Gun Rights: How do I win this argument...


PDA






Tarvis
July 23, 2008, 04:23 PM
I had a conversation with my mom's husband (step father sounds weird) about guns and such yesterday, when we came on the topic of semi-automatic removable magazine pistol gripped rifles that are generally black in color. He seemed to think that AR-15's (which he actually seemed to think were assault rifles, after I explained to him were not) were not necessary, due to the fact that all hunters really need is a 30-06 and a 270 bolt gun for deer and elk, therefore should be banned and done away with. My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making. Later in our conversation, he said those guns were used in crimes and were designed to kill people. I don't know what the numbers are, but I assured him that the odds of a common criminal (as opposed to someone shooting up a school for example) using any rifle in a crime were slim to none.

Now, I explained the points of hunting rabbits and other fast moving animals as well as competition, along with the fact that it's a free country and if he thought my rifles should be taken away, his truck should be taken away because he doesn't really need it. What are some other good points for my right/need for semi-auto hi-capacity rifles other than hunting, competition and the second amendment?

Also, where is a good place to find the statistics for gun crimes and deaths in general, so I can refute unfounded claims of high death rates due to shootings?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Rights: How do I win this argument..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Armueller2001
July 23, 2008, 04:26 PM
www.gunfacts.info has some data on the % of "assault rifles" used in crime... I believe it's less than 1%. Ask him which he thinks a criminal would prefer to acquire... a $2,000 AR15 or a $100 .38 special with a duct taped handle from his dealer? Kind of the same thing as people going crazy over .50BMG guns. I don't think a single one has been used in a crime due to their $3,000 price tag, although the Brady Bunch labels them as a "favorite for criminals and terrorists"...

Gunfacts also has some data on shootings and comparison to auto accidents, drownings, etc. Many of the sources are from the CDC and FBI. Also they talk about how many defensive shootings there are every year. Really a great document to have.

Rokyudai
July 23, 2008, 04:47 PM
Tarvis,

It seems like he is basing his narrow opinion solely from the hunter perspective (dare I say the Obaminator perspective) and not including the shooting sports application which I think is a lot broader. Derailing the whole "man killer" theory behind the nefarious EBR should start with looking at the salient activities that these other types of firearms are used.

I think the topic has come up a lot here that avoiding the emotional rebuttal with fact based responses is your best route. Comparing crime stats may only add some unneeded fuel to the flame. There are people in other countries who thought reasonable gun control laws were alright, we can see where they are now. What is more, that young people who have trained very hard to gain Olympic hopeful status have had to go outside their own country to train...some have had that dream taken away altogether. I think that the greatest travesty of this "progressive" thinking is that it is built upon the shoulders of the innocent law abiding where they carry the burden for the bleeders who can't tell you what a barrel shroud's purpose is and is not.

lions
July 23, 2008, 04:50 PM
My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making.

This seems to be a theme. Most antis deal in emotion and not facts. Ask him if a gang of thugs broke into the house if he would rather have an ar15 or a 30-06 bolt gun? Make sure to emphasize that his loved ones need protecting and see if he wants the best tool for the job.

That also points out another need for semi-auto high-capacity rifles... self defense.

Mannlicher
July 23, 2008, 04:51 PM
Tarvis, I learned many years ago, that arguing or 'debating' folks about gun views is a waste of time.
I would just walk away from the discussion.

Kingcreek
July 23, 2008, 04:53 PM
you will never win an argument with a narrow-minded, irrational person.

joop
July 23, 2008, 05:02 PM
you will never win an argument with a narrow-minded, irrational person.

+infinity

Move on with your life. Convert someone who is interested. Take an immigrant shooting.

bdickens
July 23, 2008, 05:18 PM
You should argue with a brick wall instead. There's a better chance that the wall might listen.

benEzra
July 23, 2008, 05:21 PM
First of all, the "Brady Bill" had nothing to do with the 1994 Feinstein law (the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch). The Brady Bill was a mandatory waiting period and optional background check, on handguns only, that was passed in the early '90s well prior to the Feinstein law.

The 1994 Feinstein law didn't ban any guns, just marketing under any of 19 names, and far more AR-15 type rifles and civilian AK's were sold in 1994 and after than in the previous several decades combined.

Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than are licensed to hunt in this country, yet less than 3% of murders in this country involve ANY type of rifle ("assault weapon" or not). Twice as many people are murdered annually using shoes and bare hands as using all styles of rifles combined. And the rifle crime rate is no higher now than it was ten years ago.

The homicide rate did indeed decline in the '90s, due to demographic shifts, rising incomes and job opportunities, and the implementation of "community policing" strategies in lieu of older, more distant/authoritarian approaches.

Please point your friend to this thread:

www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466

Rifles, even small-caliber ones with modern styling, are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

FWIW, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts. 80% of us are nonhunters, and we'd like to keep OUR guns too. The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, and is also the #1 defensive carbine; the ammunition it uses (.223 Remington) is the #1 selling caliber of rifle caliber in the nation.

He is certainly free not to own one, but a lot more of us own "assault weapons" than own .270's.

everallm
July 23, 2008, 05:43 PM
What you mean he's OK with someone owning and using one of those ridiculously overpowered sniper rifles

telomerase
July 23, 2008, 05:50 PM
Print out this article on the Swiss (http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker32.html) and give it to him. (The Swiss ALL have assault rifles, and mortars too!)

cmidkiff
July 23, 2008, 06:03 PM
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting... unless you happen to be hunting politicians...

The AR platform has been in service for over 50 years... for a reason.
The AR platform is the most popular civilian rifle on the market... for a reason.

It's simple to operate, lightweight, easy to shoot, accurate, modular, and has millions of after market accessories...

Functionally, the AR platform is _identical_ to every other semi-auto rifle ever built.

If it's suitable for the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, and thousands of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, why wouldn't it be suitable for me?

Cougfan2
July 23, 2008, 06:11 PM
It's not the Bill of Needs.

It's the Bill of Rights.

I couldn't have said it better. :)

RPCVYemen
July 23, 2008, 06:30 PM
My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making.

Were you really listening to him and taking it heart the points he was making?

If you are trying to win, it's not a discussion, it's a debate. No one is obligated to listen in a debate. I don't try to debate with family members.

If you enter into the conversation with the attitude, "I know I'm right and he's wrong. Nothing he can say will change my mind!", then isn't it fair and just for him to enter into the conversation with the exact same attitude. If it's fair for you to enter into the conversation with that attitude, why is not fair for him to enter into the conversation with that attitude?

I am not accusing you of having that attitude.

However, I do see a lot of posts on THR where folks enter into a debate with someone and the get all whiny - Mommy, he's not listening to me! - when the other party actually debates. No one is required to listen in a debate!

Putting the debate aside, it might be useful to understand exactly why he says what he says - he speaks for a large group of people, maybe a majority of gun owners in the US.

I know that calling people who believe what he believes "Elmer Fudd" is the epitome of intellectual excellence on THR, and makes the speaker sound as clever and elegant as Rush, but it doesn't change the facts.

If you actually listen to him, and probe why he says what he says, then I suspect you will find he works from three postulates - this is what I suspect a lot of people would say:


The only legitimate uses of guns (by civilians in the US) are self defense and hunting.
Handguns (or shotguns) are appropriate weapons for self defense. It's actually pretty hard (for non-LEOs) to come up with a realistic self-defense scenario involving a rifle.
Hunting rifles (or shotguns) are the appropriate weapons for hunting.


From these postulates, he can derive:


An AR 15 is not a handgun.
An AR 15 is not a shotgun.
An AR 15 is not a hunting rifle.
Therefore, there is no legitimate use for an AR 15.


He is wrong, but there may be nothing illogical or irrational about his stance.

If you argue back that you need your AR 15 to help you fight in the revolution, he will likely think that you are nut case. A lot of people will agree with him and dismiss you as a nut case.

Mike

DRYHUMOR
July 23, 2008, 06:33 PM
First, don't bother with arguing, it's a no winner any which way you look at it. Plus you might get your mother involved and you don't want her to have to pick sides.

Second there are semi automatic, automatic, and bolt action rifles. A rifle can't "assault" someone, and shouldn't be labled or called that. Same with "sniper", a person can be a sniper, but only the rifle a person uses to shoot someone could be labled a "sniper or sniper's rifle".

What labels I use in my mind for my weapons may or may not be what I would call them out loud. Labels however, are what stick in people's minds, right or wrong, they stick.

Tarvis
July 23, 2008, 06:50 PM
You guys are frickin' amazing.

I printed off several pages from gunfacts.info. Next time I see him I'm going to read them to him out loud, then hold him down and rub his face in them like a puppy that peed on the floor. No, but really, I think I may print off all 101 pages of the gunfacts.info booklet just to have sitting around.

The hardest part about talking to him about it was he kept cutting me off and saying I wasn't listening, while in fact I was and was making counter points he didn't want to listen to. It was less about how well I debated and more about his inability to soak in waht I was saying. It was funny at times because he would say something that would prove the point I was trying to make, and in the next breath say they should all be taken away.

Were you really listening to him and taking it heart the points he was making?
I was, however I was intent on winning as well; which I define as making him change his mind, so call it what you will. Hopefully the pages I printed off will do the talking for me, as it removes any ad hominem doubt and shows numbers instead of ideas.

basicblur
July 23, 2008, 07:12 PM
It's NEVER been about "hunting" and has from DAY ONE been about defense of self, home, family, and country.

Didn't you mean defense FROM (not of) government?

Hands of blue
July 23, 2008, 07:27 PM
Freedom is not based on need

Armueller2001
July 23, 2008, 07:30 PM
Didn't you mean defense FROM (not of) government?

Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

sacp81170a
July 23, 2008, 07:41 PM
Simply remind him that the most feared marksmen on the battlefield use what is essentially a modified hunting rifle. If we're going to start banning guns because they're more or less effective at killing people, it seems to me that a "one shot, one kill" weapon is a far more efficient killing machine than some little poodle shooter. After all, one can hit with a 30.06 at 1,000 yards and have a much better chance of killing a human than the wimpy littly .223. Also point out that the 30.06 started life as a military cartridge while the .223 was based on a wildcat varmint cartridge.

Banning guns because of military utility is not only against the very spirit of the 2nd Amendment, it's a very dangerous, slippery slope.

After all, who needs a powerful sniper rifle capable of killing at a thousand yards?

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
July 23, 2008, 07:46 PM
Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.
I would say more accurately defense of the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

An interesting side note is that no member of armed forces swears to defend either the United States or the government of the United States instead the take an oath to defend the Constitution.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

DoubleTapDrew
July 23, 2008, 08:07 PM
He seemed to think that AR-15's (which he actually seemed to think were assault rifles, after I explained to him were not) were not necessary, due to the fact that all hunters really need is a 30-06 and a 270 bolt gun for deer and elk, therefore should be banned and done away with.
The Jews were allowed "sporting firearms" in the Nazi weapons law of 1938. That's all they really needed right? Didn't work out too well.
It's amazing how many people are brainwashed into thinking the 2nd amendment has anything whatsoever to do with hunting, let alone is the reason for the 2nd.

basicblur
July 23, 2008, 08:07 PM
Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Domestic enemies...hmmm....you mean like…your government?
Based on the historical documents I've read, it sounds like the purpose of the 2nd was to provide "the people" a way of defending themselves/their country from an "out of control" government?

It's NEVER been about "hunting" and has from DAY ONE been about defense of self, home, family, and country.

I dunno ‘bout that…just did a quick search and came up with basically what I was taught in school waaaaay back when (bet they don’t teach this now!):

“Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia, since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them.”

As some seem to get, it ain’t never been about hunting, but I cringe a bit every time I hear someone say it’s about defense of home, family, and country.
Now you may mean defense of home, family, and country FROM the government, but lots of folks seem to think it means defense from crime, bears, etc.

Based on what I was taught/learned back in school, and from what I gather reading a lot of the historical documents, defense from criminals, bears, etc is a side benefit of the primary purpose of the 2nd, which is to give you a means to defend yourself FROM your government.

Actually, I though Scalia kinda glossed over (or ignored?) this point, as most in government are wont to do.

MIL-DOT
July 23, 2008, 08:08 PM
Sometimes I like to make it interactive. Ask easy, yes/no questions that force them where you want them to go.
Example: " Do you trust your government?" (usually a NO)
"Do you feel your government has your best interests at heart?"
"Do you feel your government is willing and able to protect you against ALL eventualities?"
"Do you feel your government is fair,honest,just and noble and will ALWAYS be so?"
You get the idea.

wahsben
July 23, 2008, 08:26 PM
You can mention to him about the Korean shop keepers that held so called assault rifles on their rooftops during the LA riots and how their places were the only ones that were not burned down or trashed.

The Unknown User
July 23, 2008, 08:29 PM
Remind him that:
- Criminals use handguns, as they are more easily concealed on the person
- All firearms are banned for criminal use already; another ban on firearms is redundant

I feel bad for your mom. Really.

VegasOPM
July 23, 2008, 08:39 PM
The truth is that the 2nd Amendment is designed in part to protect us all from tyranny. To that end, powerful- military weapons are THE weapons that are supposed to be protected. He won't want to hear that.

If it bothers you, do what I do with my family and inlaws dealing with religion- agree to disagree and don't talk about it. If that is not part of his plan, tell Mom that you enjoy spending time with her, but you refuse to talk about guns with her husband. I have family members that learned *the hard way)- if you want to see me, you can't talk about certain things.

basicblur
July 23, 2008, 08:47 PM
You can mention to him about the Korean shop keepers that held so called assault rifles on their rooftops during the LA riots

I remember seeing on TV a couple of Koreans running out in the street and emptying 2 1911s in the direction of the rioters…think after that the rioters decided to go pick on some “clueless” neighborhoods!

Or you could remind him of the TWO attacks in the last month in Israel with construction equipment (mebbe we should ban construction vehicles), or the increase in knife stabbings in Britain, or ….
In other words, criminals are going to find a way to create their mayhem no matter what kind of "feel good" laws you make.

Double Naught Spy
July 23, 2008, 08:50 PM
My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making. Later in our conversation, he said those guns were used in crimes and were designed to kill people.

No guns are designed to kill people. They are designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner, period. Some do it faster or better, but that is all they are designed to do.

I don't know what the numbers are, but I assured him that the odds of a common criminal (as opposed to someone shooting up a school for example) using any rifle in a crime were slim to none.


They are slim, but they are 100% not none. In other words, they most definitely do get used in crimes. When they are used and being discharged against good people, the situation is that much more critical.

This is from TODAY, in fact...
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B58EF69B63F9CE568625748F00137388?OpenDocument

Now, I explained the points of hunting rabbits and other fast moving animals as well as competition,

Because you need a semi-auto like an AR15 because you don't shoot well and so you need to fire really fast to hit a fast moving animal? I doubt that went over very well.

As everyone else has noted, it is hard to convince somebody to change their beliefs. His beliefs may be every bit as strong as yours and he may feel his beliefs are every big as valid. You might as well be arguing religion.

eflatminor
July 23, 2008, 08:57 PM
Introduce him to the parties of our founding fathers and how they both hated the idea of a standing army (vs a citizen army, kind of like Switzerland) but ultimately decided it was a necessary evil. They agreed, and I mean they ALL agreed, that each and every citizen must be armed to the same extent as the standing army they reluctantly allowed for. They differed as to whether this universally accepted right of gun ownership needed to be put into a Bill of Rights, but they both believed it absolutley essential to the success of the country. Those that oppose this are heading down the road of Facism...which just never works in the long run.

Reddbecca
July 23, 2008, 09:20 PM
Have you tried pointing out the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment and gun ownership is closely tied to defense, and that the AR platform is much better suited for defending against goblins than a hunting rifle?

Armueller2001
July 23, 2008, 10:02 PM
No guns are designed to kill people. They are designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner, period. Some do it faster or better, but that is all they are designed to do.


Exactly.. what gun wouldn't kill a person? What makes an AR15 more of a "person killer" than say, a Remington 700?

My parents had trouble understanding that "killing people" isn't the sole reason for an AR15. I explained that target shooting, self-defense, and hunting were valid uses as well. They still don't get it.

benEzra
July 23, 2008, 11:16 PM
The .30-06 cartridge, and the bolt-actions that fire it, were developed by the military to kill human beings at extreme ranges. Which didn't stop the.30-06 from becoming the most popular deer caliber in America.

And non-automatic civilian AR-15's have never been issued by any military on this planet. A Remington M700 in .308 is more of a military rifle than a 16" midlength Rock River AR is.

Handguns (or shotguns) are appropriate weapons for self defense. It's actually pretty hard (for non-LEOs) to come up with a realistic self-defense scenario involving a rifle.
I strongly disagree. A small-caliber carbine like an AR-15 or mini-14, loaded with appropriate ammunition (JHP's, not FMJ) is usable in EXACTLY the same roles and situations as the traditional defensive shotgun, and are increasingly popular in that role.

Hook686
July 23, 2008, 11:27 PM
It sounds to me like personal rationalizations win every time.

Picard
July 23, 2008, 11:32 PM
Your father in law tries to think that killing someone is always the wrong choice. This is not the case. Killing in self defense is justified. Sometimes, you need larger firepower that just a pistol to defend yourself. For example, when facing multiple threats, mobs, geared up thugs, civil unrest, etc.

Also, it is good for a citizen population to have equal or close to equal physical power to the ruling government. It keeps things balanced and in check. An armed society will NEVER be truly oppressed by their ruling government, I can guarantee you that.

It's happened far too often in the history of the world to think that it can't happen here. It's more a "when" question rather than an "if".

http://www.a-human-right.com/vermin2_s.jpg

BruceRDucer
July 24, 2008, 01:11 AM
"you will never win an argument with a narrow-minded, irrational person."----Kingcreek :)

I agree with Kingcreek. I don't think you can compel a person to see the obvious, when they just don't want to see the common sense of it.

Also, If you push the sensible argument, you may affect the relationship with your in-law adversely.

Keep a modest and respectful distance and time will be on your side. Fundamentally, his difficulty is that he really does not have Faith or Trust in his fellow citizens, whereas he probably thinks he can trust people who are diasarmed. Isn't that foolish though?
;)

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 09:29 AM
Many good responses so far. Let's see if I can add just a little bit.

First of all, you will never win any argument or debate if you do not fully appreciate the fact that the other person is 100% justified and right in their own mind, and that if you had the same experience, perspective, mind-set, etc., then you would also have likely adopted the same position that they have. In other words, the opposing party's position is the natural, reasonable, and expected response to their circumstances. So the difference in opinion is likely mostly a result of circumstances. If you begin by thinking that they are irrational, hard-headed, overly emotional, or possess some other kind of rational flaw then you are guaranteed to lose the debate. Most people do not have such a rational flaw. They just have not been equipped with the experience or information that would result in a different viewpoint. Neither is it likely that you have been equipped with their experience or information that would have given you their same view point.

Along these same lines, it is perfectly reasonable for most people in America to not understand the need for firearms. In my mind, guns in America are useful for self defense, hunting, defense against tyranny, and militia.

Most Americans can clearly see that for some people, hunting is acceptable but there are even a large number of Americans who think hunting animals is morally wrong. They are not idiots for thinking this, they have just made a moral choice and they have every right to do so. Certainly you have some moral choices you that you know full well are not mainstream or popular. So don't expect to convert these people to the opinion that you need a gun for hunting. It'd be like trying to tell a Catholic priest that we need better anesthesia for abortions.

Even fewer people have the opinion that self defense is a valid use for guns. Sure, most agree that a gun is a useful tool for self defense, but they think that virtually all Americans don't have a need for a gun for self defense. You might be able to bring up times when a person didn't have a gun and could have used one to deter an assault or robbery, or times when a normal person was armed and did in fact deter a crime. But these are not going to convince these people because they have already decided that there are a small fraction of people who need a gun for self defense, so your examples of such people does not convince them of anything different. They just think you are paranoid to think that you need a gun for self defense.

As for defense against tyranny and militia, well suffice to say only a small fringe of Americans believe in the citizens' responsibility to defend themselves against tyranny or possibly be called up in a militia. This topic is very rarely going to result in a positive conversation unless you are already preaching to the choir. If you say the words "revolution", "tyranny" or "militia" then you are going to be dismissed as a nut, IMHO.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 10:30 AM
If you begin by thinking that they are irrational, hard-headed, overly emotional, or possess some other kind of rational flaw then you are guaranteed to lose the debate.

This is quite clearly correct.

And you often miss their main points. The reality is that you probably want an AR 15 for the same reason he doesn't want folks to have an AR 15. You want an AR 15 precisely because it doesn't look like a hunting rifle - it looks like a military assault rifle. In fact, it's pretty hard to come up with a hunting scenario where an wood stocked semi-auto like a Ruger Mini-14 is not as effective as an AR 15.

You know and I know that an AR 15 is not an M16, and that no modern army in the world would equip its soldiers with a semi-automatic weapon as an "assault" rifle. You know and I know that the AR 15 is roughly the equivalent of a Mini-14, but that cuts both ways. For you and me, it means that it's silly to ban an AR 15 and not a Mini-14. But from a hunter's point of view, if they are equivalent, why do you need the AR 15?

I suspect that arguing with your mother's husband is difficult because he's largely correct. I think his first premise is incorrect, or more correctly that there is a hidden premise.

As for defense against tyranny and militia, well suffice to say only a small fringe of Americans believe in the citizens' responsibility to defend themselves against tyranny or possibly be called up in a militia.

That is also correct. Most people in the US, believe in change through the ballot box. My own suspicion is that the founding fathers may have invented a revolution proof form of government - more so due to universal suffrage. That may be incorrect, but I doubt that 1% of 1% of Americans support the idea of armed revolution against the U.S. government. As long as they can vote - even if you think that voting is a sham - then there is no need for arms. That was not true in the 18th century; Americans did not elect and could not change the government.

I consider that invention a stroke of genius by the founding fathers. The democratic republic offers both stability and a vehicle for change. A true direct democracy descends into chaos pretty directly. A republic that is not a democracy eventually can only be changed by violent revolution. The melding of the two was brilliant. When I read early American history, I wonder how what was essentially a drunken in Boston and group of slaveholders spouting rhetoric about liberty while beating black men to death in Virginia got it right. :)

If you interviewed 100 people on the street, I doubt 20 could recall Randy Weaver's name, and I bet at least 19 of those that could would remember him as a white supremacist militia nut who was killed in a battle with the FBI. My guess is that a few more folks would remember David Koresh - and maybe two out of a hundred would think something was hinky about that.

When you start ranting about armed insurrection, government tyranny, and the unorganized militia, there is one person 95% of Americans associate with that rant - Tim McVeigh.

Allying yourself with McVeigh is not a strong point.

Mike

Tarvis
July 24, 2008, 12:24 PM
Thanks for all the responses. I think the discussion we had will probably not happen again, so "bad blood" in the family isn't an issue. There really is nothing else I could say to him that would be worth while; if he isn't going to consider what I have to say (weather I'm conveying the point well or not) there is no need to continue.

Mostly what I wanted from this thread was a good way to explain the feelings I have about firearms. I mentioned the stance on tyranny and the second amendment giving citizens a way to "restart" the government or to defend against tyranny which was the original thought behind the 2nd amendment, but it turns out sounding like I'm sponsoring the revolution. The next time I get into an argument about gun control, I'm going to arm myself with the 2nd amendment and some stats from gunfacts.info. When it really comes down to it, I can explain how I'm free to hunt with whatever I want to hunt with and how a rifle is more ideal than a shotgun for HD and whatever else I can think of for good reasons; but the best point is that the 2nd amendment affords me the right to keep my rifle.

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 12:33 PM
The next time I get into an argument about gun control, I'm going to arm myself with the 2nd amendment and some stats from gunfacts.info. When it really comes down to it, I can explain how I'm free to hunt with whatever I want to hunt with and how a rifle is more ideal than a shotgun for HD and whatever else I can think of for good reasons; but the best point is that the 2nd amendment affords me the right to keep my rifle.

Well, you are not going to win any argument or debate with that tactic.

Quite simply most people (including you, me, and nearly everyone on this forum whether they admit it or not) have decided what they think about guns and gun control based on emotion. If you introduce statistics, it presumes that emotion is not a part of the issue, and frankly, the statistics do not support private gun ownership.

Your chances of having to use a gun for self defense are unbelievably slim. Your chances of having to use one for defense against tyranny or militia might as well be zero. This is what the statistics path leads to. The only statistic that supports your need for a gun is hunting/sports, and that is a hobby that you endeavor willfully so it is a useless tactic in a debate.

To win an emotion-based debate, you must be able to communicate on the emotional level. Every gun is perfectly capable of killing a person. The best [emotion-oriented] reason to have a gun is to protect the safety of one's family. Some guns may be more effective tools for such protection of one's family. You don't want me to be inadequately equipped to defend my family, do you? This is overly simplified but you get the idea.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 12:50 PM
The next time I get into an argument about gun control, I'm going to arm myself with the 2nd amendment and some stats from gunfacts.info.

If you use stats, be careful to understand not only the studies that you cite, but also the criticisms of those studies. I don't know the cite in particular, but often I see stats from discredited (or at least disputed) studies cited by pro-RKBA folks.

My guess is that the stats are a wash between pro and anti-RKBA. I have two "studies of studies" citations that reinforce that hunch - one from the CDC and the other from the NAS. The NAS study is an interesting read, it has a fair amount of criticism of other studies (including John Lott, etc.)

Unfortunately, I think it's a delicate balance to make a 2nd RKBA argument for AR 15s without sounding like you are aligning yourself with McVeigh. I want an AR 15 because it looks like an Evil Black Rifle, which precisely why other people don't like them. :)

Mike

basicblur
July 24, 2008, 01:01 PM
Iff'n it was me, I might get him a copy of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and maybe a few historical references for him to read.
Realizing he’s probably not going to read ‘em, or if you think plopping down a few documents is a bit much, just ask him if he’s read The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.
If he hasn’t, I wouldn’t waste my breath on him-just tell him the topic is off limits until after he’s read the aforementioned documents and done a little research on ‘em.

As others have stated, you might ask him if he’s happy with the way the country is going? If he’s not, then it’s definitely time for him to read said documents.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
July 24, 2008, 01:02 PM
If you really want to confuse his line of "logic" you should let him know the M-16 wasn't designed to kill.

Let me say that again. The M-16 wasn't designed to kill. Unlike a hunting rifle where the goal is to kill an animal in war the goal is not always to kill the enemy.

A dead soldier is cheap. Once dead he/she requires very little resources. A wounded soldier is very expensive. The psychological impact of seeing a wounded soldier in pain has more of a paralysising effect while seeing a soldier die tend to encourage a more reactive response. Most units don't have high number of medics so soldiers (trigger pullers) are designated as CLS (Combat Life savers). A CLS should never abandon their primary mission (bullets downrange) to aid a fallen soldier but human nature being what it is, this happens more often than it should. This is a drain on the offensive power of a unit. Transport of a wounded soldier takes even more resources. Generally it takes 2 or 4 healthy soldiers to transport one wounded soldier. This is a further drain. A medevac uses a helicopter that could be used for moving troops or supporting offensive operations. Finally the cost of medical treatment, and long term care for a wounded soldier can run hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Simply put it is far more effective to wound soldiers so they can't engage in offensive functions than to kill. Part of the design of the M-16 and choice of the 5.56mm was a weapon with high probability of wounding the enemy. Furthermore the 5.56mm was chosen despite having less stopping power than a 7.62 because a soldier can carry more rounds. All things equal an equal number of soldiers w/ M-16 and 270 rounds of ammo can wound more soldiers (and thus cost enemy more resources) than w/ Ak-47 (or other 7.62mm) and 150 rounds of ammo.

Another way to look at it is, snipers DON'T use the M-16/M-4/AR-15. They use the M21 (and previously) which is chamber for a 7.62mm round. Why? Sniper goal is material and personnel destruction. The 7.62mm round (same caliber as a .30-06) is more suited for long range target destruction. Essentially a sniper rifle is a "human hunting rifle". The design of weapon and ballistics of the round very closely match other rifles for hunting other large game.

If you mother's husband owns any hunting rifles he does own a rifle optimized for destroying targets at long range.
The M-16 (and AR-15 derivatives) were not.

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 01:08 PM
Well the basic logic is like this:

- it is agreed that guns are useful to defend one's family or one's self (emotional argument), and therefore people should be free to be equipped with the appropriate guns which they might use to defend their families

- it is likewise agreed that certain guns are useful for hunting, and certain other guns are useful for self defense or defense of one's family. It is agreed that the best guns for hunting are not necessarily the best ones for self defense and defense of one's family. It is also agreed, therefore, that those guns that are most useful for self defense or defense of one's family need not be suitable for hunting in order to be desirable to own.

- all guns are deadly if misused, a quality which also makes them effective for defense of one's family. Any gun that is not deadly if misused is also useless for the defense of one's family. If used responsibly by responsible, trustworthy people, then all legal guns are equally safe

- if all guns are deadly, then there is no point in outlawing or restricting any particular type based on appearance or form factor.

- restricting guns that are primarily useful for self defense or defense of one's family makes responsible, trustworthy people unable to effectively defend those whom they love

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 01:12 PM
I should point out, I think it's a lost argument from the beginning if you are going to approach it from the Second Amendment standpoint, since it automatically raises the militia and tyranny argument and does not address the base emotional issue at all. Again most people will label you a fruit loop as soon as you start talking about keeping and bearing arms in historical terms. Leave the Constitution in the library and work on the emotional bias against guns in general, IMHO.

Drgong
July 24, 2008, 01:14 PM
Self Defense as a Human right works in so many ways.

Also, many times I had people say "I don't mind guns, but you should not have a AK47" and my response has always been "REAL ak47s, or guns that LOOK like AK47s..."

Guns and more
July 24, 2008, 01:17 PM
You don't win. People who have their minds made up don't want to be confused by logic. Be polite, and a good example and maybe over time you will win him over. Arguing will get you an unhappy mother.

Picard
July 24, 2008, 01:28 PM
Very true, Happiness. I have heard it explained like that before.

That's one fact that people don't seem to get through their heads. Hunting-wise, people use AR-15's for animals such as coyotes (the size of a small dog), and not for anything much larger than that.

basicblur
July 24, 2008, 01:52 PM
I should point out, I think it's a lost argument from the beginning if you are going to approach it from the Second Amendment standpoint…
The purpose of suggesting he approach it from the 2nd Amendment (by having his step-father read it and related documents) is to simply give him an out-he no longer has to have a “discussion” over the issue. Unless his stepfather takes it upon himself to learn a bit, this is probably a lost cause.
If his stepfather does take him up on it and actually does some reading, maybe he’ll learn something?
If he doesn’t, then he has an easy out AFA never discussing the issue.

