Its all they have left. They have lost just about every major legal and political battle and they are keenly aware that they have been shooting themselves in the foot by doing things like trying to ban guns that have bayonet lugs and adjustable stocks. They realize that the supreme court might start applying intermediate scrutiny to all gun laws (which would wipe most of them out or force them to be rewritten).
They can’t prove that guns are the scourge of society that they imagine in their heads so they just call gun owners names. Its all they have left.
Well, that might be true but if the cost of letting people who really need self defense have access to guns is that a few overweight pasty white guys that would piss their pants before they ever drew a gun get to carry around a gun in their waistband, it doesn’t seem like a bad tradeoff.
I would focus on reducing gun ownership among criminals rather than pudgy suburban white guys.
Ok lets try the following more relevant scenario based on an actual conversion I had a number of years ago
Me: You should probably wear your seatbelt while your driving
Him: well some guy I knew got into an accident once and was thrown from the car which shortly there after burst into flames if he had been wearing his seatbelt he would have been burned to death as it survived to tell the tale.
Me: Well that is a highly unusual circumstance. For the most part wearing a seatbelt is safer.
Him: I don’t care what the statistics say I say its safer to go without.
Believe me, there’s no margin in engaging you on this - you cannot reason someone from a position that fear has led them to. I just happened to see, once again, a gun nut advancing the position that they are masters of the fear stick! The hoplophobe argument that you’ve made.
You don’t seem to realize what this reveals about yourself.
But you and Elv1sLives deserve each other, and you and Bullitt can stay here and oil each other up, you rough customers! I’ll let you stand watch on the wall, protecting us all with your manliness. Just remember that a paunch makes you more visible in silhouette, and pasty skin is highly reflective. God bless you, and keep up with those quick draw skills!
Still waiting to hear abouty our personal motivations for not owning a gun, ElvisL1ves. We already know you believe everybody is one bad day from mass murder. Is that why you don’t own one? Is it only not having a gun that keeps you from killing?
Right, this is much better than the anti-vaxxer analogy because we can actually conceive of a scenario where an otherwise survivable accident becomes fatal because of a seat belt. I searched and I couldn’t find a single case of it happening, but I can imagine it. I can imagine possibly being in a low speed collision where by some fluke chance I’m partially mentally incapacitated in a burning car and can’t escape because of a seat belt.
Likewise, I can imagine a scenario where I need some life-saving medication but I can’t open the bottle in my degraded state because of the child-proof cap.
In both cases, my last thoughts would be “fuck these goddamn seat belts/child-proof caps!” But decisions shouldn’t be made by people in their death throes, they should be made by calm, rational people who have access to all the evidence. And the evidence is unambiguous that seat belts and child-proof medicine bottles save lives.
So yeah, if I were getting hacked to pieces by a crazy person in my own home, my last thought might be, “Fuck, wish I had a gun!” But that doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and buy a gun, because in the cold light of day I can read the statistics and I know that bringing a gun into my house is a poor decision.
Frankly, I’m surprise this argument is being proposed by Lumpy. The gun-rights activists are always saying that we shouldn’t create knee-jerk legislation in reaction to traumatic events like Newtown. But now he’s proposing that we all make knee-jerk decisions in reaction to hypothetical traumatic events…???
And what empirical evidence do you have that banning guns would reduce gun murders?
unless there is another study that has come out since the last time you were here, what do you have that would provide sufficient evidence to warrant truncating a constitutional right?
These attacks don’t need to occur with high levels of frequency to justify gun ownership. I have freely admitted that I probably don’t need a gun for self defense and I am more of a gun nerd than a gun nut BUT I have been in (or at least near) situations where having a gun made a huge difference and I would not deny someone the ability to defend themselves because of some queasiness about guns in general.
Riots don’t happen often but there have been several in my lifetime. I have seen the presence of guns make a huge difference.
Yes, except the gun rights side is concerned about being attacked by criminals with guns while the gun control side of the debate is concerned about being attacked by law abiding citizens with guns.
I couldn’t tell you without digging into more weeds than I care to at the moment. I’d kick that one back over to you.
What I can do is wildly speculate that A) people who own guns illegally are probably going to be less than likely to self-report to having a gun in the house than people who own guns legally, so if the statistics are skewed by illegal gun ownership then they’re probably skewed more in favor of owning a gun, meaning this isn’t going to help the gun-owners any, and B) if there were studies that controlled for legal/illegal gun* ownership that showed a net safety benefit for legal gun owners, we’d all have heard about it.
*Gun in this paragraph refers to handgun; as far as I know, there’s no evidence that long guns present a statistically significant health risk.
Yes, but typically those are the very same poor neighborhoods where citizens who are armed are most likely to be blown away in random confrontations, especially, due in part to ethnic biases, with police.