Logical Fallacies of Gun Nuts

I don't know who this is directed towards, but it makes me laugh either way.

It's already a given that the police will not protect you from violent crime. Every antigunner is arguing from abbubble where nothing violent happens to them. I abide by law and I own a gun to protect my family. I don't give a flying ---- what you think

If criminals obey laws then why don't we just outlaw murder and rape. That way my guns won't be affected at all.

Do the terms 'circular logic, logical fallacy,' or 'straw man argument' mean anything to you?

Yes. But obviously not to you. You are implying that if there were more gun laws the criminals would obey them. What part of "Criminal" don't you understand? Perhaps you should look it up. If ever there was a fallacious argument it is that passing more laws means criminals will suddenly start obeying them. Look at Detroit, Chicago, D.C. Philadelphia, Boston, St Louis..they have the strictest gun control laws in the nation and the highest violent crime rates.

Ammosexuals love to keep cherry picking those cities and the 'criminals don't abide by laws' straw man argument as their fallback factoids to support their narrative, yet ignoring any and all evidence supporting what they don't... that more stringent gun regulation will reduce casualties. What you buffoons continue to completely miss is that gun regulation will enact policies toward people. TOWARD PEOPLE. Are you a criminal, criminally insane, or otherwise have any history of mental illness or instability or criminal activity?...... no?... well then... these regulations (preferably better background checks, mandatory screening and testing, training and instruction) don't affect your right to own something that goes "bang." So does that ease your paranoia?

You are ignoring evidence. You just demonstrated that. It's noy cherry picking. It's fact. It's also a fact that gun ownership has WAY up in the past 8 years and the crime rates are down. Except in those cities mentioned above. It also fact that every state that has passed a right to carry law has seen a reduction in violent crime. If you were REALLY concerned about violent crime you would be advocating for the incarceration of all black males between the ages of 16 and 24. That would reduce crime. Maybe we should outlaw pools, as more children are killed in pools every year than by guns. Hammer and other blunt objects also have a higher usage in assualt and murder than so called "assault weapons" so we should require registration at every hardware store for anyone buying a hammer.

Well let's see... a few tiny islands with stricter gun laws... in the middle of a vast sea of guns... hmm...

And by using the cherry picked facts about those cities and ignoring the entire states that have seen a decrease in gun violence due to regulations... I think you may have demonstrated some of your own cognitive dissonance.

It's possible those cities you use as examples have strict gun laws because of the high crime rate, not the other way around. There's very little point restricting guns in one state and then having them freely available in the next state line, as it's still too easy to get them. He is just pointing out that stricter gun laws is a first step to reducing shootings, not a solution to murder.

I'm still waiting for BobParker and DaWeasel to appear in the comments thread. Like moths to a flame.

3 butthurt gun nuts... ah...ah... ahhh...