Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know

[Deanimator]

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.

It's entirely possible to argue Holocaust denial "rationally", using made up "facts", just as anti-gunners use made up "facts". Anti-gunners use exactly the same sort of deceit and misdirection as do Holocaust deniers.

When somebody says that it'd be better if all Black people are disarmed, what is that BUT racist? I've had anti-gunners tell me that on any number of occasions. What do you call it when they hurl racial slurs at Black people who refuse to support oppressive gun controls when ordered to?

When somebody compares opponents of oppressive gun controls to "over-educated Jewish lawyers, opposed to prayer in schools", what is that BUT anti-Semitic? What do you call it when a former BATF agent PRAISES the Nazi gun control laws, because "ANY GERMAN CITIZEN" could own a gun? What do you call it when it takes WEEKS to get him to answer the simple question, "Were Jews 'GERMAN CITIZENS' in NSDAP Germany?"

When somebody says that women shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they'll hysterically shoot men who stop them to ask directions, what is that BUT misogynistic?

How long have you been debating anti-gunners? I've been doing it online since the mid '80s, and face to face for far longer. I talk to these people and see what they have to say, pretty much every day. I know what they think, because they TELL me what they think.

 

[javacodeman]

Anti: i seriously can't listen to this

Allow me to translate the above quote:

"I have been arguing from emotion and not from logic. You have a sound logical argument which I cannot debate. Therefore I will state something that lets me out of the argument. I know, I will show disgust for your views and therefore act like I am winning the argument."

Whenever I'm debating an issue with someone (usually a liberal who hasn't thought his/her opinions through or has not tried to remain consistent on their views) and they throw up something equivalent to "i seriously can't listen to this" I want to yell and them and say either keep arguing or admit defeat.

-java

 

[TallPine]

Anti: guns don't stop violence
Anti: they just perpetuate it
Anti: maybe change who gets killed and who does the killing

I don't see how one can argue with that line of thinking ... your friend would rather be killed I guess than defend himself. That's his choice to make, but it shouldn't have to be our choice.

I personally believe that guns don't affect crime much one way or the other.

That's probably true in a macro/statistical sense. But when someone is attacking you then a gun in your hand can affect that specific crime immensely.

 

[Deanimator]

Whenever I'm debating an issue with someone (usually a liberal who hasn't thought his/her opinions through or has not tried to remain consistent on their views) and they throw up something equivalent to "i seriously can't listen to this" I want to yell and them and say either keep arguing or admit defeat.

I used to be fond of saying, "Your surrender is somewhat obtuse, but still well taken. Were we on the field of battle, I would allow you to keep your sword. We are not, but you may pretend with a butterknife if you so desire..."

The trick is to make them angry. When they get angry, they say the most ILliberal things. Strange how these things get saved onto hard drives, and even CDs, and are thrown back in their faces at the most embarassing of moments. My personal favorites are EXACT QUOTES laced with racial, ethnic and religious slurs...

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Deanimator,

There are no such thing as "made up facts". There are good facts on both side of the argument. If you take the stance that anything they say is made up then your argument is not going to be very strong if you cannot counter factual information with more factual information.

And if all their facts are "made up" couldn't they very easily say the same of yours? If you take that attitude you can never really win a debate because you are never truely engaged in it to begin with.

 

[mdao]

Deanimator:

Heh, I guess that works. Shoot, get me angry enough and I'll say all sorts of things that I shouldn't. It's not a proper debate tactic though, and very unlikely to force them to think further on their position.

Most antis I know have one very good reason for their support of gun control. They, for whatever reason, cannot get their minds around owning/using a tool designed to kill. Therefore, they don't own/carry guns and cannot fathom why anyone would do so. A strict gun ban wouldn't degrade their self defence capabilities any, and would likely degrade the capabilities of others to harm them. After all, no guns means they can't get shot.

Then again, I do know a few "martial artists" that hate guns because it puts a dampener in their ability to pick fights and still remain free of extraneous holes.

