You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 6 Logical Fallacies to Look out for in the Gun Debate
In what country is gun violence so "prevalent"? Any time people are killed by violence it is tragic and avoidable. However, only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the people in the U.S. commit gun crimes. The vast majority of the gun violence in the U.S. are in two or three big cities that have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Guns, whether accidentally or with intent, are responsible for about 1.3% of the deaths in the country. Mass shootings account for a VERY small percent of that. The vast majority of gun violence occurs in poor inner city areas where gangs are prevalent. Hardly a reason to take guns away from everybody else or to ban everybody else from getting them.
The country I live in has o.8 deaths per 100000 people. The country you live in has 10.5. This is a significant difference. You talk about fractions, but this is smoke and mirrors. Your country has a gun violence problem, and it is a little insulting to me that you want to pretend different.
Hmm. Are you implying causation here? You haven't in so many words, I realise, but if you are not, then why mention it?
If you are so unconcerned about gun violence, why do you want own one? I'm sorry, but "because the 2nd amendment" doesn't sound a very convincing argument to me. See, as much as I dislike guns, I can kind of understand why someone might want to own one if they feel they need it for protection, even if that feeling isn't entirely justified. But to argue that there isn't a gun problem, but you want to own one anyway seems odd to me.
That's a straw man. It just is.
I could get a gun if I wanted to. Guns are not banned in Ireland, they are just difficult to get. I don't advocate removing the right to get a gun, and actually, I think very few people do. This debate is about gun control, not removing guns completely.
Violence level > 0 is a problem. You're right, there is a violence problem but the problem is primarily localized to poor inner city areas. Gun violence outside those areas is statistically insignificant. I mean, what constitutes a "problem" in your mind? Obesity and car accidents each kill far, far more people than people with guns do.
As far as wanting a gun, I don't. I've never purchased one. I just don't believe anybody has the right to tell me I can't have one. Nobody has the right to use force against me to prevent me from obtaining one. The second amendment was written primarily as a defense against a government becoming tyrannical. Historical context and the Declaration of Independence make that pretty clear. You can accept that or not but that is why it is there. If people want to change that then they need to go through the Constitutional amendment process.
And no, it is not a straw man argument. There are many who support banning guns, and many more who support banning certain kinds of guns. Those who want changes in existing law are all over the map as far as what they want. I'm not opposed to certain levels of gun control (e.g., violent criminals and the mentally ill who are potentially violent should not have them). On the other hand, banning certain types of guns violates the 2nd Amendment.
It's ironic in a way. Every time this debate comes up, gun and ammunition sales spike because people fear that they will be banned. I've thought (not very seriously) about buying an AR-15 not because I want one but because on the off chance I ever did want one in the future, they may be banned by then. I believe there are plenty of people who have bought them for just that reason.
I think the whole gun control argument is kind of moot anyway. Rudimentary guns can already be 3D printed and the technology is only getting better. I don't see how that can be regulated unless 3D printers are banned.
Part of what makes the "gun control" debate so difficult is that it is usually very generalized. Gun control can mean many things.