Ask An Anti

Status
Not open for further replies.
The difference that antis see between guns and drugs is that drugs are easier to make--address this by describing the "Khyber Pass copies" phenomenon, and the absurd ease with which black powder can be manufactured, as well as the option for the ill-intentioned to just make bombs instead of guns.
 
"Why are healthy white males more deserving of self-defense than elderly minority women?"

Stuff like that. If you get their brain in a logic loop, it melts.
Click to expand...

This is a logic loop ?


My question is do you have the maturity to listen to her ... not hear her, but listen to her ... without debating her ?

Antis have their view of the world, which is no more, or less, right, or wrong than yours. I agree with the anti ... guns are a wicked weapon and a real scary device ... in the hands of fearful people. In fact, a gun in your hands scares me as much as a gun in an old KGB operatives hand scared me. I'm the only one that does not scare me when holding a gun ... and even then I sometimes slip up.

Well can you listen, without reacting ?
 
i would go with "we have the right to self defense"

and

the police are not obligated in any way to protect us

so

who, then, is there to protect us and our families, but ourselves?

does she want to deny any reasonable person the right to defend themselves?

i would surely hope not

good luck!
 
At that point her circuits will start smoking and if you could see through her eyes you'd see a head's up display going "bzzt! error! error!" at which point she'll go circular and say "that's why we need to ban all weapons!" And she'll think she's won.
Click to expand...


Then at that point ask her to define what she calls a "weapon".


If she says knives, then come back at her with, If we ban knives what are people going to cut their food with?

Then tell her anything can be considered a weapon, like my fist. That will probably shut her up then. Make sure you dont make that sound like a threat or you might end up in trouble.
 
Although there are some good questions here, I would suggest that you not decide on a script for the questions.

Take a number here, but base the questions off of her report, rather than just off of how to demolish an anti.

Most likely she will take a predictible tract, but follow her reasons. If you just start throwing questions having nothing to do with the report, the teacher will shut you down. (And if you ask too hard of questions, the teacher may shut you down, but that's not something to be avoided).
 
Some very good responses here, but remember who your real audience is. You will probably never convince this person her position is wrong because she probably approaches every issue, not just gun control, from an emotional standpoint rather than a logical standpoint.

The people you are targeting are the fence sitters in the class. You will win by pointing out the lack of logic in her arguments. She will help you win with her responses. :D
 
Plurium Interrogationum happens a lot, I'm guessing.
Click to expand...

I expect that unshared pre-suppostions are very common, and I expect that many pro/anti RKBA disagreements occur because people share fundamentally different pre-suppositions. I think it's mostly unintentional - people generally do not understand their assumptions without deliberate inspection.

For example, if a pro-RKBA speaker talks with a pacifist, they are not likely to make much progress in terms of a discussion until they understand the difference in their premises. If a person believes that is absolutely wrong to kill another human being for any reason, then arguing RKBA based on self-defense is not going to make much sense.

That's part of why I think it's important to understand the anti's argument. If she is arguing for gun control based on some moral issue - and not on social policy, then asking questions based on stats is silly. If she is arguing based on social policy, then arguing on moral issues may or may not make much sense.

My guess is that the teacher will allow you to explore the thinking and presuppositions of the speaker - and you might learn something about how and why anti's think as they think. I know it's common on THR to assume that anti's for some reason less logical than RKBA.

I haven't seen much to indicate that's the case. I have seen more name calling, frothing at the mouth, and general stupidity about this issue on THR than I have heard from any anti - but I don't listen to anti's much. :)

Mike
 
That's part of why I think it's important to understand the anti's argument. If she is arguing for gun control based on some moral issue - and not on social policy, then asking questions based on stats is silly. If she is arguing based on social policy, then arguing on moral issues may or may not make much sense.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this. In the unlikely event that she bases her argument on morality, she can't even begin to support it because she would have to define where the basis for that morality comes from. It can't be by majority opinion because the majority clearly wants guns as our laws reflect. Those stats would prove her wrong.

Her best angle would likely be based it the social policies of other countries, like in Europe, where violence by gun is much lower. And more socialist, which will suit her just fine. I think the way to deal with that is to point out that most Americans don't want that kind of a powerless citizenship and don't have the luxury of living in an environment where guns were limited all along. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Also it could be pointed out that Sweden has a very high rate of gun ownership but not the murder rate. So how can gun ownership be the problem? Or lack of it the solution for the law abiding?
I have seen more name calling, frothing at the mouth, and general stupidity about this issue on THR than I have heard from any anti - but I don't listen to anti's much.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that many of them even posted here.
 
I don't agree with this. In the unlikely event that she bases her argument on morality, she can't even begin to support it because she would have to define where the basis for that morality comes from. It can't be by majority opinion because the majority clearly wants guns as our laws reflect. Those stats would prove her wrong.
Click to expand...

So from your point of view - one can't base an argument for gun control on morality.

Correct?

If one can't an argument for gun control morality, then one can't base an argument against gun control on morality. Either morality (and moral law) can be used as a basis for discussion, or it cannot.

Correct?

To state it differently, the case for or against does not rest on moral issues, but on the majority opinion of a city, state or country.

So if the majority of the people in some political division in opposed to gun control, then that political division should not have gun control laws.

By the same token, if the majority of the people in some political division support gun control laws, then that political should have gun control laws.

Correct?

So, from your point of view, if the a majority of the people in Wyoming are opposed, to strict gun control laws, then Wyoming should not have strict gun control laws.

By the same token, if a majority of the people in Washington, DC want strict gun control laws, then Washington DC, should have strict gun control law.

Correct?

So you are obligated by your own argument to support the DC handgun banm and oppose those who want to see it overturned.

Am I being logical with regard to your argument? Is some emotion clouding this train of thought?

I happen to disagree with your line of argument. I don't like the idea of basing gun laws on the prevailing sentiment of the people if my town, county, state, or country.

I also think the stats with regard to crime are pretty much a wash - the two most extensive studies I have seen pretty much find no correlation between CCW laws or gun control laws and crime.

she would have to define where the basis for that morality comes from
Click to expand...

I suspect the only strong arguments for/against gun control are based in morality, or some philosophy of Natural Rights, etc. That means each one of us needs to define (at least to ourselves) the basis of our moral judgments with regard to this issue.

Mike
 
treo, I hope you can formulate this question in a sincere manner. It broaches a very sensitive subject, so please be very sensitive about it:

According to the FBI Unified Crime Statistics Report, each year an average of 16,000 women successfully defend themselves from rape by using a gun in self-defense, and then report the incident to police.
Question: If you ban all guns, how do you propose to protect those 16,000 women each year?
 
A variation of the previous post:

According to the FBI Unified Crime Statistics Report, each year approximately 374,000 Americans use a gun lawfully and legally to defend themselves from crime and then make a police report of the incident. If you ban all guns, how do you propose to defend these 374,000 Americans?
 
I always like the "Okay, Washington D.C. has the MOST restricive gun laws on the books, and yet the have the WORST gun crime around. Now, some people say that is because DC still has relatively easy gun access due to people crossing the border to a less restricive area, getting a gun, then returning. My question is, if you are going to blame gun crime on gun availability, why are these LESS RESTRICTIVE AREAS just 20 minutes away SO FREE OF GUN CRIME? Obviously, if the key was access to guns, then as they have more access they should have more Guncrime, right? So obviously something else must be going on in DC itself..."


or ask "The FBI used to collect gun crime data by race, gender, ethnicity, etc etc. Why is it that in all urban areas, Americans of Japanese decent always had the lowest gun crime perpetration rates? For each city or metropolitan area, the gun laws where the same, so if access to guns is relevant, then all groups should have equal gun crime perpetration rates? Is it because people of Japanese decent can't read a phonebook and find a gunstore? Or are you saying they are all ninjas or somethign and just never get caught?"
 
If you don't have a gun, how can you shoot back at an aggressor with his illegally obtained gun?

Without guns, the side with the most brute force would win. Firearms level the playing field, that's why a bunch of farmers won their independence from the best fighting force in the world.

How would banning guns in law remove them from criminals in practice?

Do criminals intent on murder follow weapons control laws?

Are firearms necessary for crime?
 
This professor is actually pretty cool, I explained "Molan Labe" to him and he got a kick out of it.

What he really wants out of these papers is a well thought out, reasoned argument & he is death on fallacies so if( or should I say when) I catch her in one he's going to let me point it out.

In case anyones wondering, my paper is going to be on Edward D. Slovik. ( let's just see how many history buffs we have on THR)
 
Make the point that, as long as we have indoor plumbing, guns are always going to be more available than any illegal drug you can think of; we can't stop people IN PRISON from getting or making functional firearms, so there's absolutely NO chance she's going to stop someone on the outside from getting them.
 
RPCVYemen

So from your point of view - one can't base an argument for gun control on morality.

If one can't an argument for gun control morality, then one can't base an argument against gun control on morality. Either morality (and moral law) can be used as a basis for discussion, or it cannot.
Click to expand...
Sure it can be.
And defeated if that's the tactic. Who's morality do weuse?
To state it differently, the case for or against does not rest on moral issues, but on the majority opinion of a city, state or country.

So if the majority of the people in some political division in opposed to gun control, then that political division should not have gun control laws.
Click to expand...
If a political party gains enough power and support for a law they can get it passed. That doesn't make it right or wrong, just legal.
By the same token, if the majority of the people in some political division support gun control laws, then that political should have gun control laws.

So, from your point of view, if the a majority of the people in Wyoming are opposed, to strict gun control laws, then Wyoming should not have strict gun control laws.

By the same token, if a majority of the people in Washington, DC want strict gun control laws, then Washington DC, should have strict gun control law.
Click to expand...
When you ask a question on what should be done you are asking for an opinion based on what right or wrong is. If you are asking if a state should over rule basic Constitutional rights my answer is no but I base it on those basic principles not my personal view of morality.

If the gal bases her argument on morality I think that's the weakest tactic and the easiest to defeat.
So you are obligated by your own argument to support the DC handgun banm and oppose those who want to see it overturned.

Am I being logical with regard to your argument? Is some emotion clouding this train of thought?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. If you are asking if a country can decide to
eliminate parts of its' founding principles then the answer is yes. That seems to be what the basic battle line is here.
I happen to disagree with your line of argument. I don't like the idea of basing gun laws on the prevailing sentiment of the people if my town, county, state, or country.
Click to expand...
I don't like it either but I said country, not local governments within a country. I don't think they have the right and I hope the Supremes agree with me but if she takes that tactic then she can't pass national policies.
I also think the stats with regard to crime are pretty much a wash - the two most extensive studies I have seen pretty much find no correlation between CCW laws or gun control laws and crime.
Click to expand...
You've seen different statistics than me. Everyone I've seen says violent crime goes down where CCW is more prevalent.

Quote:
"she would have to define where the basis for that morality comes from"

I suspect the only strong arguments for/against gun control are based in morality, or some philosophy of Natural Rights, etc. That means each one of us needs to define (at least to ourselves) the basis of our moral judgments with regard to this issue.
Click to expand...
Only if she is confused enough to assume that her sense of morality is at least the majority view and I think history proves her wrong.
 
What would you say to the woman who has successfully defended herself from a batering ex or a rapist with a firearm when you tell her she can no longer carry/have a gun even though she could easily be overpowered by the average adult male?

Given the billions of dollars spent each year on the war on drugs, a consumable item, why is it reasonable to think that gun laws would be any more effective at getting guns, a durable item, out of the hands of criminals than the drugs laws are?
 
I'd ask her this question

"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx

Maybe bring up the Castle Rock case, which said the police has no duty/obligation to protect individual citizens. Ask her why she thinks people should be denied the means to protect themselves when the Supreme Court has ruled that the Government is not responsible for her safety.
 
It's probably already been suggested, but just simply ask her if she's even aware of the Castle Rock decision.

If she is, which I doubt, ask her what she would suggest people do to protect themselves from larger, armed criminals, given the police has no real obligation to protect you from harm.
 
To me, swimming pools are a much better comparison to make than cars. Most people consider cars so necessary that they are an acceptable danger. Pools though, are a little more "frivolous," yet 100 times as many children die in houses with swimming pools than houses with guns.
Marty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Ask An Anti Reprise The Great Debate (Not)
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Treo
T
T
  • Locked
Need help with gun control arguments.
Replies
24
Views
931
Sheslinger
S
P
  • Locked
My wife stuck it to the anti-gun bigots!
Replies
8
Views
1K
winstonsmith
W
M
  • Locked
Holocaust Day in History Class
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
6K
sniper5
S
O
  • Locked
Pro/Anti family members?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
USAF_Vet
U
Back
Top