Am I crazy?

[Deanimator]

Is there no reasoning with gun control supporters?

Usually no more so than with Holocaust deniers.

But if you recognize that fact, it's fun to point out their stupidity and dishonesty, and indeed to bait them into making self-incriminating statements. Lots of them are racists and anti-Semites. It doesn't take much to get them to discredit themselves.

Think of it as rhetorical varmint hunting...

 

[DaveBeal]

Lots of them are racists and anti-Semites.

Oh, come on. The great majority of gun control supporters are motivated simply by a desire to reduce crime. You can argue that their approach is counter-productive, but statements like this aren't helpful.

The first rule of Internet debate: The first guy to call the other a Nazi loses.

 

[elrod]

dredwinggirl13

I consider myself liberal in many aspects....

Then....

...maybe I just still have a lot to learn.

Off topic, but your statements in post #32 sure sound libertarian to me! Try this; http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

 

[The Unknown User]

I think it really sucks how both pro- and anti-gun people want the same thing: reduced crime.

Anti-gun people attack the methods and means with which the commission of a crime is performed, whereas pro-gun people just want the criminals to be punished.

Example: Some FFLs have been found to be selling firearms out the "back door" of their business to criminals and firearms traffickers.

Anti-gun solution: Ban legal sale of firearms. No FFLs means no corrupt FFLs to sell firearms to traffickers.

Pro-gun solution: Weed out the corrupt FFLs. No corrupt FFLs means no sale of firearms to traffickers.

 

[jackmead]

We have a much bigger problem with alcohol, someone will go to a bar and have a few beers, just enough to get over the limit, then drive home without getting stopped. It's probably happened to a few talking heads and that's why you never hear about it.

 

[DaveBeal]

We all really want the same thing

Both pro- and anti-gun folks are ultimately motivated by the desire to reduce crime. The difference is that the anti's think it's acceptable to forbid some people from possessing some forms of firearms to accomplish it, because - correctly or not - they believe that the overall result would be positive for society. And since many of them have no interest in owning or using firearms themselves, they have little to lose personally by banning them.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

DaveBeal, haven't you heard of the Brady Bunch, Gun Control, Inc,? Do you really believe they just want to reduce crime? And no Rob, you are not crazy!

 

[v35]

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Focus on that. The rest is a distraction.

Both sides want control. The only difference is what, exactly, they want to control first.

Dems regularly sponsor and pass anti-drug laws and other laws intended to shape society. Repus regularly sponsor and pass similar laws. Look at the SAFE act recently passed by the house. It is sexual morality legislation. It was Sponsored by a dem, and the only two who opposed it were repus.

BOTH sides want control. Neither is liberal.

To call the dem party liberal today is doublespeak. It's like the "institutional revolutionary party". They may have been liberal once. Today they want to conserve. Only difference is that they are each conserving a different set of values.

And I'm not saying either one is bad or good... just pointing out that the liberal/conservative dichotomy is false.

Thanks for this. Well said. So many would like to think that Republicans or conservatives will consistently advocate "our side". Not so. Republicans may stand for one thing, Democrats another, but in the end they'll both favor control.

Don't get me wrong, I favor traditional conservative values that support the RKBA, but aren't traditional liberals supposed to support the individual as well? The problem is that liberalism has been hijacked by the modern Democrat party (Gays in the military!), while conservatism has been bastardized by Republicans (God in our schools!).

It's not as simple as black and white. The war over individual rights is not being fought by Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Democrats vs. Republicans. All men in positions of power crave control. The enemy of individualism is collectivism, in all its forms.

Gun control is a collectivist value.

 

[DaveBeal]

DaveBeal, haven't you heard of the Brady Bunch, Gun Control, Inc,? Do you really believe they just want to reduce crime?

Yes sir, I do. It's certainly appropriate to debate the anti-gun folks' facts and logic, but I don't understand why it's necessary to question their motivation. Why would they want to control you any more than you want to control them?

 

[v35]

The first rule of Internet debate: The first guy to call the other a Nazi loses.

So what do you get for being the first to call someone a troll?

 

[ZeSpectre]

Both pro- and anti-gun folks are ultimately motivated by the desire to reduce crime.

If so then why this disfunctional and ineffective witch-hunt over firearms? Why not go after actual criminals and stop worrying about the tools they use? Seems to me that they keep creating MORE "crime" by forcing those of us who try to be law abiding into a corner. Personally I'm sick of being treated/restricted/punished like a criminal for having DONE NOTHING WRONG while the criminals do what criminals do (ignore/avoid the laws and go about their "business"). And every time the criminals do something, more laws get passed and they slam right down on the shoulders of who?... People like ME. Tell me again how that reduces crime?

I don't understand why it's necessary to question their motivation.

From the Brady Campaign web page...

Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

Or to simplify, "Honest, we don't want to ban guns".

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

Except these guns that are too big or too small or which have no sporting purpose, and should be banned.

Brady Campaign "Facts Page"

Price is NOT the overriding factor in determining whether a handgun is a Saturday Night Special – inferior quality and concealability are. These weapons are not suited for self-defense or target shooting because they are inaccurate at a distance, lack essential safety features, and are made of unreliable and unsafe materials.

Oh and these guns have poor quality, or are concealable, and are not suitable for any "legitimate" purpose, so they should be illegal to produce/purchase (that's another phrase for banned as well).

Their own web page is full of this kind of stuff. Is it any wonder it's hard to trust their motives?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yes sir, I do. It's certainly appropriate to debate the anti-gun folks' facts and logic, but I don't understand why it's necessary to question their motivation. Why would they want to control you any more than you want to control them?

Then look at some of their statements. They have admiited that their agenda to to remove "all handguns" from the public. What is that if it isn't control?

 

[Ed Ames]

Yes, what they want to do is remove "all handguns". Now we should look at Why. Why do they want to remove "all handguns"? Answer: to reduce violent crime, or at least deaths due to violent crime. Their belief is that guns empower. They enable a range of behaviors that would not be possible otherwise.

The essential anti argument is:

1) Guns empower individuals.
2) Being empowered means not having to follow rules/obey laws.
Ergo
3) Guns mean people won't follow rules/obey laws.

By removing the power you reduce the ability to engage in criminal behavior. At the same time you reduce the danger of that criminal behavior. That's the "animals fight all the time but they don't kill each other" argument.

So the antis think their way will lead to a reduction in both the rate and severity of crime.

 

[PILMAN]

There's no reasoning with hardcore gun control supporters, there are always your fence sitters but i've learned from experience.

I've run a gun room for a good year now and we get so many idiots in there, a lot of the anti-gunners mainly Canadian, Australian, or European. Sometimes we get pro gun Europeans in there and a lot of fence sitters. No educating or ability to debate with these people, they refute to the same arguments "But so many kids get killed" "Does that mean you should have a nuke?" "Why do you need a AK47 to hunt deer?" they just don't get it. I ended up kicking or banning them from my room because it was counterproductive. I generally play pro gun videos and tutorials/walkthroughs for new users to the room and we've been able to "convert" a few people successfully.

One of my most memorable debates was this lady from Canada who's son was killed by a gangmember and blamed America for guns coming into her country, she kept saying "You killed my son, bring him back". Those type of people are a danger to our rights and will never be cured.

Other anti's we encounter have the mentality "one death is too many" and have unrealistic expectations that I should give up my guns even if there are more deaths by cars or other means over guns. Funny thing is, they feel I have no right to take another persons life to defend myself, but if I ask them if I have the right to live, well apparently that's a different story.

 

[chieftain]

If all they wanted to do was reduce crime, they would be interested in controlling Criminals.

I have noted that along with increased gun control that the same jurisdictions also disallow almost every other means for anyone to defend themselves too.

In Great Britain their Medical society is now calling for the control of kitchen knives.

It is about control. How much liberty for how much safety. The equation does not work. More control does not produce more safety. More control often only begets more control.

As Robert Heinlein once said: When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Ed Ames]

You control kitchen knives for the same reason you control guns. They are empowering and they raise the stakes.

Imagine a world where nobody had the power to do any real harm to you. Where they could punch you or take your stuff but they wouldn't have any special ability to do those things. If they punched you, you could punch them, and the worst either of you would see is a black eye.

If that was really true you wouldn't have mall shootings. You wouldn't have bank robberies. You wouldn't have people tempted to take up mugging as an occupation. If you were caught by a mugger you wouldn't die. Crime would be harder work for less reward and so people wouldn't be tempted to become criminals.

Husbands wouldn't shoot their wives.

Rapists wouldn't shoot their victims.

Crimes might still exist but they wouldn't be as likely to end in death. People would live.

That's the world they are hoping for.

Of course there are some flaws in their ideal. Men are stronger than women and people can kill with their hands. Guns are mechanical devices that can be built with basic hand tools. You can't completely eliminate the supply of guns no matter what you do. Once you've eliminated guns people will move to knives, eliminate knives and they'll go to baseball bats, eliminate baseball bats and they'll go to golf clubs, eleminate golf clubs and they'll go to pool cues, eliminate pool cues and they'll go to motorcycle chains, eliminate motorcycle chains and they'll go to security cables with a padlock attached to one end, eliminate cables and padlocks and they'll go to a sock with a brick inside, eliminate socks and bricks and they'll go to .... I don't need to go on.

If you start with the assumption that there is a base level of human violence which cannot be reduced, the sensible approach is to reduce the harm that violence can cause. De-escelate. One way to do that is to go to less lethal weapons. Wiffle ball bats would be fine. It's a reasonable approach from that perspective.

 

[Deanimator]

Oh, come on. The great majority of gun control supporters are motivated simply by a desire to reduce crime. You can argue that their approach is counter-productive, but statements like this aren't helpful.

The first rule of Internet debate: The first guy to call the other a Nazi loses.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

I've been debating anti-gunners in first FidoNet, then usenet since around 1986. Almost invariably, the first one to throw out a racist or anti-Semitic statement will be an anti-gunner. They frequently try to appeal to pro-gun people using racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic statements which they somehow think resonate with the majority of gunowners. Black people who refuse to support the anti-gun agenda are bombarded with racial slurs. Here's an EXACT QUOTE of one of them responding to those opposed to repressive gun controls:

"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas".

The biggest portion of them aren't afraid of guns. They're afraid of Black people with guns. And five minutes use of Google Groups will confirm that once and for all.

As for "Godwin's Rule", I once told him that his rule was the way the uneducated tried to escape the lessons which history teaches the educated.

 

[MakAttak]

dredwinggirl13:

I had a long response written out to your question about control. As I realized it is not firearm related, I will leave it to your discretion if you would like to continue such discussions via PMs. (it will be later as I am leaving work now though).

As for whether the OP is crazy:

Yes, most certainly so.

Doesn't mean you stop trying though