Another Difficult Anti-Gun Argument

[jakemccoy]

I need to vent.

I'm convinced there's no hope. I had a gun issues argument with one of the smartest guys I knew in law school. He HAD street smarts - creative, quick, decisive. Now, we're about 10 years out. He's been married for about 3 years, basically works all day, comes home to walk his toy poodle, do whatever with his wife and repeats.

Anyway, we were talking about real cases - Virginia Tech case, Colorado church case, etc. He was coming up with what I thought were probably the lamest arguments I’ve ever heard. I was so disappointed because I used to admire this guy. His thoughts weren't even connecting. He was saying things like the following:

-"No, don't send me any informational emails; I don't want to hear any more propaganda."

-"You sound like your regurgitating something from the news."

-"If we had regulated the guns in the Colorado, it wouldn't have happened at all."

-“Why do you need a high powered rifle?”

-"Why do you need a semi-automatic at all?"

-“We need to regulate those maniac assault guns that people use to shoot up Post Offices.”

-“It’s a good thing Cho from Virginia Tech didn’t have a maniac assault gun; then, he would have done way more damage.”

-“Cho got his guns because there weren’t enough regulations; we need more regulations so things like Virginia Tech don’t happen.”

-"I'm way more pro-gun than most people you'll meet."

I can go on and on about other dumb stuff he said. It was obvious he put absolutely no thought or any time researching what he was saying. The worst part is that I can tell that he's stuck on his way of thinking and is not going to change. I hate to say it, but it's hard to be good friends with this guy like we were.

I've reached a point of giving up with reasoning with any anti-gun person. People on the fence are a different deal. However, know-it-all anti-gun people are the worst. I just get nothing accomplished, and my blood pressure is sky high for a good while afterward.

 

[jlbraun]

"Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?"

Say it with a hurt expression. Breaks their chain of argument every time. Laws regulating guns then become "bigoted", "sexist", "ageist", "classist", and "racist". Put it in terms he can understand.

IMHO, this is the most resilient and strongest pro-gun argument ever put forth.

 

[Albatross]

Freedom is worth all/any costs.

I'd give 100 (or 1000) Virginia Techs before I'd let the government thugs be the only ones with guns.

Ask him which other civil rights he'd like to regulate/outlaw/ignore.

As a lawyer he might respect the rule of law. Should we just ignore laws we don't like?

/Don't respect him, people who don't honor civil liberties should be shunned.

 

[230RN]

Just make effing sure you cancel his vote with yours and one more from one other person.

Make effing sure.

 

[jakeswensonmt]

"Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?"

My... god... Brilliant. It's 50% "fight fire with fire" and 50% "know your enemy."

 

[Andrewsky]

This is why I refuse to talk to antis about politics.

 

[happybrew]

Your friend is making an emotional response. To make a logical one in reply is viewed as uncaring and missing the point.

I would start by acknowledging what truth there is in his argument: That the death of innocent people by a criminal is a horrible thing. That will satisfy his need to be affirmed.

Then I would make an appeal to his emotions, because obviously that is what motivates him. That's not to say that he's illogical, because as a lawyer he can't be; however that is what probably motivates him and drives his logic. The fact that he says he doesn't want to hear what he thinks is propaganda and says you are regurgitating the news suggests that he will not be open to logical argument. He has made up his mind, and you need a greater emotional appeal to open it back up again.

Stay away from arguments involving vengeance or retribution. Don't try to contradict his arguments unless he complains that you haven't. Otherwise you feed into the idea that you are "trying to dominate others, so how can I trust people with firearms? They just want to dominate". I'd suggest appealing to the need for people to defend themselves. A firearm is a useful tool for people to actually do good. Point out the good, and how it outweighs the obvious bad. Family bonding through hunting, protection of home and family until the police are able to respond (he'll probably bring up the police, so you bring it up first), defense against rape, etc.

You won't convert him. Don't expect to. You must appear reasonable and caring, even though he thinks you are wrong, so that you can prepare the way for a future conversion of his thinking by some other person or set of circumstances.

happybrew

 

[cambeul41]

The question is

"Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?"

The answer is

"Because not all life choices have equal effect on and value to society. Mine . . . . ."

Not all life choices are of equal merit, and never being judgmental means never using judgment.

I am often amused (or irritated) by the claim that well-informed opinion is no more valid that ill-informed opinion because they are both "just opinion and all opinions are equal."

I can understand those that do not know the truth and are therefore fearful. I do not really understand those that consider the truth irrelevant to their ends. I cannot see those who reject truth as honorable.

Question: Does "Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?" really work?

 

[Harley Quinn]

There are folks that have all the same rights as us (USA), they spout them and they vote, do the same.
Then thank the founders for writting it down

HQ

 

[bloodedsky]

Guns should never, ever, ever be taken away from the populace at large.

As such, things like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and so forth can and do happen. It's part of life with an armed populace.

However, the other side of the coin is that hopefully, an armed citizen is present to combat the psychopath that abuses the right to bear arms.

I am reminded of Sheri S. Teper's quote that "There are no acceptable solutions to some problems."

Life is not fair. Bad things happen. Taking our guns away is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE the answer. It may even rob us of a solution.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I can imagine he would say something along the lines of "my life decisions can't harm other people, yours can"

 

[Old Fuff]

The problem with "Progressives" such as this one is that he is absolutely, beyond doubt, sure HE IS RIGHT! When you refuse to go along he get's mad.

I was so disappointed because I used to admire this guy.

Sometimes people change. In any case I see nothing to admire. He sounds to me like a 6 year-old on the playground, and your are far ahead of that...

He isn't.

 

[Titan6]

"Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?"

I normally go with; "Why are you anti-civil rights?" That normally gets the brain cells churning.

Him: "What do you mean?"
You: "It is a civil right, you know... in the bill of rights and all...."

That goes down the road of discussing whether it is what it says it is. It also answers these questions:

-“Why do you need a high powered rifle?”

-"Why do you need a semi-automatic at all?"

I also like to bring out the ACLU interpretation of the 2A. That really gets the conversation humming right along, especially for the legal scholars.

 

[catfish101]

The gun thing will never go away. We all know that but the fact that "they" should realize that people make the decisions to do what ever they want with what ever they want and regulations will not change that.

Bans don't work. They have never worked but it seems that people on the other side of this issue seem to think it would and if guns were banned they would all be turned in. Anybody with any sense knows that wouldn't happen.

 

[DFW1911]

What type of law does this guy practice?

His arguments are speculative at best and reciprocol

He has no way to validate his claims. It's sort of funny that he's basing his arguments on what he doesn't want to hear any more of: propaganda.

Thanks,
DFW1911

 

[Blackbeard]

Makes me wonder how these people got into law school in the first place. I've been considering going to law school for a while, and I just took a practice LSAT today. The test largely focuses on making logical arguments.

Your friend makes the argument that if guns had been regulated in Colorado, then Columbine would not have happened. This argument depends on the assumption that it is impossible to commit crimes if guns are regulated.

Tell your friend he needs to take the LSAT again. Is he a good lawyer?

 

[jlbraun]

Yes, the "why are you being intolerant" schtick does work. Don't frame it as "civil rights", frame it as "You are being intolerant, and supporting a set of racist, sexist laws. How can you DO that? Here's an article describing how racist gun control is, and if women are less strong than men, isn't denying them the right to own and use an effective firearm sexist? And since gay men are attacked more often than regular old straight guys, doesn't gun control especially harm gay men? And don't you think that blacks in the South during Reconstruction had need of a firearm to fend of lynch mobs? So isn't gun control more harmful to them than a white family? How can you support laws like this? I am in favor of letting persecuted minorities protect themselves!"

The answer is
Quote:
"Because not all life choices have equal effect on and value to society. Mine . . . . ."

"...what, like being gay? People argue against homsexuality using that exact same language, and say that the life choices of others that do no harm to them somehow are a harm to society as a whole. It's the same language, and just as intolerant and bigoted. Again, how can you support these laws? They're intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist..."

Make sure that you always throw out "racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist" as a unit, no matter what you're refuting. It keeps bringing the discussion back around repeatedly to how discriminatory the laws really are on all levels.

I tell you, that line of argument absolutely knocks them for a loop. There really is no effective line of response. Try another one on me.

 

[Winchester 73]

There is always hope for an ideological shift with this man.I assume you both are in your mid thirties.Until my early forties I was very much for handgun control.Long guns didn't bother me ,but I believed that handguns ,being small and easily concealable were evil and the work of the devil.This ,even though I had six years in the US Army ,and had been issued a .45 as a medic.
I had countless arguments with pro-gun friends and co-workers who tried to convert me.I was immovable.Finally I had a life changing experience where I was suddenly confronted with possibly being murdered on a daily basis by a group of lawless thugs.It became obvious very quickly that LE was not going to be able to protect me around the clock.
The realization sunk in that I was going to have protect myself at all times.I started to realize that these criminals weren't following any rules, much less ones involving guns.
So,I did what thought I would never do.Applied for and received a CCW permit.It took almost 90 days to get it(no electronic prints back then)and every day was a trial.
All those old arguments of the pro-gunners started to become very rational now.Carrying was difficult at first but became second nature quickly.The danger passed as the BG's were eventually rounded up.But I still carry 24/7,still looking over my shoulder a bit.
My conversion at about 45 was complete.I'm as big an 2A absolutist as you can find.So now I never give up trying with an anti if it appears there's at least some potential for change.
If he's unreachable though, you'll have to eliminate the subject to preserve your friendship.

 

[jakemccoy]

As someone pointed out above, this guy has allowed emotions to get the best of him. I'm beyond trying to make sense of my discussions with him on firearms. I'm using this experience as a reference point in the unlikely event I’m debating with another anti-gun person.

Here are other things I didn't mention that are surprising. He used to be involved with training related to ROTC after college. He has fired automatic AK47's, AR15's, shotguns and various handguns. He's not afraid of firearms. Really, he's not. I can tell.

Here's the problem with a lot of anti-gun people who are formally educated. They simply don't think through firearms issues. The issues do not affect their daily lives. They have so much other stuff going on. Firearms issues are in the far recesses of their minds. They pick up snippets here and there from mass media. Meanwhile, they're formally educated. Most formally educated people are not humble enough to admit they know nothing about a certain part of the Bill of Rights, in this case, the Second Amendment. So, they come out shooting from the hip, no pun intended. Their arguments amount to a complete disaster.

The only reason I care is because their votes affect me personally.

Blackbeard wrote,

Makes me wonder how these people got into law school in the first place. I've been considering going to law school for a while, and I just took a practice LSAT today. The test largely focuses on making logical arguments.

Your friend makes the argument that if guns had been regulated in Colorado, then Columbine would not have happened. This argument depends on the assumption that it is impossible to commit crimes if guns are regulated.

Tell your friend he needs to take the LSAT again. Is he a good lawyer?

Hey, good luck with the test.

You're right about the LSAT. It's about logic. I suppose he did pretty well on the test. I never asked. Our law school is top 20. He couldn’t have done horribly.

His smarts are more business sense. Frankly, I don't admire him as a lawyer. He's a good businessman and not necessarily a go-to lawyer.

 

[whatbrick]

I had countless arguments with pro-gun friends and co-workers who tried to convert me.I was immovable.Finally I had a life changing experience where I was suddenly confronted with possibly being murdered on a daily basis by a group of lawless thugs.It became obvious very quickly that LE was not going to be able to protect me around the clock.

Your story supports the OPs point that it isn't worth arguing over. You didn't make your decision based off of reasonable, logical discussion over the existence of bad people....you reached your conclusion based off of the fact that the bad people were now targeting you.

The only thing I can conclude from your post is to save my breath and see if something bad almost happens to an anti...not exactly the way I'd like to handle anti's that are otherwise good people but I guess sometimes you have to let nature take its course.

 

[RNB65]

Never argue/debate with someone who is anti-gun. You'd have just as much luck debating politics, religion, abortion or any other highly passionate issue. It's a total waste of time and you're not going to change their mind.
.

 

[Rachen]

-“It’s a good thing Cho from Virginia Tech didn’t have a maniac assault gun; then, he would have done way more damage.”

MANIAC ASSUALT GUN??? WHAT???

And what is THAT supposed to be? A gun made especially for maniacs to shoot up places?

What's going on in peoples' heads?

 

[Winchester 73]

Your story supports the OPs point that it isn't worth arguing over. You didn't make your decision based off of reasonable, logical discussion over the existence of bad people....you reached your conclusion based off of the fact that the bad people were now targeting you.

You are probably correct on a general basis, whatbrick.I did manage to talk one fervent anti into buying a handgun.He has a warehouse and works nights in a dicey area.
But he refuses to get a CCW and carry.Says its not necessary!My one little success story if it can be called that, out of countless tries.But I'm stubborn and still persist.

 

[cambeul41]

Make sure that you always throw out "racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist" as a unit, no matter what you're refuting. It keeps bringing the discussion back around repeatedly to how discriminatory the laws really are on all levels.

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[21H40]

Recently, I've politely challenged anti's to show me where gun control (or other prohibition of commodities) has been effective.

The base assumption that encourages gun control is that criminals will obey the law.

"Prohibition of alcohol did not work in America; prohibition of drugs has not worked; do you, really, feel that prohibition of firearms will magically succeed?"

I may not have won converts, yet, but I've at least gotten several to stop and think on their own. If we just give up, then we lose.