Rebuttal to the argument about gun deaths annually

Status
Not open for further replies.
fallout mike said:
Well pizzaguy has 451 posts on this forum. Roughly 290 of them are pushing his anti gun propaganda. Yall are wasting your time with him.
Click to expand...
Ha ha...

Well, you may think it is a waste of time to talk to ME, but what about improving the arguments presented by other pro-gun folks?

One of the pro-gun members proposed a particular argument as the OP of this thread, claiming it to be a great rebuttal to anti-gun arguments.

To me, the argument makes no sense and has no impact, if anything it makes the pro-gun person look calloused and insensitive. I think this is how most people (including the highly valued fence sitter) would see this argument. To most people, more dead people in one area does not make the dead people in another area unimportant. No one thinks like that.

So, don't do it for me! Do it for your fellow pro-gun advocates. Tell them to not use approaches that are senseless and ineffective! Refine your advocacy, don't throw out bad arguments and hope they confuse/distract, focus on what really matters.

Truth is, I can argue the pro-gun side more effectively than the majority of pro-gun advocates and I certainly would never throw out an argument about deaths from hospital infections that is only related to gun control because there are deaths in both discussions. There are plenty of good, sound arguments to be made against gun control, bad arguments like this one should be discouraged.
 
The truth is you can't convince gun control advocates of anything their minds are made up. The best strategy is to not waste your breath on them and focus on the people who aren't on one side or another.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
Carl, those are all fine arguments.

I am focused on trying to figure out if smart pro-gun advocates really think that the "X kills more ppl than Y" argument presented by the OP is an argument with any logical basis.

You find it a LOT from pro-gun ppl attacking gun control advocates:

"If you really care about saving lives, you should be focused on....

(take your pick)
Traffic Fatalities (most common)
Medical Malpractice
Heart Disease
Hospital Infections
etc. etc.

...because that kills more people than guns."

I think that is a weak, illogical argument. Traffic/Medical/Etc. deaths have nothing to do with gun control, but pro-gun ppl bring them up repeatedly. I can understand your argument. I may disagree, but at least their is a logical connection between your argument and gun laws. I don't see any connection between guns and traffic accidents.

Do YOU think it is a worthwhile argument to make? Why?

Also, I'd be interested in that study you cited.
Click to expand...
No, none of those things are about gun control. But then, gun control has nothing to do with saving lives, either. And that is the point of the argument: If you were concerned with saving lives, you would also be concerned about x, y and z. That you are not, strongly indicates that the argument is specious and you seek to control guns for another reason you don't wish to disclose or perhaps even admit.
 
The truth is you can't convince gun control advocates of anything their minds are made up. The best strategy is to not waste your breath on them and focus on the people who aren't on one side or another.
Click to expand...

So it is possible then to convince you to change your mind regarding gun control?
 
If one reads a bit, you can find folks who were opposed to gun ownership and changed their mind. It depends on the person. However, you have to break through the emotional and present logical arguments to some. Others have a critical incident and change their world view.

This mantra that you can't change anti gun folks minds is just counter productive.

However, some of the rhetoric of the choir is ineffective and some won't acknowledge that. Also, you have to accept some who are generally progun but don't fit your version of ideological purity. Many can't do that. An extreme example are the open carry folks who think if you don't support that and push for it legislatively (at the detriment of other progun bills) you are some kind of traitor to the cause.
 
JRH6856 said:
No, none of those things are about gun control. But then, gun control has nothing to do with saving lives, either.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... Well, if someone believes that, then you probably don't need to use a weak argument like the OP's to convince them of anything about gun control.


JRH6856 said:
And that is the point of the argument: If you were concerned with saving lives, you would also be concerned about x, y and z. That you are not, strongly indicates that the argument is specious and you seek to control guns for another reason you don't wish to disclose or perhaps even admit.
Click to expand...

And another LOL for this one.

1. On what basis do you say ppl are NOT concerned with other deaths? What if they DO? What if a heart surgeon, who devoted his life to curing heart disease, was anti gun? Would he care "enough" about the "big death number" issue that you would allow him to also care about gun deaths? (You do see how ridiculous this is, right?)

2. Why does this argument apply uniquely to guns? Why can anyone care about smaller death figure issues (like drunk driving) and not receive the same criticism?
 
