Red Herrings and You - Gun Control

a reply to: diggindirt

I don't think you're quite getting it.

In a discussion about gun control it doesn't make sense to bring up pipes. Pipes are not designed to kill, guns are.

In a discussion specifically about the San Bernardino incident it might be pertinent to bring up explosives but not in a general discussion of gun control.

What we're talking about are within the parameters of a debate or a discussion specifically about guns and gun control it doesn't make sense to start talking about other things. All the ingredients to make a homemade pipe bomb are specifically designed for uses other than killing, so bringing them up doesn't make sense. Now if someone brings up San Bernardino specifically than perhaps it becomes fair game, although I would still argue it doesn't make much sense to compare pipes to guns.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

So the next time one of you gun grabbers says "but Australia doesn't have guns" or tries to compare the US to some other country, then I am just going to ignore them. We are talking about gun control in the US remember? Whatever laws and legislation those countries have are irrelevant to the discussion, right?

a reply to: Edumakated

First off, it's pretty dishonest of you to lump me in with "gun grabbers". I don't think confiscation is the answer, I don't know what the answer is but it's not taking guns away from law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. This is exactly the kind of knee jerk conclusion jumping that makes rational discussions impossible.

Yes, bringing up other countries gun laws CAN be a Red Herring in a discussion about gun control. Now if the point is to just further the discussion by saying, "CAN something like what was done in Australia work here, why or why not?" that is fine but yes bringing up other countries could be used as a Red Herring. Pro-gun people bring up places with higher gun ownership or similar gun ownership but far lower gun violence and anti-gun people bring up places like the UK and Australia. It depends very much on what is being said/compared.

I'd say it's much less likely for such comparisons to Red Herrings because at least they are on the topic of gun control, but again it depends on the parameters of the discussion and exactly what is being said.

My personal opinion (which is worth squat) is that the discussion of any further gun control should be completely tabled.

Red Herrings? Who cares.

We already have plenty of laws on the books, many of which are not enforced properly. Law-abiding citizens follow the laws on the books. The others don't. So, till those issues are addressed, most Americans prefer to stay armed. We already have laws against violent criminals buying guns or psychos purchasing weapons legally.

No more debate about guns and gun control till all the other society ills that contribute to violence are addressed.

As long as we are not doing much about the underlying causes of illegal immigration, home-grown terrorists making pipe bombs in their garage, gang bangers, inner city crime and violence, mobs that roam the streets, domestic violence, lack of family values, unwed motherhood, child negligence, etc. etc. etc........gun control should be shelved. No more open discussion.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Edumakated

First off, it's pretty dishonest of you to lump me in with "gun grabbers". I don't think confiscation is the answer, I don't know what the answer is but it's not taking guns away from law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. This is exactly the kind of knee jerk conclusion jumping that makes rational discussions impossible.

Yes, bringing up other countries gun laws CAN be a Red Herring in a discussion about gun control. Now if the point is to just further the discussion by saying, "CAN something like what was done in Australia work here, why or why not?" that is fine but yes bringing up other countries could be used as a Red Herring. Pro-gun people bring up places with higher gun ownership or similar gun ownership but far lower gun violence and anti-gun people bring up places like the UK and Australia. It depends very much on what is being said/compared.

I'd say it's much less likely for such comparisons to Red Herrings because at least they are on the topic of gun control, but again it depends on the parameters of the discussion and exactly what is being said.

You aren't being intellectually honest or logically consistent. Some would argue that bringing up pipe bombs IS appropriate because it highlights the efficacy of gun control. Whether something is a red herring or not depends upon your perspective. If you are going to say that it is or could be appropriate to bring up other countries gun control policies, then I don't see how you can then say that bringing up cars, pipe bombs, or other things that aren't banned would be inappropriate for the debate.

Gun control opponents bring up these things to expose the overall weakness of the argument for more gun control. it demonstrates that no matter how many laws you pass, it would not stop the actual killing of innocents.

As far as your argument about guns being designed to kill, I'd say that is not entirely accurate. A gun is an inanimate tool that shoots a projectile. It is not used for killing until a human decides to do so. Variants of guns are used for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with killing someone. Nail guns. Starter pistols. Rope launching.

We should make laws that say no more Nukes, no more wars, no more terrorisim, no more rock throwing in Palestine, and no more return fire from Israelis. We should make a resounding statement that the forefathers were complete idiots and we now know better, that governments dont murder more people on then this planet then anything else, and they are to be fully trusted from now on. Sarc off....
Private ownership of guns in America is what keeps the whole planet a bit safer. If Americans were disarmed, who would keep the American government from slaughtering even more people then it already does, including law abiding American citizens. Hand guns are not weapons of mass destruction. The governments are the ones that have and use those. My grandfather came from Turkey. Our people were disarmed there. We escaped just in time. 1.5 million were not so lucky and were slaughtered. Sarc back on... Oh but they were so much safer without those bad guns..... LOL... Not.

a reply to: Edumakated

I think you're confusing what a thing is designed for with what a thing does and is capable of doing.

A car can be described mechanically. A gun can be described mechanically. The point isn't the mechanics but what they are designed for. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to move people from place to place. Also we're not talking about nail guns or staple guns, that's different, those designed to put nails in things and staple things. We're talking firearms.

Like I said whether something is an actual Red Herring has to do with the scope of the discussion. Like I said if someone says, "Gun laws work this way in country X, why can they not work that way here?" that is not necessarily a Red Herring, because in a discussion on gun control we are talking about, among other things, legislation that might be implemented. It is a comparison of gun law to gun laws and as long as the person isn't saying, "Let's make our thing exactly like their thing" while ignoring differences of culture/legal systems I can't see it as a Red Herring. You may still make the argument that such laws don't work or aren't applicable, etc, but they aren't distracting from the subject of the conversation, which is about gun control.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Edumakated

I think you're confusing what a thing is designed for with what a thing does and is capable of doing.

A car can be described mechanically. A gun can be described mechanically. The point isn't the mechanics but what they are designed for. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to move people from place to place.

A gun is not solely designed to kill. Regardless, even if I buy that guns are instruments designed to kill, it still does not support or strengthen arguments for further gun control.

a reply to: Edumakated

A gun is not solely designed to kill.

I never said it was. That, however, is the primary idea behind the design of a firearm.

it still does not support or strengthen arguments for further gun control.

I agree. I never said it does. I'm not here to argue in favor of or against gun control. I'm merely pointing out that both sides engage in Red Herrings by comparing guns to things that they are not like such as cars, forks, pipes, knives, etc. The gun is a fundamentally different type of thing, it is designed to kill, that is not a condemnation of gun owners or of guns themselves, it is just a statement.

What happens when something is outlawed??? Same thing every time.........

You create a huge underground black market that makes more money for criminal enterprise. Ensures that criminals have first access to the product also as well as makes non-criminals into criminals by association.

At a time when we can now 3D print a gun some other type of plan other than outlawing guns has to be thought up.

a reply to: mOjOm

No one here is talking about outlawing guns.

Hey, I see what you did there.

You just engaged in a Red Herring, congrats

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: mOjOm

No one here is talking about outlawing guns.

Hey, I see what you did there.

You just engaged in a Red Herring, congrats

Sorry, this is about red herrings. My bad.

Where did I use a red herring though???

a reply to: DAVID64


How have other advanced countries established a situation, where criminals do not have guns? You can say that criminals do not abide law, but the means used in crime are vastly different in US compared to other advanced nations. Round here, for example, the odds of encountering a small-time criminal or gangs with firearms are inexistent. During my life-time I have never even heard of a situation, where someone robbed someone at gunpoint or a burglar having a firearm with them. At worst, there have been some knifngs or beatings, but the odds of surviving one or even catching the criminal are superior compared to encountering someone with a gun. No one needs to die, whether criminal or victim of a crime.

Saying as if other means are used for murder is also incorrect, due to the fact that in US homicide rates with other means than firearms is pretty much the same, while firearm murders and total homicide rate are extreme compared to other nations.

I believe the main reason lies in US fascination with firearms. Kids encounter first weapons often at a young age (around 10 or younger). It is taught that it is normal to own a weapon for self-defense. In this area, it is taught from young age, that guns are just for killing or shooting at target. Self-defense is not even considered due to the fact that there is no need for one and guns are deadliest compared to other means of self-defense. Every human life, even a criminal´s one is considered sacred. When people do not havé weapons, police does not use these (only at extreme measures, not to catch some street criminal), criminals do not have a need to have one as well. EU borders, as well as this border are generally pretty tight and smuggling in a weapon is not easy, which leads to higher prices in the black market. People generally do not see it normal to own a firearm. When one should get one (for self-defense) , they are looked down by other people, they can lose friends, contacts. I know a case where the person who rented the apartment from the owner, was kicked out after getting a gun, just because neighbours were afraid for their kids safety... Guns are not some cool stuff to have, but a deadly weapon, which in this area is not required for self-defense.

The gun control debate from the gun grabbing side comes from the lack of understanding. What is not understood usually gets destroyed by the ignorant. On that note here are some more red-herrings. The so called experts who know nothing about the issue they are discussing, we get to see them speak on the news or write articles. Maybe they have a degree in some social or medical science but that does not actually help their message as they are almost universally uninformed about the subject. That's like me knowing nothing about cars delivering a screed about why we don't need fuel injectors in automobiles [why do we need that evil oil byproduct moving faster in our vehicle] The second red herring is what good would more laws about who may purchase a gun when the laws that are always being pushed are already in place in California? Hell the rifles were not even purchased by either shooter! The no-fly list was proven to be a problem since once you are on it you don't get to find out why. Gods help you if you want to try and get removed from it... SO all law abiding gun owners are to be subjected to the mob think that it is our responsibility that Muslims extremists who traveled to TWO terrorist sponsering nations [that set off no warnings with our protective gov't] and decided to execute a attack that seemed to indicate a level of sophistication that our home shooters lack. The pipe bombs are not a herring in this because that was a indication that more was going on than just a sudden snap then attack. You are using this as a red herring to avoid the facts in this issue. Hell we can argue against freedom on the net because the instruction to make bombs cam be found online by someone who cares to look hard enough. It boils down to the same thing, people with bad intentions will find a way. Using the gun control issue to avoid the bigger issue is just delaying any real solutions. The guns were not the problem but people with a warped world view deciding to bite the hand that fed them. It takes the wind out of the whole allowing refugees into the west idea. Consideration needs to be made about if their beliefs are compatible w/our's. It seems that people forgot that sometimes despite what you do you are still going to be a target for those who want to do you harm.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

And so on and so forth, with BOTH SIDES getting no closer to any sort of agreement or even approaching a calm rational discussion.

The problem with 'coming to an agreement' is that they all involve LESS gun rights not more. I am not willing to bargain with my freedom or rights.

a reply to: queenofswords

No more debate about guns and gun control till all the other society ills that contribute to violence are addressed.

I think the arguments are a distraction from the uncomfortable truth that man has been killing man even further back then when Cain supposedly kill Abel, and if every gun on the planet is removed, man will continue to kill man.

People are quick to throw up the defense that guns just make killing easier, and they can kill more people, and faster with guns than without guns. That may have been true in the past but that is no longer true in our modern age of technology, and our newly developed abilities for human destruction.

When they do a tally of how many guns there are in America and who owns them, do they every do a tally on how many of those guns are likely to never even be pointed at another human being? Since they want to talk about the possibility of one of those guns being used to do harm, why don't they don't look at the possibilities of one of those guns for doing good and saving a life.

You are right the argument about gun control is pointless, because the problem is not, and has never been, about legal gun ownership. It has always been about the crooks and the bad guys. So taking guns away from the good guys doesn't seem to make much sense at all does it?

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Hey now! The newspaper apologized...



I see red herrings a-flippin and a-floppin all over the place in this abortion of a dialog.

a reply to: Metallicus

Most rational people understand that there is a balance to be achieved between safety and liberty, between anarchy and order, between complete freedom and regulation. There are people on both sides of this debate who are unwilling to let it move forward.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull
Welp, there is no debate to be had with me on gun control.
Secure holster and true aim is all the gun control I require.
The Constitution for the United States and rulings by SCOTUS say that I have a right to "bear arms" to defend myself. Any move to chip away at that right will be fought tooth and nail by me. I'm old enough to have watched at least four decades of these calls for gun control. Each time we have been told that each new law will "fix" things up just dandy. I've watched rifles become "assault" rifles simply because of their design---scary looking things displayed as killing hundreds in the movies. Ridiculous. And all born of ignorance.

If more legislation must be passed to placate those who worship legislation, how about we make it illegal for the government to sell guns to bad guys? No more overseas weapons shipments like Ambassador Stevens was handling when he was killed. No more allowing sales to Mexican drug cartels. No more weapons of any sort to any foreign entity.

See, it's not the average Joe or Jane citizen who is the problem here no matter what representatives of government try to tell you. It's the government that is making this problem. They're like 5 year-old children, pointing at anybody and everybody else saying, "It's not my fault. It must be your fault."

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

The real point is, these red herrings undermine the importance of the real issues at hand. That's why nothing gets done.