So I've been thinking a lot lately about the times I've tried to argue with an anti-gun person using statistics and facts. I would usually end up wanting to beat my head into a brick wall. So I've been thinking of a new tact to take and think I finally came up with something.
Keep in mind this will only be effective on people who are ignorant of guns and simply "scared" and probably not hardcore anti's who know the agenda is really about "control" and not "guns".
In starting we need to assume that the anti and us are really basically the same, being that we both want to protect the safety of ourselves and our families. We just choose different methods. For the pro-gun people we choose to concentrate on our own personal actions, and what WE can do to protect ourselves. On the other side, the anti's choose to focus on the actions of OTHER people and seek to prevent them from doing things and having objects that can harm themselves and their family.
Now here comes the good part. Tell the anti that you just want to ask him/her only 2 questions and get their honest answers. Then ask them the following:
1. What is the most important thing to you personally? It's pretty safe to say the answer will be the lives and health of themselves and their family.....if they can't figure that out a little prodding can be used and I doubt anyone could argue with this being the answer.
2. Why on earth would you want to trust the safety and security of the most important things in the world to you, to someone else that is a complete stranger? (aka the police/government)
If they begin to protest then give them this simple example. If I was a criminal who wanted to hurt/kill you right now, you could be severely injured or dead in seconds. There is NO police response time anywhere in the country that would respond quickly enough to save you. If there was a police officer in the next ROOM he could most likely not be quick enough to save you.
If they continue to protest I would ask them if it's their belief that they are too incompetant to be trusted with a firearm and is that your arguement for gun control? If that IS their arguement then who are they to decide that just because they feel they are not competant enough to defend themselves with a firearm no one else is either.
I have yet to try this arguement on someone, but I plan to on the first opportunity. Anybody think they can improve it or find a hole in my logic?
Keep in mind this will only be effective on people who are ignorant of guns and simply "scared" and probably not hardcore anti's who know the agenda is really about "control" and not "guns".
In starting we need to assume that the anti and us are really basically the same, being that we both want to protect the safety of ourselves and our families. We just choose different methods. For the pro-gun people we choose to concentrate on our own personal actions, and what WE can do to protect ourselves. On the other side, the anti's choose to focus on the actions of OTHER people and seek to prevent them from doing things and having objects that can harm themselves and their family.
Now here comes the good part. Tell the anti that you just want to ask him/her only 2 questions and get their honest answers. Then ask them the following:
1. What is the most important thing to you personally? It's pretty safe to say the answer will be the lives and health of themselves and their family.....if they can't figure that out a little prodding can be used and I doubt anyone could argue with this being the answer.
2. Why on earth would you want to trust the safety and security of the most important things in the world to you, to someone else that is a complete stranger? (aka the police/government)
If they begin to protest then give them this simple example. If I was a criminal who wanted to hurt/kill you right now, you could be severely injured or dead in seconds. There is NO police response time anywhere in the country that would respond quickly enough to save you. If there was a police officer in the next ROOM he could most likely not be quick enough to save you.
If they continue to protest I would ask them if it's their belief that they are too incompetant to be trusted with a firearm and is that your arguement for gun control? If that IS their arguement then who are they to decide that just because they feel they are not competant enough to defend themselves with a firearm no one else is either.
I have yet to try this arguement on someone, but I plan to on the first opportunity. Anybody think they can improve it or find a hole in my logic?