Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know

[another person]

I just want to post this arguement and see what people have to say. I dont think this is inappropriate to post, so hopefully it wont get locked. I ended up getting blocked.

Pro: do you still think guns should be banned
Anti: yes
Anti: most of them
Pro: why
Anti: there is not purpose for them
Pro: self defense?
Pro: to protect your family
Pro: yourself?
Anti: from what
Pro: other people
Pro: rapists
Anti: that won't have guns
Pro: criminals wouldnt have guns?
Pro: they and the law enforcement would be the onyl ones who had them
Anti: we create criminals by making gun access so easy
Pro: but rapists could easily overpwoer a women without a gun
Pro: and criminals are made because of they way they are raised
Anti: hey i am just saying
Anti: japan
Anti: no guns
Anti: violence little
Anti: canada more gun control
Anti: violence
Anti: little
Anti: us
Pro: what about switzerland and finland
Pro: barely any gun control
Pro: very very little crime
Pro: and what about the UK
Anti: hold up
Pro: guns banned
Pro: higher crime
Pro wants to directly connect.
Anti is now directly connected.
Pro: i have graphs
Pro: switzerland at the bottom
Anti: dude
Anti: let me talk for a second
Pro: if people are raised around guns, and taught the right way, then people will be responsable with them
Pro: ok
Anti: i partially agree to that but
Anti: both finland and swizterland have some of the highest GDP per capita
Anti: as well as A large middle class
Anti: and a very small middle class
Anti: the lack of crime is not due to gun control
Anti: it is due to their economic status
Anti: people in finland switzerland have no need for crime
Pro: why is that
Anti: because
Anti: they have a sick economy
Pro: so its a coincidence?
Anti: most people can make all the money they need legally
Pro: what about the UK?
Pro: crime has spiked
Anti: yea
Pro: after the banning of guns
Anti: no
Pro: yes
Anti: no
Anti: crime spiked
Anti: because their economy was going down the tubes
Anti: totally unrelated
Pro: no way
Anti: yes
Anti: your taking apples and trying to make them look like oranges
Pro: so thats a coincidence too?
Pro: the same year they were banned, crime rate went up
Anti: no
Anti: the same year crime went up
Anti: UK backed the US up on the war in iraq
Anti: which pretty much pissed off everyone in the UK
Anti: not to mention
Anti: they had a huge stock market crash
Anti: joined the EU
Anti: as in the money system
Anti: they were part of the commonwealth and EU long before
Anti: but not the money system
Pro: so things like the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were a coincidence too
Pro: they happened for strange reasons
Pro: if any of those citizens had guns, they would most likely be living
Anti: no
Pro: look at this
Pro: http://www.mouseguns.com/whyown/whyown.htm
Anti: dude
Anti: if those people had guns
Anti: it would have not been genocide
Anti: it would have been a mass civil war
Anti: guns don't stop violence
Anti: they just perpetuate it
Anti: maybe change who gets killed and who does the killing
Anti: guns just make it easier to kill
Pro: and with only criminals having guns, killing civilians would be easier
Anti: ok
Anti: criminals
Anti: the criminals you are talking about
Anti: are gonna kill
Anti: no matter what
Anti: whether other people have guns or not
Anti: most criminals in the United states
Anti: are like gangsters
Anti: and ****
Pro: and if civilians have guns, they can protect themselves legally
Anti: they are people that tweaked out grabbed a gun and didn't think about what they were doing
Anti: NOOOO
Pro: why no
Anti: because
Pro: theres no such thing as self defense?
Anti: there is
Pro: criminals will have guns no matter what, and civilians can either have guns or not
Pro: depending on laws
Pro: if civilians dont have guns, then criminals will be very happy
Pro: it wopuld be easier to attack people, rob them
Pro: loot houses
Pro: rape women
Anti: dude
Pro: if you were a rapist
Pro: woudnt you rather have your target be unarmed
Pro: there would be so many more rapists
Anti: no
Anti: your thinking about it the wrong way
Anti: your thinking about it backwards
Pro: how so
Anti: most rapists and criminals like that
Anti: make bad choices
Anti: let me ask u a question
Pro: yep
Anti: is it easier to A rob a covenient store or rape a woman with or without a gun
Pro: rob a store
Anti: no
Anti: thats not what i am asking
Anti: would it be easier to do both with or without a gun
Pro: with
Anti: ok
Anti: now wait
Anti: most people that rob convenient stores are below the poverty line
