What pro-gun quotes do you wish pro-gun sites would STOP using?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blackbeard, medical errors do account for hundreds of thousands of lives each year (according to a quick search). That is more than the number that die from guns each year. Maybe not a thousand times more, but definitely a couple digits times more.
Today 03:51 PM

I would say it is bogus because if people just didn't seek medical attention when they were seriously ill or injured the body count would be much higher. Everyone makes mistakes. Its just unfortunate that theres a life or death cost to them in that industry.

The stat is just irrelevant to the debate and makes us look crazy. Always gets me when people think the way to counter misleading stats and emotional arguments from the other side is misleading stats and emotional arguments of our own.
 
Vamo, the purpose of "more people are killed by X each year than by guns" is to put the number of deaths into perspective. Anti-gunners go on and on about the number of people killed by guns each year and how it's this pandemic that needs to be stopped by any means necessary. The fact of the matter is that there are many other places or things (i.e. pools, hospitals, cars, etc) that lead to many more deaths each year than guns do. However, how many people are campaigning for further regulations on hospitals, pools, or cars? A few people probably are, but you don't have a huge movement backed by mayors, governors, senators, and the President and billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars put into efforts to try and improve it. At least not that the media is reporting.

It's just like when they put restrictions on AR-15s and similar rifles, which are used for a few hundred out of the around ten thousand gun deaths each year (much rounding involved in that statement). The point of these "More people are killed by X" is to show that the number of people killed by guns isn't all that high in context, and it's not such a big pandemic that we need to pass off-the-cuff emotional legislation.
 
Blackbeard, medical errors do account for hundreds of thousands of lives each year (according to a quick search). That is more than the number that die from guns each year. Maybe not a thousand times more, but definitely a couple digits times more.

The stat is bogus because it doesn't sample from similar populations. People seeking medical treatment are already in jeopardy and therefore already at a higher risk of dying. Plus, they sought out the doctor, not vice versa.

If gun owners constantly had people paying them to shoot an apple off their head, a lot of them would die from our "mistakes".

So this comparison has zero logical value and makes us look stupid.
 
Blackbeard is right. More people see the doctor every year than interact with a gun. People seeing a doctor are ALREADY at risk. Etc. etc. etc.

Not that any of it matters, because how does having more dead people in Box A make the dead people in Box B somehow less important?

And finally, guns are the #1 NON-ACCIDENTAL death. They are in a different category from car accidents and medical errors, which are all unintentional. When someone chooses to end a life (either another person or their own), most of the time in the US they use a gun.

Regardless, we already had this discussion a week ago.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=747953&highlight=hospital+infection

No one could really explain the logic to me then, lets not try and do it now.
 
Not that any of it matters, because how does having more dead people in Box A make the dead people in Box B somehow less important?

The problem is that if your goal is to reduce the number of preventable deaths, your goal should be tackle the biggest number of them. It's all about triage. If you can make programs to reduce the number of malpractice issues, you might save more lives than going after gun deaths. But how many people are on such a campaign against hospital malpractice? I don't think I've ever seen a campaign of this sort, and it's one that I don't think too many people would be against.
 
The problem is that if your goal is to reduce the number of preventable deaths, your goal should be tackle the biggest number of them. It's all about triage. If you can make programs to reduce the number of malpractice issues, you might save more lives than going after gun deaths. But how many people are on such a campaign against hospital malpractice? I don't think I've ever seen a campaign of this sort, and it's one that I don't think too many people would be against.

You asked what kind of arguments we found cringe worthy and that would be one of them. First it suggest that we have a choice of addressing only 1 problem. Second in weakens our argument altogether, as if the only reason not to address guns is because its not our most serious problem.
 
scaatylobo said:
I am disgusted by the expression "assault rifle'.

It is much too notable to see that in the hands of a police officer [ I was one,and was issued one ] the ASSAULT RIFLE is now a "patrol carbine".

I wish that at least one network of talking head would ask the gov. of my state [ NY ] what the difference is ,AND do police officers intend to ASSAULT anyone ?.
But "assault rifle" is a completely valid technical term. It comes from the German "Sturmgewehr" and describes a select-fire rifle that fires an intermediate rifle round. Just because people misuse the term and use it to refer to rifles that are semi-automatic and therefore aren't technically assault rifles, it doesn't mean the term itself is incorrect.

However, the term "assault weapon" is what should annoy you more. Unlike assault rifles, there's technically no such thing as an "assault weapon". An "assault weapon" is a made-up class of firearm that's regulated based on cosmetic features. People support "assault weapons" bans because they're tricked into believing they're the same as assault rifles and machine guns.
 
I'm not going to argue anymore on the subject, Vamo, but part of a forum is that when people present ideas, you can argue! I was merely trying to provide an alternate perspective on why people do post those "X number of deaths vs. Y gun deaths" posts.
 
I oft wonder how many of the pro-gun quotes from Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc. that so many have in the sig lines actually came from those men's mouths.

I bet some did not.
 
Worse than this one is the person trying to describe a scenario where they "need" an ar-15. They usually end up describing some crazy unrealistic scenario.

It's not hard to imagine a realistic scenario. What if someone lives in a rural area and there are no police, or the response time is like 40 minutes? It raises a few questions for the anti-gun person.
 
"It's my right!" has never worked for me as a valid argument as to why someone carries or owns a gun.

There are a lot of things we have the "right" to do, but don't necessarily do.
 
It's not hard to imagine a realistic scenario. What if someone lives in a rural area and there are no police, or the response time is like 40 minutes? It raises a few questions for the anti-gun person.

It does raise questions. You're right. If I tried to argue that, then someone would say to me "but you live in a cushy suburb of Hartford CT where police response time is reliably under 5 mins. So farmers can have AR15s, but you shouldn't."
 
. But how many people are on such a campaign against hospital malpractice? I don't think I've ever seen a campaign of this sort, and it's one that I don't think too many people would be against.

That is the point.

There is no pro-malpractice lobby.
There is no pro-drunk driving lobby.
There is no pro-drowning lobby.
There is no pro-hospital infection lobby.
There is no pro-heart disease lobby.
Etc. etc.

And because of this, there is no need for an anti lobby, EVERYONE is anti all-of-those-things.

There IS a pro gun lobby. Hence, there is an anti gun lobby.
 
It does raise questions. You're right. If I tried to argue that, then someone would say to me "but you live in a cushy suburb of Hartford CT where police response time is reliably under 5 mins. So farmers can have AR15s, but you shouldn't."

Well that's the thing, is it possible to have different sets of laws for rural and urban areas? No. And by what criteria do they judge "need"?
 
Not an exact quote but the statement that the Swiss avoided invasion in WWII because of their citizen type army. In reality, they cooperated extensively with Germany.
 
Not an exact quote but the statement that the Swiss avoided invasion in WWII because of their citizen type army. In reality, they cooperated extensively with Germany.

I've heard that, but I don't know the extent of it. Does engaging in banking count as cooperating?

I guess that means the quote where a Swiss general responded to "What do you do if we invade with our 5 million man army?" with -

"We'll give everyone 5 rounds and go home." - didn't happen.
 
The swiss were pretty good at providing war time financing to both sides while favoring whoever was most dangerous to them at the time.

I think they also avoided trouble by just letting the germans use the train systems to move through the country. Sort of "we'll help you go fight THOSE people.... Over there.... Away from us..."
 
But "assault rifle" is a completely valid technical term. It comes from the German "Sturmgewehr" and describes a select-fire rifle that fires an intermediate rifle round. Just because people misuse the term and use it to refer to rifles that are semi-automatic and therefore aren't technically assault rifles, it doesn't mean the term itself is incorrect.

However, the term "assault weapon" is what should annoy you more. Unlike assault rifles, there's technically no such thing as an "assault weapon". An "assault weapon" is a made-up class of firearm that's regulated based on cosmetic features. People support "assault weapons" bans because they're tricked into believing they're the same as assault rifles and machine guns.
Nope, incorrect. The German translation is Storm Rifle.
The first use of the term "Assault Rifle" was used by the left in 1972 as a scare tactic.
Now it's weaved it's way into our lexicon. I don't care to use the term even for select fire rifles because it's a non-descriptive made up word.
Please stop trying to rewrite history.
 
Field Tester said:
Nope, incorrect. The German translation is Storm Rifle.
Nope, I was not incorrect. Notice I said the term "comes from the German Sturmgewher"; I never claimed it was a direct translation. I've always thought we translated it to our version of "storm", which can also mean "attack" or "assault". But then I found this:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Sturm

So it looks to me like the word "Sturm" can also mean "attack" or "assault".

Field Tester said:
The first use of the term "Assault Rifle" was used by the left in 1972 as a scare tactic.
Do you have any reference for this? I'd be interested to see it, because below I provide a link to a US Army field manual using the term in 1970.

Field Tester said:
I don't care to use the term even for select fire rifles because it's a non-descriptive made up word.
I also avoid using it because it's been co-opted by anti-gun folks. But it's definitely not a "non-descriptive made up word"; the US army has used the term in official publications. In fact, here's a US Army field manual using the term "assault rifle", and it's dated from 1970:

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

Field Tester said:
Please stop trying to rewrite history.
Please don't correct someone when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Everything I originally posted was correct, but I've shown that some of what you posted "correcting" me turned out to be incorrect. It appears that you're the one trying to rewrite history.

Edit: Field Tester, after re-reading your post, I can only assume that you have confused the term "assault rifle" (a valid technical term, even if it's misused) with the term "assault weapon" (a made-up political term). You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote in post #33.
 
Last edited:
I think your causation may be backwards.

BTW who was the "pro gun" person you quoted anonymously earlier?

I'd say they both need each other. :) either way, they exist b/c of each other somehow. The particulars about which came first would probably be chicken/egg like and not too relevant now. They are both here, neither going away soon.

The quote was Wayne LaPierre in 1999 after columbine shooting.
 
Fishbed77,

I would love to see any research and documentation to support any of the Liberal myths you propose.

O.K. how about a little event in 1917 that was about a society that created an enormous wealth and political power gap between a small privileged class and the vast majority of people. Too recent for you to be fully accepted as not a propaganda myth? How about a little event in 1789 that was very similar to the one in 1917? What happened in 1789 and 1917 was considered to be violent criminal activity by the privileged class of people believing themselves to be legitimately entitled to their status. Make the many resentful of the few and crime increases, make the lives of the many too uncomfortable and violent crime increases, make the lives of the many unbearably uncomfortable and violent revolution filled with crimes against humanity occurs. This country we live in was founded by men who were certainly not living unbearable lives but became criminals in the eyes of the legitimate government for expressing resentment over taxes. Those men would be remembered in history as criminals if they had not won in military and political battle. Unfair distribution of a Nation's wealth does lead to more crime. This does not mean we should be taking away wealth, just ensuring a few cannot have the political/economic control to prevent others from achieving wealth.
 
Last edited:
What pro-gun quotes do you wish pro-gun sites would STOP using?

Any quote that originated from the motor mouth of a certain heavy metal maniac with an obsession about infections obtained from felines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top