Deconstructing the logic of gun control

Pizzapinochle said:

There, i corrected my initial post, better?

Click to expand...

Corrected? You mean edited out how you twisted my comment and to have me saying something I didn't?

Sure. An "oops, my bad" or an apology would have been nicer, but no matter.



How about you just address my question.

In an enviroment like that, where not just guns but all weapons are completely banned, and the inmate's lives are tightly controlled, how do crimes like rapes and murders occur?

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?

Click to expand...

These people are using a logical fallacy called "begging the question." Begging the question is when your opponent constructs an argument that begs you to accept his underlying argument so he can prove that argument.

The question he is begging you to accept is that NEED is essential to exercising your rights. To see how nonsensical, apply that to other rights -- do you NEED to read a Newspaper? Would you die or get sick if you didn't?

No. You have a right to freedom of the press, speech and religion without having to demonstrate any NEED for those rights.

Wow... A condescending "young man?" Try to lay off the attitude to keep the discussion on topic and leave the ad hominem out of it.

First, any analogy that tries to compare prisons (filled 100% with criminals) to society as a whole is off to a weak start. Prisons and the general population of humanity are very different places.

And even then, your argument is weak.

Yes, there is crime in prison.

What impact do think allowing criminals free access to weapons in prison would have?

Obviously, prisons would be unsustainable with an armed population of prisoners and they would do whatever they wanted, including crime.

You illustration proves that controlling access to weapons does not stop crime 100%, which i agree with. However, it does nothing to show that controlling access to weapons does not PREVENT (your word) crimes. If prisoners access to weapons was not restricted, there would be more crimes in prisons. Well, at least until the prison was empty after all the inmates kill the guards and leave.

Given the topic of the thread, using logic, this is a good example. Ken's prison analogy does not logically support his claim, thus, it is a weak argument that should be avoided OR the claim modified.

You illustration proves that controlling access to weapons does not stop crime 100%, which i agree with. However, it does nothing to show that controlling access to weapons does not PREVENT (your word) crimes.

Click to expand...

No, you missed the point of the example entirely.


Again, you're focused on weapons. Most people for gun control are.


I'm focused on people.


Since you missed it, the point of the exercise is this.


It's not just access to weapons in prison that is 100% controlled.

The inmates, the people, are 100% controlled. Because they're criminals.

Yet even people known to be violent, and are tightly-controlled, commit violence upon one another. The high amount of control - near zero freedom - that exists couldn't prevent those crimes.

No law can. All laws can do is prescribe punishments and consequences for actions, and the law-abiding won't do those things.

Ya know, I could come up with a system that had a huge reduction in shootings etc etc. Make all guns illegal, and come up with some grossly draconian measures to stop 'gun violence', or at least put a huge dent in it (even though I don't actually know any violent guns). But...

I wouldn't want to live in such an oppressive place. It all comes down to how much of your freedom you are willing to give up to reduce the risk of a 'violent gun' jumping out and attacking you. I'd rather take a risk of that and not give up any freedom.

Yes, there is a little sarcasm here, but the jist of my point is still evident.

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.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that victim disarmament doesn't reduce crime, and allowing honest people to bear arms does. And people who ignore that can rightly be accused of being illogical.

And you ignored my question.

What impact would allowing inmates to have access to weapons have on crime in prison?

If inmates had weapons that could over power guards, would their behavior change?

I don't have to.


I never even hinted at a suggestion to arm inmates.

And you ignored my question.

What impact would allowing inmates to have access to weapons have on crime in prison?

If inmates had weapons that could over power guards, would their behavior change?

Click to expand...

What would be the impact of having large frogs with square rectums and muddy appetites?

This is another form of begging the question -- you are asking us to accept that criminals are normal people.

Criminals are in prison because they are CRIMINALS, not honest, normal people. Criminals are people with a proven tendency to commit CRIMES.

You said "controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked" and used prison as your supporting example.

If controlling access to weapons is not preventing crime, then allowing inmates access to weapons would have no impact on crime.

If allowing inmates access to weapons would increase crime in prison, then your claim is incorrect.

Vern Humphrey said:

What would be the impact of having large frogs with square rectums and muddy appetites?

This is another form of begging the question -- you are asking us to accept that criminals are normal people.

Criminals are in prison because they are CRIMINALS, not honest, normal people. Criminals are people with a proven tendency to commit CRIMES.

Click to expand...

Hey, i agree, it is a terrible analogy. But Ken thinks that somehow the access of inmates to weapons proves something.

Hey, i agree, it is a terrible analogy. But Ken thinks that somehow the access of inmates to weapons proves something.

Click to expand...

And that form of argument is also called sophistry.

An equivalent argument would be that since pedophiles can't be trusted with children, NO ONE can be trusted with children.

Hmm. I can certainly conceive of a society in which 'gun violence' could be practically non-existent (even though I don't own any violent guns, or even know any).

Such a society would be so oppressive that I really can't see anyone wanting to live there. You can ban guns and do a bunch of very draconian things, and 'gun violence' would almost certainly go down. But how much freedom are u willing to give up? For some, apparently a lot.

Pizzapinochle said:

But Ken thinks that somehow the access of inmates to weapons proves something.