Pro: and cannot afford guns
Anti: its not like are hardcore gangsters
Anti: part of some organized gun smuggling agency
Anti: they may need some money
Anti: and have a gun lieing around
Anti: and say lets go shoot up a convenient store
Anti: and most rape for your information
Anti: occurs between people that know one another
Anti: and is more of a white collar crime
Anti: and usually is done without a gun
Pro: but there is still times when it happens between complete strangers
Anti: your right
Anti: u know what
Pro: and in either situation, a gun can easily stop the crim e from happening
Anti: i will drop u off in northwest philly
Anti: see how u like it there
Anti: see if u can last a couple days
Anti: u tell me what u think of guns then
Pro: you wouldnt be able to do that, because i own guns
Pro: and i could easily get by without pissing people off
Anti: o so you might kill some one right
Anti: if they came out
Pro: no
Anti: came at you
Pro: with a weapon yes
Pro: but i wouldnt let myself get in a situation like that
Anti: no i am saying i would put u in a situation like that
Pro: you cant go wandering the ghetto at night
Pro: ok if you did
Pro: i would use lethal force to protect my life
Anti: and thats exactly why we don't need weapons, because they are too easy to obtain
Anti: you don't want a bunch of people in the ghetto to have guns
Pro: you understand
Anti: you don't want a bunch of white kids in colorado to have guns
Pro: that people convicted of a felony
Pro: cant get guns legally
Anti: your right
Pro: and those who have been
Pro: will get them illegally
Pro: banning guns wont stop that
Anti: dude
Anti: there are soooooooooooooo many ****in guns in the us
Pro: right
Anti: its not hard to get them illegally
Pro: how would you get rid of them all?
Pro: impossbile
Anti: if we totally ban them
Anti: your right
Anti: i agree
Anti: but getting rid of most of them is best for society
Pro: and you know that how
Pro: japan already had almost a gun free society
Anti: because having a gun allows people to take the horrible brutality of killing out of killing
Pro: banning guns wont stop that
Pro: and it also allows people to defend themselves
Anti: to kill more people
Pro: right, to kill the criminal scum
Anti: u live in a video game bro
Anti: i am sorry
Pro: most criminals are repeat offenders
Anti: i can't talk with you anymore
Pro: and will always own guns
Pro: and will always be violent
Pro: if he comes at you
Pro: how would you defend yourself without a gun
Anti: you no what ryan
Pro: you have no answer?
Anti: i don't think i would ever have that problem
Pro: lets hope not
Anti: no
Anti: i know not
Pro: because you would be in big trouble
Pro: you dont know anything
Pro: you dont know the future
Pro: and what could happen
Anti: your right
Pro: if it did, you would be very hurt, or very dead
Anti: but i do know a world with less guns means less chances to pull the trigger
Anti: and less chances for people to make mistakes they will regret for the rest of your life
Pro: i do do know that it is a human right to defend yourself
Pro: and i also know that its a constitutional right
Anti: whether banning guns is the way to go i don't know
Pro: and training will elminate many mistakes
Anti: o my ****in god
Pro: in the genocide situation
Pro: would you rather die
Pro: or fight back
Anti: ***
Anti: i can't listen to this **** anymore
Pro: i woudl rather fight back and not die a horrible death
Anti: sorry
Anti: ok
Anti: and live like iraq
Anti: complete civil war
Anti: with gun control
Anti: done correctly
Anti: there wouldn't be a genocide situation
Anti: so that doesn't even work
Pro: maybe not in iraq
Pro: because almost everyone is armed
Pro: people are too scared to attack eachother
Anti: no
Pro: unless they are willing to die
Anti: they ****in shoooot the **** out of each other
Pro: most want to die as a hero
Anti: ryan
Pro: iraq isnt a good place and we cant focus on just that country
Anti: i seriously can't listen to this
Pro: its a human right to be able to defend yourself
Anti: we can't focus on any other country
Pro: if you want to live as a slave to the government you can
Pro: im keeping my guns
Anti: cause all of them are in a different situation then america
Anti: i am saying there is no ****in reason for semi automatics and sniper rifles
Pro: in america, the armed and ready people will survive to the end
Anti: thats why america sucks dick
Pro: so you would rather defend yourself on the streets with a bolt action
Pro: what if you miss?
Anti direct connection is closed.
Anti signed off at 10:37:37 PM.

 

[Axman]

Anti: as well as A large middle class
Anti: and a very small middle class

Okay, which one is it?

Oh, rape is more of a white collar crime? So now people are embezzling sex from women?

Pro: if you were a rapist
Pro: woudnt you rather have your target be unarmed
Pro: there would be so many more rapists
Anti: no
Anti: your thinking about it the wrong way
Anti: your thinking about it backwards

Now he's backstepping!


This next line gets me! He likes the idea of the killing to be brutal. Like it's more fun or something. What a tool!

Anti: because having a gun allows people to take the horrible brutality of killing out of killing

 

[another person]

I was going to tell him to **** if he doesnt believe in the Constitution but he blocked me too fast.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I think he meant small lower class.

I see truth in both of your arguments. That is what makes it such a difficult debate. There is no clear right or wrong answer. There is strong evidence on both sides and also stuff that contradicts both sides.

I myself think it has more to do with the culture/economy of the country than I do with the presence or lack of guns. Guns are just a tool that the desperate and the truely bad people use to obtain an objective. Take away guns and they would use knives or clubs.

I am not a fan of just treating the symptom (taking away guns), I would rather treat the disease (address the issues of our economy and the needs of our citizens).

 

[Handgun Midas]

I think the anti fared pretty well. He didn't resort to calling you names or playing pro-gunners off as ignorant rednecks.

However his perspective, and the crux of many anti's I imagine, is based the concept of a gun being removed from society. Of course this is a fantasy; guns are here to stay, it's just a matter of who has them.

 

[Axman]

Penguin, if they took the guns away someone would make zip-guns out of pipe and stuff, and they do. I recall a guy I went to high school with who made a shotgun out of galvanized water pipe and a few pipe fittings. All it needed was a stock to hold the thing and there you have a homemade gun. I didn't hang around much with that guy he was a little nutty. He ended up in prison for armed robbery.

 

[Handgun Midas]

He likes the idea of the killing to be brutal. Like it's more fun or something

He's talking about the difficulty of killing. Specifically the act of killing being detestable and mentally difficult to a civilized person.

Again, it assumes humans can live in a world where everybody plays nice all the time, even though history has proven that there have always been those who have had no difficulty in killing no matter the methods.

The gun, of course, is the most effective tool yet invented for the protection of anyone against those who have no qualms about murder.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin, if they took the guns away someone would make zip-guns out of pipe and stuff, and they do.

Yup, even if someone beats you to death with a rock you are still just as dead as if he used an .44 magnum wheelgun.

I think society would be better served if people stopped debating the inherent evil nature of inanimate objects and started address "why people commit crimes", "how best to prevent this need", and "what to do with the ones that cannot be deterred".

When an anti makes a silly comment like "evil guns" I always make a joke about my guns being "good guns that are kind to their mothers and donate time reading to the elderly" just to illustrate how truely stupid that sounds.

 

[JohnKSa]

First of all, I gotta object at being subjected to a transcript like that--there's a reason I don't spend my time wading through that stuff by choice.

that won't have guns

I could make a single-shot gun in an afternoon in my garage.

With a little more time--maybe a few days--I could make a full auto if I could get my hands on a magazine. Making a semi-auto would be a good bit harder.

With several hundred bucks, I could buy some used machining equipment and make some really nice guns.

People who honestly think it's possible to prevent criminals from getting guns are terribly uninformed. Even without the black market, it's pretty simple to make functional guns.

And regarding the black market--we've all seen how easy it is to prevent illegal drugs from being brought into the country.

Anyway, after shoveling through a bit more of the 'saga', I see that the anti started arguing that it was soooo easy to get guns illegally.

It's pretty hard to win an argument with someone who'll argue both sides of a point.

 

[joab]

I usually take a different approach than the "criminals have guns so me must" argument.
Mine is more along the lines of without guns we are at the mercy of the stronger criminal element and hold up examples such as Troy Victorino . I also will use Bernie Goetz if I feel the person can separate his personality from his actions.

 

[White Horseradish]

You have succeeded, but not in the right thing. You have made him run from the argument.

A better thing to go for would be to try and make him think. You do not give him a chance to do that, you just beat him over the head with you information. The trick to making someone think is to have him give you the answers, not shove them down his throat.

Try making him answer a question posed before posing one of his own.

 

[Axman]

I just wanted to give a little more detail of the workings of that homemade shotgun the nut I knew in HS made. It was a length of pipe about two FEET long. It was just large enough to slip a 12 ga shell into yet the rim kept it from sliding in. A pipe cap was center drilled then screwed over the shell. The trigger mechanism was a crude combination of a finish nail and a carburetor return spring. A small wire was attached to the nail and firing was accomplished by pulling the wire and quickly releasing letting the point of the nail strike the primer. It was a bit scary knowing that it actually functioned.

Wait, you say since guns are banned so would the ammo? I've got you covered! A small length of pipe fitted with a ball valve and a small airtank made from a disposable propane tank (the type made for torches) can be charged with air and made to launch a projectile with enough lethal force to become a gun of sorts. A cylindrical projectile with the tip machined into a point so it resemble a conical bullet, maybe? I think of those air cannons made for throwing "punkins". There are other ways, heck, a pistol crossbow would be just as deadly. Killers wouldn't need guns!

