Deconstructing the logic of gun control

[monotonous_iterancy]

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?

 

[ohbythebay]

That is because it has been stigmatized

They can say "AR-15"...and damn, it looks like a M16 - Must be for Military use. They have no clue what damage a deer rifle, a 30-30 or a .308 can do. So it gets stigmatized much as every pitbull must be a baby eating dog and should be banned. Even though most any breed is capable of killing babies.

So people see an AR-15 and they automatically think "Vietnam".

 

[MedWheeler]

I tell them I don't need an AR-15, or any gun, for that matter.

But, if that should ever change, the change will likely be sudden and urgent in nature.

Otherwise, it's not about need.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I will agree that pushing oftentimes cheesy slogans back and forth at each other isn't the best way for an adult human being population to go about having a reasonable discussion on the issue of anything, much less the control of guns.

I think you have a point.

It is very important to not just sit idly by and listen to both arguments, but what people really need to do is think logically and work together in order to develop a common understand before proceeding any further in this debate.

Unfortunately, there are some less than mature people on BOTH sides of the fence who are any good at representing there respective opinions. This bog everything down and is one of the key reasons on why the gun control issue is best cognized as a small puppy who's had too much chocolate milkshake, and he's been strapped to a ferris wheel stuck on the "high" setting.

Basically its so redundant and mistreated that as it goes round and round, it simply ends up making everybody sick.

JMHO.

YMMV.

 

[40-82]

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.

 

[bratsky]

There are many who advocate for gun control thinking that it will solve the real issue which is crime. As responsible gun owners we should be coming up with ideas on how to curb crime without taking/restricting guns from the law abiding citizens. If we do nothing then it looks like we don't care and that will be bad for the cause

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Well, your best approach is cost/benefit analysis, it is the easiest way to look at a problem.

"What is the cost to society of civilian possession of an AR15?"
"What is the benefit to society of civilian possession of an AR15?"

BUT, the problem with using that logic is that you actually have to follow it through and you may find it very hard to maintain the position across all gun rights issues.

 

[gearhead]

Rights aren't judged on a cost benefit basis, they just exist. Society should focus on those who would subvert and destroy polite society with whatever tools are available to them rather than trying to issue blanket prohibitions. Such prohibitions never work and only encourage further degradation of society.

 

[lonegunman]

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.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Ha ha.

It is great how you can assign whatever irrational beliefs you want to someone then say how wrong they are.

If you want to have any success talking to antis, it would help if you had a mildly realistic view of them.

 

[medalguy]

I had a discussion recently with my CPA, typical liberal type but she knows her numbers. Anyway we were sitting in her office and she asked what I was doing these days since I have retired.

I mentioned that I shoot quite a lot and the discussion drifted into gun types. She asked me why I needed a machine gun, so I asked her what kind of car did she drive. She drives a Jaguar. I then asked her what was the top speed of that car. She said 170. I then asked her why in the world did anyone need a car that went 170 miler per hour when she could only legally drive it 70 on the highways. She didn't really have a good answer except to say she didn't always drive it fast. I then said I don't always shoot my guns fast either. It's not about needing something, it's about having whatever you want to have.

 

[larryh1108]

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.

They just don't get it and I don't understand how so many educated people don't understand that the criminal element will always have guns whether the rest of the population has them or not. It just boggles my mind that they feel the government can wave a magic wand and all guns will just disappear, forever, and life will be good. They really believe this. This thought process is what we have to overcome; banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

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.
.

Again, very easy to assign wildly incorrect views to someone then say how wrong they are. You are setting up straw men and knocking them down, which plays really well here among the choir but will do nothing toward the actual question at the beginning f this thread, which asks for logic.

I've never seen anyone who thinks a gun ban will spontaneously cause all guns to disappear from criminal circulation. Their goal is to make it much more difficult to obtain a gun and significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal circulation over time.

 

[Walkalong]

Their goal is to take away all guns, and in the meantime make it as rough on law abiding gun owners as they can. They will not be happy until they have complete confiscation, but they are patient enough to do it a little at a time.

If you want to laugh at peoples posts and call them wildly inaccurate, how about backing it up with some facts.

 

[AlexanderA]

If the Second Amendment means anything, it's that the general population needs to be armed as a check against tyrannical government. In other words, it needs to be armed on a rough par with the forces of that government.

