Are you against "guns" or "gun crime"?

[forby]

In another thread in which sgmwatkins wrote a letter to a township regarding preemption, there were a few words that rang solidly in my ears.

Those words are "guns" and "gun crime".

It may seem simple, but that just might be what we need to defend against the antis.

The next discussion I have with a gun hater is going to include this line:

Are you against "guns" or "gun crime"?

If the answer is gun crime, then the discussion is over about guns alone. If the answer is guns, then we have a deeper issue if the inanimate object is more of an issue than the crime. "So, it's not the crime or the person that commits it that is a problem????"

If the answer is gun crime, then we are on the same page....

If the answer is both, then I would ask, "Wouldn't it make sense to stop and punish the criminal for the act and take HIS gun away rather than punish the innocent."

I know it's still basically the "guns don't kill" concept, but maybe with a twist that the anti can understand.

Punish the crime not the tool.

[Deleted]

Neither... I'm against CRIME. As a generality, long before they pick up a GUN and start committing GUN CRIMES..they commit a bunch of CRIMES that go unpunished... these unpunished and ignored CRIMES if addressed could possibly prevent GUN CRIMES by keeping them off the street to begin with.

[Gun]

Crimes are committed with all kinds of tools.




Thread in wrong sub-forum.

[Pilot321]

There is no such thing as "gun crime", nor "gun violence". These are terms cooked up by the progressives, and media to demonize guns, and take the blame away from criminals, and deflect it to an inanimate object, thus releasing the criminal from responsibility, and blaming law abiding "society".

[DClan]

There is no such thing as "gun crime", nor "gun violence". These are terms cooked up by the progressives, and media to demonize guns, and take the blame away from criminals, and deflect it to an inanimate object, thus releasing the criminal from responsibility, and blaming law abiding "society".

With this I'll agree. A gun is a tool, nothing more or less. You don't hear about "Hammer crime" or "Hammer violence", or various other tool related violence. Before you start throwing around " but guns can kill quickly and from a distance.", you don't hear about " Crossbow or Compound bow violence" . Or "Yes, but with a gun you can kill multiple targets."...I can kill multiple targets with my car, or a bow, or my personal favorite...The armed NYPD officer or No-Knock SWAT unit at the wrong address. ( okay, they're not my favorite, I just think they should be members of the rubber bullet squad. My favorites are quality throwing knives.)

[TTgunner]

Neither... I'm against CRIME. As a generality, long before they pick up a GUN and start committing GUN CRIMES..they commit a bunch of CRIMES that go unpunished... these unpunished and ignored CRIMES if addressed could possibly prevent GUN CRIMES by keeping them off the street to begin with.

Ding ding we have a winner! Hit the nail on the head.

[Metz]

Neither... I'm against CRIME.

Beat me to that one.

[TParrish]

With this I'll agree. A gun is a tool, nothing more or less. You don't hear about "Hammer crime" or "Hammer violence", or various other tool related violence. Before you start throwing around " but guns can kill quickly and from a distance.", you don't hear about " Crossbow or Compound bow violence" . Or "Yes, but with a gun you can kill multiple targets."...I can kill multiple targets with my car, or a bow, or my personal favorite...The armed NYPD officer or No-Knock SWAT unit at the wrong address. ( okay, they're not my favorite, I just think they should be members of the rubber bullet squad. My favorites are quality throwing knives.)

I have been thinking that everyone who makes the above sort of argument about guns being roughly equal to hammers and such needs to realize that they demonstrate their lack of belief in this argument every time they then fight to keep their gun rights. The reason you want a gun is the exact same reason criminals want a gun, and everyone knows it. It is the portable weapon of choice. Our gun rights need to be protected and should not be infringed. We need, however, to stop making weak and silly arguments to prove that. We need a better narrative.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong.

[Greywolf]

You are offering a false dichotomy. I have the same objection that I have to those who want more gun control to prevent "gun violence."

Guns do not commit crimes, and guns do not perpetrate violence. PEOPLE commit crimes and perpetrate violence. Many more people are killed by automobiles every year than are killed by firearms of ALL types -- where's the outcry to ban automobiles (except for police cars, of course) in order to prevent "car violence"?

Gun violence is simply violence, using a gun as the tool. Gun crime is simply crime, using a gun as the tool. Guns are used to prevent or to defend against crime at least as often as they are used to commit crimes. The real question is (or should be): "Are you against guns or are you against crime?"

[DClan]

I have been thinking that everyone who makes the above sort of argument about guns being roughly equal to hammers and such needs to realize that they demonstrate their lack of belief in this argument every time they then fight to keep their gun rights. The reason you want a gun is the exact same reason criminals want a gun, and everyone knows it. It is the portable weapon of choice. Our gun rights need to be protected and should not be infringed. We need, however, to stop making weak and silly arguments to prove that. We need a better narrative.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong.

It's not a lack of belief in the argument, it's a firm belief in ,at a minimum, a level playing field. ( not that I won't accept any possible advantage, but since I don't have the ability to predict violence or crimes...I'll settle for equal or superior equipment. )