[Zedicus]

These are online anti's btw...

2 main ones are Aganst RKBA and think that only the Military & "some" Police should be alowed firearms...
But they tend to change the subject when yoU ask for there reason...

I have used several analogys & illistrations, but i seem to be hitting a brick wall with everything...:(

And I doubt they would ever come to THR so ganging up on them here is out.

Could gang up on them at there own site (which i'm an admin on btw) but I have no idea how that would go...

Any suguestions?

May post some of one current conversation later...

[SDC]

Ask them why they think that they (or their fellow citizens) are too stupid and/or dangerous to be trusted with firearms, while they CAN be trusted with motor vehicles, gasoline, baseball bats, chainsaws, etc. I find it helpful to point out that gun control laws are a government's way of saying "We don't trust the citizens we're supposed to be working for", and letting them chew on that for a while.

[Standing Wolf]

I can't imagine the English will rediscover the right to defend one's life until they've arrived at the end of the socialist road and seen for themselves there's nothing there. The English of today are a pitiful, contemptible remnant of the English of centuries gone by.

[Mannlicher]

My advise is to walk away and not even talk to them. I can not recall instance of an antigunner, or a liberal in general, changing his/her/it's mind about any liberal stance, and certainly not as the result of some internet chat. Don't waste your time, you are just being baited.

[Zedicus]

conversation with one of them, didn't know he was an anti untill i showed him a .txt of the pro-rkba script I posted earlyer, then the conversation started...

My thoughts in "[ ]"'s & comments in "-= =-"


Me: so, you think that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to have guns for self protection?

Anti: no. i think people shouldn't be allowed guns. doesn't matter what it's for.

Me: and your reason?

-=-=Long pause and an attempt to change the subject=-=-

Anti:with the laws being the way they are although there are guns coming into the country it's limited. as soon as you legalise gunnage (i think that's the new noun for gun) then there's gonna be a flood of guns coming into the country.

Anti: which is much harder to control

Anti: with the services monitoring gun shipping at the mo, they're all illegal, so they all get shipped out again. but if you suddenly legalise it then there's gonna be a lot of screw ups...

Me: not all of that would nesisaraly be a bad thing though.

Anti: what do you mean?

Me: well for one, Ever heard of a criminal who is Law abiding?

Anti: well no. cause that wouldn't make him a criminal.

Me: exactly, The people we want to keep away from weapons are in one way or another, criminals, and criminals never pay any attention to any law, correct?

Anti: correct

Me: Now, lets say for a moment that you were a criminal, and you were going to do a robery with a gun, would you go to a gun shop and get one leagaly that could be traced back to you?
or would you get one from a illegal arms seller that could not be traced back to you and would cost half as much.?

Anti: illegally bloke

Me: exactly, it's the only logical choice.
the criminal won't use a "Legal" gun

Anti: so why should people be allowed guns? or more to the point, why should guns be legalized?

Me: ok, say you (the criminal you) wre intending to rob somones home, but you didn't know if anyone would be home or not, and you knew that there were quite a few people in the area that had guns and were prepared to use them in self defence, would you go ahead & rob a pace there, or go somewhere that there wasnt anyone with a gun?

Me: it comes down basicaly to, would you be willing to take that kind of gamble with your life, or not...?

Anti: of course not. but not only are you legalising guns, you're also legalising murder. it doesn't matter if its in cold blood or self defense. In the eye's of the law, taking a life wether it belongs to you or not is murder. if you do it in self defense then the punishment gets lighter and vice versa. but you're still taking another life.

Me: taking a life in self defence is not murder.

Me: even if there is no justification for use of "Leathal Force" it is classified as Manslaughter, not murder.

Anti: in my opinion, i think that's a very primitive way of looking at it. are you worried about being shot in your own home? then move. legalising guns will just increase the chance of you getting shot.

Anti: sorry, my lack of language. manslaughter it is.

Anti: most offenders wont buy a gun to rob you, they'll nick your gun and rob you with it.

Me: and your proof that they could if you have the training to prevent your own disarmament?

Anti: if you're going to train to stop your own disarmament, then wouldn't it be more logical to train in disarmament of your oppenant?

Me: taking a gun from somone is riskyer than daring a known sereal killer to kill you.

9 times out of 10 it ends in the person trying to get the gun ending up being shot, even if the person trying to disarm has training in how to.

ask any armed officer or millitary weapons expert, even with training to do so forcefully taking a gun from anyone is a bad idea.

