PUBLIC DEBATES: Why is Banning Guns Always the Only Acceptable Answer?

If you are in favor of gun control, I sincerely want to have a rational discussion with you.  I have some questions that ‘d like you to answer, but I want rational answers.  By that, I mean I want reasonable answers; answers that will convince a rational person that your arguments are correct and your suggestions will work in the real world.  If I cannot find anyone who can give me rational answers to my questions, I am left to chose between the only possible conclusions: that the gun control side is irrational, or there is a hidden agenda here that is hostile to individual rights and freedom.  So, please, if you support gun control, give me some reasonable answers to my questions.  I promise, I will listen, and I will give your answers the careful consideration they deserve — because I honestly and sincerely want to hear what your side has to say.

This first question is very important.  If I cannot get a reasonable answer to this question, we can stop right here because I am correct: I have to chose between deciding that the people supporting gun control are irrational or hiding something.  Here’s my first question:

Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?

The answers I hear most often is that it will reduce the number of these events by making it more difficult to get weapons, and that this policy has worked in laces like England and Australia.  The problem I have with these answers is that — not only are they are not factually true — but they actually confess to a desire to ban all guns.  Doesn’t this actually make my point: that gun control advocates want to ban guns?

But speaking of Australia: it is the perfect example of how the gun control lobby is disingenuous.  Gun control advocates often cite Australia as the perfect example of a nation where their proposed policies have worked, but they never tell you that studies have shown the Australian gun ban hasn’t really changed anything except how people commit crimes and kill themselves:

From the Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series:

The Australin Firearms Buyback and Its Effects on Gun Deaths

“The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

…the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

7 Facts On Gun Crime That Show Gun Control Doesn’t Work

The fact that gun control advocates do not acknowledge the opposing facts not only strengthens my questioning, but it also leaves me suspicious as to why?  It gives the impression that they are hiding something from me.  The same goes for places in the United States where gun control is very strict: places like Chicago and Washington D.C.  They have severe gun control laws, but they also have the highest rates of gun violence in the United States.  At the same time, gun control advocates excuse or dismiss places like Kennesaw, Georgia, where they passed a law mandating people to carry guns, they have the lowest proportional crime rate in the United States.  So where does this leave a rational person?  I mean, I hear the arguments for gun control, but when I look at the real world, I see evidence that it does not work.  So, I ask again, why do gun control advocates go after the guns?

Again, without a rational answer, this next question will also end this discussion with me winding up back at my original dilemma: are gun control advocates irrational, or are they hiding something?

Why don’t you ever apply your arguments to other inanimate objects?

If taking guns away actually saves lives, and saving lives is what you truly want to do, then why aren’t you also demanding that the following be banned, as well?

Texting while driving kills some 11 children a day — why aren’t you demanding cell phones be banned?

The same reasoning applies to cars and trucks: why haven’t you demanded they be banned?

Bats, knives and hammers are used to kill about as many people who are shot every year: why haven’t you called for a ban on bats, knives and hammers?

People die from accidents involving bath tubs, pools and ladders: why haven’t you demanded that these things be banned?

Now, I expect a lot of people will want to dismiss these questions because they think it is ‘nuts’ to ban them.  But the same argument for banning guns can be applied to all of the things I just mentioned.  So, if the goal is to make people safer, why not demand a ban on all of these things?  I’m serious about this.  You have to understand that this is a matter of principle, and a principle does not change with the thing against which it is applied.  So, if the principle is to save lives, then anything that is connected to the death of at least as many people as mass shootings should be banned, all for the same reason.  Otherwise, the argument to ban guns is irrational and it leads to the choice I am trying to avoid: that gun control advocates are irrational or hiding a secret agenda.

Now, assuming you were able to give me rational explanations to my first two questions, my next question is this:

Why do you believe that banning guns will protect us when the government never enforces the current gun control laws?

The recent Parkland school shooting is the perfect example.  The local authorities received at least 39 warnings about the shooter and the FBI received 2, yet they didn’t do anything to stop the shooter — even when his own parents requested them to do so.  Given that this is not an isolated case (the aftermath of the majority of these mass shootings usually reveals multiple failures to enforce existing laws designed to prevent them), no rational person is going to believe that another law will do anything about this sort of violence.  This brings us back — once more — to the conclusion that gun control advocates are either irrational or they are hiding a secret agenda.

I still have more questions:

Why do you dismiss people who raise the issue of mental health in connection to these mass shooters?

Why do you dismiss the influence of violent video games, movies and music?

I know that there are many sources that claim to have ‘proven’ that none of these things have any affect on people, especially not enough to make them turn into a mass shooter.  However, this ignores the many careful and reputable studies that have concluded the exact opposite.  Where the video games, movies and music are concerned, this leaves me where I was with the example of other nations that have banned guns: if you only present questionable evidence that supports your case while ignoring respectable research that refutes it, you leave us with the same choice I keep coming up against: that gun control advocates are either irrational or they are hiding a secret agenda.

