• 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...

For the most part, firearm fanatics are arguing a patently unsubstantiated and illogical premise-- that firearms are a net benefit to society, even if ANY disadvantages exist whatsoever.
Neither unsubstantiated nor illogical. It is entirely factual.

Guns provide us with protection.

Guns provide us with food.

Guns provide us with recreation.


Like arguing with a Flat Earther, the perception of gun fanatics cannot be changed by fact or reason.
There are no facts or reason that argue against the benefits of guns.


In the case of firearms, the bad far exceeds the measurable good across the board.
Utter nonsense. Guns provide us with protection.

Guns provide us with food.

Guns provide us with recreation.
 
Neither unsubstantiated nor illogical. It is entirely factual.

Guns provide us with protection.

Guns provide us with food.

Guns provide us with recreation.



There are no facts or reason that argue against the benefits of guns.



Utter nonsense. Guns provide us with protection.

Guns provide us with food.

Guns provide us with recreation.

Small disagreement. Guns can be used to provide those. Guns provide nothing on their own.

I know that hearing all the baby talk from the gun banners, it's easy to fall into the habit. It's like how my family has taken to baby talking our new puppy. But puppies just piss on the floor occasionally. They're not into pissing on Constitutional rights and civil liberties.
 
Actually a comparison between items that share a few characteristics but differ fundamentally is FALSE EQUIVALENCE, especially when the minor similarlities are leveraged to argue against the major differences.
No false equivalence. People who die in bathtub drownings are just as dead as people who die from gunshots.


Explain in your own words, false equivalence and explain why motor vehicles can be compared to firearms.
You allege that the existence of guns results in more deaths.

The existence of cars results in more deaths too.

The existence of bathtubs and stairways (my preferred items of comparison) also result in more deaths.

It is a significant point that you spout so much hysteria over one of those but not the others.
 
Any shotgun is designed to kill. Period.
Untrue. Some shotguns are designed to shatter clay disks.

But getting to the point that you were trying to make, I refer you to my signature line (which came from an earlier response to a similar point).

"The lethality of guns is a good thing. Hunters don't want their dinner leaping off their plate and running away when they sit down for supper."
 
Look up definition of firearm violence after class.
I am much less likely to be shot by someone where I live now. And, people commiting suicide, although tragic, does not put me in danger and doesn't affect me. I'm not depressed and I'm not going to commit suicide. Not once have I ever thought about it. I don't care if suicide is lumped in as part of "firearms violence". It doesn't belong there and should be it's own standalone category.
 
They were a bunch of idiots. Why didnt they ban these?
I've never been able to figure that out. Bill Ruger had dirt on someone?
Due to the fact that gun control is not even about trying to save lives, but is only about violating people's civil liberties for no reason, the gun law in question was only about cosmetic appearances, and the Ruger guns did not have the sorts of cosmetics that were targeted for elimination.
 
Due to the fact that gun control is not even about trying to save lives, but is only about violating people's civil liberties for no reason, the gun law in question was only about cosmetic appearances, and the Ruger guns did not have the sorts of cosmetics that were targeted for elimination.
Exactly.
 
I am much less likely to be shot by someone where I live now. And, people commiting suicide, although tragic, does not put me in danger and doesn't affect me. I'm not depressed and I'm not going to commit suicide. Not once have I ever thought about it. I don't care if suicide is lumped in as part of "firearms violence". It doesn't belong there and should be it's own standalone category.
Firearm homicide does not adequately capture the extent of firearm-related problems. Do you want to exclude firearm accidents as well?
 
They were a bunch of idiots. Why didnt they ban these?
Different features (recoil, capacity, ballistics, weight) exist in the "modern sporting rifle", don't you know?
Similarity does not mean devices are identical.
If brass knuckles are banned does that mean wedding rings must be banned?
 
Different features (recoil, capacity, ballistics, weight) exist in the "modern sporting rifle", don't you know?

There are no significant differences in those, between a Mini-14 and an AR-15. They don't seem to be relevant criteria for banning anyway.

Similarity does not mean devices are identical.
If brass knuckles are banned does that mean wedding rings must be banned?

Your struggle is real and obvious.
 
So, some people deserve protection but not others? Is that the angle you are going for now?

The poster was asking in the context of the beneficial qualities of guns.
 
So, some people deserve protection but not others? Is that the angle you are going for now?
No. But its very telling when those that want to ban them in order to reduce deaths also aren't going to give them up themselves. The 2nd amendment doesn't discriminate.
 
What does that bit of irrelevance have to do with firearm violence?
Not irrelevant at all. It proves your contention about the risks of owning firearms is wrong.

Whatever can happen is not confined to accidents.
Do you remember how many people die or get injured yearly and the direct and indirect costs of firearm violence?
Sure. And it’s far outweighed by the economic and social benefits of owning firearms.
From defensive gun use, to controlling animal populations, to health benefits, environmental benefits , to economic benefits etc.

Tell you what
Make a rational argument why a hunter in Idaho who enjoys hunting and shooting should give up their firearms.

Let’s hear it.
 
Different features (recoil, capacity, ballistics, weight) exist in the "modern sporting rifle",
Completely untrue. The differences are entirely cosmetic, and the only reason for trying to outlaw them is because gun control is NOT about trying to save lives, but is only about maliciously trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.


don't you know?
I make it a point to not know outright falsehoods.


Similarity does not mean devices are identical.
If brass knuckles are banned does that mean wedding rings must be banned?
Again, the differences are entirely cosmetic, and the only reason for trying to outlaw them is because gun control is NOT about trying to save lives, but is only about maliciously trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.
 
Not irrelevant at all. It proves your contention about the risks of owning firearms is wrong.
Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.
Sure. And it’s far outweighed by the economic and social benefits of owning firearms.
Do the cost benefit analysis with actual dollars at 2 million dollars per life without fabricating some hypothetical number of prevented deaths because similar countries do not have similar firearm violence with fewer firearms.
From defensive gun use, to controlling animal populations, to health benefits, environmental benefits , to economic benefits etc.
Preposterous fiction.
Tell you what
Make a rational argument why a hunter in Idaho who enjoys hunting and shooting should give up their firearms.

Let’s hear it.
Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom