Dumbest NRA Argument EVER

[Indy]

BINGO. Thank you for being I think the first poster to actually post on-topic.

You're absolutely correct--not to ban guns, but to display the completely incoherent logic behind LaPierre's latest argument.

You saw early on that one failed argument was offered to attempt to rebut LaPierre's failed argument: well, Chicago has these strict gun control laws and those obviously aren't working so...

Well no sh*t they're not working, because criminals usually aren't worried about... gun control laws! And obviously the ones on the books aren't doing anything.

But it also demonstrated the false choice, absolutist mentality that sandbags so many important issues in this country--you see any critics of the NRA or LaPierre's idiotic contentions and out come all the Pavlov dogs to the dinner bell, hurling insults and stereotypes and all the other pre-scripted responses rather than considering that neither of the two false choices work so I dunno... how about a third?

[Ameriman]

[Indy]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

Where did you get the idea that this thread was about banning guns? Because it's not.

It's about taking apart LaPierre's absolutely absurd attempted argument that had the player's GF been armed, she would have survived. Her ARMED boyfriend.

Right.

[Ameriman]

[cool_chick]

Lots of guns =/= no violence also. Those that have gun control in rural areas have low crime rate. It's not due to having guns or not having guns, it's due to population size and people per square foot and yada yada.

[Ameriman]

[cool_chick]

Ameriman, please get on topic already. No one here is talking about banning guns.