Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[auditor0007]

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!

Here is a very simple argument. Take all the guns away, and you have no more gun deaths. That is a valid argument, but it is not a rational one based on our history and Constitution. The reason gun control laws do not work is because people can still get guns. On the flip side though, just thinking that having more people carrying guns is a great idea lacks any critical thinking. We have cops who are killing unarmed people because they cannot control their trigger happy fingers and use their badge as a reason to get away with shooting people, yet we think untrained people carrying guns will react better? While allowing more people to carry guns, you will have plenty of responsible gun owners who have good control over their emotions carrying guns, but you will also have a good number of hot headed idiots who end up using their gun on someone just because they lost control of their emotions.

Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, and that world will remain imperfect no matter which side you fall on, and that goes for most debates, not just gun control.

Are people killed by a murderer's gun somehow more dead than people killed by a murderer's knife?

You know as well as I do that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun compared to a knife. BTW, I'm not the one demanding all kinds of gun control laws. I'm just stating reality.

 

[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!

Here is a very simple argument. Take all the guns away, and you have no more gun deaths. That is a valid argument, but it is not a rational one based on our history and Constitution.

Clearly, then, you don't need me to tell you why this isn't sound, and therefore unconvincing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's been almost 2 months, and not a -single- argument for more gun control that is not based on emotuon, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Pretty much proves the point, doesn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see that those who want more gun control contine to prove they cannot argue for same w/o emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Not that I am surprised.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still zip. eh?
No real surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the pro-gun control crowd remains silent.

 

[birddog]

Often more gun control is needed. It's important to use both hands when aiming to minimize the need for a second shot, and to maximize the likelihood of killing the criminal element.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still nothing from those that want more gun control?

Boy, you throw down a gaultlet and they run away like cockroaches after the light comes on.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Often more gun control is needed. It's important to use both hands when aiming to minimize the need for a second shot, and to maximize the likelihood of killing the criminal element.

hence the meaning of well regulated

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still nothing.
No surprise.

 

[skookerasbil]

Gun control be it in countries or states accomplishes one thing: it gets ALOT more people killed.

More Guns = Less Crimes

But don't take my word for it.....check out what the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy ( 2013) concluded >>>

"International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so."



http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[candycorn]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

 

[candycorn]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

 

[candycorn]

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2dIMSas69
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2007

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Do you understand per capita numbers.

They would be in murders per 100,000 people or the like not absolute numbers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

You babbled this before, and ran away with your tail tucked under when challenged.

 

[Jarlaxle]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

Do you actually know what "per capita" means?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What were the per capita numbers?

Absolute numbers make no sense when comparing a country with over 350 million to one with 62 million

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

Do you actually know what "per capita" means?

Obviously not.