Need some help with these anti-gun arguments

[HoneyBadger]

Hey guys, I've been going back and forth with a guy for a while now on facebook, and today he posted this Cracked article on my wall. Some of you said I am good with words, and I really appreciate that, but I really need some help on this one.

[Goodburbon]

Well, I guess cracked is off my list of leisure internet reading.

[Ridge]

Cracked.com is a satire site.

[cstone]

Don't argue with ignorance.

If you feel compelled, explain why you have made the choices you have. Provide sources for any data you relied upon to make your choices, and wish him well with his life and his choices.

If he was asking his friends for help in supporting his argument, what information could he possibly come up with that would swing you over to his position?

Be safe.

[Irving]

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. <-- This is not a reference to solidiers or war.
There is no human "evolution" away from violence.
You don't need to keep an offender alive for it to be considered defense.
Firearms are force equlizers.

In the future, avoid these discussions altogether (and Facebook while you're at it).

[ChunkyMonkey]

hahahaha... the anti gunners rely on cracked.com !??! what a joke.

Bottom line on every single gun control argument is.. I will give up my guns when there is no more armed robberies, armed massacre, rapes, and so on. Until then, I ll do society a favor by protecting my family and myself.

[Fentonite]

hahahaha... the anti gunners rely on cracked.com !??! what a joke.

^^^ that's your response, right there.

[BPTactical]

Talk to your ass and your head hurts.........

[Scanker19]

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".

[Whistler]

Cracked is a satire site as mentioned but it's not nice to twist even satire sites to support twisting the truth.

Without getting dragged into a nonsensical discussion good arguments based on incorrect facts accomplish nothing. The fact that guns are designed (and intended) to kill as their single function is not incorrect however it is then implied that they MUST be used for that purpose as that is their only purpose. It cannot be extrapolated that a tool designed for a single purpose must then be employed for that purpose, a conscience effort is needed to employ a tool regardless of function. Hunting and sport are misstated for humor (killing animals & practice killing) though are not invalid however I contend they are irrelevant to a discussion of violence against fellow humans and undermine the intended "message" that guns may only be used for violence. They are valid uses for the tool and cause no human deaths (you're on your own arguing "violence against animals and/or targets).

Again it is a humor site but the numbers used in the DGU argument are (as stated) a single study, there are numerous additional studies that place the annual number between 400,000 and [estimate] it may be as high as 2.5 million. Likewise the numbers stated as "gun related deaths" are raw and include such obvious distortions as gun-related suicide and domestic gun deaths that are frequently determined to be self-defense (e.g.; abused spouse). It ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed by individuals with a criminal record, the fact is that of the more than 70 million legal gun owners of more than 300 million guns were implicated in less than 8% of gun related crimes. Further that studies on violent crime have shown only one effective self-defense deterrent to violent crime exists - not knives, running away, screaming for help but a gun. No other method of self-defense was shown to be as effective even when no shot was fired and no non-lethal means was shown to have significant impact on the perpetrator. The non-lethal methods endorsed while seeming logical have been proven to have little effect and are logical only to those disinclined to commit crime and do not think in those terms (criminal mindset).

The Second Amendment as usual is misused and twisted to imply specificity to the times in which it was written and the weaponry generally available. Further that the Constitution should be changed to better fit the times in which we live rather than may be changed. In my mind it is more relevant today than any time in the last 100 years, such are the times we live in.

The bottom line is this: all other arguments aside, numerous studies show wholesale restriction including outright bans of firearms, capacity or various features has not resulted in elimination of gun-related death though in virtually every case has led to increased violent crime. If violent crime is not reduced by the elimination of guns can it be deduced the root cause is not the tool employed? If violent crime increases where guns are outlawed is it possible to discount the deterrent effect? When faced with a violent criminal do you really have a preference that he kill you with something other than a gun? Faced with this evidence the validity of the individual arguments fail to support the whole.

Violent crime is a complicated issue and studies have shown the method used to effect violence unrelated to overall violent crime rates. The hard truth whether you like it or not is "people do, in fact, kill people" and they will with or without guns. Discussions of "guns control" are as relevant as discussions of "rock control" and only serve to distract from formulating a solution that actually addresses the problem.