As to respect to the issue of mental health: where there is a clear connection here.  The majority of these mass shooters have either been on powerful antidepressants or psychotic drugs, or they have had known mental health issues — or both.  This is known, so you simply cannot dismiss this connection and expect to be treated as a rational and honest actor in this debate.  Now, I am not saying the drugs or mental illness have a causal affect on these people that turns them into mass murderers, but I am saying this should be addressed and seriously researched.  Otherwise, I have to wonder whether or not the gun control advocates are irrational or hiding a secret agenda.

Here are some related questions I need answered, as well:

Why don’t we address the affects of fatherless homes?

Why aren’t we demanding more parental responsibility and involvement in their children’s lives?

Why are we trying to force boys into a box instead of providing them with the outlets that young males require for proper development?

Why are we refusing to empower our schools with the ability to take more preventative actions when they have identified potential threats?

In short, why don’t we address the failings of the PC agenda that has been forced on our schools and society?

I have a sociology degree, and I know as a fact that every one of these questions (except the one about the PC agenda) has been a matter of concern since the mid 1990’s.  So, why aren’t we focusing any of our attention on these issues?  They are definitely connected.  We know this because, before they became such a problem, we used to have guns in students’ lockers and the rear windows of students’ unlocked cars in the school parking lots and we never had these mass shootings.  So why aren’t we addressing what has changed that might be contributing to these shootings?  Why are we just focusing on the guns?  Are gun control advocate just irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda?

Here is my next question:

Why is banning guns the only possible solution you will accept?

There is no evidence that banning guns will actually do anything to prevent another mass shooting, especially in ‘gun-free’ zones like schools.  But there are examples of things that can be done which have demonstrated — in the real world — that they do help to reduce these incidents.  They include:

Adding more armed guards, arming teachers and allowing open carry in public places.

Installing more hard barriers, such as road blocks; metal detectors; double, bullet proofed doors, etc..

Why aren’t we providing students with training that might actually save their lives if a shooter does break into them instead of teaching them to huddle together into an easier target?

These are all real-world solutions that have shown positive, real-world results.  So why do gun control advocates reject all of them?  In fact, when they have been shown to work, why do gun control advocates claim that they do not work?  Are gun control advocates irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda?

Here is my final question:

Why do you always argue from an appeal to emotion instead of an appeal to reason?

Gun control advocates always claim they are seeking ‘reasonable‘ solutions to the ‘problem’ of gun violence.  I’m sure they believe this.  You may even believe it, but — so far — I have seen no evidence of true reason anywhere in the gun control agenda.  Gun control advocates like to use that word, ‘reasonable, ‘ but they do not behave like reasonable people.  They reject every suggestion except taking guns.  If you are still with me, I need you to understand something.  If you reject ideas that have been demonstrated to work in real life, then push ideas that have been demonstrated not to work in real life, reasonable people are going to suspect that you are either irrational, or you are hiding a secret agenda.

I have asked a series of reasonable questions.  They are reasonable because they have all been demonstrated in the real world.  Some of my questions are related to issues connected to why these shooters do what they do, while others are connected to policies and programs that have been shown to actually reduce the number and severity of these shootings.  My questions have also been related to the evidence that demonstrates more gun control will not solve any of the problems I’ve asked about in this post.  So, we are left to ask you one more time:

Are you irrational, or are you hiding a secret agenda?

Oh, I’m sorry, I almost forgot this very important questions:

Why do gun control supporters always want to break the law by limiting a Constitutionally protected right without going through the Amendment process?

Again, if a rational person looks at this whole debate, they are left with a choice:

The people who advocate gun control are either irrational (because they are demanding an action that objective, real-world evidence proves will not affect the problem they claim to want to solve), or they are hiding a secret agenda — or both.


ADDENDUM 20 March 2018

The following happened today, and not only does it prove that gun control is NOT the answer, but it also demonstrates that the media does not care about protecting people, it just wants to confiscate all guns (it demonstrates this by the lack of wall-to-wall coverage of the incident and the calls for more armed protectors in our schools):

HERO: Armed resource officer stops gunman at Maryland high school

In this and many cases just like it, the media demonstrates that it is not hypocritical, but pushing a political agenda.  It shows its agenda because there is a clear pattern: exploit mass casualties to push for gun control: remain silent when a gun is used to prevent mass casualties.  The pattern rules out hypocrisy, leaving only one rational conclusion: the media is working as the propaganda arm of a political agenda aimed at disarming American citizens!



27 thoughts on “PUBLIC DEBATES: Why is Banning Guns Always the Only Acceptable Answer?

