There isn't an 'emotional argument masquerading as logic' anywhere in the article or the comments. Unless the suggestion is that every argument is an attempt at

There isn't an 'emotional argument masquerading as logic' anywhere in the article or the comments. Unless the suggestion is that every argument is an attempt at logic, in which case 'logical argument' is a tautology. From the article: I think, now, that gun owners need to be replying more often to hoplophobes simply by echoing their “Baaa! Baaa! Baaaa!” back at them. Because only that reaches the actual fundamentals of the thinly-rationalized anti-firearms prejudice we so often encounter. Yeah, because your assumption that those with an anti-firearms stance are by definition 'hoplophobe' and 'prejudiced' isn't a close-minded, arrogant, emotional position at all. The 'fear' argument is easily turned around: you only think you need a gun, because you are afraid of what could happend if you didn't have one. The proper response to the presented 'arguments' are: Q: “Why do you guys think you need firearms?” A: That's not an argument Q: “Criminals will just take them from you and use them against you.” A: Criminals have their own guns and don't need ours. There is no evidence that the risk you name outweighs the benefits of owning a gun. Q: “They’re useless for anything but killing.” A: Umm, that's the point: they can be used to kill people before they kill you. Q: “You can’t seriously think they’re a deterrent against overreaching governments, the cops will just come for you you first.” A: If almost everyone has a gun, the cops can't come for 'you' first. Not only does he present stupid arguments, he is also incapable of defusing these stupid arguments and has to resort to imitating sheep. And this is supposed to be a hacker guru, someone worth imitating. God help us all...