Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, but I rather enjoy illustrating that anti-gun loons cannot argue from anything other than emtoion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[candycorn]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

 

[Edgetho]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.
It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

Again:

It's an argument for more gun control that doesn't pass as sound under any circumstance, and so will only convince those who don't understand what 'sound argument" means.

Disagree? You've read the OP -- lay it out.

Otherwise, you're simply proving my point, especially so since you're only repeating a failed argument.

 

[candycorn]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

 

[Edgetho]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

Have someone read this to you

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

 

[M14 Shooter]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.
It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.
It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

You've read the OP -- lay out your argumnet.
Be sure to hit all five required points.

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.

 

[candycorn]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

chirp...chirp...chirp

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be if it were true.
It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

You've read the OP -- lay out your argumnet.
Be sure to hit all five required points.

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.

chirp...chirp...chirp

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be if it were true.
It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

You've read the OP -- lay out your argumnet.
Be sure to hit all five required points.

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.

Chirp chirp chirp...

 

[candycorn]

If having more guns made a nation safer, we'd have the safest country on earth. Instead, even though we have overwhelmingly more guns in the hands of citizens, we have one of the most dangerous societies of any advanced country.

It's a convincing argument to anyone who goes in with an open mind.

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

Well?

Which ones? Names please.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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!

Sorry you spent so much time on this post. It's not a matter of more laws, it's a matter of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current ones on the books, for example the snippet from Connecticut gun laws below:

Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced.

(2) Any person who transfers, sells or gives any assault weapon to a person under eighteen years of age in violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, which shall not be suspended or reduced and shall be in addition and consecutive to the term of imprisonment imposed under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(b)The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:

(1) The sale of assault weapons to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;

(2) A person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d which is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court, if the disposition is otherwise permitted by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a;

(3) The transfer by bequest or intestate succession of an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d.

 

[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!

Sorry you spent so much time on this post. It's not a matter of more laws, it's a matter of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current ones on the books, for example the snippet from Connecticut gun laws below:

Nice try at a a dodge.

You want to remove all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current laws.

-Show the necessity of these laws, and the necessity of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them.
-Show that these laws, and removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them will meet this necessity.
-Show that these laws, and removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
-Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies

We both understand you cannot lay out an argument as required by the OP, and that because of this, you worn't even try.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Sorry you spent so much time on this post. It's not a matter of more laws, it's a matter of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current ones on the books, for example the snippet from Connecticut gun laws below:

You wish to prevent the transfer of assault weapons to the Government? I suppose you want the army to be equipped with Red Ryder BB guns?

 

[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!

Sorry you spent so much time on this post. It's not a matter of more laws, it's a matter of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current ones on the books, for example the snippet from Connecticut gun laws below:

Nice try at a a dodge.

You want to remove all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from the current laws.

-Show the necessity of these laws, and the necessity of removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them.
-Show that these laws, and removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them will meet this necessity.
-Show that these laws, and removing all the exceptions, exemptions and confusion from them does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
-Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies

We both understand you cannot lay out an argument as required by the OP, and that because of this, you worn't even try.

Chirp... chirp... chirp...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Chirp chirp chirp

 

[M14 Shooter]

Chirp..chirp...chirp...

 

[candycorn]

It would be if it were true.

It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

Well?

Which ones? Names please.

Chirp
Chirp
Chirp

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be if it were true.
It isn't.

What advanced socities have more gun deaths?

You've read the OP -- lay out your argumnet.
Be sure to hit all five required points.

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.

Chirp chirp chirp

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone else notice the thunderous silence?