Previous Post
Next Post

“You need to play to the common denominator,” Canadian intellectual [sic] Robert Oles opines, contemplating the perceived insanity of American gun rights. “Not everyone can drive drunk, therefore no one can drive drunk. Not everyone can be mentally sound enough to operate a firearm safely, not everyone gets a firearm.” See what he didn’t do there? Mr. Oles didn’t say “so no one gets a firearm.” Which would have been the correct analogy. But then, for an anti-gun argument to be perfectly stupid, it can’t be perfect. What anti-gun arguments have you heard that had you shaking your head in disbelief? [NB: Mr. Oles has removed his video from public viewing.]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. There is no “stupidest anti-gun argument” because there is no “peak derp”. There will always be something dumber on the horizon.

  2. That’s real easy all of them. All gun control is BS it’s all ridiculously hilarious retarded if you will just like the people preaching it.

  3. I was talking to an Australian internet friend of mine recently. I mentioned that shooting is relatively expensive, and he said “Well that’s a good thing.” I asked him “Why? Should poor people not have guns?” to which he replied “Of course!” I didn’t press him further on the matter but it shows some interesting classism.

  4. If Robert Oles is an intellectual by Canadian standards, then clearly the bar for intellectual status is way too low in Canada. I know high school dropouts who speak more intelligently than that dolt.

    • If we had standards we wouldn’t be in this mess. As for the video, keep in mind that he’s just a student at Carleton. Ottawa does weird things to people. Maybe not as weird as Toronto, of course, but weird things nonetheless.

    • If this Oles fellow has been admitted to a Canadian institute of higher learning, then there must not be any lower learning institutions in the great white north. A bunch of those Canucks certainly are limited in IQ to the melting point of Ice – and not in Fahrenheit.

  5. We have allowed the anti-gunners to define the terms…e.g. “assault rifles” (no such thing)…grouping criminal use of firearms with lawful defense uses, etc…

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.
    The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.
    The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.
    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  6. This argument is a logical fallacy. Driving drunk is unto its self a crime, the act of drinking its self is quite legal.

    A more appropriate version of this is that some people murder while committing robbery, therefore robbery shouldn’t be allowed.

    The notion that someone while drunk can operate a vehicle safely is likely unto its self absurd.

    • I always felt like the proper analogies were good when people start going down the “guns ~ drunk driving” route:

      Firearms possession ~ possessing both alcohol & an automobile.

      Drunk Driving ~ Firing a gun indiscriminately in the air or in a random direction.

      Pretty much every time i have made that point to an anti, they have reverted to “BUT GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL SO THEY ARE MOAR WORSE”….and then its over from a logic & reasoning standpoint.

      • Funny how one is designed to kill while the other is designed to safely transport people. Yet the total deaths for both are so similar. Not to mention that accidental deaths are way, way higher with cars.

  7. Who the F wastes their time asking Canada for Fing anything?


    If we need anything out of you, we’ll beat it out of you.

  8. They’re all stupid, but the argument that you can buy guns online with no background check and have them shipped to your door is like the “We only use 10% of our brains!” myth, in terms of nagging persistence and extreme ease of debunking.

    Granted, people who try to push that argument probably do only use 10% of their brain, but otherwise there’s no science behind either claim.

    • a long time ago in a constitutional republic far far away, you could mail order guns and the USPS would deliver it to you even full auto with no background check. then some evil politicians decided your rights don’t mean a thing and they made unconstitutional laws to infringe on your rights now
      they have you arguing about how much they will infringe on your new ask for permission and pay a fee privilege. they never changed or abolished the 2 amendment just made statues
      and pretended its greater than the Constitution.

      this is the story of how I saved Mars from the gummi bear invasion of ’09

      • Wouldja believe I’m already aware of that? Because if I knew that it isn’t legal now, it means by extension I also have to know which law was responsible for it being that way.

  9. Up here in Canada, we aren’t allowed to carry arms for defense even when we have that government permission. I think that undercuts a large portion of his argument for the Canadian position. We’re not even allowed to defend ourselves from attack with at least pepper spray or a taser. Instead, when a conservative MP proposed that we be allowed pepper spray for self-defense, the liberal minister for the status of Patty Hajdu, replied in the following:

    “Ms. Leitch’s proposal is unrealistic and offensive to women across this country. Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence.”

