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!

Lock OP in a cage with a bunch of mentally ill people who are given some of the most lethal guns and ammo like free candy on Halloween.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

such a simple mind you have.

Really? He challenged you, and you couldn't provide an answer.

Such a simple mind you have.

i have provided answers to this. I have no interest in dealing with people who won't compromise. You guys don't want to listen, you just want to put people down and scream. Dont take my guns waaaaa

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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.

nah i just know what the OP is about.

You do? Really?

Then you know its about giving an anti-gun loon the opportinuty to disprove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtoion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

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

 

[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!

If I'm going to spend my time writing a white paper on why something that has the same lethal potential as a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or landmine (which are banned for private ownership by federal law) should be regulated then I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time trying to convince a pinhead like you.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Three laws, and the the justification for them.
One. While the assault weopons may be used in only a few crimes, the ones that they are used in are usually horrific with high body counts.

Law. If you have a high capacity semi-automatic outside your home, you must have the same license as for a fully automatic weapon. If you do not, the weapon will be confiscated and destroyed, you will do jail time, and have a felony on your record.

Show the necessity for this measure.
Show that this measure will meet the need you described
Show that this measure does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Hint: "...the ones that they are used in are usually horrific with high body counts" is an appeal to emotion.

Two. If you sell an assault weapon, both you and the person you are selling the weapon to must have said license. Failure to do so will result in a felony count and jail time for the both of you.

Show the necessity for this measure.
Show that this measure will meet the need you described
Show that this measure does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

Three. You are responsible for your weapons of any type. If they are taken and used in a crime as a result of your carelessly giving easy access to them, you own the crime. A child find the gun, and kills another child, you have committed negligent manslaughter.

Show the necessity for this measure.
Show that this measure will meet the need you described
Show that this measure does not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If those of you who want more gun control are so right, why have so few of you accepted this challenge?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Shooter, the request for gun control is not a logical exercise, but one of pure emotion. Understand that when a mentally deficient individual walked into Sandy Hook and summarily executed 20 school children and six teachers, all logical reasoning in the area of gun control (for liberals) flew out the window. Why do you think that they trot out the parents of those killed in that atrocious incident, or the parents of those killed at Columbine, or those killed at Virginia Tech? It's to attach the most basest of emotions to a cause that they champion (remember that CONTROL is their end game).

I have an M-4. I have probably hundreds of 30 round magazines for that weapon and probably a thousand rounds. I last used that weapon to shoot several stray dogs that had chased down and almost killed a calf, one of which turned out to be rabid (didn't bite the calf). But that doesn't matter. To them, there is no reason to have that weapon because it was involved in such a horrible incident. In the reasoning of the liberal mind, no person is responsible for their actions (an unwed mother with ten children who continues to have more children with different fathers is not wrong). The weapon itself is the problem. It doesn't matter that hundreds of thousands of citizens possess and use such weapons lawfully. It also doesn't matter that it was the liberals themselves (specifically the ACLU) that made it next to impossible to commit mentally unstable individuals against their will.

The largest gun show in the world is held every year in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Wannemacher's). Every year I attend the show. Thousands of weapons are traded and sold to individuals during the three days of that show. It's where I bought the M-4, the ammunition, the magazines and the tactical light and mount. I purchased the weapon from an individual and the only thing that traded hands was my money into his hands. I do not support back ground checks on individual transfers. Probably because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to police such a law.

If the weapon is the problem, then when someone dies from a drunk driver, it is the car that is the issue, not the driver. If someone is stabbed to death, it is the knife... It's a ludicrous arguement made out of emotion, not logic. If they wanted to help the situation, they'd be worried more about what we do with mentally deficient individuals. But of course, they are not...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for one of you to step up to the plate.

OldRocks at least gave it a shot - why won't you?

 

[daveman]

nope and using criminals as an excuse is just pathetic. Again under my ideas you can buy whatever guns tanks or ammo you want.

Shrug.....not my problem if you have a problem with that type of freedom.

I haven't seen your ideas, because you refuse to link to them.

You do your own homework, kid.

i do....go look for Gaysgts threads.....they are in there.
I just gave you one of my ideas. You are too stupid to even see that

Telling me to look for your posts is NOT doing your own homework, boy.

Get crackin'!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for one of you to step up to the plate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for one of you to step up to the plate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

STILL no one?

Why do you refuse to accept this challenge?
Perhaps, the knowledge that you cannot meet the terms?

If you're so right, why do you not jump on this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

STILL no takers?

If you're SO right, why do you not jump on this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see that none of the anti-gun loons have taken up the challenge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No takers....?

can't ANY of you come up with an argument for gun control that meets the challenge posed here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for one of you to step up.

 

[daveman]

M14, I think you can stick a fork in this one. No one wants to convince you -- they just want to threaten you with government violence. You know, the usual way progressives get people to support them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, I think you can stick a fork in this one. No one wants to convince you -- they just want to threaten you with government violence. You know, the usual way progressives get people to support them.

It is clear, without question, that none of them have been able to put up an argument not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[daveman]

M14, I think you can stick a fork in this one. No one wants to convince you -- they just want to threaten you with government violence. You know, the usual way progressives get people to support them.

It is clear, without question, that none of them have been able to put up an argument not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Indeed. That's all they have. Facts and logic do not register with them.

 

[francoHFW]

90% want background checks on all sales. Keep fighting it. You're the greatest!