Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[Trent]

Nice, Solo.

Done and done. We'll see how he responds.

(It's going to help that another FEMALE family member of theirs is on the same thread saying she WANTS the right to protect herself... one brother is non-commital, the other is highly anti-carry despite being a gun owner)

This did take a twist here, I've never debated with a gun owner who was against concealed carry before, or, for that matter, have I ever found one who was against it.

Guess we're not ALL on the same side.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I've come across plenty of hunters who are anti-concealed carry and anti-assault weapon. In fact, my experiences would suggest its very common.

 

[Skribs]

Trent, some people think that guns are only for their purpose. If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting.

 

[rondog]

Arguing with anti's is like trying to teach pigs to sing.

 

[barnbwt]

I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the
Police.

Wrong on so many levels. Morally, philosophically...grammatically . He'd rather have some poor SOB cop stick his neck out than take simple measures to protect his own behind. Ya'know, cops are still there even if you carry; it's not like it's either lawmen or gunmen

I also enjoyed the (far too frequent) reference to the Wild West as being a playground of weapons, earlier. IIRC, guns were the only thing that allowed productive society to exist back then, because of the indian menace and banditry prevalent in the "unregulated" areas. And even then, the poor were, as always, the most vulnerable to attack and at the same time the least defended. Coincidence?

TCB

 

[Trent]

Wow. His brother's latest two responses were so filth littered that I'm hesitant to post it on here. I'll block out the cuss words.

My last post

Also, worth noting, police have "no duty to protect" under the law of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Some random lady posted up:

Tyler! The nut jobs have guns anyway! And since when have you felt "protected" by the Pekin police?

Tyler's response (edited for foul language)

Here is my OPINION, dont like it I dont care. I have two kids. I would rather they not grow in a society where carrying a ****** gun will protect them. Where were the Police? In a perfect world they would be there. This is not a perfect world. I agree with Patrick with the neighbor situation. A heated arguement can become violent fast with a gun on your side. I also dont want to walk into Chuck E Cheese and have the idiot next to my kids having a gun. How many accidents a year are there from guns? If People do start to alk with a gun I suppose Ill be forced to as well, since I will have no choice being in a uncivilized nation.

Not all nutjobs "carry" a gun either. How the **** are we to know who is nuts and who is not. Itll be a lottery. Is this dude ok or a ******* nut. With current laws I know that if you are carrying a gun to get away from your ***, If there legal I wont have the option

My response;

Well, people have been telling me for years that if I want to carry a firearm, I should move somewhere where it's legal. In 6 months, it'll be legal in Illinois. So I'll pass the same advice along that people have been passing on to me for the last 18 years of my adult life.

"Don't like it, move."

Canada, New York City, California, they're all very restrictive on guns. Maybe you'd feel safer somewhere else?

 

[Trent]

Ohh the good old Tyler.

I will bet money that an appeal or very strict carry laws will come. Our Gov Quinn has the same views as myself. He is great at blocking laws. My view for legal carry is to regulate the people HARD. Ans require extensive training and classes like Drivers ED. Firearm education is a MUST if they decide to "hand" guns to whoever wants them

My response

Madigan will undoubtedly think about appealing to the Supreme Court. If it goes there, realize that it *could* mean that the court will weigh 49 states vs. 1 and decide in the favor of the 49... meaning restrictive laws in NY, CA, etc are overturned in favor of broader carry rights nationwide.

"Our Gov Quinn has the same views as myself"

I take this to mean you also believe in banning those Evil Black Rifles, too? (That's another debate entirely!) It's worth noting that his latest shenanigans with an assault weapons ban were voted down 48-4 in the Senate and UNANIMOUSLY in the house. The lawmakers were not very impressed with his theatrics and bullying.

You DO realize that in order to own a firearm (or carry one) you already have to pass a federal and state background check, not have any domestic or drug offenses, not have any violent misdemeanors, not have any prior mental health record, not be addicted to drugs, and so on right?

What else do you want on top of all of that?

Psychics?

 

[Trent]

"psychics"...

Man I cracked myself up hard there.

OK enough pro-gun stuff for one day.

Time for a movie.

 

[armoredman]

Nifty - this guy would probably panic himself into a catatonic state if we set foot in Arizona.

If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting

Hmm, I plan on using this rifle to hunt deer and coyote when I can get the time off...



Thanks for standing up as a polite and steady ambassador of the 2A!

 

[happygeek]

If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting

I recently bought two bolt action rifles that were designed in the 1890s to kill people. I'm starting to look for a Mauser, which I'm pretty sure was originally designed for shooting at people. I do own one rifle that I'm pretty sure wasn't designed with shooting at people in mind, ironically it's an evil AR, in 22LR.

 

[mjkten]

You can tell him that it's people like him who should not possess weapons, someone who would get into a heated argument with a firearm on his hip shows a fatal lack of good judgement and common sense. And since he's anti gun, well, that should pose no problem.

 

[Skribs]

I hope you guys realize I was playing devil's advocate, and I don't actually believe what was quoted, and are using me as a surrogate to argue against instead of actually arguing with me, because I agree with you.

 

[Trent]

OOH a new one!

I saw this coming a mile away, but I'm still trying to figure out how to word my response:

And all those "checks" did us good at the batman shooting? He was kicked out of school , was a known nutjob, yet still managed to get the gun and thousands of rounds

 

[Trent]

Response:

Right, there's no doubt about any of that. But let me ask you some questions;

Is getting kicked out of school grounds for revoking someone's gun rights?

Is seeking emotional counselling grounds for removing someone's gun rights? I got counselling after my father shot himself, does that make me a nutjob who shouldn't ever own guns? If he'd been admitted to a mental institution he would have been a prohibited person. So, do we blame him? The guns? Or the counselor who didn't escalate the issue to a higher authority?

I shoot - on any given competition weekend - about 1,000 rounds. Should I not be allowed to possess thousands of rounds of ammo? I shoot between 50,000 and 75,000 rounds of ammunition every year in competitions and practice.

What would have happened if that Aurora theatre wasn't a GUN FREE zone, and people were allowed to carry? ONE person with a concealed carry permit could have saved dozens of lives. Instead, those people were unarmed cattle in a slaughterhouse. That guy didn't PICK the theater down the road which ALLOWS firearms. He picked the ONE theater which does NOT allow firearms to be brought inside.

Also; a person who wants to commit mass murder doesn't NEED a firearm.

The last mass murder in the United States was done with plastic boxcutters, and killed thousands.

He could have just as easily planted gasoline at the entrance and exit and lit it off, roasting EVERYONE in that theater alive. The worst cases in United States history of mass murder have been with Arson, and it's a lot cheaper (and requires less training) to light cans of gasoline off.

No, I think we should look at Aurora and think very strongly about what these "Gun Free" (AKA "Target Rich") zones like that theater contribute to our society.

 

[Trent]

OP chimed back in.

I don't really fear people committing crimes with their guns in a premeditated way. If they are planning it, they'll plan to get a gun illegally, legally or just use some other weapon, maybe improvised explosives or whatever. I suppose the one thing that I do fear above all else, and I don't think it's happened yet, is that criminals get to the point where they will just assume anyone they plan to mug, rob, or what have you will be carrying. So they just shoot first before there's any chance that the victim might defend themselves. Oh, look! We get whatever cash was in the wallet AND another gun! Sweet! And you can say, well, others would come to the person's defense. I don't think that would be the case most of the time. Muggers don't mug people in broad view. They prey on the ones who are unwise enough or simply have no choice but to be out alone.

Response

Patrick - very good points. However, criminals (as do most humans in most activities), show a tendency to follow the path of least resistance. The same argument you give can also be applied to a police officer out on patrol. Everyone KNOWS they have guns. So why don't criminals just shoot cops who are out alone, and take their guns? (Or sneak up behind them and play whack-a-mole with a baseball bat.)

In the UK and Australia, following their near total firearms bans, home invasions went WAY up. Murder rates continued to climb; but shifted so that the vast majority of them were committed with bludgeoning and bladed instruments (bats and knives).

Meanwhile, over the last decade, as more and more states get concealed carry, murder and crime rates in the US continue to DROP.

Except in Chicago, DC, NYC, and other jurisdictions where carrying or possession of firearms is banned.

Coincidence?

