Think It Over

[DebateChallenge]

If you're going to get involved in the gun debate you really should think it over. The thing about the gun control crowd is that most of the people in that crowd don't think it over, they just look at raw facts and come to immediate conclusions which are sloppy and not well thought over. In the Brady Campaign where they've got no brain this is very common. The gun control crowd likes to point out how there are close to 40,000 gun deaths per year in the USA and compares that to other countries with much stricter gun control and much fewer gun deaths such as Japan. They then come to the immediate conclusion that we should do all we can to get rid of guns and that we should be like Japan in terms of gun control or perhaps even stricter. As I said, such a conclusion is sloppy and not well thought over. Although there are less than 40,000 gun deaths per year for sake of discussion lets say there are 40,000 gun deaths per year. To be good at taking on the gun debate you've got to look beyond the 40,000 gun deaths a year and look at exactly what kind of gun deaths they are. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest of the gun deaths are deaths in gangs where gangsters shoot and kill other gangsters. Very very rarely are gun deaths ever the result of guns that are lawfully owned by law abiding citizens. If we were to look at just the gun deaths that are from guns owned by law abiding citizens we would have a gun death rate that would be if not as low as Japan's rate perhaps as low as the UK's rate.

 

[TurtleDude]

The GC crowd comes to its position almost always due to politics and ignorance. You really meet someone who has spent years around firearms who is a big gun banner unless they are government operatives with a machiavellian motivation. Most anti gun folks are urban or suburban liberals who are disgusted by the fact that Gun owners tend to vote for politicians who are not socialists, nor do they support issues near and dear to urban liberals such as abortion on demand. So the GC movement is mainly about power and political paybacks with pandering to the masses on top of that. But those arguments don't really sell well in the public, so the GCAs have to pretend their schemes are designed to make people safer. But when they make those arguments, they run into people who actually understand the issues and hammer them mercilessly on the errors the GCAs make.

 

[jamesrage]

If you're going to get involved in the gun debate you really should think it over. The thing about the gun control crowd is that most of the people in that crowd don't think it over, they just look at raw facts and come to immediate conclusions which are sloppy and not well thought over. In the Brady Campaign where they've got no brain this is very common. The gun control crowd likes to point out how there are close to 40,000 gun deaths per year in the USA and compares that to other countries with much stricter gun control and much fewer gun deaths such as Japan. They then come to the immediate conclusion that we should do all we can to get rid of guns and that we should be like Japan in terms of gun control or perhaps even stricter. As I said, such a conclusion is sloppy and not well thought over. Although there are less than 40,000 gun deaths per year for sake of discussion lets say there are 40,000 gun deaths per year. To be good at taking on the gun debate you've got to look beyond the 40,000 gun deaths a year and look at exactly what kind of gun deaths they are. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest of the gun deaths are deaths in gangs where gangsters shoot and kill other gangsters. Very very rarely are gun deaths ever the result of guns that are lawfully owned by law abiding citizens. If we were to look at just the gun deaths that are from guns owned by law abiding citizens we would have a gun death rate that would be if not as low as Japan's rate perhaps as low as the UK's rate.

You are making the assumption that anti-2nd amendment trash spout the 30 or 40 thousand gun deaths a year number out of ignorance of the fact that two thirds of those deaths are suicides. They are not doing it out ignorance. They know full well that two thirds of thirds of those are suicides. They include the suicides in order to fraudulently claim 30 or 40 thousand people a year die of violent gun deaths a year. These people want to severely restrict and or ban firearms and they don't care how thats accomplished. Its why they falsely call semiautomatic firearms assault weapons when the term refers to automatic rifles. Its why they falsely call a 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazine a high capacity magazine. You are making the assumption these people care about honesty.

 

[Rich2018]

Whenever a new gun outrage happens, there are re-newed calls for gun control.


The gun lobby has an unthinking knee-jerk reaction into one or more of the following arguments against gun control:


1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any law or constitution:

2. Guns are a Necessity:
a. To defend against the lawless
b. To provide food (for those living outside reasonable traveling distance from a shop)

3. Gun Control is Impossible:
a. There are just too many guns to even try to remove them from private ownership
b. No law enforcement would ever obey an order to seize them anyway.

 

[Bullseye]

If you're going to get involved in the gun debate you really should think it over. The thing about the gun control crowd is that most of the people in that crowd don't think it over, they just look at raw facts and come to immediate conclusions which are sloppy and not well thought over. In the Brady Campaign where they've got no brain this is very common. The gun control crowd likes to point out how there are close to 40,000 gun deaths per year in the USA and compares that to other countries with much stricter gun control and much fewer gun deaths such as Japan. They then come to the immediate conclusion that we should do all we can to get rid of guns and that we should be like Japan in terms of gun control or perhaps even stricter. As I said, such a conclusion is sloppy and not well thought over. Although there are less than 40,000 gun deaths per year for sake of discussion lets say there are 40,000 gun deaths per year. To be good at taking on the gun debate you've got to look beyond the 40,000 gun deaths a year and look at exactly what kind of gun deaths they are. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest of the gun deaths are deaths in gangs where gangsters shoot and kill other gangsters. Very very rarely are gun deaths ever the result of guns that are lawfully owned by law abiding citizens. If we were to look at just the gun deaths that are from guns owned by law abiding citizens we would have a gun death rate that would be if not as low as Japan's rate perhaps as low as the UK's rate.

Well said, but far to logical for anti-gunners to comprehend.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Whenever a new gun outrage happens, there are re-newed calls for gun control.


The gun lobby has an unthinking knee-jerk reaction into one or more of the following arguments against gun control:


1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any law or constitution:

2. Guns are a Necessity:
a. To defend against the lawless
b. To provide food (for those living outside reasonable traveling distance from a shop)

3. Gun Control is Impossible:
a. There are just too many guns to even try to remove them from private ownership
b. No law enforcement would ever obey an order to seize them anyway.

Renewed calls for gun control increase "impulse" (investment?) gun sales to ensure making that new gun purchase before the typical "grandfather cause" cutoff date.

 

[Bullseye]

Whenever a new gun outrage happens, there are re-newed calls for gun control.


The gun lobby has an unthinking knee-jerk reaction into one or more of the following arguments against gun control:


1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any law or constitution:

2. Guns are a Necessity:
a. To defend against the lawless
b. To provide food (for those living outside reasonable traveling distance from a shop)

3. Gun Control is Impossible:
a. There are just too many guns to even try to remove them from private ownership
b. No law enforcement would ever obey an order to seize them anyway.

You spew this tripe repeatedly, get proven wrong over and over. And yet you never come up with anything new. Gun ownership does NOT "supersede any law or constitution", it is GUARANTEED in the constitute. Whether a gun is a necessity or not is irrelevant, it's a right.

You are correct about #3, by the way.

 

[Rich2018]

Renewed calls for gun control increase "impulse" (investment?) gun sales to ensure making that new gun purchase before the typical "grandfather cause" cutoff date.

And the OP was trying to say that it's the GC lobby that acts unthinkingly.

 

[Rich2018]

You spew this tripe repeatedly, get proven wrong over and over. And yet you never come up with anything new. Gun ownership does NOT "supersede any law or constitution", it is GUARANTEED in the constitute. Whether a gun is a necessity or not is irrelevant, it's a right.

You are correct about #3, by the way.

Well you can expect a point well made to be used over and over.

You misread what I wrote anyway, gun owners will resort to saying that gun ownership is a right that supersedes any law or constitution
ie: even if the 2nd amendment was repealed and a further amendment passed to ban guns, they would claim to still hold a right to own them.


So you fall into the #1 and #3 excuse to own guns camp. How long did you have to think about it ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And the OP was trying to say that it's the GC lobby that acts unthinkingly.

Hmm... do you suppose that their intent was to cause a spike in gun sales? If not, then perhaps they were acting unthinkingly.

 

[Rich2018]

Hmm... do you suppose that their intent was to cause a spike in gun sales? If not, then perhaps they were acting unthinkingly.

GC lobby causing a spike in gun sales...?


I think this needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory section.

 

[Rucker61]

GC lobby causing a spike in gun sales...?


I think this needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory section.

The data supports the theory that every time more gun control is proposed, gun sales go up. If the GCA proposes new gun control, they either have to know that they will cause more guns to be sold or they are proposing new legislation unthinkingly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

GC lobby causing a spike in gun sales...?


I think this needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory section.

Did you not understand post #8?

President Barack Obama became known as America's gun salesman in chief during his final years in office. And gun sales data backs that title up.

Americans purchased more than $29.1 billion in firearms and $16.6 billion in ammunition during his two terms in the White House, an analysis from The Washington Post published Wednesday found. Some of that was fueled by Obama's repeated attempts to introduce gun control measures that could make it harder for some Americans to buy guns. In contrast, during the 16 years Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were president, Americans spent a total of, respectively, $21.1 billion and $22.9 billion on guns and ammo.

Obama's exit from the White House seems to have provided some Americans relief about the security of their Second Amendment rights. Since President Donald Trump won election in November, gun sales appear to be going down. In December 2016, for example, a popular time for gun sales as Christmas presents, the FBI conducted just 2.8 million backgrounds checks. The year before, the FBI conducted 3.3 million background checks around Christmas. Gun sales so far this year appear to have dropped by 17 percent.

https://www.newsweek.com/gun-sales-down-after-obama-boom-years-573170

 

[Captain America]

I just got a few things to say regarding this debate and it holds true on the countless other threads debating (beating a dead horse,) the same.

1. Gun debate is a waste of time. There will be no consensus.

Why?

1. Gun ownership is sewn into the very fabric of America, past, present and the future doesn't look any different as far as I can tell. What other nation has gone as far as to protect gun ownership from the very upstart of this great nation? You can't get toothpaste back in to the tube, so to speak. That ship done sailed.

2. Restricting or outlawing gun ownership, (besides ripping the aforementioned fabric and culture of America right down the middle,) would be a futile endeavor. Reason? See point #1.

I mean, I get it. I see all the pros and cons of all the arguments made, from both sides of the issue, but we are all just dogs chasing our tails. As I said, debate is pointless and a waste of time regarding this issue. Guns are here. Guns are here to stay. Adapt and improvise.

That's all I got to say, (and even saying this much was a colossal waste of time.)

 

[Rich2018]

The data supports the theory that every time more gun control is proposed, gun sales go up. If the GCA proposes new gun control, they either have to know that they will cause more guns to be sold or they are proposing new legislation unthinkingly.

So the NRA and gun manufacturers are probably behind mass shootings to boost sales...

Hmmm....seems a little far fetched to me.

 

[Rich2018]

I just got a few things to say regarding this debate and it holds true on the countless other threads debating (beating a dead horse,) the same.

1. Gun debate is a waste of time. There will be no consensus.

Why?

1. Gun ownership is sewn into the very fabric of America, past, present and the future doesn't look any different as far as I can tell. What other nation has gone as far as to protect gun ownership from the very upstart of this great nation? You can't get toothpaste back in to the tube, so to speak. That ship done sailed.

2. Restricting or outlawing gun ownership, (besides ripping the aforementioned fabric and culture of America right down the middle,) would be a futile endeavor. Reason? See point #1.

I mean, I get it. I see all the pros and cons of all the arguments made, from both sides of the issue, but we are all just dogs chasing our tails. As I said, debate is pointless and a waste of time regarding this issue. Guns are here. Guns are here to stay. Adapt and improvise.

That's all I got to say, (and even saying this much was a colossal waste of time.)

Fell right into excuse # 3.1

 

[Rucker61]

So the NRA and gun manufacturers are probably behind mass shootings to boost sales...

Hmmm....seems a little far fetched to me.

Yes, it is. Why did you mention it?

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, it is. Why did you mention it?

I didn't.


Read back.

 

[Maccabee]

Whenever a new gun outrage happens, there are re-newed calls for gun control.


The gun lobby has an unthinking knee-jerk reaction into one or more of the following arguments against gun control:


1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any law or constitution:

2. Guns are a Necessity:
a. To defend against the lawless
b. To provide food (for those living outside reasonable traveling distance from a shop)

3. Gun Control is Impossible:
a. There are just too many guns to even try to remove them from private ownership
b. No law enforcement would ever obey an order to seize them anyway.

And what is your evidenve that any of these arguments are false?

 

[RF667799]

GC lobby causing a spike in gun sales...?


I think this needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory section.

Though Unintended Consequence explains it as well, you seem loathe to accept that.

 

[Bullseye]

Well you can expect a point well made to be used over and over.

LOL, not even close.

You misread what I wrote anyway, gun owners will resort to saying that gun ownership is a right that supersedes any law or constitution
ie: even if the 2nd amendment was repealed and a further amendment passed to ban guns, they would claim to still hold a right to own them.

Bull****.

So you fall into the #1 and #3 excuse to own guns camp. How long did you have to think about it ?

Sorry, no.

 

[Rucker61]

I didn't.


Read back.

No one but you mentioned mass shootings.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Well said, but far to logical for anti-gunners to comprehend.

Perhaps you're right. After all, the gun rights crowd has logic, the gun control crowd has emotion.

 

[DebateChallenge]

The gun lobby has an unthinking knee-jerk reaction into one or more of the following arguments

Its the leftists, the gun control crowd, that has knee-jerk reactions, that's why they're called knee jerking liberals.

 

[TurtleDude]

Perhaps you're right. After all, the gun rights crowd has logic, the gun control crowd has emotion.

I don't really agree with that. the average low wattage voter-such as the soccer moms who mouth support for "everytown fluffs Bloomberg" are not thinkers but feelers when it comes to gun control. But the people who lead the gun control movement are scheming plotting machiavellian power hungry assholes. What they do makes perfect sense if you understand their goals