 

[javacodeman]

PlayboyPenguin
Senior Member

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).

I agree that the root cause should be treated; however, I disagree about what that root cause is.

People are always saying that it is the economy and that is why poor people commit crime. I say that people are poor and commit crime for the same reasons:

1) No respect for authority
2) No respect for life
3) No respect for others' property
4) No respect for right and wrong.

There are numerous examples of poor societies that had little to no crime (US during the Great Depression for example). So being poor (this is a generalization that doesn't hold true for all people who are poor) can be looked at as just a symptom of a larger problem.

I'm not here to preach, but a right view of man and his Creator (along with the guidelines given by that Creator) will address all of these root problems.

In the mean time, let me have a gun to protect myself and my family from the wackos out there.

-java

 

[romma]

I say invite them to shoot. At least it bridges the two worlds into a physical connection.

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator,

There are no such thing as "made up facts". There are good facts on both side of the argument. If you take the stance that anything they say is made up then your argument is not going to be very strong if you cannot counter factual information with more factual information.

And if all their facts are "made up" couldn't they very easily say the same of yours? If you take that attitude you can never really win a debate because you are never truely engaged in it to begin with.

Of course there are "made up facts". What do you call it when somebody says "X number of 'children' are killed every day by guns!" and you define "children" to include people up to and including 24 years of age? It's the same thing as screeching "No gas chambers at Auschwitz!"... while conveniently overlooking associated facilities such as Maidanek.

ENOUGH of what they say is made up or dishonestly manipulated to impeach their honesty.

I can PROVE that what they say is a pack of lies. Can they do the same of me? No.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

People are always saying that it is the economy and that is why poor people commit crime. I say that people are poor and commit crime for the same reasons:

1) No respect for authority
2) No respect for life
3) No respect for others' property
4) No respect for right and wrong.

I agree with these statements but they are all conditions. What is the cause of these conditions? and how do you prevent them?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Most antis I know have one very good reason for their support of gun control. They, for whatever reason, cannot get their minds around owning/using a tool designed to kill

Yup, and how do we best combat that situation? Not through name calling, bible banging, demonizing or generalizing. We do it through open debate and through hands on experience. I have taken more than a few anti's to the range and my experience is that intelligent people are open to new experiences and willing to alter their views.

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator:

Heh, I guess that works. Shoot, get me angry enough and I'll say all sorts of things that I shouldn't. It's not a proper debate tactic though, and very unlikely to force them to think further on their position.

It's a VERY proper debate technique. I'm getting beneath their superficial words and getting to their MOTIVATIONS. You're NEVER going to change THEIR minds. You CAN however change the minds of the bystanders. I like to cause their REAL personality to come to the surface so that others can see it. I don't care how angry somebody makes you, if you're not a racist, a misogynist, an anti-Semite, etc., you're not going to say things which reflect those psychopathologies. If you ARE, it's not difficult at all to get you to reveal your true self. I want others to see the REAL face of the anti-gun movement. By and large, they are repelled by it.

 

[Deanimator]

Yup, and how do we best combat that situation? Not through name calling, bible banging, demonizing or generalizing. We do it through open debate and through hands on experience. I have taken more than a few anti's to the range and my experience is that intelligent people are open to new experiences and willing to alter their views.

You're tipping fence sitters. You're NEVER going to change Josh Sugerman's mind, not even with a boxcar full of ammunition. People for the most part, don't like being lied to or manipulated. I show them that they're being lied to and manipulated.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You're tipping fence sitters. You're NEVER going to change Josh Sugerman's mind, not even with a boxcar full of ammunition. People for the most part, don't like being lied to or manipulated. I show them that they're being lied to and manipulated.

True...and I think most reasonable people are only small bit of real factual information and a good personal experience away from going to the other side at any moment.

People like Josh are an extreme. There are people like that on both sides and, like I have said before, I would never be happy with any decision that satified an extremist on either side.

 

[Deanimator]

People like Josh are an extreme. There are people like that on both sides and, like I have said before, I would never be happy with any decision that satified an extremist on either side.

Can you detail what would constitute an extremist on the pro-gun side?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Can you detail what would constitute an extremist on the pro-gun side?

Sure... to me, an extremist is a person that would allow a person to walk straight out of prison for beating his wife and buy a handgun the same day. A person that would allow a 12 yr old to walk into a gunshop and buy as many firearms as he/she can afford. A person that would allow people with no proof of citizenship the right to go and buy automatic weapons with no checks what-so-ever.

These people exist. Some believe there should be no restrictions what-so-ever on firearms. There are people with a "let them kill as many innocents and children as they wish, we will just punish them severely afterwards" mentality.

 

[Zen21Tao]

My 2 cents:

Anti: there is not purpose for them

Definion of Purpose: “An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions”.

Who defines what a guns “purpose” is, he alone? What he is saying is that a gun serves no purpose for him so they should be banned. Well, how about welfare, cigarettes, gay marriage, and liver. They also have no purpose for me so lets ban them too.

Anti: we create criminals by making gun access so easy.

Really, so bars make people drive drunk and school make people molest children? That completely absolves the criminal of responsibility for their actions. What about the numerous people that own guns but DON’T commit crimes? It is just absurd to think that an object MAKES a person commit a crime.


Anti’s guns and crime part of the argument is totally inconsistent. He claims that countries with low crime and no guns owe their low crime to no guns. However, when presented with countries with lower crime and many guns with little to no regulation he claims that there are MANY other factors that lead to their low crime rate. He continues this line of reasoning when presented with countries that have no guns and high crime. Funny, guns only affect crime when it is somewhere that has little crime and no guns and when it is somewhere that has high crime with guns.

Anti: guns don't stop violence
Anti: they just perpetuate it
Anti: maybe change who gets killed and who does the killing

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. Consider and armed assailant robs and shoots someone killing them. Next week he shoots and kills another person. Two people were shot dead. Now consider if the first “victim” had a gun and was able to kill the attacker. For this guys argument to hold, this victim would now have to go kill someone. Otherwise, the armed victim managed to “stop violence.” The most offensive part of this nit wits statement above is that it doesn’t place any for value one the victims life than on the attackers like.

Anti: but i do know a world with less guns means less chances to pull the trigger

Ok, true. But who would is it that would have these “less chances.” When guns are illegal law abiding citizens would be the ones without triggers to pull. Criminals, on the other hand, by their very status as being a “criminal” don’t follow the law. They would still be armed. Result: law abiding citizens are made much easier targets and in many cases, completely helpless.

 

[TallPine]

to me, an extremist is a person that would allow a person to walk straight out of prison for beating his wife and buy a handgun the same day. A person that would allow a 12 yr old to walk into a gunshop and buy as many firearms as he/she can afford.

Oh, you mean like the United States before 1968 ...?

I'm not an extremist, just a reactionary

 

[Deanimator]

These people exist.

I guarantee you I've seen far more anti-gunners screaming racial slurs, portraying women as dangerous ninnies, denying the Holocaust etc. As I said, how long have YOU been confronting anti-gunners?

 

[LkWinnipesaukee]

How did you get the screen name "Pro"?!?!?! and how did he get "Anti"?!?!

I have gun arguments all the time. Unfortunately I get sick of them so usually they end in swear words and name calling

 

[Euclidean]

Sure... to me, an extremist is a person that would allow a person to walk straight out of prison for beating his wife and buy a handgun the same day. A person that would allow a 12 yr old to walk into a gunshop and buy as many firearms as he/she can afford. A person that would allow people with no proof of citizenship the right to go and buy automatic weapons with no checks what-so-ever.

These people exist. Some believe there should be no restrictions what-so-ever on firearms. There are people with a "let them kill as many innocents and children as they wish, we will just punish them severely afterwards" mentality.

Wow I must be an extremist. However a few points:

The wife beater would never be allowed out of prison if he wasn't executed for attempted murder.

