Drop dead anti gun control facts

[The Deer Hunter]

I am in need of some anti gun control facts. All too often I hear people talking about how guns are bad and how guns should be banned and such, and I wish I really knew some solid anti gun control information.

Like I know theres so much of it out there but I am looking for the kind that really get to the point I guess. It would help if its not too complicated because when your arguing with some incoherent anti gunner its hard to recite those kind of things off the top of your head, but its not hard for them to because all the anti gun "facts" I see are opinionated, biased and sometimes just blasphemous.

 

[GoSlash27]

The best defense is a good offense. My advice is to become intimately familiar with the issues and the facts and pummel your opponents with their own ignorance. Barring that, this will refute 95% of the myths out there. Simply leaf through to the relavant refutation, google the citation, and refute away. Your rebuttals might not be 100% accurate if you rely exclusively on this source, but they'll be none the wiser since they're even more in the dark than you are.

 

[wacki]

http://gunfacts.info/

download and read the pdf

also check out my blog:
http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/buckets-more-dangerous-to-children-than-guns/

http://wacki.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/suicide-rate-japan-has-no-guns-but-suicide-rate/

http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/...treet-violence-study-shows-time-to-ban-boots/
http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/swimming-pool-is-100-times-more-deadly-than-guns/


The samuri, the mountie, and the cowboy is an excellent book.

 

[James T Thomas]

maximum efficient use of mental & physical energy

Your intentions are good, however most of those "anti's" are not persuaded by logic or facts.
They are "dead" certain that they are intellectually superior, and no matter what argument you can put forth, they will simply defer until they can find some rebuttal that fits their viewpoint and offsets; in their mind your statements.
Or if you do reach them with some item of truth, you may just provoke them to some inviction and wrath.

A more efficient effort can be done by simply inviting "one of them" to the target range with you and letting them experience the truth.

 

[NukemJim]

James T Thomas is correct about most(many?) of the antis having minds like concrete "all mixed up and permanetly set".

However for those few whose mind's may be open to rational debate I have found these two sources to be an effective "double tap"

first

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

from National Accedimies of Sciences http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=2

and

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

From the Center for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

and last but not least I must refer to a better writer than I THR's own John Ross

THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts 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 License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry 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 than the Constitution, 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?”

fromhttp://www.john-ross.net/ross_in_range.htm

and last James T Thomas is also correct, take 'em shooting (best results are obtained outside with reactive targets ).

NukemJim

 

[GoSlash27]

I have found that a combination of the two works well.
Most "anti's" are actually fence sitters who haven't actually given it much thought. A hardcore anti can't be persuaded, but they are useful for the purpose of public discourse to sway the fence-sitters. As such, it's really only worth your time to engage them within earshot of as many fence-sitters as possible...always keeping in mind that you must be more reasonable, rational, and pleasant than the other guy.
When dealing with soft antis and fence-sitters, nothing beats a day at the range, and rather than confronting them with the fallacies they've picked up, your approach should be to ask questions to point out the contradictions and inaccuracies, and encouraging them to research the subject on their own.

 

[Mike128]

I found most anit's are stuck in their beliefs no matter what you show them.
An example:
One anti starts talking about how bad guns are and how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than you will to protect yourself. I ask her to prove it. She says everyone knows it's true. I reply that I read the report and the breakdown and how the numbers were played with to include a criminals. She says no one would play with a report like that. I counter with the Brady Campaign did because it fits their agenda and the NRA posted a counter/break down report from the sources the Brady Campaign cited. Her reply was "no wonder, you got that lie. It came from the NRA and they can't be trusted." (So the NRA lies and the Brady's are truthful!)
I also countered most of her arguments with stats and statistics and even offered to email her the original reports (no NRA stuff). Talked of the 2nd and what the founders thought and wrote on it. How it is for self defense and protection from the goverment. Her reply was the police protect me and I can vote to protect myself from the goverment. I couldn't get her to answer what she is going to do in the half hour until the police arrive and what she would do if the goverment didn't allow her to vote. Through all this she could not give one source to back up her claims and resorted to everyone knows it's true line.

 

[Mike128]

Another good example:
My hunting friend (just started) is a classic "Hunter". All you need it a shotgun and rifle kind of guy. No one needs a pistol as all it leads to is trouble. Vtech happened and we started talking, AGAIN. He starts talking about how pistols are only used to cause problems. So I ask what if one person had a CCW and was able to shoot back?
His reply was do you really want kids with guns at school?
CCW are 21 and over, and teachers should have them. So they are not kids, but responsible adults.
There is a look of confusion on his face and his reply was still, "gun causes problems and he doesn't want kids running around with guns."
I ask about his brother, who is a Ranger, being 18 when he joined and how he feels about him running around with guns?
"He has training and it's different."
So if someone has training he should be allowed to CCW? How about ROTC?
No because pistols cause trouble.
It's good to know the facts but remember that people do not like to let go of their beliefs. But I'm making headway. He was one shotgun one rifle kind of guy. Now I have him wanting a nice 22 and a smaller gun to use in the woods for hunting. (I'm pushing him towards a 44mag lever action, pistol bullets as a gateway drug.)

 

[TheOld Man]

The missus is a Good Italian Girl from Joisey.Growing up, the only people she knew with guns were either cops or mobbed up. I have found in talking to people who were raised around that (my brother-in-law) is that they seem to have a little door in their head that slams shut when it sees a new idea coming. In fact, sometimes when you talk to them, you will notice their head jerk to the side a little bit. That is the door slamming shut really hard. We live in the North Woods now. She is slowly getting convinced. Friday we woke up to a bear in the back yard. Sometimes the education has to be in little steps with good documentation. Katrina helped in that respect. Showed folks the need for personal protection. I have been comparing a gun to seat belts in the car. "You may never need it, but don't go anywhere without it buckled up"

 

[GoSlash27]

Here's an example at work:
Slashy stickin' it to the man

See, all the snark and derision I collect on these forays into the lions' den is worth it because the fence-sitters soon realize that the "anti"s haven't got anything more than that.

And one of 'em pops up and says "my hubby's got a .22 in the closet. Think I'll go learn how to use it".

Baby steps

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I have found that a combination of the two works well.
Most "anti's" are actually fence sitters who haven't actually given it much thought.

Very true. Usually you can get them to fold like a deck of cards if you explain to the them the facts. This is why antigun measures are a losing issue, no one votes it.

 

[Ieyasu]

My hunting friend (just started) is a classic "Hunter". All you need it a shotgun and rifle kind of guy. No one needs a pistol as all it leads to is trouble. Vtech happened and we started talking, AGAIN. He starts talking about how pistols are only used to cause problems.

Ugh. I can't stand those types.

Pistols are fine defensive weapons. Ask your friend, "Why should anyone be allowed to own deadly weapons strictly for sport? The obvious next and prudent step, after banning handguns, is to require "sporting" weapons be stored at bona fide gun clubs and shooting ranges. After all many mass shootings have involved shotguns and rifles, and as we all know shotguns are far deadlier than pistols.

 

[benEzra]

The best counter to the "assault weapon" hysteria is to point out that all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Rifles aren't a crime problem and never have been.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Well first of all (in my opinion) you need to determine what sort of anti you are talking to.

Type #1 - The Aggressors - Those with an active agenda of disarmament. Usually to forward some private purpose of their own.
Type #2 - The Managed - Those who have been socially trained to be against guns, even though they usually don't actually know WHY. More often than not they are simply repeating "facts" that they heard or were given by someone else. Most have never given any -real- thought to the matter.
Type #3 - The Hoplophobes - Those who have an actual psychological illness in line with any other phobic reaction.

My own approach to each group is...
Aggressors - I treat them as the enemy. I will do as much as I possibly can to hinder them, bring their plans to a halt, or cause them a reversal.
Managed - I try to educate them. I will do as much as I can to teach them facts and neutralize propaganda while realizing that I must respect their right to make up their own minds on the topic.
Hoplophobes - I walk away. I don't have the disposition or psychological training to deal with an actual clinical phobia.

Once you've determined what type you are dealing with (and the vast majority will be type 2) then you can select an appropraite course of action/education.

 

[MathurinKerbouchard]

Kennesaw, GA. 'Nuff said.

 

[helpless]

I found most anit's are stuck in their beliefs no matter what you show them.
An example:
One anti starts talking about how bad guns are and how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than you will to protect yourself. I ask her to prove it. She says everyone knows it's true. I reply that I read the report and the breakdown and how the numbers were played with to include a criminals. She says no one would play with a report like that. I counter with the Brady Campaign did because it fits their agenda and the NRA posted a counter/break down report from the sources the Brady Campaign cited. Her reply was "no wonder, you got that lie. It came from the NRA and they can't be trusted." (So the NRA lies and the Brady's are truthful!)
I also countered most of her arguments with stats and statistics and even offered to email her the original reports (no NRA stuff). Talked of the 2nd and what the founders thought and wrote on it. How it is for self defense and protection from the goverment. Her reply was the police protect me and I can vote to protect myself from the goverment. I couldn't get her to answer what she is going to do in the half hour until the police arrive and what she would do if the goverment didn't allow her to vote. Through all this she could not give one source to back up her claims and resorted to everyone knows it's true line.

Yup sounds about right.