Other than crime control, is there any possible argument for gun control

[TurtleDude]

There are many reasons to oppose gun control, and by that I mean laws that control or limit citizens from keeping, buying, possessing or owning firearms and ammo. Not laws that punish misuse of weapons such as laws that increase the penalty for armed robbery or discharging a weapon in the commission of say a kidnapping.

given that, it seems the only way gun control advocates can justify gun control is to prove that their schemes actually will make us safer. I submit they cannot. none of the evidence produced nationally can prove gun control is successful as a crime control tool

we on the other hand can CONCEDE a point the antis cannot establish and still make valid arguments. for example, freedom trumps some increases in public safety.

so gun controllers, unless you can provide clear proof that your desires to restrict our rights helps public safety, you have nothing to stand upon

 

[Harshaw]

In a free society, there is no other possible legitimate argument, no.

 

[TurtleDude]

In a free society, there is no other possible legitimate argument, no.

I must have sprayed troll be gone. Not one of the advocates for rights destruction have responded.

 

[CRUE CAB]

All you did was sent them scurrying around so they can regroup and set up another circular argument. Good job.
Now, they will be back on more BS stats from some BS schools ran by people that dont live in the real world.
More, "guns are for pansies", more I will never kill someone for raping my daughter, more "you need to move to a better neighborhood", more "then why dont you own a nuke or a M1A1 TANK.
Same argument, same Bat time same Bat place, and I am sure more George Zimmerman statements.
There is no longer a bother to have these threads.

 

[Crimefree]

Is there some valid reason I don't know of that suggests crime can be controlled by gun control laws?

 

[Crimefree]

All you did was sent them scurrying around so they can regroup and set up another circular argument. Good job.
Now, they will be back on more BS stats from some BS schools ran by people that dont live in the real world.
More, "guns are for pansies", more I will never kill someone for raping my daughter, more "you need to move to a better neighborhood", more "then why dont you own a nuke or a M1A1 TANK.
Same argument, same Bat time same Bat place, and I am sure more George Zimmerman statements.
There is no longer a bother to have these threads.

The amazing thing is that gun control advocates do exactly as you suggest. First they lobby for gun control and get it. Then they bitch about the increased crime so they move to a different neighbourhood/city/state. The first thing they do when they get to the low crime area is bitch about the little crime that is there and demand gun control.

That is about as circular as one can get not to mention pretty dumb.

 

[Crimefree]

There are many reasons to oppose gun control, and by that I mean laws that control or limit citizens from keeping, buying, possessing or owning firearms and ammo. Not laws that punish misuse of weapons such as laws that increase the penalty for armed robbery or discharging a weapon in the commission of say a kidnapping.

given that, it seems the only way gun control advocates can justify gun control is to prove that their schemes actually will make us safer. I submit they cannot. none of the evidence produced nationally can prove gun control is successful as a crime control tool

Hmmm many a true word but is the importance seen of what was said. "gun control is to prove that their schemes actually will make us safer."

How hard would you fight for your personal safety? How important to you is your personal safety? More important than your guns? Which are firearm owners protecting?

we on the other hand can CONCEDE a point the antis cannot establish and still make valid arguments. for example, freedom trumps some increases in public safety.

Once again examine the words written. Can gun control be appeased by conceding a point? What point influencing your safety will you concede?

so gun controllers, unless you can provide clear proof that your desires to restrict our rights helps public safety, you have nothing to stand upon

Gun control does not require proof. It is a belief like religion that there is an afterlife. Gun control advocates believe disarming us will make them safer and unless we approach our arguments on that basis we really are wasting our time.

Currently we protect our guns and value our guns, nothing else counts. The reality is we will give up our guns when we have to make a choice between guns and life or fines and imprisonment.

But what are we without our rights and safety? Neither of these do we place the slightest value on yet our rights are designed to ensure our safety.