I am tired of most gun control arguments

Since I started a thread critical of pro-gun argument, I thought one might be fair for pro-gun control arguments. Both sides are capable of blatant stupidity concerning the issue of gun control, however given that most pro-gun control proponents know little or nothing about firearms, the most incoherent arguments come from that side of the fence.

Here we go:

1. Know what you are talking about. If you are going to tell me or some other gun owner what we can and cannot own, then you better well understand the issue. The key to understanding the issue is to understand the firearms involved in X debate. Pay attention. I am going to dismiss what ever my opponent has to say on the issue if they are ignorant of the issue, or in a sad attempt to be right (rather than educated) continue to use the same silly argument or some incoherent definition of X.

Here is a good example:
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...58325-so-homes-used-assualt-rifle-really.html

The OP offers a rather nice explanation concerning the difference between assault rifles and "assault weapons". The definitions are legal and historical, not my own. Yet, certain posters insist on using their own incoherent and imagined definitions in the debate. I place zero value on those opinions because that are blatantly inaccurate and factually incorrect. When speaking of the all powerful AR-15, don't make such silly comments like "They are too powerful (my hunting rifle is three times more powerful than my AR-15 btw)" or "What would rather be shot with? A shotgun or an AR-15?" and expect to be taken seriously.

Yes, I am a pretentious dick. If you do not understand the issue, do not pretend to be an authority with valid points. No one expects you to be an expert. Just know enough to discuss it intelligently. Listen to the people who actually have experience.


2. "You are more like to die by a firearm if a firearm is in the house than not."

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock. If I were to own a swimming pool I am more likely to drown than if I did not. If I drive/ride in a motor vehicle I am more likely to perish in an accident than if I did not participate in that activity. I am more likely to die in a bicycle accident by riding than if I abstained.

There is no reason to point out the obvious for an imaginary victory. (Oh, and I am more likely to die in all of those activities than by a firearm in my apartment!)


3. "You are more likely to die by the hand of a friend or family member than be attacked by a criminal."

I would take that seriously if those figures did not include the deaths of criminals engaged in criminal activity at the time of their death. Those circumstances and the people involved in such skew the numbers. There is no reason to use false figures for an imaginary victory.

Refer to point #1.

4. The arms race. If we buy this then criminals will buy that, then we need that to counter this. LOL Yeah, the arms race is imaginary. I conceal carry a .40S&W regardless of whatever new guns are on the market.


5. US guns in Mexico. I would love to find a 01 FFL dealer in the United States that would allow me to purchase an M-16 with grenade launcher in the US. Oh wait, they don't exist. This is a good example for point #1. Most of the weapons found in Mexico is are military weapons. Not available to civilians. Just because the gun's receiver says "MADE IN USA" does not mean it came from the gun store around the corner. The US government sells Mexico guns. A good portion of the Mexican military goes AWOL and takes their weapons with them. Put 2 and 2 together. Also, don't forget about Fast and Furious.

Refer to point #1.


6. "If some guy comes up behind you and shoots you your concealed pistol won't do any good." No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock. For every situation you can imagine where a firearm would be useless I can come up with ten to the contrary. No one claims that carrying a gun is an end card. No reason to make silly arguments that imply such.

Refer to point #1.


7. "Firearms are designed to kill/The only use for a firearm is to kill."
a. Original intent is irrelevant (not to mention that firearms are designed for a myriad of reasons, refer to point #1 again).
I have an Anschutz Achiever ST rifle. Designed for competition shooting, shooting paper targets.
I have an M1 Garand, designed for military use by the US government.

If I use the Achiever for target shooting, I am fulfilling it's "original intent".
If I use the M1 Garand to kill Nazi's, I am fulfilling it's "original intent".

If I use the Achiever to kill Nazi's, what relevance is the "original intent"?
If I use the M1 Garand for target shooting, what relevance is the "original intent"?

You can cling to the idea of original intent if you like, however the argument is irrelevant and will be dismissed as such.

b. 0.003% of firearms in the US are used against another person in an act of crime. 0.0004% of firearms are used against another person in an act of homicide. That leaves 99.997%/99.9996% that are used for something other than killing. No need to move the goal posts to include animals. The argument is moot.

Refer to point #1.


8. You guys are paranoid.

Some are, some may be, some aren't. The odds of using a firearm in self-defense are higher than that a firearms being used against you. It is a self-defeating argument, by the very premise of the argument, the accuser is far more paranoid than the gun owner.

9. X can't be used for hunting.
Handguns can't be used for hunting.
"Assault weapons" can't be used for hunting.

Yes they can and people do. Period.

Refer to point #1.

 

Wolverine's Bill of Why He's Right! LOL!!!

(Sorry man, I couldn't resist, great points!)

 

On top of mere guns, Americans ought to be able to own nukes too. Gotta be equivalent, right?

Could they draft a guy who's got a nuke up his sleeve?

 

That is irrelevant. No one makes an argument for nukes.

Such is the strawman fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Do you have something else to argue?

 

You strike me as an overly-critical, intellectually-superior, and vaguely-abrasive person, brother Wolverine.

Are you like that in real life, or just on the internet?

Thanks in advance for the honest, forthright response.

 

I have been doing this for a while.

I have little patience for arguments have been proven to be wrong again and again and again.

 

I exchange emails with a large circle of friends, family, coworkers, and band mates.

There are a few who can't stop themselves from forwarding the fantastic urban legend emails.
"Target Stores discriminate against US Marines, will only support gay and lesbian causes. We need to boycott these people!"
etc etc
And they earnestly believe each and every bit of nonsense that pops up on the internet, and so hurriedly pass it along with admonitions to 'forward this to ten people in ten minutes, or an angel will cry', or whatever.

Drives me crazy.
I calmly and politely 'reply all' with the news that what they have passed on is not true, and that they've been duped by yet another urban legend.

The internet is much like a swiftly-flowing river, filled with floating junk and trash. You can stand on the bank and watch it all sail by.
Every now and then, a small toy boat containing a golden, wonderful surprise (the real truth) will flow by as well, but it's caught up and tangled in all the other flotsam and jetsam.
If you want to grab it, you have to be quick, and have a really keen eye.

That's the internet.

 

Sometimes Wolverine, you're threads are extremely entertaining.

 

The internet also offers an immense ability to fact check.

The thread is mostly directed towards those who mindlessly repeat nonsense from the Brady Campaign website.

Just as my other thread was directed towards those who mindlessly repeat nonsense from the NRA.

 

Hahahahhaa, thank you.

I will be here all week. lol

 

didnt read it all but it is a fact that most guns in mexico are not from the US government, they are bought by individuals at gun shows across the southern USA and transported across the border, check it out if you dont believe me

 

I have.

Refer to point #1.

Point me towards a gun show where I am can machine guns, grenade launchers, and grenades, please.

 

you can definitely buy machine guns at many, grenades etc are used in a very very small percentage of the murders in mexico probably less than 1% so mentioning them is irrelevant distraction


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734.html


there you go, over 70% of guns recovered in mexico have been TRAFFICKED from the USA, note not sold by the US government, bought at gun shows and smuggled across the border





http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE MEMO.pdf


machine guns available for sale in US gun shows

 

Nope.

I bet you have no idea exactly how a person goes about purchasing a machine gun do you?

Refer to point #1 again please.

 

goes to a gun show, Ive watched documentaries on it, just gave you a link too


what was point 1 again

 

Point #1 in a nutshell is educate yourself.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

 

You can not buy a machine gun at a gun show. Right now, it takes 6 months to get back a form 4, which can only be submitted through a class 3 dealer. Do some research on NFA items, find out what a form 4 is, so you can stop embarassing yourself.

 

He is the embodiment of what this thread was directed towards.

 

I'm a buyer, and director of ATF compliance at a shooting center in central Ohio. Ignorance of class III items is pretty common. We sell suppressors, SBR's, SBS's and full autos. I'd say about 85% of people have no idea you can own them. So I can excuse his ignorance once. After explaining it to him and providing links to the ATF(like you did above)there is no exuse for ignorance.

 

Even with just Google.

Education is free.

Other posts often refer to me as a pretentious dick, I simply have little patience what has been explained again and again and again.

 

I think SWAT teams should have full access to everything the military has. Howitzers, tanks, light and heavy automatic weapons...what ev.

And citizens should be allowed to have automatic weapons up to 50 cal.

 

I can't imagine why SWAT would ever need those things.

I would rather not live in a police state.

 

SWAT, or just the police, would need those things if everyday people were allowed to own 50 cal automatic weapons.

 

:/

So we militarize the police forces so that we can allow citizens to own heavy machine guns?

Do you see how that makes absolutely no sense?

 

Are you against the right to own a heavy machine gun?