A comment an anti actually appreciated... Amazing.


PDA






camslam
September 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
I try to keep up on what the anti's are saying and Robyn Ringler is someone I'm sure some of you are familiar with. This was a email to her from one of us that actually made it to her website. Congrats to the writer for his success and his well written letter.

Good info in it and I thought some of you might enjoy it.

http://blogs.timesunion.com/underfire/

A comment came in this week that is so reasoned, so thoughtful, so respectful, that I’d like to share it with all of you:

Robyn,

I’ve been lurking for some time, but since you are about to close your comments, I’d like to chime in at least once.

I’m 36, a physics and literature geek, dad to a special-needs kid (8 y.o. son, DiGeorge syndrome, Tetralogy of Fallot with pulmonary atresia) and a healthy 6 y.o. daughter, runner, professional technical writer with a B.A. and some master’s coursework in English, registered Independent, and a regular on Democratic Underground. My wife is also 36, also has a B.A. in English, and is a literature and history enthusiast who enjoys kayaking. We are both gun owners, and like most gunnies, my wife and I are nonhunters.

We also happen to be those eeee-villll “assault weapon” owners that the Violence Policy Center is always warning you about. My wife’s rifle is a historically significant (1952 Tula) SKS, which she likes because it is historically interesting, looks good, and doesn’t kick much. My primary all-around rifle is a civilian, non-automatic AK-47 lookalike (SAR-1); it is my primary target rifle, I shoot competitively with it, it is legal for deer hunting here in North Carolina with a 5-round magazine, and it also makes a fine defensive carbine. We also own 9mm pistols (Glock for her, S&W Ladysmith for me), and I shoot competitively with my pistol as well.

Thoughts I’d like to share:

It has been my observation that a lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership, even though the latter is overwhelmingly more common. I think to some degree, they have come to see “guns” as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady’s husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don’t think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it.

I’m on the other side of the coin. My great-grandparents were married in 1900, and one of the wedding presents was a nice his-and-hers set of defensive revolvers intended for lawful concealed carry. My grandparents grew up owning handguns, rifles, and shotguns; so did my parents. My dad had a “save” with a semiautomatic pistol in the early 1970’s, when I was around 5 years old (he didn’t even have to draw it; the guys who approached him late one night in rural NC saw his holstered gun, looked at each other, and left).

Like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22’s regularly at 16, owned a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine) with my civilian “AK”. My wife, from Maine, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I’m 36 years old, I’ve never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Like most of the population at large, most gun owners haven’t experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had “saves” with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It’s not “any and all guns” that are involved in criminal mayhem; it’s actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it’s not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

There IS common ground to be found on the issue. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn’t have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (the “assault weapon” bait-and-switch, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on the law-abiding in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

One thing I absolutely do NOT understand is the gun-control lobby’s absolute obsession with banning small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling.

Consider the FBI breakdown by type of weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders……………………….14,860…..100.00%
Handguns…………………………….7,543……50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)….1,954……13.15%
Edged weapons………………………..1,914……12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)……………….1,598……10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc…………………892…….6.00%
Shotguns………………………………517…….3.48%
Rifles………………………………..442…….2.97%

That 2.97% figure is for ALL RIFLES COMBINED. So why, then, is it considered SO important to outlaw the most popular civilian target and defensive rifles in America, when they are so rarely misused? It seems to me that banning protruding rifle handgrips, rifle stocks that adjust for length of pull, etc. is so absolutely irrelevant to the crime picture, that to have ever made such legislation a priority is absolutely inconceivable to me.

I’ll close with an essay I wrote in 2004, after the Kerry/Edwards loss, that IMHO was largely vindicated when pro-gun-ownership Dems helped win the Senate in ‘06:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97165

For those who don’t understand the dynamics of the debate from the pro-civilian-ownership side, it may help explain where we’re coming from, even if you may not agree with us.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Peace,

benEzra

If you enjoyed reading about "A comment an anti actually appreciated... Amazing." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cnorman18
September 10, 2007, 06:23 PM
VERY well done!

Reason, logic, courtesy and respect will go farther than belligerent defiance and bluster--especially since the latter two merely serve to confirm the antis' worst suspicions.

Again, very well done.

JKimball
September 10, 2007, 06:32 PM
Nice! Thanks for posting Camslam.

benEzra, way to go!

strat81
September 10, 2007, 06:33 PM
I've seen benEzra's name here on THR. Very eloquent, articulate gentleman.

The Unknown User
September 10, 2007, 06:35 PM
Wow, that was a great read. Thank you so much for sharing. :)

SaMx
September 10, 2007, 06:38 PM
very good comment, but the link at the end appears to be broken.

.cheese.
September 10, 2007, 06:38 PM
anyone know the history of this blogger? Not the person who wrote the letter, rather I'm talking about Mrs. Ringler.

.cheese.
September 10, 2007, 06:40 PM
but the link at the end appears to be broken.

Can somebody try the link logged in to DU? I have a feeling that may have a great deal to do with the error message.

Polishrifleman
September 10, 2007, 06:47 PM
I believe that mysterious democratic knowledge base of gun toting wisdom frequents here on THR. I really enjoy his posts. Nice work Ben!!! I noticed you were asking about Ringler. Still Kudo's.

JKimball
September 10, 2007, 06:55 PM
anyone know the history of this blogger? Not the person who wrote the letter, rather I'm talking about Mrs. Ringler.

.cheese,
Check out the link in the original post. Her summary says she is a nurse that attended to Reagan when he was shot and has been a gun control activist since then.

camslam
September 10, 2007, 06:58 PM
I'm not sure why the link won't work. Sorry about that. Here is the info on Ms. Ringler and the name of her blog.

Under Fire (Blog Name)

I'm Robyn Ringler, a nurse, attorney and freelance writer in Ballston Lake. I'm also a gun control activist who became deeply affected by America's gun violence problem while caring for President Ronald Reagan after the assassination attempt. Let's talk about guns. Robyn Ringler, Ballston Lake, NY

SaMx
September 10, 2007, 07:42 PM
If you go to the blog the link there works.

GigaBuist
September 10, 2007, 09:04 PM
Wow. I knew that was BenEzra before I got passed the 3rd paragraph. :)

.cheese.
September 10, 2007, 09:06 PM
.cheese,
Check out the link in the original post. Her summary says she is a nurse that attended to Reagan when he was shot and has been a gun control activist since then.

Right.... I did see that. Perhaps what I should have asked was, how well known is she? ie: anybody ever hear of her before, and if so does she tend to be influential at all or not. She's not a poli, but the blogosphere has power these days.

lamazza
September 10, 2007, 09:22 PM
Great job! Truly an example of taking the high road and being heard.

Matt King
September 10, 2007, 10:06 PM
Right.... I did see that. Perhaps what I should have asked was, how well known is she? ie: anybody ever hear of her before, and if so does she tend to be influential at all or not. She's not a poli, but the blogosphere has power these days.

She recently turned off the comments section on her blog, a la Brady; so her current audience could probably fit into a phone booth.

Standing Wolf
September 10, 2007, 10:09 PM
That 2.97% figure is for ALL RIFLES COMBINED. So why, then, is it considered SO important to outlaw the most popular civilian target and defensive rifles in America, when they are so rarely misused?

The leftist extremists need to get the camel's nose under the edge of the tent before bringing in the whole camel.

benEzra
September 10, 2007, 10:21 PM
I am of the firm opinion that a calm voice is a lot more effective than an edgy one.

Here's the correct link that's broken above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97165

(Please, no trolls/flamebait over on DU, please. It makes the pro-gun regulars look bad when pro-gun trolls show up.)

Henry Bowman
September 10, 2007, 10:44 PM
small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling.Very nice choice of wording.

The Canuck
September 10, 2007, 10:51 PM
benEzra,

I enjoyed your article and found it to be well thought out. Thanks for such an eloquent dissertation explaining your truth about responsible law-abiding firearms ownership.

I however would like to point out that I am cautious regarding the political bent of anybody when speaking of "gun control" (read; "people control"). In such instances they are not "Conservative" or "Liberal", but "freedom thieves" to me. It would be great if we could all remember that, it would make articles like yours that much more powerful.

Regards,

XLMiguel
September 10, 2007, 11:14 PM
Thank You!Thank You!Thank You!Thank You! benEzra

First for that thoughtful, concise, articulate response to the anti, but even more so for the link to your original essay - I've been looking for a copy almost since I frst read it a couple years ago - a beautiful mix of facts woven and presented with unassailable reason and irrefutable logic. Kudos, magna sum est, to you, sir

yesit'sloaded
September 10, 2007, 11:25 PM
Now find me a democratic candidate that will support this and I might just have to not vote for Ron Paul. Just kidding, but this seriously changed my opinions on democrat chances if they went pro-gun. Nice to see the anti from SF wasn't all about children. Her ignorance is so obvious that I can't blame her for wanting to stop those cop killer bullets, guns in homes, and high capacity full auto magazines. Don't hate antis, educate them and maybe we will have a few more gunnies out of it.

camslam
September 10, 2007, 11:43 PM
Ben Ezra:

I hope you are ok that I put this here. I really thought it was well written and I thought others on the forum would appreciate it.

Thanks.

benEzra
September 11, 2007, 12:04 AM
Totally fine (and I'm flattered). I also don't mind people lifting/adapting arguments to use elsewhere (in fact, I hope they do).

I was quite surprised that Robyn R. crossposted that to her front page, but I think it's because she had gotten a string of really rude comments that made a polite one stand out.

The Wiry Irishman
September 11, 2007, 01:52 AM
I used to be anti. Sure, I'd shoot a .22 rifle with my dad every now and then, or some skeet with a 20 gauge, but in high school I mocked my pro-gun friends and wondered why people thought they needed assault rifles.

Then I came to college. There were a lot of gun guys in my wing of the dorm, and I became friends with all of them. They weren't just hunters or occasional plinkers, guns were their passion. Several of them are on THR. I never told them I was anti, I don't like confrontation and I prefer to leave people alone to think and do what they want. Just getting to know them, finding that they were very reasonable, personable, and rational individuals is what converted me. I didn't even need any of the wide variety of legitimate pro-gun arguments they could have offered. Realizing that they're decent people was the primary factor in shifting my views on gun ownership of all sorts. Hearing those arguments later brought me farther over to this side, but in my case they were irrelevant, I would have figured it out for myself eventually. Its reasoned communication like your letter and exposure to the good will and generosity that I've come to associate with "gun guys" that changed my mind. THR as a whole exemplifies this, as well, and that's most of the reason I frequent the site. I have a few ex-anti friends that were won over the same way. Kudos to you, and to everyone on THR of promoting the gun owners true image: decent people just like everyone else.

ArfinGreebly
September 11, 2007, 02:06 AM
benEzra,

A fine piece. Exemplary erudition.

Makes a fella humble.

Thanks.

Thanks very much.

AndyC
September 11, 2007, 01:11 PM
An example for us all to follow (me especially) - thought-provoking, even from my pro-gun perspective.

Mannix
September 11, 2007, 02:00 PM
Very nice post, hopefully you won a couple converts over to the cause :D.

My god though, just reading through some of the responses to your OP gave me the willies. Some of them seem to think that the only two ways the country can go is authoritarian left, or authoritarian right.

RPCVYemen
September 11, 2007, 11:00 PM
=I am of the firm opinion that a calm voice is a lot more effective than an edgy one.

That matches my experiences.

"ben Ezra" as in Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra?

Mike

Coronach
September 11, 2007, 11:10 PM
I am of the firm opinion that a calm voice is a lot more effective than an edgy one.This is absolutely true. If you go around sounding mad, people will assume you're a madman. They can then ignore your points as the rantings of a lunatic.

On the other hand, if you are able to state your point rationally and back it up with facts, logic and/or philosophy, it will often cause the people who are listening (as opposed to merely hearing) to think.

Well done.

Mike

frankcostanza
September 12, 2007, 02:03 AM
great letter! thanks for posting

Leitmotif
September 12, 2007, 07:03 AM
On the other hand, if you are able to state your point rationally and back it up with facts, logic and/or philosophy, it will often cause the people who are listening (as opposed to merely hearing) to think.

In my experience with antis, it generally inspires them to ignore your point and attack you instead. A good argument is one thing, but ad hominem is forever.

benEzra
September 12, 2007, 10:18 AM
"ben Ezra" as in Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra?

Mike
Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ibn_Ezra

Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (Hebrew: אברהם אבן עזרא or ראב"ע, also known as Abenezra) (1092 or 1093-1167), was one of the most distinguished Jewish men of letters and writers of the Middle Ages. Ibn Ezra excelled in philosophy, astronomy/astrology, medicine, poetry, linguistics, and exegesis; he was called The Wise, The Great and The Admirable Doctor.

He was born at Tudela, (current day province of Navarra) when the town was under Muslim rule. He left his native land of Spain before 1140 on account of the vexations inflicted on the Jews. He led a life of restless wandering, which took him to North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Italy (Rome, Rodez, Lucca, Mantua, Verona), Southern France (Narbonne, Béziers), Northern France (Dreux), England (London), and back again to the South of France, until his death on January 23 or 28th, 1167, the exact location unknown.

The Abenezra crater on the Moon was named in his honour.

I was introduced to the name and Browning's persona as a teenager via the Robert Browning poem "Rabbi ben Ezra" by none other than Isaac Asimov, in his novel Pebble in the Sky (one of his first).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_in_the_Sky

I'm both an Asimov fan and a Browning fan (both Robert and Elizabeth), I like the philosophy of the poem (which is really Browning's own), and from what I've read of the real ben Ezra, I am intrigued by him.

The Browning poem that caught Asimov's fancy, and (in turn) mine:

Rabbi Ben Ezra

GROW old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!''

Not that, amassing flowers,
Youth sighed, "Which rose make ours,
Which lily leave and then as best recall?''
Not that, admiring stars,
It yearned, "Nor Jove, nor Mars;
Mine be some figured flame which blends, transcends them all!''

Not for such hopes and fears
Annulling youth's brief years,
Do I remonstrate: folly wide the mark!
Rather I prize the doubt
Low kinds exist without,
Finished and finite clods, untroubled by a spark.

Poor vaunt of life indeed,
Were man but formed to feed
On joy, to solely seek and find and feast;
Such feasting ended, then
As sure an end to men;
Irks care the crop full bird? Frets doubt the maw-crammed beast?

Rejoice we are allied
To that which doth provide
And not partake, effect and not receive!
A spark disturbs our clod;
Nearer we hold of God
Who gives, then of his tribes that take, I must believe.

Then, welcome each rebuff
That turns earth's smoothness rough,
Each sting that bids nor sit nor stand but go!
Be our joys three-parts pain!
Strive,and hold cheap the strain;
Learn, nor account the pang; dare, never grudge the throe!

For thence,--a paradox
Which comforts while it mocks,--
Shall life succeed in that it seems to fail:
What I aspired to be,
And was not, comforts me:
A brute I might have been, but would not sink i'the scale.

What is he but a brute
Whose flesh has soul to suit,
Whose spirit works lest arms and legs want play?
To man, propose this test--
Thy body at its best,
How far can that project thy soul on its lone way?

Yet gifts should prove their use:
I own the Past profuse
Of power each side, a perfection every turn:
Eyes, ears took in their dole,
Brain treasured up the whole;
Should not the heart beat once ``How good to live and learn''?

Not once beat ``Praise be thine!
I see the whole design,
I, who saw power, see now Love perfect too:
Perfect I call thy plan:
Thanks that I was a man!
Maker, remake, complete,--I trust what thou shalt do!''

For pleasant is this flesh;
Our soul, in its rose-mesh
Pulled over to the earth, still yearns for rest:
Would we some prize might hold
To match those manifold
Possessions of the brute,--gain most, as we did best!

Let us not always say,
``Spite of this flesh to-day
I strove, made head, gained ground upon the whole!''
As the bird wings and sings,
Let us cry, ``All good things
Are ours, nor soul helps flesh more, now, than flesh helps soul!''

Therefore I summon age
To grant youth's heritage,
Life's struggle having so far reached its term:
Thence shall I pass, approved
A man, for aye removed
From the developed brute; a God though in the germ.

And I shall thereupon
Take rest, ere I be gone
Once more on my adventure brave and new:
Fearless and unperplexed,
When I wage battle next,
What weapons to select, what armor to indue.

Youth ended, I shall try
My gain or loss thereby;
Leave the fire ashes, what survives is gold:
And I shall weigh the same,
Give life its praise or blame:
Young, all lay in dispute; I shall know, being old.

For note, when evening shuts,
A certain moment cuts
The deed off, calls the glory from the gray:
A whisper from the west
Shoots--``Add this to the rest,
Take it and try its worth: here dies another day.''

So, still within this life,
Though lifted o'er its strife,
Let me discern, compare, pronounce at last,
``This rage was right i' the main,
That acquiescence vain:
The Future I may face now I have proved the Past.''

For more is not reserved
To man, with soul just nerved
To act to-morrow what he learns to-day:
Here, work enough to watch
The Master work, and catch
Hints of the proper craft, tricks of the tool's true play.

As it was better, youth
Should strive, through acts uncouth,
Toward making than repose on aught found made:
So, better, age, exempt
From strife, should know, than tempt
Further. Thou waitedst age: wait death nor be afraid!

Enough now, if the Right
And Good and Infinite
Be named here, as thou callest thy hand thine own,
With knowledge absolute,
Subject to no dispute
From fools that crowded youth, nor let thee feel alone.

Be there, for once and all,
Severed great minds from small,
Announced to each his station in the Past!
Was I, the world arraigned,
Were they, my soul disdained,
Right? Let age speak the truth and give us peace at last!

Now, who shall arbitrate?
Ten men love what I hate,
Shun what I follow, slight what I receive;
Ten, who in ears and eyes
Match me: we all surmise,
They this thing, I that: whom shall my soul believe?

Not on the vulgar mass
Called ``work'' must sentence pass,
Things done, that took the eye and had the price;
O'er which, from level stand,
The low world laid its hand,
Found straightway to its mind, could value in a trice:

But all, the world's coarse thumb
And finger failed to plumb,
So passed in making up the main account;
All instincts immature,
All purposes unsure,
That weighed not as his work, yet swelled the man's amount:

Thoughts hardly to be packed
Into a narrow act,
Fancies that broke through language and escaped;
All I could never be,
All, men ignored in me,
This, I was worth to God, whose wheel the pitcher shaped.

Ay, note that Potter's wheel,
That metaphor! and feel
Why time spins fast, why passive lies our clay,--
Thou, to whom fools propound,
When the wine makes its round,
``Since life fleets, all is change; the Past gone, seize to-day.''

Fool! All that is, at all,
Lasts ever, past recall;
Earth changes, but thy soul and God stand sure:
What entered into thee,
That was, is, and shall be:
Time's wheel runs back or stops: Potter and clay endure.

He fixed thee 'mid this dance
Of plastic circumstance,
This Present, thou, forsooth, would fain arrest:
Machinery just meant
To give thy soul its bent,
Try thee and turn thee forth, sufficiently impressed.

What though the earlier grooves,
Which ran the laughing loves
Around thy base, no longer pause and press?
What though, about thy rim,
Skull-things in order grim
Grow out, in graver mood, obey the sterner stress?

Look not thou down but up!
To uses of a cup,
The festal board, lamp's flash and trumpet's peal,
The new wine's foaming flow,
The Master's lips aglow!
Thou, heaven's consummate cup, what needst thou with earth's wheel?

But I need, now as then,
Thee, God, who mouldest men;
And since, not even while the whirl was worst,
Did I--to the wheel of life
With shapes and colors rife,
Bound dizzily--mistake my end, to slake thy thirst:

So, take, and use thy work:
Amend what flaws may lurk,
What strain o' the stuff, what warpings past the aim!
My times be in thy hand!
Perfect the cup as planned!
Let age approve of youth, and death complete the same!

Robert Browning

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 12, 2007, 10:32 AM
I'm impressed by any man who's sufficiently secure in his masculinity that he carries a gun called a "Ladysmith".

But seriously....that was some outstanding commentary. Also, I found your observation regarding the representation of rifles in the FBI murder stats...

"That 2.97% figure is for ALL RIFLES COMBINED."

...to be quite interesting. That's 1/2 the % of murders committed using body parts ("Hands, fists, feet, etc."), and less than 1/4 the number committed using "non firearm, non edged" weapons. That really puts the "evil black gun" obsession the anti lobby has into perspective.

Dain Bramage
September 12, 2007, 10:50 AM
A good argument is one thing, but ad hominem is forever.


Leitmotif, I may have to steal that from you.

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 12, 2007, 10:57 AM
In my experience with antis, it generally inspires them to ignore your point and attack you instead. A good argument is one thing, but ad hominem is forever.
The same is sadly true of most non-vegetarians who like to spout off about how barbaric hunting is. A more irrational position I've not encountered.

MD_Willington
September 12, 2007, 11:25 AM
Very good...

Pre 1861 capacity... I guess that doesn't include the Lewis and William Clark air rifle for their 1803-1806 expedition, though it did not use powder, it did have a 20+ ball capacity.

the pistolero
September 12, 2007, 12:10 PM
In my experience with antis, it generally inspires them to ignore your point and attack you instead. A good argument is one thing, but ad hominem is forever.
And this guy (http://ilovemydaughtermorethanyouloveyourgun.blogspot.com/) is living proof of that. I'd like to think well-thought-out arguments could ultimately win the day, but with some people the only thing you can really do is say, "Molon Labe." That was a well-thought-out remark in the OP, though, and it's arguments like that which will ultimately win out for us. Well done, indeed.

benEzra
September 12, 2007, 12:16 PM
I'm impressed by any man who's sufficiently secure in his masculinity that he carries a gun called a "Ladysmith".
LOL. Here it is:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1168567538/gallery_260_23_29637.jpg

Also, I found your observation regarding the representation of rifles in the FBI murder stats...

"That 2.97% figure is for ALL RIFLES COMBINED."

...to be quite interesting. That's 1/2 the % of murders committed using body parts ("Hands, fists, feet, etc."), and less than 1/4 the number committed using "non firearm, non edged" weapons. That really puts the "evil black gun" obsession the anti lobby has into perspective.
It's even better for some individual states. For example, Illinois is considering a new AWB "for the children," Jesse Jackson just led a protest at the DSA factory, etc. But out of 448 murders in Illinois in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for 4 of them.

In my experience with antis, it generally inspires them to ignore your point and attack you instead. A good argument is one thing, but ad hominem is forever.
That is sometimes the case, but it's a win-win. Third parties viewing the thread then see your rational arguments, AND see the anti being an idiot and foaming at the mouth. For every hardcore prohibitionist out there, there are probably 10 fence-sitters who are open to persuasion, but who may not be posting, just lurking.

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 12, 2007, 12:31 PM
That is sometimes the case, but it's a win-win. Third parties viewing the thread then see your rational arguments, AND see the anti being an idiot and foaming at the mouth. For every hardcore prohibitionist out there, there are probably 10 fence-sitters who are open to persuasion, but who may not be posting, just lurking.
An excellent point that merits repeating. We often lose (or never acquire to begin with) sight of the fact that the real value of reasoned debate of this type is the persuasion of those who can be persuaded. ie, the fence-sitters you cite. You're never going to convince the faithful that your position has merit, no matter how eloquent and sound your arguments are. But by making those well-reasoned arguments in public you at least have an opportunity to influence those who have not yet made up their minds one way or the other. They're the ones that matter, because they're open to convincing, and they often vote.

If you enjoyed reading about "A comment an anti actually appreciated... Amazing." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!