Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?

Personally, I don't get into discussions about firearms on facebook. If someone wants to talk with me about the "problems they cause" we usually go out to lunch or something. I don't see a point in arguing behind a computer screen because it just makes it easier for them to go find false anti-gun propaganda to post.

If they want an honest opinion, I sit and chat with them. I have been through it with 3 of my friends, each lunch date ended with a follow up at a shooting range, and each of those 3 friends now own firearms.

Facebook is a powerful tool.

If people see that you're kind, courteous, respectful, thoughtful, and supportive of friends and family, it goes a long way toward creating opportunity to help anti-gun people understand that their idea of "gun owners" is way off base. Facebook gives us a very convenient medium with which to model the real face of "gun owners", and to make 'us' less scary to 'them'.

I have converted some 'liberals' from Portland into gun owners, just by being approachable, and having respectful conversations. Facebook has been a catalyst, each time.

I think we need to quite saying "guns don't kill, people do" because we look like we are missing an obvious point. Those who oppose guns do not believe guns will grow little gun legs and run around pulling their own triggers. They believe that guns enable people to kill and kill larger numbers more effectively and that killers are at times encouraged to murder because guns make it easier to do so. Nuclear weapons and suicide vests don't kill without being actuated by humans either but i certainly don't want my neighbors to own either. There are much better arguements for gun rights so let's let this one go because it is convincing nobody. My response would have been along the lines of "yes, there are certainly people who misuse guns as there are those who misuse vehicles but that does not mean i should lose my ability to defend myself".

Since your buddy likes facts;


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million..

Lots of people die every year in alcohol related car crashes too...
But that doesn't make every drinker an irresponsible lush either.
And history showed that prohibition didn't work either anyways.

And don't forget Mexico....how come there are so many killings with firearms if they are illegal to own?

That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

Click to expand...

Our 1st world nation's government gave weapons to 3rd world criminals which were in turn used to kill our 1st world Border Patrol agents. Regardless of living conditions and government structure, if guns are illegal, criminals will still get them and use them.

because I dislike people like you who are completely closed minded when people try to take away your toys.

Click to expand...

Delete and ignore former friend

My patience has worn thin over the years. I prefer to be happy and I'm not going to argue with someone that convinced because I will just end up frustrated. Pointless and silly for me. If I want to make myself upset, I'll just go stump my toe...it will take less time and be over faster.

Arguing on facebook is even more pointless than arguing on a forum. You won't change his mind by arguing on facebook, so why bother? I know you want to convince your friend of the facts, but what you've got going on is an internet water-sport contest. I had a coworker who wanted to get into a debate like that over pictures of my eldest shooting his first centerfire. She posted a negative comment, I simply deleted the comment and her. She has her heels dug in as deeply as I do, so there isn't much point in a discussing something that will just get heated.

Cal-gun Fan said:

That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

Click to expand...

Lol.....
History is never irrelevent.

SabbathWolf said:

Lol.....
History is never irrelevent.

Click to expand...

Of course its not irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. However, for this specific topic and the scenarios it addresses, it is irrelevant.

Of course its not irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. However, for this specific topic and the scenarios it addresses, it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is to provide for the security of citizens of the US. That includes a security from a government that wants to hold more power. I am not saying that our government does, it is just what the amendment is there for. The 2nd amendment was a step taken by the founders of the Constitution based on previous experiences in history that they obviously knew were not irrelevant.

As soon as the government takes away guns, it can lead to an oppressive, totalitarian regime, like the ones that you say are irrelevant. It is very relevant because history repeats itself. Guns might kill, but they also protect. And they protect a whole lot more than some people understand.

allaroundhunter said:

The 2nd amendment is to provide for the security of citizens of the US. That includes a security from a government that wants to hold more power. I am not saying that our government does, it is just what the amendment is there for. The 2nd amendment was a step taken by the founders of the Constitution based on previous experiences in history that they obviously knew were not irrelevant.

As soon as the government takes away guns, it can lead to an oppressive, totalitarian regime, like the ones that you say are irrelevant. It is very relevant because history repeats itself. Guns might kill, but they also protect. And they protect a whole lot more than some people understand.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say-my point was just that we were talking about crime rates in 1st world countries with the primary variable being the ease of obtaining a firearm, and the 20th century totalitarian regimes didn't factor into that discussion.

