Deconstructing the logic of gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
The answer is:

Why should you be able to tell me what I do or don't need? Would you like me to decide what you do or don't need based on what I think? If you don't know me and the circumstances of my life, how could you possibly justifiably tell me what I do or don't need?
 
Walkalong-

The post from lonegunman says that anti's believe 9 separate things, all absolutely.

How about some evidence of those beliefs?

B/c around here I get labled an "anti" and I disagree with every single one of those 9. I know other "antis" who would disagree with all nine as well.

Lonegunman made the claim that those 9 beliefs are held, let him back it up.
Fair enough, you do the same.
 
I personally don't need or want an AR-15. However, if decide that a fight over an AR-15 or any other gun has nothing to do with me, and I allow someone to decide for me that I have no right to own one, then the principle is established that the governing body who presumed the right to decide what I need can then choose to take anything else away from me. Once I lose the right to own an AR-15, I no longer have anything left in the government's eyes that can be properly referred to as rights. I only have whatever privileges they may choose to extend to me on a temporary basis at their convenience, and I am no longer a free man.

Wow.

I just had to quote this.

Sir, I wish others shared your attitide.

I second that!

That is the greatest argument for ARs I think I've ever seen, and it should have been right in front of me the whole time! That should have always been our attitude.

Someone should sticky that post!
 
The maddening part of those who support gun control is that they truly believe that if the government bans all guns, then the criminals won't have guns.

Who is "they"? I've never heard a gun control advocate make such a zero sum argument. Rather, I've heard many say that gun control can reduce the number of guns available to criminals and thus reduce murder rates, armed robberies, etc.

Drunken driving is looked at as a drunken driver issue, not an automobile problem. There is no pressure to restrict good drivers from owning/operating motor vehicles.

There are quite a few laws to try to ensure drivers are competent behind the wheel. There are laws applied to the features of cars to try and reduce the likelihood of an accident and the harm one would cause.

And there certainly are laws which restrict alcohol use by responsible people. I can't buy it on Sunday or after a certain time in my city. There is a minimum age as well.
 
There is no logic to gun control,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,period.

Google their new handbook from Bloomberg and company.

They operate off a one basic concept.

If you own a gun, you are no different than any convicted felon and should be monitored and/or imprisoned at the earliest possible date.

At no time will an anti-gunner demand restrictions on the mentally ill.

At no time with they demand stiffer jail sentences for criminals who use firearms in the comission of their crimes.

At no time will they hold members of their police state accountable for their criminal misuse of firearms. If they lie, steal, defraud, traffic or endorse criminal acts to increase anti-gun bias,,,,,,,,,,,,,they excuse it. I.E. Operation Fast and Furious, this led to the deaths of 250 people in Mexico and not one word from the left.

There is no shooting sport of any kind they approve of in any way, shape or form.

There is no hunting they approve of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not one single hunting sport can be found that does not have leftist disapproval.

They do not believe in ANY form of self-defense, period. In all socialist countries, you can be imprisoned for defending yourself against rape, attack or robbery. They dream of doing that in America.

There is no firearm on earth they approve of,,,,,,,not one. If they allowed you to own a firearm, the paperwork and torment the local law enforcement would hound you to death for the privilage.

They have no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Once you understand that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you understand them.
The problem with the list is that the 9 are stated a absolutes and the problem with an absolute statement is that it only takes one contrary example to disprove the statement. With an absolute, 99.99...9% right is 100% wrong.

I have encountered these attituds among anti gunners. I have even encountered a few antis who exhibit all of them, but that is extremely rare. Many antis I encounter may exhibit one or more, and many exhibit none at all but have other reasons for their opposition to firearms/firearms ownership.
 
Whenever I come across an anti-gun slogan like "You don't need an AR-15, etc." I tend to feel a reaction, and I realize such an argument is illogical, but why?

I think many of the people who say these things aren't hard-core gun-grabbers. They don't see their goal as disarming us - they seriously think they're being reasonable, moderate. Maybe they think we're being irrational by wanting an AR-15.

I think it can be helpful to examine the assumptions and logic behind anti-gun arguments so we can respond to them by refuting the worldview behind them, rather than countering with our own slogans.

For instance, "You don't need xyz gun". What assumptions are behind this saying? What line do we draw need vs. not, and what criteria do they decide what someone does or doesn't "need" something?

These people confuse "need" with "right". Rights have nothing to do with a person's "need".

A counter to this would be something as simple as:

- You don't need to practice a religion.

- You don't need to be able to publish or say anything you wish about the government.

- You don't need a law against self incrimination.

- You don't need to vote.

- You don't need protection against illegal search and seizure, especially if you're not a criminal.

- You don't need to be protected against enslavement.


All these things are there for a reason...and they aren't trivial reasons, or they wouldn't be there in the first place. You can't pick and choose which of these are to be rights, or who may have them and who may not. If you do, then they become privileges, not rights, and may be denied to anyone at any time in accordance with the whims of those who are in power.

And history has proven time and again what the consequences are for those who do not have these rights.
 
Here's my favorite analogy...

Drunken driving is looked at as a drunken driver issue, not an automobile problem. There is no pressure to restrict good drivers from owning/operating motor vehicles.

Mass shootings for some reason are looked at as a gun issue, not a psycho killer problem. Pressure exists to restrict law abiding gun owners from access to firearms. :scrutiny:
Drunk driving is looked at by law-abiding drivers as a driver problem, not a car problem. Likewise, mass shootings are looked at by us, law-abiding shooters as a psycho killer problem, not a gun problem.

The issue is, the rest of the law-abiding people who are not shooters and see no reason/need/want to own a gun, would have no reservations about banning ALL guns - just as the rest of the law-abiding people who are not drivers, if they saw no no reason/need/want to own a car, would have no problem with banning ALL cars.

The difference is, the aren't many people who have no use for cars at all, or see no need for them in the society. This can't be said about guns - there are plenty of people (majority) who don't own guns, and many of these see no reason for the rest to have them, either.



I like the analogy, but the numbers behind it is exactly the reason why things are as they are.
 
I read this thread fairly quickly, so I'll go ahead and ask for forgiveness if I missed anything. However, responding to the OP:
monotonous_iterancy said:
Whenever I come across an anti-gun slogan like "You don't need an AR-15, etc." I tend to feel a reaction, and I realize such an argument is illogical, but why?

I think many of the people who say these things aren't hard-core gun-grabbers. They don't see their goal as disarming us - they seriously think they're being reasonable, moderate. Maybe they think we're being irrational by wanting an AR-15.
I agree. I certainly think that there's a hardcore anti-gun fringe that wants everyone except military and LE disarmed. I also think that there's a hardcore pro-gun fringe that thinks everyone should be able to build nukes in their basement, if they so desire. I cannot agree with either end of that spectrum.

monotonous_iterancy said:
I think it can be helpful to examine the assumptions and logic behind anti-gun arguments so we can respond to them by refuting the worldview behind them, rather than countering with our own slogans.

For instance, "You don't need xyz gun". What assumptions are behind this saying? What line do we draw need vs. not, and what criteria do they decide what someone does or doesn't "need" something?
We also need to be sure to examine our own assumptions and logic, to be sure that they are sound. For example, we often hear about statistical arguments, like the oft-repeated, "if you have a gun in the home, it's 43 times more likely that a family member will be shot." We need to ask:
  • Where do the numbers come from?
  • How were they obtained?
  • Do we really care?
The problem with engaging in statistical arguments is that, at some level, you're conceding that if the numbers came out right, they would form a valid basis for further restrictions on 2A rights. I don't care about the numbers, because I don't think that they can form a valid basis for further restrictions. We're talking about a fundamental, individual right. The BOR is incredibly undemocratic. It protects the rights of the individual against mob rule. Some restrictions are off the table, no matter how the numbers shake out.

Follow up with factual examples. When someone (an anti) says, "call the police in an emergency," it sounds good to say, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." It's much more effective if you can follow that up with, "Did you hear about the Colorado woman who spent 13 minutes on her 911 call before she was shot dead?" or "How about Bonnie Elmasri? She asked about buying a handgun to protect herself and her children, but was told that there was a 5-day waiting period. She was killed within the next 24 hours."

Don't confuse rights with needs. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Do I need a gun today? Lord, I hope not, but if I do, there's really no substitute.

Don't confuse "what I need" with "what society needs for me to have." I respectfully submit that there are certain rights which we have, and which society needs for me to have. Technically, all I need is air, water, food and shelter. Society needs for me to have much more than that. Some examples:
  • The right to petition my government. Would I survive without it? Yes. Can society and our government be improved by the fact that we have this right? Absolutely.
  • The right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. I, for one, have never needed to exercise this right. Nonetheless, society needs for every person to have it. It's what protects us from allowing the police* to go door-to-door, rummaging through our most private things, looking for evidence of crimes.
  • The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. I, for one, have never needed to exercise this right. But this is the one that prevents the police* from torturing confessions out of suspects.
  • The right to be free from self-incrimination. See the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, above.
  • The right to keep and bear arms. It's what allows me to own the weapons necessary to protect my family. It's what allows us, collectively, to own the weapons that make it possible to withstand tyranny**.

*I mean absolutely no disrespect to the police. I work with a great many of them, and they're some of my favorite folks. Nonetheless, in the absence of the constitutional protections of the BOR, I suspect that we would see instances of the behaviors listed above.
**I've heard the "futility" argument, and I don't buy it. Just because something may (or may not) be futile doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the right to own the tools necessary to try.
 
Drunk driving is looked at by law-abiding drivers as a driver problem, not a car problem. Likewise, mass shootings are looked at by us, law-abiding shooters as a psycho killer problem, not a gun problem.

The issue is, the rest of the law-abiding people who are not shooters and see no reason/need/want to own a gun, would have no reservations about banning ALL guns - just as the rest of the law-abiding people who are not drivers, if they saw no no reason/need/want to own a car, would have no problem with banning ALL cars.

The difference is, the aren't many people who have no use for cars at all, or see no need for them in the society. This can't be said about guns - there are plenty of people (majority) who don't own guns, and many of these see no reason for the rest to have them, either.

IMHO the car analogy is misused, by both sides to a degree. Anti-gunners will talk about how "you need a license and registration" to own a car, which isn't even true (you need that to own a street legal car and drive it on public streets legally. Plenty of people who are richer than myself own cars strictly for racing.) They also apparently forget that these driver's licenses are 'shall issue' and are good in all 50 states ...

Pro-gun people will point out traffic fatalities vs firearms deaths due to malfeasance, but as noted far more Americans consider cars necessary than guns.

Alcohol vs guns is an analogy I'm personally far more comfortable with. Alcohol caused 10,228 deaths on the roadways alone (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html), whereas in the last year the FBI have numbers out for guns were used in 8,855 homicides (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls).

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.

How many defensive alcohol uses are there a year? (For that matter I'm still a little lost as to whether there's any benefit at all to alcohol, other than that banning it has already shown that the "cure" is worse than the disease.)

Yet I can flash an ID to show I'm over 21 and buy one with 'cash & a handshake' and the other I have to buy through a federally licensed dealer who has to run a background check and keep a form on file for 20 years. Obviously some are arguing for far more than just that, they want everything from waiting periods to 1 gun a month to NYC Sullivan Act type laws.
 
Last edited:
Logic of gun control? Why assume there's any logic. All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.

You can come up with all the logical, rational counter-arguments and debate points you want.

It won't matter. Faced with evidence and facts, anti-gunners interpret those dry facts and statistics through a lens of emotion.


You want to sway a fence-sitter? Here's your principle:

Debate logic with logic.
Debate emotion with emotion.​


Frame your debate with an emotionally-guided individual with emotionally-guided counterpoints. Later, once you have him/her at the point where he/she is starting to think about those emotionally-charged fears, assumptions, and outright lies, then you can introduce logic and reason into your discussion.

I've never seen a mind that holds an emotional opinion on a matter changed merely by a logical recitation of the facts.
 
Last edited:
Whenever I come across an anti-gun slogan like "You don't need an AR-15, etc." I tend to feel a reaction, and I realize such an argument is illogical, but why?

For instance, "You don't need xyz gun".
Does a free press need high speed high capacity computers to report the news?
Does free religion need high speed high capacity radio and television?
Does your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure not limit the police from using electronic surveillance?

It's a nonsensical argument because your right to keep and bear isn't limited by speed, capacity, or modern technology. If you drill down you'll find the person making the argument will admit, at some point during the debate, that he or she doesn't believe the 2nd acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, and the argument will shift to whatever they believe the amendment says. We believe the enumerated rights are all equal and equally important. If you're debating with someone who does not, you'll never agree anyway. Apples and oranges.

So you're wasting your breath arguing with them.
 
Last edited:
Mainsail said:
It's a nonsensical argument because your right to keep and bear isn't limited by speed, capacity, or modern technology. If you drill down you'll find the person making the argument will admit, at some point during the debate, that he or she doesn't believe the 2nd acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, and the argument will shift to whatever they believe the amendment says. We believe the enumerated rights are all equal and equally important. If you're debating with someone who does not, you'll never agree anyway. Apples and oranges.

I disagree. Some of them think that way. However, I think that your average "man on the street" might not. They probably don't have much of an opinion on the 2nd Amendment. They probably don't think about it much, or, they think that we're asking for completely unfettered ability to do anything we want with guns.

They think they're being reasonable, moderate, and they think we're being extreme by insisting on our rights so strongly because as they'd probably say "No right is absolute, you can't shout 'fire' in a theater."

Of course, there goes the saying "My right to swing my fist ends at your face." That's true. But I also think that these people believe that somehow owning an AR-15 or high-capacity magazine either violates that somehow (is extreme), or they simply think that a "moderate amount" of regulation is permissible because we have laws that are based upon that principle, not realizing that what they propose falls short of that principle.
 
Logic of gun control? Why assume there's any logic. All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.

There it is again.

ALL the evidence?? Every piece of evidence says that controlling access to weapons does NOTHING to prevent crime?

Uh.... nope.

Every piece of evidence that YOU accept as valid says that, because that is what you want the evidence to say.

To an anti-gunner, every piece of evidence THEY accept as valid says the opposite.

If you really think you are 100% right 100% of the time and there is not even the slightest weakness to any of your arguments, you need to avoid talking to antis at all because all you will do is make yourself and them frustrated.
 
Last edited:
All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.

.

Which part of this ami misunderstanding?

"All the evidence"

"Never ever worked"

Seems you are presenting a pretty absolutist view to me?
 
You're in college. You can't manage to figure it out?

OK.


I said controlling access to weapons to prevent crime never worked.
You said I said laws to prevent crime never worked.

That help?
 
KarenTOC wrote:

I think there are some antis who aren't as afraid of criminals with guns as they are of neighbors with guns. After all, crime only happens to the other guy, but "if I get in an argument with my neighbor, he'll shoot me."

And there are some antis (quite a lot, actually) that are frightened of themselves with guns. They fear that they will do something stupid or evil with a gun, that they will lose control, and that therefore (projecting their feelings on others) nobody should have a gun. In some cases, this irrational fear comes from unfamiliarity with guns, and in other cases, it comes from too much familiarity (a tragic event, for example).

On either side (pro and anti), guns are a deeply emotional issue. Logical arguments, therefore, have limited utility.
 
Wait, never mind... It doesn't matter.

No matter what you say, the absolutist nature of your statement hasn't changed and is equally wrong regardless of the minutia of the topic.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
Ok, what other methods of cntrolling access were you talking about?

You can't. Not possible.


Young man, imagine the most tightly-controlled environment you can - a high security prison. Everything that comes in is inspected, and so are visitors. Their cells are subject to frequent inspection, and all their possessions - not just weapons - are restricted to what is permitted according to prison policy.

The inmates are not free to do as they please. Their meals, shower times, what they wear, every facet of an inmate's life is tightly controlled.


Yet even in such places rapes and murders still occur.


Now tell me, how does that happen?
 
Logic of gun control? Why assume there's any logic. All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.

Are you saying that gun control advocates lack logic because they think they can prevent crime through such? Based on my experience that is a huge misrepresentation of the views of most, if not all, gun control advocates. People who support gun control, of whatever level, believe certain restrictions can or might reduce incidents of certain types of violent crime and incidents of accident gun injuries and deaths. I've never heard somebody claim any gun control law will prevent all crimes of any type.
 
Yet even in such places rapes and murders still occur.


Now tell me, how does that happen?

Are you really saying that if a restriction is not 100% effective it has no merit? By that reasoning essentially nothing should be illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top