Number of anti's on THR?
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
pdowg881
Member
What I want to see is an rational and factual debate with an anti. If they really do insist makiing guns illegal will solve problems why can't they have a rational debate?
MarshallDodge
Member
There was a guy that was posting on here about 4-6 weeks ago. One of his posts defended Rocky Anderson, the extremely liberal mayor of Salt Lake. I made a post disagreeing with him and got a scathing PM from him.
I PM'd him back, stated my case, and asked him what his favorite firearm was. He never responded and has not posted since June 1.
I PM'd him back, stated my case, and asked him what his favorite firearm was. He never responded and has not posted since June 1.
pdowg881
Member
I hate how any debate that seems to starts well degenerates into some kind of an emotional argument.
I think you just hit upon the root of the problem.....There is no such thing as Rational/Factual Discussion with 99.99% of the real Anti's
Even when presented with hard stats they refuse to accept that Increased Gun Ownership/CCW leads to a DECREASE in CRIME.
The core issue that I've been able to get a few Anti's heads spinning on is "What do you want"? When I ask that question they always say "What do you mean?"
My response is:
"Do you want CRIME REDUCTION or LAW ENFORCEMENT?"...this usually gets the brain cells firing because they are so used to parroting back BS that there is no thought to the response.
Inevitably most CITIZENS could care less about LAW ENFORCEMENT per say as long as there is CRIME REDUCTION.
Politicians on the other hand want LAW ENFORCEMENT which leads to increased laws/control and revenues for the state based upon increased convictions and the criminalization of otherwise law abiding citizens.
If you can make an Anti THINK then you're half way there.
Even when presented with hard stats they refuse to accept that Increased Gun Ownership/CCW leads to a DECREASE in CRIME.
The core issue that I've been able to get a few Anti's heads spinning on is "What do you want"? When I ask that question they always say "What do you mean?"
My response is:
"Do you want CRIME REDUCTION or LAW ENFORCEMENT?"...this usually gets the brain cells firing because they are so used to parroting back BS that there is no thought to the response.
Inevitably most CITIZENS could care less about LAW ENFORCEMENT per say as long as there is CRIME REDUCTION.
Politicians on the other hand want LAW ENFORCEMENT which leads to increased laws/control and revenues for the state based upon increased convictions and the criminalization of otherwise law abiding citizens.
If you can make an Anti THINK then you're half way there.
crazed_ss
Member
I'm an anti. I support gun control like background checks and such.
There's not much in the way of rational, factual debate on guns at all. Everyone views the gun debate through the lens of their own emotions. Those who say they view guns without emotion usually have plenty of nice feelings for those who would ban them. . . .
bogie
Member
I think we've got a lot of bleep disturbers from outfits like Democratic Underground, etc.
Usually their terminology gives them away.
Usually their terminology gives them away.
hexidismal
Member
I only occasionally hear tell in other threads about anti's on THR, though I'm not sure that I've ever actually seen one posting. If there are, the mods must be too quick on the ball for me to see them. Actually though, I don't think the mods would delete posts containing behaved intelligent discourse, however anti. Then again they might, I really wouldn't know. I do imagine there must be some antis who don't post but just read looking for something to drudge up. In fact, I hope there are. Maybe theres some chance of them actually learning some fact from LIEberal fiction.
crazed_ss makes a good point though. We don't all share the same views here. The terms Pro and Anti can be difficult to define, and are really much defined by the individual.
crazed_ss makes a good point though. We don't all share the same views here. The terms Pro and Anti can be difficult to define, and are really much defined by the individual.
cbsbyte
Member
I guess it depends on how one defines an anti. I know some posters including myself have been called Antis/DUites because we don't happen to march lock step with the right wing ideology or purist views of some other posters on this board.
I know lots of Antis. I've tried to have rational discussions with them about it. They tend to raise their voices and turn red and get very upset because I'm "attacking their opinions." Of course, I try to always take the high road and remain objective and factual.
It seems that people who think about the issue logically are not Antis. I do notice a lot of canned responses that they tend to repeat and much worse, believe, without giving them any objective thought.
My favorite Anti argument is "If we banned all guns and it saved at least one child's life, it would be worth it." They never consider how many children could perish as a result of guns not being available to defend them with (wild animals, bad guys, foreign invasion, etc.).
Most of them mean well, they're just misguided and lacking some logic and critical thinking skills.
It seems that people who think about the issue logically are not Antis. I do notice a lot of canned responses that they tend to repeat and much worse, believe, without giving them any objective thought.
My favorite Anti argument is "If we banned all guns and it saved at least one child's life, it would be worth it." They never consider how many children could perish as a result of guns not being available to defend them with (wild animals, bad guys, foreign invasion, etc.).
Most of them mean well, they're just misguided and lacking some logic and critical thinking skills.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
If they were rational and factual they wouldn't be anti.
Fear of an inanimate object is most certainly not rational.
Sav .250
Member
Anti: Against. Opposed. In opposition to.
It looks like the literal meaning is.............. Anti-gun means just that.
Why an anti-gun person would come on a gun site is beyond me.
Unless there is some masochism involved. On the "Anti`s" side of course.
It looks like the literal meaning is.............. Anti-gun means just that.
Why an anti-gun person would come on a gun site is beyond me.
Unless there is some masochism involved. On the "Anti`s" side of course.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
It's impossible to say how many lurk.
Trolls who delurk are shown the door in short order.
Every now and then, one delurks for honest debate and gets his clock cleaned. This used to happen more frequently, but has diminished over time to the point that it hasn't happened in a long while.
We've had a few conversions, over the years, but I think the main thing they've learned is that they're massively outclassed and can't win an open debate, because at the end of the day, there's no genuine ambiguity to play with. History, the law, morals and ethics are all on our side.
The anti's case rests entirely on manufactured ambiguity. Without it, they have nothing to stand on.
Trolls who delurk are shown the door in short order.
Every now and then, one delurks for honest debate and gets his clock cleaned. This used to happen more frequently, but has diminished over time to the point that it hasn't happened in a long while.
We've had a few conversions, over the years, but I think the main thing they've learned is that they're massively outclassed and can't win an open debate, because at the end of the day, there's no genuine ambiguity to play with. History, the law, morals and ethics are all on our side.
The anti's case rests entirely on manufactured ambiguity. Without it, they have nothing to stand on.
Stupid anti's get found. Smart anti's start threads about 'show me your guns', overthrowing the government, killing cops or why you need a gun to protect you from those crazy (insert racial/religion slur here), so they can run off and post a link on some site showing how insane gun owners are. I personally think (pure conjecture and WAG) that there are quite a few succesful anti's on THR, doing decent counter-PR work.
indie
Member
i dont consider myself right or left.
i just consider myself rational. What i believe in is what i believe in. The right to arm myself is one of them.
I can agree with or even support a person with a difference in opinion on guns, because the right to bear arms is one of the thousands of things that are important to me.
i just consider myself rational. What i believe in is what i believe in. The right to arm myself is one of them.
I can agree with or even support a person with a difference in opinion on guns, because the right to bear arms is one of the thousands of things that are important to me.
22-rimfire
Member
If you view the gun ownership attitude as a sliding scale where 10 is total elimination of firearms and 1 is for no state or government controls, I think you will find that there are lots of people who particapate in the forums that are in the middle range of things. I suspect there are very few 10's and very few 1's here, but the 1's probably outnumber the 10's on legitimate gun forums. The people who fall in the 3-7 range are the ones who can be influenced by a good argument and facts. You have to ask yourself where you fit in the scale. It is not easy to answer honestly unless you are a 1 or 10.
Deanimator
Member
About as likely as having one with a Holocaust denier.
joab
Member
I have found the same thing in the pros also
No matter who you are discussing with if you don't follow the narrow party line you will be called whatever the cute in vogue insult is
Thad
Member
It is a never ending fight. Do what you want, buy what you want. I have given up giving a crap about the guys opinion on my harmless hobby that makes me happy. Having these debates only pisses off law abiding gun owners. Here in Canada whenever a gun involved crime has been commited everyone screams bloody murder and ban ALL handguns. Right, that is the answer you morons. If all the antis took some time to really understand all the circumstances involved and did a little research it would make discussion with them tolerable. When you have no knowledge about a topic you should keep your mouth shut.
the closest you get to a rational discussion with an anti is after they have seen and empathized with the victims of a katrina scale event, or if they have been made victims themselves and understand the value in the right to self-defense....
at which point they aren't even anti-'s anymore, they are already being tuned into the idea of not being a victim. Next thing you know they are getting involved in caliber and manufacturer discussions and then its too late
at which point they aren't even anti-'s anymore, they are already being tuned into the idea of not being a victim. Next thing you know they are getting involved in caliber and manufacturer discussions and then its too late
I do not buy that all anti's are so only on emotional grounds - that a rational argument cannot make a rationale argument for restricting access to weapons. I think the "we're all rational gods - they're all emotional" fetish is one of the most dangerous developments in the battle over gun rights. As long as we believe that, and tell each other that, we will not have an honest dialogue about gun rights. And when we don't have an honest dialogue, we lose.
So we can stand around in out little circle, clapping each other on the back about how rational we are and how stupid and emotional the anti's are while our gun rights are whittled away, little by little. Is that winning strategy?
I suspect that most of the "I argued the anti into the corner with my vast intellect until he started getting red-faced and shouting" ia mostly wishful thinking. Most of the anti's I have knows have derived their positions from a set of axioms different from those of most gun rights advocates. Most of the red-faced bellowing I have heard has come from the gun rights advocates.
For example, I don't know that there's a strong rational case to be made for the existence of any "rights". The existence of a "right" strikes me as a-rational (not rational, not irrational, rationality is not involved). That's why the founders punted "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" sounds good, but is essentially hollow.
Mike
My wife considers herself anti-gun (in the most literal sense). If she could, she would like to make it so guns were simply never invented. Combat technology reached the sword and crossbow and sort of stalled there. But she realizes (beyond the fact that such a thing would have other far reaching implications, like the lack of the United States), that that is simply impossible, and no amount of legislation will change that fact. So given that we're in an imperfect world, she wants to be involved with the gun buying process and get herself some training.
There are rational anti-gunners out there. It's just most of them own guns.
There are rational anti-gunners out there. It's just most of them own guns.
heypete
Member
Not sure, but remember that the forum rules state the following:
While it would be tragic for the forum to be overwhelmed by antis, they are welcome to come here and discuss things in a polite manner.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few antis who lurked in order to get some insight, just like there's pro-gun folks who get Brady Campaign mailings and whatnot.
While it would be tragic for the forum to be overwhelmed by antis, they are welcome to come here and discuss things in a polite manner.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few antis who lurked in order to get some insight, just like there's pro-gun folks who get Brady Campaign mailings and whatnot.
I've read a few low-key under the radar posts that had a faint whiff of eau d'anti. However we would do well to remind ourselves that some new converts are still shedding some of their long-held anti-baggage. You can't get 100% clean overnight.
So I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
So I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
- Status
