Another gun control argument

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by bwilson4web, Nov 2, 2020.

  1. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    >Anyone who disagrees with my my policy wants is apathetic towards violence, murder, suicide, and breaking puppies necks
    "Anyone who disagrees with me is immoral" isn't really an argument if everyone here wants less violence, murder, suicide, and puppies getting their necks broken. The actual argument being presented by me and the others here is that the gun control restrictions you are asking for won't solve the problem. Nobody here is saying that violence or suicide is a good/neutral thing; we are saying that arbitrarily restricting guns won't stop it. No offense, but I'm fairly positive that you are ignoring the data that I'm posting.

    What hypocrisy are you even talking about?
    >Gun rights advocates are not killing Trump supporters
    >claim bullets instead of ballots? (So, a few crackpots make death threats to some politicians, now all gun rights advocates are somehow complicit? Not really following your "logic" here)
    You do realize that the same threatened people can defend themselves with their gun rights? It's like you are forcing a narrative here.

    You even own a type of gun that you want to ban. How does this not make you the hypocrite? Why is it ok for you to own a 50 cal when you want to ban them?
  2. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Sorry but that straw man don't hunt.

    Bob Wilson
  3. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    What strawman?
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Your strawman. Regardless, just in time:

    Bob Wilson
  5. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    How’d I straw man you?

    Oh. Nice cherry pick.
  6. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    No really. You don't quote which means your straw man. Regardless, this just came in:


    Kyle Rittenhouse cashed a coronavirus stimulus check to purchase the semi-automatic rife that authorities say he used to fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, he said.

    In a telephone interview with The Washington Post, posted Thursday, the jailed Rittenhouse said he acted in self-defense and has no regrets for arming himself that fateful August night as protesters marched in the wake of Jacob Blake's shooting by police.

    Rittenhouse, 17, who had worked as a YMCA lifeguard, was arrested at his home in Antioch, Illinois, a day after the fatal shootings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, on Aug. 25.
    . . .

    Another fine example of your side of the discussion.

    Bob Wilson
  7. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    lol. what are you talking about? I'm not really strawmanning you. If anything, I'm just responding to the tone of your arguments, which isn't inherently a strawman. But I'm mostly doing that when you are, well, using the appeal to motive fallacy.

    lol. This is another golden cherry-pick. How does this single event fit within the entirety of violence in the US, which is generally the topic of conversation.

    >Another fine example of your side of the discussion.
    lol. what? Guilt by association now? I have no idea what this kids politics are and good chance neither do you. How on earth would that automatically make him on 'my side'. Also, there are way more than just two political positions in the US.
  8. cents/mi

    cents/mi New Member

    Sorry I couldn't get the pew research lines & the FBI table 8 lines that I am referencing here to copy over.
    From Pew Research: "In 2017, six-in-ten gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (23,854), while 37% were murders (14,542), according to the CDC." But from FBI table 8, 2017 - total murders by weapons was 15,195 (which includes knives, blunt objects, fists etc.) Firearms were 11,006. (discrepancies in #'s must be FBI sources vs. ER/health facility reports)
    Point being that CDC wants to skew/mislead by inflating gun #s (along with media bias) to make guns the culprit not bad or psychotic people at fault.
    (I don't trust CDC coronavirus reporting either). Two facets to the multi-pronged attempt to take away many/all of our rights.
  9. My definition of gun control is hitting the target. There is no other acceptable definition.
    BlueKonaEV likes this.
  10. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    In any case, the overwhelming majority of violence with guns in the US involve handguns.

    0% of Bob's proposed additional gun control laws would do anything to reduce homicides in the US.
  11. BlueKonaEV

    BlueKonaEV Well-Known Member

    on a related note.. Got myself a new carry gun.. It's a little big but not too big.. Ruger 57 which uses 5.7x28 round.. Got some legal designer ammo for it that will go through all Level IIIa body armor as also bullet proof glass. 2200 fps fired from handgun, 2500 fps from rifle. Gun has 20+1 round capacity.. That's some good self defense right there.. 5.7x28 is shorty .223

    Last edited: Dec 1, 2020 at 8:28 PM
  12. BlueKonaEV

    BlueKonaEV Well-Known Member

    Gun control is not about reducing homicides but about CONTROL. Anyways, maybe 1% of all AR owners, AK owners, high capacity magazine owners would register any of their stuff.. Anyone recalls the Bump Stock ban? 100000's sold and maybe 30 were turned in.. Barely anybody would register or turn in any guns, especially in states where guns are not registered right now... Not going to happen.. Over our dead bodies..
  13. petteyg359

    petteyg359 Well-Known Member

    How do you tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun?

