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

[aba1]

People keep saying criminals will keep getting the guns regardless of the ban but I gotta say the more and more I look I keep finding article saying that many illegal guns are made in the US. Basically the US has a large amount of illegal guns sent to other countries with 90% of illegal guns in both neighboring countries being from the US.

Also I don't get why we cannot all just agree to just have guns meant for hunting and in the hands of farmers and other people who need them for there job. I mean it is about controlling guns not outlawing all gun related things period is it not?

 

[malestrithe]

snipped

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?

Let's not muddle the issue by combining two separate arguments into one. Assault weapons ban is one argument. Hunting Grade round is an irrelevant obfuscation used to muddle the issue.

Assault weapons have a specific definition according to the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

Start from there. If your rifle does not have any of those criteria, it is not an assault weapon. That means most rifles that are not assault weapons. They may have fully automatic capabilities, but if they do not have anything else, it does not count.

Notice how the definition did not include anything about grades and caliber of bullets. Why is that? Because caliber of bullet does not make something an assault weapon. That was an attempt to muddle the issue on your part.

Because you unsuccessfully tried to combine two separate arguments together, your argument is based on a flawed premise. I give you kudos for trying, however.

 

[lacktheknack]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

<youtube=jmgcjRu1s-8>

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

OT: He DOES realize that not all guns are intended to kill people, right? I didn't see him admit that.

 

[evilneko]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

Oh now you're just being silly.

[small]Well. I would've just said "wat" but you know, stupid low content rule..[/small]

 

[lacktheknack]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

Oh now you're just being silly.

[small]Well. I would've just said "wat" but you know, stupid low content rule..[/small]

HousebrokenLunatic.

He's now banned, but he stayed around long enough (a couple years, so he's not a petty troll) to permanently spoil R&P.

 

[Zaik]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Yes, but you cannot commit mass murder with a chinese throwing star.

Oddly enough, you can't commit mass murder with ONE bullet either.

Funny how that works :/

Anyway, since cracked articles are getting involved, here's one that's somewhat relevant to the topic.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19781_6-stupid-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies_p2.html

Go ahead and skip on to #1.

Weird. 95% survive? That doesn't sound very efficient for killing people.

Yay for doctors and health insurance, or something.

People keep saying criminals will keep getting the guns regardless of the ban but I gotta say the more and more I look I keep finding article saying that many illegal guns are made in the US. Basically the US has a large amount of illegal guns sent to other countries with 90% of illegal guns in both neighboring countries being from the US.

Also I don't get why we cannot all just agree to just have guns meant for hunting and in the hands of farmers and other people who need them for there job. I mean it is about controlling guns not outlawing all gun related things period is it not?

Funny story, the US is ALSO the #1 in legally exported firearms(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters).

If the US was to suddenly shut it all down, the manufacturers would just pick up shop and move over to Central America and all of the sudden all the illegal guns would be made there. Certainly wouldn't be the first industry to go that way.

 

[evilneko]

HousebrokenLunatic.

He's now banned, but he stayed around long enough (a couple years, so he's not a petty troll) to permanently spoil R&P.

Don't know him. Must've been before my time.

[small]BRB setting your house on fire.[/small]

 

[Imat]

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.

It's actually true though. Nobody said it was easy, simply easier. Searching through every shipping container sent to the US would be much harder than searching through every shipping container sent to the UK. It isn't a fallacy. It is simply a matter of greater traffic in one than the other. Is either one possible without recruiting every working man in the country for search duty? Not even a little bit.

 

[Cette]

snipped

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?

Let's not muddle the issue by combining two separate arguments into one. Assault weapons ban is one argument. Hunting Grade round is an irrelevant obfuscation used to muddle the issue.

Assault weapons have a specific definition according to the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

Start from there. If your rifle does not have any of those criteria, it is not an assault weapon. That means most rifles that are not assault weapons. They may have fully automatic capabilities, but if they do not have anything else, it does not count.

Notice how the definition did not include anything about grades and caliber of bullets. Why is that? Because caliber of bullet does not make something an assault weapon. That was an attempt to muddle the issue on your part.

Because you unsuccessfully tried to combine two separate arguments together, your argument is based on a flawed premise. I give you kudos for trying, however.

"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.)"

The two issues seemed to have already been somewhat combined to me in the post I was replying to given that quote. But I'll grant you I did kinda mash my thoughts together poorly in the reply as I'd just gotten off work and was a tad scrambled still.

As for the assault weapon thing that definition comes from a law primarily outlawed things that made guns seem scarier rather than making them more lethal in any meaningful way. The high cap magazines and the collapsible stock might have had something to them but the rest was pure pandering. So forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock into the term "assault weapon."

