Deconstructing the logic of gun control

[Pizzapinochle]

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

Actually, not changing the subject would be to remain on topic for this thread, which is talking about forming sound, logical arguments. So no, I am not going to chase that rabbit trail. If you want to start a new thread, be my guest and I may contribute.

A weakness in how you present your argument is what my original reply to you was pointing out.

Big, generalized, absolute statements like this....

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

...are generally a bad place to start from, especially when you only make a general claim to "all the evidence," but don't actually cite any evidence.

Constructing logical arguments requires three things.

1. Claim - What you believe to be true
2. Evidence - The evidence that supports your belief
3. Impact - Why your claim is important

To counter a particular claim, you must either show that the evidence supplied is incorrect or does not actually support the claim.

Alternatively, you can argue that the IMPACT is actually not significant, that while the evidence may support the claim it doesn't really matter if it is true.

Unfortunately, it is very rare in discussions such as these for anyone to understand these ideas, much less be willing to follow through with them over the course of a discussion.

Tactics like refusing to answer questions, adding new claims to avoid having to defend weak claims and simply ignoring contradictory evidence or reasoning are much more common.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Tactics like refusing to answer questions, adding new claims to avoid having to defend weak claims and simply ignoring contradictory evidence or reasoning are much more common.

Who is the one avoiding and ducking questions here? I presented you with a direct, on topic question here.

I'll cut through your chatter and present it again:

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

So . . . tell us all. What laws that control access to guns do you specifically believe prevent violence? Don't obfuscate. This isn't a cable tv show.

You've spent a lot of your time since you showed up here arguing and advocating for the benefits of quote, "some" gun control laws.

So, tell us all, without all the noise, which gun control laws you believe prevent violence.

And, just so we avoid the typical back-and-forth from the typical gun control law discussions I've had with anti-gunners . . . if you can't point to a law that already exists because it's not working like it should . . . go ahead and feel free to propose what gun control laws you think would prevent violence.


Here's you chance. Tell us all what gun control laws you think work to prevent violence, or in a utopia - without the constraints of a Constitution and a 2nd Amendment - what gun control laws you think would prevent violence.



And with that much freedom for discussion, I'm leaving you zero room for obfuscation. Tell us all what you think works, or would work. The microphone is yours . . .

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Who is the one avoiding and ducking questions here? I presented you with a direct, on topic question here.

So NOW answering direct questions is of utmost importance to you, since you are asking them?

Like i said, if this thread has any hope of staying on topic for the OP and unlocked, we shouldn't go off course. If you want to start a new thread with that question, go for it and i will answer there... Tomorrow b/c i am about to sleep.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Why not here?


I'm on Staff. If I wanted the thread closed, I can close it. If I want the thread to stay open, I'm in a position to ask the Staff to keep it open for the purposes of an on-topic discussion.

And believe me, we all want to see you answer these questions.


Stop ducking that direct question and answer it.


Once again, what gun control laws do you think prevent violence?

 

[BullfrogKen]

Tomorrow b/c i am about to sleep

OK, I see what you did there to your previous post after I asked you again.


No problem. Like Motel 6, we'll leave the light on for you.

Spend the next 24 hours or so coming up with some examples of gun control laws that have prevented violence.

You've spent nearly a year here on this forum telling us all how we gun rights advocates are wrong - after we prevailed under the President's and the Senate's assault and push for expanded gun control.


Sleep on it. Come back tomorrow to tell us what gun control laws work, how you're right, and how our arguments are all washed up.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I also want to hear what Pizzapinochle has to say. That's perfectly on-topic. Maybe he does have arguments that are completely logical within the framework of his worldview. I want to explore that worldview.

 

[BullfrogKen]

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I, the Great and Powerful Oz. have spoken.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

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.

I have a personal story along those same lines that I have used on several occasions to counter arguments from anti gun people.

I always tell anti gun people that they should focus their efforts on reducing the core causes of poverty, inequality, and despair instead of "gun crime," since "gun crime" is largely a symptom of the above problems.

Years ago when I was a freshman in college, I lived in a large dormitory building that had centrally controlled heat and air. One cold winter night, the thermostat malfunctioned, causing the heater to run non-stop on full blast. Pretty soon the temperature in the building was over 100 degrees.

