Another Difficult Anti-Gun Argument

[ColinthePilot]

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.

I just read their position on Gun Control. Like most of what the ACLU says, that made me want to vomit.

 

[jlbraun]

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.

These won't work. "Gun control works in France! And Communist China! And Singapore!" and you can go round in circles about statistics.

"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?"

"Yes, I believe it can work" is all they have to say and then you just sit there and blink at each other.

Repeat after me.

"Racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist"

"Racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist"

"Racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist"

until you're blue in the face. I have proved this to work repeatedly.

 

[whatbrick]

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.

I didn't mean to come across as antagonistic. I agree with not giving up on someone against firearms, it's just that your initial post didn't exactly support that viewpoint, that's all. You were able to get someone thinking about their own safety (if only some of the time), so kudos to that.

I haven't had the opportunity to try and convert someone as all my friends and family are pro-gun. Any that aren't are really good at hiding it from me. Work isn't a target-rich environment either since practically everyone carries there.

 

[Winchester 73]

I didn't mean to come across as antagonistic.

You didn't.Your post was quite on the mark.My situation was one that most feverish gun grabbers will never encounter.Even my one success involved a personal safety issue.
So you are correct.Converting any of these disconnected people is nearly impossible.

 

[natjan]

well i was staying in chicago last week & had a conversation with a young intern friend who after the recent mall shootings said " all guns should be banned ", i replied well in chicago handguns are. she says to me "why do you own guns you don't even shoot", i replied well you have african art on your walls but you have never been to africa & have never expressed an interest in going. she then says " automatic rifles should be banned as they are the preferred weapon of terrorists ", i replied that terrorists are in general cowards who prefer to use bombs & run away or blow themselves up so they don't have to face the consequences of their actions. her reaction was " well now your'e just being dumb ", finished her drink & said bye bye.
sad to say in forty years she'll be working in the supreme court, perhaps in time her mind set will change.
.

 

[jakemccoy]

Anti-gun people who support regulations think that when the government signs a gun ban law, poof, all the guns will magically disappear. They believe the government, with its regulations, has the power to protect them. Taking responsibility for their own protection is a problem they have never had to grapple.

 

[Pilgrim]

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

He sounds like he lives a terribly inconsequential life.

Pilgrim

 

[jeepmor]

What's the saying....the protected people rarely understand freedom. It's a marine quote I think, can't find it now. One of you know it.

 

[bloodedsky]

This is to give all of you a tiny shred of hope.

Less than a year ago, I was staunchly anti. I viewed the 2nd amendment as superfluous to my existence--can you believe the stupidity with which I lived my life as a US citizen? I humbly admit it.

It was not easy to open my mind to the logical argument of people such as yourselves, but ultimately I saw that my mindset made no sense the way it was. I am a completely different person because, as my gun stance changed, so did my thinking on myriad issues.

Thank you to all of you on THR, because reading these forums helped me to change. I understand not every anti can change. But you helped one to do so.

 

[Winchester 73]

Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."

Welcome to the forum,bloodedsky.Walt would understand quite well your change of mind.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Don't argue with him...

Your friend is a sheep. He will not debate logically with you. He will only spew his emotional venom at you in order to make himself FEEL BETTER. He is not concerned, hypothetically, with anyone's inalienable rights. He demands that YOU justify your need instead of facing facts. This is his mechanism of forcing you to dance to his tune while he tries to dredge up another emotional bomb to fling your way.

Emoters will always have their heads in the sand. This is the only form of existence that is comfortable to them. They arrogantly demand a secure and polite society, provided by better persons than themselves. If they were forced to face the world as it really is, instead of seeing shades of lovely (dull) earth-tones, they would be screaming, raving lunatics, demanding to be taken back to their comfortable and familiar foam-rubber-padded room.

 

[afortiori550]

Tolerance

Any argument, vocalized or written, for the advancement of tolerance is self defeating. That is, you cannot say to someone, "You are being intolerance of my position" because in-fact, you are being intolerant of their position.
The only true arguments of tolerance that work are arguments of silence. Furthermore, to call someone "classist" is this not also classist? And while labeling some one as "Racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, classist" may silence the argument it is hardly compelling in reality; it is an ad hominem.

I am far from thinking that all ideas are equal; all people are and should be treated as such. cambeul41 said it best,

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

This is why we attack the argument not the person regardless of what the opposition's tactic. This, of course, does not always work. Unfortunately logic does not always win the day, however, we never bring ourselves so low as to attack the person.
Perhaps pointing out that one's particular argument concludes in racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry, or classism is what was intended by jlbraun and I just read it wrong. However, I disagree with the premise that denying women, gays, or people of any color guns is sexist, bigoted, or rasists. Gun-control does not seek to deny guns on the basis of gender, color, nationality, sexual orientation,etc.; it does seek to deny guns to all. It does not follow that because a woman is weaker than a man and is also denied the right to own a gun that this is sexist. It would follow were she denied a gun on the basis of her sex. The same is true for sexual orientation and color...etc

Please excuse my unorganized rant. I realize that some arguments are not won with pure logic; "some of the most intelligent people make the biggest mistakes in thinking." And that experience is a master educator. Perhaps I am just inexperience with regard to arguing with Anti-gun folks.

Peace.

 

[sacp81170a]

Ask your friend if he thought passing laws to prevent the spread of a deadly disease would be appropriate.

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

Point out that the spread of HIV is nearly 100% preventable, barring tragic accidents. Then ask him who he thinks would obey the law.

Is he really that bigoted, ageist, racist, sexist and classist?

 

[AF_INT1N0]

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.

Thats right you won't right away. All you have to do is plant that seed of doubt. Just a little nick in the dam. If all you can do is leave them with the tiniest bit of "what happens if?" You'll start them down the path.

Conversion happens over time.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

It's a long process. You've known this guy quite a while. He's passed the bar, obviously has more smarts than the average bear. That being the case, somewhere down deep there must be a rational person able to grasp the significance of self protection and the need to level the playing field should he or (more importantly) his family ever be placed in a life threatening situation.

I'm involved in several on going debates with friends, family members and neighbors who take the "anti" stand. Until they prove to be hopeless I'll carry on the good fight.

JLbraun has summed it up nicely with, "Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you?"

Try that, and if he comes back with some "party line" shallow response, you might spend your time doing something else, IMHO.

 

[v35]

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

The lawless prevail when the law-abiding are disarmed.

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

Why do you need a toy poodle?

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

Why do you need a wife? (Ridiculous enough for you yet?) Can't afford a full automatic?

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

Signs at my post office say guns are prohibited. Especially maniac assault guns

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

No guns permitted on campus. See above.

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

Gratuitous assertion. Ignore.

Lastly, although you stated it first, it makes all the other arguments moot:

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

You needn't have gone any further. His mind is closed. Might as well converse with a brick. Must be nice to live in such blissful ignorance.

 

[jlbraun]

Perhaps pointing out that one's particular argument concludes in racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry, or classism is what was intended by jlbraun and I just read it wrong.

That's what I said. The laws themselves are not bigoted or racist (well, originally they were), but they lead to racist, bigoted ends.

Gun-control does not seek to deny guns on the basis of gender, color, nationality, sexual orientation,etc.; it does seek to deny guns to all.

Exactly. And because guns are banned to all, those that are of a racial minority, alternative sexuality, weaker sex, or are old are necessarily put at greater risk than a young male WASP heterosexual. And that id what makes it racist, sexist, classist, discriminatory, ageist, and wrong.

 

[doc2rn]

Cant stand stupid!
Logical thought processes elude the emotional person. Tell him to man up and grow a pair.

 

[ASM826]

Been down this road and worse

After VA Tech, had a very liberal co-worker suggest that now there would be "effective" gun control legislation. That all hand guns, mil spec rifles, and semi-autos would be confiscated. That hunters would be allowed to keep their single shot hunting rifles in some sort of armory and sign out rifle and ammo on hunting days, accounting for every round fired, thus not affecting my right to hunt.

It will very likely be the last discussion he and I have on that topic, but he did, in the end, understand my point of view. Continuing to disagree, but much more knowledgeable, he understood just how important I held the 2nd, and how his right to the 1st, 4th, 6th, and any other, was dependent on it.

Cause it ain't about hunting, and it ain't negotiable.