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

[RF667799]

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.

There is a right to self defense in both US and NZ. In both countries, it is accepted that using lethal force- including a gun- can be justified in self defense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Hmm… what type of arms are used by a militia?

 

[soylentgreen]

Hmm… what type of arms are used by a militia?

Whatever arms pleases them. whose to say a slingshot is not arms.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Whatever arms pleases them. whose to say a slingshot is not arms.

OK.

 

[Rich2018]

...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

Sadly few on here actually know what "logic" is and can't form a logical argument.

 

[RF667799]

Sadly few on here actually know what "logic" is and can't form a logical argument.

No kidding. I've seen people- supposedly arguing in good faith- try to maintain a position that cell phones and shotguns are not portable.

 

[DaveJ]

Can you define, or even recognize, logic?

Can I? yes. If you're not capable of at least recognizing it then you may have a problem.

 

[DaveJ]

Why Rule 2? Otherwise we're just arguing from our personal opinion. That goes for both sides of the gun debate.

That's the point of debating. If you're debating using someone else's opinion then you're just parroting people. If you don't have a solid enough concept of how gun control works, and whether it is viable, inside your own mind, then you shouldn't be debating gun control. You should be researching until you understand it. And, I should probably add, you should be researching both sides.

 

[DaveJ]

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.

Thanks for your great post.
As far as the first part, I would agree that the debate about gun control itself is not typically logic based, but that is because people bring in their emotions to try to defend their point, which is mostly counter-productive.
I think that in any debate, if we stick to logic, we can typically at the very least come to an "agree to disagree" point where we at least see what our differences are.

I appreciate you putting in an effort.

Here's what I would say in response to your argument...
The basic summary of your argument, as I'm seeing it, is that gun control is the government's means of keeping its citizens protected from guns, which have the potential to harm them.
Now I have the challenge of trying to respond while only making 1 point.

I guess I would have to say, regarding your third point, a typical belief that a lot of Americans have is that just because a government has an interest in something, does not mean they have the right to do whatever it takes to "fulfill" that interest. I would agree that one of the government's interests is keeping its citizens alive. The difference, I think, between those who are pro- and anti-gun-control is the location of the "line" that the government is not allowed to cross. Most people are not in favor of all guns being outlawed. People who use guns for hunting, etc. are not in favor of much gun control at all. So I think the debate to have would be how far the government should be allowed to go to protect its citizens.

 

[DaveJ]

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.

You'll notice I didn't ask for infallible logic. Just people's best effort.
valid points obviously

 

[DaveJ]

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.

Handguns can be used for target practice, or for dispatching a wounded animal, or for self defense.

I would agree a handgun should not be used to kill an innocent person, but you can't really insert the word "innocent" into your first argument and have it still be valid, even if you forget about target practice and hunting.

In other words, the flaw in your logic here, if you don't mind me saying, is you are over-simplifying handguns. I think maybe you believe that the benefits are overshadowed by the negative aspects of handguns, but if that's the case it is maybe better if you say that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thanks for your great post.
As far as the first part, I would agree that the debate about gun control itself is not typically logic based, but that is because people bring in their emotions to try to defend their point, which is mostly counter-productive.
I think that in any debate, if we stick to logic, we can typically at the very least come to an "agree to disagree" point where we at least see what our differences are.

I appreciate you putting in an effort.

Here's what I would say in response to your argument...
The basic summary of your argument, as I'm seeing it, is that gun control is the government's means of keeping its citizens protected from guns, which have the potential to harm them.
Now I have the challenge of trying to respond while only making 1 point.

I guess I would have to say, regarding your third point, a typical belief that a lot of Americans have is that just because a government has an interest in something, does not mean they have the right to do whatever it takes to "fulfill" that interest. I would agree that one of the government's interests is keeping its citizens alive. The difference, I think, between those who are pro- and anti-gun-control is the location of the "line" that the government is not allowed to cross. Most people are not in favor of all guns being outlawed. People who use guns for hunting, etc. are not in favor of much gun control at all. So I think the debate to have would be how far the government should be allowed to go to protect its citizens.

