“When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.”
Well, duh. And if chocolate bunny rabbits are criminalized, only criminals will have chocolate bunny rabbits.
These arguments fail to take in to account the entertainment value of the lottery. I remember standing in line at a convenience store while a guy bought a Mega Millions lottery ticket. The jackpot was $235 million. The guy behind me started with “The lottery. New York’s tax on people who are bad at math.”
I said, “The odds are 1:92 000 000. The payout is $235 000 000. You’re bad enough at math to get one yourself.” That was worth all the lottery tickets I’ve ever bought.
“No, we can’t do that! That’s what the [Republicans; terrorists; vampires] want!”
You can say it about anything with no proof, and even if it’s true, it’s usually pointless. The argument boils down to ‘we should do the wrong thing if someone we don’t like wants us to do the right thing.’
Quoth Eddie Izzard:
Hahahah… Yeah, I used to get that a lot, too, when I was in my late teens/early 20’s. They’d always say, “You’ll want kids when you’re 30.” Well, I’m 33, childless, and have no intention of allowing that to change.
Oh, but it’s so true! And if I get stuck behind one more old geezer at the 7-Eleven buying 971 lottery tickets at once, a Pit thread will be in order.
I’ve explained the truth behind “heat lightning” to entirely too many people. Some of them refuse to believe me.
My favorite pro-abortion argument: “Yes, abortion is murder, but it’s murder in self-defense.” Heh…
Many years ago I had a guy get right up in my face at a party, drunk as hell, and apparently quite angry with the fact that I “wasn’t drunk enough.” We were outdoors, standing slightly uphill from a large bonfire. I was contemplating how I was going to throw him into the fire if he physically attacked me. Luckily it didn’t come to that.
She kept saying to me that it was a cocktail party and the whole reason to be there was for drinks. I just looked at her and smiled(my not so nice smile)–what could I say? For all she knew, I was a reformed alcoholic or on some medicine that precluded drinking…what an ass.
“Gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straight people do, so it isn’t the least bit unfair.”
Death penalty opponents:
“Killing that guy won’t bring back the victim.”
No shit, Sherlock. The purpose of the death penalty is to punish the criminal.
“Guns don’t kill people…” has been done to death, but despite the logic above, I think it’s just a misstatement of the obvious. If we extend the “guns don’t kill people” logic, I think we reach the conclusion that people are killed by intentions, not murder weapons. Falling iron girders don’t kill people, gravity does. If you really wanted to kill somebody and couldn’t find a gun, you might use something else, but as long as people kill people with guns, it seems to me (for the first time ever) a bumper sticker has made a lousy argument.
Which is a valid response to the statement, but the reverse of this annoys the crap out of me when its used as a copout to avoid changing something.
“Life isn’t fair”*
True, but one of the remarkable features of human beings is our ability to try and make life a bit more fair.
Also,“you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet,” when, of course, the eggs being broke don’t have say in the matter.
AP
- Variation of such last seen in “Surface”, which ruined the series for me.
A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.
… then one thing just lead to another … and before ya know it …
(because of course there is no personal responsibility involved)
What’s wrong with just saying “I’m not in the mood so leave me the $#%@ alone”? It always works for me. You have no “duty” to explain yourself to an idiot.
Sure they can, if you swing them REALLY hard 
I just say, “I don’t need to drink. I’m like this all the time.”
How you can claim that a lottery, (particularly the state managed lotteries of which the statement is usually made) is not *a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes *, I am not sure. The state runs the lottery. The state skims money off the top, thus “charging” those people who choose to play for the privilege). The state uses those funds for public purposes. (In a number of states, the lottery does not even go to the General Fund, but is directed to specific budget items.)
And the method of determining that the (overwhelming majority of) players are bad at math is to simply inquire of some random number of them whether they believe they will win. I know a very large number of people who play the lotto because they once won $25 or $30 and they are sure that they are going to recoup their expenses of $52 or $104 a year if they simply continue to play–despite having failed to do so in the last 10 or 20 or 30 years.
Now, I have no problem with people who have sufficient resources throwing away their bucks for the thrill of seeing their picked numbers lose each week. A statement that “anyone who plays the lottery is an idiot” would be an inaccurate claim.
However, it very clearly meets the definition of a tax and it is (frequently) played by people who do not understand the odds. I deny your challenge as misunderstood and insupportable.
If they find me in a few days rotting in the bathroom, dead from an anuerism, its’ your fault.
Oooh, a man after my own thinking! Excellent. I used that same argument on my parents and every other authority figure whenever they threw that lame “life isn’t fair” line at me. Yes, as you say, life generally isn’t fair, but if there’s something we can do in this particular situation to make it fair, why shouldn’t we? “Life isn’t fair” is one of the lamest copouts ever, and still pisses me off thinking about it.
Yeah, thanks; that’s the sense in which I hate that saying. And your second example is annoying as well.
Let’s expand a little on why I think “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a stupid argument.
I will agree that when you take the statement at face value it isn’t a stupid argument, but it’s when someone utters this line in opposition to gun control that it becomes a ‘stupid argument’ IMO.
It’s the same as saying ‘bombs don’t kill people, people kill people’, in that technically yes, it does in fact take a person to use that bomb before killing/murder can occur, but does anyone really believe we should make it legal for civilians to own bombs?
Guns make it easier for people to kill other people, and I strongly believe a lot of murders wouldn’t have occurred if those that committed these crimes didn’t have access to guns.
I will say that while I am not pro-gun I respect your right to own them, but stop trying to justify your right to them by recycling this pathetic analogy. It’s a cop-out.
People, people! “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” isn’t a good or bad argument. It’s not an argument at all. It’s a statement, or a proposition if you will. But it’s not an argument.
It might be the conclusion of an argument.
It might be a premise of an argument.
It might be both at once!
But it is not, itself, an argument.
An example of it being used in a bad argument:
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Since guns don’t kill people, they’re perfectly safe.
Therefore, I can safely allow my 2 year old to play with guns.
An example of it being used in a good argument:
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Therefore, we should probably arrest the person who fired the gun, and release the gun from custody.