How to frame the gun lobby argument to cut off debate

Fast Eddie B said:
From a different thread on a slightly different topic:



My sense is someone discovered a new concept/word and became quite enamored with it.

I personally think the concept adds nothing to an informed debate on the topic at hand. In fact, it does nothing but confuse the actual debate.
Click to expand...

Not a new concept at all. I've been talking about the language code since I joined this forum almost 11 years ago.

If you don't think it adds anything to see how framing manipulates the audience, you're missing something big. Think of it as a layer deeper than the surface debate. Or don't, and let people manipulate how you think about things without you realizing it.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Awesome, adopting the same tactics of those who brought us the "War on Drugs", which coincidentally has far more to do with the USA murder rate than guns.

I guess there's a certain logic to it, if you have no actual argument to make just call them names.
Click to expand...
It worked for cigarettes. Well, that and actual legislation restricting where cigarettes can be sold and by whom, how they are advertised, and education of the public on the real dangers.

None of which seems to be happening for guns.

But this is off-topic, so I'll stop now.
 
The Fool said:
Can I just ask a question. Who here is of the opinion that Australia's Gun control measures were a mass confiscation?


anyone?

Who here is of the opinion that if Obama sites the Australian gun control measures as a good model it really means that he is proposing a mass confiscation?

anyone?
Click to expand...



Yes, "mandatory buyback" sounds much nicer than confiscation. I mean, just because people are proposing to strip people of their Constitutional rights, there's no need to be rude about it. :cool:
 
cmikes said:
Yes, "mandatory buyback" sounds much nicer than confiscation. I mean, just because people are proposing to strip people of their Constitutional rights, there's no need to be rude about it. :cool:
Click to expand...

Please find a direct statement from Obama that he is proposing a mandatory buyback of military assault rifles and large capacity magazines.


Your indirect extrapolation is not sufficient.
 
cmikes said:
Yes, "mandatory buyback" sounds much nicer than confiscation. I mean, just because people are proposing to strip people of their Constitutional rights, there's no need to be rude about it. :cool:
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying buy back?

You just do it un-retropsective
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
I'm referring to the push by anti-gunners to impose yet another round of ineffective restrictions on the law abiding in response to a terrorist attack.

Disarming us isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

So... is denying sales to terrorist suspects going to effectively disarm you? If so, maybe you need to be disarmed? Yeah, I know, there can be problems with who is put on that list, but the government is actually pretty good at having judicial systems in place for appealing such a status... I would assume that there would be a way to get off that list by legally challenging it.
 
Last edited:
Imagine you are setting up a new nation, and at the moment no foreign or domestic enemies are pointing weapons at you, now in the 21st century. Say Scotland had voted for independence, for example, and is peacefully formulating its laws. At what point in the logic of rights and the makings of civil society does the individual right to bear arms appear? Is it subordinate to or in support of other considerations? Is it based on Biblical teachings? Does it take into consideration the density of populated areas in this day and age, and how does it interface with known science about human behavior. In short, today, in a fictional new Scotland, why personal firearms and/or a right to carry?
 
Every time I look at this thread title, I picture a bunch of 30's era Edward G. Robinson types sitting around a smoke filled room...
"M'ah, m'ah, We've got to frame the gun lobby argument, see, m'ah, m'ah, that way we'll cut off the debate, see, m'ah, m'ah. Alright you goons, but how are we gonna do it? m'ah, m'ah, Any ideas?"
 
Mike! said:
Every time I look at this thread title, I picture a bunch of 30's era Edward G. Robinson types sitting around a smoke filled room...
"M'ah, m'ah, We've got to frame the gun lobby argument, see, m'ah, m'ah, that way we'll cut off the debate, see, m'ah, m'ah. Alright you goons, but how are we gonna do it? m'ah, m'ah, Any ideas?"
Click to expand...

Still seems silly to me.

"I don't want to address your arguments yet again, so let's just discuss how those arguments are framed."
 
catsmate said:
Given their track record (trickle-down economics, AGW denialism, pro-tobacco and of course The Bell Curve) I really wouldn't take material from a right-wing think-tank like the American Enterprise Institute without independent support.
Click to expand...



The data is not from the American Enterprise Institute. The data is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I'm not arguing in favor of the conclusion that Mark Perry from AEI draws in his post. He's trying to show that as gun ownership increases, the crime rate falls. That's why I was saying in my previous post that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

My point is that even if you find the evidence that as gun ownership rises, the crime rate falls unconvincing, what can be shown for sure from the data is that as gun ownership rises the crime rate doesn't rise with it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Please find a direct statement from Obama that he is proposing a mandatory buyback of military assault rifles and large capacity magazines.


Your indirect extrapolation is not sufficient.
Click to expand...



The question asked was in regards to Australia. What does President Obama have to do with it? After all, we have your assurance that just because President Obama praised the Australia Model and suggested that the Australia Model would be a good idea for the US to follow doesn't mean that he actually meant that the Australia Model would be a good idea for the US to follow. :confused:
 
cmikes said:
The question asked was in regards to Australia. What does President Obama have to do with it? After all, we have your assurance that just because President Obama praised the Australia Model and suggested that the Australia Model would be a good idea for the US to follow doesn't mean that he actually meant that the Australia Model would be a good idea for the US to follow. :confused:
Click to expand...

You gonna keep chasing this lie around and around?

Did he say everything the Aussies did was what he wanted to do? No.

Is praise the concept but don't the apply the specifics too difficult for you to comprehend?:rolleyes:
 
Just to add fuel to the fire: the American gun-culture is sick.

I mean that quite seriously. Laws aside, the people that desire to own certain weapons, and the way they go about owning them, are completely sick in their head.

What really gets me is whenever I see one of those fulled decked out AR15s. There were people back in the day that owned the "standard" AR15 with only the AWB compliant options. The weapon was still perfectly functional, even if still impractical. But now, I guess it's darn near impossible to find one like it. Everyone that owns one "feels" that the need one with all the pointless options, just because it "looks cool"...

It's not that people can't have tastes for the impractical, but it really takes away from the idea that gun ownership is a serious affair. It's just a plain hobby. And the self-delusion is that this hobby has something to do with the founding fathers, preservation of liberty, and something that god intended.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You gonna keep chasing this lie around and around?

Did he say everything the Aussies did was what he wanted to do? No.

Is praise the concept but don't the apply the specifics too difficult for you to comprehend?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Me thinks if it were a Republican president talking about how neat the pro-life policies of some country are, you'd be singing a different tune.
 
daenku32 said:
Just to add fuel to the fire: the American gun-culture is sick.

I mean that quite seriously. Laws aside, the people that desire to own certain weapons, and the way they go about owning them, are completely sick in their head.

What really gets me is whenever I see one of those fulled decked out AR15s. There were people back in the day that owned the "standard" AR15 with only the AWB compliant options. The weapon was still perfectly functional, even if still impractical. But now, I guess it's darn near impossible to find one like it. Everyone that owns one "feels" that the need one with all the pointless options, just because it "looks cool"...

It's not that people can't have tastes for the impractical, but it really takes away from the idea that gun ownership is a serious affair. It's just a plain hobby. And the self-delusion is that this hobby has something to do with the founding fathers, preservation of liberty, and something that god intended.
Click to expand...

Why is it not a "serious affair" that a person should want a gun in case someone tries to break in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom