Regardless of what you believe about guns, whether you're for or against restrictions, these are bad arguments to stop using:
1) Guns don't kill, people do.
This is nonsensical and is like saying "pipe bombs don't kill, people do". You can say the same for any potentially deadly weapon: swords, grenades, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument has no bearing on whether they should be restricted or not.
2) More people die from accidents than guns
"More people die from [insert type of accident], so banning guns would be like banning cars/airplanes/pools, etc."
This was a popular nugget used by posters like Whodey. I don't see it used as often now on this forum, but I'm sure it's still around. This is a bad argument because unlike pools, cars or whatever else causes death accidently, guns, when used as *intended* bring death.
3) Outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
Anyone with access to a gun is a potential outlaw; many mass shootings are committed by people with no prior criminal record, like in Uvalde. "We need guns to protect us from guns" is a circular and stupid argument.
4) If you get rid of guns other types of murders will increase
"Get rid of guns and they're just be more knife attacks". This has also been used by conservatives on this site and it's irrelevant. Most murders in the U.S. involve a firearm for obvious reasons: guns make murdering someone easy; much easier than having to engage someone to stab them, drown them, etc. This is why guns are the weapon of choice for murders.
I don't care where you stand on gun ownership or gun restrictions, stop using bad arguments like these.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 4810
@vivify saidI suppose there are some, even on RHP, that believe a single-shot .22 rifle and an AR-15 style assault rife are the same. There are some here who probably think chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.
Regardless of what you believe about guns, whether you're for or against restrictions, these are bad arguments to stop using:
1) Guns don't kill, people do.
This is nonsensical and is like saying "pipe bombs don't kill, people do". You can say the same for any potentially deadly weapon: swords, grenades, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument has no bearing o ...[text shortened]... on't care where you stand on gun ownership or gun restrictions, stop using bad arguments like these.
I've been around guns all my life, and none of them have killed anyone.
And it is quite true that if laws are passed to "outlaw" guns, carte blanche, then it will only affect the ability of law-abiding citizens from obtaining them.
But hey, outlawing many drugs have certainly done the trick, huh? NOBODY uses drugs now--they're against the law!
I definitely believe there should be restrictions. Guns should be classified similar to vehicles or aircraft. Like, the requirements to operate a fully-armed F16 are probably a bit more stringent than to fly a crop duster.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
01 Jun 22
@liljo saidWhat of all 'the legitimate firearms,' that HAVE KILLED?
I suppose there are some, even on RHP, that believe a single-shot .22 rifle and an AR-15 style assault rife are the same. There are some here who probably think chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.
I've been around guns all my life, and none of them have killed anyone.
And it is quite true that if laws are passed to "outlaw" guns, carte blanche, then it will only a ...[text shortened]... quirements to operate a fully-armed F16 are probably a bit more stringent than to fly a crop duster.
probably higher than 'the high media coverage of a mass shooter.'
NO DOUBT....Those homicides don't count>?
'
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
01 Jun 22
@liljo saidHighest mortality, commercial flyers
I suppose there are some, even on RHP, that believe a single-shot .22 rifle and an AR-15 style assault rife are the same. There are some here who probably think chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.
I've been around guns all my life, and none of them have killed anyone.
And it is quite true that if laws are passed to "outlaw" guns, carte blanche, then it will only a ...[text shortened]... quirements to operate a fully-armed F16 are probably a bit more stringent than to fly a crop duster.
~~~~ CROP DUSTERS ~~~
01 Jun 22
@liljo saidAll this aside, what is the end game? The govt can never get our guns, which Beto O'roarke says he will. Really?? Who will come get them? Will they wade into Idaho and tell all them fellers to give up the guns?
I suppose there are some, even on RHP, that believe a single-shot .22 rifle and an AR-15 style assault rife are the same. There are some here who probably think chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.
I've been around guns all my life, and none of them have killed anyone.
And it is quite true that if laws are passed to "outlaw" guns, carte blanche, then it will only a ...[text shortened]... quirements to operate a fully-armed F16 are probably a bit more stringent than to fly a crop duster.
You see where I am going? It cannot happen. I hate it that you fellers hate the 1st and 2nd amendments. But it is what it is.
I cannot imagine not having a gun. I am a Tennessee resident (for tax purposes) and sure do like having mine.....cannot imagine not having one, since everyone else does.
