I've argued with people. I've talked on this forum. I've read news articles and their comments. I've seen dozens of statistics that are biased put out by both sides, and a lot of hogwash thrown out there. What I've come to realize is that these 5 points pretty much cover anything from a total ban on guns to "well, we should restrict magazine capacity", in terms of how much gun control one says they desire. I posted 4 of these in another thread, but it was buried down, and I just wanted to post in its own topic to see what others thought.
I might add, the other thing I've learned is that you can debate with a lot of people, but there are true hoplophobes out there, and by their own admission you will never convince them of anything. I've also learned that sometimes the best way to debate is to ignore them entirely and bring up the subject with the other people involved when said hoplophobe is not present.
On to my points, this is essentially covering two types of weapons, the "assault" (and I'm using that term just because it's a legal cliche) weapon and the "acceptable" weapon, as labelled by the gun control advocate. These are loose definitions. I.e. a total ban on guns would make any firearm an "assault" weapon by this definition (but knives would be "acceptable"), a ban on 10+ cap magazines would make a Glock an "assault" weapon, but a 1911 "acceptable".
1) The "assault" weapon is not as dangerous as the anti would lead you to believe.
2) The "acceptable" weapon is much more dangerous than the anti would lead you to believe.
3) Asking for us to justify the "assault" weapon is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make the "assault" weapon illegal, it doesn't mean it won't be used in crime.
5) Even if you somehow eradicate the "assault" weapon, simply removing the tool won't solve crime - crime is caused by motive, not tools.
#1 and #2 are especially great because they even cover suggestions like "he could have shot him in the leg"...an attitude which ignores the fact that many people shot in the chest with a handgun survive (meaning even a COM shot isn't "shoot-to-kill") and the fact that a shot to the leg can easily be fatal.
Since the hot-button topic today is automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, I'll use that as an example of my thought process. Essentially, the idea is that guns are okay, but automatics are not for civilians. Therefore, in this particular argument, automatics are "assault" and everything else (including semi-automatics) are "acceptable", according to the anti.
1) Full-automatic isn't that much different than semi-automatic. People with fast trigger fingers can fire a semi-automatic just as fast as a full-auto. Therefore, you're not seeing a significant leap in lethality by going full-auto.
2) Semi-automatics actually encourage accurate fire instead of spray-and-pray, which can actually lead to more deadly encounters.
3) Asking for us to justify full auto weapons is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make full auto weapons illegal, it doesn't mean they won't be used in crime. Older weapons, stolen weapons, or modified semi-automatics can still be used to provide criminals with full-auto.
5) Even if you take away full auto weapons, it doesn't mean the crime will be stopped. Criminals have a plethora of other options available, including semi-automatics, gasoline, explosives, or chemicals, that can cause significant damage.
Anyway, that's my new philosophy on the debate. It essentially covers everything from banning carry to banning guns to banning so-called "assault weapons".
I might add, the other thing I've learned is that you can debate with a lot of people, but there are true hoplophobes out there, and by their own admission you will never convince them of anything. I've also learned that sometimes the best way to debate is to ignore them entirely and bring up the subject with the other people involved when said hoplophobe is not present.
On to my points, this is essentially covering two types of weapons, the "assault" (and I'm using that term just because it's a legal cliche) weapon and the "acceptable" weapon, as labelled by the gun control advocate. These are loose definitions. I.e. a total ban on guns would make any firearm an "assault" weapon by this definition (but knives would be "acceptable"), a ban on 10+ cap magazines would make a Glock an "assault" weapon, but a 1911 "acceptable".
1) The "assault" weapon is not as dangerous as the anti would lead you to believe.
2) The "acceptable" weapon is much more dangerous than the anti would lead you to believe.
3) Asking for us to justify the "assault" weapon is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make the "assault" weapon illegal, it doesn't mean it won't be used in crime.
5) Even if you somehow eradicate the "assault" weapon, simply removing the tool won't solve crime - crime is caused by motive, not tools.
#1 and #2 are especially great because they even cover suggestions like "he could have shot him in the leg"...an attitude which ignores the fact that many people shot in the chest with a handgun survive (meaning even a COM shot isn't "shoot-to-kill") and the fact that a shot to the leg can easily be fatal.
Since the hot-button topic today is automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, I'll use that as an example of my thought process. Essentially, the idea is that guns are okay, but automatics are not for civilians. Therefore, in this particular argument, automatics are "assault" and everything else (including semi-automatics) are "acceptable", according to the anti.
1) Full-automatic isn't that much different than semi-automatic. People with fast trigger fingers can fire a semi-automatic just as fast as a full-auto. Therefore, you're not seeing a significant leap in lethality by going full-auto.
2) Semi-automatics actually encourage accurate fire instead of spray-and-pray, which can actually lead to more deadly encounters.
3) Asking for us to justify full auto weapons is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make full auto weapons illegal, it doesn't mean they won't be used in crime. Older weapons, stolen weapons, or modified semi-automatics can still be used to provide criminals with full-auto.
5) Even if you take away full auto weapons, it doesn't mean the crime will be stopped. Criminals have a plethora of other options available, including semi-automatics, gasoline, explosives, or chemicals, that can cause significant damage.
Anyway, that's my new philosophy on the debate. It essentially covers everything from banning carry to banning guns to banning so-called "assault weapons".