The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis


PDA






cnorman18
September 22, 2007, 05:23 AM
I understand that anti-gunners sometimes lurk here in hopes of finding material to support their "cause". I rather suspect that this thread won't be getting copied for that reason.

If any anti-gunners are reading this--here's a simple, straightforward question: Why do you find it necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?

Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if you have to lie to defend your cause, there must be something wrong with it. And THAT, to me, is by far the most effective and telling argument against you anti-gunners. If your cause is so righteous, why can't you promote it without a consistent pattern of deliberate distortions and outright lies?

Your anti-gun organizations, like Handgun Control, Inc., publish statistics on the enormous number of children killed by handguns. The public reacts with horror, as well they should--IF those numbers were accurate. If one examines them, though, one finds that you define a "child" as anyone under the age of 25; the numbers include, e.g., the deaths of two 20+ year-old drug dealers in a gang shootout; they include the death of a 24-year-old murder suspect shot by a police SHOTGUN (not a handgun); they include the suicide of a 19-year-old after he committed murder; they include the deaths of armed robbers who were shot by store owners defending themselves; and on and on. You know that these statistics are deceptive, yet you continue to present them as meaningful. Why?

You publish statistics on the number of "children" killed in handgun "accidents", claiming that this happens daily and that "hundreds of thousands" of children die from this cause every year; but, again, examine those numbers and one will find that they include "children" in their 20s and even "accidents" that are deliberate shootings and suicides. The actual number of children under 10 who are killed in genuine accidents in any given year is less than 15, and that has been true for decades--and those accidents almost invariably involve a loaded handgun left lying around by an irresponsible adult, often a criminal drug dealer or the like. You know all this, but deliberately withhold this information. Why?

You routinely ignore, ridicule, or "debunk"--without even an attempt to produce any actual evidence--statistics that show that guns in the hands of legally armed citizens prevent more crimes than are committed by armed criminals. You DO pay attention to reports of civilian self-defense, though; those reports are routinely included in your tallies of "handgun deaths". You know this is dishonest, but you continue to do it. Why?

You deliberately blur the distinctions between semi- and full-automatic weapons and between military and civilian weapons; you repeatedly imply that full-auto "machine guns" are available for casual, unregulated purchase. You are not ignorant or "confused" on this matter. If one goes to your websites, one will see you speak openly about exploiting the ignorance and confusion of the public about guns, and in so many words. You are conducting a well-planned and carefully conducted disinformation campaign worthy of the KGB. Why?

And the major media are in your pockets. I have personally seen stories (plural) about semi-automatic weapons on the major broadcast networks that were accompanied by video of NFA-regulated Class III weapons in full-auto fire--and seen those same stories REPEATED, without comment, correction or alteration, AFTER the network had been informed of the inaccurate and deceptive nature of the pieces. Why?

In the same way, falsified statistics from HCI and their ilk are slavishly parroted by the networks and big-city papers, while the countering facts and genuine, accurate statistics from the pro-gun side remain invisible. Why?

For instance: What about the fact that armed citizens frequently STOP or PREVENT crimes? The LOCAL media (depending on where one lives) will sometimes carry stories of civilians defending themselves and their families with legally-owned weapons; here in Dallas, such stories appear a couple of times every week. Nationwide, they must happen hundreds of times every day. But one will NEVER see such a story make the national news. That is a set policy that appears to be carved in stone. You know it happens--but you won't talk about it. Ever. Why?

(A note to pro-gunners on countering falsehoods and distortions in the media: By all means, write and email the major papers and networks with your objections and corrections--they need to know we're awake and watching out here--but don't expect it to do any good. You will inevitably be dismissed as a benighted redneck. Better to address your LOCAL media. They're much more likely to respond. When you see a biased story on TV, write the network--but write the local station, too. THEY are ultimately responsible for what goes out under their call letters. If the reporting is especially bad, it could be fun to write their competition, too. It might be hard for an editor to resist a story on how a rival station or paper aired or published an egregious falsehood...)

It seems to me that the strongest single argument we gunowners have in this fight is that simple question: If your cause is so righteous and morally correct, why do you have to lie so much? Why, in fact, is your "case" made up almost ENTIRELY of lies, deliberate distortions, and omissions of fact? Can you not defend your positions by simply telling the truth? We gunners do that all the time. Why can't you?

I'd like to see that question aired more publicly and much more often. I'd like to see someone--anyone--on the anti-gun side try to answer it.

And answer it without lying.

Well? Can you? And if not--

WHY?

If you enjoyed reading about "The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sublimaze41
September 22, 2007, 05:41 AM
Fantastic post! Thank you for taking time to clearly define the HCI's manipulation of the facts. Trying to clarify their statistics only labels you a "gun fanatic" and difficult to reason with as they would likely describe it.

Tell enough lies long enough, and with enough zeal, will lead to many people believing it as true. HCI knows that. Just watch how fast their propaganda machine fires up with the next gun related tradgedy.

Skirmisher
September 22, 2007, 05:41 AM
Everyone knows that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact.:banghead:

Standing Wolf
September 22, 2007, 07:08 AM
Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if one has to lie to defend one's cause, there must be something wrong with it.

The whole of leftism has always been based on the premise that groups of people mysteriously hold rights individuals don't. People who start with lies always end up with lies.

Lew
September 22, 2007, 07:34 AM
It's an excellent question! May I ask a few? I prefer scenarios, because they're more difficult to sidestep.

A man breaks into a young woman's house when she is alone. For clarity's sake, he says, "I'm going to kill you." There are 7 seconds between her and great bodily harm. Does she have the right to live? If "no," then why not? If "yes," then how? What can she use? Pepper spray? A knife? A bat? These all offer a glimmer of hope at best to overcome a much larger and stronger assailant. What about a firearm? If "no," then why not? It offers her the best chance to live. How much of a chance does she deserve?

When you get down and really ask them to declare where exactly "they" stand on allowing an innocent person to live, it tends to make them think. If you get an unacceptable answer (more like disgusting to you and me), then what if it was (insert somebody they care about here)? Would their answer change? If "no," then they really are a cretin and any argument about valuing human life is refuted. If "yes," then how can you differentiate between who gets to live and die? Only people they know? Where's your equality, now?

We try and try, but it's right near impossible to understand their way of thinking. Make that fully impossible. It's so sad.

cnorman18
September 22, 2007, 08:11 AM
"I prefer scenarios, because they're more difficult to sidestep."

I've found the opposite to be true. As soon as you say "What if..." to an anti, they come back with fifty more--usually on how the situation should have been avoided in the first place. You'll never get one to deal with the situation as you've presented it. "She should have done (x) before it got to that point" or "Let's look at the real problem here" seems like an answer to them, though it isn't; and you'll never get them past that, or to admit that you've asked a real-life question that needs an answer. Everything is theory to them; showing that it could have been prevented somehow (which is ALWAYS true) is somehow a solution.

I think "Why do anti-gun people and organizations lie so much?" is VERY much harder to deal with. When confronted with verifiable facts and evidence of their own deception, they usually stamp off sputtering and fuming--and that's about as good as it gets with most of 'em.

Tom Bri
September 22, 2007, 09:10 AM
Funny thing I have noticed several times. Look at a picture in the newspaper of 'guns' confiscated, or turned in during one of those buy-backs. Count the number of BB guns, pellet guns, paintball guns that are obvious even in the blurry pics. Outnumber real guns by a good margin, with the caption and article extolling the number of guns 'taken off the streets'.

Fisherman_48768
September 22, 2007, 10:49 AM
Everyone knows that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact.

A lie never becomes a fact, it just starts to be believed as a fact.

Thegungal
September 22, 2007, 11:01 AM
Over the years I wonder how many murders and suicides have been called "Accidental shooting" to cover something up.

Seriously, A well respected member of a community kills himself. To save grief or the truth gettting out, (and however it happens, Friend of a cop, judge, mayor, makes the call...) and says "Unfortunate accident" and that is what we hear "He was cleaning his gun and...." (how many times over the years have you read that?, I have a number of times)

People always want something to blame, cant accept the truth or dont want the truth to get out. It is the nature of people.

If guns are so dangerous and gun owners so incapable of self control, Gun Shows, Stores and Ranges would be Killing Fields, Heck, there would be a daily body count at most Wal-Marts. Yet, it seems "gun free" zones are where the worst cases happen.

AHHHHH, it is all so insane.

Nolo
September 22, 2007, 11:26 AM
Guns have become a scapegoat for incompetence.
You can trace the issue all the way back to the decline of self-responsibility (the last time you really see it is the late forties). Now, instead of taking responsibility and acting against the guilty criminals, we blame the innocent and helpless (yes, helpless) firearms.
I think we can win by re-injecting self-responsibility into our nation. Take back the education system. That, to me, is the answer.
We need to stop devoting energy to the leaves of this weed and go for the root. The root is the education (both from the media and the schools) that every new generation has received. Just like Nazi Germany, people are passing the blame for failure off onto an innocent. Fight against the root, and the leaves will die.

v35
September 22, 2007, 01:31 PM
Everyone knows that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact.
A lie never becomes a fact, it just starts to be believed as a fact.
Skirmisher is quoting Josef Goebbels, the original proponent of this policy. The concept didn't die with him.

camslam
September 22, 2007, 02:02 PM
Why do you find it necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?

That is really all they have. I have gone the rounds in one of our local papers online forums anytime an issue of guns is raised. The anti's come out in force, but what I have noticed is once I show them documented facts or statistics, they drop off like flies. Some still try to push forward their illogical crap, but if you hit them with actual facts, I have seen it make some difference.

The other problem I encounter is the endless list of hypotheticals that they throw out regarding gun owners, CCP holders, etc... While I battle with them on the facts, I try to point out that the type of scenarios they put forth have never or rarely ever happened. While the actual events I use to address the need for guns happen on a regular basis or frequently.

I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but for the most part, Liberals see things emotionally and that is where the disconnect is for me. Because they FEEL strongly about something, that makes it right. Versus, what facts, logic, or reason prove to be right. That is what drives me the craziest. When I ask them to prove me wrong, or to answer a simple question, they never have a eloquent response, because the facts don't back up what they say. Usually it ends with them making some kind of snide remark or personal attack. That is what you do when all you have are lies and emotion to prove your point. :)

We all need to keep on fighting the good fight, because it is all we can do.

GunTech
September 22, 2007, 02:34 PM
The antis would argue that a lie in the service of a greater good is not really a lie at all. The end justifies the means. Playing devil's advocate, I would say:

"If lying means that a child's life is saved, it is worth it."

Know your enemy.

Macpherson
September 22, 2007, 09:58 PM
"If lying means that a child's life is saved, it is worth it."

This is another example of what side is in the right, not only does the lef twist the truth, they obscure it with an emotional fog.

I would ask this question: Is saving one person (or even hundreds) worth throwing away the God-given rights of every man woman and child in this country?

I would say no. And I think the founding fathers would agree with me.

langenc
September 22, 2007, 10:16 PM
Great post. Will copy and distribute with mail for the next couple months.

Since this was adressed to antis should have said "...why do you... not why do they.

langenc
September 22, 2007, 10:18 PM
Great post. Will copy and distribute with mail for the next couple months.

Since this was adressed to antis should have said "...why do you... not why do they.

That is my bugaboo with a lot of people. Salesman that say "they decided to blah blah blah" when it could/should have been "WE decided to...." or is not the individual part of the company. I have told salesman that called on me and said "they" "dont you mean we?" They kinda say yea....!

cnorman18
September 22, 2007, 10:32 PM
The point about "they" vs. "you" is well taken. I shall edit the post as has been suggested.

I phrased it as I did, of course, because most readers here are NOT anti-gunners (unless we have one heckuva lot more lurkers than we suspect).

Thanks for the suggestion.

MachIVshooter
September 22, 2007, 10:36 PM
It has been my experience that there simply is no argument that will change a dyed in the wool anti. That said, most folks are not nearly so committed to that cause. Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes it takes years, but thus far I've been able to get every "anti" I know personally to at least accept that it is our right and that no one should be allowed to strip it from us. This usually takes everything from explaining the gun itself to quoting our forefathers and constitution, etc.

Most folks have simply become very disillusioned by the media, and have had no one to explain the other side (or truth, as it is sometimes known). Often that clarification is all it really takes.

I suggest that rather than trying to take on the whole group of die-hard anti's, we all do it one little person at a time. Just take that hour to engage someone that says "I hate guns", rather than dismiss them as the enemy of our cause. It really can be effective.

The Unknown User
September 22, 2007, 10:42 PM
As a psychology major, I can offer some information that might help us understand the viewpoint of someone who is anti-gun.

Internalization is the justification process that one goes through when they need to change their view on any given topic. This process is triggered by cognitive dissonance, which is a pretty way to say "it makes me feel bad."

For example, take a politician running for public officer. He/she is offered a large sum of money in order to support the cause(s) of the person giving said politician said money. The politician does not believe in their cause, but recognizes the power of the money he/she is being offered.

The politician will likely change their viewpoint to collect said money, and thus ends up believing in the cause that the politician is changing his/her view to.

Anti-gun people do the same.

Tom Servo
September 22, 2007, 10:49 PM
“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

“It is not truth that matters, but victory”

And, of course, “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

All attributable to Adolph Hitler.

230RN
September 23, 2007, 12:01 AM
Tremenously effective original post and follow-ups.

Oh, how it reflects my own frustration and anger with the antis' nonsense.

The trick now is to not feel that the above venting removes your motivation to keep on punchin' back.

How much did you spend on your last gun --$300, $400, $1000 ?

Now take 20% of that and join the RKBA organization(s) of your choice!

Write the check now!

ROMAK IV
September 23, 2007, 12:42 AM
It's pathological! For some anyway. You have the antigun liberal politicians, and they lie like crazy, and not just about guns. They fear being exposed and thus the will demonize those with opposing views. You know like blaming gun owners for criminals murdering children. With the major old media on their side, they have pretty much succeeded. The really pathological people, defined as those that have an unhealthy fear of guns, see the JPFO article, have their fears fed by the politicians, many of which own guns themselves. The actual dangers from firearms, are overstated a hundredfold or more and the pathological people believe it, and won't listen to other views because gun owners are demonized as racists, dullminded, extreme, and right wing. So, people like Wayne LaPierre are evil men who give guns to kids while the actual people that murder children are themselves, victims of society and commit crimes because "guns" were available. Is the life of one child worth getting rid of all the guns? Just try telling someone that more kids will die if you get rid of guns.

GunTech
September 23, 2007, 01:04 AM
You have the antigun liberal politicians, and they lie like crazy

You almost got it right. Allow me to correct you.

You have politicians, and they lie like crazy

Dick1911
September 23, 2007, 07:52 AM
:) An excellent post and much food for thought. I believe many of the antis are sincere in their beliefs and don't realize they are spreading falsehoods. They have been deliberately mislead and used by some people who DO know that they are spreading lies and not facts. I wish there was some way to identify them and expose them for what they are doing.

:scrutiny: I'd also like to know where some of the anti organizations get the bulk of their money - it would'nt surprise me if it came from places other than the USA. After all, it would be easier for any group who wishes harm to our way of life if we weren't so well armed.

Anyone out there know how we can follow the money? That would be the most effective way to expose them.

1911Tuner
September 23, 2007, 08:27 AM
Excellent post, and Skirmisher very likely hit the nail. Although there are a good many well-meaning but ill-informed people on that bandwagon...there are also a good many who are perfectly aware of the truth, and simply don't care. It's not gun control that's at the root of their agenda. Never has been. It's people control that they want...and that they intend to have, regardless of their methods. They crave power. They feel that it's their entitlement...their birthright.

JohnL2
September 23, 2007, 08:49 AM
Holy Moses. That was one heckuva post there cnorman18.

Ever since I have started paying some real attention to politics and national issues, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the players are like attractions at a carnival.
Is it any wonder that voters are jaded and turned off?

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2007, 12:48 PM
Why, in fact, is your "case" made up almost ENTIRELY of lies, deliberate distortions, and omissions of fact? Can you not defend your positions by simply telling the truth? We gunners do that all the time. Why can't you?

In fact, one of the weakest arguments in a debate is "You're a liar!"

Well, maybe that worked in the 3rd grade, but not much past that.

It's an especially dangerous gambit when both sides have lots of and lots of stats that support their claims - and both sides omit studies that do not support their claims.

You'd better keep being big and brave on pro-gun boards - an half serious anti will wipe up you argument in about 10 seconds ... :)

To beat this argument, they don't have to show anything is true or not true about gun stats - they just have to show that they are not in fact lying. If you show that they are omitting some stats - you have not shown that that they are lying. If you show that they are mis-interpreting data (from your point of view), you have not shown that they are lying. If you show that they have made some kind of factual mistake - you have not shown they are lying.

To demonstrate that they are lying, you have show that they know certain things to be true (not that you know them to be true, or event that they are true), and they report otherwise.

I doubt that you'll be able to do that with any but the least sophisticated anti's. Weak arguments do not help our side.

On top of all that, many of the leading anti's are sincere, honest clergyman, who in general are not prone to lying. Miss-guided? Certainly. Dishonest, almost certainly not - and it will be hard to make them appear so in a debate.

A weak, weak argument, in my opinion.

Mike

islandphish
September 23, 2007, 01:08 PM
RPCVYemen, I agree with you.

And I tend to agree with the OP as well. Regarding Handgun Inc.

However judging most anti-gun people based on Handgun Inc. is like saying Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage speak for all the conservatives in the country.

The original post has legs and will resonate with the pro-gun crowd, but it will be ineffective where it is needed most.

skinnyguy
September 23, 2007, 02:04 PM
It is unfortunate that we live in a blameless society. We can't blame the criminal, we must blame society, his family, McDonalds, Walmart, his environment, inanimate objects, etc. "It's so unfortunate that Cho went over to Va Tech. How could we have prevented this? Ban guns? Counseling? Colder coffee?"

Where is Cho in this equation? He can't be blamed for the aforementioned reasons. That is BULL!

I have owned at least one firearm since I was 9. That's been just a month short of 35 years, I've never hurt anybody with my firearms, a knife, a paperclip, or coffee. I have made my choice to be respectful and non-violent in my life, and I alone am responsible for that choice. Just exactly as the criminal has made his/her choice.

Let's have CRIMINAL control, because tool control simply is not the answer. Unless of course somebody out there has a hidden agenda, but I can't imagine THAT happening. [/sarcasm]

ROMAK IV
September 23, 2007, 02:34 PM
You have politicians, and they lie like crazy


That isn't correct, either. It's easy to lie for a politician because telling the truth is agains the grain. When all the politicians good and bad are lumped together, there is even less of an incentive for the honest ones to remain honest. Chuck Schumer has made an institution out of building an alternate reality not only on the gun issue, but on National Secutrity, Judicial Nominees, and such. Whatever will give him as he perceives a political advantage, he will do or say it. He was even caught, as the Senate Democratic fund raiser, attempting to get personal financial information on Republican candidates. Other politicians are accused of taking bribes or making land deals based upon their political power, and in spite of this, get returned to office by the voters in their district. There are those who honestly try to represent their respective districts, and would not engage in such unethical behavior, yet all get lumped together with the worst. My cousin is such a politcian. He represents the 1st district in Texas and has always been honest and dedicated to principle. I disagree with Ron Paul on a few issues, yet I will probably vote for him in the Republican primary because he is honestly dedicated to his principals, which are true principles and not some study group approved sound bite. We should on the other hand reward those kinds of politicians, the honest and principled kind with our financial support and our votes, instead of just taking the cynical way out and slamming everyone.

In the same way, we should continue to support those on our side, like the NRA, who don't lie about the issue, and let them know about our points of disagreements.

cnorman18
September 23, 2007, 03:04 PM
In response to Islandphish and RPVCYemen:

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't regard this as a particularly good tactic in a one-on-one conversation; I intended this as a topic to be brought up in public fora and in the press. Anti-gunners keep getting mileage from phony numbers and deliberate deception, and it's foolish to allow those falsehoods to go unchallenged.

In a private conversation, appeals to personal experience, logic, and common sense are of course more effective--but if one's opponent brings up fake statistics, those ought to challenged. That seems fairly obvious to me.

When--not "if"--one can demonstrate that statistics are distorted or deceptive, it's a very strong argument indeed. As far as proving that the deception is deliberate, consider this from the Violence Policy Center website:

"The [assault] weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

This is hard to defend. It's an outright admission of deception, of an intention to exploit ignorance and confusion to further their plans. Read in context, it's even worse; the writer admits that "the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public", and that exploiting the fake issue of "assault weapons" is a way to get gun banning back on the agenda. There are more such examples, but this one admission gives the lie to their claims of merely wanting an "honest public debate." information like this ought to be made available to everyone, and allowing such manipulation and deception to continue without opposition is not a good idea.

I don't consider pointing out that our opponents use phony numbers and other deceptions to further their cause a "3rd grade" argument. However, making that statement, and telling me to "keep acting big and brave on pro-gun boards"--while merely dismissing good arguments and not offering alternatives--IS a bit of juvenile posturing. Neither of those remarks were appropriate, whether one agrees with my post or not. Disagreeing with another poster is fine, but slapping him in the face isn't. We're supposed to be on the same side here.

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2007, 04:09 PM
"The [assault] weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

That looks to me like a prediction that is absolutely accurate. As a matter of fact, it describes why assault weapons bans pass!


"Assault" weapons look menacing
The general public does not distinguish between fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons.
These two factors tend to increase the public support for restrictions on assault weapons.


All three of those statements appear to be absolutely true to me. If you call someone who makes any of those statements a "liar" you are simply wrong.

Which one of those statements is a lie?

If they went on to claim that semi-auto weapons are fully automatic weapons that would be a lie. But they don't say that.

If they said that they want to ban "assault weapons" because they are fully automatic weapons that would be a lie But they don't say that.

The set of statements may be a cynical political assessment, but they are not lies.

If you all someone a liar, and they are not a liar, you lose the argument. That's precisely why calling someone a liar is a poor argument .

Mike

thebaldguy
September 23, 2007, 08:05 PM
I always hear about a "gun show loophole"; that does not exist in Minnesota, but you cannot convince anti-gun folks. I even explain how firearms are purchased at a gun show, but it does no good.

PAshooter
September 23, 2007, 08:21 PM
...here's a simple, straightforward question: Why do you find it necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?

Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if you have to lie to defend your cause, there must be something wrong with it. And THAT, to me, is by far the most effective and telling argument against...

...any cause. Fill in the blank. Excellent post, and this has always been my litmus test to help me determine the "right" and "wrong" sides of any controversy.

If one needs to lie to make one's argument, one has picked the side that cannot be defended by any rational, logical argument. To use Scott Peck's definition, one has picked the side of evil.

It's not just a pro/anti gun thing.

langenc
September 23, 2007, 08:23 PM
There are many in that heap-Bill and Hillary are near the top. See post #25.

RPCVYemen
September 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
...any cause. Fill in the blank. Excellent post, and this has always been my litmus test to help me determine the "right" and "wrong" sides of any controversy.

The reason that it's such a weak argument is that it's a very tough case to prove, and so easy to disprove.

As you can see, cnorman18 cited 3 "lies" to prove his case. OOPS! They were all true!

[Well the first is an aesthetic call - you're probably have to to add "to much of the general public" to the first satement to make it true, but even without that qualification, it's not a lie.]

The hurdle to be overcome in arguing that "anti's are liars" is more significant because so many prominent antis are clergy. In general, I think that most folks think that clergy are prone to telling the truth. Even with all of the various scandals, I think that clergy are though to be honest more often than not. Even folks who disagree with clergy are more likely - in my experience - to think that clergy are miss-guided or confused than dishonest.

Note that showing that someone is lying when your audience believes they're honest is a very difficult task.

They key to prevailing in a debate or serious public discourse is to anticipate what a reasonably intelligent opponent will say about your argument, and figure out how to respond. You also have to anticipate their arguments, and how you are going to counter them.

For example, if you are going to quote John Lott, you had better understand standard objections to John Lott, and how to counter those objection. If you do not understand those objections, then you have not done your homework. If you run into a reasonably intelligent anti, you will get spanked - as you should.

If you are going rely on a set of quotes from some of the Founding Fathers, you had better understand the objections to that analysis, and be able to counter them. If you do not understand those objections, then you have not done your homework. If you run into a reasonably intelligent anti, you will get spanked - as you should.

So what's the reasonable and intelligent response to the claim of lying?

You're a liar!

That was uncalled for. We have an honest difference of opinion. But there is no call for personal attacks of that nature.I am an honest man, and I assume that you are an honest man.

Pack you bags, and go home. You just lost - no one will pay any attention to anything else you have to say.

With that assertion, your opponent just took the high ground. To counter that claim, you need to show not a difference of interpretation, not a different set of statistics, not even a set of factual errors - but an untrue statement that your opponent knew to be untrue. That's pretty hard.

For example, let's suppose that your opponent states

"xx,000 children are the victims of handgun violence each year in the United States".

Now you know, and I know, that the number of children under 18 who die to to firearms accidents is very, very small. Most of the fatalites cited are the result of criminal activity for people between from 16-18. When we exclude intentional criminal acts, you are down to < 100.

If you say,

"You're a liar!"

What will your opponent say?

Here the FBI statistics from 19xx, here is the exact figure I cited.

You took the low road, and he blew you out of the water! That's a weak response. Pack your bags, you just lost. Go back home and tell your buddies what a great blow you struck for RKBA.

Of course, everyone else that was watching saw you call a clergyman a liar then in fact, he was telling the truth.

Suppose you try this:

Wait a second! Most of those are the result of criminal activity of people between the ages of 16 and 21. Working from your very set of statistics, the number of children under 16 who die due to accidental firearm injury us less than 100. Now each one of those is a tragedy - the death of any child is a tragedy. You and I both know that, and you and i both would love to able to prevent any one of those deaths. But citing xx,000 deaths as though they were accidental deaths of young children is plainly and simply wrong!

That's a strong argument.

A strong argument takes the high road (or appears to :) ), and doesn't make any statements that can't be factually demonstrated to be true.

That's the reason that "You're a liar!" doesn't work much after 3rd grade...

Mike

Autolycus
September 24, 2007, 10:21 AM
Do you have any proof of these things or any stats to back up some of what your saying? You should otherwise your writing is pointless. Put a citation and perhaps a bibliography if you want credibility.

PAshooter
September 24, 2007, 10:30 AM
The reason that it's such a weak argument is that it's a very tough case to prove, and so easy to disprove...

...That's the reason that "You're a liar!" doesn't work much after 3rd grade...


I said nothing about using the "you are a liar" tack in a debate or argument, I stated that if I hear someone making an argument or stating a position and having to lie to support that position, I know - almost with certainty - that they are are on the wrong side of the issue.

This is not to say that impassioned believers on all sides of an issue aren't inclined - when it suits them - to distort the truth. The point is that when, on balance, one side has to consistently resort to lying to support their position, I can be pretty confident in my own mind that their position is otherwise indefensible.

marshall3
September 24, 2007, 11:40 AM
CN: Thanks for permission to reprint your excellent post about lying anti-gun activists. I have it on my website now, and the url is:

http://www.mouseguns.com/liars.htm

Keep on writing those good posts!

