Need Help Trying to Educate some British Anti's....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zedicus

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
1,976
Location
Idaho
These are online anti's btw...

2 main ones are Aganst RKBA and think that only the Military & "some" Police should be alowed firearms...
But they tend to change the subject when yoU ask for there reason...

I have used several analogys & illistrations, but i seem to be hitting a brick wall with everything...:(

And I doubt they would ever come to THR so ganging up on them here is out.

Could gang up on them at there own site (which i'm an admin on btw) but I have no idea how that would go...

Any suguestions?

May post some of one current conversation later...
 
Last edited:
Ask them why they think that they (or their fellow citizens) are too stupid and/or dangerous to be trusted with firearms, while they CAN be trusted with motor vehicles, gasoline, baseball bats, chainsaws, etc. I find it helpful to point out that gun control laws are a government's way of saying "We don't trust the citizens we're supposed to be working for", and letting them chew on that for a while.
 
I can't imagine the English will rediscover the right to defend one's life until they've arrived at the end of the socialist road and seen for themselves there's nothing there. The English of today are a pitiful, contemptible remnant of the English of centuries gone by.
 
My advise is to walk away and not even talk to them. I can not recall instance of an antigunner, or a liberal in general, changing his/her/it's mind about any liberal stance, and certainly not as the result of some internet chat. Don't waste your time, you are just being baited.
 
conversation with one of them, didn't know he was an anti untill i showed him a .txt of the pro-rkba script I posted earlyer, then the conversation started...

My thoughts in "[ ]"'s & comments in "-= =-"

Me: so, you think that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to have guns for self protection?

Anti: no. i think people shouldn't be allowed guns. doesn't matter what it's for.

Me: and your reason?

-=-=Long pause and an attempt to change the subject=-=-

Anti:with the laws being the way they are although there are guns coming into the country it's limited. as soon as you legalise gunnage (i think that's the new noun for gun) then there's gonna be a flood of guns coming into the country.

Anti: which is much harder to control

Anti: with the services monitoring gun shipping at the mo, they're all illegal, so they all get shipped out again. but if you suddenly legalise it then there's gonna be a lot of screw ups...

Me: not all of that would nesisaraly be a bad thing though.

Anti: what do you mean?

Me: well for one, Ever heard of a criminal who is Law abiding?

Anti: well no. cause that wouldn't make him a criminal.

Me: exactly, The people we want to keep away from weapons are in one way or another, criminals, and criminals never pay any attention to any law, correct?

Anti: correct

Me: Now, lets say for a moment that you were a criminal, and you were going to do a robery with a gun, would you go to a gun shop and get one leagaly that could be traced back to you?
or would you get one from a illegal arms seller that could not be traced back to you and would cost half as much.?

Anti: illegally bloke

Me: exactly, it's the only logical choice.
the criminal won't use a "Legal" gun

Anti: so why should people be allowed guns? or more to the point, why should guns be legalized?

Me: ok, say you (the criminal you) wre intending to rob somones home, but you didn't know if anyone would be home or not, and you knew that there were quite a few people in the area that had guns and were prepared to use them in self defence, would you go ahead & rob a pace there, or go somewhere that there wasnt anyone with a gun?

Me: it comes down basicaly to, would you be willing to take that kind of gamble with your life, or not...?

Anti: of course not. but not only are you legalising guns, you're also legalising murder. it doesn't matter if its in cold blood or self defense. In the eye's of the law, taking a life wether it belongs to you or not is murder. if you do it in self defense then the punishment gets lighter and vice versa. but you're still taking another life.

Me: taking a life in self defence is not murder.

Me: even if there is no justification for use of "Leathal Force" it is classified as Manslaughter, not murder.

Anti: in my opinion, i think that's a very primitive way of looking at it. are you worried about being shot in your own home? then move. legalising guns will just increase the chance of you getting shot.

Anti: sorry, my lack of language. manslaughter it is.

Anti: most offenders wont buy a gun to rob you, they'll nick your gun and rob you with it.

Me: and your proof that they could if you have the training to prevent your own disarmament?

Anti: if you're going to train to stop your own disarmament, then wouldn't it be more logical to train in disarmament of your oppenant?

Me: taking a gun from somone is riskyer than daring a known sereal killer to kill you.

9 times out of 10 it ends in the person trying to get the gun ending up being shot, even if the person trying to disarm has training in how to.

ask any armed officer or millitary weapons expert, even with training to do so forcefully taking a gun from anyone is a bad idea.

Anti: erm, serial killers are a bit rare. how many locks do you have on your door?

Me: I am not paranoid if that is what you think :)

Anti: no. then why do you want a gun? what are you protecting yourself from?

Anti: why dont you put more locks on? it'd be cheaper and safer.

Me: oh, yah, more locks is the answer, how many people with loads of locks still get broken into each year?

Anti: erm, 7?

Me: bit more than that i'm afraid

Anti: have you decided what you're protecting yourself from?

Me: I don't need to decide, its you who needs to think about what a law abiding citizen would need to protect themselves from, that is the only way to get a good answer.:)

Anti: nothing. i dont believe anybody should be afraid of anything.

Anti: have you watched bowling for columbine?

[Puke Alert!!! Why me?]

Me: Bowling for columbine is a movie, movies even when based on true storys are fictional, ones based on true storys are often changed to make them more of a hit, even if the original story is nearly obliterated.

Me: and no i have not seen it

Anti: i take you have watched it then.

Me: nope.

Me: only first heard of the name last week [100% True!]

Anti: then watch it. it's not a film.

Me: I might

Anti: no. do. it's very informative. it's a lengthy documentary (well worth every minute)

Me: if i get the time to

-=-=Chat ended=-=-
Click to expand...

Did I Screw up?
Did I do ok for the first time?

Any ideas that could help?
 
You did ok.

Tell him that if a persons life belongs to him then he has a right to defend it. Consequently he should have access to the best tools of self defence. If he gives the usual response ask him why he thinks guns are so easy to use to commit crime yet so impossible to use in self defence. You could refer him to www.goodguyswin.org

Then tell him that if he doesn't want you to have a gun the burden of proof is on him. He has to prove why you're such a horrible person that you shouldn't have one. If his answer is "you might lose control" explain to him that it's him being paranoid to think everyone's an inch from being a murderer.
 
An idea..

I haven't tried this, but I think that reducing your argument to its most basic principles will work well.

Start with a question; i.e., Do you believe an individual should be able to use force to defend themselves from a wrongful attack?

Most rational people will answer yes.

How much force should they be allowed to use?

What if lethal force is the only way to stop the wrongdoer?

Why should government tell people they can't use the most efficient instrument to defend themselves?

If government does bar certain tools of defense, why will people who break the law by harming others follow the law barring certain tools?

Even if they make odd noises at the end about not controlling their own actions, you have at least made them think about their positions.
 
You're wasting your time with these British anti's ..........
this would be more productive :banghead:
 
Anti: of course not. but not only are you legalising guns, you're also legalising murder. it doesn't matter if its in cold blood or self defense. In the eye's of the law, taking a life wether it belongs to you or not is murder. if you do it in self defense then the punishment gets lighter and vice versa. but you're still taking another life.
Click to expand...
The response I would give to that:

So you feel that it would be morally superior for the criminal to take your life than for you to take his; because you would not choose to do "murder" against those who would do murder to you?
 
Ask him if Enlish gun control has worked, why has their gun crime rate skyrocketed for the last 10 years?


Edited to add: He thinks killing in self-defense is murder and reprehensable, so you're basically talking to a brick wall.
 
You are seriously going to have more fruitful conversation talking to your dog.

