Anyone ever had a hard time debating an anti?
- Thread starter Tequila_Sauer
- Start date
- Status
waterhouse
Member
I've never had much of a hard time, but I will say that one of the best phone calls I got this year was from one of my very "anti" friends right after the news announced that Katrina refugees were on the way to Austin.
"Hey man, it's me. I was wondering if I could come look at some guns. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to be able to protect the house."
This was a guy who had repeatedly announced that guns weren't needed in society.
I've also gotten into some debates with some very intelligent people who are otherwise just uninformed. I go to a bar on Tuesday nights which happens to be frequented by a couple of UT professors. More than once I've been told "You can buy a machine gun on the internet." The nice thing about these guys is that when you tell them to go home and google 'national firearms act" they actually go home and do it. One of them came in a couple months ago and said "You know, I don't own guns, and I don't plan on owning any, but I've done a lot of reading this past week and can find no logical reason how any form of gun control could possibly work."
"Hey man, it's me. I was wondering if I could come look at some guns. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to be able to protect the house."
This was a guy who had repeatedly announced that guns weren't needed in society.
I've also gotten into some debates with some very intelligent people who are otherwise just uninformed. I go to a bar on Tuesday nights which happens to be frequented by a couple of UT professors. More than once I've been told "You can buy a machine gun on the internet." The nice thing about these guys is that when you tell them to go home and google 'national firearms act" they actually go home and do it. One of them came in a couple months ago and said "You know, I don't own guns, and I don't plan on owning any, but I've done a lot of reading this past week and can find no logical reason how any form of gun control could possibly work."
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I generally just offer a modest handful of facts, and see how they're reacted to. People who immediately launch ad hominem attacks or hysterical diatribes aren't worth wasting time discussing anything with. People who respond to facts in a reasonable manner are worth a certain amount of my time and effort.
DannyinJapan
Member
I once converted a vegetarian, liberal anti-gun friend into a guy who was not necessarily pro-gun, but who no longer verbally agreed with anti-gun sentiment.
I took him out in a field and let him blow up pumpkins with my garand.
The first time he hit one and it exploded, his face doubled in size owing to a new kind of smile.
He just said one word "cool!"
After that day, he understood that not all gun owners were evil as the anti-gun groups suggest. He also understood the FUN that guns could provide, and liberals are all about fun. If you can push the fun aspect, you may have better luck.
I took him out in a field and let him blow up pumpkins with my garand.
The first time he hit one and it exploded, his face doubled in size owing to a new kind of smile.
He just said one word "cool!"
After that day, he understood that not all gun owners were evil as the anti-gun groups suggest. He also understood the FUN that guns could provide, and liberals are all about fun. If you can push the fun aspect, you may have better luck.
Gordon Fink
Member
“But if there weren’t any guns, nobody would get killed!”
That’s the anti-gun “argument” I usually hear … often from very bright people. Oh, well …
~G. Fink
That’s the anti-gun “argument” I usually hear … often from very bright people. Oh, well …
~G. Fink
ctdonath
Member
I had a notable intense 3-hour verbal battle with a hardcore anti some years ago. Didn't go anywhere (apparently), ending with "well you've just got an answer for everything don't you" (well, yes, actually - because I've thought about it!). Many months later she admitted a turnaround, based mostly on my responsible actions (training, practice, sensibility - and didn't turn into a bloodthirsty killer), plus a few instances where she felt better thinking "you'd know what to do" in potentially risky situations.
Most people won't conceed to losing an argument. Given time, example, and no pressure, most will correct their errors.
Most people won't conceed to losing an argument. Given time, example, and no pressure, most will correct their errors.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
if you ever get in a debate/interview with the news media
figure out one or two points
and repeat them
over and over again
they will only use a 3 second clip of you
if you go off far ranging the issue, they will pick a choice moment and flay you
figure out one or two points
and repeat them
over and over again
they will only use a 3 second clip of you
if you go off far ranging the issue, they will pick a choice moment and flay you
grimlock
Member
This seems to have evolved a bit into a discussion of debate tactics, so I thought it would be a fine time to post this little gem:
"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross Author,
Unintended Consequences
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross Author,
Unintended Consequences
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
XLMiguel
Member
Grimlock - Excellent! Thx.
Along with John Ross's excellent discussion of debate topics, folks might want to save Alan Korwin's "Politically Corrected" Glossary of gun terms.
It's very good. Consider it ammunition for taking The High Road in any debate.
http://gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
It's very good. Consider it ammunition for taking The High Road in any debate.
http://gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
Thefabulousfink
Member
The scarriest anti-gun argument that I have ever heard was not from any rabid liberal or strong anti-gun activist, but a left-of-center, non-shooting friend of mine.