That's where the "need" for AR-15's arises. I hope that they will never actually have to be used. The mere presence of military weapons in civilian hands fulfills their purpose.

On the other hand, there is no "need," in this day and age, for hunting weapons. Those are just tools of a hobby.

Therefore, the "need" argument of the gun controllers is actually the reverse of what they intend.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

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.

 

[larryh1108]

Again, very easy to assign wildly incorrect views to someone then say how wrong they are.

Well, we can agree to disagree.

The antis I've run across truly believe that a ban on all guns will disarm the criminal element. Say whatever you want but this is the basis of their being "anti-gun". They don't want criminals to be armed so the solution is to ban all arms.

A majority of the population follows the law. If they follow the law they feel everyone will, for some strange reason. They can't wrap their brains around the fact that there are people out there who have no regard for the law and won't follow any law that is enacted. They put their own principles onto the criminals and then don't understand when it doesn't work.

Show me one, single gun law that was enacted that prevented criminals from getting and using guns in crimes. I feel that the only way to deter (but not eliminate) the use of guns during crimes is with very strong sentencing laws that are mandatory, not arbitrary.

Banning a weapon for a cosmetic feature is so asinine that it's beyond silly but it plays into the hands of the people who think it makes a difference. Make a law and, of course, criminals will follow them. People just don't get it and that is the basis of their ignorance.

 

[bainter1212]

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.

 

[skoro]

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.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

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.

Maybe not the backing up of exactly what Lonegunnman claimed, but here is some proof as to how the antis think and how they are being taught to think:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/democ...martins-death-to-hit-nra-guns/article/2533972

The article contains the document "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging"

Produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

The guide spells out how to talk about gun control and when to press the issue, the best time being in the wake of a publicized shooting. For example, it calls on gun control advocates to speak out, "don't wait" for the facts, after a shooting like Martin's heightens awareness of the issue.

"The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts," said the guide.

"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," added the talking points. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence," said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

 

[KarenTOC]

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."

This is my experience with people I have known. It is purely anecdotal. I have no statistics to back it up. Don't ask.

 

[splattergun]

I say, "I don't need it right now, but I might later." They say. "for what?" "So I can protect myself from gun-grabbing fanatics."

 

[ohbythebay]

I said it once

I will say it again.

The problem with anti's is they keep demonizing the tools and not the behavior. Fro some unknown reason they believe removing the tool removes the behavior. It does not.

When prohibition came into play, it removed a tool. It only made the behavior worse as an entire crime culture erupted to support what had been made illegal. It did not change the behavior of those who like to drink. In fact, drinking increased for a variety of factors including "forbidden fruit" types

Gun are not, have not and will not be the solution. The behavior in our culture needs to change. Just look at the statistics on violent crime versus violent crime with guns.

But yes, they will use every event to champion their cause. It is analogous to media hype around a plane crash - 10's of thousands of planes flying every day but if a few planes crash per year, they are horrific and held up as lack of safety. Well, what about the other millions of flights per year ?

 

[holdencm9]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40-82 View Post
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.

Agreed. Very tempted to make a portion of this my sig line!

We can't just defend the rights WE hold dear. We have to advocate for all freedoms.

 

[Schwing]

I fully agree with the O.P.s on this:

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.

We need to be honest enough with ourselves to know that, while there are certainly many on the anti side who have nefarious goals, the majority of them do not. They have false perceptions that are leading them to do silly and dangerous things in the name of good ultimate goals such as crime prevention etc.

Until you can at least partially understand WHY the person holds the beliefs that they do and what kind of logic they used to arrive at those beliefs, you will never change their mind. Just shouting them down and brazenly stating that they are wrong will almost always just make them hold more staunchly to their stance. It is human nature.

There is no better arguing position than being the one that completely understands WHY the person feels the way they do and understands the logic behind their belief while still disagreeing with them.

This idea does not just apply to disagreements over 2nd amendment issues either. How many of us have had these same kinds of arguments over religion, abortion, global warming, etc???

There are those rare individuals, even on the anti- side, that are intellectually honest. I know I have had my world view shattered before over certain beliefs that I have held that were wrong but it was never a combative or shouting individual who swayed my views.