• 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!

nra news: fear of guns

Guns are a tool with a specific purpose. However without a hand to load the weapon and pull the trigger it is useless. Just an inanimate object.
 
Guns are a tool with a specific purpose. However without a hand to load the weapon and pull the trigger it is useless. Just an inanimate object.

So are nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean everyone should have them.
 
So are nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean everyone should have them.

You have to admit that is a rather far stretch.


(not implying you below Deuce)

I bet that it is probable that most of the anti-gun crown probably have never owned a gun nor currently own one. They probably never go shooting nor have taken any marksmanship courses. So they are largely setting their views without ever experiencing the other side.

This is nothing new with most people about one argument or another. We almost all feel that a criminal that has committed a heinous crime should be locked away in prison for an extended amount of time yet most of us have never spent time in prison. We are ignorant of the situation so is it really fair for us to try and determine the outcome of others when we ourselves are ignorant to the situation? I feel that unless you have been on both sides that your opinion is moot. Expressing an ignorant opinion is one thing but expecting others to conform to it is just ass.
 
So are nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean everyone should have them.

Hyperbole is all that is as no one is talking about Nuclear weapons. :roll:

PS Hyperbole aside yes it is just an inanimate object until someone activates it.

Really bad fallacy argument.
 
I'm not sure why so many gun-rights activists insist on making the argument that "Guns are inanimate objects, they don't just go off on their own". That's a pretty big straw man. I don't think gun control advocates are quite that stupid.

I do agree with her basic premise though. I've taken several people shooting, and some of them were very hesitant about it at first, and with one exception, they all enjoyed it, and most have asked to go back and do it again.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why so many gun-rights activists insist on making the argument that "Guns are inanimate objects, they don't just go off on their own". That's a pretty big straw man. I don't think gun control advocates are quite that stupid.

That is not a straw man argument at all...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

This is a strawman...

So are nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean everyone should have them. - Deuce

Yes they are that stupid in far to many cases.

I do agree with her basic premise though. I've taken several people shooting, and some of them were very hesitant about it at first, and with one exception, they all enjoyed it, and most have asked to go back and do it again.

That's a good thing.
 
That is not a straw man argument at all...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Right, which is exactly what's happening, unless you think that the anti-gun side is actually making the argument that a gun is just going to go off by itself with no one else around and kill people when they say that guns are dangerous. I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean.
 
I'm not sure why so many gun-rights activists insist on making the argument that "Guns are inanimate objects, they don't just go off on their own". That's a pretty big straw man. I don't think gun control advocates are quite that stupid.

Not stupid indoctrinated. - The idea guns kill is not their own. It was born of gun control.

I do agree with her basic premise though. I've taken several people shooting, and some of them were very hesitant about it at first, and with one exception, they all enjoyed it, and most have asked to go back and do it again.

What was your purpose in taking people shooting? What did you hope to achieve and why was it desirable for your to do that? What benefit would "come back again bring"? Excuse me far asking this question as I need to know the answer as it is a very common action pointing to some desired goal. I could guess but it still would be a guess.
 
Not stupid indoctrinated. - The idea guns kill is not their own. It was born of gun control.

I'm not sure anti-gun people are any more indoctrinated than pro-gun people in general. It's not like the NRA doesn't use spin and over the top rhetoric to get what they want, same as the Brady campaign does.

What was your purpose in taking people shooting? What did you hope to achieve and why was it desirable for your to do that?

I took them because it was something fun to do. In both the cases where I took people who were hesitant about it at first, it was the wife/girlfriend of a friend of mine who wanted to go with her SO when I took him.

What benefit would "come back again bring"?

They had fun, and wanted to do it again.
 
I'm not sure why so many gun-rights activists insist on making the argument that "Guns are inanimate objects, they don't just go off on their own". That's a pretty big straw man. I don't think gun control advocates are quite that stupid.

For the most part it appears they are. As they see the problem as the gun, not the mental health system or the people that use them for 'bad'.
 
I'm not sure anti-gun people are any more indoctrinated than pro-gun people in general. It's not like the NRA doesn't use spin and over the top rhetoric to get what they want, same as the Brady campaign does.



I took them because it was something fun to do. In both the cases where I took people who were hesitant about it at first, it was the wife/girlfriend of a friend of mine who wanted to go with her SO when I took him.



They had fun, and wanted to do it again.

while the NRA and other pro rights groups sometimes whip up the level of threats against our rights, there is none of the outright lying that we get from the Brady scum and the other assholes like Josh Sugarmann and his putrid VPC

1) Lies the anti gun scum tell constantly

a) weapons police use for defense against criminals have no legitimate use for other civilians to own them

b) magazine capacity is determined by hunting laws

c) people who own guns and obey criminal laws need more restraint

d) people who don't obey laws against murder will obey gun control laws

e) allowing people to CCW will lead to "bloodshed in the streets" and "shootouts over parking spaces

f) allowing the clinton gun ban to expire will cause massive amounts of crimes with "assault weapons"

and the BIGGEST WHOPPER OF THEM ALL

crime control motivates assholes like Brady, Sugarmann or Biden
 
I'm not sure anti-gun people are any more indoctrinated than pro-gun people in general. It's not like the NRA doesn't use spin and over the top rhetoric to get what they want, same as the Brady campaign does.

Thanks very much for your comments.

No I will agree with you. While gun control advocates many of whom are firearm owners all have some indoctrination in the hate and fear of guns or guns in the "wrong hands" and seek to limit that with gun control measures. Firearm owners seem to be convinced the way to fight gun control is to instil some sort of appreciation for guns. So they sell guns, services, training, tests, memberships, activity and shooting including shooting sports.

I have noted no variation in firearm owners approach over the many years I have been involved at the coal face of this fight. In fact it is near impossible to achieve any real change in "strategy". I use that loosely as there is no real strategy or objective for firearm owners in fighting gun control.

If there is I am still waiting for somebody to state it.

I took them because it was something fun to do. In both the cases where I took people who were hesitant about it at first, it was the wife/girlfriend of a friend of mine who wanted to go with her SO when I took him.

Great most do have fun because it is fun ;-)

I guess what I am trying to say is that a person who owns a firearm is not automatically a person who objects to gun control. We keep forgetting that and think firearm owners are immune to gun control propaganda.

I saw this paraphrased the other day as gun control advocates fighting for their safety while firearm owners warn of some apocalyptic event if they don't have guns.

That is actually not far from the truth and it really does show exactly what is wrong with firearm owners "strategy". No amount of warning or protection of any object will trump a persons fears for their own safety.

The problem is that is impossible to sell because firearm organisations are not interested unless they get something out of it. To them "for the greater good" is something other organisations do yet gun control only does for the greater good.

The problem is that the propaganda of gun control is not being countered by firearm organisations. It gives gun control an almost free hand. Look what that has got us so far or look to other countries to see where it is going.
 
For the most part it appears they are. As they see the problem as the gun, not the mental health system or the people that use them for 'bad'.

Amazingly close to what motivates gun control advocates. Fear of injury and death. A fear of living in an unsafe environment. That fear at the direction of gun control demonising guns, is guns. A solution to the presented problem causing the fear. Get rid of guns.

The principles of propaganda are not that difficult as certain elements must remain constant to be effective. The objective and target for instance. Thus those indoctrinated only see the objective and target and nothing else is of any consequence.
 
Back
Top Bottom