Need some help with these anti-gun arguments

[ChunkyMonkey]

^^ I ll just carry a bigger knife!!


The point is.. it's impossible to get rid of armed crimes - in fact, the rate is higher in strictly controlled countries.

[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.

[bellavite1]

Had a conversation with my LIBERAL and (oh my God...) TEACHER stepdaughter.
She asked :" Ok, I understand the second amendement and personal protection and everything, but why do you need military grade weapons?".
So, I gave her a little history lesson as to the 2nd amendement being originally included in the constitution so that The People would have the means to protect themselves should their own governement turn into a tiranny.
And I proceeded to explain her that if The People should have to take on the governement The People should have a grade of weapons comparable to the ones used by their opponent.
THAT shut her up.
I thought I would share...

[HoneyBadger]

Had a conversation with my LIBERAL and (oh my God...) TEACHER stepdaughter.
She asked :" Ok, I understand the second amendement and personal protection and everything, but why do you need military grade weapons?".
So, I gave her a little history lesson as to the 2nd amendement being originally included in the constitution so that The People would have the means to protect themselves should their own governement turn into a tiranny.
And I proceeded to explain her that if The People should have to take on the governement The People should have a grade of weapons comparable to the ones used by their opponent.
THAT shut her up.
I thought I would share...

Nice. I'm not very good at these arguments because I get all caught up trying to figure out what the heck "military grade weapons" are. Navy Seals, Rangers, etc kill people with small blades and their bare hands. Are my hands "military grade weapons"?

[alxone]

Had a conversation with my LIBERAL and (oh my God...) TEACHER stepdaughter.
She asked :" Ok, I understand the second amendement and personal protection and everything, but why do you need military grade weapons?".
So, I gave her a little history lesson as to the 2nd amendement being originally included in the constitution so that The People would have the means to protect themselves should their own governement turn into a tiranny.
And I proceeded to explain her that if The People should have to take on the governement The People should have a grade of weapons comparable to the ones used by their opponent.
THAT shut her up.
I thought I would share...

i use this a lot and when they bring up the militia i have to remind them that a militia can not be called up if the people have no guns

[JohnnyEgo]

1. Supporting your argument by citing 'Cracked' holds about as much weight with me as citing 'Wikipedia' on your term papers held with your English teacher.

2. There are approximately 200 million guns in circulation in the US. How many gun crimes are committed in a year? What is the incidence rate? How does that compare to pool deaths? Vehicular accidents? See a pattern here?

3. More people were killed with box razors and fertilizer and diesel fuel then in any mass shooting in the US, ever. How should we regulate purchase or use of these items?

[funkymonkey1111]

another thread has this article:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819112

the fact is, the police are not there to protect you and your family, and in fact, have no obligation to do so.

As the article says, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Lefties always argue that the police will protect you--but recently during the power outages in the Northeast some were without 911 service for many hours.

There are bad people in the world that want what you have. They want to do harm to you and your family. Unless you're Steven Seagal and are going to duke it out with everyone that wants to do you in, you'll need a weapon to protect yourself and your family--because nobody else is going to do so.

If that doesn't shut them up, then there's no need to talk to this person further.

[HoneyBadger]

Now the discussion has evolved to banning high capacity mags (It took an entire day to get them to stop calling them clips) and "assault weapons" and "machine guns".

They don't seem to understand that LIBERTY is the only f*cking reason I need to own whatever guns I want...

[bryjcom]

My favorite line is,

" More people have been killed at the hands of their own government in the 20th century, than soldiers have been killed in all of warfare in the 20th century"

Can't argue with that IMHO.....

[bryjcom]