Click to expand...

No, Ken thinks that the total control of people in an environment like prison proves something.

People in high security prisons are there because we know they are violent. We don't send garden-variety scofflaws there.

And the prison system has rules - laws if you will - in place to try to prevent crimes in ways that, if imposed upon the rest of society, would be considered entirely draconian.

Yes those violent crimes still occur. Laws don't prevent crimes. Laws punish criminal acts.

Yet gun-control advocates, like you, believe that somehow laws prevent criminal acts and approach using the power of the law from that perspective.

So how does all that relate to your original statement??

BullfrogKen said:

All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked. Not in the entire history of mankind.

Click to expand...

You started out talking about controlling access to weapons.

Now you say you are just talking about controlling people, specifically inmates in prisons?

Which is it? Are you talking about controlling access to weapons, as your initial post said, or are you talking about controlling people in prisons?

As some of you suggested, making the anti gunners understand or at least attempting to get them to understand that each of us is in a better position to know what we want or need than 'they' are. 'They' usually means the government. If the person I am talking to gets personal, then I do too. Meaning that I say, " What i need or want is none of your business." This has only happened maybe twice in my lifetime. I am an avid fan of guns and gun sports. Everyone around me knows that because I share my passion. Only a seriously dim person would try to convince me that I am somehow doing something wrong. So, my recommendation is to be enthusiastic, vocal, and open about your interests rather than loud and defensive.

His example showed how controlling access to weapons (in prison) did not stop violent crimes 100% (which was his original statement).

All the evidence suggests controlling access to weapons to prevent crime has never, ever worked.

Click to expand...

Instead of trying to be right, listen to the discussion at hand.

Why am I limited to only two choices?


Pizzap, whether you want to admit it or not, the various weapons control laws aimed at preventing criminal acts fail. And when they do, those who would give up liberty for security move onto people-control laws.

Witness Great Britain, and their knife-control laws. They also have surveillance cameras on every street-corner. The people living in London are the most photographed and surveilled people on earth.


Prevention laws - in all their various guises - are people-control laws.

larryh1108 said:

His example showed how controlling access to weapons (in prison) did not stop violent crimes 100% (which was his original statement).

Instead of trying to be right, listen to the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

Larry, before accusing me of something, you may want to read the discussion yourself.

My statement from post #53:

You illustration proves that controlling access to weapons does not stop crime 100%, which i agree with.

Click to expand...

So you are about 15 posts behind me in that regard.

If that was his point, let him say so and I'll agree. But I don't think that was his point.

BullfrogKen said:

Why am I limited to only two choices?

Click to expand...

You aren't but it would be real great if you would just settle on one instead of changing your position following every post I make, then claiming that I missed the point because I did not anticipate what your next point was going to be.

Back to the original topic of the thread.

If you want to have a logical discussion, don't do what Ken is doing. If you want to make a point, make that point, don't try and trick, obfuscate, or be intentionally confusing just to try and prove some sort of point that you are never really willing to state or stand behind.

It seems you may have finally settled on a few points though... MAYBE....

are THESE your points?

the various weapons control laws aimed at preventing criminal acts fail.

Click to expand...

Prevention laws - in all their various guises - are people-control laws.

Click to expand...

or are those leading to your NEXT set of points?

I've already stated I don't engage in logical debates with people driven by emotional motivations when it comes to gun control.

And I generally don't engage in on-line debates with anti-gunners. I have mine as conversations with people I know, in person, face-to-face. On line people just want to argue. I can - and have - changed the minds of those people I know in my personal life.


Obviously we disagree. You believe in gun control and I don't.

You believe gun control laws will prevent crimes like robbery, rape, and murder. I don't.


So, in the spirit of "not changing the subject", which gun control laws do you believe prevent crime? We'll discuss those.

So, in the spirit of "not changing the subject", which gun control laws do you believe prevent crime? We'll discuss those.

Click to expand...

Can we start with the 68 GCA?

No, let's see what Pizzap offers as what he feels are good and effective gun control laws that have prevented violence.

In my experience with anti gun people I have seen two situations that stand out towards shaping their view point. The first one is that they fear the tool and not the person using the tool, for some reason they seem to be blind to the notion that the trigger doesn't pull itself. That first reason is also a direct result of the second reason: most antis have never shot a gun. I run into people every now and then who dislike guns, they fear them. I ask them if they've ever shot one. Most of them say no. A couple of them I knew well enough to take shooting and by the time they left the shooting line they wanted to shoot again.
Maybe we ought to try to get a few of the fence sitters into the shooting sports. We also need better representation in the media. The worst report I have seen yet is the 20/20 report on guns and kids. They were showing 5 and 6 year old kids shooting machine guns and looking at the camera the whole time. As people trying to protect our rights and win over a crowd that doesn't understand guns and responsible use of them that kind of coverage is the last thing we need. I think a good place to start getting better media attention would be your local news, a lot of local news likes to cover events going on in the home town. Maybe more shooting events need to take place to get more people involved on our side. Grass roots movements have to start on a local scale and grow from there. I think sometimes we all try to change the whole population's opinion at once. Might be easier a few at a time.