How To Scare The Shit Out Of Many American Gun Advocates:

StuckInTheSixties:

Ask them this reasonable question:


Since criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns?



This question seems to scare the shit out of them. None of them seem to even want to even THINK about that question, let alone, propose any answer to it.

When asked this question, they always just seem to try to change the subject, to steer towards a things like

"If you take away the guns, they'll just use knives."

"Do you want to trust the government if they take all of our guns away?"

"Auto accidents cause more deaths"


The way that gun advocates avoid answering that reasonable question suggests to me two things:

~ They simply don't want to restrict gun access for criminals. It's not that they actually WANT criminals to have guns, but rather, the notion of ANY restriction for ANYONE for ANY reason in ANY way is just too disturbing for them.
~ They're reluctant to just come out and say that because it's not a reasonable thing to say.

So they tend to intellectually dance around that reasonable question, and rather than answer it.

luridity1217: Firstly, what you have presented as your argument is a form of a false dichotomy. You state your question, then proceed to state that the 'gun advocate' is automatically restricted to a set number of options to choose from in that scenario, with no other recourse or alternative, which is simply not true.

That said, the glaring flaw in your question is that there is no way to reduce criminal access to guns through enforcement of legislation alone. Period. With the black market in illegal arms very much alive and healthy, any individual that wishes to possess a firearm, through legal or illegal means, will certainly do so. The disconnect here is that a law abiding citizen has no inclination to break the law by acquiring such a weapon, whereas the criminal (who already intends to commit crimes with said weapon) would have no qualms about it. Ergo, by using legislation to restrict legal firearms to everyone, you're only punishing those who would use them for legal pursuits (i.e. self defense or sportsmanship) while effectively feeding the black market with more demand making it all the more profitable for them to do business (meaning more supply of illegal arms available to meet that demand).

However, another option does exist. You do not restrict firearms at all. In fact, you encourage responsible ownership. By doing that, more of the law abiding population will have access to firearms as a means of policing and defending themselves from the criminals who will have no problem finding weapons on their own. This has a two-pronged benefit: It acts as a deterrent against crime as criminals, self-interested by nature, are more likely to give pause toward the notion of attempting to victimize an armed populace. It also decreases the burden on our men and women of law enforcement.

Hope that helps!

StuckInTheSixties:

Actually, this thread wasn't meant as a forum for discussing gun control. It was meant as a forum for discussing the way "gun advocates" react to the question I posed, and why they react that way. I have a much better forum for your comments:

Topic: Politics

luridity1217: With all due respect, the argument that you have presented remains a false dichotomy.

Your question implies that imposing legislation can somehow stop individuals who have no inkling of respect for the law from possessing firearms, which is simply not the case.

sebtheanimal: SITS I think you are a wise man, and as you may have found I am unable to resolve your question. You propose an extreme just as the staunch advocates do. The middle ground is as follows, I propose: Since you are for removing firearms from innocent people due to the resulting side effects, you should throw in the towel and find recluse in some European nation if it's side effects bother you so much. Then, when the last vestige of freedom is taken away from way from you and you find yourself worrying about much more pertinent matters without the means to enforce, we shall return to the subject.

StuckInTheSixties:

luridity1217 says:
"Your question implies that imposing legislation can somehow stop individuals who have no inkling of respect for the law from possessing firearms, which is simply not the case."

Where in my question, did I use the word "stop" (or an equivalent)?

seb says:
"You propose an extreme just as the staunch advocates do ... Since you are for removing firearms from innocent people"

Where have I advocated "removing firearms from innocent people"?

Find my words saying that, copy them, and paste them here.

Can't you guys read?

~LoisLane~: ^^Jeez^^ lols....There are sooo many guns that get lost in the system, dirty cops, dirty people in the government making sure that certain guns get "placed" back into society. Im not sure if there is a way to reduce it. Theres way to much money in criminals having and buying guns. The government has way to many "contained areas" if you will, where there is constant gun fire. Theres a reason for that, it just didnt happen.
As a non gun owner (and a Canadian) I personally think there is nothing that they can do unless they are willing to seriously crack down on it. (which they wont). Its a shame really.
My hubbys family owns guns legally and I dont think they would be happy not being able to own them anymore for the sake of trying to reduce the shitheads using them illegally. Very interesting tho.

luridity1217: I am, in fact, capable of reading. However, I do find it interesting that you refuse to address the obvious flaw in your argument that I have pointed out.

luridity1217: Note: I said "implies". By definition, an implication is a conclusion that can be drawn although not explicitly stated.

StuckInTheSixties:

You wanna play word games? Okay, let's again examine our respective statements.

Here's mine (emphasis added in CAPS) :

~~ Since criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we REDUCE criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns? ~~

Here's yours (emphasis added in CAPS) :

~~ Your question implies that imposing legislation can somehow STOP individuals who have no inkling of respect for the law from possessing firearms, which is simply not the case.~~

Wrong.

My question actually implies that imposing legislation can somehow "REDUCE criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns." (Although it IMPLIES that, it doesn't actually STATE that, though.)

Now let's go back to your first post, and look at it a little bit:

~~ Firstly, what you have presented as your argument is a form of a false dichotomy. You state your question, then proceed to state that the 'gun advocate' is automatically restricted to a set number of options to choose from in that scenario, with no other recourse or alternative, which is simply not true ~~

Where have I "proceeded to state that a 'gun advocate' is automatically restricted to a set number of options to choose from in that scenario, with no other recourse or alternative"? I neither said that, nor did I imply that. I simply asked how one thing could be done in such a way as to prevent the other thing from happening. Nowhere did I insist, or imply, that other "options" or possibilities might, or might not, exist.

Let's go on ... you further state (emphasis added in CAPS) :

~~ That said, the glaring flaw in your question is that there is no way to reduce criminal access to guns through enforcement of legislation alone. Period. ~~

Sure it could. Let me resort to hyperbole to make a point. Suppose we legislate that anyone convicted of any crime be automatically executed upon conviction. That sure as hell would reduce those people's access to guns, wouldn't it?

Hyperbole hyperbolized, let's use something from the real world:

Hand guns are essentially legally available to the public throughout the USA. Hand guns are often used by criminals through out the USA, as well.

However, with rare exceptions, fully automatic weapons aren't accessible to the general public. And with only rare exceptions, fully automatic weapons aren't used by criminals either.

I'd say that having restrictions on fully automatic weapons for the general public has a direct correlation to the fact that that same class of weapons are only rarely used by criminals. It's a matter of availability.

Let's examine one more of your statements, a suggestion for an "option" you apparently prefer (once again, with emphasis added in CAPS) :

~~ However, another option does exist. You DO NOT RESTRICT FIREARMS AT ALL.~~

Unlike what you've been doing with my words, I'm going to very carefully take that statement literally as it is written, and ask a question:

No restrictions at all? So would you allow a convicted felon, on parole for using firearms during the commission of crimes, unrestricted access to any and all firearms?

Here's another one. You say:

~~ The disconnect here is that a law abiding citizen has no inclination to break the law by acquiring such a weapon, whereas the criminal (who already intends to commit crimes with said weapon) would have no qualms about it. Ergo, by using legislation to restrict legal firearms to everyone, you're only punishing those who would use them for legal pursuits (i.e. self defense or sportsmanship)~~

Here's a common occurrence: Someone legally purchases dozens of the same model of handgun, and then turns around, and sells them to anyone willing to pay the price. Technically, that act is legal because the law doesn't make any requirements of documentation of those purchases. Of course, the seller knows damn well he's selling to criminals, though. But there's no way to prove it since there's no records kept, etc.

Now, let's say that laws are enacted requiring that seller and buyer to document and register the sale of those guns, requiring identification, etc. Of course, criminals can always use a fake ID to circumvent that. But the seller now has to contend with a distinct possibility that if his records are subpoenaed, trying to explain his way out of dozens of sales to people with fake IDs will be extremely difficult. It provides a deterrent. It won't close that loophole, but it'll shrink it.

And how would that "punish those who would use them for legal pursuits (i.e. self defense or sportsmanship)? Autos are registered. Is that "punishment" to the owners? (I'm guessing you'll say it is.)

In my initial post, I characterized a certain mindset with many gun advocates:

~ They simply don't want to restrict gun access for criminals. It's not that they actually WANT criminals to have guns, but rather, the notion of ANY restriction for ANYONE for ANY reason in ANY way is just too disturbing for them.

I'm guessing this describes you.

lavendar_star: I personally uncomfortable with guns (as I am British) and the only use for guns is to shot at someone/something , but the issue for me how can you tell the difference between law abiding citizen and a criminal? some people are law abiding then snap or premeditate kill someone like a spouse. Some criminals (not alot) reform so ain't they entitled to have a gun like any other citizens, as one you have paid for a crime effectively your start with a clean slate.

The restriction for guns for criminals should be implement if it can, the pro gun lobby most likely see any restriction of the gun as infringing on their American rights and freedoms. Also the gun is so infused in American culture in my opinion that they are unwilling to consider any restrictions, also there seems to be issue with government imposing change through legislation in general. Also I agree with Lois Lane statement about dirty cops etc. But thats just my humble opinion if thats ok!!!!!!

Sables: ah Sits another "smoking gun"
this is kind of like...we know that smoking causes cancer, not in everyone it but it does, now should we ban cigarettes? No instead the government taxes the hell out of them and makes money off of them....

~LoisLane~: Yes they should ban cigarettes cuz sitting beside someone who owns a licensed gun doesnt cause cancer. (just sayin)

Comrade_: USA renamed the Wild Wild West.

Comrade_: btw, what about potential criminals who don't have no access to the black market guns?..the desperate law-abiding who just wants a quick cash...

~LoisLane~: Maybe they use baseball bats, ,they are wayyyy cheaper

luridity1217: You can try to pick apart my wordings as much as you want. The fact still remains your initial argument is invalid as it is a false dichotomy.

StuckInTheSixties:

Your charge of a "false dichotomy" is predicated on my having said something I didn't actually say.

Somebody lend you a philosophy textbook or somethin'?

Sables: lol What Sits said is correct Luridity....he was asking a valid question, stating that since criminals are the problem with the guns, how would we get rid of the problem..........

joeye18: Unfortunitly im not as educated in english, so please bare with me. I am a gun owner, just so you all know where im coming from. Im an American and on that being said owning a gun is a right. 2nd amendment... It was put there for a reason by men smarter than any one of us. Yes even those folks who use those fance words as if that makes you wiser than the person with more common sense. Guns will never go away! Gun control only controls who has guns...... And that is the law abiding citizen..... just look at it this way cocain herion ect. Has never been legal to make or sell. But yet the demand is so high that you can get that shit from any corner in the country.. so if you cant control something that is illegal to make in the first place how in the world can you control something that is legal to make in just about every country. By gun control? Not gonna happen folks if you want a gun its just like drugs, just have to ask a scum bag with no concern for the law.. so instead of beating a dead horse let the people decide if they want to protect them selfs. If you xhoseOur fore fathers knew that the right to bare arms had more than one purpose! Sorry about.the typos. Im texting and driving..

Sables: there is a reason for the ban on texting while driving.... that is like waving a loaded gun around...

slasian: STS
Your arguments... I had nothing to add. Luridity1217 said it all. But it would really be nice for you to think about they way you put your inferences.

It is even better to argue with out such inferences because the first thing one can see is the giant fallacy in them.
But U do have a point. The gun industry needs some restriction if that is your point.

kberry: To reduce criminal access to guns would be to take one of two directions. 1) Add more restrictions or 2) Remove guns from public access.

Since "criminals" can be anyone, you, me, your neighbor, your daughter etc, there is not a logical way to restrict access to guns. Anyone can turn into a criminal. So my only helpful thought on this would be to educate to populace and punish criminal gun possession to the fullest extent of the law. But even that has a flaw. Our prison systems hold too many people as it is. *shrug*

StuckInTheSixties:

Isn't 1) and 2) essentially the same thing? Removing guns from public access certainly would be a restriction, wouldn't it?

dvustimmer: SITS, the answer is easy here I think. You have to RESTRICT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY in the obtainment of firearms therefore not infringing on law abiding citizens.

Which is a non answer, just a play on the wording. But it does show that the answer to your question does not lay in directly answering the question itself at face valve, as the question can not be answered at face value. Or simply stated, the wording in the question is "a division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups" (law-abiding and non-law-abiding). Or the question is a dichotomy.

Then you go on to take out the obvious rebutal by branding it as side stepping, leaving only one side to rebutal for, the non-lawabiding.

In which case, the answer is in the question itself, which is the CAPS on the wording in my answer in the first paragraph. It is a dichotomy as you are using the law abiding against what would be non-law abiding. Contradictory models. I would not say the question would scare the shit out of me, I would say the question and the subsequent reference to limit the rebutal, leaves it answered unsatisfactory whcih would be then a leading question.

Did you take logic in college? I took a semester at Akron U. I thought it was going to be like a math course. It ended up being the philosophy of statements. I was like what the F is this. You know, what does the phrase "that's not nothing nobody doesn't do anyway" mean. Seriously, we had a class in that stuff. I didn't appreciate it much back then, but I did not go into law and debating either. Logic sounded like a good course for a guy going into engineering to take.