like gun registration, permits that must be renewed, the kind of stuff that keeps guns "on the grid" and trackable. Thing is, we've already got that.)