Debating an anti-gunner (part Deux)

[denton]

My professional work involves heavy use of practical statistics. The misuse of statistics on both sides of the issue is substantial, with the antis being arguably more loose and misleading than the pros.

As I said earlier, the policy decision on whether we would be armed or not was made by the Founders. Whether you like that decision or not, it was made and it was made a long time ago.

Having looked at a lot of the research, one statement you can make is that there is no clear-cut evidence that I have found that says that the Founders made a bad decision. If someone wants to change that decision, then I think that person has the burden of making a case for the change, and I don't see any evidence that would carry that burden.

 

[coloradokevin]

Another thought about this debate:

1) While you may not change the mind of a sincerely anti-gun person, it is also true that a lot of people take an anti-gun stance merely because of their lack of familiarity with firearms. These people may not immediately appear to be the "open minded" people we are trying to reach, but many of them will still dramatically adjust their position if they receive a proper exposure to firearms, and some valid and well-presented arguments about gun rights.

2) While we all probably recognize that the hardcore anti-gun folks aren't going to change their position, just like we aren't changing our position, we should also remember that tactful debates with these people can often reach other people who are undecided. That has been my latest tactic, especially in the social media arena. I have a diverse group of friends, which includes MANY very pro-gun folks, and a vocal contingent of anti-gun folks (the same is true within my own family). Lately, if someone posts an anti-gun statement on their Facebook or blog, I'll respond tactfully with my pro-gun counter argument, or a tactful argument about the flaws with their position. This may not sway them, but may have an impact on any of their fence-riding friends who aren't yet decided on this issue.

3) People who align themselves with anti-gun politics seem to go on the offensive whenever possible. We need to be ready to respond to their position with a well-reasoned position from our side of the political line.

 

[Pete D.]

Speculation

TommyG:

Well, d'oh!!! I was simply SPECULATING on what an alternate possibility might have been had certain actualities been diffferent. It is a fact that England and France were at war (this is historically one of the reasons why France agreed to help us) and this made England choose where to devote its war resources. Certainly an alternate can't be proved, but that hardly qualifies as a "weak detail."
The business of the British officer pocketing a note is historical fact. Would America have lost had he read it? General Washington would certainly have lost at Trenton; the rest is speculative, but given the condition of the Continental Army at the time I think it's a pretty fair guess.

Sigh. You missed the point, Tommy. You are focusing on the factual parts - England at war, the pocketing of the note - and using that to justify speculation.
In point of fact, lots of things could have happened. You just don't know. Would Washington certainly have lost? Impossible to know. It is, as you say, a guess. Improbable things happen all the time.
Pete

 

[Tommygunn]

I missed the point? Points have sharp ends. Perhaps what I was dealing with was too dull.....

 

[Pete D.]

Dull?

And you write so well.
Alas.