Enough with the extremists, let’s get a common sense gun control thread going. The plan:

Enough with the extremists, let’s get a common sense gun control thread going. The plan:

1. Purchasing, gifting, or otherwise exchanging firearms can only be done with a licensed dealer present.
2. Firearms cannot change hands without a background check.
3. Ban all high-capacity firearms (clips and magazines), with “high capacity” defined as more than 10 rounds.

This wouldn’t prevent all gun deaths in America. It’s not intended to. But it could make it more difficult for mentally ill or otherwise unfit people to carry out mass shootings.

Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

And don’t come at me with any variation of the following false equivalencies and slippery slope fallacies:

1. Cars are responsible for unnecessary deaths and cars can be used to kill people, so let’s ban cars. (nope, there’s a difference between things that were invented with a nonviolent primary purpose but are misused in a dangerous way and guns, which were invented with the primary purpose of killing things and are sometimes used for non-lethal secondary purposes like “plinking”...also, no one is taking away your right to "plink")

2. ANY attempt at gun control will inevitably lead to ALL guns being banned - (nope, there is no indication whatsoever that banning ALL firearms is SERIOUSLY being considered by either political party)

3. Gun control will inevitably transform our democracy into a dictatorship because people won’t be able to fight against their own military/police/government - (nope, you can still fight the government with 10-round Glocks, shotguns, and deer rifles)

4. Gun control will leave my family defenseless, since only criminals will have guns – (nope, no one is taking away your ability to defend your house with a shotgun or carry a concealed handgun)

I'll take the bait.
1 and 2 are already in place for the most part. 3 is just stupid.
>Should I bring one 30-round mag or 3 10-round mags to kill people tomorrow?

Gun control advocates lack the maturity to grasp the grim truth of the way the world works. For various reasons people are going to kill other people. What tool they use is arbitrary.

Not only would I, I would so fucking hard that my neck would be constipated with his shit for a week.
It goes something like this.
Andy grins and slidds his studded faggot skinny jeans down enough to reveal his ass and maybe 1/8th of his black veil ballsack. I part his ass cheeks and press my nose against his anus.
>sniff sniff
And now the feeding begins. His anus instantly dilates to about 5-inches agape and starts rapid-firing mud rockets done my fucking throat. Thump thump thump, my gullet fills with his creamy shit as the steam completely obscures my vision. Andy is reduced to a ghostly figure in the thick, humid clouds of rectum-breath. It is like a dream. My neck bulges and ripples as my esophagus and stomach are packed full of the creamiest shit ever to be shat. The word "supreme" enters my thoughts as a particularly corn-studded, monolithic turd skid marks my uvula on it's journey inward. It's as though a thousand lumps of fecal matter are playing bumper cars in my scat-trap. Just as I am delighted and terrified to notice that my throat may literally rupture, a loud and prolonged fart blows my hair back; this signals that the meal is through. I hardly manage to choke down the last loaf as Andy digs in to his fifth Chipotle bowl today. I wipe the stray flecks of scat out of my eyes before collapsing in euphoric cloggedness and say a prayer.
Our Logger,
whose anus is in contact with your lips,
Hallowed be thy colon;
Thy shitlog down your fucking throat come,
Thy will be dung
with turds, as it is with spicy diarrhea:
Give us this day our daily dump;
And forgive us our imperfect sphincter,
as we forgive those that choke on your feces,
And lead us not into the hands of Dani Filth,
But deliver us from the piss patrol:
For thine is the asshole over Sup Forums with a creamy, dreamy steamer,
the power over the cock raters, and the redditors
For ever and ever.
Logmen.

> What tool they use is arbitrary.

Nope. When was the last time you heard of someone in the US killing 17 people in 10 minutes with a knife?

The tool DOES matter. It takes time to reload three 10 round magazines as opposed to one 30 round magazine. That time frame is a lot more when you bump it up to a 100rd magazine. It matters.

banning blacks would be a good start for overall gun crime statistics in the US.

Most mass shooters are white.

>common sense gun control
DNC translation to normal speak
BAN ALL GUNS

> 1 and 2 are already in place for the most part. 3 is just stupid.

didn't they try to pass a law about universal background checks after sandy hook but it didn't pass?

I'd like to direct you to item #2 here You may take your seat.