If he hadn't brought up caliber in that section then I wouldn't have either. Personally I'm most curious as to what counts as a non hunting caliber shotgun from his perspective. Also why fully automatic pistols were singled out as opposed to other automatic weapons thus the request for clarification of stance.

 

[Avalanche91]

Can we go for that idea that comedian suggested? Make bullets ridiculously expensive.

 

[Ryotknife]

My only problem with this article is that it starts off with what is, in my opinion, an inherent misconception. Namely, that killing, and violence, is itself a problem.

"Human nature is deeply intertwined with violence and killing, and we as a species need to evolve past that in order to move forward into the vast playground of the Universe."

Who the hell actually thinks that? Is it terrible when some nut job shoots up a movie theatre? Yes. Does that mean that killing is always wrong? No.

Guns are indeed for killing, duh. But that's not necessarily a problem on its own.

Human society would be better off if our species was not quite as predisposed to killing each other as we are.

Well....there would be more of us because of that....and that can just as deadly with the limited space and resources and the rate at which we are reproducing.

As horrible of a thing it is to say, if it wasnt for WW2 our species could be in a much worse condition.

 

[The_Critic]

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).
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].

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.

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

Lol I just realized that was a link haha.

Well for most people they keep their weapons in a lock box somewhere in their house that is easily accessible, even in that situation it is possible to get to your gun in time to stave off a burglary, and if you have your concealed carry permit you can carry your gun on you at all times unless your in a no carry zone. (which the movie theater was in)

after I typed the post did I realize that you had said per capita. I gave it more thought and here is another legitimate reason why there would be higher crime rate in the US then in other countries.

Now this may sound conceited, but thats not my goal.

As a country we are far wealthier then most. Money is a great motivator for crime. On top of that American are far more material as well, we are covetous, we are prideful, throw money and success into the mix and you have a formula for violence.

 

[ElPatron]

It doesn't matter if I'm pro-gun or anti-gun, my opinion on all Cracked articles is the same, although they can be entertaining or thought provoking, I would never take one seriously, or by extension, the points within.

So you'd disregard a point of view based entirely on the site that it's hosted on?

I disregarded his point of view if his arguments include "fucking stupid" in the text.

Besides, the writer is kind of close minded.

Every year there are people trying to sue manufacturers of weapons and ammunition because they were used to kill a relative. Which is the same thing as suing Mitsubishi because one of your relatives was ran over by a Lancer Evo during an illegal street race.

"HURR DURR THIS GUY IS TRYING TO COMPARE GUNS TO MATCHES, LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH".

The guy was making a legit argument. Arsonists should be punished. Not the brands that make the matches, as those brands do not put some kind of evil spirit inside the match head.

Same with guns. Murderers must be punished, not the brand or the people that use them in legit ways.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Well, let's show how all 4 of these arguments are not "meaningless."

4. This one I actually kind of agree with, I do say guns people, but they don't MURDER people. A gun can misfire, it can go off unexpectedly, and can be the use of somebody to kill somebody else. A gun can kill, but it lacks intent. It is just a machine, and object, it doesn't care about you nor does it hold malice. It lacks Mens rea required to be legally considered a murderer. Also, modern firearms only misfire and it only kills if the user either did a terrible job maintaining it or ignored all the rules of gun safety (as seen here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/GunSafety ). The idea behind this argument isn't flawed, how it is worded is.

3. Now this depends on the philiosphy you have for the nature of objects. Yes, guns can be designed to kill people, or for target shooting, or for anti-matrial uses, or a ton of things besides JUST killing. I am of the school of the intent of the user, not the intent of the designer, is what matters.

2. Offense and defense are not that simple. Things that can do harm can be used defensively, things that can prevent harm can used offensively. Since this is a video game site, I will put this in video game terms. The Demoman's extreme defensive uses doesn't come from some high health level (he only has average health), some ability to boost up or protect allies from harm, or anything else that this cracked author considers "defensive" in the traditional sense, but his ability to do massive damage, killing the attackers before they can do anything. This would be what a defensive gun user would hope to stop. Conversely, the Medic's Ubercharge is the greatest offensive tool in the game because it allows you to push into the enemies defensive line, without them being able to stop you. A gun is also a very scary thing, and a lot of studies (I will post them if anyone wants to see them) have shown most defensive gun uses don't even involve the gun being fired.

Would a gun of stopped the Batman massacre? No, to dark, the tear gas would throw off anyones aim, and the body armor prevents most lucky shots, but many other cases these kind of things could of been prevented. Any school shooting that took place in broad daylight, none of which I can remember the shooter using body armor. There was one time where a crazed gun man locked all but one doors in a church, was carrying enough ammo to kill a lot of the people gathered there, and did kill two people on the way in, was shot in the back of the head (at point blank range) by a woman who had a revolver in her purse.

1. "Quite a debate" has only come to existence in the last century, and has been shot down again, and again, and again. For why in this ONE time would the "people" refer to a body or a group then the one which we agreed every other use of "the people" has been used? If you are suggesting we change the constitution, alright, there is a set way of doing so. The problem is, gun control is becoming increasingly unpopular, and since the amend the constitution you are required to have a super majority of the house, senate, and states all agreeing to do so, I don't think that is likely.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

<youtube=jmgcjRu1s-8>

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

Silly, R&P people don't set your family on fire. ^.^

We will simply skin them, rip out there heart, stick pins in there brains, and then send there souls to be tormented in all time so the Broken God [http://www.scp-wikia.netscp-882] can be restored.

 

[Semitendon]

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.

It is easier to control guns on an island. . . Did your head burst? Anyways, I am sure it's fabulous and all that the UK does get so much cargo, and how difficult it would be to search through them all. . . but did you stop and think that the impossible to search through cargo amounts would apply to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WITH A PORT.

Since America is prevelant in this particular debate, let's compare. Since I already know what the answer is going to be, you look it up:

1. Compare and contrast the amount of cargo the UK receives with the US.

2. Compare and contrast the amount of watercraft and aircraft UK vs US.

3. Add in the # miles of border with Canada and Mexico, factor in that the majority are left unguarded. ( as they would be with every country ever, with the exception of possibly Korea)

4. Subtract that the UK shares no border with anyone.

5. slap self in the face repeatedly until brain works.

Seriously though, if you take my points 1-4 and think about the nature of an island vs a bordered country, everything is easier to control on an island.


To the OP: I wasn't impressed by the article. It had hamfisted and mostly illogical points. . . but worst of all ( being as it is a comedy website) it wasn't funny. Don't take anything you read on Cracked too seriously, and it's best to completely ignore the politically minded comments. That's like watching the Daily Show and thinking it's an actual representation of journalism.

 

[Dimitriov]

My only problem with this article is that it starts off with what is, in my opinion, an inherent misconception. Namely, that killing, and violence, is itself a problem.

"Human nature is deeply intertwined with violence and killing, and we as a species need to evolve past that in order to move forward into the vast playground of the Universe."

Who the hell actually thinks that? Is it terrible when some nut job shoots up a movie theatre? Yes. Does that mean that killing is always wrong? No.

Guns are indeed for killing, duh. But that's not necessarily a problem on its own.

Human society would be better off if our species was not quite as predisposed to killing each other as we are.

Yes, well that's your opinion, which is fine (it is also shared by many others as I am well aware). I just don't happen to agree with it.

I suspect it comes down to personal philosophies and what we all think the point of life and being in this world is. I would at any rate like to hear specifics about why you feel the world would be better in that scenario. Ideally not personal reasons but broader global reasons, since I can certainly understand someone wanting less violence in their own life.

 

[Dimitriov]

My only problem with this article is that it starts off with what is, in my opinion, an inherent misconception. Namely, that killing, and violence, is itself a problem.

"Human nature is deeply intertwined with violence and killing, and we as a species need to evolve past that in order to move forward into the vast playground of the Universe."

Who the hell actually thinks that? Is it terrible when some nut job shoots up a movie theatre? Yes. Does that mean that killing is always wrong? No.

Guns are indeed for killing, duh. But that's not necessarily a problem on its own.

Human society would be better off if our species was not quite as predisposed to killing each other as we are.

Well....there would be more of us because of that....and that can just as deadly with the limited space and resources and the rate at which we are reproducing.

As horrible of a thing it is to say, if it wasnt for WW2 our species could be in a much worse condition.

I agree with your underlying idea but I suspect you may be wrong about the actual example. WW2 was followed by one of the largest population booms in history. A bunch of people die and the remaining people just naturally seem to get busy having babies.

It of course all boils down to what-ifs and might-have-beens, but anyway...

Also, more people died from the massive influenza outbreak after WWI and from various other internal strife (like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and other communist and non-communist related discontent) than died in the actual World Wars.

 

[Daveman]

I literally posted these exact arguments a few days ago ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382695-Question-for-people-Pro-guns?page=9#15119785 ) but nobody still gives a fuck. The point is there is a debate to be had but first stop using these shitty arguments people! It's pretty much the same as people who still use the eye or a banana as an argument against evolution; it just goes to show how retarded they are.