Not Our Words

The victims of gun violence spout "pro-gun" cliches:

The Pro-Gunner's Guide to Derping (not that you really need it)

Repeating lies does not make them true

Let's start with

Guns save lives 

Seriously? What concrete proof do you have for this statement?  Looking at the news, there are far more examples of guns doing what weapons do, which is kill or cause serious bodily injury.

I'm open to proof that guns save lives, but right now there is precious little proof this statement is anything but BULLSHIT.

The US doesn't have a gun problem--it has a mental illness problem/crime problem/texting problem

Again, give me a break.  Are you telling me that other countries don't have these issues as well?  Guess what? they do, but they don't have the gun problem the US has.

Guns are inanimate objects/tools

Yes, they are.  Although, calling them tools is a bit disingenuous since they are actually weapons and as such have the purpose of killing or causing serious bodily injury.  That's why there is a big difference between hammers, swimming pools, cars and all those other false analogies to firearms.

Firearms are weapons.

Anyway, we are seeing loads of empirical evidence to the fact that the US has a serious gun problem, but people are in denial and coming up with all sorts of piss poor reasons for doing nothing about the problem.

Denial ain't a river in Africa, but the US sure is deep in it.

Or is that shit creek?

You know who you are...

From Media Matters for America

Today's bullet points!

You should believe what we believe because...

 

I'm sorry, but I have heard your "arguments" before and find them highly unpersuasive.

I prefer intelligence to ignorance and well documented to "just 'cos".

Why the criminals won't obey laws argument is really dumb

Of course if the people who were making this argument were as intelligent as they believe themselves to be, they would have figured this out...

And while we are on stupid gun loon arguments--why does someone need to produce ID if they are going to vote?

Anyway, as another person said:

I have not seen a regulation that would stop me or anybody I personally know, or even any responsible gun owner I have ever observed, from procuring game, from practicing gun sportsman and marksmanship, or from use on the family farm or in the family home.
None.
Not one liberal gun control law would harm any of those people or their second amendment rights.
On the flip side, I can think of women I know, women I will never meet, women I’ve known and women I love dearly who are now and will be further impacted by the 694 new proposed laws infringing on our 14th amendment right to health and privacy which include a right to an abortion and other private health choices.

In listening to the sound bites of today, one would think there was a War on Guns instead of a War on Women.

Of course, criminals will always get abortions.

Why bother with laws?

Where gunloons get their arguments....

Lousy arguments

I'm not sure what some commenters are trying to prove with their comments, but if it is that they are responsible people who should be allowed a firearm--they are failing miserably.

One person is a case in point, I know he has an arrest, which shouldn't be used against him in court, but he tends to get drunk and leave abusive comments. Is that a person I really think should be allowed to own an object with a purpose to cause serious harm or death when used properly?

Gun control is about making sure that people who shouldn't have such items find it difficult to obtain them, which generally works when given the proper tools to enforce such laws.

In fact, it is truthful to say when someone who has a history of mental illness, antisocial behaviour, addiction, or frequent contacts with the police  says "you want to take our guns", that the answer is indeed "Yes", but that is because you probably are not the sort of person who should have a gun.

That may get all the gun loons in a corner who are already worried that some anonymous government agency is reading their thoughts through microchips to get even more paranoid and say "told ya so" with that paragraph being taken out of context, which is just plain off too bad.

So, I really don't give a shit if you know "who I really am" or where "I really live" because there are at least 5 CCTV cameras on my block and you will pass by many more to get to me.  Those are more useful in preventing your gun violence than more guns are.

Happy nightmares.

If you want to try to persuade us that you're not one of the 10, 20, 30, 40, and so on percenters--try to act normal and responsible.  That starts with not commenting while drunk, and not leaving abusive comments.

There is something about the relative anonymity on blogs which gives people a false sense of security in behaving badly.  Too often there is something about the presumption of empowerment on the part of weak people when they get their hands on a firearm that does the same thing - it turns them into assholes with poor judgment who still fail to impress anyone with their reasoning - OR their gun.

Gunloon non-arguments addressed

Let's see, there are so many ways they can take the argument off track starting out with saying something that is absolutely off topic, which is a good argument for moderation.

But let's start with something like "it's plagiarism", "copyright material", etcetera:

Serious non-argument for not addressing the actual assertion. Ironically used since gunloons tend to repost the same material all over the internet since it usually increases the position on search engine results.

That's probably why they hate it when the other side does it as well.

Saying something is plagiarism without addressing the substance is one of the more intellectually lazy attempts to silence the opposition that I know. This isn't an academic review--it's an effing blog fer chrissake!

The problem is that they are trying to block the dissemination of information while stacking the deck for their own.

Can't forget the old ad hominem, or some other comment about the person, rather than what has been mentioned in the post. Come on, people, address the topic that has been raised--not get personal.

The Gish Gallop, which is where you drown the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time: LegalEagle45 did that.

Basically, we are talking about tricks to keep from really addressing the issue and try to silence the opposition.

Yeah, yeah, you're gonna get all pouty on me and say, "but you're moderating our comments!"

Yep, we started doing it because you couldn't act like adults and try to have a real conversation.

See:

• Recognizing Propaganda Techniques and Errors of Faulty Logic