  1. Wow! These are the exact same questions we have been asking ourselves, and anyone who would listen, for years. I applaud you for taking the time and energy to put them on paper. I will add a couple of things, however. I have asked many times why don’t we ban cars. Many people die from them every year. The response I get is that those deaths are from accidents and not intentional. Well, that is not entirely true, as we all know, but that doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that those people are still dead. I have also heard that cars are necessary in our society. I could go off on that one, too, but won’t, but the ultimate result is still the same. What about children under the age of 21 being allowed to drive? I drove at age 16 as did everyone else, but is it really responsible to let a 16 year old drive a 5,000 pound potential weapon of mass destruction? My father-in-law was a trial lawyer and a fairly liberal thinking kind of guy. In keeping with his liberal outlook, he once told me that since most car accidents occur at an intersection we should ban intersections. You see my point, but will anyone else, or will they be too overcome with emotion and the good feeling mob rule affords them? One of the lines in the Disney movie “Beauty and the Beast” said it best. As the mob was marching up the hill to kill the beast they were singing “we don’t like what we don’t understand, in fact it scares us.” Finally, if the inanimate object is truly the villain, let’s release the guy behind the trigger – or steering wheel – and put the object on trial. Sorry for the length of this, but you sure hit it dead on with the questions.

    1. Thanks, Tim.

      Yes, I see your point, and you are correct: they are not consistent. That’s the point.

      The issue with most every objection I have ever heard is that they are fallacious. If the solution to a crime committed with a gun is to ban the gun, then that logic must also apply to ALL other objects ever used in the commission of a crime. Otherwise, they are pleading special case, and that is a fallacy. If they are using fallacies, then they are being irrational. This leaves us with the choice: are they just irrational, or are they being irrational to hide their hidden agenda? 🙂

      As for your private question: the answer is it is up to you, but most people use something else — mostly because they do not want to be identified. I’ll leave you to decide why that is, but, in my case, it is a check on a personal weakness, not fear of others knowing who I am and what I believe. The people in my personal world, who are around me, physically: they are well aware that the person you read on this blog is the same as the one they know in the real world. Hope that makes sense and answers your question. 🙂

  2. Very spot on. Having worked in LE for over 29 years, a good part of the general public fail to act reasonably and let emotion control their actions. There are even a few in LE that believe the gun control rhetoric.

  3. So that the board will be aware of what I have been accused of hiding:

    There is a reader, Brent, who — apparently — is a student at Arizona State University (I could not find his name in any faculty listings, but I may have missed it). He has been trying to divert any attempt at holding a serious discussion about the issue addressed by this post. He has not addressed the questions I pose. rather, he has posted several comments that attempt to change the discussion, then ‘prove’ I am lying to the readers of this blog. I have already given extraordinary attention to his first two comments, and have demonstrably demonstrated that they irreparably fallacious on their foundation. But this has not stopped Brent. He continues to post comments that are exceedingly lengthy and equally as fallacious and would serve no purpose but to confuse this discussion to the point where the average person would abandon it — which is what I suspect is his actual purpose. For example: Brent has submitted a third comment on this post, but I have denied it. That is because it was a 5-page, fallacy-filled rant on a question he designed, tries to shove in my mouth, and then uses to presume he can show how I am leading this blog astray. Therefore, having demonstrated no will or ability to use right reason, Brent has been banned from this blog.

    So, yes, I am and will continue to ban Brent’s comments, and it is for the reasons I just stated.

    If any of my readers believe I am intentionally deceiving or misleading them, then, by all means, please say so. If anyone believes I am actually afraid of the arguments presented by Brent, let me know about that, too. And, if anyone feels they cannot trust me because of the way I have handled Brent’s comments, then please, feel free to leave this blog. I would not blame you either way. But I simply will not allow a reader to post comments with no purpose but to confuse and shout down and insult anyone on this blog — including myself.

    1. You should put up one of his Posts as a Post of its own …. Title it ” The Brent Rant”. So everyone can see his idiocy. Nothing condemns so completely as vapid verbiage leading nowhere.

      1. Don,

        I’ll think about it, but I’m torn on that. Brent doesn’t realize it and will never take it this way, but I actually started out trying to help him. I don’t care if he wants to object to anything I post, I just don’t want the usual desires and opinions voiced as certain fact, followed by the inevitable name calling when you try to show them that they are making no sense and falling fall short of the mark they think they’ve hit. Honestly, even if they do not know enough to be embarrassed, I am embarrassed for them. I hope you’ll understand when I tell you I do not want to play my role in this cycle anymore. I would rather spend my time trying to help those who prove to be teachable understand how logic and reason work — even if they try to turn it against me. But, if all I am going to do is embarrass others in front of those who still understand reason, I don’t want to play. It only serves to remind me of how bad things have really gotten 😦

      2. Don,

        Brent thinks you are a fan who believes I am unfairly and/or unjustly preventing him from speaking on MY blog (seems he does not understand that he has no right to demand this, nor does he realize you are not going to be an ally of his). However, our of deference to YOU, Don, here you go: I approved his latest comment.

        1. LOL. ….I meant His post as a stand alone Post….. with Quotes around it so to speak…. to show it is more of an ideological Screed than a dialogue.

          But what you showed/proved by putting his comment up … is the larger issue. Which is that our side ( Classical Liberal, Conservative, what have you)…… does NOT engage in Censorship.

          Done. No need to engage further in obvious propaganda from Bent Brent.


