Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?

[GunnyUSMC]

You called this guy a friend. Why? Is he really a friend or just an aqquantince?

I know that people use the word friend to describe (label) people they know, when the person they are refering to are really not true friends.
I have always said, If you can count your true friends on more then one hand, one will be stabing you in the back.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying not to be friendly with people you know, just know who your real friends are.
Now back on topic. You did pretty good, but you let it go on too long. He showed that he was closed minded, but you allowed him to call you closed minded. This is the Anti's trick. Once they have labeled you, tag, your it. I would have just told him that he really needed to check his facts and not from just anti-gun sites, and to agree to disagree.

Oh! What is this FaceBook?

 

[12gaugeTim]

Tell him your guns, as animate objects, read the comments on that post and now dislike him greatly. Warn him if he comes near your house they will likely run out onto the driveway and begin malfunctioning towards him.

 

[Manson]

LJ. A couple of quick points. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix crazy. That is why anti's are after the tool. They are well intended but wrong. And remember what is said about statistics. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. The stats presented to you are meaningless. More gun deaths in countries with more guns? Wow. More people are probably killed by sheep in Scotland than the US. Care to guess why.

ETA: I disagree with those who would question the value of an anti as a friend. I think there is more value in a gentle education than a swift kick out the door.

 

[danez71]

"Why Do I Carry A Gun?"
"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't the skill, the judgement, the sense of responsibility, nor the courage to carry one!"

I dont like that quote at all. It implies that one that carrys a gun is better than one that doesnt and degrade those that dont.


Aside from that, he's wrong with Switzerland. From wiki:

. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1]

In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia.

Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with guns is a popular recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia.[12] Swiss firearms-related rights are supported by the organization ProTell.

200,000 people attend the annual Feldschiessen weekend, which is the largest rifle shooting competition in the world.[4][13]

And thebest part for your arguement with your friend...

Gun crime


Police statistics for the year 2006[14] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s.

Thats right... in Switzerland, more killings and assults were with knives than guns and yet Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates iin the world.

 

[vaupet]

His figures do prove something: in Switserland, virtualy no homicides, and all this while there is a select fire weapon available in 60% of the homes (the other 40 has a main battle rifle).

You can bether link the number of homicide in a society with 'socialist' care, because that largely takes away the motivation for crime.

In the UK al handguns are banned and since then the number of incidents involving handguns dramaticaly dropped. The total amount of 'incidents' left unchanged.

I could send you a nice study (in dutch) by the 'Flemisch Peace Institute' , hardly an advocate of weapons, in which they conclude that there is no link between crime and weaponpossession in a western-european society.

here is the link: http://www.vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/index.php/onderzoek/wapenhandel-a-productie/vuurwapens

O, this study also states that in Australie, 9.4% of the incidents involved legally kept firearms, for the Uk this was 15%, for New Sealand 20%, so the figures produced by your friend only show that a lot of vilains keep guns.

 

[303tom]

I never argue with someone on Facebook.....................

 

[SabbathWolf]

I deleted my Face Book account.

 

[TacoMalo]

You handled it pretty well, I agree it's impossible trying to reason with someone that's dead set on wanting to be unreasonable.

 

[RaceM]

Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level & beat you with experience.

 

[bobalou]

never discuss politics or religion

 

[medalguy]

One other possible response to his posting might be to ask him how he would respond to 6 armed thugs breaking down his front door at 3 AM and all he has to defend himself and his family with is a baseball bat or a four inch kitchen knife. Oh well I guess he could hand the bat to his wife and he could use the kitchen knife. Wait, I forgot about the sharpened pencil in the desk drawer. That ought to be good for something.

Me, I'll take my 1911A1 any day.

 

[smokey30725]

Yet another reason I deleted my facebook account. My wife told me how much fun it would be to catch up with old friends. Found two things. Number one, some of these folks have way too much spare time. Number two, idiocy only increases with age. I deleted my account not long after I opened it. You might consider reading a book called Nation of Cowards. It is a collection of arguments against guns and ccw with educated rebuttals to counter the antis. Buy it, read it, and lend it to your friend.

 

[smalls]

They could easily apply that argument to those of us who blindly deny any downside to having guns in a society. They aren't stupid. To them, the negatives outweigh the benefits. Its a matter of opinion, not black and white.

It's not black and white, but from my experience, most are uninformed, and refuse to become educated on the matter. If you're ignorant, and refuse information, that makes you stupid.

I've got lots of very good friends who disagree with me on the whole gun issue. I don't think they're stupid, "socialist", or "communist (words that are oft misused on gun forums) and they don't think I'm a dumb gun-toting hillbilly

Well, I should hope not. I'd hate to be friends with people who I thought were communists, or if they thought I was a hillbilly!

I'm not saying you shouldn't have friends with opposing views. But if my friend was trying to sway my opinion with actual facts, and I refused to listen, I'd hope he kicked me. That's a good friend

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

It's not black and white, but from my experience, most are uninformed, and refuse to become educated on the matter. If you're ignorant, and refuse information, that makes you stupid.



Well, I should hope not. I'd hate to be friends with people who I thought were communists, or if they thought I was a hillbilly!

I'm not saying you shouldn't have friends with opposing views. But if my friend was trying to sway my opinion with actual facts, and I refused to listen, I'd hope he kicked me. That's a good friend

That sword cuts both ways, though. Its a fact that many countries that have stricter gun laws have lower overall homicide rates and much lower gun involved suicide/homicide rates. Its also a fact that in the US, guns stop plenty of crimes and prevent people from being harmed or killed. Facts need to be embraced on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[CoRoMo]

I deleted my Face Book account.

I've read that you can't delete a FB account; it remains eternally.

Anyway, I have no use for FB.

 

[Skribs]

Let your friend live in his fuzzy soft world of make-believe and unicorns,

So if I turn in my guns, I get a unicorn?

That sword cuts both ways, though. Its a fact that many countries that have stricter gun laws have lower overall homicide rates and much lower gun involved suicide/homicide rates. Its also a fact that in the US, guns stop plenty of crimes and prevent people from being harmed or killed. Facts need to be embraced on both sides of the spectrum.

It is a fact that there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide/homicide rate, or even homicide rate with guns, as posted above. It is also a fact that 100% of people killed with their own gun owned guns. Guns are merely the tool, the violence, I believe, is associated with the virtues and justice system of the society, as opposed to the rate of gun ownership. Thus, you can argue against the belief that more citizens with guns means more crime with guns.

You can't argue against the fact that if I pull a gun, I am very likely to deter a criminal. And if I don't deter him, I am much more likely to defend myself with a ranged weapon than a melee weapon. This is especially true for me because of my small size and stature.

Others in this thread have said it, but you can't go about debating statistics, because stats are often accrued in a biased manner. I could give you a survey which states that 85% of the people randomly selected at this location are pro-gun. I am of course neglecting to mention in the survey that the place that I work has 70% ex-military folk working here.

Ask how the person feels regarding:
-A 20-year-old petite female college student weighed down by a back pack containing $1500 worth of laptop, graphing calculator, and books, when approached by a large, athletic man weilding a knife. Her options, without a gun, are to run (weighed down by her bag), drop her bag and run (he gets the back, and he can still chase after her), comply, or attempt to fight (which he will probably win).
-Multiple assailants
-Assailants who have ranged weapons

In any of these scenarios, "call the police" means that the perp(s) have 6+ minutes to beat/stab/bludgeon (or do other things) before the police arrive. Forget scewed statistics. Forget all the fearmongering that gun owners are rabid killers, simply by pointing out how many people you know own guns and how many have killed someone outside of the military. Ask those three situations, what would need to happen in order for that person to survive without a gun. What would it take for the victim to survive with one. That is why I am pro-gun.

 

[sdlsaginaw]

I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.

 

[Pilot]

I shoot Unicorns.

 

[SabbathWolf]

I've read that you can't delete a FB account; it remains eternally.

Anyway, I have no use for FB.

Really?
Well that sucks.
I hit the button that said "Delete Account" or something like that.
It was fun for a while, but then I just grew bored with it.
It served no useful purpose anyways.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.

....you do realize that is the entire point, right?

 

[Skribs]

I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.

What you'll find is a lot of people in this world are not capable of analyzing information. If the case is, let's say randomly the following information:
2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns
2011: 90 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns

You can say "murder with guns went down!" But murder stayed the same. On the other hand,

2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns.
2011: 60 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns.

Well in this scenario, murders did fall overall, specifically in the realm of gun related. Then, you have to look at why that happened. We're assuming this is an anti stat, so probably in 2010 there was a gun control law passed. But what else happened? Was there a mass shooting in 2009? Were people in 2011 accused of manslaughter instead of murder? Are people in 2011 still on trial, and thus haven't been convicted of murder? Were there other events, such as neighborhood watch being put up, which would reduce the murder rate?

And last, if there was a gun control law that supposedly banned all guns, why are there still 30 murders with guns? (A coworker of mine tried using a chart comparing US to UK per capita, I was like "if they don't have guns in the UK, how'd they commit these murders with them?")

You also can't compare country-to-country, because different cultures have different ways of handling things, different methods of reporting, etc.

In the first scenario, the antis are just reporting the gun deaths, and not the overall trend. In the second scenario, the articles only report statistics, but the reason why things happened is more important.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

So if I turn in my guns, I get a unicorn?



It is a fact that there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide/homicide rate, or even homicide rate with guns, as posted above. It is also a fact that 100% of people killed with their own gun owned guns. Guns are merely the tool, the violence, I believe, is associated with the virtues and justice system of the society, as opposed to the rate of gun ownership. Thus, you can argue against the belief that more citizens with guns means more crime with guns.

You can't argue against the fact that if I pull a gun, I am very likely to deter a criminal. And if I don't deter him, I am much more likely to defend myself with a ranged weapon than a melee weapon. This is especially true for me because of my small size and stature.

Others in this thread have said it, but you can't go about debating statistics, because stats are often accrued in a biased manner. I could give you a survey which states that 85% of the people randomly selected at this location are pro-gun. I am of course neglecting to mention in the survey that the place that I work has 70% ex-military folk working here.

Ask how the person feels regarding:
-A 20-year-old petite female college student weighed down by a back pack containing $1500 worth of laptop, graphing calculator, and books, when approached by a large, athletic man weilding a knife. Her options, without a gun, are to run (weighed down by her bag), drop her bag and run (he gets the back, and he can still chase after her), comply, or attempt to fight (which he will probably win).
-Multiple assailants
-Assailants who have ranged weapons

In any of these scenarios, "call the police" means that the perp(s) have 6+ minutes to beat/stab/bludgeon (or do other things) before the police arrive. Forget scewed statistics. Forget all the fearmongering that gun owners are rabid killers, simply by pointing out how many people you know own guns and how many have killed someone outside of the military. Ask those three situations, what would need to happen in order for that person to survive without a gun. What would it take for the victim to survive with one. That is why I am pro-gun.

The greater the availability of guns in a society (and by this I don't only mean legal ownership, I mean the propensity for them to be stolen or otherwise found/gained), the greater number of crimes that will be committed with them. That is a fact. Having as many guns as the US does in our society is a dangerous thing. However, not having those guns could be just as dangerous. I completely agree with what you pointed out. But we have to understand and accept that the mass availability of firearms in a society is also a danger, because it makes it easier for bad people to get them, or for somebody to make a bad choice with one.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

What you'll find is a lot of people in this world are not capable of analyzing information. If the case is, let's say randomly the following information:
2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns
2011: 90 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns

You can say "murder with guns went down!" But murder stayed the same. On the other hand,

2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns.
2011: 60 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns.

Well in this scenario, murders did fall overall, specifically in the realm of gun related. Then, you have to look at why that happened. We're assuming this is an anti stat, so probably in 2010 there was a gun control law passed. But what else happened? Was there a mass shooting in 2009? Were people in 2011 accused of manslaughter instead of murder? Are people in 2011 still on trial, and thus haven't been convicted of murder? Were there other events, such as neighborhood watch being put up, which would reduce the murder rate?

And last, if there was a gun control law that supposedly banned all guns, why are there still 30 murders with guns? (A coworker of mine tried using a chart comparing US to UK per capita, I was like "if they don't have guns in the UK, how'd they commit these murders with them?")

You also can't compare country-to-country, because different cultures have different ways of handling things, different methods of reporting, etc.

In the first scenario, the antis are just reporting the gun deaths, and not the overall trend. In the second scenario, the articles only report statistics, but the reason why things happened is more important.

See, those statistics don't work though. The US has an overall higher homicide rate, doesn't matter with what, than the UK. As for your 60/60 90/30 scenario, that doesn't work either. If somebody who would commit a murder with a gun does not have access to a gun, it significantly decreases their ability to commit that murder and thus their likelihood of committing it. The gun lets you kill somebody from far away with little danger to yourself and with little evidence (no fingerprints/dna on a knife etc).

 

[Steve CT]

I have a FaceBook account. I use it to see the latest pictures of my Grand Daughter, and to keep track of interesting events and interact with nieces, nephews, friends, family, etc.

I have Shooting Forum accounts to talk about shooting, guns, RTKBA, 2A, etc.

I would no more discuss shooting on FaceBook than I would share the latest about my niece's baby daughter on THR.

 

[Hardware]

Home/self defense. Which means intent to kill if provoked. Without the gun you would probably use a bat or knife usually not fatal. So that being said guns are bought to kill things even deer (recreational use). That being said guns kill.

Hysterical! Use a knife or bat in self defense in the wrong state and you'll get charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon.