Current Events > Problem with the anti-gun crowd is how they are too emotional to take seirously

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean I get it, guns are bad mmkay. Problem is so many people on the anti-gun stance are just ridiculously emotional people who are letting their emotions rule everything. Worst of all is how willfully ignorant they seem to be, it is like they don't care to know anything about guns and don't want to know anything about them despite the fact that they seem to be dedicating themselves to having a strong stance about them.

I just can't take people like that seriously.
---

They should arm teachers and students if everyone has a gun no one will fire.
Think nuclear deterrence
---

t3h_m45k3d_G4R0 posted...

They should arm teachers and students if everyone has a gun no one will fire.
Think nuclear deterrence

Yeah the pro-gun stance is hardly better but I think this just shows how we have two willfully uneducated sides battling it out, leaving everyone with common sense out of it.
---

I think this is mostly a side-effect of your perspective.
Plenty of pro-gun people are also too emotional to take seriously. It's nothing inherent to the viewpoint.
---

Emotions aside they still have a point. Something has to be done. Arming teachers might work in some places, but its not the universal fix for this.
---

People have lost the ability to debate. Nobody knows how to defend their arguments, most people pick a side with a surface-level understanding of the topic, and the default stance is "I don't have to argue with the opposition because I am objectively right and they are objectively evil."

Civil discourse is dead, and I 100% support making debate a mandatory topic for all school children.
---

s0nicfan posted...

People have lost the ability to debate. Nobody knows how to defend their arguments, most people pick a side with a surface-level understanding of the topic, and the default stance is "I don't have to argue with the opposition because I am objectively right and they are objectively evil." We live in a generation where the person who screams the loudest for the longest "wins".

Civil discourse is dead, and I 100% support making debate a mandatory topic for all school children.

This is probably the best response I have ever seen for this topic.
---

User Since: Dec 2010
Karma: 407
Active Posts: 9
---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

User Since: Dec 2010
Karma: 407
Active Posts: 9

TC was in a lengthy Purge
---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

User Since: Dec 2010
Karma: 407
Active Posts: 9

someone should make an greasemonkey script with (>1000), (>100) karma indicators on names in the topic list tbh.
---

Sonic Cannon posted...

I think this is mostly a side-effect of your perspective.
Plenty of pro-gun people are also too emotional to take seriously. It's nothing inherent to the viewpoint.

The problem with this line of thought is that facts, as a general rule, support the pro-gun side.

For almost every situation where strict gun control solves gun crime, there's a situation where lax gun control solves gun crime (see Minnesota and I think New Hampshire?). For almost every situation where strict gun control solves gun crime, there's a situation where strict gun control doesn't (Mexico and most other Latin American nations). When controlled for population, there are ten EU nations, all with very strict gun control policies, with more gun deaths than America.

Statistics on gun violence in America don't support the anti-gun narrative, either, in the vast majority of cases - it's the reason why they add suicides and accidental shootings to "gun violence" and "school shootings." It's also why they ignore that medical malpractice kills five times as many Americans every year as all guns (including suicide and accidents).

Then, after this, you get into the outright falsehoods stated ad nauseum by gun-control advocates - namely the presence of a "gun show loophole" that is apparently mowing down innocent Americans on the daily, or that it's PERFECTLY LEGAL for a 16-year-old to possess a firearm in public, or that it's PERFECTLY LEGAL to execute a private sale out-of-state without an FFL dealer involved. There is no "gun show loophole." Anyone who's BEEN to a gun show knows that there are quite a few state and federal law enforcement officers on hand, making sure every sales person is performing background checks on every sale. It's against the law for minors to be in possession of a firearm outside of a very, VERY limited set of circumstances (meaning if you see a kid walking down the street with a gun, he's likely breaking federal law, and you should call the police). And, as I've stated on this board a thousand times, it is against federal law to execute a private sale across state lines without having an FFL dealer in the purchaser's state involved, who will take physical possession of the firearm until a background check has been completed, and that the police have determined the weapon isn't stolen or suspected to be used in a crime.

Oh, and that often-repeated statement by leftists that "the CDC is legally barred from doing research on gun violence?" False. The CDC has done it. There is nothing stopping it whatsoever - what they're barred from doing is advocating gun control policy. They can do the research, make their conclusion, and publish it - that's it.

Given these facts, is there a single fact that actually supports the gun control narrative? I mean, we can't even point to an "epidemic" of gun violence, since gun violence has been going down. Considering the fact that gun sales skyrocketed under Obama, this absolutely should not be the case if ANYTHING people supporting gun control stated were true.
---

Anti-gun logic
---

darkjedilink posted...

Sonic Cannon posted...

I think this is mostly a side-effect of your perspective.
Plenty of pro-gun people are also too emotional to take seriously. It's nothing inherent to the viewpoint.

The problem with this line of thought is that facts, as a general rule, support the pro-gun side.

