Can someone explain the argument for gun control

do you need an argument against cancer as well? or eating lead paint chip?

It’s simple:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But without the gun in the person’s hand they can’t kill other people as easily.

Using the “cars kill people” counter doesn’t work here because nobody intentionally kills someone with a car. A person with a gun does intentionally kill people. In other words, it’s not an accident for me to point a gun at your head and pull the trigger. It is an accident if my car slides off an icy road and kills 5 people on the sidewalk.

If your argument is “I want a gun for self defense” then it’s also simple:

A handgun can stop an intruder equally well as an assault rifle so there’s abslolutely no reason to have assault rifles on the street.

Trying to ban guns, or take guns away from law abiding citizens in the USA will never work as there are just too many out there on the market. Outlawing just the "assault weapon" gun won't work easily either as an "assault weapon" and a standard deer hunting rifle are essentially the same thing as far as mechanics are concerned.

It would be much easier instead to ban all ammunition sales as well as gun powder and reloading supplies. As the years go by old ammo supplies would be gone or used. Yes, "my uncle Bob" probably has 4,000 rounds of this and 7,000 rounds of that stored in his basement but for all practical reasons he's probably not the one you need to worry about.

Outside of paranoid lunatics, there is no need for anyone to own a gun except for:

High-powered hunting rifle (bolt-action). I have a 300WSM myself.

Bird-hunting shotgun - 12ga, pump action.

Home defense: tactical shotgun, 2nd place: various handguns

There are so many guns in this country that they could probably ban sales and manufacturing of new guns and no one would notice for 100 years.

To the OP, the argument for gun control is that mentally ill people seem to be getting access to guns and killing people. It's reasonable to want to restrict their most common tool for killing people. Sure they could resort to bombs, cars, knives, whatever. But right now, they are using guns most often, and guns that really aren't needed by anybody outside of law enforcement and military (see my list above).

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Using the “cars kill people” counter doesn’t work here because nobody intentionally kills someone with a car.

Maybe not with a "car" but with a truck.

you already agree with the argument. The Right to Bear Arms is already being infringed upon and you agree with it 100% unless you are a psychopath who wants citizens to own nuclear missiles.

As a society, we have come to an understanding that some arms are too dangerous for citizens to own. There is some disagreement about where the actual line is, but for the most part the country is in agreement on what type of arms a citizen can and can't own.

No one wants citizens to own surface to air missiles or rocket launchers. Very few people want citizens owning .50 Caliber machine guns or grenades. Most people are ok with citizens owning a hunting rifle.

There is a large vocal minority that threaten to get violent and kill people if the line is moved slightly to exclude assault weapons. They are mostly an unhinged fringe group with no interest in logic or reality.

If you argue for citizens owning assault rifles based on the 2nd amendment then you are logically obligated to argue for them owning rocket launchers too.

I've yet to hear a legitimate response to this.

mylegshurt wrote:

I have yet to hear a legitimate answer. Inform me

I guess the best argument might be that our rate of gun ownership is twice the rate of any other country in the world, and our annual rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is much, much higher than any first-world country.

Gun control would certainly decrease suicides.

The truth is, there is no good argument AGAINST gun control, in an American context--except that gun control would lead to fewer gun sales and thus lower the profits of gun manufacturers. The only argument beyond that is based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that forbids gun control in the interests of retaining a "well-regulated militia."

Well reasoned evidence based responses that generally refute the alt-right narrative on LRC, this is definitely getting deleted.

Deletion comin wrote:

Well reasoned evidence based responses that generally refute the alt-right narrative on LRC, this is definitely getting deleted.

just because you agree with them doesn't make them well reasoned.

live free or die wrote:

Deletion comin wrote:

Well reasoned evidence based responses that generally refute the alt-right narrative on LRC, this is definitely getting deleted.

just because you agree with them doesn't make them well reasoned.

Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean the are not well reasoned.

Guns kill people. How afraid are you of an unarmed person?

sbeefyk2 wrote:

It’s simple:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But without the gun in the person’s hand they can’t kill other people as easily.

Using the “cars kill people” counter doesn’t work here because nobody intentionally kills someone with a car. A person with a gun does intentionally kill people. In other words, it’s not an accident for me to point a gun at your head and pull the trigger. It is an accident if my car slides off an icy road and kills 5 people on the sidewalk.

If your argument is “I want a gun for self defense” then it’s also simple:

A handgun can stop an intruder equally well as an assault rifle so there’s abslolutely no reason to have assault rifles on the street.

1.Do you really think no one has ever used a car to kill someone intentionally?

2. Do you actually think it is possible to make all guns disappear?

3. Let's pretend all guns were made illegal. Do the people that don't obey the law suddenly start and turn in their guns? No

4. An "assault rifle" by definition is

as·sault ri·fle

noun

a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. Full automatic guns have been illegal since the 80's.

5. Who are you to determine if a handgun can stop an intruder as well as a handgun? What caliber handgun? What caliber rifle? Have you ever used either?

why bother? wrote:

do you need an argument against cancer as well? or eating lead paint chip?

Neither cancer or eating a lead paint chip yield any positives. Moronic response

KudzuRunner wrote:

mylegshurt wrote:

I have yet to hear a legitimate answer. Inform me

I guess the best argument might be that our rate of gun ownership is twice the rate of any other country in the world, and our annual rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is much, much higher than any first-world country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Gun control would certainly decrease suicides.

The truth is, there is no good argument AGAINST gun control, in an American context--except that gun control would lead to fewer gun sales and thus lower the profits of gun manufacturers. The only argument beyond that is based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that forbids gun control in the interests of retaining a "well-regulated militia."

Yours seems to be the only Western democracy that thinks private citizens should retain arms as a defence against their own government. A strange notion of democracy. 1776 was a long time ago.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

Outside of paranoid lunatics, there is no need for anyone to own a gun except for:

High-powered hunting rifle (bolt-action). I have a 300WSM myself.

Bird-hunting shotgun - 12ga, pump action.

Home defense: tactical shotgun, 2nd place: various handguns

There are so many guns in this country that they could probably ban sales and manufacturing of new guns and no one would notice for 100 years.

To the OP, the argument for gun control is that mentally ill people seem to be getting access to guns and killing people. It's reasonable to want to restrict their most common tool for killing people. Sure they could resort to bombs, cars, knives, whatever. But right now, they are using guns most often, and guns that really aren't needed by anybody outside of law enforcement and military (see my list above).

Do you really believe that no one outside of law enforcement and military need guns? When someone breaks into your house you call guys with guns to come help? You honestly can't see a problem with only government having guns? ?

Cars don't kill people? wrote:

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Using the “cars kill people” counter doesn’t work here because nobody intentionally kills someone with a car.

Maybe not with a "car" but with a truck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Exactly. I couldn't help but laugh at the fact he/she said no one uses cars to intentionally kill..

mylegshurt wrote:

why bother? wrote:

do you need an argument against cancer as well? or eating lead paint chip?

Neither cancer or eating a lead paint chip yield any positives. Moronic response

A moron might also think a gun is a positive thing as well. But, hey - it's the American way.