How do you "argue" with anti gun people?

[Dark Skies]

Originally Posted by Flying-Monkey

When I say argue, I don't mean fight. What points do you present to try to forward your case? I've been in discussions with a few folks who are anti gun, and I deliberately try to avoid getting into a fight with them. Sadly in some cases it's just not possible.

What points are they bringing up that you have been able to counter, what points do you use that you have not been able to counter?

I'm looking for logical point and counterpoint input here. Emotional comments, and statements meant to degrade the other person's viewpoint is not what I'm going for here.

Invite them to take a walk through the dodgiest part of town with a wallet tucked in their top pocket?

[real wowwee]

Tough subject. Whenever I encounter someone that is not all pro gun I try to keep their perspective in mind. Few of us are really knowledgeable about stuff that isn't "our thing". Apply that to guns, cars, electronics, computers, beanie babies, whatever. They will say stuff that is ignorant because they do not have knowledge. I try hard not to sneer and tic them off because that would be counter to my purpose which is to educate and persuade. Most are reacting emotionally and in genuine horror to the slaughter of these mass shootings. Besides the political opportunist I accept this response as genuine and reasonable. Many truly do not see any need for a gun whatsoever. They live sheltered lives in good hoods and have never felt threatened or victims of crime. A good part might see the need for a personal arm "just in case" and aren't oblivious to the ills of our society. This group might include the majority of gun owners that might have a 38 revolver or a pump shotgun collecting dust somewhere in the house. There is a segment that are sportsmen that love their deer rifles and fowling pieces but don't get why anybody would want or "need" an "assault rifle" or "high capacity pistol". To some degree or the other most people in the general public are not hard core antis and will accept guns on the principle of self protection and recreation. I pretty much fit in that mold and didn't buy a gun until I was 47. I decided to get a pistol after watching the mayhem of Katrina and the unbelievable edginess here in Atlanta because gas was in short supply for one week. I bought into the self protection arguments. I kept it secure from the wife and kids. If you own something that requires skill you need to develop skill so I took it to the shooting range. You know what? I loved shooting and considered it a relaxing fun pastime. So I bought into the recreation arguments. Lots of people enjoy target shooting even if they don't want to go hunting. I still don't want to trudge around the woods and freeze my rear off in a cold wet deer stand. An extension of the recreation hit with the collecting bug. Always thought guns were fascinating machines but the history and variety got me. Next was an SKS and after trying to turn it into an AK I got an AK. Honestly at first I felt a little guilty given all the notoriety of that evil thing but I convinced myself I am a free and responsible man in possession of a legal and legitimate firearm. Now I have at least 5 rifles the antis want banned and a good handful of pistols that take a variety of hi cap magazines and differing calibers. These are the firearms that people do not understand and are the prime targets of bans. Never mind the rifles usually are the class of weapons least used in crime or mayhem. They are not easily concealed. They are unwieldy in crowds. They are slightly harder to operate than hand guns. Generally they are more expensive too. The question always come down to "Why do you need that?" Not want that. They can buy into they are cool and fun range toys. But you, a civilian, mild mannered suburbanite father, fierce constructor of computer code, WHY DO YOU NEED THAT?? All they see is the negative aspect of deranged killers wielding them. How do I justify owning weapons they perceive go beyond the simpler need of self protection and recreation? I talk about rights and the 2nd amendment and history, both of America and mankind. True at this point some eyes will glaze over and their ears turn off like I started playing polka music. It is a conditioned response after decades of anti propaganda. They will never grasp the inherent intention of the 2nd to have a well armed civilian population as a constitutional safety check against tyranny. They have been lulled into believing in Uncle Sugar and like Elois in The Time Machine are absolutely docile and oblivious to their rulers true natures. They will never care about the examples of tens of millions of defenseless people slaughtered by government in the last century. They will never believe a belief that a well armed citizen is a society necessity as the last safeguard against slavery and the suspension of all rights they think are important. I just learned all that with becoming a "gun nut". If they just start bleeting "Guns kill people" I give them that kindly smile one reserves for half wits and try to end the conversation with a civil "agree to disagree" truce. If they are still adamant but not totally "throw them into the sea" I fall back on arguments like Lanza could of used a knife or a revolver or a baseball bat to the same effect against defenseless women and little children. The choice of weapon did not add to the mayhem. I fall back on our own sloganeering "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns", "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop", "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", "Better to have and not need than to need but not have", etc.

[Charles Martel]

It's very difficult to argue with gun control people. If they could be persuaded by logic and facts, if they had any ability to think critically, if they weren't completely governed by emotion they would already understand the importance of the second amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

Most anti-gunners see gun control as a moral issue (that guns and gun ownership are inherintly evil). As such, they posess a religious and dogmatic aversion to guns. No amount of fact or logic will persuade them. You might as well attempt to persuade a Muslim that Mohammed is a false prophet of an imaginary god.

Sadly, you'd be wasting both your time and your breath.

[Flying-Monkey]

Originally Posted by salvation996sps

did you read this ?

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

I wish I could thank this post twice. This is an excellent article, well thought out and presented.

I will be adding it to my first post.

[MS45]

When I say argue, I don't mean fight. What points do you present to try to forward your case?

You need some solid facts, but IMHO those are the easiest to get and only part of the equation. You can find those everywhere.
You need to be a responsible gun owners and to introduce them to responsible gun owners. Consider this through the eyes of someone that didn't grow up around guns. The news portrays them as evil and point to the shootings. Where do we point back? Stay away from the chest thumping stuff and look for "reasonable."
Time is what most people need. A solid argument and responsible gun owners are great, but it still takes time for someone to change their mind about an issue like that, especially these days.

[vicdotcom]

Originally Posted by Flying-Monkey

When I say argue, I don't mean fight. What points do you present to try to forward your case? I've been in discussions with a few folks who are anti gun, and I deliberately try to avoid getting into a fight with them. Sadly in some cases it's just not possible.

What points are they bringing up that you have been able to counter, what points do you use that you have not been able to counter?

I'm looking for logical point and counterpoint input here. Emotional comments, and statements meant to degrade the other person's viewpoint is not what I'm going for here.


*EDIT* While I'm still interested in everyone's input on the matter, I think the article linked in this posting is the best argument, and should be read at least once by everyone.

I usually perform 2 arguments...

First: "I am going to take my knife out and stab you. Call the cops and see if you are still conscious when they arrive. Police may deter crimes but the time it takes for you to call the police and wait to respond, I will already be using your credit cards while you like bleeding or dead."


Second: "What does a RIGHT mean to you?" Do you enjoy your RIGHT to free speech? Do you think it is something to be limited or controlled? Why is the RIGHT to bear arms any different?

Now sometimes they throw the whole "it is not an individual right" thing out there.. but thanks to the USSC we now can say "The Us Supreme Court interpreted it as an individual right." The contitution is interpreted by the USSC and even if we do not agree with their rulings, it is still the legal interpretation. I do not like all of their interpretations but I do have to live with it.

[Woodswalker]

I agree with others who said it's probably a waste of time but you should still try anyway .
When I've tried to talk to anti gun sheep they usually behave like Piers Morgan . They get angry , act like children and resort to name calling when you use logic , common sense and facts .
Ever notice when you try talking sense about anything to liberal zombies , they always get angry and resort to insults and name calling .

[Fight4Freedom]

Originally Posted by jmofaustin

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them. Look at Chicago, major weapons ban there, but they have an extremely high murder rate from gunshots. Go figure. In Texas where I live, the murder rate is very low, but we are allowed to carry guns in our vehicles as long as they are concealed.

I believe their thinking is that an overall reduction in the number of TOTAL guns in circulation will have the effect of reducing the number of guns AVAILABLE to be used.

Anyone who thinks any gun control law, even outright banning ALL guns, would bring gun murders to a screeching halt is delusional.

However, as much as I want to disagree, it is probably true that a significant reduction (50% or more of all guns in circulation for example) probably would have at least some effect in reducing gun related murders. But the cost to freedom for everyone might outweigh the saving of those lives. You can never save everyone. Even Private Ryan.

[KaBar67]

I point out the following:

1. Obama always supported gun control, that's why gun owners don't trust him.
2. The NRA opposed "the gun free school act" warning this sort of tragedy might happen, as it has again and again.
3. I'd suggest to them what we are dealing with is the intersection of mental illness, family breakdown and gun ownership. That we are all in agreement that soemthing must be done to try to present tragedies from being repeated, but it must be effective. An armed guard in every school has been effective 47% of the time is stopping mass shootings. The NRA Shield plan would hopefully be as effective, reducing the chance of a reoccurance by 47%.
4. We know the anti gunners calling for reasonable restrictions in the past actually voted to repeal the second amendment. A remarkably extreme positition. There is no reason to supprot peole who voted to ban the second amendment and enact gun free shcools. Stupid can kill.

[jmofaustin]

"However, as much as I want to disagree, it is probably true that a significant reduction (50% or more of all guns in circulation for example) probably would have at least some effect in reducing gun related murders. But the cost to freedom for everyone might outweigh the saving of those lives. You can never save everyone. Even Private Ryan."

I think if you reduce 50% of the guns, it will be from the law abiding citizens, not the gangs or any other criminals. It's like outlawing alcohol in the 20's, it made alcohol easier to get on the black market with no regulations. It created mobs and gangs where the only purpose was to sell illegal alcohol.

What should be done is everyone should put a sign up on their property like mine.
"If you can read this, You are in range"
"Property under 24 hour surveillance"

[ARKLITE881South]

Originally Posted by Dark Skies

Invite them to take a walk through the dodgiest part of town with a wallet tucked in their top pocket?

Or, give them a 1 way bus ticked to the worst part of town You ride along, with your CC at the other end of the bus

[Flying-Monkey]

Originally Posted by Woodswalker

Ever notice when you try talking sense about anything to liberal zombies , they always get angry and resort to insults and name calling .

I've found that whenever I am in a discussion with someone who is arguing from an emotional stand point instead of a logical one, and they feel they are losing, or being backed into a corner, that they resort to insults, no matter their political leanings.

I noticed that name calling doesn't wait until a argument is being lost anymore either. On the conservative side, I see things in general statements like the term "libtard" or "democrap". I think our culture has lost the skills of debate, and the tools that replaced it is insults and degradation of character so you don't have to listen to the other person's view point. Why should you, if you know they're "stupid"?

[salvation996sps]

Originally Posted by Flying-Monkey

I've found that whenever I am in a discussion with someone who is arguing from an emotional stand point instead of a logical one, and they feel they are losing, or being backed into a corner, that they resort to insults, no matter their political leanings.

I noticed that name calling doesn't wait until a argument is being lost anymore either. On the conservative side, I see things in general statements like the term "libtard" or "democrap". I think our culture has lost the skills of debate, and the tools that replaced it is insults and degradation of character so you don't have to listen to the other person's view point. Why should you, if you know they're "stupid"?

its part of our education system , "dont ask why just do as i say "

free thinking was purged from government public schools long ago , when they strayed from the trivium and quadrivium

[Flying-Monkey]

Originally Posted by salvation996sps

its part of our education system , "dont ask why just do as i say "

free thinking was purged from government public schools long ago , when they strayed from the trivium and quadrivium

I'm sure it's a urban legend/joke, well pretty sure, but these days...

"You may already know this, but in case Alex has neglected to tell you, I am assigning him to detention for one hour this Friday, April 22nd. The reason is as follows:

Alex consistently defied me. During class he contradicted me numerous times when I insisted that the length of one kilometer was greater than that of one mile. Every other student in class accepted my lesson without argument, but your son refused to believe what I told him, offering such rebuttals as, "You're lying to the class," and commanding other students to challenge my curriculum.

Although he was correct, Alex's actions show a blatant disregard for authority, and a complete lack of respect for his school. In the future, Alex would be better off simply accepting my teachings without resistance.

Please see to it that your son understands this."

[IceDemon]

Originally Posted by Fight4Freedom

I believe their thinking is that an overall reduction in the number of TOTAL guns in circulation will have the effect of reducing the number of guns AVAILABLE to be used.

Anyone who thinks any gun control law, even outright banning ALL guns, would bring gun murders to a screeching halt is delusional.

However, as much as I want to disagree, it is probably true that a significant reduction (50% or more of all guns in circulation for example) probably would have at least some effect in reducing gun related murders. But the cost to freedom for everyone might outweigh the saving of those lives. You can never save everyone. Even Private Ryan.

I see liberals using "gun murders" a lot. Gun murders actually do go down when guns are restricted in certain states and countries. But, overall murders go up in those same states. People can't go by statistics on gun murders on a before and after gun restriction. Overall murders have to be looked at.

[JBryan314]

I actually had a liberal tell me that a baseball bat was good enough for home defense. There is a profound lack of intelligence on their part in a lot of cases.

[Moby]

I attempt to point out that criminals do not follow laws so making more laws is usless.
I try to remind them that bad guys will always get guns, so taking guns from the law abiding just makes more victims. I also remind them that the second ammendment has nothing to do with self defense or hunting, but to give an over zealous government pause when dealing with the people of our nation. I also try to remind them that during an active shooting, which almost always happens in gun free zones, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

I had one anti gunner conversation that went something link this.
Do you mind if a police officer with a gun was near you at a party. Usually the answer is no. When I ask why is that OK they state the officer is trained and authorized. So I ask if a retired police officer is ok at a party with a gun. Again usually yes, training. I take is down another knotch, how about former policer officers that didn't retire but got their CHL's. Ususally OK but often some discomfort here. Then I ask if it's all about training and making sure the gun owner was a good guy, how about well trained folks that choose to train and get their CHL's? To this there is a solid no....but they cannot tell me why. It usually makes them feel uncomfortable and the topic changes. Almost invariably by them.
GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS STOP BAD GUYS WITH GUNS!

[colourfastt]

One cannot "argue" with any person whose ideology is "pro" or "anti" anything.

[InfScout]

I used to try. Like so many others posted here, facts and such don't outweigh emotion. Logic doesn't work- they don't care.

[OhioMan]

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd...