Nolo
Member
Really?
I have an airgun, a bow, and a sling that would like to disagree.
If there were no guns, no one could be killed by guns.
So what? People would still be killed, and in much nastier ways.
The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis
- Thread starter cnorman18
- Start date
- Status
I have an airgun, a bow, and a sling that would like to disagree.
If there were no guns, no one could be killed by guns.
So what? People would still be killed, and in much nastier ways.
ctdonath
Member
While you are busy demonstrating the facts, your opposition has raced on to the next emotional rhetoric.
The malleable middle, unable to follow your complex claims*, empathizes with the latter and votes accordingly.
"We have to get assault weapons off the streets? Our children are dying out there!"
Well, you could explain that
- the term "assault weapon" is a made-up bit of political nonsense, 'cuz you see what they're talking about is just any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor, both which are really pretty harmless unless your a soldier, and they're trying to deliberately confuse you with fully-automatic or select-fire "assault rifles", which look the same but really do function differently, and by this point in the discussion we've lost pretty much anyone because all this technical jargon doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't had time to digest it...
- they're not "on the streets", 'cuz you see while they're kinda badass looking they're really too big and annoying for most thugs to use, and once again we kinda lose the audience because now we're off onto another important tangent that they really don't care about...
- our children aren't dying out there, 'cuz you see ... well allright you should get the point by now that this whole thing is getting kinda wordy and boring ...
...but the mushy middle hears some scary stuff, and is preprogrammed by nature to translate that blurb into "predators...offspring...death" and immediately and instinctively go into a defensive posture which, as any good CQB instructor should tell you, shuts down one's cognitive abstract reasoning ability and goes straight to survival, which in this case looks a lot (unfortunately) like Sarah Brady.
* - Remember also: by definition, half the population has an IQ less than 100. Abstract discussions with lots of numbers may not make much impression on them, while "bad men have guns" does.
ctdonath
Member
Nolo,
You miss the point. It is, for the most part, a simple truism: no guns means nobody gets shot. To most people who aren't going to think this through well beyond the immediate statement, it makes sense. If a particular tool is the dominant cause of death, ban it; this is perfectly reasonable to most members of a socialistic advertising-driven culture. You may try thinking outside the box, but going on about stuff outside the box isn't going to easily convince them that what's in the box isn't true.
You miss the point. It is, for the most part, a simple truism: no guns means nobody gets shot. To most people who aren't going to think this through well beyond the immediate statement, it makes sense. If a particular tool is the dominant cause of death, ban it; this is perfectly reasonable to most members of a socialistic advertising-driven culture. You may try thinking outside the box, but going on about stuff outside the box isn't going to easily convince them that what's in the box isn't true.
Shadow Shock
Member
"Are they lying? If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death.
~G. Fink"
Instead people would be stabbed to death, or clubbed to death with baseball bats. I don't know about yall, but I'd much rather be shot. It's much more humane, and less painfull.
~G. Fink"
Instead people would be stabbed to death, or clubbed to death with baseball bats. I don't know about yall, but I'd much rather be shot. It's much more humane, and less painfull.
cnorman18
Member
What?
Ctdonath: that was beautifully written, but if had a point, I'm not getting it.
The object of the little bit of offensive strategy that I'm advocating here isn't to get Sarah Brady & company to change their views; that isn't going to happen in this lifetime, unless they exerience a home invasion or a mugging and find out what it means to "need one and not have one"--and maybe not even then.
It's intended to make others--that huge segment of the population that hasn't totally committed to one side or the other--aware of the kind of distortion and obfuscation that's being used in attempts to fool them.
It might also serve to put the opposition on notice that if they continue to "cook the books", it will NOT go unremarked and uncorrected, and we WILL make it an issue and force its discussion. Best case scenario; the public will get into the habit of lifting a skeptical eyebrow whenever they open their mouths, and the whole statistical-study topic begins to work for us and not against us.
Ctdonath: that was beautifully written, but if had a point, I'm not getting it.
The object of the little bit of offensive strategy that I'm advocating here isn't to get Sarah Brady & company to change their views; that isn't going to happen in this lifetime, unless they exerience a home invasion or a mugging and find out what it means to "need one and not have one"--and maybe not even then.
It's intended to make others--that huge segment of the population that hasn't totally committed to one side or the other--aware of the kind of distortion and obfuscation that's being used in attempts to fool them.
It might also serve to put the opposition on notice that if they continue to "cook the books", it will NOT go unremarked and uncorrected, and we WILL make it an issue and force its discussion. Best case scenario; the public will get into the habit of lifting a skeptical eyebrow whenever they open their mouths, and the whole statistical-study topic begins to work for us and not against us.
cnorman18
Member
Better, but...
Ctdonath: your next 2 posts were better--they seem to actually have a point.
And that point appears to be, "There is no hope of countering specious or even roundly stupid arguments, so we may as well surrender."
You'll forgive me if I disagree.
Further, your reasoning seems to be, "There is no hope because the American people are too stupid and/or apathetic to follow even a moderately complex argument."
If that is so, then we'd better roll up the Constitution and leave it in the dumpster behind the National Archives, because it sort of presupposes that the People have the capability of governing themselves.
Sorry, but I'm not quite ready to turn the country over to smug elitists that hold ordinary Americans in contempt and are certain they know what's best for us poor, benighted masses. We sort of gave all that sweet security up sometime around 1776, when we started this experiment. Whether it will continue to work remains to be seen, but as I said, I'm not quite ready to give up yet.
Ctdonath: your next 2 posts were better--they seem to actually have a point.
And that point appears to be, "There is no hope of countering specious or even roundly stupid arguments, so we may as well surrender."
You'll forgive me if I disagree.
Further, your reasoning seems to be, "There is no hope because the American people are too stupid and/or apathetic to follow even a moderately complex argument."
If that is so, then we'd better roll up the Constitution and leave it in the dumpster behind the National Archives, because it sort of presupposes that the People have the capability of governing themselves.
Sorry, but I'm not quite ready to turn the country over to smug elitists that hold ordinary Americans in contempt and are certain they know what's best for us poor, benighted masses. We sort of gave all that sweet security up sometime around 1776, when we started this experiment. Whether it will continue to work remains to be seen, but as I said, I'm not quite ready to give up yet.
Last edited:
Shadow Shock
Member
Here, here cnorman18.
cnorman18
Member
?
Where, where?
Where, where?
Shadow Shock
Member
"here, here" as in you got it right. We've lasted this long, We'll keep on going. At least for a while.
cnorman18
Member
Oh.
Thanks. I appreciate the support.
Sorry about my confusion. I was a teacher for many years, and "Here, here!" was what I said to my students when they got a little too energetic. I think what you meant was "Hear, hear!"--and thanks again.
Thanks. I appreciate the support.
Sorry about my confusion. I was a teacher for many years, and "Here, here!" was what I said to my students when they got a little too energetic. I think what you meant was "Hear, hear!"--and thanks again.
Support2ndam
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1
Very well said, forgive me now for just having at 2011 just stumbling upon this greatly intelligent and logical article.
I one time was speaking with a 19 year old know it all who claimed that guns should be illegal and the constitution is obsolete and should be burned.
Well first off before i continue let me tell you that at this point i though about all our veterans who fought and died or fought and became maimed to preserve what they believed was our freedoms and our constitution.
At this point, I wanted to walk away, i was so frustrated and in disbelief i was actually standing next to this creature..
I managed to continue the conversation wanting to walk away so badly i had to get my point across, I gave him a hypothetical of a 65 year old retired man, in his home and someone was breaking in, it happened to be multiple gang bangers. He said that the old man should only have what the criminals have, and if you got rid of all guns, they wouldn't have them. Although this is a losing argument, and we all know making all guns disappear would be the equivalent to making ever grain of sand disappear in the dessert i had to continue. I told him in this hypothetical situation that these gangbangers had knives and bats, and the older man would have no chance against their youth without a gun.
This 19 year old said plainly "then he dies"
I had thought about that for a few seconds, it had to sink in slowly.
this anti gunner 19 year old who knows everything while chain smoking his blunt really claims to want to save lives, but yet has no regard for any others lives.
It was very difficult to continue a conversation at that point, i had positively identified the enemy at this point, no more conversation could have been maintained. I walked away.
I one time was speaking with a 19 year old know it all who claimed that guns should be illegal and the constitution is obsolete and should be burned.
Well first off before i continue let me tell you that at this point i though about all our veterans who fought and died or fought and became maimed to preserve what they believed was our freedoms and our constitution.
At this point, I wanted to walk away, i was so frustrated and in disbelief i was actually standing next to this creature..
I managed to continue the conversation wanting to walk away so badly i had to get my point across, I gave him a hypothetical of a 65 year old retired man, in his home and someone was breaking in, it happened to be multiple gang bangers. He said that the old man should only have what the criminals have, and if you got rid of all guns, they wouldn't have them. Although this is a losing argument, and we all know making all guns disappear would be the equivalent to making ever grain of sand disappear in the dessert i had to continue. I told him in this hypothetical situation that these gangbangers had knives and bats, and the older man would have no chance against their youth without a gun.