    I’m sure that would be comforting to the Calgary woman who was just assaulted by two men in a road rage incident, and any future potential victims:

    I suppose when the next round of bans and confiscations happens he’ll snootily declare how superior we are. Meanwhile the gang bangers will keep shooting each other and bystanders with smuggled in, stolen, or home-made handguns (about 50% prohibited anyways).

  10. Mentally disabled people should not drink and drive nor shoot armaments while arguing the finer points of the second amendment.

    I sure we can all agree to that.

    • Who gets to decide who is “mentally disabled?”

      People with Down’s Syndrome? That’s pretty much textbook “mentally disabled,” yet I can think of a number of people with Down’s Syndrome who can be taught to be responsible with a firearm.

      People who are bipolar? Or who suffer from depression? On what basis? By whose order?

      Maybe people who suffer from PTSD? Or people who express “extremist” views critical of the government?

      • The threshold for mental disability should be whether the person can he held responsible for their actions, as determined by a court of law and subject to due process. I have no problem saying that being responsible for your own actions should be a prerequisite for handling firearms, unless you’re properly supervised by a responsible person.

    • No we can’t agree. First show us a well designed study showing a correlation between mental illness (or “disability”) and commission of violent acts. To the best of my knowledge you can’t. Those who’ve been classified as mentally ill are just as violence prone as those who haven’t been.

      • James Holmes is not capable of responsible firearm ownership. I don’t think you can put up a coherent argument against that, but have at it.

    • The Boy Scout troop that was comprised of only those with Down’s Syndrome at summer camp where I worked had some of the best marksman that summer, they were intelligent, competent, much more careful with firearms than “normal” campers and didn’t require constant or repeated warnings. Their scoutmaster and assistant scoutmaster were women. I miss those kids, funny as hell, responsible, and they didn’t attempt to mess around on the range, ever.

  11. So, anything anybody has, or might, screw up with, ever, should be banned for every one (presumably effectively, at tolerable cost, and without side effects.)

    Let’s start with language, internet access, and potato chips. Derp-eh, there, demonstrates the down side of having word things, and teh interwebz.”No lulz for us!” because he can’t handle himself.(*)

    Banning chips is for me. I admit it. I have no control; harming myself or others if there are eeeeeivil chips about. Y’all can’t be permitted any, because I can’t handle myself. Because I matter, n you don’t.

    And who really needs assault-chips n high-capacity cans? Poseurs.

    (*) Never try to out-arbitrary Seinfeld’s Soup N**i; he’s a satire to avoid, not a standard to exceed.

  12. Pfft, easy.

    The stupidest anti gun argument I’ve ever heard is “cocks not Glocks,” hands down.

    I bet even if you turn in your Glock those … ladies … wouldn’t keep the other half of the implied promise.

    • ….also, someone who has less than 100 views of his video should probably be just left to die on YouTube with no publicity. In fact none of the uploader’s videos have more than 185 views. You probably doubled this clowns views in an hour and he might think he’s starting to get popular, thus encouraging him to churn out more crap.

    • Just for clarity, because this is a great point, LHW means when antis begin their thought process by thinking that a concealed carrier will lose their cool and go on a shooting rampage out of anger and a loss of control…precisely because they are afraid (perhaps subconsciously) that they, themselves, have the capacity to respond in such an manner. If that evil exists in them, even potentially, then it must exist in everybody…right?

      • “thought process by thinking that a concealed carrier will lose their cool and go on a shooting rampage out of anger and a loss of control…”

        As opposed to actual criminals, uh you know being criminal.

  13. Stupidest? How about all you have to do is pee or poop on your attacker? Or you are safer without a gun? Or your gun is more likely to be used against you. All goodies on the fictional gun control lies list.

  14. “I don’t trust people.” That’s what one liberal said to me.

    “You don’t trust your friends like me?” Well, mostly, but maybe not really. Neighbors were right out.

    “So, the people that are closest to you, you don’t really trust with firearms.” Nope.

    I said “You don’t trust the police?” They murder people for no reason, so no, the police aren’t trustworthy.

    “Well, then you’re trusting the criminals, aren’t you?” What? Absolutely not, how could I say such a thing?

    “You’re trusting that they won’t do anything bad to you, illegally acquire firearms and illegally use them once you’ve disarmed everyone else.”

    Well, if guns didn’t exist… “Stop” I interrupted “We’re talking about reality, not a fantasy. There is literally no law-abiding friend, neighbor or sworn law enforcement you trust, so the only person you might actually trust is yourself.”

    Well (said they) I don’t really trust myself either.

    “Then go check yourself into a ward.”

    • ‘Well, if guns didn’t exist…’

      …then strong men could do whatever the hell they wanted to women, the elderly, the infirm, children, etc. It takes a special kind of special to think that without guns there’d be no violence.

      • Yep. I’ve pointed this out over and over.

        In the kingdom of the blind, the guy with one eye and astigmatism is king.

        • In the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye gets locked up for having dangerous delusions of a power no one else has.

  15. I like the one where if people had to use their 2nd amendment rights for its main intent (fighting tyranny), we’d be screwed cuz the government has tanks, planes, drones, etc. So we might as well give up and hope we don’t lose control of our rulers.
    And how many of us, on either side of the political spectrum, really trust our leaders? How much more will we trust them when we give up our ability to fight them?

    • Not to mention that we spent the better part of a decade fighting (with limited success) uneducated folks with few resources and little more than a battered AK and a few grenades. The US civilian population would be able to put up a much better fight. Not to mention that the US military relies MASSIVELY on american civilian support. Start hitting the factories at the beginning of supply lines and they would be in trouble. Plus, soldiers would defect in droves if ordered to fire on America citizens, and many of them would take as much hardware as they could. Wouldn’t be long before the rebels had air support and armor.

  16. I think the pro-gun arguments people put are here are stupid and have been debunked many times by sources such as the World Health Organization, United Nations Research Groups and various law enforcement agencies and medical professionals.

    Let’s see,

    Myth 1. A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
    Combine this with the fact that DGUs are nothing but a MYTH.
    2. Guns in the home increase safety.
    FALSE: A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a suicide against yourself or a loved one then stopping
    a criminal attack.
    3. I need a gun to protect myself from rising crime.
    FALSE: Crime has been dropping for years.
    4. Guns in the homer keep me and my loved ones safe from harm.
    FALSE: A gun in the home is y more likely to commit an act of suicide or homicide with a firearm than you are to use one in self defense. And the vast majority of burglaries happen when nobody is home anyway, so the chances of you ever needing to defend yourself from a home invasion are very slim. And guns are something that criminals love to steal, because it gives them a free weapon that the police have no record of them owning.
    5. Gun accidents are low.
    FALSE: Accidents with guns are pretty much on the rise. This blog proves otherwise.

    • I had to approve this from the moderation queue, because of the multiple links. To do so, I had to read it. I wish I hadn’t.

      “Combine this with the fact that DGUs are nothing but a MYTH.”

      I should have stopped reading here, but I didn’t. On the upside, that allowed me to get to this gem:

      “Accidents with guns are pretty much on the rise. This blog proves otherwise.

      Beyond the fact that I’m not sure that “blog” and “proves” should ever share the same sentence, ever, on any subject, I’d like to point out that at first glance, your blog proves exactly the opposite. One would surmise that the purpose of the blog is to catalog unintentional shootings, and a quick observation of the post count from the last six years shows those numbers going down. To wit, the post count in 2015 is only slightly over 10% that of 2010. I can draw two potential conclusions from that data. Either unintentional shootings are falling in frequency (for which I have no actual empirical evidence either way), or the author of that site is losing interest in the subject matter as time goes on. I’ll let you choose which one you think is likely. Both answers prove my initial point about “blog” and “prove” not being colocated.

      Have a nice day.

    • “I think the pro-gun arguments people put are here are stupid….”

      You mean as stupid as you trying to piece together a coherent fucking sentence?

  17. “It will not pass” courtesy of Ron DeSantis, who just wrote a Washington Post article talking about how he’s going to introduce a bill for term limits.

  18. I had some guy try telling me that because nature doesn’t allow you to breath well on Everest that I don’t have a natural right to defend myself with the best tools available. Also any arguments that starts with “well back when it was written…”

    • Hey! I start arguments with “back when it was written”!

      My most recent one went, “Back when it was written, those words and phrases had specific meanings — you have to use those meanings not whatever you want.”

      Before that, it was, “Back when it was written, the rifled musket was the most potent individual military weapon available, so what it means is the most powerful individual military weapon available.”

      • When I hear it it usually goes something like “back when it was written ar-15s did not exist.” or “Back then they owned slaves.” It doesn’t have to be the start to a moronic statement but it often is.

