[BermanPost]

I think it is pretty sound logic, but am curious to see if anyone comes up with good counters.

[Gaffer]

I could just say "Shoot them."......Then you don't have to argue with them anymore.

But that would be wrong.....

[jessduntno]

Simple Logic and The Liberal

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Conservative.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Liberal.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”

[Malsua]

The liberal answer is:

If we restrict the quantity of guns in toto, those restrictions, in aggregate will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if it saves one life....

What those restrictions do is CONCENTRATE guns into the hands of criminals.

Supply restrictions only work _BEFORE_ the reservoir(aggregate ownership) is filled but you’ll never convince a liberal of that. The reservoir has always been full and even if you put every commercial mfg of guns out of business and not make one more round of ammo, it will STILL be filled. Watch the documentary films on the guy who went to the gun markets in Pakistan. These people are fashioning guns and ammo by hand and it works.

[Secret Agent Man]

Their reply to the second question will be “We don’t want ANYONE to have guns. More guns equals more problems.”

That is their logic, regardless of whether you’re a law abiding citizen or not. They will sit there and say guns in the home are dangerous, domestic violence, accidental shootings, etc.

More people die from bare hands (strangling) and screwdrivers in the chest. More kids die in pools and drowning in bathtubs. Knives kill people each year by the hundreds. Cars kill tens of thousands of people, far more than guns do each year. Even your regular general purpose hammer is used quite often to kill someone in their home. Cleaning chemicals in the house kill a bunch of people every year. Jam a fork into your light socket and the electricity can kill you. Are they screaming to ban electricity?

You’d think these people, to prevent being hypocrites, would ban cars, bathtubs, pools, hammers, knives and screwdrivers, and force everyone to wear oven mits before going after guns. If it saves JUST ONE LIFE, right?

Well they don’t, guns are convenient scapegoats for society’s problems and they are denying reality as to who the real threat is with guns, it isn’t law abiding folks wanting to defend themselves and their families. They are hypocrites. Far more dangerous and deadly things are in the home.

[WOBBLY BOB]

The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90 MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20 MPH.

[chainsaw56]

I like that logic – it's straightforward and simple to understand.
An alternative argument is my tag line: Basically the point is Do you have the basic human right to self defense.
Or you ask the person directly if they have that right.
Once they acknowledge that basic human rights concept, the discussion move onto how do you accomplish this goal.
The answer to that HAS to involve firearms because that is the only way you have a chance of having parity with most attackers.
Most other types of defense require physical strength and skill that may not be enough in every situation, not to mention the fact that you attacker may be armed.
But I suspect in both cases the response to these questions will be along the line of obfuscation and distraction away from the main thrust of the argument – that is usually the case when you confront Leftists with simple and logically sound arguments.
For Your response to that response, you have to remember to keep the discussion on the relevant topic and avoid the usual baiting a name calling that always seems to be so prevalent when arguing with Leftists.

[CodeToad]

Only a liberal, a person that runs on emotion, fear, and ignorance, would think that there is so much gun violence that we need to ban guns but if you want a gun to protect yourself from all that violence you are just being paranoid.

[sig226]

The liberal answer to your first question is that they intend to take guns away from everybody - no one will be able to have them. You’ll have to go on to the next question to trip them up.

Should a 21 year old gang member be able to beat a sixty year old woman to death by virtue of his strength and size advanatage?

Even with that, you’ll get a pile of incredibly stupid answers to the effect that such a thing is illegal and if we eliminated the root causes of crime, blah blah blah.