He stated, and wholely believed, "You don't really need all these guns anymore anyways."
Not only did I spend a good hour telling him about the many responsible uses and need for guns in a modern society, and the fact that many people felt that they DID need guns to protect themselves/families. What really frightend me was the fact that my friend, who has allways been a big supporter of equallity and civil rights, had just said, "we don't really need this right so lets get rid of it."
And its not just my friend, there are many complacent people out there who are willing to see their rights stripped away because they don't see a direct need for them. I wonder how these people would react if some one said:
"You don't really need the right to free speech, the media does all that for you."
He stated, and wholely believed, "You don't really need all these guns anymore anyways."
Not only did I spend a good hour telling him about the many responsible uses and need for guns in a modern society, and the fact that many people felt that they DID need guns to protect themselves/families. What really frightend me was the fact that my friend, who has allways been a big supporter of equallity and civil rights, had just said, "we don't really need this right so lets get rid of it."
And its not just my friend, there are many complacent people out there who are willing to see their rights stripped away because they don't see a direct need for them. I wonder how these people would react if some one said:
"You don't really need the right to free speech, the media does all that for you."
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Actually, they are willing to see your rights stripped away because they do not value them.
MedGrl
Member
My trouble debating antis is a bit odd. The only antis I know are a couple of my friends...the rest of my friends either think its cool or don't care. These three of my friends confuse me. They have no problem with the fact that two of our other friends not only own guns but go hunting any chance the get away from college. but when they found out that I was leaning how to shoot and concidering a gun for personal/home defense after graduation (and to practice with before) they started in on why guns are bad.
I've asked them why they dont give our two hunter friends a hard time or the "why guns are bad' talk. They couldn't give me an answer. It seems that it is ok for men to be proficient with guns and use them to hunt but when a female wants it as another form of self defense it is evil and/or wrong. i've just stoped debating with them cause any conversations we have on the subject wind up with me feeling like I've been doing this :banghead: ...
Edit: I got this in an e-mail a long while ago and for got about it until now...I think this is a close recreation...
They took away the sixth amendment and I didn’t say anything because I had not committed a crime.
They took away the second amendment and I didn’t say anything because I don’t own a gun.
They took away the first amendment and now I can’t say anything
I've asked them why they dont give our two hunter friends a hard time or the "why guns are bad' talk. They couldn't give me an answer. It seems that it is ok for men to be proficient with guns and use them to hunt but when a female wants it as another form of self defense it is evil and/or wrong. i've just stoped debating with them cause any conversations we have on the subject wind up with me feeling like I've been doing this :banghead: ...
Edit: I got this in an e-mail a long while ago and for got about it until now...I think this is a close recreation...
They took away the sixth amendment and I didn’t say anything because I had not committed a crime.
They took away the second amendment and I didn’t say anything because I don’t own a gun.
They took away the first amendment and now I can’t say anything
Thefabulousfink
Member
I can understand that possition from people like the Brady Co, but they have a vested pollitical interest. I've seen too many apathetic people just parrot what they hear in the news and not even think of the implications.
P.S. After serriously waking my friend up, he no longer thinks that there is no need for the 2A. He's still apathetic, but at least he's not completely blind now.
P.S. After serriously waking my friend up, he no longer thinks that there is no need for the 2A. He's still apathetic, but at least he's not completely blind now.
Harve Curry
Member
The hardest ones to make any head way with are the anti's who think they ar pro-gun.
Hardtarget
Member
Last time I started with this I asked the anti if they owned a computer...with a modem & internet connection?...scanner?...digital camera? Congratulations! You have the "assalt weapon" of child pornographers. You should turn yourself over to the police because sooner or later blah blah...you get the point. This comes right after I'm told I'm gonna' kill some day. I really don't get into many of these "discussions". Most know my position and attitude. I'm not mean, just blunt.
Mark.
I really don't get into many of these "discussions". Most know my position and attitude. I'm not mean, just blunt.Mark.
jrpeterman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2003
- Messages
- 173
I guess with Antis, it comes down to legal rights. Antis are always screaming about their rights being violated. So this is my response to them. I won't infringe on your rights not to own a firearm, don't infringe me of my rights because I do 
.
What I find amazing are the folks who are anti-gun that think and trust that the folks with guns can and will protect them, i.e.: the police, the military, and in the case of Rosie O'Donnell armed bodyguards.
.What I find amazing are the folks who are anti-gun that think and trust that the folks with guns can and will protect them, i.e.: the police, the military, and in the case of Rosie O'Donnell armed bodyguards.
- Status