*edit* that was to be 2 feet long not 2 inches! Sorry for any convenience this may have caused.

 

[BullfrogKen]

JohnKSa said: First of all, I gotta object at being subjected to a transcript like that--there's a reason I don't spend my time wading through that stuff by choice.

Me, too. You only have to go to the end of a pointless conversation like that to see someone's thoughts. This one being no different:

Anti: thats why america sucks dick

another person - How much time did you spend in that argument?

 

[Cromlech]

Wow, I had no idea that the economy here in the U.K is going down the pan.

Can anyone lend me a fiver, before the great depression sets in?

 

[razorburn]

When he said it was because of their economic status, I would've said yes, then he also acknowledges crime has much more to do with social and economic situations than guns. And there's no reason to relinquish any freedom or create arbitrary legislation against anything without a strong reasoning against it. But that's just me. I personally believe that guns don't affect crime much one way or the other. There's places with lots of guns and very little crime, places with lots of gun control and a lot of crime, places with lots of guns and lots of crime, and places with little guns and little crime. I'd also have pointed out that Canada has nearly twice the overall violent crime as the U.S.

 

[gunsmith]

I couldn't follow

wierd argument

 

[Phil DeGraves]

The way you stop crime is by eliminating the criminals. 10% of the criminals commit 90% of the crime. Eliminate the habitual offenders and we immediately reduce crime significantly.

 

[another person]

BullfrogKen: 40 minutes.

I was getting mad that he kept saying "no" after I made a point. Kinda like lard ass Rosie O Donnell.

Phil DeGraves: Thats what I said, but apparently "guns create criminals."

 

[BullfrogKen]

You might have had a better use for those 40 minutes than bantering with an unreasonable person.

 

[Wesker]

Your anti friend is an idiot. His entire argument is based on hear-say, hypothetical situation, and 'what-if' statements. No points he brought up could be defended with numerical, factual evidence.

Yea, your friend sounds like the usual anti-dummy.

 

[Deanimator]

I see truth in both of your arguments. That is what makes it such a difficult debate. There is no clear right or wrong answer. There is strong evidence on both sides and also stuff that contradicts both sides.

There is NOT a "strong argument" on the other side. There are just rationalizations, evasions, juvenile chest thumping and deceit.

Anti-gunners almost invariably show the following, often in combination:

Racism - They're often not afraid of guns, but of non-White people with guns. They view all non-Whites as criminals or potential criminals.

Misogyny - They would rather see a woman beaten, raped and murdered than to see serious harm come to a rapist. Totally without supporting evidence, they assert that when faced with violence, a woman will GIVE her gun to an assailant instead of using it on him.

Irrational Fantasy - In one breath, they hysterically proclaim that women shouldn't be allowed to have guns for self-defense because they'll just be "taken away", while in the next they claim that women don't NEED guns because they can defend themselves with the martial arts. If women enjoy this alleged physical parity with men who outweigh them by 100lb.s, HOW could someone take a gun away from one? Hint: Xena, Warrior Princess is NOT a documentary.

Nihilism - They actually appear horrified at the idea that somebody might not just resist a violent attack, but might even prevail. They often refer to robbery as a "tax". If so, what is RAPE?

You can argue in favor of repressive gun controls, just as you can argue in favor of slavery and deny the Holocaust... you just can't do it without lies, deception and malice. The leaders of the gun control industry are the moral equivalents of the David Dukes and David Irvings of the world, evil charlatans with a mendacious agenda of of oppression and destruction.

 

[highlander 5]

question..... if economic conditions cause crime then did crime go up in USA during the Great Depression ?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Deanimator,

Actually when you have a rational argument there are good facts on both sides. I just think that the people on the other side want to deal to much with the symptom and not the real problem.

When you try and say their side are racist, misogynist, or just wrong you are generalizing and that is the quickest way to negate your side of a debate. Especially when alot of them are the most non-racist, free loving people you will ever meet.

 

[romma]

No winning an argument of this type with someone that has "The Cloak Of Ignorance" wrapped tightly around them. That doesn't mean they are stupid,,, just ignorant.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I may be naive but I see these types of arguments as a good thing and not a waste of time. He may have been reluctant to yeild during the confrontation but if he is a true free thinking liberal he will continue to consider every point you made long afterwards.

He will then be forced to find facts to counter your stance or be forced to alter his own opinions. Even if he slightly alters one opinion it is progress.
Either way it is good because, even if he comes back with counters, that will force you to reinforce your argument and the cycle continues.

This is how people are converted. I just have to look at how much my own personal opinions have changed in the last year for proof of that.