Anti: erm, serial killers are a bit rare. how many locks do you have on your door?

Me: I am not paranoid if that is what you think :)

Anti: no. then why do you want a gun? what are you protecting yourself from?

Anti: why dont you put more locks on? it'd be cheaper and safer.

Me: oh, yah, more locks is the answer, how many people with loads of locks still get broken into each year?

Anti: erm, 7?

Me: bit more than that i'm afraid

Anti: have you decided what you're protecting yourself from?

Me: I don't need to decide, its you who needs to think about what a law abiding citizen would need to protect themselves from, that is the only way to get a good answer.:)

Anti: nothing. i dont believe anybody should be afraid of anything.

Anti: have you watched bowling for columbine?

[Puke Alert!!! Why me?]

Me: Bowling for columbine is a movie, movies even when based on true storys are fictional, ones based on true storys are often changed to make them more of a hit, even if the original story is nearly obliterated.

Me: and no i have not seen it

Anti: i take you have watched it then.

Me: nope.

Me: only first heard of the name last week [100% True!]

Anti: then watch it. it's not a film.

Me: I might

Anti: no. do. it's very informative. it's a lengthy documentary (well worth every minute)

Me: if i get the time to

-=-=Chat ended=-=-


Did I Screw up?
Did I do ok for the first time?

Any ideas that could help?

[Jrob24]

You did ok.

Tell him that if a persons life belongs to him then he has a right to defend it. Consequently he should have access to the best tools of self defence. If he gives the usual response ask him why he thinks guns are so easy to use to commit crime yet so impossible to use in self defence. You could refer him to www.goodguyswin.org

Then tell him that if he doesn't want you to have a gun the burden of proof is on him. He has to prove why you're such a horrible person that you shouldn't have one. If his answer is "you might lose control" explain to him that it's him being paranoid to think everyone's an inch from being a murderer.

[vmi93]

I haven't tried this, but I think that reducing your argument to its most basic principles will work well.

Start with a question; i.e., Do you believe an individual should be able to use force to defend themselves from a wrongful attack?

Most rational people will answer yes.

How much force should they be allowed to use?

What if lethal force is the only way to stop the wrongdoer?

Why should government tell people they can't use the most efficient instrument to defend themselves?

If government does bar certain tools of defense, why will people who break the law by harming others follow the law barring certain tools?

Even if they make odd noises at the end about not controlling their own actions, you have at least made them think about their positions.

[DorGunR]

You're wasting your time with these British anti's ..........
this would be more productive :banghead:

[jimpeel]

Anti: of course not. but not only are you legalising guns, you're also legalising murder. it doesn't matter if its in cold blood or self defense. In the eye's of the law, taking a life wether it belongs to you or not is murder. if you do it in self defense then the punishment gets lighter and vice versa. but you're still taking another life.The response I would give to that:

So you feel that it would be morally superior for the criminal to take your life than for you to take his; because you would not choose to do "murder" against those who would do murder to you?

[seeker_two]

As agricola & St. Johns---seriously. They deal with it on a daily basis...

[RTFM]

Lexington and Concord Massachusetts. The Old North Bridge.

[glklvr]

Ask him if Enlish gun control has worked, why has their gun crime rate skyrocketed for the last 10 years?


Edited to add: He thinks killing in self-defense is murder and reprehensable, so you're basically talking to a brick wall.

[Zedicus]

The script I showed him is the one I posted in theis thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38625

And it failed to ave any positive effect.

I think this guy may be a lost cause...

[BHPshooter]

You are seriously going to have more fruitful conversation talking to your dog.

Ask him this: Is murder illegal in England? Is robbery illegal in England? Are handguns illegal in England? [the answer to all is yes.] Ask him what good these laws do if they cannot stop someone from murdering or robbing you (with or without a gun), when their government will not allow them the basic human right to self defense.
Does it comfort him that the police will show up to draw a chalk outline around his mutilated remains? Does it comfort him that they will call the six o'clock news?

One more thing, regarding Bowling for Columbine -- you kind of faltered when that was brought up. Research the kind of propaganda put forth in the "film," see it if you have to*, and tell the Guv'nah about it. Back it up with real, rock-solid numbers. These can't be argued with. If he tries to argue them anyway, you'll know that he is irreparably irrational, and a total lost cause.

Do I need to point out that a certain historical seven-year conflict would never have happened if guns were outlawed?

Good luck.
Wes

*use a borrowed or pirated copy ONLY. DO NOT let that fat :cuss: get any of your money.

[Deepdiver]

Don't waste your breath! Some folks have just decided to be victims - no matter what.... so, let them!

[goon]

Don't waste your breath! Some folks have just decided to be victims - no matter what.... so, let them!

He beat me to the punch.
Look at it this way.
At least if the muggers are attacking them, you won't have to use up any of that expensive, premium self defense ammo.;)
You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the guy with you.
The thing is, they need not cry to me when their loved ones are being harmed next door.
The police will be there in about seven minutes.
That means that I only need to keep my door secure for about eight.
Hope their family lives that long.
I wonder how long it would take for a violent criminal to find a blunt object in your house and use it to .... Well, you get the point.
Probably less than the police response time.

[MeekandMild]

The brits won't be educable for another few more decades.

Imagine what would happen to a society if you took the million bravest citizens and killed them (1/16 of the male population), and turn another 3 million into shell shocked walking zombies the rest of their lives. Then you wait 20 years and repeat the process (this time you only have to kill the best and brightest quarter million).

After a while this process puts hereditary cowards too high on the food chain until Darwin manages to sort them out again. Not likely to happen soon, considering all the UK welfare programs.

[Orthonym]

Well, they may have been as brave as lions, but they obviously weren't very bright. As everyone knows, the smartest Englishmen had already come over here a couple of hundred years ago. Ahem!;)

[morganm01]

I had a whole exhaustive thread earlier in the year
http://www.signonsandiego.com/forums/upload/showthread.php?threadid=13386&highlight=nra

It was very extensive with references for most if not all statistics. I think the anti's there were either converted or just shut down and gave up. It's a good reference for ANY argument anyone can make. Feel free to steal from it.

[Majic]

Ask them what happened to their anti-gun convictions when the Germans were about to invade their country and they had no arms to defend themselves with.
While you are at it, also ask them what happened to the thousands of firearms that the American citizens loaned to them as they watched the Germans prepare to invade them. After the war was over those rifles were never shipped back to the United States. They were also never used as Germany never invaded and today , like yesteryear, the Subjects aren't allowed ownership.
That's gratitude for you!!!!!


That "stiff upper lip" phrase they use is to keep from smelling the excrement spewing out from their mouth.

[Zedicus]

I'm considering telling him that i "Once" thought like he does now (only for about 10 minutes ;)), and when he asks why i still don't, I'll simply reply with something allong the lines of....

"Simple, I woke up and smelled Reality!"

[Nightfall]

On Bowling for Columbine -

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[twoblink]

Your loved ones are in danger.. someone is going to kill them. That someone is standing in front of you with a big knife..

There's two items on the table...

#1) A loaded gun
#2) A Hallmark "Make love, not war" card.

Which do you pick up and use?

[dustind]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

tell them to go there

where is this forum? If I get some free time I will stop by.

[ReadyontheRight]

Still my best argument for RKBA:

Countries having successful gun control laws in the 20th Century -- and the results of those laws:

1915-1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered
1929-1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered.
1933-1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews, Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler, murdered
1948-1952 China, 20 million anti-communists or communist reformers, murdered
1960-1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians, murdered
1971-1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Idi Amin, murdered
1975-1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons, murdered
1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army.

That’s more than 2000 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for EVERY SINGLE DAY in the 20th century.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg

Thanks Oleg Volk for one of many great posters!

[Baba Louie]

Don't try to teach a pig to sing. Its a waste of your time and it annoys the pig.

Seriously.

The Brits have been down this road before, they keep heading back down it after the conflict is over and they're too civilized to grasp our neanderthal thinking.

They were willing to defend their island from German invasion with pitchforks, halberds and old men, so don't think they're weak or wrong... far from it.

They're just too sensible to come around to our brainwashed way of thinking.

Placed within our historical context, we believe what our forefathers fought and died for... every man, woman and child has the right (the obligation) to be an armed member of an unorganized militia, a manumit from being a serf of the royalty. Then look at it from their point of view... the Kings men control the forest and sea and all the realm; can do no wrong and they know their place is to do as they're told by their betters. It works for them unless some troublemaker(s) threatens, really threatens, their day to day living comforts. Then we stand ready to assist as required, as they assist us in times of need.

I hope and pray that the day never comes when they (and we) realize its too late to do anything about it.

Look at our own public schooling and the sheep here. We have enough battles to fight on our own ground within our own ranks to keep what few rights our all-knowing Uncle's men and women allow us. We know that prohibition doesn't work, but still our gov't persists as does the associated black market that goes hand in glove.