 

[Trent]

OP

What happens when there is no place left to go where you can count on people being unarmed? Then the path of least resistance becomes: find someone alone, murder them, then take their stuff.

And maybe that will reduce the number of criminals because it takes a special type of criminal who's actually willing to kill someone. The ones who aren't willing to do that might quit the crime game. Who knows.

Response;

Knives are still (generally speaking) more effective than guns, inside 21 feet. I can't react, draw, aim, and fire, before you can close that distance on foot and stab me through the heart. (Situational awareness is critical whether you are carrying a firearm or not)

There'll still be murder, muggings, and violence. Regardless.

The difference is when victims have a chance.

You're also correct - there's a VERY serious line between stealing and murder. You're more likely to get beaten severely, than killed.

People steal for MANY reasons - hunger, money for drugs, just the thrill of it.

It takes a HELL of a lot more to actually kill someone. People are shades of gray, no true "good" or "bad"; but you have to be pretty dark inside to take a life for the fun of it.

Our existing laws (outside of gun topic) contribute a great deal to that. Steal a car, rob a person, break in to a home, you get a few years in prison if caught.

Murder someone, the rest of your LIFE is forfeit.

Risk vs. reward plays in, just as with all other facets of life.

 

[Trent]

(Both the OP and I have 20ish years of martial arts background - it's why we know each other, so by bringing up how other lethal instruments are as effective as firearms in close quarters, I'm appealing to various situations we've both trained in.)

The end goal of all of this, of course, is to try to get him to view firearms as tools, not objects of fear and loathing.

 

[youngda9]

Trent is doing a good job of playing whack-a-mole...I applaud !

 

[Skribs]

Trent, I would have added that if both the defender and perpetrator are armed with knives, the perpetrator can select weak targets. If both defender and perp have guns, he's looking at the size of the pistol instead of the size of the person.

 

[Trent]

Good point Skribs.

I've brought the point up thusly:

I'll add another thing that just occurred to me (on lunch break now).

One thing is predominantly more powerful than laws, at deterring crime. Everyone has a very strong self-preservation instinct. (What gives us such a rush when we jump out of airplanes, spar with Sensei Quinn, etc; is overcoming that. We KNOW we'll survive but there's always that doubt.)

Faced with the question of "if I rob this person will *I* die in the next two minutes?", a surprising number of folks will back the hell down and pick a weaker target.

There's thousands of examples I could throw out, but this one happened very recently and is very comical.

(Two male home intruders backed down from an 83 year old lady standing with a walker, and a pistol, in this home invasion (happened last month).)

http://www.greenevillesun.com/Local...3-Pulls-Pistol-On-2-Robbers-In-Home-id-321849

(Thanks to jbeechel for his other thread on here on November defensive carry for a nice, fresh example to throw out)

 

[BBQLS1]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

 

[BBQLS1]

Arguing with anti's is like trying to teach pigs to sing.

Not always true. The other thing to remember is that it can positively influence readers who aren't actually in the discussion.

 

[Trent]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

Knowing each other, and being friends, are two entirely separate things.

There's a history between us. He used to work for me a long time ago, and was terminated for cause. It's always left a bit of animosity between us.

We happen to also work out in the same martial arts organization (I'm an instructor, he's an advanced student).

I'll tolerate a discussion with him, but don't want to hang out with the guy in my private life.

 

[Skribs]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

But it seems the FB OP isn't afraid of firearms per se, but rather what happens when an argument occurs and one/both of the arguers has a firearm. Every trip to the range I've had we've all been very nice to each other, so I think it would be very unlikely to show that armed individuals can be physically calm while emotionally angry.

 

[Trent]

Having had a run-in with an armed neighbor once in the past, I can actually see their point of view. THAT has to have come from somewhere, sometime. A person doesn't cling to something that closely without there being a reason. They probably DO have a neighbor who they're afraid of.

In my instance, it was over my dog chasing my neighbor's cat. Don't do what my neighbor did, and brandish a loaded 12 gauge at my dog and sweep the muzzle across my sister.

Because I WILL show up at your door and give you a piece of my mind. (He's lucky I didn't contact the state's attorney to press charges for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing the shotgun at my sister).

In other news... dogs chase outdoor cats, it's a fact of life, no need for gun play.