• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...

D

DaveJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2023
Messages
153
Reaction score
23
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave
 
Can you define, or even recognize, logic?
 

Why Rule 2? Otherwise we're just arguing from our personal opinion. That goes for both sides of the gun debate.
 
How about articulating a premise, a debate topic other than the impossibly general "Gun Control?"
 
So the thing is I have a thread where I ask why gun owners are unsafe with firearms. I don't think I've gotten a single response once that actually addressed any of the sources I used. I get what the OP is doing. But the problem isn't logic based. Simply arguing the idea that gun enthusiasts do not practice basic gun safety is seen as a personal attack. I've gotten plenty of those posts to back that claim up. Rather it's not a problem from logic. It's a problem from emotions.

But I'll try to do what the OP wants. I'll give a simple argument and we can start from there?

1. Governments have an interest in keeping its citizens alive.
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
:.Governments are allowed to regulate guns/firearms to prevent their deaths.

The only part I might need to qualify is premise one. Which I'll qualify by saying whether it's for selfish reasons, or reasons related to higher ideals, or whatever, governments want to keep its citizens alive.
 

Objectively bad argument because it can be flipped on itself.

1. Governments have an interest in protecting individual liberty and self-defense.
2. Guns/firearms are tools for self-preservation as much as they are for harm.
3. If the government prioritizes individual liberty and self-defense, and guns serve that purpose, then restricting firearms undermines citizens’ ability to protect themselves.
:. Governments should not overly regulate guns/firearms, as doing so restricts citizens’ fundamental rights and ability to ensure their own survival.
 

To me, Gun Control is hitting what I aim at, so naturally I'm a strong proponent for Gun Control, and to me, it makes sense. I would hope that other gun owners exercise Gun Control.
 

The 2A rights don’t include the right to shoot (or shoot at) another person, thus (sufficient) “gun control” laws already exist.
 



Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

The logic therefore is that Americans plan to kill other Americans.

If the only reason to have one is to kill another human and it is against the law to kill another human being then is not logical to insist on owning a hand gun. is not involved Every reason I have heard of keeping a kill machine made no ****ing sense whatsoever.
 


My question is what is it about the Great USA that makes people so frightened of each other?

The only people who insist on having murder weapons at hand at all times. That's kind of sick when you think about it.
 

Well America is the most powerful empire in human history and Canada is some irrelevant geopolitical backwater that chops trees and makes syrup or something.

Apparently America is doing something right.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: to kill another human being.

The logic therefore is that Americans plan to kill other Americans.
Click to expand...

Your logic and your "ifs" fail just because you start with a lie.

 
EdwinWillers said:
How about articulating a premise, a debate topic other than the impossibly general "Gun Control?"
Click to expand...
Arguing based solely upon opinion without verifying facts will accomplish nothing of value.
 
This isn’t about you.
 
SMTA said:
This isn’t about you.
Click to expand...

But in the very first sentence in that post, she exposes the flaw in her thread. Her premise, argument, and conclusion are all the same.
 
That sometimes requires killing certain citizens, however. Hence cops have guns.
Scatty Kitty said:
2. Guns/firearms are tools meant to kill.
Click to expand...
Guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects don't have meanings or intents. People have intents and assign meanings to things. One man's mass murder instrument is another's target-shooting toy.
Scatty Kitty said:
3. If the government has an interest in keeping its citizens alive, and guns are tools meant to kill, then the government has the right to regulate and control the use of firearms.
Click to expand...
Government regulates lots of things. It's the extent and manner of regulation that's in question.
 
Gozaburo said:
Well America is the most powerful empire in human history and Canada is some irrelevant geopolitical backwater that chops trees and makes syrup or something.

Apparently America is doing something right.
Click to expand...
Another example of the USA (not 'America') is rich delusion. A standard of living - and armaments - only made possible by stupendous borrowing from other states. Trump is only making a dreadful US economy worse still with his economically illiterate tariff obsession.
 

Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...​

Absolutely not.
 

see? first poster can't even follow the rules !

why? because

1. our Fed Govt allows cars, drugs, knives, swimming pools, atv's, sugar etc etc ... death is ok in the USA and the big one? abortion - 65 million dead because of that one. This one is FALSE

2. if guns/firearms were meant to kill, the 175 million gun owners with 450 million guns would kill thousands daily and each year, sportsmen spend billions of hours in the field with guns in our hands ... and we don't kill people, so this one is FALSE

3. The Govt DOES put common sense gun laws in place, we have them, right along side common sense knife laws, hammer laws, auto laws etc. So this one is FALSE



The core problem is always one thing - violent people/violent acts. That's it, period, end of story. Literally everyone could carry an AR strapped to their backs every day ... and if nobody is violent? no issues at all. Guns don't assault, guns don't make people violent. They can be used in acts of violence, yes, like knives can be ..... but the core problem isn't the weapon.
 

Fortunately the jury is still out on whether or not modern monetary theory is real. Most economists agree it is legitimate and so the debt is a signal of American strength at least as much as it is a sign of its perceived weakness.

You see, unlike geopolitically irrelevant countries like Sweden, the US doesn’t need to play by conventional rules of war and economy because we’re the global empire. Furthermore, countries like Sweden are effectively American vassals, so it’s actually in your interest that the US economy is flourishing and the dollar is strong. If the dollar crashes, Swedes are going to suffer just as much as Americans will.

Don’t get me wrong - I totally get the impotent seething from the vassal states. It must really suck not having true autonomy over your own nation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The 2A rights don’t include the right to shoot (or shoot at) another person, thus (sufficient) “gun control” laws already exist.
Click to expand...
The 2A does not specifically mention the word gun. One has to assume that is an intent. Just as one would assume that a well regulate militia which is specifically mentioned is not there to just shoot targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…