Free Markets, Free People

How do you argue with those who base their arguments in fantasy?

Ah, yes … another sicko rampages and the same old bromides are offered as a cure.  More laws.  Fewer guns.  Yatta, yatta.

Let’s face it, if restrictive laws were the answer, we wouldn’t have a drug problem, would we?  And we’ve tried prohibition before, haven’t we?  How’d that turn out?

What we have among the gun grabbers is an argument based on a false premise.  It goes, “if we restrict or ban something (guns), we’ll have less of something (in this case, violence and death) else.”  To believe that premise, you have to believe that the “something” is the problem and the only problem, and not anything else (i.e. the culture or human nature (or both)).  You have to believe that if you “ban” that something (and in this case the “something” is an inanimate object), that alone will achieve the goal (less violence and death).

There is absolutely no rational basis for such a conclusion, especially when banned object is inanimate. Dumb.  Can’t act on its own.  It isn’t the “cause” of the violence and death.  It may be the instrument, but the cause is holding the gun, or knife, or club or rock, or explosive.

The obvious extension of such thinking is cars cause accidents, spoons make you fat and beer makes us alcoholics.   If we just banned them we’d have no accidents nor would we get fat and there would be no alcoholism. There is no one that will admit to believing that (and at least with the last, we have practical experience to refute the belief).  Yet those who want gun control willingly put forward that argument when it pertains to guns and are amazed when others not only don’t agree but tend to deride them and their argument (and privately, they likely question their ability to reason critically).

So to those of you who know all of this already, I apologize.  I know … basic reasoning 101.  Nothing really magic here.

However, this is the argument those who would ban guns (and “cleverly” try to hide that in phrases like “common sense gun laws” and “more rigorous background checks”) use daily.  And, unfortunately, there is a rather large segment of the population who abandoned critical thinking (and knowledge about history, economics and all sorts of important and useful subjects) a long time ago that buy into this nonsensical argument.

In the case of guns, those who would take yours also live with a number of fantasies they (at least when it concerns guns) consider to be fact and the underly their “argument”.  A) Laws will stop unwanted actions and outcomes.  B) Banning something effectively removes it from society.  And C) Criminals will obey the law and the ban.  Again, no thinking human being can intellectually buy into those fantasies.  Laws don’t stop unwanted outcomes (they proscribe the behavior and punish the law breaker who behaves in that manner), banning usually has the opposite effect, creating a black market in the banned item (and giving it a certain chic) and finally criminals, aka “scofflaws” will not obey the law nor will they honor the ban.  They never have … thus the name.

So, here’s my question – how do you argue with people who insist on fantasy based arguments?

Ok, so it’s sort of rhetorical – the answer, as you all know, is “you don’t”.

You don’t waste your time or your effort on people who seem unable to separate fact from fiction/fantasy and critical arguments from bunk.

The problem, of course, is if you remain silent, then the “low information” types are left with a single, screechy and strident voice that misrepresents facts and figures to back their fantasies.

And we all know that if they get enough of that type, things like “prohibition” happen (and frankly, it is a miracle of sorts that prohibition actually was repealed … government rarely gives up any power it gathers to itself).

If you want to see a civil war in this country, it likely won’t be about race, or abortion, or even a hundred other wedge issues.

It’ll be about guns and who is or isn’t allowed to keep them.

~McQ

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

16 Responses to How do you argue with those who base their arguments in fantasy?

  • Not to beat a dead horse but Common sense aspects on the issue.
    – If someone is willing to kill and in the process likely be killed in the process, then going to the bad part of town and buying a gun from a trunk really a barrier?
    – Also, if we can’t stop the flow of drugs or illegal aliens, how do you prevent a flow of guns into the country? What if they come in with each “migrant”? whatcha gonna do then?
    – If the near absolute to these shootings that a gun free or restricted zone is involved. It allows the psycho to become God unchallenged for 15 minutes or so. What happens to the value of a gun to a criminal if the entire country is turned into a gun free zone? If you don’t believe that gun free zones are invitations to these predators, please swear off firearms from you own home and put a sign up declaring how proud you are that your home is a gun free zone.

  • Bu….but….. they’re working on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals!!!!! You can’t object to that!!!!!!

    Was this last asshat a criminal BEFORE he went on his rampage?
    No.

    Bu….But….. they’re working to keep them out of the hands of Mental cases (as we used to call them before we were oh so correct)
    Was this guy officially a ‘mental case’ – not that I’ve heard so far, a lot of allegations, pretty obvious he WAS, but….officially? I bet not.

    Then we’ll just have to round up all the guns to make everyone safe!
    And yet lately we’ve heard the repetitive whining that we CAN’T round up all the illegal immigrants here in the US.

    but they DO think they can round up all the guns.
    yeah.

    So this next Presnitdential mandate should be a riot as Precious orders his thugocracy agencies to take action, and the noble losers in the GOP Gentry Congress vow to fight after they’ve privately told him they’re ready to surrender to whatever he wants.

    • Well, they think they can round up all the guns except those carried by illegal immigrants. They will probably wind up as security guards for gated communities.

      • Heck – yes, illegal gun owners will be criminals.

        Illegal immigrants won’t be.

        It’s simple see?

        because ‘Illegal immigrants’ are “immigrants”, not criminals, but ‘illegal gun owners’ are always “illegal gun owners” with ALL the emphasis on the word illegal.
        They’ll remember that word works out to ‘criminal’ when they want to put it in front of the words “gun owner”.

        In short progressives are lying a**holes.

  • So, here’s my question – how do you argue with people who insist on fantasy based arguments?

    I suggest we MUST, and you already provided the answer.

    “Let’s face it, if restrictive laws were the answer, we wouldn’t have a drug problem, would we?”

    You ask that question. Then you walk away. That’s it. State the question…then walk away.

    • Wouldn’t it be better to crack them in the mouth, and then walk away?

      I mean really. These are people who think that rounding up millions of illegals is impossible but setting up a confiscatory gun regime is gonna happen w/o trouble.

      No real engagement with these people is possible. They’re not trusted, they won’t be given an inch. That’s that

      • But, shark, using my method, you DON’T go to jail for assault and battery!

        I know your method is very, very satisfactory in the moment. But it does have a down-side, and I think is actually LESS convincing!

  • Of course, we’ve let the Left control the discussion again. Notice we’re not talking about the shooter and not calling for all Atheists to drop their anti-nativity lawsuits as penance for this anti-Christian shooter.

  • The guy whined about not having a girl friend as part of his shootem up reason.

    Therefore – I think we should mandate that all single girls of various appropriate ages be put into a selective service where they are obligated to date age appropriate dipwads like the shooter to keep them from “going postal”.
    There are too many annoying whiney single new age males running lose who think they are entitled to female companionship no matter how weird or socially obnoxious they may be.
    Forcing women to date them for the good of society is the only way we can stop crimes like this from occurring in the future.

    • … and remember, camera time given to these gun-toting celebrities is camera time that our political narcissist “leaders” don’t get.

    • Personally I get the vibe there is a deliberate disinformation campaign on this guy. Tidbit here, tidbit there. Wikipedia discussion is was obvious someone was trying to sweep his race under the rug and attribute this to his white supremacists views which apparently is concluded from the fact he had a gamer name ironcross55 somewhere.

  • There’s no argument. The response to these people is quite simple:

    NO. Nothing, not an inch not a single iota will be given. Because we don’t trust the government and we certainly don’t trust you.

    Period.

    Do something about it, if you feel strong.

    • They’ll see nothing at all unusual or ironic in sending in people with guns to make sure you don’t have any guns.
      They’re secretly hoping you do something untoward so they can kill you because if you believe you have some sort of weird right to own guns you probably deserve to die .

      Once that have that sorted, they’ll be sending other men armed with guns around to make sure you’re paying proper homage to consensus climate ‘science’.