Jump to navigation Jump to search
seed article
This article is under construction and should not be used as a reference.


Source Posts

2015-05-30 Texas Senate green-lights campus carry - much gun-nuttery

It takes a good kid with a rock to stop a bad kid with a rock.

Lots of potential material in this post:

  • Loaded questions:
    • Q: If you think a “no guns” sign is sufficient, why do we have metal detectors at airports?
      • A: It's sufficient in a public park, where someone with a gun could only kill dozens of people; used to take over an airplane, a gun could potentially kill thousands (as in 9/11). (This is so obvious it shouldn't have to be explained.)
    • Q: You think if you don’t see a gun on a person, he doesn’t have one?
      • A: No. The ability to have someone removed if a gun is spotted acts as a deterrent.
    • Q: "If I walk in one door with a gun on my hip, walk through the room, and out the opposite door, how did that harm you?"
      • A: This is equivalent to asking "If I do something dangerous but it comes out okay, then who have I harmed?". It should be obvious that this is not a responsible question.
  • Bogus arguments:
    • "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" variations:
      • "Putting up a sign at a park can only ever stop law-abiding people from bringing their guns into the park."
        • (The basic argument here is that laws don't act as a deterrent to criminals; that claim is explored here.)
      • "...the people we really don't want to have guns in those areas are the same people who would ignore the ban. "
        • (Even just reducing the number of law-abiding citizens carrying guns would be a good thing, as this would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.)
    • Anti-gun sentiment is just bigotry - "your statement sounds dangerously close to the same kind of wording you see republicans using when talking about gays."
      • (The implied equivalence is incorrect; guns are actually harmful.)