since9
Campaign Veteran
Some diptard liberal took three of our roughly dozen best arguments against gun control and attempted to spin them.
Here's the article.
Here's the three arguments, along with the author's Argument and my Counterpoint:
1. Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People
Argument 1: "...our public policy toward preventing auto injuries is not confined to punishing careless or reckless drivers following a tragedy. We think it equally important to have a licensing system in place to prevent untrained and potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place. Similarly, we should have laws in place to prevent dangerous people from having guns—at the very least, required background checks for all gun sales."
Counterpoint 1: Licensing does not prevent anyone from getting into a motor vehicle and using it as a weapon of mass attack. Although the truck driver in Nice, France had a license, it certainly wasn't required, and having a license certainly didn't "prevent ... high-risk people from driving in the first place." Put simply, licensing of any sort of weapon (including a motor vehicle) has absolutely no logical or rational impact on the use of that weapon.
Argument 2: "Yes, it is true that dangerous people could turn to other weapons if denied access to guns. But this is a false equivalence. Research shows that attacks with guns are five times more likely to be lethal than attacks with knives, for example."
Counterpoint 2: The Harvard study on guns and suicide concluded otherwise. Specifically, in concluded that when guns were available, people used guns, but when guns were not available, they used other means, and with an equivalent suicide rate.
2. Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Laws, Only Law-Abiding Citizens Do
Subtext: "This is the futility argument. According to the National Rifle Association and its allies, since gun laws are directed at criminals, who of course pay no attention to any laws (that’s why they’re called criminals), gun control can’t possibly be effective, except in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves."
Argument 1: "First, the argument is transparently circular. Of course, as to individuals who are willing to disobey gun laws, the laws are futile by definition.
Counterpoint 1: The argument isn't the least bit circular. By making this fallacious claim, the author reveals he knows absolutely nothing about logical discourse. Furthermore, he admits in this sentence that the laws are futile, then in the next sentence attempts to make a claim that laws are not futile:
Argument 2: "But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so?"
Counterpoint 2: The author fails by focusing on the carry of guns, not their use. First, he's trying to establish "the illegality of doing so" when the Constitution's Second Amendment specifically states the contrary, that "the right right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed." Second, resoundingly solid laws are already on the books which address the proper focus of the situation, namely, the illegal use of firearms. Keeping and bearing arms is no more illegal, immoral, unethical, or wrong than keeping and driving motor vehicles, including trucks like the one used in the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France. The problem isn't the truck itself, nor is it the possession and driving of the truck. The problem rests with the the illegal (murderous) manner in which the truck was used.
Argument 3: "Surely compliance with a law cannot be determined merely by looking at the instances of when the law is violated. If it could, we would regard all our criminal laws as ultimately futile because all of them are frequently violated. Should we repeal our laws against homicide because murderers don’t obey them?"
Counterpoint 3: Here the author commits several major logical fallacies, including a blatant straw man attack (creating a "straw man" scenario that has no basis in reality then tearing it down in a show of self-righteousness that also has no basis in reality).
Argument 4: "It turns out that there is substantial evidence that many criminals may refrain from gun carrying because of gun control laws. In one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response “Against the law.” "
Counterpoint 4: Non-sequitor. The same applies to applies to laws prohibiting firearms from being used in an unlawful manner, such as in the commission of a crime. Many state laws significantly increase the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and if the author's premise holds true, then these laws are equally effective without infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
3. Any Gun Control Is a Slippery Slope to Confiscation
Argument: "Even as a historical matter, there is no basis to believe that enacting some gun regulation leads inevitably to broad gun bans."
Counterpoint: Any student of history knows this is a flat-out lie. Here's a list of such examples.
And thus we come to the end of my rebuttal.
If you would, please visit the link and help counter the author's several illogic. The last thing we need are diptard "journalists" who are published in an unchecked manner.
Here's the article.
Here's the three arguments, along with the author's Argument and my Counterpoint:
1. Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People
Argument 1: "...our public policy toward preventing auto injuries is not confined to punishing careless or reckless drivers following a tragedy. We think it equally important to have a licensing system in place to prevent untrained and potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place. Similarly, we should have laws in place to prevent dangerous people from having guns—at the very least, required background checks for all gun sales."
Counterpoint 1: Licensing does not prevent anyone from getting into a motor vehicle and using it as a weapon of mass attack. Although the truck driver in Nice, France had a license, it certainly wasn't required, and having a license certainly didn't "prevent ... high-risk people from driving in the first place." Put simply, licensing of any sort of weapon (including a motor vehicle) has absolutely no logical or rational impact on the use of that weapon.
Argument 2: "Yes, it is true that dangerous people could turn to other weapons if denied access to guns. But this is a false equivalence. Research shows that attacks with guns are five times more likely to be lethal than attacks with knives, for example."
Counterpoint 2: The Harvard study on guns and suicide concluded otherwise. Specifically, in concluded that when guns were available, people used guns, but when guns were not available, they used other means, and with an equivalent suicide rate.
2. Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Laws, Only Law-Abiding Citizens Do
Subtext: "This is the futility argument. According to the National Rifle Association and its allies, since gun laws are directed at criminals, who of course pay no attention to any laws (that’s why they’re called criminals), gun control can’t possibly be effective, except in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves."
Argument 1: "First, the argument is transparently circular. Of course, as to individuals who are willing to disobey gun laws, the laws are futile by definition.
Counterpoint 1: The argument isn't the least bit circular. By making this fallacious claim, the author reveals he knows absolutely nothing about logical discourse. Furthermore, he admits in this sentence that the laws are futile, then in the next sentence attempts to make a claim that laws are not futile:
Argument 2: "But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so?"
Counterpoint 2: The author fails by focusing on the carry of guns, not their use. First, he's trying to establish "the illegality of doing so" when the Constitution's Second Amendment specifically states the contrary, that "the right right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed." Second, resoundingly solid laws are already on the books which address the proper focus of the situation, namely, the illegal use of firearms. Keeping and bearing arms is no more illegal, immoral, unethical, or wrong than keeping and driving motor vehicles, including trucks like the one used in the Bastille Day attack in Nice, France. The problem isn't the truck itself, nor is it the possession and driving of the truck. The problem rests with the the illegal (murderous) manner in which the truck was used.
Argument 3: "Surely compliance with a law cannot be determined merely by looking at the instances of when the law is violated. If it could, we would regard all our criminal laws as ultimately futile because all of them are frequently violated. Should we repeal our laws against homicide because murderers don’t obey them?"
Counterpoint 3: Here the author commits several major logical fallacies, including a blatant straw man attack (creating a "straw man" scenario that has no basis in reality then tearing it down in a show of self-righteousness that also has no basis in reality).
Argument 4: "It turns out that there is substantial evidence that many criminals may refrain from gun carrying because of gun control laws. In one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response “Against the law.” "
Counterpoint 4: Non-sequitor. The same applies to applies to laws prohibiting firearms from being used in an unlawful manner, such as in the commission of a crime. Many state laws significantly increase the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and if the author's premise holds true, then these laws are equally effective without infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
3. Any Gun Control Is a Slippery Slope to Confiscation
Argument: "Even as a historical matter, there is no basis to believe that enacting some gun regulation leads inevitably to broad gun bans."
Counterpoint: Any student of history knows this is a flat-out lie. Here's a list of such examples.
And thus we come to the end of my rebuttal.
If you would, please visit the link and help counter the author's several illogic. The last thing we need are diptard "journalists" who are published in an unchecked manner.