Like Larry the Cable Guy said (and I paraphrase here) ....if you can blame guns for killing people .... does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling mistakes?....your friend is uneducated about guns....and statistics....by his own statistics (and faulty logic)... we have about for times the homicide by guns rate as Itally....but we have millions of times as many guns. They still have deaths where guns are not allowed.....if he were to look at the statistics that Italy has for knife murders, suicides, etc....he'd find it higher....if guns aren't available then the perpetrator will use whatever tool is available...and the criminal will still try to obtain the gun and have one when the law-abiding citizen won't. You're friend is an ideologue with what he thinks and feels and no true understanding of guns and real statistics.

DCoke said:

Like Larry the Cable Guy said (and I paraphrase here) ....if you can blame guns for killing people .... does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling mistakes?....your friend is uneducated about guns....and statistics....by his own statistics (and faulty logic)... we have about for times the homicide by guns rate as Itally....but we have millions of times as many guns. They still have deaths where guns are not allowed.....if he were to look at the statistics that Italy has for knife murders, suicides, etc....he'd find it higher....if guns aren't available then the perpetrator will use whatever tool is available...and the criminal will still try to obtain the gun and have one when the law-abiding citizen won't. You're friend is an ideologue with what he thinks and feels and no true understanding of guns and real statistics.

Click to expand...

Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be friends with an anti. If I am in a situation where me and my friend are attacked, I'd rather have my friend be at-worst a non-carrier who is willing to let me defend myself. I wouldn't want to be hanging out with someone who would beg me to comply with whatever demands my assailants had without conflict.

Cal-Guns, you bring up some good points. However, here's what happens if you make guns illegal: less criminals will have guns to commit crimes, and no law-abiding citizens will have guns to defend themselves. Even if they don't have guns, if there's more of them and they're bigger than me, they're going to win.

The homicide rate was per capita, not overall.

You also bring up the more guns, the more crimes that will be commited with guns. What about crimes that aren't? Do they go up or down? Statistics which look at all countries, and not just cherry pick, say it doesn't make much difference. It also depends on what a crime is. Like Old Gold brought up, in the US, disagreeing with the government isn't a crime punishible by death - it's encouraged in the constitution. However, in Germany 1939, it was apparently a violent crime to be Jewish. Once that went into effect, I'd say the amount of crime in Germany went up a smeg-ton.

As to a gun letting you kill someone from far away, from my understanding most murders - even with guns - happen in close quarters. The exceptions I see are snipers, drive-by shootings, and mass shootings. It would be just as easy in most cases of a robbery, mugging, or home invasion, for the perp to use a knife or blunt instrument, especially if they know that a law-abiding citizen will not be armed.

The famous "that's not a knife" scene from Crocodile Dundee just popped into my head.

ETA, posted while I was writing:

Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

Click to expand...

If I have a gun, and a 6'3" athletic thug has a gun, it is harder for him to murder me than if I am unarmed and he has a baseball bat, for the simple reason that I have an equal opportunity to defend myself.

Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

Click to expand...

I have read that some experts at one point did a study, and determined that a very very small fraction of murders committed with firearms would have not been committed had a firearm not been readily accessible. I can't find a link right now, and maybe some confirmation bias at work, but it stands to reason that if someone really wants to murder someone, they may CHOOSE a gun if possible, but the absence of a gun won't deter them from finding another way to do it.

I'd be hiiiiiighly skeptical of that. The gun just affords so much more capability than any other type of weapon. You shoot somebody in the head or the chest with the right ammunition, and they're pretty much guaranteed to die. With a knife or baseball bat, its so much different.

I'm not of the mind that guns should be illegal at all, and like I've said, the benefits of self defense and having an armed population far outweigh the negatives.

I don't see how the whole (1st World Country) thing even figures into this really...as far as gun availabilty goes.
Ever been to Africa?
Not only can you get guns even easier there, but you can get GOOD guns with happy switches too.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million..

Click to expand...

The common theme in all those scenarios is totalitarian governments. There are numerous european and asian countries that have gun control, some for quite a while now, that haven't experienced such things. The soviet union and china had just fought civil wars. Don't get me started on why it happened in Cambodia. How these things happened is extremely complex and saying guns would have prevented them is awfully optimistic.

RaceM said:

Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level & beat you with experience.

Click to expand...

^This^

Internet Argument!

Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are: 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is: 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is: 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is: .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Click to expand...

Thats a bad comparison of statistics. Doctors and surgeons can be cutting into people, working inside their organs, and one tiny slip up or mistake can cause death, and often they're working with people who are already badly injured or in bad enough shape to warrant their insides being worked on. You can't logically compare that to guns.

Arguing on Facebook is retarded, no matter how righteous the cause. There's never a 'winner', but there are sure a lot of losers.