Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[M14 Shooter]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh heck. If no one bites I will give a half hearted attempt.

What I think makes sense is to allow well regulated private ownership. Something akin to m14shooter buys a gun in 2012 and he sells it. M14shooter then has to tell the state (or NRA, I don't care, burden them with the spreadsheet) who he sells it to and they need to sign of course.

With folks I know, private transactions are how guns end up where they don't belong.

Just would slow down the trade of guns for crack after awhile.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With all due respectto Tornado...
No one? Really?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here's one I could, maybe, support: private sale background checks. They would be done by any police/sheriff office for a reasonable fee (in the $10-25 range) or any FFL dealer for whatever fee he deems appropriate. No registration, no serial number tracking, just a simple "yes" or "no" to the sale. This would solve a problem: someone who WANTS to be sure he's not selling to a criminal, but, as it stands now, simply has no way to know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's one I could, maybe, support: private sale background checks. They would be done by any police/sheriff office for a reasonable fee (in the $10-25 range) or any FFL dealer for whatever fee he deems appropriate. No registration, no serial number tracking, just a simple "yes" or "no" to the sale. This would solve a problem: someone who WANTS to be sure he's not selling to a criminal, but, as it stands now, simply has no way to know.

OK, but that can be done now by anyone so motivated/concerned -- no reason you cannot insist that the sale of your gun go thru a dealer, who must, by law, perform a check.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The one thing you can always find when you look for it is a Justification. Trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be is pointless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The one thing you can always find when you look for it is a Justification. Trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be is pointless.

We both understand that you cannot meet the challenge offered in the OP - so good on you to have the sense to not even try.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here's one I could, maybe, support: private sale background checks. They would be done by any police/sheriff office for a reasonable fee (in the $10-25 range) or any FFL dealer for whatever fee he deems appropriate. No registration, no serial number tracking, just a simple "yes" or "no" to the sale. This would solve a problem: someone who WANTS to be sure he's not selling to a criminal, but, as it stands now, simply has no way to know.

OK, but that can be done now by anyone so motivated/concerned -- no reason you cannot insist that the sale of your gun go thru a dealer, who must, by law, perform a check.

Only if you SELL the gun to the dealer, and have HIM sell it to the next guy! And again: that becomes de facto registration!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What I think makes sense is to allow well regulated private ownership.

Can you explain what "well regulated" means?

Also, did you mean it the same way it i stated in the Second Amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What I think makes sense is to allow well regulated private ownership.

Can you explain what "well regulated" means?

Also, did you mean it the same way it i stated in the Second Amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The States' militia are well regulated against its misuse to overthrow or enable tyranny against the Federal construct.

 

[Plasmaball]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What I think makes sense is to allow well regulated private ownership.

Can you explain what "well regulated" means?

Also, did you mean it the same way it i stated in the Second Amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The States' militia are well regulated against its misuse to overthrow or enable tyranny against the Federal construct.

Ok, completely wrong. "Well regulated" means "disciplined," even the Supreme Court recognized this. That definition of the word is obsolete now.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Can you explain what "well regulated" means?

Also, did you mean it the same way it i stated in the Second Amendment?

The States' militia are well regulated against its misuse to overthrow or enable tyranny against the Federal construct.

Ok, completely wrong. "Well regulated" means "disciplined," even the Supreme Court recognized this. That definition of the word is obsolete now.

What do you think "disciplined" is ? Not used outside of the Constitutional purpose it is protected for....security of a free state.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It is clear to anyone capable of rational thought that those who want more gun control can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

However, in the spirit of honest debate, I am happy to offer these people a chance to show otherwise.

To them, I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Example of a failed argument
1: We need to ban the sale of assault weapons
2: These guns are far too dangerous for civilians to own
3: Banning assault weapons will prevent massacres like we saw in Newtown
4: No one needs an assault weapon to hunt

Failures of this argument:
2: There is no way to support this statement, given how few ‘assault weapons’, proportionately and absolutely, are used in crime, especially homicide
3: Banning the sale of ‘assault weapons’ does not remove existing ‘assault weapons’, and so cannot prevent another such shooting
4: The right to arms is protected by the constitution so that, when necessary, people will have access to the most effective means through which kill other people, not hunt. As such, any argument relating infringement to the capacity to hunt is meaningless.

Ok – have at it. Good luck!

B/c obama is black and you demanding you keep your rights when he wants to take them away, for our own good makes you a racist.

And by saying racist, you are automatically wrong in everything you say unless you fully agree with obama.

so there

 

[Two Thumbs]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Constitutional rights aren't beliefs, they are rights.

damn, you have been well conditioned, contact your handler and ask for an extra cookie

 

[Plasmaball]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Constitutional rights aren't beliefs, they are rights.

damn, you have been well conditioned, contact your handler and ask for an extra cookie

im not interested in taking your guns away....So take your rhetoric elsewhere

 

[Luddly Neddite]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Ok, completely wrong. "Well regulated" means "disciplined," even the Supreme Court recognized this. That definition of the word is obsolete now.

Generally, the adjective "well regulated" describes something which is functioning properly. When it is applied specifically to a military force, it describes an entity which is an effective fighting force. The terminology arose in connection with the pendulum clock. The action of adjusting the length of the pendulum arm so as to slow down or speed up the mechanism was termed "regulating". When the pendulum arm was properly adjusted so that it kept time properly it was termed "well regulated". This terminology soon spread as a quasi colloquial slang to descrinbe anything which was functioning properly. The terminology still persist today in connection with a "well regulated" digestive system and "well regulated bowel movements. Additionally, some pendulum clocks are still called "Regulator" to this day.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

Recent attempts at new gun laws include charging a tax for owning a firearm or buying ammunition banning supposed assault weapons and registration of all firearms as well as background checks on private sales.

Be so kind as to explain for each how it would have stopped a mass shooting to have any of them on the books?

 

[Plasmaball]

no thanks, you don't want alter your beliefs at all. A pointless venture.

Not only that, this has been done to death, as it were.

Why rehash the same points, over and over again.

We all know what's at stake - innocent people's lives and the big money of gun cartels/lobbyists. And we know which side the R is on - Big money.

The rest is just noise.

But don't let that stop you from poking this shot-dead horse yet again.

Recent attempts at new gun laws include charging a tax for owning a firearm or buying ammunition banning supposed assault weapons and registration of all firearms as well as background checks on private sales.

Be so kind as to explain for each how it would have stopped a mass shooting to have any of them on the books?

such a simple mind you have.