Leave the Constitution in the library and work on the emotional bias against guns in general
So he’s going to abandon facts/history, and work on the emotional end with a person that’s already making his choices based on emotions?
Guess he's free to knock himself out! :banghead:
I just hope he has his PsyD...

conw
July 24, 2008, 02:03 PM
RPCVYemen wrote:
No one is required to listen in a debate!

Uhm, that doesn't sound like much of a debate - two people blabbing without hearing each other? Ever heard of "point/counterpoint?" That requires listening.

Listen, I've engaged in debates where I lost, and unless you're on some kind of "debate team" or a presidential candidate with an audience that's a positive experience! I usually end up learning something from a debate. A debate occurs when two people have strong views and attempt to reconcile them logically.

Unless you're on a debate team with predetermined points-of-view, there is no point debating someone who is not listening. Just because they are not listening and you fail to convince them for that reason does not mean you "lost." Clearly the objective is to "win" them over, but I don't understand where this narrow perspective of "Don't listen during a debate, you can only win or lose and you should never do it with a family member" came from.

"Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product." - Christopher Lasch

"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." - Hubert H. Humphrey

"It is not he who gains the exact point in dispute who scores most in controversy -- but he who has shown the better temper." - Samuel Butler

Border
July 24, 2008, 02:06 PM
I'd have two words for him: "Hurricane Katrina." Or go with the LA riots several years ago. The weapon you describe would be the best for the kind of rioting that ensued from the "entitlement class." Looting, raping, pillaging WAS occuring and will so again. Maybe in your town! There IS a place for citizens to have AR-15's that has NOTHING to do with hunting or even directly with the Secon A.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 02:25 PM
If you really want to confuse his line of "logic" you should let him know the M-16 wasn't designed to kill.

But it wasn't designed for hunting or self-defense either. I am not sure you point is germane to anything, much less his line of logic.

Mike

doc2rn
July 24, 2008, 02:35 PM
Tell him to read John Connor's article entitled "Little Lizzie" from the Handgun magazine archive.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 02:46 PM
Uhm, that doesn't sound like much of a debate - two people blabbing without hearing each other? Ever heard of "point/counterpoint?" That requires listening.

Wait - are you claiming anyone ever listened on Point/Counterpoint? The were just yapping at each other.

A debate is about winning - and there are many strategies. You may elect to listen to your opponent, in order to counter his arguments. You may also chose not to listen to his points, and just keep presenting your strongest case, ignoring anything the opponent has to say. In a strictly formal debate, there are rules that require you to rebut each other in specific time frames, etc.

But in a less formal setting, no one is required to specifically rebut the arguments of their opponents - that's only one of many strategies to win. I am also not sure that "listening in order to rebut" is the smae as "listening and taking it heart".

We cite stats from districts with strong gun control and high crime rates (DC, Phily, etc). They cite districts with very little gun control and high crime rates (mostly southern states). We cite districts with very little gun control and very little crime (mostly northwestern states). The cite states with very strong gun control and very little crime (mostly northeastern states). Is either side really listening?

Mike

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 02:49 PM
I should point out, I think it's a lost argument from the beginning if you are going to approach it from the Second Amendment standpoint…
The purpose of suggesting he approach it from the 2nd Amendment (by having his step-father read it and related documents) is to simply give him an out-he no longer has to have a “discussion”


My point is that anti-gun people usually are not anti-gun because they have not read the Constitution. They are usually anti-gun, or anti-you-need-an-AR15, or whatever, because of an emotional response and the Constitution is irrelevant to that. They may think the 2A applies to the military, police, maybe not, maybe they think it's hunting, maybe they don't understand what it means, misinterpret it, etc. Who knows? That's an entirely different debate and will totally cloud the issue without adding any enlightenment to the conversation about why should this gun or that gun or any gun be illegal or unnecessary.


Leave the Constitution in the library and work on the emotional bias against guns in general
So he’s going to abandon facts/history, and work on the emotional end with a person that’s already making his choices based on emotions?

Yes that's exactly what you have to do. That's because the facts and history don't have anything to do with the decision that this other person is making. They are not saying, "because of history, you don't need an AR15". They are really saying, "because it is scary and military looking, you don't need an AR15". You don't debate that by saying "but historically ... the Constitution ... militia ... revolution ... tyranny ... civilians need access to tanks and nukes ..." You want to ratchet UP the fear, then go this route.


Guess he's free to knock himself out!
I just hope he has his PsyD...

You don't have to be a psychologist to understand the basics of human communication.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 02:56 PM
My point is that anti-gun people usually are not anti-gun because they have not read the Constitution. They are usually anti-gun, or anti-you-need-an-AR15, or whatever, because of an emotional response and the Constitution is irrelevant to that.

And the reality is that most of us are not pro-gun because we have the Constitution. We are probably pro-gun or anti-gun for reasons completely unrelated to the Constitution. Most likely emotion (we like guns) and personal history (my dad took me shooting with him).

Mike

cambeul41
July 24, 2008, 03:00 PM
Tell him to read John Connor's article entitled "Little Lizzie" from the Handgun magazine archive.

Is this what you mean?

http://www.americanhandgunner.com/CGC705.html

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 03:02 PM
And the reality is that most of us are not pro-gun because we have the Constitution. We are probably pro-gun or anti-gun for reasons completely unrelated to the Constitution. Most likely emotion (we like guns) and personal history (my dad took me shooting with him).

Yes I mentioned this in post #41:

Quite simply most people (including you, me, and nearly everyone on this forum whether they admit it or not) have decided what they think about guns and gun control based on emotion.

I would add things like fear, a sense of responsibility to protect others, etc. to the list of emotional reasons many of us own guns. There is no problem with that. We do nearly everything in our lives based at least partly on emotion. We are emotional beings. If you deny that then you won't be able to get along with anybody!

conw
July 24, 2008, 03:15 PM
I am also not sure that "listening in order to rebut" is the smae as "listening and taking it heart".

I don't understand. Are you saying that if you are debating someone about something (again, not for any kind of official competition) and they make an excellent point, you are unwilling to say "You're right" because "Winning" is more important? That sounds like bad sportsmanship and closed-mindedness to me.

In an informal setting, why even debate if you refuse to admit you're wrong? Why debate someone who you know will never, ever admit they're wrong? There are issues where both sides make good points, where "gray areas" exist, but you can't take yourself so seriously that you go into a debate unprepared to make ANY concession to logic.

I don't mean to be offensive if I sounded that way, but we can agree to disagree ;)

</thread drift>

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 03:23 PM
Tell him to read John Connor's article entitled "Little Lizzie" from the Handgun magazine archive.


“So,” queried Snidely Snotworth III, lookin’ down his un-busted but needed-bustin’ nose, “Why do you think you have to carry a gun?”


I am not sure that calling someone "Snidely Snotworth" and suggesting that the person to whom you are talking should be physically beaten is very convincing.

But I will give the author a lot of credit - he's taking the fight to the enemy. A pro-gun article in American Handgunner? - that's just pure raw unadulterated courage there.

Mike

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 03:26 PM
A pro-gun article in American Handgunner? - that's just pure raw unadulterated courage there.

LoL.

:rolleyes: Maybe it's the author's ceaseless wit and fluid nuance with the English language that makes his work so broadly acceptable.

RPCVYemen
July 24, 2008, 03:28 PM
In an unformal setting, why even debate if you refuse to admit you're wrong?

My point is that in this debate, there are sets of facts that support both sides. Both sides think they're right. They both are more than happy enough to admit they are right. :)

Mike

BruceRDucer
July 24, 2008, 05:13 PM
Again most people will label you a fruit loop as soon as you start talking about keeping and bearing arms in historical terms.----mr.72

This seems to be the general fact. We may never understand why some people view the world and its affairs as a kind of FLATLAND, where no forces strive for supremacy. Maybe people have never seen anything more violent and threatening than a Television Set?

Why do some people view modern man as somehow, exempt from history?

What we do know is that large numbers of people apparently do see life this way, as though things which occurred in the past, such as tyranny, oppression, violent disturbances and so on, have been magically edited out of our common experience. These are the ones who are convinced that the individual citizen should be disarmed.

It is almost too corny to be true. I agree with what mr. 72 wrote.

/

basicblur
July 24, 2008, 08:32 PM
Why do some people view modern man as somehow, exempt from history?

1. Most people are stupid and/or (intentionally) uninformed (sorry if that's not PC)
2. History repeats itself
3. #2 occurs because of #1

I don't know why folks find this so difficult to understand? :confused:

mr.72
July 24, 2008, 09:13 PM
Well basicblur... I could explain why people "find this so difficult to understand" but what difference does it make? You have to meet people where they are if you want to communicate with them or educate them. Having open disdain for people because you think they are stupid or uninformed will not give you the opportunity to influence people or help them to become better-informed.

People are not basically stupid. They are not intentionally uninformed. They are just normal. You are not smarter than everyone else, and probably not any better-informed. You just have a different experience and perspective. It is pure arrogance to think you are truly smarter.

Consider this: intelligent, well-informed, educated people often have a completely different opinion than yours. In fact there is a high likelihood that there are people that know a lot more about what you think you know all about, and know even more about things you have never even heard of, who also have a different opinion than yours. They have good reason to believe the way they believe, maybe better reasons than the reasons you have for your beliefs.

Arrogance and a lack of respect is a really quick way to lose an argument, as well as losing all of your credibility.

Double Naught Spy
July 24, 2008, 10:06 PM
1. Most people are stupid and/or (intentionally) uninformed (sorry if that's not PC)
2. History repeats itself
3. #2 occurs because of #1

Wow, and the fact that folks believe that history repeats itself simply because people are uninformed or stupid are equally in the same mentally challenged position. History repeats itself for a variety of reasons and surprisingly, history fails to repeat itself equally well for a variety of reasons.

benEzra
July 24, 2008, 10:17 PM
And the reality is that most of us are not pro-gun because we have the Constitution. We are probably pro-gun or anti-gun for reasons completely unrelated to the Constitution. Most likely emotion (we like guns) and personal history (my dad took me shooting with him).
Familiarity also plays a part. You and I are largely immune to the "AR-15's are evil death weapons that will blow a deer to smithereens and are only suitable for mass murder" BS, because we know enough about guns to know it's BS. Someone like the anti described in the OP, on the other hand, may be susceptible to that type of propaganda because they don't know enough about the technologies in question to see through the specious claims.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Rights: How do I win this argument..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!