GEM said:
If one reads a bit, you can find folks who were opposed to gun ownership and changed their mind. It depends on the person. However, you have to break through the emotional and present logical arguments to some. Others have a critical incident and change their world view.

This mantra that you can't change anti gun folks minds is just counter productive.

However, some of the rhetoric of the choir is ineffective and some won't acknowledge that. Also, you have to accept some who are generally progun but don't fit your version of ideological purity. Many can't do that. An extreme example are the open carry folks who think if you don't support that and push for it legislatively (at the detriment of other progun bills) you are some kind of traitor to the cause.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct about many gun control advocates. The quoted statement might be more accurately phrased as:

"The truth is you can't convince politically dedicated anti-gunners of anything as their minds are made up. The best strategy is to not waste your breath on them and focus on the people who are not so firmly dedicated to one side or another."

Politically dedicated anti gunners are opposed to guns for political purposes and are generally not susceptible to logical argument. Their belief system dictates that gun bans are necessary to further their political agenda. Feinstean and Schumer aren't going to change. Bloomberg isn't going to change, McCarthy isn't going to change. However, their supporters who may not have as much political motivation may be more open to logic and reason.
 
1. On what basis do you say ppl are NOT concerned with other deaths? What if they DO? What if a heart surgeon, who devoted his life to curing heart disease, was anti gun? Would he care "enough" about the "big death number" issue that you would allow him to also care about gun deaths? (You do see how ridiculous this is, right?)
Click to expand...

I see how ridiculous your example is, yes. That you do not is part of the problem.

BTW, I did not say people were not concernec, I said if they were not concerned, the motivation for their stated concern regarding guns is suspect.
 
JRH6856 said:
I see how ridiculous your example is, yes. That you do not is part of the problem.

BTW, I did not say people were not concernec, I said if they were not concerned, the motivation for their stated concern regarding guns is suspect.
Click to expand...

Ok, so if someone IS concerned with X, Y, Z, and guns, then you are fine with them being anti-gun?
 
Politically dedicated anti gunners are opposed to guns for political purposes and are generally not susceptible to logical argument. Their belief system dictates that gun bans are necessary to further their political agenda. Feinstean and Schumer aren't going to change. Bloomberg isn't going to change, McCarthy isn't going to change. However, their supporters who may not have as much political motivation may be more open to logic and reason.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the core group pushing gun control are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in disarming you and taking more and more freedoms away. The "saving lives" bit is merely an emotional tool to sway people and distract them from the real goal of disarming the populace to allow for even more erosion of their freedoms.

The people who push "compromise" are either naive or simply anti gunners, as calling it compromise is incorrect (A lie) since it always results in more restrictions and lost freedoms and never gains the pro gun side anything. It is a loss every time, not a compromise.
 
I agree with that. My cut point is whether a person believes that:

1. You first have the right to own firearms if you are law abiding citizen.
2. The reason is not sport but self-defense and defense against tyranny.

The confirmed antigunner will not allow those two principles to be legitimized.

Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, the NY Times, etc. will not agree to those.

Limited guns to shoot skeet or ducks are reluctantly acceptable.

There is no discussion with those sort of folks. However, I do think if we move away from political idiots we can see movement towards supporting gun rights in many. But we need sensible arguments.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
Ok, so if someone IS concerned with X, Y, Z, and guns, then you are fine with them being anti-gun?
Click to expand...

No, I am not fine with them being anti gun. If they are actually interested in saving lives, they may be open minded enough to be able to eventually see the illogic of gun control.
 
JRH6856 said:
No, I am not fine with them being anti gun. If they are actually interested in saving lives, they may be open minded enough to be able to eventually see the illogic of gun control.
Click to expand...
Ok, how does that relate to comparing deaths from hospital infections to deaths from guns? Does that somehow tell you how open minded they are?

Just trying to figure out if you agree with the OP and that style of argument (which is frequently presented by pro-gun advocates) or not.
 
GEM said:
I agree with that. My cut point is whether a person believes that:

1. You first have the right to own firearms if you are law abiding citizen.
2. The reason is not sport but self-defense and defense against tyranny.

The confirmed antigunner will not allow those two principles to be legitimized.
Click to expand...

For the record, I believe both of those things to be quite correct.
 