Better to try and understand their position and history in order to learn and weigh/measure our own position.

It's also better to go out and do some shooting than waste time converting someone who has no desire to see this side's P.O.V. You do practice your unorganized milita skills to be well regulated... right?

Learn from the Swiss school of thought, lament others if you so choose. But please (oink) don't annoy them.

But I could be wrong.

Adios

[Zedicus]

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg
Thanks Oleg Volk for one of many great posters!
lol, good one! :)

[MeekandMild]

1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army. Not entirely accurate. Should read ...disarmed by the UN and Willie von Shlickmeister, great friend of Tony Blair...

[Zedicus]

Just Directed the Anti to the Inocents Betrayed Trailer....

And aldo later the article at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Did I waste my time or do you think it may have some positive effect?

[Stoker]

Speaking as a gun owning Brit, I don't mind either the bad manners or the ignorance displayed in some of the posts above, but I would just like to point out a couple of things.

Europe doesn't have a tradition of widespread gun ownership but it does have a long history of war and invasion. It is not really surprising that people here associate firearms with unpleasantness.

The hand gun ban in the UK hasn't done a thing to reduce levels of handgun associated crime, but then it never was intended to do that. It was intended to prevent outrages committed with legally held hand guns. It had no connection with illegally held weapons at all.

As a result of our restrictive legislation, firearms are actually quite difficult for criminals to obtain. The full time professionals can import them, certainly, but the small time thug or burglar has little chance of obtaining one. This is because the pool of weapons available to steal from is actually quite small. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the recent imprisonment of a pop singer for possession of a .22 air pistol converted to fire .22RF indicates that guns are not easily available - if they were, why bother to convert an air pistol?

Am I ambivalent about RKBA? Yes I am. I own and shoot rifles and a black powder revolver. I wish it were legal for me to own and shoot modern pistols here. I would be pleased if a few more burglars and muggers were shot dead by householders. But I fear that easier availability of firearms would be to the advantage of the criminal rather than the law-abiding - largely because of that cultural distaste for weapons I mentioned to start with. Criminals would exploit the extra freedom, the law-abiding wouldn't.

As to what that says about us as people I will leave it to your greater collective wisdom to decide.

[swingset]

Stoker,

You are missing something.

If handguns were legal in the UK, criminals would exploit their availability how exactly? You say there is a cultural distaste for weapons in your country, so this means the law abiding wouldn't own many handguns should they become illegal. How then are the guns going to easily get into the hands of the criminals? Who will give the criminals guns? Are good people going to go bad if they've got pistols?

I think I know where the criminals will get their guns. They'll get them the way they get them now. Black market. Making them legal doesn't make things worse, it just makes things better for the honest man, because he has the means to protect himself from a criminal who ignores the law.

And, you're missing the ENTIRE POINT OF RKBA. It's a human being's right to self defense, and ultimate freedom from oppression (wherever that oppression might come from). If you have no means of protecting yourself, you will be an easy victim. Britain has a higher rate of violent crime than does the US, so there is obviously a climate there where the violent criminals feel free to operate with impunity, and the sheeple are happy to be victims. If they have a distaste for guns, it's because they've been brainwashed into believing that the tool of the crime is the cause of the crime. There are beatings and stabbings all over your country, are your countrymen afraid of owning knives and clubs?

Having a gun won't prevent all crime, it won't guarantee your safety, but it's a hell of a lot better than not having one!

[Stoker]

Swingset, thank you for your reply.

As far as criminal exploitation of easier availability is concerned, I think it would take two forms - theft from a marginally wider pool of legally held weapons and, probably more important, ordinary purchase. Note that when I say easier availability, I am assuming a significant relaxation of our current somewhat draconian regime, which licences and registers every shooter and every firearm (with the exception of double shotguns and pumps with a magazine capacity of no more than two cartridges).

So, yes, I do think making them legal would make things worse, but please note that I am talking only in the context of the UK in 2003.

No, good people don't go bad just because they have access to firearms. However, very few of us fall into such clear cut categories as 'good' or 'bad'. The danger is that those of us who are only mildly bad and occasionally commit petty crimes will, if they get the chance, carry and possibly use firearms in crime from time to time. At the moment their chances of doing that are pretty severely limited.