This 19 year old said plainly "then he dies"
I had thought about that for a few seconds, it had to sink in slowly.
this anti gunner 19 year old who knows everything while chain smoking his blunt really claims to want to save lives, but yet has no regard for any others lives.
It was very difficult to continue a conversation at that point, i had positively identified the enemy at this point, no more conversation could have been maintained. I walked away.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Welcome to THR Support2ndam and no offense to re-awakening a well written and thought out thread.
There are literally tens of thousands like them in the archives worthy of a good read and perhaps bringing them back for new members or lurkers to savor, if one has valid additions... and you did sir (or ma'am) with your conversation with the 19 year old.
Re: OP and following posts: Continue to debate, discuss (& teach them?) as best you can, leave them some food for thought, craft your responses to their "perceived truths" using history, logic, some factoids and a little emotion for good measure, always remembering that not ALL of the original colonists wanted things this way, a few (?) far preferring the olde tryed and true Monarchy annoited from Heaven Above, redcoats, gun grabs and all.
The big guys (Brady/VPC/etc) twist facts and figures to make money and stay alive, just as the NRA does representing their POV. Gov'ts just want more power. The local level anti's simply want to live in a "safe" place.
The confirmed opposition will always be there. It's the fence-sitters listening in that need proper persuading. Hopefully they have an open mind and can be persuaded this way or that. It may be 50/50.
Oh yeah... Twist Facts to defend their position?!?! Lawyers?!?! Is THAT what they're doing?!?!
I suppose it depends on what the definition of "Is" is, eh?
jiminhobesound
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 261
You are not going to change these people with truth. I think the only way they will be changed is that if they encounter a situation where they, personally, suffer some loss, OR, someone saves their skin with a firearm.
Safetychain
Member
I have the pleasure of having a French Canadian as a close friend. Five years ago, I couldn't even bring up carrying a gun for self-defense. We argued about it often, in addition to lately, Obama's healthcare plan, which I disagree with. I have provided nearly all the info the OP has brought up, along with other things like 'Gun Facts'. He is actually now asking how to go about legally acquiring a hand gun for his 5-7 months he spends in the US when it is too cold up there. Health care, I'm still working on. My best argument on this is if Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why does he get the vast majority of his care in the US, paying out of pocket, rather than in Canada.
Loosedhorse
member
necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?
While it may make us feel superior, I think we do our cause little good by suggesting all anti-guuners lie. I have no problem with the idea that some lie, or that "this particular one" lies.
Some folks are misinformed. Some folks just think that guns are "wrong"--would take them away from the police and military if they could. I mean, if a vegetarian argued that eating meat was "bad" and "cruel," well, we can disagree; but should we say that he or she is lying?
Saying that every anti-gunner lies simply proves, doesn't it, that pro-gunners lie. And many anti-gunners are already convinced we lie, about everything from "guns don't kill people" to "the 33-round magazine made no difference in the AZ shooting."
So disagree, correct, educate--but I'm not sure where "You're LYING!" gets us.
While it may make us feel superior, I think we do our cause little good by suggesting all anti-guuners lie. I have no problem with the idea that some lie, or that "this particular one" lies.
Some folks are misinformed. Some folks just think that guns are "wrong"--would take them away from the police and military if they could. I mean, if a vegetarian argued that eating meat was "bad" and "cruel," well, we can disagree; but should we say that he or she is lying?
Saying that every anti-gunner lies simply proves, doesn't it, that pro-gunners lie. And many anti-gunners are already convinced we lie, about everything from "guns don't kill people" to "the 33-round magazine made no difference in the AZ shooting."
So disagree, correct, educate--but I'm not sure where "You're LYING!" gets us.
Lying is saying something that you know is not true. Many people don't know the facts and are speaking out of emotion, so they aren't "lying". The Anti 2A orgs intentionally distort facts and lie to get their point across. Nobody is saying that ALL anti's are "lying".
There is Absolutely Nothing Wrong with pointing out their lies. Remaining silent when we hear something that is not true does more harm than pointing out their lies, IMO. We must refute the lies and spread the truth.
There is Absolutely Nothing Wrong with pointing out their lies. Remaining silent when we hear something that is not true does more harm than pointing out their lies, IMO. We must refute the lies and spread the truth.