:)

RPCVYemen
September 24, 2007, 11:40 AM
The point is that when, on balance, one side has to consistently resort to lying to support their position, I can be pretty in my own mind that their position is otherwise indefensible.

You are correct.

I was concentrating on the claim of the poster - that asserting the the anti's were liars is in fact "the strongest argument".

You are in fact correct - if we find that one side of a debate continually lies, then they probably have the weaker side of the argument.

Mike

MinnMooney
September 24, 2007, 11:49 AM
Thanks 'cnorman18' for the post. It is one of the best that I've read lately.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 12:44 PM
I see I'd better spell C-A-T here. Some of the criticisms above are fairly fatuous, and some others seem to assume that I'm a gibbering idiot. All seem to have missed the point of my initial post.

In my original post, I thought I made it clear that the subject of deceptive statistics and statements on the part of gun-control advocates is to be broached <i>ab initio</i>, from the beginning. It's intended to be the opening subject of the discussion, not a response to arguments from the other side.

When deception is the SUBJECT, it falls to one's opponent to respond, which can be difficult: "Well, that's not lying; we're just not correcting a misunderstanding..." pretty shaky ground. Or perhaps, "Those statistics are still valid, even if we interpret them differently..." pretty uncomfortable territory again.

My intent, I thought rather obviously, was to put the other side on the defensive for a change. I'm tired of seeing pro-gunners scrambling to respond to scurrilous attacks and, yes, lies. Let them scramble to justify their questionable tactics for once.

I don't think I have advocated anywhere that one should respond, in a public or private debate, with the bald assertion "You're a liar!" what I said was that if deceptive stats or specious "facts" are brought up, that <i>they should be challenged</i>. The kind of polite "Now wait a minute" response given by Mike is exactly what I mean. I did NOT say, "Call him a M.F. liar and give him one across the lips!"

Civil debate is civil debate; but it is perfectly acceptable in civil debate to BEGIN a discussion with a forceful, even provocative statement, and make one's opponent argue from the position that "It's not really THAT bad..." The antis have been doing that to us for decades, and it's a legitimate and effective form of argument. Let THEM explain why leaving falsehoods uncorrected, or using distorted numbers, isn't exactly the same as "lying".

Just as claiming that twisting and cherry-picking "facts" and skewing statistics isn't really "lying" is, as has been stated, an arguable position, so is the statement that such practices are deceptive, manipulative, and falsify the real situation--and therefore are indeed tantamount to lying. If antis can routinely characterize is collectively as bloodthirsty, ignorant yahoos and Neanderthals--which we are NOT--why can we not characterize them collectively as liars, which in effect and in intent, they clearly and consistently ARE?

Again, to spell C-A-T, the accusation of "lying" is a general statement against the movement, not a personal one against an individual clergyman or anyone else, and should not be used in that manner.

As for citing sources and "doing my homework"--again, I am not an idiot. I did not pull the facts I cited out of thin air. Guncite.com, the NRA site, John Lott's site, Gary Kleck's site at Florida State, and any number of others linked to those, contain more factual information--and, yes, discussions of views critical of the work of Lott and Kleck, et. al.--than one could use in a dozen debates. The fact that I did not load down my post with a few dozen footnotes does not mean that I'm ignorant or unprepared.

In any case, I'm glad my post has sparked such a vigorous debate. My initial assertion was that I'd like to see some discussions that begin with US on the attack and THEM on the defensive for a change. If that involves slightly--if even that--overstating the case, then so be it. I think I'll stand by that.

1911Tuner
September 24, 2007, 03:04 PM
Well, cnorman...Like the sayin' goes:

There are liars...damn liars...and statisitcians. A sharp statistical analyst can take any set thereof and spin it to "prove" almost anything he or she wishes.

Since the definition of lying is conveying a falsehood or deliberately concealing the truth...if that ain't lyin' I don't know what to call it.

Gordon Fink
September 24, 2007, 03:51 PM
Are they lying? If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death.

~G. Fink

Scorpiusdeus
September 24, 2007, 04:07 PM
Great post, but in the interest of not looking like an idiot when I relate this to some anti, where are you getting your facts from? I mean about them lying and has it actually been proven?

acousticmood
September 24, 2007, 04:18 PM
It occurs to me that even their motto is disengenous. If their mandate is to prevent gun violence, then why are all there actions pointed toward preventing gun ownership. Aren't there any other ways to prvent gun voilence, like education?

20nickels
September 24, 2007, 04:39 PM
Skirmisher "Everyone knows that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact".
So true. The mind is a simple mechanism, you tell it something enough times it becomes truth.

1911Tuner
September 24, 2007, 07:18 PM
If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death.


And people would still find a way to kill one another.

It ain't the tool. It's the tool bearer.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 08:51 PM
"If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death."

True.

And if there were no germs, no one would get colds.

If there were no sharp things, no one would get cut.

If there were no evil in the world, we would all be good.

And if my grandmother had four wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Do you know a magic spell that will make all guns suddenly vanish?

If not, your remark has no more meaning than those above.

There is no law, no campaign, no program, NOTHING, anywhere or at any time, than can ever make all the guns go away. And as long as one bad guy has one gun, I want one too. You don't have to own one, but if you can't get his gun, you can't have mine.

(Honestly. You wonder how some people can find their way to the bathroom in the morning.)

ctdonath
September 24, 2007, 09:16 PM
One gets comfortable with a certain class of language and rhetoric. Pressed for accuracy, one may be forced to admit error ... but we are fundamentally emotional beings, not rational ones, and tend to return to our rhetoric as a comfortable place. Most arrived at their position through emotion - not reason - and return there with the same phrasings despite known errors.

Frankly, I see such behavior on both sides of most issues. An emotional position is desired, rhetoric is repeated which helps reinforce that position, lots of self-righteous shouting goes on, and few actually care to listen to the opposition. Anything resembling accuracy & truth on the opposition's part is largely ignored, because to recognize and accept that accuracy & truth is to erode one's own position and to build up the opposing view - a scary thought to most people who did not arrive at their position through reason.

Of late, we have seen comparable behavior here on THR - and rooted it out by suspending & changing the Legal And Political forum. There we saw lots of left-wing bashing ... yet if you head over to DU's firearms forum you'd see a surprising amount of pro-gun rhetoric (a lot of anti's to be sure, but far from universal).

Comfortable behind anonymous keyboards and friendly microphones - and especially if employed to do so - one will all too often repeat "truth" regardless of facts. When a position is the one naturally reached by the ignorant and otherwise unexposed to the opposition, don't be surprised that beginners start there ... and are catered too by those entranced by money, attention, and blind passion.

Finally, when one has become sufficiently set in one's ways, and is used to defending that way against anonymous opposition, there is little reason to change it. We do not expect Sarah Brady et al to change her views, for they have been set, the battle lines drawn, and verbal & financial combat engaged in until the end. THIS is why there are wars.

It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything that is called a Way. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all ways and be more and more in accord with his own.
- Hagakuri

Nolo
September 24, 2007, 09:23 PM
If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death.
Really?
I have an airgun, a bow, and a sling that would like to disagree.
If there were no guns, no one could be killed by guns.
So what? People would still be killed, and in much nastier ways.

ctdonath
September 24, 2007, 09:29 PM
you have not shown that that they are lying.While you are busy demonstrating the facts, your opposition has raced on to the next emotional rhetoric.
The malleable middle, unable to follow your complex claims*, empathizes with the latter and votes accordingly.

"We have to get assault weapons off the streets? Our children are dying out there!"
Well, you could explain that
- the term "assault weapon" is a made-up bit of political nonsense, 'cuz you see what they're talking about is just any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor, both which are really pretty harmless unless your a soldier, and they're trying to deliberately confuse you with fully-automatic or select-fire "assault rifles", which look the same but really do function differently, and by this point in the discussion we've lost pretty much anyone because all this technical jargon doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't had time to digest it...
- they're not "on the streets", 'cuz you see while they're kinda badass looking they're really too big and annoying for most thugs to use, and once again we kinda lose the audience because now we're off onto another important tangent that they really don't care about...
- our children aren't dying out there, 'cuz you see ... well allright you should get the point by now that this whole thing is getting kinda wordy and boring ...

...but the mushy middle hears some scary stuff, and is preprogrammed by nature to translate that blurb into "predators...offspring...death" and immediately and instinctively go into a defensive posture which, as any good CQB instructor should tell you, shuts down one's cognitive abstract reasoning ability and goes straight to survival, which in this case looks a lot (unfortunately) like Sarah Brady.



* - Remember also: by definition, half the population has an IQ less than 100. Abstract discussions with lots of numbers may not make much impression on them, while "bad men have guns" does.

ctdonath
September 24, 2007, 09:34 PM
Nolo,
You miss the point. It is, for the most part, a simple truism: no guns means nobody gets shot. To most people who aren't going to think this through well beyond the immediate statement, it makes sense. If a particular tool is the dominant cause of death, ban it; this is perfectly reasonable to most members of a socialistic advertising-driven culture. You may try thinking outside the box, but going on about stuff outside the box isn't going to easily convince them that what's in the box isn't true.

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 09:51 PM
"Are they lying? If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death.

~G. Fink"

Instead people would be stabbed to death, or clubbed to death with baseball bats. I don't know about yall, but I'd much rather be shot. It's much more humane, and less painfull.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 09:59 PM
Ctdonath: that was beautifully written, but if had a point, I'm not getting it.

The object of the little bit of offensive strategy that I'm advocating here isn't to get Sarah Brady & company to change their views; that isn't going to happen in this lifetime, unless they exerience a home invasion or a mugging and find out what it means to "need one and not have one"--and maybe not even then.

It's intended to make others--that huge segment of the population that hasn't totally committed to one side or the other--aware of the kind of distortion and obfuscation that's being used in attempts to fool them.

It might also serve to put the opposition on notice that if they continue to "cook the books", it will NOT go unremarked and uncorrected, and we WILL make it an issue and force its discussion. Best case scenario; the public will get into the habit of lifting a skeptical eyebrow whenever they open their mouths, and the whole statistical-study topic begins to work for us and not against us.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 10:08 PM
Ctdonath: your next 2 posts were better--they seem to actually have a point.

And that point appears to be, "There is no hope of countering specious or even roundly stupid arguments, so we may as well surrender."

You'll forgive me if I disagree.

Further, your reasoning seems to be, "There is no hope because the American people are too stupid and/or apathetic to follow even a moderately complex argument."

If that is so, then we'd better roll up the Constitution and leave it in the dumpster behind the National Archives, because it sort of presupposes that the People have the capability of governing themselves.

Sorry, but I'm not quite ready to turn the country over to smug elitists that hold ordinary Americans in contempt and are certain they know what's best for us poor, benighted masses. We sort of gave all that sweet security up sometime around 1776, when we started this experiment. Whether it will continue to work remains to be seen, but as I said, I'm not quite ready to give up yet.

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 10:32 PM
Here, here cnorman18.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 10:36 PM
Where, where?

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 10:52 PM
"here, here" as in you got it right. We've lasted this long, We'll keep on going. At least for a while.

cnorman18
September 24, 2007, 11:11 PM
Thanks. I appreciate the support.

Sorry about my confusion. I was a teacher for many years, and "Here, here!" was what I said to my students when they got a little too energetic. I think what you meant was "Hear, hear!"--and thanks again.

Support2ndam
May 12, 2011, 01:23 AM
Very well said, forgive me now for just having at 2011 just stumbling upon this greatly intelligent and logical article.

I one time was speaking with a 19 year old know it all who claimed that guns should be illegal and the constitution is obsolete and should be burned.

Well first off before i continue let me tell you that at this point i though about all our veterans who fought and died or fought and became maimed to preserve what they believed was our freedoms and our constitution.
At this point, I wanted to walk away, i was so frustrated and in disbelief i was actually standing next to this creature..

I managed to continue the conversation wanting to walk away so badly i had to get my point across, I gave him a hypothetical of a 65 year old retired man, in his home and someone was breaking in, it happened to be multiple gang bangers. He said that the old man should only have what the criminals have, and if you got rid of all guns, they wouldn't have them. Although this is a losing argument, and we all know making all guns disappear would be the equivalent to making ever grain of sand disappear in the dessert i had to continue. I told him in this hypothetical situation that these gangbangers had knives and bats, and the older man would have no chance against their youth without a gun.
This 19 year old said plainly "then he dies"

I had thought about that for a few seconds, it had to sink in slowly.
this anti gunner 19 year old who knows everything while chain smoking his blunt really claims to want to save lives, but yet has no regard for any others lives.

It was very difficult to continue a conversation at that point, i had positively identified the enemy at this point, no more conversation could have been maintained. I walked away.

Baba Louie
May 12, 2011, 11:34 AM
Very well said, forgive me now for just having at 2011 just stumbling upon this greatly intelligent and logical article.Welcome to THR Support2ndam and no offense to re-awakening a well written and thought out thread.

There are literally tens of thousands like them in the archives worthy of a good read and perhaps bringing them back for new members or lurkers to savor, if one has valid additions... and you did sir (or ma'am) with your conversation with the 19 year old.

Re: OP and following posts: Continue to debate, discuss (& teach them?) as best you can, leave them some food for thought, craft your responses to their "perceived truths" using history, logic, some factoids and a little emotion for good measure, always remembering that not ALL of the original colonists wanted things this way, a few (?) far preferring the olde tryed and true Monarchy annoited from Heaven Above, redcoats, gun grabs and all.

The big guys (Brady/VPC/etc) twist facts and figures to make money and stay alive, just as the NRA does representing their POV. Gov'ts just want more power. The local level anti's simply want to live in a "safe" place.

The confirmed opposition will always be there. It's the fence-sitters listening in that need proper persuading. Hopefully they have an open mind and can be persuaded this way or that. It may be 50/50.

Oh yeah... Twist Facts to defend their position?!?! Lawyers?!?! Is THAT what they're doing?!?! :rolleyes:

I suppose it depends on what the definition of "Is" is, eh? ;)

jiminhobesound
May 12, 2011, 11:57 AM
You are not going to change these people with truth. I think the only way they will be changed is that if they encounter a situation where they, personally, suffer some loss, OR, someone saves their skin with a firearm.

Safetychain
May 12, 2011, 12:17 PM
I have the pleasure of having a French Canadian as a close friend. Five years ago, I couldn't even bring up carrying a gun for self-defense. We argued about it often, in addition to lately, Obama's healthcare plan, which I disagree with. I have provided nearly all the info the OP has brought up, along with other things like 'Gun Facts'. He is actually now asking how to go about legally acquiring a hand gun for his 5-7 months he spends in the US when it is too cold up there. Health care, I'm still working on. My best argument on this is if Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why does he get the vast majority of his care in the US, paying out of pocket, rather than in Canada.

Loosedhorse
May 12, 2011, 12:38 PM
While it may make us feel superior, I think we do our cause little good by suggesting all anti-guuners lie. I have no problem with the idea that some lie, or that "this particular one" lies.

Some folks are misinformed. Some folks just think that guns are "wrong"--would take them away from the police and military if they could. I mean, if a vegetarian argued that eating meat was "bad" and "cruel," well, we can disagree; but should we say that he or she is lying?

Saying that every anti-gunner lies simply proves, doesn't it, that pro-gunners lie. And many anti-gunners are already convinced we lie, about everything from "guns don't kill people" to "the 33-round magazine made no difference in the AZ shooting."

So disagree, correct, educate--but I'm not sure where "You're LYING!" gets us.

youngda9
May 12, 2011, 01:43 PM
Lying is saying something that you know is not true. Many people don't know the facts and are speaking out of emotion, so they aren't "lying". The Anti 2A orgs intentionally distort facts and lie to get their point across. Nobody is saying that ALL anti's are "lying".

There is Absolutely Nothing Wrong with pointing out their lies. Remaining silent when we hear something that is not true does more harm than pointing out their lies, IMO. We must refute the lies and spread the truth.

CZ-75BD
May 12, 2011, 02:20 PM
Just wondering did criminal, drug dealer or pimp ever asked for FOID, applied for one, or waited 3 days to get a gun he paid for? (IL law on buying guns, even if you allready have a gun)
All that came from liberal politician who think "they" know: how I have to leave my live, "they" know better - what I have and what I don't have to do...
Did "they" ask me - what I what to do?
I came from former Soviet Union, and there it was the rule - you don’t stick out your head, and you will live your miserable life longer.
I came here because I needed a freedom, and looks like we going straight to Soviet Union of USA.
People who born here and lives don’t see the danger - slowly everything moves toward socialism and communism. I fled from it.
I must agree that the best idea of living, but it will never work. And it is already proven, but idea is still in an air and it is very attractive.
In USSR were no legal guns, but crime rates was not less.

MachIVshooter
May 12, 2011, 03:05 PM
I told him in this hypothetical situation that these gangbangers had knives and bats, and the older man would have no chance against their youth without a gun.
This 19 year old said plainly "then he dies"

Well, at least he understood that the police couldn't help. That's a start. Of course, the fact that he so readily accepts that reality without any consideration for what could alter the outcome means that there's really no hope for him.

That said, sometimes people change their minds very quickly when they are (or almost are) a victim. My folks did. Hated guns, didn't want any in the house. But after a frightening encounter with some unsavory folks in the back woods while camping with their horses, they adopted my Ruger .357. It finally occured to them that they were responsible for their own protection, and that being in their late 50's at the time, 4 hostile young men could have pretty well done whatever they wanted to them.

JustinJ
May 12, 2011, 03:36 PM
I'm gona play a little Devil's advocate here and say that you can find people on any side of any arguement who twist the truth or just plain outright lie.

What i can't stand is when people assign false motives to people with different points of view which is also lying. I completely disagree with antigunners but realize that they do not hold those views simply because they like taking away freedoms. Most simply believe that removal or restriction of guns will reduce total deaths so it should be done in the interest of the greater good. I disagree that it is in the interest of the greater good for many reasons but realize that the other side do actually mean well. I believe an honest evaluation of an opponents arguement better arms one to refute it or even convince said opponent to change their stance.

Instead of antagonizing antigunners we should try to change their minds. Unfortunately for the progun cause progressives tend to hold more influence with the youth so if we want gun rights to endure we need to focus more on introducing our interest to that demographic.

hermannr
May 12, 2011, 04:18 PM
Two little things:

Gordon: If there were no automobiles there would be no deaths by means of car accidents.

Does that mean there would be no deaths? No.

One thing I was told when I was young and dumb by an older man, who just happened to be my boss (my recent, at the time, MBA notwithstanding).

Yes, the figures do not lie, but liars sure can figure.

What he ment, by ignoring or including items, the conclusion can be scewed to the point the conclusion is invalid based on the #s

SSN Vet
May 12, 2011, 04:33 PM
Heard an interesting book review with an author of the book "Tangled Webs: How False Statements are Undermining America"

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/19/135513824/white-collar-criminals-weave-new-tangled-webs

The author details how lying (in business, under oath in court, in the media, etc...) is sending us all down the toilet (my words).

I often ponder whether the code of dueling wasn't a good thing in some ways. If someone lied about you and slandered you character, you could call them out and force them to either face public humility or risk dying to defend their statements. Of course, a liar who is also a good shot can undermine the system. But they still have to be willing to risk death.

Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda.

IMO, if you pay a cable bill, buy a movie ticket, of fill out a viewing survey, you're underwriting their cause.

JustinJ
May 12, 2011, 04:44 PM
"Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda."

Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views. Believe it or not, there are many people who are registered democrats and left leaning independents who support the second amendment.

Ignition Override
May 12, 2011, 05:25 PM
The OP made some excellent presentation.

Shadow Shock:
As for professionals using the US rifles instead of AKs, a coworker was in Desert Storm with Army Special Forces.
He is Detroit-based, but visits friends who are based here.

He told me that "Our rifles jammed, so we picked up AKs".
I can find his phone number within a few days if anybody wants to check on his story and which unit he was with.

merlinfire
May 12, 2011, 05:59 PM
Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views. Believe it or not, there are many people who are registered democrats and left leaning independents who support the second amendment.