For almost every situation where strict gun control solves gun crime, there's a situation where lax gun control solves gun crime (see Minnesota and I think New Hampshire?). For almost every situation where strict gun control solves gun crime, there's a situation where strict gun control doesn't (Mexico and most other Latin American nations). When controlled for population, there are ten EU nations, all with very strict gun control policies, with more gun deaths than America.

Statistics on gun violence in America don't support the anti-gun narrative, either, in the vast majority of cases - it's the reason why they add suicides and accidental shootings to "gun violence" and "school shootings." It's also why they ignore that medical malpractice kills five times as many Americans every year as all guns (including suicide and accidents).

Then, after this, you get into the outright falsehoods stated ad nauseum by gun-control advocates - namely the presence of a "gun show loophole" that is apparently mowing down innocent Americans on the daily, or that it's PERFECTLY LEGAL for a 16-year-old to possess a firearm in public, or that it's PERFECTLY LEGAL to execute a private sale out-of-state without an FFL dealer involved. There is no "gun show loophole." Anyone who's BEEN to a gun show knows that there are quite a few state and federal law enforcement officers on hand, making sure every sales person is performing background checks on every sale. It's against the law for minors to be in possession of a firearm outside of a very, VERY limited set of circumstances (meaning if you see a kid walking down the street with a gun, he's likely breaking federal law, and you should call the police). And, as I've stated on this board a thousand times, it is against federal law to execute a private sale across state lines without having an FFL dealer in the purchaser's state involved, who will take physical possession of the firearm until a background check has been completed, and that the police have determined the weapon isn't stolen or suspected to be used in a crime.

Oh, and that often-repeated statement by leftists that "the CDC is legally barred from doing research on gun violence?" False. The CDC has done it. There is nothing stopping it whatsoever - what they're barred from doing is advocating gun control policy. They can do the research, make their conclusion, and publish it - that's it.

Given these facts, is there a single fact that actually supports the gun control narrative? I mean, we can't even point to an "epidemic" of gun violence, since gun violence has been going down. Considering the fact that gun sales skyrocketed under Obama, this absolutely should not be the case if ANYTHING people supporting gun control stated were true.

Yeah well that is just one side of the issue, but it has everything to do with what I was talking about, which is willful ignorance. All of your complaints go back to the fact that the side you are arguing against doesn't really know what they are talking about. They talk a lot, make a lot of big statements meant to shock their audience, but very little of it actually holds up to objective scrutiny.

The people on the pedestals for this topic just don't seem to care the least to know what they are talking about. They have dug their heads in the sand, dedicated their life to one side, and now they are doing they can to protect their ego.
---

I see far more ignorance and emotion from the gun nuts side. There are literally people that think an AR-15 will protect them from tanks and fighter planes lmao
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

I see far more ignorance and emotion from the gun nuts side. There are literally people that think an AR-15 will protect them from tanks and fighter planes lmao

And then there are literal people who think...

A. Military soldiers whose very own friends and families are civilians will willingly follow an authoritarian government and kill friendlies.

And B. The government would destroy their own infrastructure using tanks and fighter jets to carpet bomb their own resources.
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

I see far more ignorance and emotion from the gun nuts side. There are literally people that think an AR-15 will protect them from tanks and fighter planes lmao

This is always a terrible argument since nobody is really saying they want to retain the right to possess a firearm with the sole intent of taking on the United States military with it. This is just some ridiculous assumption made by people with very emotional arguments which is why it is so irrational.

In any case, if the modern American military was so effecting at controlling anything where they fighting an armed militia with rifles, then explain their failure to control places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
---

I support arming every many, woman and child in this country. Which is of course something you're average "gun supporter" is not OK with.
---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Something has to be done.

No it doesn't. This is a rare occurrence and gun laws do nothing to stop it.
---

Knowledge_King posted...

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Something has to be done.

No it doesn't. This is a rare occurrence and gun laws do nothing to stop it.

There's something about the environment in USA that makes school shootings and public mass shootings in general way more common there than anywhere else. IDK if gun laws are the best way to stop it, but by international standards, it's not true to say "this is a rare occurrence"
---

Sonic Cannon posted...

IDK if gun laws are the best way to stop it, but by international standards, it's not true to say "this is a rare occurrence"

imo a big factor in other countries are that they are generally much smaller in population so its easier to assess issues and take care of them before they really manifest (a little bit of authoritarian control helps im sure). with that you have better social programs in place that tends to help others more often. thats something the US has always struggled with. We have a 2nd world population in terms of scale and are trying to give people first world help. things dont work out well and because of our political system where new people can be in office literally every 2-4 years it makes it more difficult to set up policies when they can be done away with in the next election.

tho overall i think it comes down to more programs in place to help people. i do think we could do better in some gun control areas though, especially when it comes to accidents and liability.