Everyone with a gun is a good guy until they kill someone. You’ve heard this argument over and over from the gun crowd. So let’s extend it a bit to other crimes. Everyone who hasn’t burglarized a house isn’t a burglar until they rob someone’s house so don’t bother locking your doors or windows or installing an alarm system because nobody is a burglar until they rob someone’s house. No need to take precautions. Everyone that hasn’t committed voter fraud isn’t guilty, so no need to ask for ID when voting, no need to bother registering to vote since everyone who hasn’t committed voter fraud isn’t guilty of anything already. Everyone who hasn’t been in a car accident isn’t responsible for those that have had accidents so no need to carry car insurance. Why bother insuring yourself when you’ve never had an accident? Right? Feel free to add your own crime... We never seem to talk about the rights of people that haven’t burglarized homes. We never seem to talk about the rights of people that haven’t committed voter fraud. And we never seem to talk about the rights of those people paying for car insurance that have never had an accident. So why do we focus on the rights of people with guns that haven’t killed anyone? What is wrong with talking about ways to minimize gun violence and take sane steps to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook? Maybe talking about the people that don’t commit crimes like these mass shootings is sort of stupid and will never solve anything? Maybe?
Following your logic, so long as it does not step on the right of those who have not experienced a school shooting, go for it.
Neglecting to buy toilet paper to wipe the remnants of concentrated evil (see: christian belief, as well as Klingons) comin' out of your butt. OK, maybe not a crime, but really, really stupid.
You're taking the scenarios to illogical conclusions, Little Joe. Wouldn't you agree with the following scenarios? 1. Everyone with a baseball bat is a good guy until they hit someone over the head with it. 2. Everyone with a knife is a good guy until they stab someone with it. 3. Everyone with a claw hammer is a good guy until they jam it into someone's eye. Your scenarios of not buying insurance, not locking doors, etc. is absurd.
It's called ruductio ad absurdum and is a valid for of argument, unlike the ad hominem expressed by rlm.
The only thing you are doing is making the same argument the gun crowd makes about owning guns except you're making it about owning a different object. You're making exactly the same argument. The point that went completely over your head was that gun crime is treated completely differently than other common crimes. We don't leave our doors unlocked until we're robbed at some point, we don't just assume that people are not going to commit voter fraud but make them register before the election, we don't wait until we have an accident until we buy car insurance, we assume the possibility and prepare for it. But when it comes to guns, you have to shoot someone before any action is taken to prevent you from doing it a second time. WHY? Why can't we take steps to prevent the first shooting? That is the point you'll never comprehend either because you can't or because you won't. Either way, you are simply part of the problem with gun ownership in this country. You'll never be part of the solution. Anyone can see that.
I don't think I have ever heard that argument. I have heard that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of those who follow the law. And guns don't kill people, people kill people. And probably a number of other sayings. But I honestly can say I have never heard anyone say that everyone with a gun is a good guy until they kill someone. If I did hear anyone say it, I would have to say they are an idiot. Just because some gang banger toting a gun in Chicago hasn't shot anyone yet, doesn't mean he is a good guy. It just means he hasn;t shot anyone yet. Geeze, If anyone has said what you posted, they are a moron. A babbling brook of stupidity.
There really is no difference between my statement and the ones you posted realistically even if I phrased them slightly differently. Essentially, gun owners are all good guys until they commit a gun crime. Same difference.
Gun owners may not necessarily be "good guys" any more than any other demographic. Until they commit a crime with a gun, however, they're "non-offenders". The same can be said about drivers who don't drive drunk; they're non-offenders until they drive drunk. See? If your argument is about "offenders" or "non-offenders" then you really don't have an argument. Naturally, everyone is a "non-offender" until they commit a crime. Do you want to regulate every instrument that anyone could possibly use as a weapon? Do you live in THAT much fear?
I simply refuse to believe that Joe can outdo me in making people scratch their heads...it's disconcerting...therefore I postulate the following, while grinning, of course: It is clear that the people most vehement about preventing gun use are the victims of shootings and the surviving families. No fear, with all the shooting going on, sooner or later everyone will get a chance to be one of those people themselves. How's that? Not enough? I can add clowns to the mix if it helps. Angry shooting clowns. The kids'll go nuts. It'll be the next big thing parents just gotta have to outdo the neighbors.
Don't you just love it when Democrats try to take away our Constitutional rights? View attachment 1511