Agreed. There's no quicker way to make people feel unwelcome than to call call them liars.

henschman
May 12, 2011, 06:00 PM
I usually like to address my arguments to the actual arguments my opponent is making, rather than to the arguments made by some group somewhere who has similar views on the subject. I hate when people do that to me. However, I suppose it can make a good point to ask why the major advocates of gun control feel the need to lie and use misleading statistics to support their position, which can at least raise the question in some people's minds and make them possibly not take all those stats at face value... or you can always legitimately bring it up if your opponent tries to rely on such statistics for his argument.

The strategy I have been trying to take with antis lately is to point out that even if they are right and gun control works (which is a big if), it would only disarm private criminals. I point out that all the worst crimes and biggest mass murders in history were not committed by private individuals, but by over-powerful governments against legally disarmed victims. I mention how one of these such governments, which many regard to be the most evil of all, started out as a Constitutional Republic similar to ours (the Weimar Republic). I say that I simply do not believe the risk of something like that happening here to be worth any reduction in private crime that could possibly be achieved by such a policy. I can harp on how our police forces are already becoming more and more paramilitary all the time, and get them to think how much more emboldened law enforcement would be in the violation of the people's liberty if they knew no one was armed. People who are anti-gun tend to be liberals, who also don't like the idea of a police state.

I don't know if it is really the most effective policy for changing hearts and minds, but it is what I am currently going with.

I suppose after all the Arab revolts going on, Antis may say that a popular revolt is capable of bringing down a tyrannical government without violence. I might respond that it probably would not have taken Egypt 30 years to get rid of its tyrant if it had an armed populace... and in fact that such tyrants would probably not be able to consolidate that much power in the first place. An ounce of prevention, and so forth.

steelerdude99
May 12, 2011, 09:11 PM
Remember the power of presenting statistics (right or wrong statistics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Neverwinter
May 13, 2011, 01:04 AM
"Liberal media is the enabler for the lying liberal agenda."

Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views. Believe it or not, there are many people who are registered democrats and left leaning independents who support the second amendment.
It is not in some people's interest for this fact to be widely known. For them, the RKBA is a wedge issue used to prevent constituents from straying from their side. If they maintain a perceived monopoly on that one defining issue, then all of their other horrible policies can be more easily rationalized.

Owen Sparks
May 13, 2011, 01:08 AM
My grandfather always said that figures don't lie,

but there is nothing to keep liars from figuring.

Nushif
May 13, 2011, 01:29 AM
Maybe a way to get more people to not be against guns is to not alienate them by mixing gun views with other political views.

Overrated.

MrWesson
May 14, 2011, 10:51 AM
If someone is a true ANTI I wouldn't bother arguing with them.. NOTHING you say can change an irrational fear of what they dont understand.

If someone is just afraid of guns then I will engage them in NON POLITICAL "gun talk".

I try to not focus on the self defense aspect of it as many people dont think as we do and the thought of shooting another human even in defense of their life may steer them away.

I have introduced many "anti's" into shooting by starting with skeet shooting then moving into target shooting. Not one person I have met isn't interested in the challenge of shooting.

If you have someone you like enough to hang around and they are worth your time to try to convert don't bring up politics at any point.

swinokur
May 14, 2011, 08:47 PM
Don't forget the King of gun statistics lies:

The Violence Policy Center.

Baba Louie
May 15, 2011, 02:08 PM
Don't forget the King of gun statistics lies:

The Violence Policy Center.Did not Mr Sugarman have an FFL at one time or another? I seem to recall threads here at THR or TFL regarding that little factoid.

What's that Doc Holliday line from Tombstone? "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."

In my opinion, the single hardest question to answer for RKBA anti's is "Why do you suppose the framers added that RKBA clause (and others) into the contract rider (BORs) the States demanded before they'd agree to ratify the Constitution?" Then if need be, I'll add,"A hint... It wasn't about hunting or sporting purposes." When they head towards the old chestnut of stating "Single shot Muskets... etc" I counter w/ "Self defense is a human right, be it from Tyrants, wild savages, criminals or beasts and sometimes you need more than one armed individual to help clear the problem." (a well regulated militia perhaps?)

Not that it does much good changing their minds, but I have had others listening in agree with a head nod or a smile. Again, it's about 50/50 where I live and play. YMMV

Always invite them to go out shooting, if just to see the look on their faces. A few might actually take you up on it, tho it's doubtful. Always take The High Road.

swinokur
May 15, 2011, 02:25 PM
Just checked the BATFE web site. Mr. Sugarman still has a type 01 FFL registered to the address of the VPC. I'd like to know the story behind this.

Hypocrite. bet your bottom dollar.

but liberal theology has always been hypocritical. like the Soviet apparachiks who espouse Communism while living in their luxurious Daschas outside Moscow.

After all liberalism is about control. The old do as we say, not as we do thing.

powell&hyde
May 15, 2011, 02:45 PM
I agree 110% with you Baba.

Neverwinter
May 15, 2011, 10:25 PM
but liberal theology has always been hypocritical. like the Soviet apparachiks who espouse Communism while living in their luxurious Daschas outside Moscow.

After all liberalism is about control. The old do as we say, not as we do thing. :scrutiny: See the signature on post #79. :cool:

JTHunter
May 15, 2011, 10:39 PM
This may be a 4 year old post but the OP makes an excellent and valid point!

Nushif
May 16, 2011, 12:17 AM
After all liberalism is about control.

::brain asplode::

azmjs
May 16, 2011, 06:11 AM
Long diatribes are the worst approach. Especially when they accuse people of things that you don't have any idea whether or not they've done.

Do you respond well to people who tell you that you're birds of a feather with the Westboro Baptist Church? Of course not.

If you're actually trying to convince a liberal, then you have to make analogies with things that a liberal values.

The best argument for gun rights is the Heller decision. It's the law of the land, according to the supreme court, which goes a long way in the world-view of liberals.

Liberals are also usually concerned with making things fair, and guns are a great equalizer. They allow women to protect themselves from stronger men, gays to protect themselves from people that hate them, Muslims to defend themselves from boogey-man lynch mobs, etc etc. Any persecuted or disadvantaged group benefits from the power that guns provide. And there's always the rather potent point that it's just plain unwise to let one half of the political spectrum outgun the other.

Mixing gun politics with conventional politics can only hurt the cause, if you're trying to convince someone whose politics you disagree with.

Avoid statistics, because they aren't arguments- much less convincing arguments, and because anyone can find a statistic to "support" anything.

The most important thing is to draw analogies. Learning is the process of relating something you don't know to something you do, and becoming convinced is similar.

People aren't going to change their core beliefs, but if you can present something in a way that it aligns with, in some aspect or another, a person's core beliefs, then you can convince him to support it.

The cardinal rule is to be honest with yourself about whether you want to convince people to support gun rights, or whether you want to provoke anti-gun people.

If the latter is the case, deep down, then we're all better off if you abstain. Spite is very real, especially in these times of such deliberately incited partisan rancor.

Many people who really don't have any problem with guns would happily use the issue as a cudgel to spite and punish the right.

v samizdate

If you enjoyed reading about "The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!