Tired Pro-Gun Talking Points

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 190
#181
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Forcing mass shooters to settle for something less effective will certainly save lives.
This would keep going down a rabbit hole. Shotguns are pretty effective too, if not more so. Other rifles are also a lot more deadly. I believe people use ar's bc of the price for both the gun and the ammo. And ya, they're effective too, but i just don't see banning them as a solution when they shooter can just change brands. So then, you go down the rabbit hole of banning the other guns and that's why it's a losing argument as a whole that pro-gunners worry about. 

Arming every single individual in the country is not something we just try to see what happens. That's insane.
I don't know how this would play out, and i don't think you do either bc it's not been tried. The opioid example isn't good... i can say yes, make opioids legal and give everyone the chance to more education from buying them, hopefully leading to less addiction, and giving everyone nolexone. That would reduce opioid death, or could. Banning opioids doesn't stop anything since they're already banned. So, this example kinda gives favor to what i'm saying. 

I also did say i don't know how this would work out... would accidently death outweigh any benefits? or not? I acknowledge accidents will still happen, but if by the same measure, mass shootings / killings sharply decrease, i would say it's a net benefit. Making a mistake of the mass shooter is also a bad example. Most experienced shooters would be able to know who to shoot at... the guy/girl shooting innocent people. Sure, that person might still kill, but it hopefully wouldn't end up being 20. In the end of the day, i don't know how it would play out either... but what i do know is i'm an experienced shooter, if i was in a school and saw someone shooting kids, i'd be able to shoot back. We don't, i don't, have that option right now bc of the laws. I can imagine what you're saying, but i can also imagine what your saying being overall wrong. Maybe we can make this a test law for a year and see how it plays out. Would you be in favor of that? A one year test law to see if it has a positive effect? 


#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
but if by the same measure, mass shootings / killings sharply decrease, i would say it's a net benefit.
62% of gun related deaths are suicides

16 days later

Topic's author
#183
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Outplayz
And ya, they're effective too, but i just don't see banning them as a solution when they shooter can just change brands. So then, you go down the rabbit hole of banning the other guns and that's why it's a losing argument
Classic slippery slope. This is like saying if we lower the drinking age to 18, why not 16? And then why not 10, and then why not 1?

The lines we draw are always going to be arbitrary, that doesn’t mean we don’t draw any.

I also did say i don't know how this would work out... would accidently death outweigh any benefits? or not? I acknowledge accidents will still happen, but if by the same measure, mass shootings / killings sharply decrease, i would say it's a net benefit.
No one ever knows for certain how any policy will work out in the end, that’s why we operate based on logic and reason. The logic of your “hand everyone a gun” proposal is lacking.
#184
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Since most of gun violence is in blue states, it seems like the cause is more of Democrats than guns. Like policies that destroy the family and cause income inequality by destroying the free market.
#185
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
OR maybe cities tend to lean democratic
#186
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
No. The poor and neglected vote against the party that cares for them least.

Alternatively, they abstain.
#187
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Income inequality and barriers to the free market are the highest in blue states. Poor people don't have a chance against lobby propaganda.
#188
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I just explained why that is.

They vote democrat more assuredly due to their situation, not the other way around.

People who do not feel the system is rigged against them tend to enjoy it remaining unfair.

Unfortunately many poor white farmers are buying into right wing propaganda that says the left is elitist while really the right is. The elites can maintain a chokehold far easier in right wing economics.
#189
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Unfortunately many poor white farmers are buying into right wing propaganda that says the left is elitist while really the right is.
There's far more poor people in Blue state one party rule buying into the propaganda that the system can only be fixed by Democrats despite the 50 year track record of massive inequality and barriers to a free market under one party tyranny. Poor people don't have a chance against lobby propaganda. 
Topic's author
#190
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Unfortunately many poor white farmers are buying into right wing propaganda that says the left is elitist while really the right is. The elites can maintain a chokehold far easier in right wing economics.
This will always be a point of fascination for me. When republicans had control of all three levers of the legislative body their only major accomplishment was a 2 trillion dollar shift largely towards the top 1%. Yet somehow they have managed to get people to believe they are the party against the elites. It's patently absurd.