Agreed, the core group pushing gun control are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in disarming you and taking more and more freedoms away. The "saving lives" bit is merely an emotional tool to sway people and distract them from the real goal of disarming the populace to allow for even more erosion of their freedoms.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm sure Feinstein cackles loudly behind closed doors, rubbing her hands together as she relishes in restricting freedoms of others. What exactly do you think Feinstein gains personally from limiting gun rights? Is it part of her master plan to take away guns so that she can then launch her attack to become lifetime dictator of the United States? It's utter nonsense. Yes, I strongly disagree with Feinstein and others with similar views about gun control too. But that doesn't make it right to just make up what I want concerning the thoughts of other people and claim to have superior knowledge of their motives. Feinstein has made it abundantly clear that she believes restricting gun rights will reduce murders and feels that justifies further gun control. What evidence do you have that such is not her real motive? It seems far better to attack her on the basis of her actual position than make up conspiratorial claims lacking any real evidence.
 
Last edited:
If they are actually interested in saving lives, they may be open minded enough to be able to eventually see the illogic of gun control.
Click to expand...

One of the lowest numbers out there on defensive gun uses comes from the NCVS: 108,000 DGUs yearly (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf, top of page 8). Josh Sugermann of the VPC ran with their number in his book Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

In 2012 there were 8,855 homicides with a firearm (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls).

In 2010 there were 10,228 DUI fatalities (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). How many defensive alcohol uses are there a year?

This is what people are getting at when they say they doubt anti-gun people are trying to save lives, especially given how these "safety" groups don't seem to care about reforming the criminal justice system so that guys who killed their grandma with a hammer don't get let back out to later kill 2 firefighters (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/justice/new-york-firefighters-shooter/).
 
Agreed, the core group pushing gun control are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in disarming you and taking more and more freedoms away. The "saving lives" bit is merely an emotional tool to sway people and distract them from the real goal of disarming the populace to allow for even more erosion of their freedoms.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm sure Feinstein cackles loudly behind closed doors, rubbing her hands together as she relishes in restricting freedoms of others.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the cackling, but she's hardly only talked about disarming Americans and taking away freedoms (I count the 2nd Amendment as a freedom) behind closed doors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

Heck, for that matter I count property as a freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
 
Last edited:
JustinJ said:
Yeah, i'm sure Feinstein cackles loudly behind closed doors, rubbing her hands together as she relishes in restricting freedoms of others. What exactly do you think Feinstein gains personally from limiting gun rights?
Click to expand...

Well, the same Raymond Chow that got Leland Yee indicted has received several awards from Feinstein for "community involvement". It isn't exactly crazy to think that the former Mayor of San Francisco/now U.S. Senator and the powerful leader of a San Francisco crime syndicate might be up to no good.
 
Last edited:
JustinJ said:
Yeah, i'm sure Feinstein cackles loudly behind closed doors, rubbing her hands together as she relishes in restricting freedoms of others. What exactly do you think Feinstein gains personally from limiting gun rights? Is it part of her master plan to take away guns so that she can then launch her attack to become lifetime dictator of the United States? It's utter nonsense. Yes, I strongly disagree with Feinstein and others with similar views about gun control too. But that doesn't make it right to just make up what I want concerning the thoughts of other people and claim to have superior knowledge of their motives. Feinstein has made it abundantly clear that she believes restricting gun rights will reduce murders and feels that justifies further gun control. What evidence do you have that such is not her real motive? It seems far better to attack her on the basis of her actual position than make up conspiratorial claims lacking any real evidence.
Click to expand...
A politically motivated goal rarely accrues much direct benefit to the individual pursuing it. That would make it a personally motivated goal.

DiFi is a member of the governing class, and one of the prime benefits that class derives from civilian disarmament is that it makes the governed classes less resistant to coercive government. Civilian disarmament is a Progressive political goal because Progressives do not recognize the concept of the natural rights of individuals. For the governed classes, rights are what government allows, and what is not allowed is denied.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
What's with the "30,000 Gun Deaths" per year number?
Replies
24
Views
8K
Slamfire
Slamfire
Speedo66
  • Locked
CDC Says Gun Deaths Up Slightly
Replies
10
Views
570
Vern Humphrey
V
A
  • Locked
from American Spectator
Replies
10
Views
692
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
4K
Old Grump
O
L
  • Locked
Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides
Replies
1
Views
290
lanternlad1
L
Back
Top