        • There are those who argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was made for a “day and age” that is long gone and that it should only apply to firearms “of the day”–muskets and black-powder firearms–no semi-automatic or modern-day cartridge forearms..
          Taking this insane argument logically to the First Amendment, the same (il)logic would not cover modern offset presses, typewriters, television, radio or the internet, public-address systems and the like… First Amendment “protections” would only apply to town criers and flat printing presses, the like of which were in use in Benjamin Franklin’s day…
          It is curious to note that the Second Amendment is of the only God-given “right” that is constantly under attack, with restrictions of time, place, type of weapons, and permissions needed in order to exercise this “right”.
          Second Amendment supporters (actually “guardians”) are the only group of people who are vilified for (attempting to) exercise a “God-given right.
          The most strident attackers of the Second Amendment are most often total “protectors” of the First Amendment and that present-day abomination, abortion.
          We are constantly being reminded “not to judge all moslems by the actions of a few”…shouldn’t the same consideration be given to Second Amendment supporters??

    • My answer to the “Back when it was written…”
      “I need you to get a turkey quill and make some ink out of iron gall. Write a letter (in cursive) and hire a man on a horse to deliver it to the newspaper office, where a 12 year old boy will make a reverse reproduction out of individual lead letters and a strong shouldered man will manually lift and lower that lead, reversed reproduction in order to make several copies of your screed. Than, and only then, do you have a right to be heard.”

  19. It is hard to identify the most stupid argument. But, the stupid argument I hear the most revolves around various forms of ‘nobody needs a…’

    Purely a case of using the government to force your lifestyle choices on others.

  20. Leftist incoherent Canadian Robert Oles for all his other wise stupidity is damn right in one thing. We in the United States will NEVER have the Canadian model.

    We in the United States have the Second Amendment. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Canadians DO NOT.

    The Supreme Court of Canada has specifically stated in R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, at para. 9; and R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, at para. 414. “Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. “Possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege.”

    So you just go ahead and keep your Charter Rights and government granted/government revoked firearm privilege. As for me, thank you, I’ll keep my Second Amendment, Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

    Your “model” sucks.

    Senior Gun Owner 1950
    A strong believer in gun control for over 50 years.
    Always control your gun so you hit what you aim at.
    If you can’t, you need more practice time on the range to get better control of your gun.

    • “you just go ahead and keep your Charter Rights and government granted/government revoked firearm privilege.”

      The terrible truth of it all is that he doesn’t have a firearm, and he is only too happy to stomp down with the government’s boot on all the licensed gun-owners in Canada. You don’t care one wit, and sadly, neither does he- or perhaps, sadly, his view is the one the government supports up here.

    • The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, so of course Canadians have it. Sure, they don’t have it written down, but that was true of Americans before the Revolution and they certainly still had the right!

      The difference is that Canadians are content to be sheep and let the government tell them which of their natural rights they get to exercise and which they don’t.

      • If you think that a Canadian Crown prosecutor respects a natural right to keep and bear arms in self defense take a lesson for the case of Ian Thomson of Port Colborne, Ontario.

        Early in the morning, four assailants shouting death threats, lobbed Molotov cocktails at and into Thomson’s home. They wanted to burn it down ground with Thomson inside.

        Thomson, a firearms instructor, ran to his gun safe and pulled out a handgun, loaded it and fired a couple of warning shots over the heads of the criminals intent on murdering him. They fled.

        Police arrived later after the fires were out and promptly charged Mr. Thomson. Thomson was charged with four crimes: careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe; one of which was never used in his defense. Eventually the charge of pointing a firearm was dropped when it was realized that the Crown couldn’t prove Thompson pointed his gun at anyone.

        The Crown prosecutor was still adamant that Thomson be convicted of something. So the unsafe storage of a firearm went to trial on the theory that Thomson’s gun safe was “too close” to his bedroom because of how fast Thomson was able to retrieve his firearm and defend his life.
        It seems that the Crown prosecutor would have prefer Thompson be a the burned dead victim rather than a live defendant who did everything he could, including using a firearm, to stay alive.

        The Crown put Ian Thomson through two and a half years of grief because he lawfully owned and lawfully used a gun in self defense. And this case shows that Canadian authorities respect a natural right to keep and bear arms in self defense?? I don’t think so.

        Senior Gun Owner 1950
        A strong believer in gun control for over 50 years.
        Always control your gun so you hit what you aim at.
        If you can’t, you need more practice time on the range to get better control of your gun

  21. After Sandy Hook, I had a liberal friend talking about gun control. Once i had debunked universal background checks, his next argument was literally that children who grow up around weapons are more paranoid and fearful and will ultimately become more violent… they have no rationality behind their arguments its literally all emotion with liberals.

  22. The worst one I heard was a customer telling me that most people don’t understand the second amendment. That it protects the states’ rights to form militias. I then proceeded to prove him wrong with an English lesson, followed by a lesson about the Federalist papers.

    • Did you point out to him that the “states’ right to form militias” argument was first put forth by Southern states seeking to disarm blacks by only allowing whites in the militia?

      • No. My boss told me to get back to work so I had to finish my part of the wood stove install. I’ll keep that one in mind for next time. (Also, I didn’t know that’s where that argument originated and will be researching it more. Thanks.)

  23. To properly gauge the stupidity of the arguments and compare them requires a matrix.

    This is gonna be a really big excel file. I’ll get back to you about it in a few weeks.

    Also, [insert something about people saying stupid things and how that relates to the 1A here].

  24. There is sooo much dumb shite said. One that stands out is a few years ago I was just a mile across the Indiana border and some loser sissy launched into a diatribe as to now Illinois has CC carry and there will be daily shootouts and rivers of blood in the streets. I said to him “like HERE in Indiana”? DUH…

    • I was at a meeting for our club when the hostess went off about Canpus Carry in TX (We’re in CO.) The usual predictions of blood in the streets, etc. She turned to me and another gentleman and asked what WE thought.

      I remained silent, as I was carrrying ATM, and allowed my friend to answer. My friend, the off duty police officer, who was also carrying (of course.) He told her that licensed carriers comit crimes at a lower rate than cops. She countered that guns make her nervous. “Even when you can’t see them?” Even MORE when I know they’re there but I can’t see them! “How many spiders do you suppose are in your walls and under your floorboards, waiting to come out when the lights are out?”

      Oh, dear God. He didn’t know she was an arachnophobe. Do you know how much an emergency trip charge for an exterminator is?

  25. Yeah, well, if you see something like Sandy Hook happening with a gun that was not legally owned/aquired by the shooter (stolen from a family member if memory serves correctly) and still think gun free zones fix anything, every help is too late for you…

  26. What still amazes me is how boldly people can state these things and not even bat an eyelash:

    “The Founding Fathers never envisioned the rapid fire weapons of today”

    I guess when you think you are psychic then no one else is? You know but they could not even guess?

    • Considering that repeating arms had been around since the 15th century and that during the Revolution the Continental Congress ordered (and then canceled said order) a bunch of Belton Flintlocks capable of firing multiple shots in mere seconds (perhaps as many as 20 shots in five seconds) it’s is quite assured that the Founders were well aware of the concept of rapid fire weaponry.

  27. You’ll shoot your eye out.

    Seriously, that only police are qualified to use guns. My father in law was an MP for 2 years, 1964-66. Dunno if he would “qualify” or not.

  28. The PotG must have commented so much, young Mr. Oles has gone into his safe space from all the micro aggressions.
    His video is now gone.

  29. For me it’s the biggest one of them all: that guns cause crime. 300 million plus legal firearms, 30,000 gun deaths per year, or 0.0001 percent. Your likely hood of being shot to death if you are one of the 2.5 million Americans who will die in 2017 is about 1.2%, 0.4% if you aren’t suicidal. Higher if you live in cities like Detroit, Chicago, LA, and DC; lower if you live in rural areas where most of the legal guns are.

  30. That allowing Black people equal rights to keep and bear arms is inherently racist because they can’t be trusted not to kill themselves and each other with them.

    • Can’t say I’ve ever heard that one spoken aloud. It’s often been there as an unspoken subtext, but they usually tapdance around it like they were Shirley friggin’ Temple.

  31. A Diane Feinstein twofer: “I’ve been on this committee for 20 years… I’ve studied the Constitution myself.” Aaand…
    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’”

    I don’t think the Constitution means what she thinks it means.

  32. All of them.

    Any argument based purely on feelings is for children. And as irony just loves the anti-gun agenda, their legislation gets children killed all the time.

    Yet they are never called on it.

  33. The all time dumbest argument is the one I hear the most: “I just don’t like guns.” Because what do you say to that argument? You can’t argue against a person’s likes and dislikes.

    I usually respond with something like: So you don’t think the police should have them? You don’t think the military should have them? The minute they say, “Well, that’s different.” Then I’ve got them, but if they just stick to the original statement, what can you say?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here