1 and 2 are not true, except in some states. I can give anybody a gun where I live. Nobody knows what guns I own except for things like AR-15s.

The problem with all gun control legislation is that Americans love guns. We always have. Americans also have a very complicated relationship with our government. We don't trust them very much. We never have.

It's the distrust in government, though, that's the big issue. You youngfags may not remember, but the NRA wasn't always a lobbying organization completely against any gun control measure. But if you've been around long enough, you've seen "common sense" gun control laws get broadened and expanded over time to the point where you recognize a gun-grabber as soon as they open their mouth. Gun-grabbers are not popular. Because reason one above.

why would you want to deliberately give yourself the worst hand possible in a poker game? Banning things doesn't stop them from existing. The 30 round magazine in the military vet's closet IS STILL THERE when you ban them. You're not solving anything, you're giving yourself a handicap when it comes time to use that weapon against tyranny. Don't kid yourself either; it's coming.

A lot more people are dying from opioid overdoses. Get your priorities straight - its not being dealt with because pharmaceutical companies and the AMA have even more money than the NRA.

Good post, very reasonable.

The problem seems to be that people can't distinguish between the right to own some kinds of guns and the right to own high-capacity military-style assault weapons. In the scenario above, no one is arguing that Americans can't feed their paranoia about the government by owning guns...just that they can't own rifles with high-capacity magazines.

Blacks kill more people. Do you object more to the number dead or the optics of mass shootings user?

>Don't kid yourself either; it's coming.
Your tinfoil hat is on too tight

False equivalency. No one is saying that opioids aren't a deadly problem. They are. So are high-capacity assault rifles. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Completely unenforceable. Would do nothing except make you feel better. Waste of time effort and money.

It's the "high capacity" part that trips you up. 30 is high capacity? The AR will come with a 29 round magazine. Now "high capacity" gets lowered to 20. And so on, until the only thing left are flintlock rifles and bad language.

Or you get to Britfag levels of faggotry where butterknives and baseball bats are banned because violence. And that's fine for Britfags. Amerifags will not stand for it.

...

Just stating a fact about mass shooters in America. They're mainly white guys.

Black people are responsible for gun violence too and that shit needs to be addressed. But how does that undermine the argument put forward in the OP about those particular steps toward gun control?

Protip, it doesn't. It's called deflection.

Nope. This is a variation of #3 in .

It's a slippery slope to say that lowering the capacity of firearms to 10 rounds will inevitably end with single-shot flintlocks or a ban of all firearms.

So let the AR-15 makers churn out 10rd clips. Again, the object is common sense gun reform, not elimination.

This was meant for you

Because OP's arguments are to address mass shootings, which are a tiny blip on the radar of deaths from guns. If that's your argument, you're not opposed to death per se, you just don't want to see upsetting things on TV. You're optimizing solutions for the wrong problem.

So what happens when the next mass shooting occurs with 10 round magazines? How do you address this new reality?

the number of dead. blacks usually kill other blacks so nobody cares. mass shootings affect everyone.

The plan is to have at least one AR in every classroom. Any other plan won't work.

No. The conversation about mass shootings is relevant given the events of the last 24 hours. The killer used an AR-15 with high-capacity magazines. Taking the steps above ("common sense" not elimination) might help prevent a similar thing from happening in the future.

Other forms of gun violence should also be addressed. There's no mutual exclusion here.

Also, by your logic, because mass shootings are a small minority of gun deaths, measures shouldn't be taken to prevent them. If a danger can be lessened with a simple solution, why WOULDN'T you pursue it?

Fuck off hillary. Take your shit to other place.

And take bernie with you

Because nobody care of niggers

Great question. Inevitably mass shootings with 10-round magazines would occur. And when they did, then people would have to see what kind of guns were being used, what kind of tactics were being used by the shooter, what could be done to further prevent it.

If it turns out that some particular kind of ammunition was used more often, then people might consider banning it. This is how laws are made. You identify a problem and you address it. That doesn't mean that ALL guns are going to be confiscated...which is where you seem to be headed with your argument.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE I can't think of a reasonable argument so REEEEEEEEEEE

Careful with the "by your logic," because that's exactly where
>Cars are responsible for unnecessary deaths and cars can be used to kill people, so let’s ban cars
comes from. Taking the steps above is entirely unlikely to help prevent the next school shooting. Why? Because there are lots of gun and high capacity magazines out there already. It won't help, but it might make you feel better because you've DONE SOMETHING. You're not concerned with the problem, just your own feelings. That's how women think and it makes bad policy.

Did you know that so far in February, 19 people have been killed in Chicago alone? More than Florida, and that's just one city.

No. The OP admitted that the steps wouldn't prevent all mass shootings. It would only possibly help. And given the current political climate surrounding the gun debate, the above steps might be all that's possible at the moment.

If you truly wanted to prevent ALL school shootings and ALL crimes due to gun violence, the simplest solution would be to ban all guns, to get the military or whoever to go house to house, risk an uprising by prepper gun nuts, and confiscate all firearms...

But that wouldn't be "common sense" gun reform, and it wouldn't be reasonable. The reason we don't ban cars is, despite their danger, they provide a useful service to us. The reason we don't ban firearms is because they also provide a useful service to those who hunt or want to defend themselves, and also a psychological comfort that we have some power over "the boogie man" (Marxists, Hilary, blacks, whoever).

So yes, it might be a baby step toward preventing gun violence, but it's a step.

By contrast, your "solution" is to drone on and on about how "niggers in Chicago" are the real problem. But you haven't offered a single solution to that situation or the situation surrounding mass shootings.

Again we go, round and round on the merry go round. The next school shooting is a guy with a .38 snub nose revolver. He's got three of them, and because he's got a tiny revolver, he has to change tactics. Hell, he could get a higher body count because he has to get closer and can make better kill shots. Or he goes shotgun. You're going to ban shotguns and shells?

Or the next loner goes all Al Queda and rigs an IED with a propane tank.

I suggest that this is not a gun problem. We've got a social order problem compounded by a mental health problem. It takes a profoundly disturbed person to arm up and march into a school shooting kids, and we reward that behavior by making that person infamous. Why not pass a law that bans all media coverage of mass shootings? That's certainly part of the problem, and we can pass a law to address that problem. Right?

yet those mass shootings are only responsible for less than .01% of gun deaths, do you want to stop gun deaths or just mass shootings?

and alcohol kills more than opioids and guns combined maybe we should ban that instead

>it's a step
Yes, I'm aware it's a step. A step towards what? You say "preventing gun violence". And you also say the simplest would be "ban all guns". Which, by the rules of the thread, we can't talk about because reasons.

Also
>psychological comfort that we have some power over "the boogie man"
shows you are not approaching this issue with a mind open to reason. You apply bad faith reasons because your mind is already made up. As said before, Americans can spot a gun-grabber as soon as they start talking.

If you make it difficult for them to get guns they will move on to something easier to get. A trip to the hardware store and some easily researched info and you can make high explosives in your kitchen.

Why does Switzerland not have the same gun violence that the US does?

In Switzerland, all men must go through compulsory military service. Once their service is finished, they get to keep their weapon.
In Switzerland, every family owns at least one assault rifle. Most families own arsenals of weapons, as shooting culture is huge there.
But, they don't have school shootings? Why?

Their kids aren't socially awkward sperg lords who were raised by there retard single mothers

Again, you're using a slippery slope fallacy and you're not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is practical measures that should receive support for their rootedness in "common sense".

Also, this talk about how mental health is the REAL problem is just a form of deflection. It's much easier to disarm a mentally ill person than to treat the cause of their mental illness. In both cases, the person is rendered non-violent. And like the other poster who keeps arguing about how mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket in terms of gun violence, there's a flaw in your logic, by which the larger problem of mental illness somehow negates the killing capacity of assault rifles. Why can't mental illness and gun control go hand in hand. The logic of people like yourself seems to be: mental illness is the real problem, not gun control, and even though I don't have any practical solutions for treating mental illness, in the meantime we should allow mentally ill people access to assault rifles. Makes no sense.

You lost me at "common sense." This is a sales phrase meant to divide. Everyone who disagrees is instantly against common sense and therefore an idiot.

To a degree, yes. I think that people need to start calling out the fucking weirdos at school. The lame, bullied, autistic fucks that seem like they're going to do something.
At this point, there needs to be some legal way that authorities can take this autist and force them to undergo involuntary psychiatric examinations.

No niggers and less people over all

>clips
Asshole. Go away.

You have to remember you are dealing with a constitutional right. Limiting the access to firearms is violating your rights. Who is to determine what is a mental illness? You get one xanax prescription and no more firearms for you?
its not as simple as making a few laws.

Just raise your kids to not treat others like shit also don't allow it at public schools. The amount of abuse some kids go through in school is criminal.

They have the right idea when it comes to immigration. They are not part of the EU, so their laws allow people to visit, but not live or work in Switzerland. They can stay there and spend their money, but have no rights.
They can essentially pick and choose who gets to become a citizen.

SMALL HOMOGENEOUS GROUPS. MUTUAL IDENTITY AND MUTUAL VALUES.

I want to live in Switzerland.

Switzerland is a tightly ordered society. And according to Wikipedia, their crime rate is on an upswing in accordance with higher numbers of immigrants.

Same tbh, if I move there do I have to serve Again? I was already in the US Navy for 4 years.

Military service. weeds out the crazies.

Of course I'll raise my children to be good citizens. Hopefully, kek...

But clearly there are parents in this country that are out of touch with their kids. The child most likely has a mental disability.
There needs to be another body that can assess the situation without bias, and can take the kid to perform tests on them. That's really the only way I see it changing.

>760035296

>out of touch with their kids
There are parents that are out of touch with reality. Or just plainly don't give two shits about their kids.

It's not a slippery slope when it's already been explained that, once one "common sense" gun control measure is passed and doesn't stop the violence, more "common sense" gun control must then be implemented.

It's not a fallacy when it's already on the table. You need to stop getting your debating lessons from reading Snopes articles.

Thank you for your service.

I bet you could land a very good job in the military there. And it would be easy compared to what a US service member is used to.

On faith, there are many things that one could say
Perhaps you might understand one way, but
Everyone is different
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
Tomorrow, even you may find yourself in an awakened state
Humans are connected to things which most filter perceptively
Everyone can attain great consciousness, however
Demons are real also
Open the gate of the mind
Once opened though, there is no going back
Really, you need not seek the way for you are on the path
Guns, abortions, politics
Everyday distractions to keep us from the one thing
The discovery of the means of self actualization
Once you see what the powers that be are up to, you will be on your way to understanding
No one should be subjected to the beast system
Time and time again for eons
History repeats itself
Every time, there is a turning point, a chance to end the cycle
Freedom hasn't happened for this world yet though
Lucifer is just a name for an entity functioning on a level you can't see
One of many names
Only through developing the inner abilities will people like you ever see
Reality is not what it seems
Energy is wasted on the mundane
Vision is intentionally obscured
Even when you are told you disbelieve
Revelations are not easy to contend with
Your young minds are corrupted by technology
By the time you awake, it could be too late
Once again, the cycle continues
Dreaming of useless material gain
Your lives slip away while you chase nothing
When will you ever learn?
Almost no one cares
Life is not your body
Killing is the most profitable business on this planet
This is a prison world
Hell is not elsewhere, this is it
Everyone here is a prisoner
Damnation is what you are now experiencing
If you ever hope to be free you must change your ways
Not many are devoted enough to gain the knowledge to escape
Only a select few, will you join them?
Somehow I don't think you will
Anyways, this is not the forum for this
Uncaring fools abound here
Really, I don't know why I even bother

I was a shipboard electrician so odds are it's the same but I've been out for 2 years and don't want to go back at all.

I think the best way would be to take the mentally disturbed or ill, and put them in schools separate from the other, normal, children.
In doing so, what will happen is that if they do shoot up their school, all it will do is lower the amount of kids who are more likely to commit such shootings, and potentially prevent more.
What shouldn't happen is what OP's 3 is. Then, what will happen is the shooters will use the smaller mags, but use more mags.
If you thought what happened recently was bad, just wait until democrats get their way.

I'll take the bait, since you're one of the only people on here who actually addresses the argument.

>Yes, I'm aware it's a step. A step towards what? You say "preventing gun violence". And you also say the simplest would be "ban all guns". Which, by the rules of the thread, we can't talk about because reasons.