        I have decided to allow this last post from Brent. However, I am not going to allow such a lengthy piece to stand un-corrected. Therefore, I will post abbreviated commentary in the body of Brent’s post, and to help make it clear when I am speaking, I will use bold text.

        One of your readers wants to see it.

        As we use to say in the Army. I call no balls.

        (calling or implying someone does or does not do something because they are a coward is a fallacy)

        Here’s the rest of the rant below if you don’t have it anymore.

        My comment will address a large portion of this blog. I will of course not put in the work if the moderator doesn’t share my post. I have met the rules for posting here.

        (no, he has not complied with my posted rules because — as I have demonstrated — this reader has not been and refuses to use the accepted rules of logic and right reason, but he continues…)

        Now I will address this post in part. This is a third post. My first post was either lost or ignored. Since the host moderates comments we cannot know which one. In my second post I admitted I made a mistake by calling the first part a straw-man argument, again the first post no one saw, and should have called it a loaded question fallacy.

        “Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

        This is a loaded question fallacy. It is not as the host claims “loaded language”.

        I’m going to assume the host is unfamiliar with the loaded question since they got it wrong.

        A loaded question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

        Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature.

        The loaded question fallacy is easily found and recognized, just google it.

        The most common example of a loaded question is;

        “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

        This question is loaded because it is phrased in such a way that if someone was to answer, they would be forced to accept the implied premise inherent in the question. That (1) they have a wife and (2) you have at some point beat her. This is not loaded language, but a loaded question because the question forces the answerer to accept the premises or deny the whole question.

        Now a loaded question doesn’t have to be a fallacy if it is in fact true. A Judge could ask this of a defendant who has been convicted of beating his wife. It has already been established by due process to meet the legal requirements to have proved it, that they have a wife and have beaten her.

        However, it is a fallacy if the premise(s) of the question is in fact false.

        The fallacy of this question is as such;

        (1) “Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always” this premise is an absolute. The behavior to be described is without fail and consistent every time there is an incident. In a short, the author has phrased this as an absolute.

        (2) “seem to focus your solutions on the gun” this premise is that the gun(s) used are always targeted. I have expanded this into plural because multiple guns can be used in an incident.

        (3) “and not the shooter(s)?” premise is an absolute that the perpetrators aren’t addressed. Actions are never discussed that will mitigate this incident in the future from the people perspective. The other premise, that is not taken seriously and rejected because of absurdity and will not be mentioned again, of this is that the shooter(s) themselves are ignored, I.E. no democrats call for the apprehension/arrest of the shooter or that there is no need to stop shooters in the future. Again, this premise will not be mentioned because it is assumed the writer doesn’t mean to imply this.

        (I have thoroughly proven that everything Brent just said is fallacious. You can find this rebuttal here)

        To address why I use Congress below, is because a line has to be drawn somewhere.

        (This is a serious breach of logic. It borders on intellectual assault. This is because Brent just tried — and failed — to re-write my argument to suit his purposes. From this point on, everything Brent pretends to be ‘proving’ is essentially Brent pretending to refute an argument he has tried to shove into my mouth. This is strwaman in the worse way, and — if he submitted this to pee review — he would be rejected at this point. At least, anyone who still honors the rules of logic would throw him out at this point.)

        We can’t take every single persons statement to represent everyone on a side. This is how you end up quoting a meth head in trailer park in Kentucky as the spokesperson. The line has to be drawn somewhere, I draw it at the people elected to represent the people as a whole for their districts/state, and Congress has the power to enact law.

        (justifying why he thinks he can logically change my entire argument and still have the rest of what he intends to say be accepted as sound, rational or valid actually demonstrates that Brent is being irrational — and intentionally so. We know he is being intentionally irrational because he then admits it in his next sentence:)

        The author is of course free to respond with a well-reasoned response with why the line should be drawn at a different level of representation.

        (notice how Brent has admitted I presented what even he admits is a WELL-REASONED defense against his comment to this point? This is an admission that he has been wrong this entire time. But then he shows that he does not care about being wrong by asserting the subject at hand must be changed. There is such a break in sound reasoning here as to be laughable, but it definitively demonstrates that Brent is not trying to reason with the board — he only wants to disrupt the discussion and deflect it to what even he admits is an entirely different argument. This is not “proving me wrong,” it is proving some fictional thing he made up in his head is wrong. But, sadly, he doesn’t even manage to do that)

        Premise (1) is established to mean this behavior described is without fail. This premise can be disproved by demonstrating one incident that disproves the attributed behavior, since the author phrased it as an absolute.

        Looking at premise (2) and (3) every time there is a shooting Congressional representative has demanded the banning of the gun involved and no attention is paid to people.

        There have been multiple shootings in schools in 2018 alone. Many involving handguns and not semi-automatic rifles.

        I have searched, but not found any member of Congress calling for the ban of handguns when one was used in schools in any one incident, let alone every time it happened, in 2018.

        Of course, the absurdity in the loaded question is that every time someone is shot; someone in congress or working for a congressional representative is immediately speaking out, which is false.

        I found no evidence of the several incidents listed above being addressed by Congress. I am open to someone disproving me be finding comments from Congress on every incident listed above.

        (even when he makes up an argument that he believes is easier to defeat, Brent still cannot avoid fallacies. Who said that gun control advocates have to call for a ban on ALL guns? I didn’t. I just said they go after guns. So, BY BRENT’S OWN ADMISSION, BRENT IS WRONG!!!! How can you know this is 100% FACT? Because Brent admits — in his own argument — that people are going after at least SOME GUNS. This is sufficient to make my point and refute Brent’s. Once again, Brent is demonstrating he does not understand logic AND refuses to learn the rules)

        Premise (2) – “seem to focus your solutions on the gun”, in addressing premise (1) I have already disproved this assertion. No one in Congress is addressing banning handguns despite their use in multiple school shootings. The only measure being discussed on handguns is one that “would lower the minimum age for buying a handgun from 21 to 18.” The current measures before congress can we found here;

        Premise (3) – “and not the shooter(s)?” By demonstrating measures focused on people and not solely guns I disprove the assertion that no focus is on the shooters. The above article states that democrats are demanding changes in background checks, and closing what they call “loopholes”. This alone disproves the claim no actions are taken to focus on potential shooters.

        The author started this post with a loaded question that is fallacious.

        “Australia is the perfect example. Gun control advocates often cite Australia as the perfect example of a nation where their proposed policies have worked, but they never tell you about any of this information. the information in that link sure makes it sound like gun control does not — in fact — reduce shootings or crime.”

        If you follow the author’s link, there is no mention on criminal statistics or anything to support their claim “sound like gun control does not — in fact — reduce shootings or crime.”

        (please read the link. And follow all the nested links. Brent is committing strawman here — again)

        The author has presented a point and no evidence to back them up. In fact a word search shows “crime” not being mentioned once in the provided article.

        (once again, Brent is inserting something into my argument I never even mentioned, then claiming to have demonstrated my argument is flawed because my support does not mention a word or claim I did not make.)

        “Why don’t you ever apply your arguments to other inanimate objects? “

        The author is misinformed. The author is implying that calls for the ban of assault weapons are the same as calling for bans of cell phones, cars and trucks, bats, knives, hammers, and objects most likely to cause accidents.

        (No, it is worse — because it is trampling on a NATURAL RIGHT, which is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN BY LAW — that law being the U.S. CONSTITUTION! Still, my analogy IS valid, Brent just does not want to deal with that because it would utterly destroy him — even in his own mind).

        To anyone that wants to argue assault weapon isn’t a thing, I refer you to the United States Army that has an actual definition, “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”

        (notice that Brent just tried to deceive the reader yet again. He forgets to tell you that an assault rifle must have the capability of FULL AUTOMATIC FIRE! The weapons he says the Democrats are calling assault rifles DO NOT MEET THIS DEFINITION, but he is saying they do. THIS IS THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION! It is also a denial of a definition, which is about the biggest and most egregious mistake you can make in logic.)

        This is false.

        The call for banning assault weapons from my perspective is based on the design and purpose.

        When I search for the best rifle for hunting, I found many lists. Some of the lists did have rifles designed on an assault rifle variant. However, none of them had them ranked at the top and many didn’t list them at all like this one (

        (Brent is just flat-outlying to you now. He is telling you the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. IT IS NOT! It is about being able to protect yourself from a government like the one he is supporting. It is about being able to protect yourself from people like Brent!)

        It is easy to see that a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible can be modified to kill animals. But the point is it is not appropriate without changes. A rifle designed to hunt can be used immediately out of the box. A rifle based on an assault rifle variant needs modification to be appropriate for hunting from its original design. None of the pictured rifles based on the assault rifle design had iron sights, but rather scopes. This is because even the iron sight designed on the assault rifle was designed with the intent of shooting at an object with a human silhouette, making it inadequate for animal hunting and needing to be replaced.

        I do not deny that everyone has a right to self-defense. Guns designed around self-defense and therefore legal, guns designed around the efficient murder of as many people as possible is not a part of self-defense.

        (again, FALLACY, FALLACY, FALLACY!!! No reasonable person should still be reading by now. Brent has already demonstrated that he is seeking to disarm people of the right to defend against a tyrannical army. This is TAKING AN INALIENABLE RIGHT! That is TYRANNY!)

        This is easy to demonstrate by what experts and people accept as what is needed for self-defense. I searched both “best gun for self-defense”, “best gun for self-defense in the home”, “best gun for home defense.”

        (fallacy: appeal to authority)

        Both of my different searches produced lists that only had hand-guns. None like this ( featured assault weapons. Assault weapons are not designed for close quarters combat. This is seen by the ever shrinking rifle in the U.S. Army. From the M-16, to the M-4, to even smaller variants now used by Special Forces. As the United States has found itself in urban areas, there has need a need to reduce the size of the rifle while still maintaining combat effectiveness in as many various environments as possible.

        Handguns however are designed to be used in close quarters within one’s home or easy to carry for personal protection on the street.

        When a handgun is used to kill someone outside of self-defense, it is not used for its intended design which is self-defense.

        While texting kills people, it is from a misuse.

        (STOP! See why my example DOES APPLY? Guns are being misused when they are used to murder. So the example is valid and it defeats Brent’s argument — again)

        Cell phones and texting feature weren’t designed to be used while driving. Bats weren’t made to hit people. Bathtubs weren’t designed to make people slip and smash their heads.

        The argument isn’t what causes peoples death, but the intent of its design of what is causing death.

        (Brent has changed the argument again)

        Cars and trucks were designed to carry people and things, not run over people. But, and it is illegal to modify a car or truck to kill or harm people. For anyone who has seen a dystopian movie like Mad Max, we have seen the modifications to cars and trucks with spikes and other various modifications to harm/kill people. Such modifications are illegal. You cannot turn the wheels of your car into rotating knives sticking out the side.

        It is illegal to put nails into a bat.

        Even the most common knife used to kill people, the common kitchen knife, isn’t designed to stab. It is designed to cut an object on a cutting board.

        Knives that are designed to kill and maim people are actually illegal. Knives with blade edges designed to increase blood lose or harm wound care are illegal. Bayonets that are three-sided or grooved are illegal. They were designed for several reasons, (1) maximize damage, (2) increase blood loss by preventing normal medical care from stopping blood loss, (3) increase chance of death after combat.

        The explanation for the medical reasons about the lethality of these weapons isn’t easy to explain in a short manner. Please research on your own to realize the horror of a weapon that can still kill you even if you are in a hospital receiving medical care.

        The point being, these bladed weapons purposely built to kill people are illegal.

        The argument is best summarized my Matthew 7:16-20.

        Matthew 7:16-20

        “16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

        Intent matters, where something comes from matters. When a gun is designed with the idea of self-defense, it comes from a good tree that will bear good fruit. Those guns look like hand guns, or arguably shotguns which make excellent home defense weapons but less so for outside.

        When a gun is design with the sole intent of murdering people that is a bad tree and will only bear bad fruit.

        (Really? Brent thinks he is using reason? See why I said this was a 5-page rant? Brent has totally ignored reality and dismissed logic and sound reasoning. he is simply trying to seize control of the board so he can present a rambling manifesto that has nothing to do with reality or reason. OK, I’m going to stop here. You can read the rest of this comment, but I hope the board can see I have not been doing an injustice to the board by moderating this reader’s comment. However, if anyone should believe that Brent is actually making sound, valid and rational points in this comment, then PLEASE, stop reading this blog. You will not learn anything here because, like Brent, you just don’t understand logic and right reasoning. I say this with absolute certainty because, were I still in college, I would be using this comment as an example of how NOT to write a logical argument. It is THAT bad, that fallacious, that irrational)

        “Now, I expect a lot of people will want to dismiss these questions because they think it is ‘nuts’ to ban them. But the same argument for banning guns can be applied to all of the things I just mentioned. So, if the goal is to make people safer, why not demand a ban on all of these things? I’m serious about this. You have to understand that this is a matter of principle, and a principle does not change with the thing against which it is applied. So, if the principle is to save lives, then anything that is connected to the death of at least as many people as mass shootings should be banned, all for the same reason. Otherwise, the argument to ban guns is irrational and it leads to the choice I am trying to avoid: that gun control advocates are irrational or hiding a secret agenda.”

        No one is Congress is proposing the ban of all guns. Therefore the premise of this paragraph is wrong. That is a good example of loaded language.

        The author states; “So, if the goal is to make people safer, why not demand a ban on all of these things? “

        That is not the goal. The goal is to govern responsibility; such as making certain drugs illegal. Not all drugs are illegal, every drug has the potential to kill you and people do overdose on aspirin.

        The drugs that are mostly illegal have no benefit to society; there is an argument for some like marijuana.

        The author is false framing the question and creating a straw-man argument by changing the motives and actions of the people.

        This is a straw-man argument.

        Here is an example.

        Two people are running for Congress. First candidate says, “I do not want to fund further building of nuclear submarines until a review is done to make sure we are spending the money wisely.” Candidate two claims “Candidate one does not want to fund the military!”

        The author needs to produce evidence that Congress or a reasonable majority of “gun control” advocates want to ban all guns. They do want to ban certain types which the author is twisting into all guns.

        “Now, assuming you were able to give me rational explanations to my first two questions, my next question is this:
        Why do you believe that banning guns will protect us when the government never enforces the current gun control laws?”

        The author hasn’t proven the government never enforces the current gun control laws.

        This blog was posted March 02, that same day the Federal Government announced charges “related to the illegal sale of approximately 100 firearms.”

        This alone disproves the assertion of the question.

        “Why do you dismiss people who raise the issue of mental health in connection to these mass shooters?
        Why do you dismiss the influence of violent video games, movies and music?”

