Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: The Stupidest Anti-Gun Arguments Contest

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    I read someone post in response to an article about a mass murderer who was shot by an armed citizen.

    Someone argued that if there was a law against having guns, there wouldn't have been any deaths to start with.

    This is incomprehensibly stupid. The law against murder didn't stop the killer, but a law against gun possession would have??

    I thought I'd ask you all -- what is the stupidest anti-gun argument you've ever heard?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hockessin, , USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    I was having a discussion with someone, trying to inform them about guns and the 2A, and they brought up some kid they knew who was killed while cleaning his gun. The kid was cleaning it, gun pointed at his face, and he hadn't checked to see that the chamber was empty. They basically used that to say "SEE, guns are dangerous." That accident was caused by stupidity, not the gun.

    Just about all of the token anti-gun arguments are stupid. Basic logic can shoot down any anti-gun argument with ease.

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    There are so many...OK, here's one. It goes something like this:

    "The police will protect you so there is no need for you to have or use a gun for self defense."



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    "Guns will turn the state, city, etc, to the Wild West (Citing some sterotypical western tv show)"
    Comeback: well <insert other state here> has guns/lower gun control
    "Well thats <the other state>. They are screwed up there anyways"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    A woman was arguing with me that if her sink clogs she calls a professional plumber up to fix it, and so by extension, if she is attacked by a mugger or burgler, she will call 911 and let the "professionals" take care of it.

    My answer was that if the broken sink was trying to rape her she would certainly want to be able to do something about it before the plumber gets there. She got pissed because the word "rape" made her feel uneasy. Oh well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    495

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    A woman was arguing with me that if her sink clogs she calls a professional plumber up to fix it, and so by extension, if she is attacked by a mugger or burgler, she will call 911 and let the "professionals" take care of it.

    My answer was that if the broken sink was trying to rape her she would certainly want to be able to do something about it before the plumber gets there. She got pissed because the word "rape" made her feel uneasy. Oh well.
    My question then would be, "what about a when you catch a rapist molesting your 4 year old daughter in her bedroom, would you tell your child to wait while you call 911?".

    Try using "sexual assault". Some people are incapable of blunt words.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Burke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    How about "Why do you have a gun? Guns kill people"

    My reply "Then I better return mine, its defective" or

    "Then trees hang people"


    If someone asks you that question, direct them to www.assaultweaponwatch.com Its just great! Its got an AR15 in the corner on the room with a live webcam on it so when it goes out and shoots someone there will be evidence. Please check it out.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    WOW...that has got to be one of the most non-violent assault weapons I've ever seen!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    719

    Post imported post

    SIGarmed229 wrote:

    If someone asks you that question, direct them to http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com Its just great! Its got an AR15 in the corner on the room with a live webcam on it so when it goes out and shoots someone there will be evidence. Please check it out.
    OK -- That's funny right there.



    DC

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Here are my favorites:

    "Why in the world would a private citizen ever need weapons such as these (referring to assault weapons with those evil pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsible stocks, grenade launchers, or flash hiders, as if removing these features from civilian weapons somehow makes them less lethal)?" An anti once told me that putting a pistol grip on a rifle makes it possible for a shooter to spray fire from the hip instead of their shoulder. To which I responded, "What difference does it make if a criminal kills someone by spray firing from the hip or with a shoulder fired rifle, (which, by the way, was the type of weapon used by the D.C. area snipers back in 2002); aren't their victims just as dead or injured either way?" I have yet to hear an anti come up with a response to that answer.

    "If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

    Finally, I have read on the Brady Campaign website that guns kept in the home are more likely to be used in suicides than to injure or kill in self defense. It seems to me that if someone is suicidal, the solution for them is not to get rid of all the guns in the home, but to get them some help instead. Besides, removing guns from the home is not removing whatever is making the person want to kill themselves in the first place.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Here are my favorites:

    <snip>
    "If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

    <snip>
    Well, by this reasoning, the writers of the 2A only intended to protect the right to bear arms of the kind they had in their day.

    I think a better argument is that if they want to deny the right of citizens to own nuclear weapons, they need to pass a constitutional amendment doing so. I'd might vote in favor.

    But the government must act within its authority. The authority of the government is defined in the constitution, and if they don't like what it says, they need to change it by the allowed process of amendment instead of breaking the law.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    495

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    Here are my favorites:

    <snip>
    "If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

    <snip>
    Well, by this reasoning, the writers of the 2A only intended to protect the right to bear arms of the kind they had in their day.

    I think a better argument is that if they want to deny the right of citizens to own nuclear weapons, they need to pass a constitutional amendment doing so. I'd might vote in favor.

    But the government must act within its authority. The authority of the government is defined in the constitution, and if they don't like what it says, they need to change it by the allowed process of amendment instead of breaking the law.
    What average citizen has the resources to afford such a caliber?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    Here are my favorites:

    <snip>
    "If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

    <snip>
    Well, by this reasoning, the writers of the 2A only intended to protect the right to bear arms of the kind they had in their day.

    I think a better argument is that if they want to deny the right of citizens to own nuclear weapons, they need to pass a constitutional amendment doing so. I'd might vote in favor.

    But the government must act within its authority. The authority of the government is defined in the constitution, and if they don't like what it says, they need to change it by the allowed process of amendment instead of breaking the law.
    That's a good way to argue it. The 2A does not say "firearms", it says arms. That means weapons, period. In those days, there was no prohibition on owning cannons or explosives; even today gun powder and muzzle-loaded cannons are legal in most places, and you can buy them without using an FFL.

    The BATFE prohibitions on machineguns, artillery, explosives, even nuclear weapons, are all unconstitutional by strict interpretation. And in this day and age, machine guns, artillery, and even the odd fighter jet may be useful for deposing tyrants. But as much as I support the abolition of all gun laws, I may be persuaded to support ammending the constitution to restrict the use and handling of nuclear explosives. The use of such devices in future space exploration may be handy someday, but I certainly don't relish the thought of my idiot neighbor having a negligent discharge with one of these!

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    I don't believe any argument will ever convince an anti - it takes a significant emotional event to do so.

    Sometimes I agree that I'd agree with acomplete ban on all firearms, and then ask them how they could ascertain there was not a single firearm left in the world. Of course, they can't. Then I ask how many murders are committed each year in Washington, DC, which to all intents and purposes bans handguns.

    I've never convinced one yet.



    But when I say the one time I needed a firearm I didn't have one, I tell them that's my significant emotional event.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  16. #16
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    If you listen to the NRA news on sirius, you have heard an interviewer asking random people on the street about Catle Doctrine laws. One lady, after being presented with the notion that a strangerhas entered her home illegaly and intended to do harm to her, claimed that "When your time is up, there is nothing you can do""I don't believe in retaliation".:what:



    There you have it. Anti-Self-Defense!!!!

    Pro-Victem

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    I don't believe any argument will ever convince an anti - it takes a significant emotional event to do so.

    Sometimes I agree that I'd agree with acomplete ban on all firearms, and then ask them how they could ascertain there was not a single firearm left in the world. Of course, they can't. Then I ask how many murders are committed each year in Washington, DC, which to all intents and purposes bans handguns.

    I've never convinced one yet.



    But when I say the one time I needed a firearm I didn't have one, I tell them that's my significant emotional event.
    My experience is that my most persuasive arguments don't persuade anti-gunners -- my arguments are based on reason and constitutional analysis. They don't know reason, and they disdain the constitution.

    However, I do hope to persuade the undecided, and also to refine -- and better understand -- my own position by discussing these things with the like-minded.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    One of my favorites was an article that said gang members were visiting the local range, and this was going to make them better shots.

    I figgure that just means less stray gunfire and fewer unintended victims.


    The only way to convince an anti it to take them to a range. Typically a few minutes of shooting will convince anyone that guns just aren't that dangerous. It's just damn hard to get them to go once they are entrenched in the anti-viewpoint. Get them while they're young.

  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Brain_Hurt wrote:
    The only way to convince an anti it to take them to a range. Typically a few minutes of shooting will convince anyone that guns just aren't that dangerous. It's just damn hard to get them to go once they are entrenched in the anti-viewpoint.
    That'sa very goodway. I remember one guy telling a story about how he took five fellow employees on a range visit. He set everything up, all the equipment, guns, etc. and he worked up a training lesson and administered it. He got 2 or 3 converts (actually purchased guns) and the rest were relieved of their ignorance about guns.

    But it certainly is not the only way. I'm reminded of the reporting on post-Katrina lawlessness that resulted in regular unarmed citizens being assaulted by armed (or unarmed) criminals.Many citizens were defenseless andno one was answering 911. The scum of the earth was taking advantage of that.

    Even a myopic anti could figure out that a period of lawlessness = need foreffective personal defense. I remember Bill O'Reilly saying several times on his national radio showsomething like "I have changed my mind about guns. I think it is the head of household's responsibility to protect his family in times of emergency. Every home should have a gun as a means of protection." Prior to that realization, O'Reilly had pretty much avoided taking a position on gun ownership.

    Antis can learn. But you gotta show them how their simplistic view ("oh, ICKY! A GUN!") does not work in the reality of the real world.

    But, you're right. Taking some newbs (or antis) to a range and actually having them shoot guns safely does take away alot of the fear element from their opposition.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Sometimes I agree that I'd agree with acomplete ban on all firearms, and then ask them how they could ascertain there was not a single firearm left in the world.
    Well, I had to join the board to respond to this one, especially since you're a neighbor (Woodbridge, VA here....)

    I realize that this is all hypothetical speaking, but I think you've hit on what I think is the stupidest anti argument out there. I'm sure that they think that the end goal is to be completely rid of all firearms and thus completely rid of firearms violence.

    Suppose we do that. We actually go door-to-door and confiscate, we actually imprison or otherwise deal harshly with people who hold back. What's the end result?

    How long after that will taxes go up to 90% of all income? How long before police run roughshod over the population? How long before you're told what your job is going to be, how many kids you're going to have, what churches you're allowed to attend, and what houses you're allowed to live in, all in the name of "equality"?

    Less than a lifetime. Probably much less. It's human nature that some people seek domination over other people.

    It happened in the recent past, it still happens to this day, and it'll continue to happen everywhere the people don't have the right to defend themselves. I'm fortunate enough to work with a former member of the USSR army - the USSR wasn't that long ago - so I get periodic reminders of what things could be like.

    And when they say "it could never be like that in America", I usually respond by pointing out that we still have our guns and yet the federal government still figured out how to regulate how much we can poop in a single sitting.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    beatnik wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    Sometimes I agree that I'd agree with acomplete ban on all firearms, and then ask them how they could ascertain there was not a single firearm left in the world.
    Well, I had to join the board to respond to this one, especially since you're a neighbor (Woodbridge, VA here....)

    I realize that this is all hypothetical speaking, but I think you've hit on what I think is the stupidest anti argument out there. I'm sure that they think that the end goal is to be completely rid of all firearms and thus completely rid of firearms violence.

    Suppose we do that. We actually go door-to-door and confiscate, we actually imprison or otherwise deal harshly with people who hold back. What's the end result?

    How long after that will taxes go up to 90% of all income? How long before police run roughshod over the population? How long before you're told what your job is going to be, how many kids you're going to have, what churches you're allowed to attend, and what houses you're allowed to live in, all in the name of "equality"?

    Less than a lifetime. Probably much less. It's human nature that some people seek domination over other people.

    It happened in the recent past, it still happens to this day, and it'll continue to happen everywhere the people don't have the right to defend themselves. I'm fortunate enough to work with a former member of the USSR army - the USSR wasn't that long ago - so I get periodic reminders of what things could be like.

    And when they say "it could never be like that in America", I usually respond by pointing out that we still have our guns and yet the federal government still figured out how to regulate how much we can poop in a single sitting.
    My point exactly.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  22. #22
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    Looks like one agruement is over: Police are trained to use their guns...

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...amp;SECTION=US

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    The article said in part:


    Some states like Tennessee, which allows officers six months to attend a training academy, have considered eliminating the grace period, said Brian Grisham, executive secretary of Tennessee's Peace Officers Standards and Training.

    "The days of `Barney Fife, here's your gun and go' are over. You have to be trained first," Grisham said. "There's too much liability."
    This is so weird. I think a cop ought to be trained because of his responsibility.

    They think a cop ought to be trained because of "liability." And this from one of the chief policymakers of the state in matters of standards and training.

    You see the disconnect here? You see why I want the people to keep a tight rein on the government?

    Could we get a response from a state policy maker? Could we maybe send a response to this Grisham guy under the organization's letterhead?

  24. #24
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    I just heard "the perfect world" speech. I had to agree with him. If I lived in a perfect world, I would not need a gun - or any weapon - to defend myself.

    I did tell him that "until I find the perfect world, I'm carrying my gun."

    I find this even more ironic, since we are are working for a "prison" agency. In the perfect world, we would not need prisons!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Yes, it is true that 2A does not say"firearms," but nevertheless, looking at it in a purely strict constructionist manner would lead me to believe that the arms to which the founders referred were firearms. And yes, even though they could not possibly have foreseen the development of nuclear arms, if they had, I believe that the wording for2A would have been adjusted accordingly. However, whether I'm right or you guys are right it will be impossible to know simply because trying to get inside theminds of the Founding Fathers, being the intelligent men they were,issimply not possible.

    P.S. I think I'm right about arms referring to firearms, though

    Tomahawk wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    Here are my favorites:

    <snip>
    "If the 2nd amendmentcan be used to justify private firearms ownership, then it can also be used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons." To which I respond that the original intent of 2A was firearms; the writers of the 2nd amendment could not possibly have intended that right to extend to nuclear weapons, which did not exist at the time, and which they certainly would not have included had they did exist.

    <snip>
    Well, by this reasoning, the writers of the 2A only intended to protect the right to bear arms of the kind they had in their day.

    I think a better argument is that if they want to deny the right of citizens to own nuclear weapons, they need to pass a constitutional amendment doing so. I'd might vote in favor.

    But the government must act within its authority. The authority of the government is defined in the constitution, and if they don't like what it says, they need to change it by the allowed process of amendment instead of breaking the law.
    That's a good way to argue it. The 2A does not say "firearms", it says arms. That means weapons, period. In those days, there was no prohibition on owning cannons or explosives; even today gun powder and muzzle-loaded cannons are legal in most places, and you can buy them without using an FFL.

    The BATFE prohibitions on machineguns, artillery, explosives, even nuclear weapons, are all unconstitutional by strict interpretation. And in this day and age, machine guns, artillery, and even the odd fighter jet may be useful for deposing tyrants. But as much as I support the abolition of all gun laws, I may be persuaded to support ammending the constitution to restrict the use and handling of nuclear explosives. The use of such devices in future space exploration may be handy someday, but I certainly don't relish the thought of my idiot neighbor having a negligent discharge with one of these!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •