New (maybe) response to the "guns kill" argument

[Rumble]

Wow, I'm stretching out this metaphor really far.

She canna stand the strain, Captain!

 

[Owen Sparks]

You can not argue the facts with an emotion based thinker.

 

[Joe Cool]

Don't argue, but I always try to leave them with some things to think about:

• 2 million plus defensive uses every year by handguns
• in the right hands, they kill the right people
• yep, they sure do, police kill bad guys every day
• the police can't be every where, what do you suggest?
• what's your alternative?
• have you looked at the crime statistics lately?
• I understand if you are afraid of them, but I am not
• Have you ever shot a rifle, or a handgun? Want to try shooting with me?
• Which country has the most rifles/person? Ans - Switzerland
• Now which one has one of the lowest crime rates? Same answer
• England banned them, do you know they have 5X the crime of the US?
• Is that what you want for us?

 

[wuluf]

I think brains were already banned in the 60's

.
Nah, just chemically altered..

 

[Sans Authoritas]

If someone says, "guns were designed to kill people," I say, "Yes, yes they were." Why bother denying it?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Pat-inCO]

Despite our constant attention to the gun issue, it seems that no argument comes up as frequently as the "guns kill" argument.

Quote:
"We should ban guns."
"Why?"
"Because they kill people!"

The easiest way to disprove their statement is to lay a loaded gun on the bench (pointed safely down range) and say "I'll prove it right now." Point to the gun and say "KILL" then stand there and watch it. Once several second have elapsed, simply say "See, a gun does not kill. It only responds to what the person holding it does, therefore the gun is not the problem."

Even someone that is not smart enough to come in out of the rain can not argue with the logic. I'm sure they will pose yet another ludicrous statement, but you have clearly disproved their first one. Like the longest journey, the path to understanding begins with the first step.

 

[44AMP]

Or, you could thank them...

For helping prove the people who believe in Creationism must be right! After all, if evolution was right, their DNA would have been sabre tooth tiger dung millennia ago!

Either that, or they beat the odds on natural selection. Tell them to go buy a lottery ticket!

 

[BrianB]

The more common comment I get is, "Well, gee whiz. We have police and grocery stores. We have a powerful military. People just don't NEED guns for defense or food. Is the 2nd amendment really necessary anymore?" Most people don't even own a gun anyway, so what's the point?



My answer: "Well gee whiz, Mr. Lobotomy, we had less than 50% turnout in our local elections too. And less than 10% of us publish political criticism of our government. Maybe we should do away with the right to vote and 1st amendment as well. I mean, the MAJORITY don't exercise THOSE rights either."

That's a conversation ender.

 

[give]

wonder how the anti would react if they called the cops and they showed up unarmed?bet they would want a gun then

 

[doc2rn]

Last time an anti- said that to me I whipped out my CCW, put it on the table and yelled "Kill, Fire, Shoot, Murder, Destroy...." at it until anti- asks "what are you doing?"
I said trying to make an inanimate object do what you said it's capable of.
Anti- is quiet for a long time.
I interject, "why dont we do something about the criminals first, since they dont obey the gun laws.
Next week anti- asked me to take him to the range.

 

[Seminole]

C'mon Standing Wolf! You can dress up stupid as well.
Corduroy coat with elbow patches, Scholarly beard, maybe a pair of wire rimmed glasses...

Hey, I look like that! Seriously, don't judge a book by its cover.