PDA

View Full Version : The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control


ChuckBooty
07-28-2012, 2:08 PM
Anyone read this article on cracked.com? (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/)

It's pretty ridiculous but a good look into the hearts and minds of the anti's. Plus...the comments section are a LOT of fun, so if you feel like dusting off the gloves and getting some sparring in, it's pretty good (albeit very basic) practice.

haveyourmile
07-28-2012, 2:41 PM
That was painful

ChuckBooty
07-28-2012, 2:48 PM
That was painful

It depends how you look at it. Personally, I found it comforting to know that the anti's haven't been able to come up with any new material. I mean seriously...the dude's #1 argument was still about the meaning of "well-regulated militia"! :rolleyes:

nicki
07-28-2012, 3:02 PM
It is obvious to me that he must have forgotten to take his "meds" before he wrote this article.

The site was "cracked.com", perhaps he forgot to take his "crack".

Nicki

Dreaded Claymore
07-28-2012, 3:20 PM
I think the author sidestepped his* own question in #3 (which came second from the beginning). He gives that quote about whether it makes sense to blame a gun when someone misuses it, but then instead of answering yea or nay, criticizes the quote for equating guns with matches when guns are very different from matches.

But I think the rest of the article was sound and valid reasoning. I think this even though I probably stand on the opposite side of the debate from the author.

Most of the article was variation on "Guns are for killing. Stop denying this." Many gun rights activists argue that guns aren't for killing, but I don't. I think guns are, mainly, for killing (or practicing killing). However, I don't think this is necessarily bad.

In my opinion, the debate about guns is all about one question: "Is it ever a good idea to kill people?"

My answer to this question is, "Yes. There are a few (thankfully rare) situations where killing a person is the best option available for everyone involved. I think we should keep guns around in case of such situations." (And also for plinking and target practice, which are a lot of fun in their own right.)

*I assume that the author, Cody, is male.

Ryan in SD
07-28-2012, 3:26 PM
My response:

This article could easily have been written by a naive school girl who thinks someone will step in and save them when they are in danger.

It's naive to think that banning guns will actually make them disappear and criminals wont have them. Look up prohibition, banning alcohol was a fiasco. Outright bans only effect law abiding citizens. Which means the balance of power will be in the favor of armed criminals...not smart.

Seriously, does the author think that they aren't ultimately responsible for THEIR OWN safety? Like the police and big brother will show up just in the nic of time?

So naive.

Also your delivery was childish. Thank god this is probably the last time I will have read anything from you.

dantodd
07-28-2012, 3:48 PM
Most of the article was variation on "Guns are for killing. Stop denying this." Many gun rights activists argue that guns aren't for killing, but I don't. I think guns are, mainly, for killing (or practicing killing). However, I don't think this is necessarily bad.


Of course guns are for killing, why do you think our founders wanted to make sure we have them?

Legasat
07-28-2012, 3:59 PM
Opinions are like ***holes...

cmaynes
07-28-2012, 4:10 PM
so- the thing that really needs to be asked is why the Bill of Rights was seen as tack-on to the Constitution....

m03
07-28-2012, 4:57 PM
Cracked.com, as in Cracked Magazine? Yeah, I'll take this article seriously...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08i94Ob591qla11zo1_500.jpg

Bangzoom
07-28-2012, 5:09 PM
Guns are for killing? some are some arent...I never want to kill anybody..I bought my guns for the purpose of shooting targets..When you say "guns are for killing" that implies that they will be used in such a manner...when my guns are dead and gone and never killed anybody then that would say they were never for killing..Yes they are capable of it...some could be designed for that task...But to be "For" killing I think they would have to have done it or the operator intends to do so

I know im getting deep

truthseeker
07-28-2012, 5:40 PM
All I can say, is that person must be someone who wants to tell me how to live, what is best for me, and how dumb I am, because I am not smart enough to know what is best for me and my family.

No thank you, I don't want any!

ThePenIsMightier
08-16-2012, 1:15 PM
My response...

The Five Stupidest Arguments Against the Second Amendment (http://www.cockrockmag.com/the-five-stupidest-arguments-against-the-second-amendment)

vantec08
08-16-2012, 4:03 PM
Eye-bleeding . . . .mind-numbing . . . .. .

kaligaran
08-16-2012, 4:19 PM
It's painful.


To be honest I'm so sick of hearing about the batman shooter in these arguments with incorrect facts.
(my thoughts go out to the families that lost someone in that incident I would never downplay their loss)

Will someone please tell these people he wasn't wearing body armor, it was a tactical vest.
He didn't shoot a 100 round drum through an AW. His AR jammed.
He had explosives in his apartment... thank god he didn't roll a gallon of whatever-he-had into the theater instead of shoot. Which is what he most likely would have done if he had no guns.

/sigh.

repubconserv
08-16-2012, 4:24 PM
It depends how you look at it. Personally, I found it comforting to know that the anti's haven't been able to come up with any new material. I mean seriously...the dude's #1 argument was still about the meaning of "well-regulated militia"! :rolleyes:

:rofl:

Wherryj
08-16-2012, 4:29 PM
Anyone read this article on cracked.com? (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/)

It's pretty ridiculous but a good look into the hearts and minds of the anti's. Plus...the comments section are a LOT of fun, so if you feel like dusting off the gloves and getting some sparring in, it's pretty good (albeit very basic) practice.

I might advise you against attempting to argue with a fool. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

nothinghere2c
08-16-2012, 4:33 PM
people often forget or refuse to believe the fact that governments decay and become corrupt. The 2nd amendment was literally there to guarantee liberty and the ability to resist that corrupting force. Sure we might cut down on some gun deaths by regulation and more bans, but what is the hidden long term cost to liberty once we cannot properly protect ourselves?

Wherryj
08-16-2012, 4:40 PM
I like the comment from the guy about not needing guns because he moved away from the crime and got an alarm and a dog.

My previous practice purchased an almost new surgical table. It was a LOT more than we needed, but it was being sold at near "fire sale" prices by the estate of a plastic surgeon.

He lived in the "hood"-Alamo, CA to be precise. Perhaps you know it? Housing prices to rival Beverly Hills or Tiburon? He had the state of the art alarm and a dog. The problem was that the criminals ALSO seemed to know that this was the "good" place.

His home was invaded by some workers who had been supplied by home improvement companies and had done work in his home within the last year. During the home invasion almost his entire family was killed or injured-only one person that I remember not having been shot by the invaders, only having been left in a car trunk in the garage probably to die of dehydration.

Moving to the good town isn't the perfect protection. Apparently if you know it's a great place, so do those who prey upon those who live in the "good place".

nothinghere2c
08-16-2012, 6:18 PM
I like the comment from the guy about not needing guns because he moved away from the crime and got an alarm and a dog.
...
Moving to the good town isn't the perfect protection. Apparently if you know it's a great place, so do those who prey upon those who live in the "good place".

I thought similarly. If anything, moving to a less urbanized area also would mean less police presence and slower response times. You have a lesser chance of being a victim of crime sure, but you're also on your own when it happens. His comment seemed the opposite of how I would think. -shrug-

SgtMerc
08-16-2012, 6:25 PM
If guns are only for killing, then all of mine are defective.

Don29palms
08-16-2012, 8:33 PM
If guns are only for killing, then all of mine are defective.

Mine too! Thousands of rounds and haven't killed anyone yet.