        The author again asks a loaded question with loaded language. We don’t dismiss it. He hasn’t proven the assumption of the first question of these two questions. The “gun control” advocates were the ones that pushed for reporting of mental health issues for background checks. The author seems to also ignore that if we take the assumption of drawing party lines, I.E. Republicans for less gun laws, and Democrats for more gun laws, it is the Democrats that advocate for more healthcare to be provided by the state that would include mental health.

        As to why we general disregard the claim of video games is because there isn’t any proof. The question assumes there is influence. The author doesn’t prove it. We are just supposed to accept it from the question with no evidence to support the assertion the question implies. I reject it because there is no clear evidence of it. A simple search of “evidence video games cause violence” produces endless results of articles stating no evidence to support the author’s question.

        I will continue latter if the author posts this. No reason doing work that won’t be posted.

        OK, I allowed Brent’s gun-grabbing manifesto to be published. HOWEVER, this is the last comment I will allow from Brent. He has not bothered to even TRY to meet any of the requirements of this board, of logic, of right reason, or even of civil debate. Therefore, Brent’s comments will no longer be allowed on this board. Honestly, I won’t even read them: I will send them straight to the trash can. The rest of the board is free to disagree with my decision — even if they leave the board because of it. But I REFUSE this sort of ranting on my blog.

  4. I read both this post and the one you presented as a rebuttal. I don’t want to address all you points because there so many and this comment does go on.

    But… Your very first question you put “Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

    Does meet the definition of a loaded question everywhere I looked. You are making unsupported assumptions with your question. In fact, all your questions seem to be unsupported because you aren’t providing anything to prove them before you make them. Just seems more of an appeal to emotion which is a fallacy I came across while reading about the loaded question one.

    Actually one more thing. Pointing to an article that doesn’t directly support your claim about crime and then complaining that someone should have read everything else on the website to find your evidence seems unreasonable. Isn’t that the same as making a claim and requiring the other person to look for the evidence, you can always claim they didn’t look hard enough. You can always say no no, it’s there, just keep looking I’m right.

    1. H,

      First, thank you for your comment. Now, if I might be allowed to defend myself? 🙂

      You claim my opening question is a ‘loaded question.’ Do you notice how the question is set up before I make it? And that I am posing the question to a specific audience? You cannot separate these two: the audience from the question. They are connected, and when they are taken together, the question is not ‘loaded’ as it is addressed to people who self-identify as ‘gun control advocates.’ By definition, they are advocating the banning, taking, etc of guns. This means the question is not ‘loaded’ because it is merely asking a specific group why they do a certain action that they have been observed as doing on a regular basis. In other words, I am not drawing a conclusion, but asking for an explanation of something that has been observed in the real world.

      In addition, notice how my question is worded. Do you see the word “seem?” This is a descriptor. It has been intentionally used because it negates ANY possibility of fallacy in my question. It does that by suggesting a perception, which then leaves room for incorrect interpretation.

      Either of these things negate the claim of “loaded question,” but taken together, they provide a rock-solid defense against the accusation.

      Now, as to the attack on my mentioning the Australian govt. study that determined the ban had no appreciable effect: I’ll concede that I did not provide the correct link. When I am done here, I’ll go back and edit that part of my original post to correct this error. HOWEVER, it is still quibbling to think you can dismantle my entire argument because I provided the wrong link. Even if the whole Australian ban were accepted, it still would not change the argument: that gun control advocates are seeking to ban guns. In fact, if that is the point that supposedly ‘proves me wrong,’ it would actually be a confession by the person making it that they do — in fact — want to take ALL guns from Americans. And even if this is not the case, it does not change the fact that the people pushing gun bans never address my other questions.

      1. “Do you notice how the question is set up before I make it? And that I am posing the question to a specific audience?”

        Okay, I accept your are proposing it to a specific audience. But I suppose you haven’t proven that is their stance or who that audience is.

        You are just making a blanket statement about gun control. Which can mean you as well, I assume. Unless you are for unrestricted selling of guns to everyone, known criminals, terrorists? Any restriction would be gun control.

        I suppose you haven’t proven who your audience is and what their views are. Its just a general “gun control” that can mean anyone who accepts even the slightest gun control law such as a restriction of sell a gun to a felony convicted of a violent crime involving a weapon for 5 years or something.

        Without showing who the audience is and their views, it’s just a boogie man your arguing against, right?

        1. H,

          First, I do not take your comments as ‘arguing’ — at least, not in a way that disrupts the board. I see your comments as nothing more than a reasoned challenge to me to defend my argument. I actually appreciate this. It forces me to think and — ultimately — it helps me make my argument stronger.

          Now, you accept that I am addressing a specific audience (thank you). But did you also see where I used the qualifier, “seems?” This implies an impression, which means my question i snot making a statement, especially a universal statement. This was an intentional construction. It is an absolute defense against the fallacies of which I have been accused. (not to mention the title of the post: ‘only ACCEPTABLE answer” also insulates me from these attacks) 🙂

          Now, as to proving that the people I am questioning do not consider any of the questions I ask in this post and only focus on gun control, let me point out a few things.

          1 — So far, no one has bothered to answer any of my questions. All we have seen is a defense of the people who seek to ban guns. Is this not an indirect support of my conclusions?

          2 — You ask if I would allow ‘criminals’ to have guns. Why do you ask such a question? There are already laws against murder and theft. There are laws which mandate a more severe sentence for using a gun in committing these crimes. There are laws restricting the ability to own or buy a gun if you have a criminal history or mental illness. So, why ask about these things unless you are trying to make a strawman attack on my argument, or an appeal to emotion? And do you not see that I addressed this in my original post, and I asked why these existing laws are ignored and more gun banning is pushed as the only acceptable answer?

          3 — Now turn this around. Why do gun control advocates react to the actions of a criminal by punishing the INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING citizens? Why do they attack a Natural Right? An act as criminal as those who have murdered — because it is an attack on the individual’s God-given right and, therefore, God, Himself!

          4 — Finally, I have shown that gun control is the only ACCEPTABLE answer for the people in question: because it is the only answer they will accept. They ignore the 25,000-something gun control laws already on the books. They ignore the fact that law enforcement failed in most the cases they use to push for more gun control. They ignore the other factors which contribute to the creation of the circumstances which influence these shooters. The only thing they will accept is more gun control, or restrictions on people that make it harder or impossible to gain legal access to a gun. The argument being made here is akin to:

          “You can have your coal plant, it’s just that we’re going to bankrupt you if you try to run it. So, see, we haven’t banned coal plants. I don’t understand why people are saying we have.”

          Allowing something while making that something next to impossible to do is not allowing it: it is banning it without admitting to the ban — and that is a fallacious position. It also happens to be the exact position of the gun banners, as well as those who have been attacking all of our Natural Rights.

      2. Sorry, not arguing, but who you are really asking.

        Just seems you are not really speaking to anyone, it’s just for theaters.

      3. ““Do you notice how the question is set up before I make it? And that I am posing the question to a specific audience?””

        Okay, I have thought about it and fixed my thoughts. You are asking an audience that doesn’t exist. You are expecting us to believe you are asking a group of people that only believe in banning all guns not no laws to deal with the shooter(s).

        You’re asking a group that believe in banning guns and not passing laws to have people with known violent mental health problems be reported or any other measure the focuses on the shooter.

        I don’t think the people you are questioning exist. Please show me who believes only in banning guns and taking no actions to mitigate future occurrences against people who are most likely to commit these crimes in the future.

        I maybe you could explain what mean when you say “…why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

        What do you mean no solutions on the shooters? What are you implying here?

  5. “hen you are starting to drift toward an irrational discussion because you are denying reality ”

    No I accept I have failed to express my points clearly.

    You didn’t address the point of mental health.

    Okay, now you are posting an opinion article, why? Are you saying that person speaks for everyone? I don’t see the point of posting a single article written by a single person. What does that prove? It seems like an issue that Brent raised where you are just pulling in random people who are nobodies to make a point.

    As for the CNBC video, banning all guns for some people. So you oppose that? The video specifically mentioned mental health problems.

    So you are opposed to restricting all access to guns to people who haven’t broken the law but have gone before a judge, seen their due process rights respected and been deemed a threat to others?

    You need to offer more of an explanation than just a link and nothing.

    Someone can have a severe mental health problem under current laws and be denied gun ownership regardless of not having broken the law.

    What is your stance on that?

    1. And there we go: getting off point and leading the discussion into the weeds while still thinking you are on point. Happens every time I try to engage someone with a ‘Leftist’ world view. 😦

      H, the point of the video was simple: it countered your assertion that no one wants to ban all guns. I provided two sources showing that there are several people who would be willing to ban guns — all guns. This defeated your objection, so you ignored it and wandered into the mental health issue.

      I’m sorry if you think everything has to be spoon-fed and explained to the point of infinity before you will accept it (a fallacy, by the way). REASONABLE people do not need this. They can see the logical extension. Now, at this point, I am going to turn you back to the original argument (I am not going to let you try to direct the conversation). Unless and until you can explain why the banning of ANY gun is the answer when the evidence says it does not work, I’m done with you.

  6. Black Tiger,

    You need to see this video from March 6th … just 4 days ago. Regarding the whole VA and forbidding Vets from possessing or owning Guns and ammo !! Especially in light of the VA shooting in Calif !! Very suspicious timing.

    1. Don,

      It’s worse than this. When vets apply for VA aid, they are encouraged to fuile as suffering from PTSD. They are told they can get more money if they do so. What they are NOT told is that this then disqualifies them from being able to legally possess ANY firearm!

      They are going to use things like this to out-law ALL guns. They will expand the definition of ‘semi-automatic’ to cover pistols, and ‘mental illness’ to basically cover anyone who wants to own a firearm. It is how tyrants work.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s