    You don't. There's no such thing as a good guy with a gun.
  14. BlueKonaEV

    BlueKonaEV Well-Known Member

    Bad Guy with knife rapes a kid.. Good guy with gun catches him and blows his f@#ing head off..
    Bad Guy with gun robs a bank.. Customer has gun and shoots the robber.
    If you can't see the difference, I feel sorry for you. One breaks the law and the other one uses his gun to stop a bad guy from harming others.
  15. petteyg359

    petteyg359 Well-Known Member

    So committing murder makes a person good? Some 'Murican logic there.
  16. BlueKonaEV

    BlueKonaEV Well-Known Member

    Ridding the planet of criminal scum is something good.. If it was legal, I would kill any child rapist. Killing is not the same as murder. Murder is a LEGAL definition of illegally taking someone's life.. As it's not illegal to take a life in self defense, it's not murder by definition. It's "KILLING". I personally wouldn't feel bad for 1 second if I shoot and kill someone breaking into my house, someone threatening my life or somebody else's life etc.
    If you look at crime statistics, most violent crimes are committed by REPEAT offenders. If someone takes them out of their misery, It's a win for humanity.
    I think that it would make me a good person if my action prevents other people from becoming victim of the scumbag..

    Let's say, you catch a child rapist raping a child.. Instead of blowing his head off, you call the cops and he goes to prison for 5 years, comes out of prison and rapes 10 more kids before he is caught again.. So, if, instead of calling the cops, you would have put him out of his misery, you would have saved 10 kids from being raped by the Pedophile.. So, the person that takes him off this planet is a good person..
  17. petteyg359

    petteyg359 Well-Known Member

    Sure, I like utilitarianism. But that doesn't support the use of guns. Go stab the guy and cut off his rape-y appendages. Grab a mallet and make him a eunuch. There are plenty of ways to stop people from doing bad things without guns. Gun are a tool whose only purpose is killing. They make it easier for bad people to do bad things. They don't make doing good things any easier for good people except by equal counter to the bad usages, and that doesn't stand up as "good" in any ethical framework.
  18. BlueKonaEV

    BlueKonaEV Well-Known Member

    The problem is that if you take away guns from people, only good people would give them up, putting bad people at the advantage.. In the USA, there are more guns than people.. You are not going to be able to get rid of guns.. BTW, I was born in Austria and guns as used in the Vienna attack are ILLEGAL in Austria.. So, making them ILLEGAL long time ago in Austria did NOT stop the bad guys with the fully automatic rifles in Vienna. In Mexico, most guns are illegal to own and yet, there are hundreds of thousands o guns in the hands of Cartels. Gun Control disarms VICTIMS. Infringing upon gun ownership will lead to a CIVIL WAR.. Bet on it.. The moment that the Feds would confiscate guns, bullets will start flying. The Feds have ZERO right to ban any type of gun ownership as per 10th amendment. They can regulate COMMERCE of guns.. Ownership is not COMMERCE. If a person does not engage in commerce, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE does not apply. If I legally own a gun now, the federal government has no right to force me to register my guns or sell them to the government. They can only restrict sale, not ownership. The 10th amendment says that all powers not directed to the Federal government by the constitution go to the states. The interstate commerce clause applies to COMMERCE, not ownership if you are not selling. So, only states may ban certain types of weapons, not the FEDS.. Any attempt to do so by the Feds without amending the constitution could constitute government tyranny and would justify a civil war.
  19. petteyg359

    petteyg359 Well-Known Member

    No, gun control does not "disarm victims". It removes a profit vector from an industry that thrives on violence and lobbies to increase that violence.
  20. It's the lack of law and order that is driving gun sales and citizens to arm themselves. Look what happened this summer, with all the riots/looting, letting criminals out, and defund the police talk. Not hard to figure that out...

Share This Page