The only reason I mentioned a total ban is because you said that the steps suggested in the OP wouldn't work, and I was making the point that the only complete solution would be the most radical one. But I also said that it wouldn't be a common sense solution to impost a total ban (hence my ban on mentioning it as a solution in this post ). In other words, the object is to put forward some kind of solution that is not extreme (i.e. might be accepted by a broad portion of the population) and which might lessen the severity of gun violence.

As my comments about the "boogie man", are you able to argue in good faith that people don't use guns in order to feel secure? Plenty of people own guns because they fear something, and plenty of those fears are ultimately unfounded. In that belief, you're correct, my mind is made up. But it doesn't mean I begrudge a person's right to own a weapon for defense against the boogie man.

Finally, you STILL have yet to put forward a single solution. All you've done is tear down and you've offered nothing to counter. In case you thought it was enough to do so, I'm telling you now, it's not. Please offer a solution to the problem of gun violence, which is practical and easily achievable...one that will not just "make you feel like you've done something."

Sup Forums.mp-1

If the words offend you, then chose another word. Would "achievable gun reform" sound better to your ears?

Fuck off, we've already got gun control.

Liberal logic: pass more laws to force compliance with laws already in place.

We should just pass a law making it illegal to kill someone. Wait...

Three things:
- access to ammo is limited, generally you buy it on a shooting range and can't take it with you. Most people don't have ammo at home
- gun permit is a privilege, not a right. You need to prove that you can handle a gun and keep it safe to get it. Just like with driving licence, most people have no trouble getting it (especially when they get it during compulsory military service) but it still keeps the crazy people out. Since you can easily lose that privilege and it's embarrassing when you do, people are conscious with their guns.
- it's not a big deal if you don't excel at school or fail to get to a university. Certainly not a thing to kill anyone

The Constitution was written by human beings. It can be changed. There's nothing in any holy book about owning firearms, so you can't say it's a "god given right". It actually IS just as simple as making a law.

>shall not be infringed

>achievable gun reform
Also a shitty loaded phrase. How about some real reform, and repeal the '68 GCA?

More than that, the right itself was added to the Constitution by an amendment. Like prohibition once was.

Nope. You're assuming that people will continue to commit mass shootings in such a way that will require enough public outcry that further measures to ban guns will be taken. That's a classic slippery slope argument: if X happens, then XX will inevitably follow...when in fact, it's not at all guaranteed.

We had an "assualt weapon" ban. It did nothing. And btw. Blacks are rresponsible for more "mass shootings" than whites. Fact.

1. That's fine, but it wouldn't stop a kid from taking their parents gun and shooting people
2. See above
3. Why 10? So I have to bring 4 magazines instead of 2, how would that stop me from killing people.

Of course I could always just run people over with a truck, make a pressure cooker bomb (or just a regular bomb), poison food (or water supply, syringe into containers, etc), knife people randomly.

But if you made guns, trucks, gasoline and combustibles, and sharp objects illegal...

Then I could obtain all of the above illegally, since they already made murdering people illegal, this shouldn't be a stretch.

Otherwise yeah solid plan edge-lord this will definitely work.

This is a really stupid cartoon. Gun ownership is not like cake. Tell me the number of people who have died from weaponized cake? Limitations are placed on guns because firearm technology has developed far beyond the capacity to simply defend oneself or harvest meat. In other words, there's no practical reason why a private citizen needs an AR-15.

The first 10 amendments, AKA our Bill of Rights, were demanded before the Constitution could be ratified. Disingenuous to compare any of them to an amendment that was added over a century later.

The weapon used in the worst mass murder in the US was a rental truck full of fertilizer. You can still rent a truck and you can still buy fertilizer.

When was the last time they were used in a murder in the US?

>I can give anybody a gun where I live
Yeah if its registered niggerfaggot

Still "man made" and not "god given". Also, the OP is clearly not arguing against the 2nd Amendment.

Considering that we've been sliding down that slope since fucking 1934, it's not a damn fallacy here. Every single time our side agrees to more gun control, your side always comes back later asking for more. Fuck that shit, no more compromise!

Bruh I'm tired of this shit we need to ban trucks I've been saying it for years how many people have to die.

What's the number 1 killer of people aged 25? Auto accidents. BUT NO ONE CARES AHHHHHH

I've talked to many Swiss people, including a roommate of mine. Getting ammunition in Switzerland is as easy as showing your ID. You can have it in your home.

I agree that the US should require a sort of permit that shows that you are competent and trained in gun safety. I can get behind that.

>too retarded to understand a metaphor

Why would you want a gun/rife from the start?

Explain how having 10 round magazines would result in less shootings and/or deaths? It is just as easy to carry several 10 round magazines. Also, mag changes do not take long, especially with practice.

I agree that the mentally disturbed and deficient need to be sorted out and recognized. Their risk factors are simply so much higher.

This guy would have passed such a training regimen though... he was JROTC

> Of course I could always just run people over with a truck, make a pressure cooker bomb (or just a regular bomb), poison food (or water supply, syringe into containers, etc), knife people randomly. But if you made guns, trucks, gasoline and combustibles, and sharp objects illegal...

This is all just a variation of the false equivalence fallacy "cars kill people sometimes, let's ban cars".

Also, other posts have addressed the issue of magazine capacity but I'll repeat it for you. Is it more practical to carry 10 magazines with 10 round capacity, or 1 magazine with 100 round capacity? Is it faster to shoot 100 rounds with the former or latter? I think you know the answer to both of those questions, and that's why magazine capacity makes a difference.

And dude, seriously, "edge lord"? I think the OP is about as un-edgy as it comes.

People own guns for a lot of reasons. Number one reason? They're fun. Guns are fun. They're fun to shoot. It's fun to handload ammunition. Hell, if you're not retarded and can take proper safety precautions, it's fun to cast your own bullets. Americans own guns because America is very much still wild. A Texan won't think anything at all of going out with a revolver loaded with snake shot. Americans own guns because crime is real and it happens.

And, ultimately, Americans own guns because it is a right enshrined in one of our founding documents, right after the one about freedom of speech. A fair case can be made that more damage has been done by free speech than the right to bear arms, but we keep both because it's practically hardwired in American psyches to reject tyranny.

I don't give a solution because I reject your premise that there's a problem to be solved. Or, to be more precise, that school shootings are a problem with a simple solution. But, since you seem to want one so badly, how about universal carry laws? A fully armed society is a very, very polite society, at least after all of the dangerous hotheads are dead or in jail.

Hey OP, just want to say that I agree 100% and wish more people thought about this reasonably and with nuance like you. That said, you seem way too intelligent to be wasting your time in the ignorant cesspool that is Sup Forums. Go use your powers of reason on people who actually affect change in society rather than neets and white supremacists who are set in their ways but (fortunately) don't matter outside of the internet

Who were this shooter's targets, though?
If he cleared out some real abortions, then hand out a few more guns.

Fuck kids they deserved to die lmao

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE

Surely you can see that the cake is an illustration. Don't be obtuse. The thing is, human nature has not changed. It's great that we live in a time where, for the most part, people are not under an evil totalitarian regime bent on enslaving the populace. But those people still exist, and at some point they may be in a position of power. Too many policies and ideas neglect human motivations.

which is why I wrote this Anyone could see what he was talking about on his Instagram and other social media. He should have been called out and immediately taken by authorities.

Some mentally ill, like this kid, needs to be psychoanalyzed and, if necessary, institutionalized before anything can happen.

well said

OK edgelord.

I'll take your emotional "common sense" tyranny patrol and raise you my fucking rights.

Dangerous freedom is far more preferable than a tyrannical safety. A padded cell is the safest place on earth, but I think I'll take responsibility for my own well being thank you very much.

No registration required either. You live in a shit state.

If you look at the kinds of gun control that's occurred in the past, you'll see that it's been pretty consistent. When has there been a measure that would completely take away your right to a hunting rifle or shotgun?

Also, I'm a fellow gun owner. I like to hunt and I like to plink. I also acknowledge that my right to plink doesn't outweigh the right of kids to go to school and not be mowed down by an AR-15 with a 100rd clip.

The common sense answer is to do nothing. Because that is the only realistic answer. One week from today no one will remember the name of the town this last school shooting happened in.

You're magazine argument is retarded, as are you (ad hominem, just so it's easy for you to keep score you debate fag). I'm not bringing 1000 0.1 round magazines retard I said 4 10 round magazines, making 40 rounds, plenty to kill 20 people.

False equivalency is subjective, you're calling it that because it goes against your stance. It's still a valid point.