The 2A rights have nothing to do with hunting (or militia duty status). The purpose of most “gun control” laws is to convert our individual constitutional 2A rights into mere state issued privileges - available (only) after paying fees, taking classes and passing tests.

 

[Rich2018]

Can I? yes. If you're not capable of at least recognizing it then you may have a problem.

Many posters on here think they know what logic is, but do not understand it at all.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Handguns can be used for target practice, or for dispatching a wounded animal, or for self defense.

I would agree a handgun should not be used to kill an innocent person, but you can't really insert the word "innocent" into your first argument and have it still be valid, even if you forget about target practice and hunting.

In other words, the flaw in your logic here, if you don't mind me saying, is you are over-simplifying handguns. I think maybe you believe that the benefits are overshadowed by the negative aspects of handguns, but if that's the case it is maybe better if you say that.

Heard it all before.

Target practice for what? Armageddon? How often does the average person need to dispatch a wounded animal they didn't shoot in the first place?

"Self defense" is an admission your system has failed!

If you can't leave your home any time of day or might in safety without a killing machine you've lost sight of the meaning of 'civilized'.

Americans worship guns. Every movie shows how American guns can shoot 25 to 35 times without need to re-load. Are so accurate anyone can shoot a fishing line to free the fish at 400 yards and bullets can fly through metal, stone, walls, car motors and 50' of water hitting with PERFECT accuracy!

 

[Rich2018]

Heard it all before.

Target practice for what? Armageddon? How often does the average person need to dispatch a wounded animal they didn't shoot in the first place?

"Self defense" is an admission your system has failed!

If you can't leave your home any time of day or might in safety without a killing machine you've lost sight of the meaning of 'civilized'.

Americans worship guns. Every movie shows how American guns can shoot 25 to 35 times without need to re-load. Are so accurate anyone can shoot a fishing line to free the fish at 400 yards and bullets can fly through metal, stone, walls, car motors and 50' of water hitting with PERFECT accuracy!

Guns are far more useful to criminals and recreation comes a poor second the human life.

 

[RF667799]

Guns are far more useful to criminals and recreation comes a poor second the human life.

Far more useful than what? Than a car, which are used by criminals far more often?

And the second part of your remark is just another silly opinion born of limited experience.

 

[RF667799]

Heard it all before.

Which is why it's a lie.

Target practice for what? Armageddon? How often does the average person need to dispatch a wounded animal they didn't shoot in the first place?

"Self defense" is an admission your system has failed!

If you can't leave your home any time of day or might in safety without a killing machine you've lost sight of the meaning of 'civilized'.

Americans worship guns. Every movie shows how American guns can shoot 25 to 35 times without need to re-load. Are so accurate anyone can shoot a fishing line to free the fish at 400 yards and bullets can fly through metal, stone, walls, car motors and 50' of water hitting with PERFECT accuracy!

 

[JMB1911A1]

Guns are far more useful to criminals and recreation comes a poor second the human life.

Guns are used defensively 500,000 to 3 million times per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes.

CDC study, 2013.

 

[DaveJ]

Heard it all before.

Target practice for what? Armageddon? How often does the average person need to dispatch a wounded animal they didn't shoot in the first place?

"Self defense" is an admission your system has failed!

If you can't leave your home any time of day or might in safety without a killing machine you've lost sight of the meaning of 'civilized'.

Americans worship guns. Every movie shows how American guns can shoot 25 to 35 times without need to re-load. Are so accurate anyone can shoot a fishing line to free the fish at 400 yards and bullets can fly through metal, stone, walls, car motors and 50' of water hitting with PERFECT accuracy!

Saying you've "Heard it all before" doesn't change the substance of your subsequent points. If you have in fact heard these arguments before, you should have well-formed arguments against them, and shouldn't need to preface them with "Heard it all before".

That being said... you've completely sidestepped my argument here.

Previously you said handguns only serve the purpose of killing another human being.
I pointed out 2 other purposes they can serve and also explained that there is a difference between using a handgun in self defense and using it to hurt someone who is innocent.
The point I'm trying to make is that your argument that handguns are not good for anything except bad things, is inaccurate.
Also, you haven't exactly maintained your position with this second post. You've just abandoned your original stance and tried to discredit my post with new arguments, but doing that without maintaining any connection to your original argument is pointless.
I understand the typical argument that we don't 'need' handguns and they are generally bad for society, but your assumption that I am incapable of grasping that point of view, is incorrect. If you would be willing to level with me on any specific part of the issue we could have a discussion, but it is not constructive to make various points that are vaguely or not at all connected to the point I was making. I would have to respond the same way you did by just forgetting the path the discussion was on and making random unrelated statements, which is not good debating practice.
The point of a debate is to be correct, not to just seem like you are.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Saying you've "Heard it all before" doesn't change the substance of your subsequent points. If you have in fact heard these arguments before, you should have well-formed arguments against them, and shouldn't need to preface them with "Heard it all before".

That being said... you've completely sidestepped my argument here.

Previously you said handguns only serve the purpose of killing another human being.
I pointed out 2 other purposes they can serve and also explained that there is a difference between using a handgun in self defense and using it to hurt someone who is innocent.
The point I'm trying to make is that your argument that handguns are not good for anything except bad things, is inaccurate.
Also, you haven't exactly maintained your position with this second post. You've just abandoned your original stance and tried to discredit my post with new arguments, but doing that without maintaining any connection to your original argument is pointless.
I understand the typical argument that we don't 'need' handguns and they are generally bad for society, but your assumption that I am incapable of grasping that point of view, is incorrect. If you would be willing to level with me on any specific part of the issue we could have a discussion, but it is not constructive to make various points that are vaguely or not at all connected to the point I was making. I would have to respond the same way you did by just forgetting the path the discussion was on and making random unrelated statements, which is not good debating practice.
The point of a debate is to be correct, not to just seem like you are.

Goodbye

 

[braindrain]

Goodbye

I am not surprised you see you run away after have all your bs called out.

You could always just try not posting such bs.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Thanks for your great post.
As far as the first part, I would agree that the debate about gun control itself is not typically logic based, but that is because people bring in their emotions to try to defend their point, which is mostly counter-productive.
I think that in any debate, if we stick to logic, we can typically at the very least come to an "agree to disagree" point where we at least see what our differences are.

I appreciate you putting in an effort.

Here's what I would say in response to your argument...
The basic summary of your argument, as I'm seeing it, is that gun control is the government's means of keeping its citizens protected from guns, which have the potential to harm them.
Now I have the challenge of trying to respond while only making 1 point.

I guess I would have to say, regarding your third point, a typical belief that a lot of Americans have is that just because a government has an interest in something, does not mean they have the right to do whatever it takes to "fulfill" that interest. I would agree that one of the government's interests is keeping its citizens alive. The difference, I think, between those who are pro- and anti-gun-control is the location of the "line" that the government is not allowed to cross. Most people are not in favor of all guns being outlawed. People who use guns for hunting, etc. are not in favor of much gun control at all. So I think the debate to have would be how far the government should be allowed to go to protect its citizens.

Correct but that's not the OP topic. It's just whether guns should be regulated or not.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

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.

I like that your point is that firearms are used to kill thousands of people, when yeah. That's exactly what happens.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683893/how-the-u-s-gun-violence-death-rate-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world

 

[Scatty Kitty]

That sometimes requires killing certain citizens, however. Hence cops have guns.

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.

Government regulates lots of things. It's the extent and manner of regulation that's in question.

That doesn't do anything to what I said. Please address the point I made.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Yes you did. You just pretended that you didn't.

I have a person who says I quoted a study by Kellermann from the 1990's (I think 1993). Meanwhile my study isn't done by Kellermann and from the 2020's. Listen I haven't gotten any actual responses to the sources I cited. It's just "well firearm owners won't be violent with them because there are so many of them". That's not a response to my sources.