Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know


PDA






another person
October 13, 2006, 12:17 AM
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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Axman
October 13, 2006, 12:46 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 12:51 AM
I was going to tell him to GTFO if he doesnt believe in the Constitution but he blocked me too fast.

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 12:52 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 01:03 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 01:05 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 01:11 AM
He likes the idea of the killing to be brutal. Like it's more fun or somethingHe'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
October 13, 2006, 01:12 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 01:22 AM
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 gunsI 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. :rolleyes:

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
October 13, 2006, 01:50 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 01:51 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 02:01 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 03:07 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 06:08 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 06:27 AM
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
October 13, 2006, 06:27 AM
wierd argument

Phil DeGraves
October 13, 2006, 02:15 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 02:16 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 03:46 PM
You might have had a better use for those 40 minutes than bantering with an unreasonable person.

Wesker
October 13, 2006, 04:10 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 04:19 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 04:22 PM
question..... if economic conditions cause crime then did crime go up in USA during the Great Depression ?:what: :what: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 04:25 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 04:31 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 04:39 PM
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.

Deanimator
October 13, 2006, 04:47 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 04:47 PM
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 :cuss: and say either keep arguing or admit defeat.

-java

TallPine
October 13, 2006, 04:51 PM
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.:barf: 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
October 13, 2006, 04:54 PM
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... :D

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 05:04 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:14 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:19 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:22 PM
I say invite them to shoot. At least it bridges the two worlds into a physical connection.

Deanimator
October 13, 2006, 05:36 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:37 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:39 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:44 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:47 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:50 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 05:56 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 06:15 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 07:25 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 08:41 PM
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 ...? :p

I'm not an extremist, just a reactionary ;)

Deanimator
October 13, 2006, 10:19 PM
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
October 13, 2006, 10:59 PM
How did you get the screen name "Pro"?!?!?! and how did he get "Anti"?!?!:neener:

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

Euclidean
October 14, 2006, 12:15 AM
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
October 14, 2006, 12:40 AM
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
October 14, 2006, 01:08 AM
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
October 14, 2006, 06:30 AM
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! :barf:

Euclidean
October 14, 2006, 09:23 AM
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 (http://www.themartialist.com/0804/iselfdefense.htm). 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.

Travis Lee
October 14, 2006, 10:02 AM
Deanimator: good points, there :)

Playboy penguin: I'll admit to being an extremist. I know one poor sod who is technically a felon for supposedly trying to run over some cops at a DUI checkpoint. What makes me think he was basically railroaded was that he got 18 months of probation (basically for the DUI) instead of getting hammered with prison. It would be one thing if the prohibition on felons possessing firearms really meant VIOLENT felonies, but it seems there are more "paper felonies" all the time. And now MISDEMENOR "domestic abuse" convictions now result in becoming a "prohibited person". Any one of us is just ONE unsupported "domestic abuse" allegation or a restraining order away from being a "prohibited person"

Should we allow "felons" to buy and own deadly weapons? We already do! They can buy butcher knives, baseball bats, automobiles, and gasoline. And if you believe that seriously evil criminals never can obtain firearms, I have a bridge to sell you.

If we are not rehabilitating criminals and cannot trust them with deadly weapons, then we cannot trust them with FREEDOM, and we need to either dump them in a gulag in Alaska, or exterminate them expeditiously.

With every passing year, I am increasingly convinced that all the "reasonable gun laws" which we typically accept are aimed at US, and not at "criminals".

--Travis--

cyco668
October 14, 2006, 11:05 AM
"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." I'm using this as an example, not criticizing the anyone..
This statement holds true to PRO also. We (I'm basically pro) say "what if... a rapist, a burglar, a PCP addict..." all the time to justify firearms. What actions do we take in the hypothetical situation of a home invasion or a car-jacking? Where are our stats to show how firearms lowered crime? If we can show stats and numbers where crime has gone down when the citizens have arms, an Anti can pull up stats to show where crime went down due to firearms restrictions. How does anyone know what will happen if DC allows guns again? Can anyone prove that DC would have less crime if the gun ban never took place?
A Pro has no more proof than an Anti. We just take whatever information we have available, and then form a personal opinion. One of the great things about our country (those of us in the US) is that we can freely discuss and argue topics like this. Hopefully a few Anti's might be converted. A few Pros may convert also. One last thing, Antis usually acknowledge that some people still need to hunt to put food on the table.

billybob
October 14, 2006, 12:11 PM
Simply refer the opponent to some fairly recent history. That of a country of moms who cared for kids and the home and DADS who had actual productive JOBS.

A time when guns were a prominently displayed fixture in a GLASS gun case in the den and were not even given a second thought.

And how that was the status quo for TWO HUNDRED YEARS ....before irresponsible liberal social RE-engineering of a system that WAS WORKING became the cause of politicians who cater to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR in the country to pander votes.

In short: in a country rapidly declining both morally and economically that a GUN is the only real protection against even MORE losses.

Even for the anti.

:)

(A few ounces of gold are also not a bad idea)

Werewolf
October 14, 2006, 12:18 PM
RE: Post #50 by Euclidian...

Well said Euclidian - very well said!

billybob
October 14, 2006, 12:42 PM
Well said Euclidian - very well said!

Hear, hear. VERY nice.

And the reason for Clinton's ELECTION is to be found in post 53.

I hope someone listens someday.

Zen21Tao
October 14, 2006, 01:54 PM
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?

I agree but I see two additional reasons:

1. Guilt. Much of what lefties strive to do socially is driven by an inner feeling of guilt for what they do individually. A major motivator of the left is the desire to have freedom of action while the same time, not to have to take personal reasonability for their actions. This naturally instills a level cognitive dissonance. To reduce this cognitive dissonance they adopt ideas to save society. That way they can feel as though they are doing their part to make the world a better place.

2. Control. Those that obtain power have to have a way to maintain it. One technique to limit the populace’s ability to regain power is to limit THE MEANS by which they could (at least hope) to regain power. In other words, an unarmed populace is an obedient populace. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment isn’t just freedom from the tyranny of other citizens it is to protect against tyranny from the government as well.

Euclidean
October 14, 2006, 02:34 PM
True, the late great Cooper, God rest his soul, spoke of the "copers" and the "non-copers". The non-coper is threatened by the coper, but imho that's just another dimension of fear. I think the desire for the control of other people is about seeing all of the other people in society as liabilities, something to be afraid of.

I will admit there are a fair number of people out there who are liabilities, but we can't create a whole society based on the fear of these people.

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 03:19 PM
Euclidean,

First off, sorry I did not respond sooner but it was a friday night. :)

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...

You can't possibly really believe this? If two men of equal size came at you...one with a croissant and one with a butcher knife... and you only had one round in your SD pistol you would have a hard time deciding which one to take down?

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

It is no more a straw man argument than the statement you made attempting to invalidate new gun laws by saying we did not have them until the 1960's.

No, rather that our laws preserve individual freedom first and foremost.
Laws are restrictive by nature. Even if they are restricting how someone can impose their wills on others thereby limiting your freedom. Even laws that say "a person may" are really saying "someone may not stop someone from". If you say laws should just preserve personal freedoms...how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly, or any other absurd notion. Those notions would not seem absurd to them at all. All laws cannot be reactionary. There is some prevention needed to protect the population. To say differently boarders on anarchist beliefs.

My personal feeling on gun control are basically...
* No violent offenders (for at least a certain amount of time after their offense, not a forever deal since people do change)
* No minors buying deadly weapons since they do not possess the faculties to understand the ramifications of the misuse of said weapon (most angry 13 yr olds these days could afford a $100 used Hi-point). Parents can buy a minor a weapon for all I care.

Then I do feel that people who want a concealed carry permit should have to show some safety training and pass a background check. Mainly to just show they have put a little effort into it. You have to get a license for a car too.

Those are my beliefs as of now. Who knows...they may change in the future depending on what I see and experience. I definately have a more relaxed view of gun control now than I did a year ago. According to polls on this very board I am in the majority. The polls I was able to find show that only around 20% or so of people on this board (which would definately tend to be more pro-gun than the general gun owning population that do not visit gun boards) tend to feel there should be no gun sale restrictions.

Euclidean
October 14, 2006, 04:36 PM
PPenguin: I honestly did used to be where you are now. I was there a few years ago.

I was wrong and I admit it. But I wasn't stupid. And I don't think you or even most people in general are.

Being human, we can't help but be wrong and ignorant at times. I have to accept I may be wrong or ignorant about any thing at any time. **** happens. I look at things I did and said in the past and slap myself for being such a dumbass. I'm sure 10 years from now I'll be embarassed about things I'm doing now.

But this time, I think I'm getting closer to the truth. The more I look at this, the more I think about it, and the more I try to take my emotions out of it, the more I realize that the complete freedom model is the only viable alternative.

I admit maybe my parameters of what is freedom may not be well defined enough. I'm working on it.

FWIW I don't think there's ever truly been a free society in history. The early U.S. was a pretty damn good try though. We have the benefits of over 2 centuries of screwing it up to draw on now, I think it can be fixed if we only tried.

I'll shut up now, or try to. I don't think anything productive will come out of going point for point any more. At a certain point I find it's just best to let it go, leave the discussion out there in cyberspace for everyone's consideration, and let the readers decide what they think about it based on the evidence presented.

If worse comes to worse, there must be some extremists if only to help counteract other extremists whose stance is far more dangerous.

javacodeman
October 14, 2006, 04:41 PM
Laws are restrictive by nature. Even if they are restricting how someone can impose their wills on others thereby limiting your freedom. Even laws that say "a person may" are really saying "someone may not stop someone from". If you say laws should just preserve personal freedoms...how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly, or any other absurd notion. Those notions would not seem absurd to them at all. All laws cannot be reactionary. There is some prevention needed to protect the population. To say differently boarders on anarchist beliefs.

PlayboyPenguin,

If I may, I'll state my opinions which I believe to be what Euclidean was trying to express. Euclidean, reply if this isn't what your were trying to convey.

Government should function to protect

1) Our country from other countries
2) Individuals from other individuals
3) Individuals from our government

Personal freedoms should be maximized where ever possible. The only time personal freedoms should be limited are cases where those freedoms would limit others' freedoms:

how about a person who feels they should be free to marry a child, or have sex with animals, or shoot illegal aliens, or drive wrecklessly

Another example is the draft. Here we are sacrificing an indiviual's freedom (#3) to support the protection of our country (#1). Everytime a sacrifice like this is made (sacrificing #3 for the sake of #1 or #2), it should be a last resort (and should a viable solution).

All that the "pro's" are saying is that taking gun freedom away is not in anyway a last resort for crime/violence at this point and furthermore it would never work anyway. So, we fall back on the mantra of maximizing personal freedom.

In the end, a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. He/she will have a weapon. Allow as many citizens to also have weapons as possible so as to deter the 1 out of every 1000 citizens that is a criminal. This is accomplished through relaxing gun laws.

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 04:53 PM
Government should function to protect

1) Our country from other countries
2) Individuals from other individuals
3) Individuals from our government

Sounds good to me. I would argue that not allowing children and violent offenders to purchase weapons falls right under rule #2. How is your freedom impaired by simple rules like no violent felons and no children? It has already been established throughout history that both of these classes experience reduced or suspended rights and priveldges.

That is why I do support some gun laws and enforcement of the good ones we have now and do not feel new ones are needed.

I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history to receive a CCW permit (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I might even add that you cannot currently be under a restraining order.

Beyond that I do not think there should be limits on types of firearms, types of ammo, how many you can own, where you can carry (with CCW permit...if you have a permit and are a teacher taking it to school is fine with me), etc.

javacodeman
October 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I think that this is reasonable. We just have to make sure that the wackos out there don't start redefining what is "criminal."

He demonstrated treason and non-patriotism by not supporting the new laws on gun control. By his actions, he is a felon and should lose all rights to guns.
--future communist liberal

That would make me want to :cuss: :banghead:

:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro/Anti gun arguement with a person I know" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!