"If you want guntrol, you need to understand these pro-gun arguments"

M

MagnumWill

New member
I just stumbled upon this in my news feed. It's essentially an attempt to route what anti-gunners think as "major" pro-gun arguments.

Personally I find the attempt tedious and an old play on a lot of their old talking points... but what you you say? Shall we analyze the analyst?

If You Want Gun Control, You Need To Understand These Pro-Gun Arguments

https://uproxx.com/news/arguments-against-gun-control/
 
Plenty of fallacies all around.

Point 1 - The number of estimated gun owners is really only counting LAWFUL gun owners. Not the 13 yr old hood thug that's strapping up to stand on an inner city corner and deal drugs.

Point 2 - Would the same argument be accepted if we said that anyone with a history of mental illness should be prohibited from being a journalist? Or that we should put restrictions on the quantity of media outlets?
Didn't think so.

Point 3 - How does regulating a Militia protect school kids from being shot by those who unlawfully obtain firearms?

Point 4 - If we were so inept with our guns we would have all killed ourselves with NDs by now.

Point 5 - How are my lawfully owned possessions threatening anyones right to life?

The underlying message seems to be that any one of us law abiding gun owners is going to be the next mass shooter, and the only thing that might stop it is GUN CONTROL.

Notice how often it says 'we don't want to take all the guns away'? :rolleyes:
 
The arguments for guns aren’t crazy. They aren’t even inherently evil. They deserve to be taken seriously and debated. Once debated, it becomes clear: Though pro-gun arguments are based on logic, they are also frail and weak. They stretch anecdotes in order to battle unassailable facts.
Click to expand...

This was the second to last paragraph.
Seems to me it should read, "The arguments against guns aren't crazy...".
That would then be a factual statement as I see it.
 
Notice how often it says 'we don't want to take all the guns away'?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is I’d bet money if you talk to that guy long enough, he’ll tell you he does think they should take all guns away. They just can’t help themselves.

Somewhere out there is a video of a local Seattle politician who goes from “Nobody wants to take all your guns away” to “We should take all your guns away” in the very same speech without even recognizing it.

The author also commits the common error of misinterpreting “well-regulated” - as if the people writing a Bill of Rights to protect the states and citizens from the federal government would insert a phrase implying the militia should be massively regulated by the federal government. It reflects the general spread of poor historical understanding and critical thinking.
 
Point 1 - The number of estimated gun owners is really only counting LAWFUL gun owners. Not the 13 yr old hood thug that's strapping up to stand on an inner city corner and deal drugs.
Click to expand...
I personally know of at least three people, who own firearms, who have almost certainly never been counted in any tabulation of firearms owners. And I'm largely a recluse. If I know three, how many more must there be out there?

There have been 250 mass shootings (four or more shot, not including the shooter) so far in 2018.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it. I try to track "mass shootings," and my spreadsheet right now shows 14 incidents, and of those 8 do NOT qualify as "mass shootings" under the four or more criterion, but I included them because they were in schools, and I started the spreadsheet to track school shootings. To get 250 they have to be counting gang battles and police shootings in the line of duty ... or else they're just plain lying.
 
Last edited:
They like to play the little numbers and words games.........

"You're X times more like to be shot with a gun in your home then you are to kill an intruder".

Key word is "kill".
MOST in-home defensive situations have no one killed, no one shot, no shot fired at all.
Second, some of these "studies" included as a "gun in the home" as the gun an armed intruder brought with him.
Well, it's a gun and it was in the home.

School shootings is another way of lying by numbers and words.
One of these studies included as a "school shooting" a case where a drugged up man climbed on the roof of a school and fired shots at the moon.
That happened at 3:00 am, in the summer, when the school was closed.
Still a school shooting.

In another a man called the police and told them he was going to commit suicide at a school.
When they arrived he'd killed himself in a car parked in the parking lot.
The school was permanently closed and abandoned and had been for years.
School shooting.

They usually include in the numbers cases where police have shot a 20 year old armed thug as a "child killed by a gun".
Any one who is not yet actually 21 years old is a "child killed by a gun".
The killed numbers are padded out with suicides, which account for something like 2/3rds of all deaths by gun.
Most of the others are inner city "children" killing each other over drugs and gang activity.
Take the suicides and inner city killings out and we have a gun crime rate about that of Sweden.
 
"You're X times more like to be shot with a gun in your home then you are to kill an intruder".
Click to expand...

Well, duh. That phrasing basically compares three categories of firearm injury (accidents, crime, suicide) to a subset of a single category of firearm homicide (justifiable homicide). What’s more, it likely relies on CDC numbers - but CDC gathers data at the hospital level. They don’t follow up two years later to see what the judicial outcome was.

Somebody should invite the author here. He’s just smart enough to get in way over his head.
 
.. your toy does not come before my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I get to live. I get to feel safe. These are unalienable protections under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


And so, it comes down to this. All the flawed or even BS statistics from the anti gun side, repeated here again, without question, all the "your guns should be regulated, other hobbies are", even the "admission" that while pro-gun arguments are based on logic, they are frail and weak, ALL of it is based on this, flawed understanding of the author's "rights"

You do not have a right to feel safe. Constitutionally protected, or otherwise. NO government promises this, no religion promises this, on this earth, anyway.

"I get to live. I get to feel safe". Think about that. And, think about how, in order for him to achieve this state of bliss, OUR rights must be subservient to his. If there is a more childish and self centered attitude out there, its tough to see. In fact, could one not call this "me first, you don't matter" attitude sociopathic??

MY pursuit of happiness (and its a stretch using that term, when there is ALSO a Second Amendment) must take a backseat to his, so he gets to live, and feel safe....

Boil it down to basics, and gun control comes down to "what I want matters, what you want does not". As far as I can see, this has also been the attitude of ever bully, criminal and dictator in history.
 
Somewhere out there is a video of a local Seattle politician who goes from “Nobody wants to take all your guns away” to “We should take all your guns away” in the very same speech without even recognizing it.
Click to expand...

The cause of this double speak is they want to find a way for the righteous people to stand behind the protection of a gun, while eliminating general public ownership of guns. That is why we talk of lists, licensing, testing, mental illness checks....all of these can be used to identify if the public have too many guns. Think Australia....that is probably the right distribution of guns for the control side.

The folks that talk about banning all guns are the idealists that the controllers send out to tell the story. They are being used and will likely end up naked and afraid on our side of the fence.
 
"I get to live. I get to feel safe". --- If there is a more childish and self centered attitude out there, its tough to see. In fact, could one not call this "me first, you don't matter" attitude sociopathic??
Click to expand...

IMhO you really hit the nail on the head describing this anti-gun argument.
 
"I get to live. I get to feel safe". Think about that. And, think about how, in order for him to achieve this state of bliss, OUR rights must be subservient to his.
Click to expand...

And not just that; he is also implicitly demanding someone else do the dirty work of safeguarding his life and provoding him safety so that he bears no personal responsibility for it. Wonder how he’ll feel if the people doing that work start to make him feel unsafe?
 
And not just that; he is also implicitly demanding someone else do the dirty work of safeguarding his life and provoding him safety so that he bears no personal responsibility for it
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd say it goes even deeper than that. Not only does he want someone else to "do the dirty work", I'd bet he also expect someone else to pay for it, as well.

Don't overlook the implied insult, either. My "toys" are a threat to his life, safety, and peace of mind. Knows NOTHING about me, or mine, and doesn't care. Just having a gun is enough for him to put me in the "dangerous, unstable, untrustworthy category in his mind, and therefore I'm a risk.

He's putting all gunowners in the same group, and that behavior is the behavior of a bigot.

I could be a pillar of the Society of Friends, or I could be an Islamic Jihadist, we're ALL the same to him, if we have guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top