So where do all these posts go?
01 Jun 22
@vivify saidWell if bad people no longer would use guns to murder would there be murders by guns? We are talking about a device not some sentient malevolent being that corrupts the hearts of those who own them.
Regardless of what you believe about guns, whether you're for or against restrictions, these are bad arguments to stop using:
1) Guns don't kill, people do.
This is nonsensical and is like saying "pipe bombs don't kill, people do". You can say the same for any potentially deadly weapon: swords, grenades, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument has no bearing o ...[text shortened]... on't care where you stand on gun ownership or gun restrictions, stop using bad arguments like these.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 4810
@jimm619 saidPretty dang dangerous work! Constantly diving towards the ground, then leveling, dusting, pulling up hard, swing around, watch out for high lines and poles and trees. Turn HARD, put her back down, and repeat.
Highest mortality, commercial flyers
~~~~ CROP DUSTERS ~~~
Yeah, that was probably not the best example, but hopefully you get my point. I've never heard of a crop duster piloting a plane into a tall city building full of thousands of people.
@liljo saidExcept you don't know who the "law abiding" citizens are. Most school mass shootings are committed with legally purchased weapons by people with no prior criminal record.
And it is quite true that if laws are passed to "outlaw" guns, carte blanche, then it will only affect the ability of law-abiding citizens from obtaining them.
Furthermore, any "law abiding citizen" can easily turn into a dangerous criminal if they have a gun. All it takes is one bad day: catching their spouse cheating, a heated argument that turns physical, etc.
Gun advocates continually push this fallacy that "criminals" are obviously shady, mentally disturbed individuals. The reality is a criminal could be anyone from a housewife to a pastor to even a child. Gun advocates utterly fail to grasp this; they think "criminal" is someone with neck tattoos in a street gang.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 4810
01 Jun 22
@vivify said...I get what you're saying, I really do, but it might be a good start to check posting on social media for signs. There is no way to protect against everything. If someone who has never displayed any signs, no crimes, just a "regular Joe that goes rogue", there is simply no defense. It's just part of the cost of living in a free-to-move-about country.
Except you don't know who the "law abiding" citizens are. Most school mass shootings are committed with legally purchased weapons by people with no prior criminal record.
Furthermore, any "law abiding citizen" can easily turn into a dangerous criminal if they have a gun. All it takes is one bad day: catching their spouse cheating, a heated argument that turns physical, ...[text shortened]... tes utterly fail to grasp this; they think "criminal" is someone with neck tattoos in a street gang.
I'd still like to know where this kid in Texas got the estimated $10,000 that it cost to "legally purchase" this equipment. Did he even have a job? Was he "financed?" Or is this a case of a law abiding citizen just mowing yards and washing cars and flipping burgers and working really hard while saving every penny--then flipping out over somebody bullying him (likely on social media)?
Again, if modern employers often check social media before making hiring decisions, maybe there should be laws requiring such checks before selling someone a gun. However, again, that will only curtail instances where guns are purchased "legally."
In reality, the Real World, no matter how it all shakes out--good luck to anyone who thinks guns will be eliminated. Over 400 million exist in the USA, with several trillion rounds of ammunition. And a LOT of people with the attitude, "YOU WANT MY GUN? COME AND TAKE IT." You better know there are a lot of those types around. They've never been involved in anything criminal. Never committed terrible acts of violence. But when their "way of life" is threatened because laws are passed due to criminal pressures, these folks are going to become outlaws.
01 Jun 22
@liljo saidYou don't need to take anyone's guns, you can simply make it illegal to sell them in the U.S. or bring them into the country. That way the gun nuts can still keep their toys.
In reality, the Real World, no matter how it all shakes out--good luck to anyone who thinks guns will be eliminated. Over 400 million exist in the USA, with several trillion rounds of ammunition. And a LOT of people with the attitude, "YOU WANT MY GUN? COME AND TAKE IT." You better know there are a lot of those types around. They've never been involved in anything criminal. Nev ...[text shortened]... reatened because laws are passed due to criminal pressures, these folks are going to become outlaws.
It may take a few generations before we see a real change, due to the high number of guns already in the U.S. but it will at least be a start. In due time, even if we're not around to see it gun deaths would become rare. Had this happened back in the 30s, there would be very few guns today.