I was in the process of stuffing towels into all of the air vents in my room to block the heat when several of the building staff members started making rounds of the floors and demanding that people not block the vents, because doing so just pushed the hot air elsewhere.

I responded to this rather incredulously and asked why they were not all hammering the phones and trying to track down the building engineer or anyone else who might be able to shut off the stupid heat. The failed thermostat was the problem, not the people who had taken to blocking the air vents. The blocking of air vents was simply a consequence of a larger problem.

No anti gun person has ever been able to refute this analogy with any kind of logical argument.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

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."

Heck, I now have a personal story that I can use. Last Saturday I stumbled on to a restaurant that had not yet opened for the day, but the front door was standing wide open and the burglar alarm was going off. I called 911 to report that something funny seemed to be going on there.

It took over 15 minutes for the police to get there, and this was in a highly populated suburb of Washington DC.

It is fortunate that there was no real problem, just an absent-minded employee having forgotten to lock the door the night before. But what if someone had been in real trouble there, and what if seconds had counted? Yikes!

 

[hartcreek]

What logic if they used logic when these videos came out they would have realized that magazine size restrictions are rediculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pb2Lk4bdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

 

[JSH1]

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.

Very true. I have also had deeply held views on issues change over the past 20 years and I agree it was not by people rattling off the talking points meant to rally the base. It was by open and honest discussion with people I know and from personal experience with an issue.

Many of the phases that get the biggest applause lines from the faithful turn off people in the middle.

 

[JRH6856]

I know I have had my world view shattered before over certain beliefs that I have held that were wrong

IMO, the key to changing someone's mind on any issue is first figure out at what level, the real disagreement is. Arguing about how the 2A protects a fundamental natural right is useless if the real disagreement is over whether or not natural rights even exist.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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?

Aside from the Second Amendment, there is a simple answer to this. Honestly, I don't know why I might need a Super Duper Extra Caliber Adjustable Range Thunderclap Flesh Homogenizer. But when the need does arise, I don't want to be caught without it. When that need does arise, pay attention and I'll gladly demonstrate why I need it to you - and to the antagonist I'm defending myself from.

Woody

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Aside from the Second Amendment, there is a simple answer to this. Honestly, I don't know why I might need a Super Duper Extra Caliber Adjustable Range Thunderclap Flesh Homogenizer. But when the need does arise, I don't want to be caught without it. When that need does arise, pay attention and I'll gladly demonstrate why I need it to you - and to the antagonist I'm defending myself from.

The answer is, "Why do you NEED to read a newspaper?"

"Why do you NEED to vote?"

They are trying to trap you into agreeing with the fallacy that you have to demonstrate a need before you can exercise a right. A right, by definition is something that needs no demonstrated need -- it belongs to you as much as your arm or leg belong to you. It came to you when you were conceived and you don't have to tell someone else why you NEED it.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Here's you chance. Tell us all what gun control laws you think work to prevent violence, or in a utopia - without the constraints of a Constitution and a 2nd Amendment - what gun control laws you think would prevent violence.

Actually this statement should be repeatedly thrust in the face of every anti we encounter, not just the ones that lurk here.

Well done.

 

[JRH6856]

Here's you chance. Tell us all what gun control laws you think work to prevent violence, or in a utopia - without the constraints of a Constitution and a 2nd Amendment - what gun control laws you think would prevent violence.

The problem with this question is that for most antis, the answer is easy: Any law that reduces the number of guns reduces the potential for gun violence and is progress (and for progressives, progress is important). They consider conflating gun violence with other forms of violence to be a strawman argument. They want to focus on reducing or eliminating gun violence. Other forms of violence can wait.

 

[happygeek]

They consider conflating gun violence with other forms of violence to be a strawman argument. They want to focus on reducing or eliminating gun violence. Other forms of violence can wait.

Heck the FBI does that, you have to dig into the homicide numbers to find the tables where they break it down by age/gender of offenders & victims, weapon type, by state numbers, etc.

I'd have to ask what's the point of focusing solely on homicides by firearm, even if their law lowered that number while overall homicides stayed the same. You'd be right back at that Archie Bunker cliche: "would it make you feel better if they were pushed out of windows?".

