The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....

[Shocksplicer]

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.

Pity, I actually agreed with him...

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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

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?

 

[Sean Steele]

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.

 

[ecoho]

From the comments,

"It's easier to control guns on an island"

If I see this absurd fallacy one more time my head will burst, what do people expect? Do they believe the smugglers try and swim over with their goods? For a start the UK receives over two billion tons of cargo via ISO containers each year, to search even a few percent of those containers is impossible. Then you have the ships themselves which are so massive it could take weeks to carry out a thorough search.

Then you have the thousands of small private boats and aircraft in UK territory at any moment in time.

Finally you have all of the ferries and passenger aircraft. UK borders are as porous as a countries with a land border, unless that border is completely un-monitored.

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.)

Clip extensions?

Hollowpoint ammunition is often cited as being safer because it has less chance of going through a target and hitting something behind it.

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.)

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.

Fully automatic weapons are very heavily restricted in the US, only ones registered before May 1986 can be legally owned by civilians.

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.

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.

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).

 

[Dastardly]

Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?!

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.

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.)

 

[Dastardly]

I bolded out the important part of my post here.
Higher population isn't related to crimes per capita.

You're assuming there's a strictly linear relationship between population and the number of "crazy people" in it. That kind of extrapolation provides misleading results, and is generally used to oversimplify the situation.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

 

[Cette]

snipped

Ok the lack of oversight on gun show sales is bullshit and something I think most people agree should be looked at and I'd personally like to see outright held to gun store standards. Stringent background checks including psychological history are also good and shouldn't hurt many people who should be trusted with firearms to begin with so that's all good right there. Also with a reasonable number set limiting the amount of guns sold in a given time frame isn't a terrible idea either. I've seen as low as one per month proposed and that seemed a little harsh but there's a lot of wiggle room there.

You're losing me on this assault weapons ban and ammunition limit thing though. First of all how are we defining assault weapon and what is and isn't a hunting grade round? Most assault rifles fall into the area of "varmint" guns suitable for say coyotes and smallish to medium sized game with the 5.56 on the low end of that and the 7.62 x 39 that an AK uses being very similar in performance to say a .30-30 Winchester which is a common deer hunting round. If we're talking removing access to high capacity magazines I'd say that's not much fun but might do more good than harm so I'd entertain it. Exactly how many rounds a month are you talking allowed here and would that be across all calibers or a set amount of each? Like say if you owned Guns in five different calibers would you be allotted 30 rounds total to split between them or 30 for each.

And the full metal jacket limit is kind of a mixed bag at best. In a mass shooting the higher chance of over penetration and one round hitting multiple close targets might very well end worse than an expanding round staying in one person. Not to mention if home defense did come up the chance of a stray round going through more walls and hitting someone unintended raises.

What it takes to legally acquire the license for any full automatic gun is fairly extensive time consuming and costs a good amount of money on top of requiring a largely spotless record so what is the intent fully banning non semi auto weapons here? Not saying they're necessary mind you just that people legally buying them is fairly rare and I'm not sure is the real problem here.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

 

[Bazaalmon]

There's one point in the article I agree with that very few people (well, that I have heard shouting about how awesome guns are) seem to realize. Guns were invented for the express purpose of KILLING. It is a cannon that you hold in your hand. There's an explosion that fires a chunk of metal at super-high speeds specifically to pierce through someone or something. It is a point-and-click death machine. And there are point-and-click death machines that require you to just hold the button down to continuously spray chunks of super-speed metal over a large area. Guns exist to kill, and pretending that they have any other use is just stupid. I've heard arguments that knives are the same as guns, which is not true. You can't dice an onion with a gun. You can't whittle with a gun. You can't cut a jammed seatbelt in a sinking car with a gun. Knives are tools, guns are weapons. You can kill with a knife, but you can do so much more as well. You can kill with a gun, and do NOTHING else with it. Treating them as if they're the same is flat out wrong.

