Ignorant Liberal Speaks out on Gun Control

A lot of people have different opinions on gun control. Since certain ideological viewpoints are perceived to exist on the left and right paradigm we often neglect to ask ourselves about the motives and view points of people who we perceive as opposites on the political spectrum.

As a liberal myself I will attempt to explain my biggest arguments for gun control.

1. My biggest concern is the behavior of the most prominent people in support of basically everyone having a gun. "If someone broke into my house, I would blow them away! " I hear that a lot more than I really thought I ever would. Or talking about rising up against the United States government and going on and on about how there is so much oppression in this country and they just want to blow a dude away.

You can't deny that certain people, especially on a site like this, do seem a bit bloodthirsty when they talk about their weaponry. It doesn't sound very reasonable at all.

Also they seem to fantasize about themselves has some sort of action star from the 80s that's going to take down a tactical unit or something single-handedly... I think that's a whole nother thread though.

2. Obviously we are talking about weaponry here and the whole concept pretty much boiling down to the question " should you be able to end my life at any time, just because?" Heh, not sure I feel comfortable with that idea. As a general rule I enjoy existing.

3. I've heard people quoting Einstein a lot lately . And while I haven't checked on the veracity of the quote I appreciate the thought, but it really shouldn't be necessary in this situation. Obviously there is an issue in this country with the shootings and I think gun-control is a reasonable thing to be discussing. The Republicans seem to be wanting to talk about mental health, which is fine, but they don't seem to have any ideas on what to do about it.

And as a follow-up, do you think the Republican Party actually has any interest in helping those with mental health issues? Or do you think they are just using the issue to deflect attention away from the growing number of people that are unsatisfied with our nations gun-control laws?

4a. There is a good chance many of you have heard argument that is saying " even without guns, people would still kill." And while I think that is true I do not think that is an argument in favor of no gun-control. The logic does not follow.

If guns, knives, spears, swords and halberds were on the same level then we wouldn't have guns to begin with. Guns are obviously very effective at killing people, very little effort and skill on the part of the wielder. Duh, would gun owners even like them if they only stunned?

4b. The following argument is " guns aren't dangerous , it's people that kill people. " There is one big gaping flaw. Just because something is not human does not mean it is not capable of harming you. For instance asbestos has no consciousness, does that mean it not dangerous?

Avoiding things that are dangerous is literally the entire point of our existence. We Take precautions every day to make sure that we and the people around us are as safe as possible. It comes down to the question "do I think that you should be able to channel kinetic energy in such a way that it can instantly end my life?"

What if everybody had some sort of device installed in their brain that instantly killed them and everyone else was given free control to use that device whenever they thought it was necessary? Would you support that?

What has been happening the past several days makes me wonder if marching orders may have been handed out to the progressives by their handlers. I am not saying that this is the case, just saying that it makes me wonder.
There certainly have been a lot of threads promoting gun control.

Where were all of these threads when Chicago set records for gun murders, albeit by people that were not legally possessing those guns?

a reply to: TsukiLunar

very little effort and skill on the part of the wielder.

Says you.

So if someone breaks into my house I should hand him my wife and children, just so long as I don't harm him or stand up for myself right? Who am I to shoot the nice man breaking into my home? He probably just wants some help, maybe a job?

There's just so much wrong with your post I really hope no one else responds to it and it goes away. We've already got a 500 response thread about this same argument - you posted in it...

a reply to: butcherguy

Caught me. I'm just a leftist shill meant to destroy the Constitution and the conservative way of life. Whew, that's a load off.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

the growing number of people that are unsatisfied with our nations gun-control laws?

That would include me.
Why?
Because they don't work.
I will cite Chicago as proof.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: butcherguy

Caught me. I'm just a leftist shill meant to destroy the Constitution and the conservative way of life. Whew, that's a load off.

I didn't even have to single you out!

a reply to: Bennyzilla

See what I mean , you do sound like you've thought this over thousands of times. These fantasies of a break in are always right on the tip of your tongue aren't they?

a reply to: TsukiLunar

You brought it up

Dont flip this on me

a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

What are your thoughts on trading liberty for security?

I know that most "liberals" (socialists) are more than willing to trade every other liberty (employment, health care, etc.) for security so, I assume you simply extend the very same logic but, I am curious if this quote holds any value to you.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

Well said. The insanity that seems to prevent change is only visible to those who are not insane and who believe discussion and change is necessary. For the rest it appears mass shootings are part of the course. The view that 'My 100''s+ year old amendment to laws cannot be amended'. It makes no sense.

a reply to: greencmp

Very clear examples of the strawman fallacy and that appeal to authority fallacy . It is pointless to address this argument because there is no logic to it.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

Just a couple of thoughts to chew on...

1) While mass shootings are abhorrent, they really aren't all that common. They just garner a lot of attention kind of like airplane crashes and shark attacks. I think I saw where the US has about 16 "mass shootings" of some type per year. Sure, one is too many, but realistically, there is nothing we can do to prevent nut jobs from killing people. I'm of the mindset you don't create areas where people are sitting ducks. If gun free zones worked, then why do banks have armed security?

2) Most gun violence is inner city gang related and more specifically black on black. Almost all of it is committed with illegally owned firearms and more specifically handguns. This of course calls into the question the fetish gun grabbers have over "assault" weapons when the data shows they aren't even a statistical blip when it comes to actual gun violence. Also, if most of the gun crime is in inner cities, why are we trying to make it harder for law abiding citizens in the suburbs to own firearms?

3) There are already numerous laws on the books preventing gun ownership which hasn't stopped any violence. What is amazing to me is that liberals will often say we should make drugs legal because the criminalization of drugs doesn't stop drug abuse, but yet they can't apply that logic to guns. Criminals already aren't following the laws, so passing more laws is not going to do anything.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a young male nut job and black male thug problem. What is it that is causing disillusioned young males to shoot up places? What is it about black culture that causes young black men to view violence as acceptable?

Part of the problem in this debate is simply getting both sides to agree on basic data sets and indisputable facts for analyses. IMHO, this is a larger problem for the liberal left, but the right isn't 100% innocent either.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

So, you have no thoughts on it?

What would your ultimate solution be to end gun violence?

a reply to: greencmp

No I definitely think you never learned how to make an argument. What is the point of addressing an argument we've already debunked the premise it is based upon?

a reply to: Edumakated

While mass shootings are abhorrent, they really aren't all that common.

Good point.
If it were really about saving lives, the progressives would be trying to pass laws mandating that every human on Earth be forced to wear protective headgear and a personal flotation device, since a lot of people die from falls in the home and drowning.

I'm tired of the debate. My ultimate argument in favor of gun ownership is this:

If a drug-crazed lunatic(s) has broken into your home and they intend to harm you, owning a gun
and knowing how to use it will save you. There's simply no debating that.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: greencmp

No I definitely think you never learned how to make an argument. What is the point of addressing an argument we've already debunked the premise it is based upon?

Ben Franklin has been debunked?

a reply to: Edumakated

1. I don't think abstract concepts such as "no school zones" and "laws" to physically stop people from doing what they want. It is the actions that are implemented by these laws that prevent things from happening. But if you don't have a tight enough system, then it is kind of a moot point. Why so many people die every day. And do we really think the answer is more guns?

2. I would say that is an acceptable argument. I would say it is a reasonable reason why people should be able to own guns in a free society.

3. This point is pretty nonsensical. Guns and drugs are incomparable. There is no way for me to address this argument if that is the juxtaposition you're making.