(On a sidenote to that, what's really odd is that while the overall homicide rate has been dropping since 1991 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html), to the point where in 2012 the rate was 1/2 the 1991 rate, the % of homicides committed with a firearm has stayed pretty much in the same range for decades (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html).)

The other thing is, I haven't seen the Brady Campaign or VPC try to claim that one of their laws lowered the homicide rate. The Brady Campaign put out a study that claimed the 94 - 04 ban resulted in the police seizing fewer "hi-cap" mags in 1 city (they didn't say if that in turn lowered the homicide rate, or maybe I missed it). Then again I haven't read everything the Brady Campaign has published, and probably 1/2 to 2/3 of what the VPC has. That one book the Brady's Dennis A. Henigan wrote was just painful to read, IMHO Henigan is no Josh Sugarmann when it comes to writing. Heck Tom Diaz put a better book together.

Josh Sugarmann did include a few paragraphs written by a Terry Gainer at the end of one of the chapters in his book Every Handgun is Aimed at You. Gainer mentioned that he had co-written Chicago's handgun ban before he went to work in drug enforcement in D.C. Gainer had this to say:

We knew in Chicago, and we know in the District of Columbia - where we've banned handguns - that if you minimize the number of handguns you are going to have less shootings, a pretty simple, straightforward concept.

 

[JRH6856]

I'd have to ask what's the point of focusing solely on homicides by firearm, even if their law lowered that number while overall homicides stayed the same. You'd be right back at that Archie Bunker cliche: "would it make you feel better if they were pushed out of windows?".

Their point, apparently is that "guns are dangerous to children and other living things. Guns KILL. Everything else is survivable."

The answer I usually get is, "Yes, they would have a better chance at surviving."

This is a core belief and you can't successfuly attack a core belief. You have to find the reason they believe it so strongly. Usually, it is some level of non-violence or pacifism that causes them to see guns as capable of producing more violence that anything. Guns are loud, destrucitive and operated at a distance. Bombs are generally ignored.

 

[JSH1]

Actually this statement should be repeatedly thrust in the face of every anti we encounter

I guess that depends on what your goal is. Thrusting things in people's face is a very poor way to convince them that they are wrong and you are right. It is a good way to argue for the sake of arguing and have both parties leave without learning anything about the other's position.

 

[Red Wind]

So many gun controllers on this sad thread. I'm very glad I had a fine Easter repast before reading it. So much of this anti 2nd Amendment, shall not be infringed, muck. Sad on a gun forum.

But ,the 1st must be acknowledged. These pitiful Socialists will be lost in the long run. Just like the 1917-1989 Bolsheviks.

Lots of Huffpo and Daily Kos disciples treading these waters. But the observant here have known that for years.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

So many gun controllers on this sad thread. I'm very glad I had a fine Easter repast before reading it. So much of this anti 2nd Amendment, shall not be infringed, muck. Sad on a gun forum.

Where have people been supporting gun control?

 

[Red Wind]

^Read the thread . You are intelligent, Do I have to spell out the names? Please, you are too intelligent to be oblivious. Read their many past posts.

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. Simplicity itself. Monotonous!!

 

[jon_in_wv]

The only gun laws that prevent crime are the ones that prevent the government from infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and to deter criminals. The first one that comes to mind is the 2nd Amendment. Any other law is a misguided attempt at best, and at worst a nefarious attempt to disarm everyone.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Eh...

The good from the use of guns vastly outweighs the evil perpetrated with them. I'll bet the use of guns stop and prevent injury, rape, robbery, and death from the foul use of more other instruments than the foul use of guns. Has anyone ever considered and actually studied that? Someone must have! Why else would it be said, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight," if it weren't true?

Though the afore mentioned might sound anecdotal, it makes more sense that anything the anti-gun-rights crowd is saying.

And, of course, the simple keeping and bearing of guns(and other arms) is absolutely benign and innocuous no matter where or when they are kept and/or borne. What the anti-gun-rights crowd should concentrate on instead is those who persist in the foul USE of guns and other arms. You know, like keeping such people locked up if not executed.

Woody