 

[Naeras]

You're assuming there's a strictly linear relationship between population and the number of "crazy people" in it. That kind of extrapolation provides misleading results, and is generally used to oversimplify the situation.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

Of course all of those things have an impact on crime rates, and I never tried to dispute that in my post. All the things you mentioned definitely affect crime rate. However, population density and population heterogenity aren't the same thing as population size. It's a key difference.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?!

And how many of them are used in violent crimes, from a percentage standpoint? It's miniscule.

Er, a quibble, but, it's not miniscule, it's none, at least for legally owned assault rifles. IIRC, there have only been a handful of cases in which civilians used legally owned automatic weapons in crimes, and none of them were assault rifles.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

I don't buy that, that also applies to Australia, for example, which has a lot less homicides.

That's not to say the US doesn't probably have all sorts of factors other nations don't, just that those don't seem to be among them.

 

[Dastardly]

I don't buy that, that also applies to Australia, for example, which has a lot less homicides.

That's not to say the US doesn't probably have all sorts of factors other nations don't, just that those don't seem to be among them.

Not to even nearly the same degree as the US, sorry. There's just no data that indicates any statistical similarities in these regards. But, as you rightly mentioned, there are other factors. I was simply pointing out to the other poster how the concept of population composition, and how population size can amplify the problems it raises.

One also has to consider the history of the nation in question, all the way back to the start.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I think the POTUS' stance is pretty reasonable (and I didn't even vote for him! OH GOD I MUST SUCK AT POLITICS!! D. Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?! They aren't even legal hunting weapons! There is NO REASON to ever own one unless you plan on using it in a CRIME. Ted Nugent will ***** and moan, but let him! Those guys are in a serious minority.

Collectors need an assault rifle. Just like how comic collectors need all the cover variants of one shitty book, just because its collectible.
You know who else is in a minority? People who legally own assault weapons that murder people. Or that even have criminal records.
Most people don't go rafting/kayaking in rapids. The ones that do do it for the thrill, and its very dangerous even if trained properly. Just like guns. Should kayaking be illegal? should my collection of swords be illegal? Should martial arts be illegal? after all, most people aren't military or police personnel (and those that are shouldn't be in a position to need martial arts anyway) or even competition fighters. So why should we be able to walk in and learn how to beat people up better? And you can't say its for defense, because most people will never be in a position to defend themselves through hand-to-hand combat.

And that article is 75% bullshit

 

[Wayneguard]

I wonder if the author would so willingly abandon the first amendment based on Thomas Jefferson's desire for an every changing government...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

This a very astute observation that people who are unfamiliar with day-to-day American life often miss. I think it's necessary to point out that there exists a racial divisiveness in this country that I don't think other countries with a more homogenous demographic have to contend with.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

There's one point in the article I agree with that very few people (well, that I have heard shouting about how awesome guns are) seem to realize. Guns were invented for the express purpose of KILLING. It is a cannon that you hold in your hand. There's an explosion that fires a chunk of metal at super-high speeds specifically to pierce through someone or something. It is a point-and-click death machine. And there are point-and-click death machines that require you to just hold the button down to continuously spray chunks of super-speed metal over a large area. Guns exist to kill, and pretending that they have any other use is just stupid. I've heard arguments that knives are the same as guns, which is not true. You can't dice an onion with a gun. You can't whittle with a gun. You can't cut a jammed seatbelt in a sinking car with a gun. Knives are tools, guns are weapons. You can kill with a knife, but you can do so much more as well. You can kill with a gun, and do NOTHING else with it. Treating them as if they're the same is flat out wrong.

First off, I wanna say how nice it is seeing another fan of the Wheel of Time series.
Secondly, a gun IS a tool. It is a tool with a violent purpose, but a tool nonetheless. A wrench has one function: to apply torque and tighten or loosen bolts. It can be used for other things, but none as well as tools designed for those other purposes.

This knife is made to kill with.

This knife is made for hunting

these knives were made to prepare food

this knife was made for whittling, and by pedigree for specifically whittling pen nubs.

See how there exist many kinds of knives with many purposes? If you cross-purpose those knives, they'll all WORK, but not as well as if you'd used the right knife.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I can't in good conscience support gun restriction anymore. Not after what happened now.