Just wondering did criminal, drug dealer or pimp ever asked for FOID, applied for one, or waited 3 days to get a gun he paid for? (IL law on buying guns, even if you allready have a gun)
All that came from liberal politician who think "they" know: how I have to leave my live, "they" know better - what I have and what I don't have to do...
Did "they" ask me - what I what to do?
I came from former Soviet Union, and there it was the rule - you don’t stick out your head, and you will live your miserable life longer.
I came here because I needed a freedom, and looks like we going straight to Soviet Union of USA.
People who born here and lives don’t see the danger - slowly everything moves toward socialism and communism. I fled from it.
I must agree that the best idea of living, but it will never work. And it is already proven, but idea is still in an air and it is very attractive.
In USSR were no legal guns, but crime rates was not less.
All that came from liberal politician who think "they" know: how I have to leave my live, "they" know better - what I have and what I don't have to do...
Did "they" ask me - what I what to do?
I came from former Soviet Union, and there it was the rule - you don’t stick out your head, and you will live your miserable life longer.
I came here because I needed a freedom, and looks like we going straight to Soviet Union of USA.
People who born here and lives don’t see the danger - slowly everything moves toward socialism and communism. I fled from it.
I must agree that the best idea of living, but it will never work. And it is already proven, but idea is still in an air and it is very attractive.
In USSR were no legal guns, but crime rates was not less.
MachIVshooter
Member
Well, at least he understood that the police couldn't help. That's a start. Of course, the fact that he so readily accepts that reality without any consideration for what could alter the outcome means that there's really no hope for him.
That said, sometimes people change their minds very quickly when they are (or almost are) a victim. My folks did. Hated guns, didn't want any in the house. But after a frightening encounter with some unsavory folks in the back woods while camping with their horses, they adopted my Ruger .357. It finally occured to them that they were responsible for their own protection, and that being in their late 50's at the time, 4 hostile young men could have pretty well done whatever they wanted to them.
JustinJ
Member
I'm gona play a little Devil's advocate here and say that you can find people on any side of any arguement who twist the truth or just plain outright lie.
What i can't stand is when people assign false motives to people with different points of view which is also lying. I completely disagree with antigunners but realize that they do not hold those views simply because they like taking away freedoms. Most simply believe that removal or restriction of guns will reduce total deaths so it should be done in the interest of the greater good. I disagree that it is in the interest of the greater good for many reasons but realize that the other side do actually mean well. I believe an honest evaluation of an opponents arguement better arms one to refute it or even convince said opponent to change their stance.
Instead of antagonizing antigunners we should try to change their minds. Unfortunately for the progun cause progressives tend to hold more influence with the youth so if we want gun rights to endure we need to focus more on introducing our interest to that demographic.
What i can't stand is when people assign false motives to people with different points of view which is also lying. I completely disagree with antigunners but realize that they do not hold those views simply because they like taking away freedoms. Most simply believe that removal or restriction of guns will reduce total deaths so it should be done in the interest of the greater good. I disagree that it is in the interest of the greater good for many reasons but realize that the other side do actually mean well. I believe an honest evaluation of an opponents arguement better arms one to refute it or even convince said opponent to change their stance.
Instead of antagonizing antigunners we should try to change their minds. Unfortunately for the progun cause progressives tend to hold more influence with the youth so if we want gun rights to endure we need to focus more on introducing our interest to that demographic.
hermannr
Member
Two little things:
Gordon: If there were no automobiles there would be no deaths by means of car accidents.
Does that mean there would be no deaths? No.
One thing I was told when I was young and dumb by an older man, who just happened to be my boss (my recent, at the time, MBA notwithstanding).
Yes, the figures do not lie, but liars sure can figure.
What he ment, by ignoring or including items, the conclusion can be scewed to the point the conclusion is invalid based on the #s
Gordon: If there were no automobiles there would be no deaths by means of car accidents.
Does that mean there would be no deaths? No.
One thing I was told when I was young and dumb by an older man, who just happened to be my boss (my recent, at the time, MBA notwithstanding).
Yes, the figures do not lie, but liars sure can figure.
What he ment, by ignoring or including items, the conclusion can be scewed to the point the conclusion is invalid based on the #s
SSN Vet
Member
Heard an interesting book review with an author of the book "Tangled Webs: How False Statements are Undermining America"
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/19/135513824/white-collar-criminals-weave-new-tangled-webs
The author details how lying (in business, under oath in court, in the media, etc...) is sending us all down the toilet (my words).
I often ponder whether the code of dueling wasn't a good thing in some ways. If someone lied about you and slandered you character, you could call them out and force them to either face public humility or risk dying to defend their statements. Of course, a liar who is also a good shot can undermine the system. But they still have to be willing to risk death.
Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda.
IMO, if you pay a cable bill, buy a movie ticket, of fill out a viewing survey, you're underwriting their cause.
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/19/135513824/white-collar-criminals-weave-new-tangled-webs
The author details how lying (in business, under oath in court, in the media, etc...) is sending us all down the toilet (my words).
I often ponder whether the code of dueling wasn't a good thing in some ways. If someone lied about you and slandered you character, you could call them out and force them to either face public humility or risk dying to defend their statements. Of course, a liar who is also a good shot can undermine the system. But they still have to be willing to risk death.
Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda.
IMO, if you pay a cable bill, buy a movie ticket, of fill out a viewing survey, you're underwriting their cause.
JustinJ
Member
"Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda."
Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views. Believe it or not, there are many people who are registered Democrats and left leaning independents who support the second amendment.
Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views. Believe it or not, there are many people who are registered Democrats and left leaning independents who support the second amendment.
Ignition Override
Member
The OP made some excellent presentation.
Shadow Shock:
As for professionals using the US rifles instead of AKs, a coworker was in Desert Storm with Army Special Forces.
He is Detroit-based, but visits friends who are based here.
He told me that "Our rifles jammed, so we picked up AKs".
I can find his phone number within a few days if anybody wants to check on his story and which unit he was with.
Shadow Shock:
As for professionals using the US rifles instead of AKs, a coworker was in Desert Storm with Army Special Forces.
He is Detroit-based, but visits friends who are based here.
He told me that "Our rifles jammed, so we picked up AKs".
I can find his phone number within a few days if anybody wants to check on his story and which unit he was with.
Last edited:
merlinfire
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 793
Agreed. There's no quicker way to make people feel unwelcome than to call call them liars.
henschman
Member
I usually like to address my arguments to the actual arguments my opponent is making, rather than to the arguments made by some group somewhere who has similar views on the subject. I hate when people do that to me. However, I suppose it can make a good point to ask why the major advocates of gun control feel the need to lie and use misleading statistics to support their position, which can at least raise the question in some people's minds and make them possibly not take all those stats at face value... or you can always legitimately bring it up if your opponent tries to rely on such statistics for his argument.
The strategy I have been trying to take with antis lately is to point out that even if they are right and gun control works (which is a big if), it would only disarm private criminals. I point out that all the worst crimes and biggest mass murders in history were not committed by private individuals, but by over-powerful governments against legally disarmed victims. I mention how one of these such governments, which many regard to be the most evil of all, started out as a Constitutional Republic similar to ours (the Weimar Republic). I say that I simply do not believe the risk of something like that happening here to be worth any reduction in private crime that could possibly be achieved by such a policy. I can harp on how our police forces are already becoming more and more paramilitary all the time, and get them to think how much more emboldened law enforcement would be in the violation of the people's liberty if they knew no one was armed. People who are anti-gun tend to be liberals, who also don't like the idea of a police state.
I don't know if it is really the most effective policy for changing hearts and minds, but it is what I am currently going with.
I suppose after all the Arab revolts going on, Antis may say that a popular revolt is capable of bringing down a tyrannical government without violence. I might respond that it probably would not have taken Egypt 30 years to get rid of its tyrant if it had an armed populace... and in fact that such tyrants would probably not be able to consolidate that much power in the first place. An ounce of prevention, and so forth.
The strategy I have been trying to take with antis lately is to point out that even if they are right and gun control works (which is a big if), it would only disarm private criminals. I point out that all the worst crimes and biggest mass murders in history were not committed by private individuals, but by over-powerful governments against legally disarmed victims. I mention how one of these such governments, which many regard to be the most evil of all, started out as a Constitutional Republic similar to ours (the Weimar Republic). I say that I simply do not believe the risk of something like that happening here to be worth any reduction in private crime that could possibly be achieved by such a policy. I can harp on how our police forces are already becoming more and more paramilitary all the time, and get them to think how much more emboldened law enforcement would be in the violation of the people's liberty if they knew no one was armed. People who are anti-gun tend to be liberals, who also don't like the idea of a police state.
I don't know if it is really the most effective policy for changing hearts and minds, but it is what I am currently going with.
I suppose after all the Arab revolts going on, Antis may say that a popular revolt is capable of bringing down a tyrannical government without violence. I might respond that it probably would not have taken Egypt 30 years to get rid of its tyrant if it had an armed populace... and in fact that such tyrants would probably not be able to consolidate that much power in the first place. An ounce of prevention, and so forth.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