As far as the right to self defence is concerned, I think it has been constrained rather than abolished in the UK. There are aspects of the current interpretation of this right by the courts that concern me, but I do understand the general feeling that one should aim not to escalate the level of force used in any conflict. This is, of course, an important philosophical difference in other aspects of the differing approaches of people in the US and the UK.

I couldn't comment about relative crime rates in the US and the UK, but I do know that 'crimes against the person' have increased here in recent decades. Our police have their own agenda, as policemen everywhere do, and have been unable to do much about the incidence of burglary and assault.

Still, I'm not convinced that being able to carry would help. Few honest people would do it, as I have said, and I'm not sure I would trust those who would want to. And I think it's appropriate to take a view on what other people should be allowed to do here for two reasons:

First, there are a lot of very strange folk in these islands. For example, I have a very dear friend who suffers from bipolar disorder and is often either very elated or very depressed. She has expressed an interest in my shooting. I should not care to enable her to possess a firearm. It would be a dereliction of the duty of care for others.

Second, using firearms correctly takes a lot of training and practice. Like many other things, they are unforgiving of error and misjudgement. I speak here as one who has some military experience. I used to collect examples of deaths caused by negligence in the use of firearms for use as warnings in my briefings before conducting tactical live fire exercises.

I hope you will accept these responses as worthy of some thought. I would not presume, as most of our media commentators do, to say that the USA really should give up its Second Amendment rights and do as we do because we know best. That would be arrogant and foolish. What Americans choose to do is their business, not mine. I merely hope to point out that there are reasonable people here in the UK who are not convinced that easier access to firearms would be a good thing and why they feel that way.

[Majic]

Stoker,
I think alot of us can see your opinion, but also see it as the climate some here want to set for us. We believe in not freely givng up, but fighting back with the best resources we have available. When you want to restrict our resources we will fight back (which is the big debate over gun control). By you never being exposed to having something and then having it casually taken away with no options for you to resist , you will miss the point of the argument. You came up in a time where gun control was already in place and since you never had the handgun you don't know to miss it. If you tell a story enough times long enough, evidentualy people will believe it no matter the facts. The gun control story was in place before your birth and that's all you have heard so naturally that's what you believe. This is not a negative comment on you personally, just that's human nature. We on the other hand live on the other side of the fence and at the same time can see the position you are in on your side. We prefer the greener grass of our side and we are fighting to keep it that way. Human nature being what it is means there will always be trouble. We just want the means to personally deal with it. Those who choose not to have that right also, but they have to live with the consequences. That's the big debate, the right to choose for yourself, not having someone else making that choice for you.
The basic foundation of our government is built on the right of choice and we are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way. Your viewpoint may change if your government decides one day that you no longer can own your rifles, shotguns, and BP handgun. You never miss something untill it's gone.

[David4516]

Stoker,

I believe that your line of thinking is fundamentaly (spelling?) flawed. It's a "Punish the many for the mis-deeds of the few" kind of thing. Yes, there are a few folks out there that shouldn't have a firearm. But taking firarms away from everyone because of this small % of the population is unfair. Besides, if someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it, legal or not. And when that happens, all the people that followed the rules and gave up their firearms will be at their (the bad guys) mercy.

Lets look at another example, Cars. Some people shouldn't drive, they are dangerous when they get behind the wheel. Should we take cars away from everyone?

To ban something simply because it can be dangerous is just plain stupid. The goverment CANNOT keep you 100% safe, not matter what they ban. Why give up your freedoms for a false sense of saftey?

[TamThompson]

Stoker,
I am currently writing a fantasy novel set in a pseudo-medieval society. Therefore, I've been doing a lot of research into medieval weapons used in Europe during the middle ages. The level of violence in society didn't change when guns were invented in England in around 1327 (yes, the Chinese invented gunpowder. They did not invent guns--that was an early translation error.)

My point: Europe's violent history did not start with the invention of firearms.

If you read up on medieval society, it was very brutal and violent, all without guns, and quite bloody. Given a choice between a death by gun shot or a death by being hacked to death by a sword or bludgeoned to death by a mace or throwing axe, I'd take shot any day.

Also, I note that in places where private ownership or carrying of guns has been banned, the sale of medieval weapons seems to be on the rise. For instance, I just read about the Swedish foreign minister being stabbed to death in the grocery story. Do a Google search on "medieval weapons online" and see how many online stores there are--it's amazing!

My point: people with bad intentions will misuse anything they can get their hands on.

(Please note that I am also very proud of my English/Scottish/Prussian/French ancestery.)