Ask him this: Is murder illegal in England? Is robbery illegal in England? Are handguns illegal in England? [the answer to all is yes.] Ask him what good these laws do if they cannot stop someone from murdering or robbing you (with or without a gun), when their government will not allow them the basic human right to self defense.
Does it comfort him that the police will show up to draw a chalk outline around his mutilated remains? Does it comfort him that they will call the six o'clock news?

One more thing, regarding Bowling for Columbine -- you kind of faltered when that was brought up. Research the kind of propaganda put forth in the "film," see it if you have to*, and tell the Guv'nah about it. Back it up with real, rock-solid numbers. These can't be argued with. If he tries to argue them anyway, you'll know that he is irreparably irrational, and a total lost cause.

Do I need to point out that a certain historical seven-year conflict would never have happened if guns were outlawed?

Good luck.
Wes

*use a borrowed or pirated copy ONLY. DO NOT let that fat :cuss: get any of your money.
 
Don't waste your breath! Some folks have just decided to be victims - no matter what.... so, let them!

He beat me to the punch.
Look at it this way.
At least if the muggers are attacking them, you won't have to use up any of that expensive, premium self defense ammo.;)
You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the guy with you.
The thing is, they need not cry to me when their loved ones are being harmed next door.
The police will be there in about seven minutes.
That means that I only need to keep my door secure for about eight.
Hope their family lives that long.
I wonder how long it would take for a violent criminal to find a blunt object in your house and use it to .... Well, you get the point.
Probably less than the police response time.
 
The brits won't be educable for another few more decades.

Imagine what would happen to a society if you took the million bravest citizens and killed them (1/16 of the male population), and turn another 3 million into shell shocked walking zombies the rest of their lives. Then you wait 20 years and repeat the process (this time you only have to kill the best and brightest quarter million).

After a while this process puts hereditary cowards too high on the food chain until Darwin manages to sort them out again. Not likely to happen soon, considering all the UK welfare programs.
 
Well, they may have been as brave as lions, but they obviously weren't very bright. As everyone knows, the smartest Englishmen had already come over here a couple of hundred years ago. Ahem!;)
 
Ask them what happened to their anti-gun convictions when the Germans were about to invade their country and they had no arms to defend themselves with.
While you are at it, also ask them what happened to the thousands of firearms that the American citizens loaned to them as they watched the Germans prepare to invade them. After the war was over those rifles were never shipped back to the United States. They were also never used as Germany never invaded and today , like yesteryear, the Subjects aren't allowed ownership.
That's gratitude for you!!!!!


That "stiff upper lip" phrase they use is to keep from smelling the excrement spewing out from their mouth.
 
I'm considering telling him that i "Once" thought like he does now (only for about 10 minutes ;)), and when he asks why i still don't, I'll simply reply with something allong the lines of....

"Simple, I woke up and smelled Reality!"
 
Your loved ones are in danger.. someone is going to kill them. That someone is standing in front of you with a big knife..

There's two items on the table...

#1) A loaded gun
#2) A Hallmark "Make love, not war" card.

Which do you pick up and use?
 
Still my best argument for RKBA:

Countries having successful gun control laws in the 20th Century -- and the results of those laws:

1915-1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered
1929-1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered.
1933-1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews, Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler, murdered
1948-1952 China, 20 million anti-communists or communist reformers, murdered
1960-1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians, murdered
1971-1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Idi Amin, murdered
1975-1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons, murdered
1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army.

That’s more than 2000 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for EVERY SINGLE DAY in the 20th century.

s_monopoly.jpg

Thanks Oleg Volk for one of many great posters!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Texas S.W.A.T. is anti
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Creeping Incrementalism
C
T
  • Locked
Educate? Or Ignore?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Gunfighter123
G
C
  • Locked
Calling the HR troops--Need some help debating antis on line
Replies
14
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
M
  • Locked
Are Antis Enemies
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
3K
BhmBill
B
V
  • Locked
Need Help convincing an anti... asap
2
Replies
31
Views
979
Kendahl
K
Back
Top