If your state wants 12 year olds to be able to buy guns, well there you go. Prior to 1968 12 year olds could buy full auto pieces. The idea we need to have an age restriction is a new idea, and it is a "feel good" idea. I fail to see the problem.

If I have to prove citizenship to buy a gun, why not a donut? No criminal has to pass a background check. I refuse to be treated worse than a criminal.

PlayboyPenguin, there is safe and there is free.

"Safe" does not exist. You cannot guarantee safety at any price. Totalitarian regimes cannot create personal safety for you. Anything short of that cannot either, obviously. "Safe" is a warm fuzzy idea that just doesn't exist in the real world.

"Free" however could easily exist. "Free" is not inherently safe, but you know what, I'd rather be free and not safe than be oppressed and still not safe.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

If I have to prove citizenship to buy a gun, why not a donut?

If you are serious with that question I am afraid I cannot explain it to you.

The idea we need to have an age restriction is a new idea, and it is a "feel good" idea.

So is the idea that employers cannot work children 16 hours a day for almost no wages. All change is not bad.

PlayboyPenguin, there is safe and there is free.

Are you saying there should be no laws? I would call that extreme if so.

 

[another person]

I dont think he will ever talk to me again, because hes rude, but hopefully I made him think a little about what he said. Everyone who is sick of arguments with ignorant people should all put our efforts into a powerpoint presentation or something like that so instead of saying "damn, not again," we can send them the powerpoint and hopefully get them thinking.

 

[mike101]

When the anti said "We create criminals by making guns accessable", I would have lost it. It's impossible to reason with someone who wants to blame society for every miscreant who goes out and shoots a pizza delivery guy to support his crack habbit.

Actually, I'm surprised the guy even argued with you. Whenever someone expresses an anti-gun view around me, I usually say something like "Knee-jerk, liberal claptrap"! That is where the debate ends. They just look at me in stunned silence, because they have never heard an opposing view before. Generally, their sheep buddies just nod their heads in agreement. Of course, I live in NJ, so that explains a lot. I then proceed to try to correct their thinking.

If you ever see this guy again, throw-up on his shoes for me, will 'ya!

 

[Euclidean]

If you are serious with that question I am afraid I cannot explain it to you.

Buying a gun and buying a donut are of the same exact status. In either case it's a person purchasing a piece of property for an agreed amount, nothing more and nothing less.

It is absolutely silly to treat them any differently. After all you could choke somebody with a donut. It could make you become overweight if you eat the donut. I'm sure if I sat here I could waste more time coming up with ideas for "Assault Donuts" with choke inducing tactical chocolate coatings which need to be banned. After all who needs a donut anyway, it's not for hunting...

It's just absolutely bonkers to attempt to regulate a consumer good based merely on what somebody might do with it. I can think of many malicious uses for a box of matches, yet I can buy them freely.

The only reason you'd want to treat them any differently is the emotion of fear. Either you see all other people as a liability to you, or you are afraid of firearms. If you don't think all people are a liability and there's no reason to be inherently afraid of inanimate objects, why would you not agree with me?

So is the idea that employers cannot work children 16 hours a day for almost no wages. All change is not bad.

Straw man argument. The statement that "All change is not bad" is true but that statement proves nothing.

For instance all firearms are now illegal in Washington DC. All change is not bad.

Are you saying there should be no laws? I would call that extreme if so.

No, rather that our laws preserve individual freedom first and foremost. The very idea we need to "sacrifice freedom" is evil. It's this kind of thinking:

When we got organized as a country, we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans. There’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.

Those words were spoken by none other than Former President William J. Clinton. The fact that the bloody President of these United States would say and believe such a thing scares the living daylights out of me. How did such a person get elected to our highest office?

But back on topic, we are nothing more than individuals, individuals with built in rights. We must recognize that at all costs. Any law that restricts the ownership and bearing of arms may sound good, it may feel good, but that's legislating based on emotion, even if it's very powerful emotion, and it's wrong.