Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Criminals will always be able to get guns, by stealing them, unless they are 100% confiscated from EVERYBODY.
You so-called "gun control" advocates know that, of course. And so, you know your petty little "gun control" laws won't stop the bank robberies, assaults, forcible rapes, murders, mass shootings, etc.
You have had your laws in place for decades now. And the murders and mass shooting have continued unabated, and even gotten worse.
Your "strict gun control" laws won't work if they leave even SOME of the country's law-abiding citizens armed... since criminals can then still get guns by stealing them. And, being criminals, if they want a gun that's exactly what they will do.
And with 100,000,000 gun-owning households in the country, even a paltry 10% refusal rate for your (flatly unconstitutional) laws, will result in ten MILLION households keeping their guns.
But, surely you have thought of these things.
So, are you willing to send out thousands of SWAT teams to break down the door of every house of every law-abiding citizen who refuses to obey your "strict gun control" (aka total consfication) laws, and arrest the occupants while they thoroughly ransack the house to make sure they've got all the guns?
How long are you planning your reign of terror to last?
And, just in case any of those law-abiding gun owners decides to NOT submit tamely to the knock on the door (or were you planning on busting in without knocking, maybe at 2:00 AM, on everyone?)... how many thousands of gunfights do you consider to be "acceptable collateral damage" during the fulfillment of the wet dream you have expressed here?
How many of those 10,000,000 law-abiding citizens (more if there's more than one in each house) are you willing to kill, "pour encourager les autres"?
As your fellow jackbooted thugs pointed out when informed that their Fast & Furious plan a few years ago, would result in innocent civilians and/or enforcement personnel dying, "Well, you can't make an omelette without scrambling a few eggs."
How long do you plan to keep that as your motto?
So, "gun control" advocates, how many SWAT teams will you need?
How many eggs will you need to break to make your omelet this time?
You just said that gun nuts were against gun control because they thought that with gun control, the criminals would come for their guns, and they would lose the ability to fantasize about shooting them. You spelled it out in plain English. That theory is... ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston
I simply pointed out the real theory of the gun nuts... which is to open up the floodgates and give unimpeded access to firearms to everyone, including every criminal and mental patient. As long as I have a gun, no criminal/mental case will hurt me... just ask Chris Kyle how that theory works.
That theory sucks too, given that the vast majority of gun owners, and a substantially higher number of people than support any other type of gun control eg. bans on high cap mags and semi autos, support universal background checks.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,474,347 times
Reputation: 6670
This thread (originated appropriately enough by a "little nut") is what's commonly referred to as the reductio ad absurdum argument, otherwise known as ''when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns''.
Now just substitute meth, crack, drunk drivers, rape, whatever... for the word ''guns'', and it makes about as much sense.
Now just substitute meth, crack, drunk drivers, rape, whatever... for the word ''guns'', and it makes about as much sense.
Looks like someone's lacking in the critical thinking department. I'll skip the drug part, because drugs should be legal.
As far as rape and other crimes, those are inherently wrong. Owning a gun is not inherently wrong. No one is harmed simply by ownership a gun. Ergo, it makes no sense to draw that parallel. Rape should be illegal because rape is wrong, not because rape is a tool that can be used by the criminal minded to commit acts that are wrong.
So unless you contend that you consider mere ownership of a gun vs some hypothetical result of such to be equivalent to rape, your argument holds no water. Edit - Oh and drunk driving, same thing. Drunk driving is dangerous no matter who does it, whether they have criminal tendencies or not is irrelevant.
Horrible analogy.
By the way, that's not reductio ad absurdum by a long shot.
This thread (originated appropriately enough by a "little nut") is what's commonly referred to as the reductio ad absurdum argument, otherwise known as ''when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns''.
Now just substitute meth, crack, drunk drivers, rape, whatever... for the word ''guns'', and it makes about as much sense.
Hey! Those are good examples of laws that do NO good!!!!
Criminals will always be able to get guns, by stealing them, unless they are 100% confiscated from EVERYBODY.
You so-called "gun control" advocates know that, of course. And so, you know your petty little "gun control" laws won't stop the bank robberies, assaults, forcible rapes, murders, mass shootings, etc.
You have had your laws in place for decades now. And the murders and mass shooting have continued unabated, and even gotten worse.
Your "strict gun control" laws won't work if they leave even SOME of the country's law-abiding citizens armed... since criminals can then still get guns by stealing them. And, being criminals, if they want a gun that's exactly what they will do.
And with 100,000,000 gun-owning households in the country, even a paltry 10% refusal rate for your (flatly unconstitutional) laws, will result in ten MILLION households keeping their guns.
But, surely you have thought of these things.
So, are you willing to send out thousands of SWAT teams to break down the door of every house of every law-abiding citizen who refuses to obey your "strict gun control" (aka total consfication) laws, and arrest the occupants while they thoroughly ransack the house to make sure they've got all the guns?
How long are you planning your reign of terror to last?
And, just in case any of those law-abiding gun owners decides to NOT submit tamely to the knock on the door (or were you planning on busting in without knocking, maybe at 2:00 AM, on everyone?)... how many thousands of gunfights do you consider to be "acceptable collateral damage" during the fulfillment of the wet dream you have expressed here?
How many of those 10,000,000 law-abiding citizens (more if there's more than one in each house) are you willing to kill, "pour encourager les autres"?
As your fellow jackbooted thugs pointed out when informed that their Fast & Furious plan a few years ago, would result in innocent civilians and/or enforcement personnel dying, "Well, you can't make an omelette without scrambling a few eggs."
How long do you plan to keep that as your motto?
Just asking. Because, of course, people like you will never answer.
You would have to remove ALL the guns owned by EVERYBODY in the entire world, not just the U.S. If a person in spain owns a gun, and it's smuggled into the U.S., now someone in the U.S. has a gun...
That theory sucks too, given that the vast majority of gun owners, and a substantially higher number of people than support any other type of gun control eg. bans on high cap mags and semi autos, support universal background checks.
Fair point, and you are right, there are plenty of gun owners (on the right and left) who support background checks. But I'm talking gun nuts, those that believe that nothing can be done to stop criminals from getting guns, therefore we should do nothing to stop them. The unfortunate part of this story is the largest lobbying group for gun nuts (and moderate gun owners) spends millions advocating for the far right gun nut position of ending all gun control.
Fair point, and you are right, there are plenty of gun owners (on the right and left) who support background checks. But I'm talking gun nuts, those that believe that nothing can be done to stop criminals from getting guns, therefore we should do nothing to stop them. The unfortunate part of this story is the largest lobbying group for gun nuts (and moderate gun owners) spends millions advocating for the far right gun nut position of ending all gun control.
I'm talking gun nuts, those that believe that nothing can be done to stop criminals from getting guns,
Were you about to explain a method you have found that will positively keep criminals from getting guns, by purchase or theft or construction or any other means?
If you cannot, but still insist that your laws will somehow prevent them, then perhaps you are calling the wrong people "nuts".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
