Still Yet Another "I Argued With An Anti" Thread


PDA






jakemccoy
March 7, 2009, 01:48 PM
Like many of you, I don't argue with anti's anymore. However, I can't shake one particular argument out of my mind. I was arguing with my anti-gun brother-in-law general surgeon. If you're imagining the typical type, you're probably right.

I wasn't saying much in the debate about guns. (There were 2 anti's against me). He didn't even know that I had any guns and that I was carrying at that moment. I didn't want to cause a blood vessel to explode in his brain.

Eventually, I had enough. So, I asked him this:

"Will you concede the fact that criminals will always have a supply to guns, someway, somehow?..."

You probably can guess where I was going. Anyway, he danced around that point and wouldn't concede it. I remember that being the defining moment when I decided I wouldn't debate with an anti-gun person.

My bottom line question is the following: was it accurate for me to say the bold part above?

I'm just making sure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Still Yet Another "I Argued With An Anti" Thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gamera
March 7, 2009, 01:55 PM
Barring some sort of miracle in which all guns are zapped out of existence, I'd say that's a fair statement. But even if guns were zapped out of existence, criminals would still find means to hurt other people. Bats, knives, crowbars, hammers, lumber, bricks, bare hands, etc.

Shung
March 7, 2009, 01:56 PM
Sure.. You are the one abiding the laws... not the criminals.. and making guns disapear from the face of the earth is NEVER going to happend..

Gamera
March 7, 2009, 02:29 PM
I was wondering if anyone would catch that :p

Duke of Doubt
March 7, 2009, 02:45 PM
Japan has the most stringent gun control in the world. It has since the seventeenth century. Samurai, Yakuza, whoever's in charge want to make sure they don't have any competition. Gun control in Britain began under the dictator Oliver Cromwell. It's all about monopoly.

Tirod
March 7, 2009, 03:02 PM
"Will you concede the fact that criminals will always have a supply to weapons, someway, somehow?..."

Try this next time.

Then try to remind him that good men with weapons are the ones who defend him against the selfish ones who would take away his property or life.

And since he's determined that he won't do anything to protect himself, why is he forcing others to do his dirty work?

Folks can be led to rethinking their position if it's done tactfully.

azhunter122
March 7, 2009, 03:05 PM
Yes it was justified, it is a valid point.

Deanimator
March 7, 2009, 03:11 PM
I don't "argue" with antis. I leave them crushed and broken, quivering in a death rattle like a Japanese officer who attacked a Marine Sherman with a saber. I leave track marks on their broken backs.

Not only was what you said "accurate", I've used it repeatedly. When I can show just how easy it is to make a serviceable submachinegun, and how cheap they are to build ($7.00 for a Sten in WWII) they can only change the subject, or lie. When they lie, their behind is mine.

Eyesac
March 7, 2009, 03:11 PM
I think if someone has a problem with the existance of guns, they're a little past where I'd like to argue with them. Dancing around the fact that bad people can get guns is just being dishonest, not worth my time.

metallic
March 7, 2009, 03:20 PM
I've never succeeded in converting an anti. They act on emotion, not logic or reason.

Deanimator
March 7, 2009, 03:20 PM
Dancing around the fact that bad people can get guns is just being dishonest, not worth my time.
It's not enough to know they're dishonest. You need to SHOW it to the undecided. It takes very little effort to prove they're liars. In fact, they'll do all of the work for you. I've been seeing it for 30 years.

Google the names "Michael A Bellesiles" and "Clayton Cramer". Bellesiles is a pathological liar and we all owe a debt of gratitude to Clayton for very publicly proving it. Bellesiles' exposure as a liar and an academic fraud was a crushing defeat for the anti-gun movement. To millions of people it was a demonstration that the anti-gun movement has the honesty and the intellect of the Holocaust denial movement.

deadhawg
March 7, 2009, 03:23 PM
One response I have used in a similar situation goes something like:

Many drugs are against the law to use or posess.

The federal government has an organization called the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency. They have a multi million dollar budget, thousands of uniformed agents, undercover agents, informants, helicopters, wiretaps, etc. all dedicated to stopping the use of illegal drugs

Every state has it's own version of the DEA.
Every city and town of more than a few thousand people has a narcotics division as part of it's police department.

Our jails and prisons are full of drug users and dealers.

Yet those who are willing to break the law, and there are plenty that are, can still buy illegal drugs pretty much anywhere they go, big city or small town, streetcorner or penthouse.

Do you really think that passing more anti gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of those who are willing to break the law to get them?

Spyvie
March 7, 2009, 03:33 PM
Barring some sort of miracle in which all guns are zapped out of existence

I like to explain that a machinist can make a working firearm from scratch in his garage. Black powder can be easily made from naturally obtainable supplies, Ectů

There is no way all firearms can be removed from our society. No possible way.

armoredman
March 7, 2009, 03:40 PM
...
Yet those who are willing to break the law, and there are plenty that are, can still buy illegal drugs pretty much anywhere they go, big city or small town, streetcorner or penthouse...
And to include inside the prisons where they sit, even though we control every aspect of thier lives, they still manage to smuggle it in.

And RB98SS, especially if dunked in habanero sauce.

lukepriebe
March 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
Talked to someone in the bank today who had been mugged at an ATM. Said she didn't believe people should be able to have guns but really wished she would have had one then. I just shook my head.

Gamera
March 7, 2009, 03:52 PM
Spyvie, you only quoted part of what I said.

But even if guns were zapped out of existence, criminals would still find means to hurt other people.

Martyk
March 7, 2009, 04:01 PM
Even if guns were zapped out of existence, criminals will still use other weapons. And the competition for better survival would begin again, and better weapons would get developed, and eventually guns would be reinvented. It's human nature to compete ...

Try downloading and reading this before your next Anti debate. There is a lot of factual and statistical information

www.gunfacts.info

Deanimator
March 7, 2009, 04:18 PM
Even if guns were zapped out of existence, criminals will still use other weapons.
To people who claim that eliminating guns will eliminate violence, I always reply, "So what you're saying is that you want a world ruled by large, strong men wielding swords and axes? We tried that. It was called the 'dark ages'."

To people who say it's "harder" to kill someone with a club or a knife, I reply, "Have you asked British playwrite Joe Orton about that? Do you know how to conduct a seance?" (His boyfriend beat him to death with a claw hammer.) or "So then you're saying my godsister isn't really dead? How come she doesn't return phone calls?" (She was stabbed to death by her boyfriend.)

Seriously debate enough antis and these things will be indelibly committed to memory and will trip effortlessly off of your tongue. I'm sure it's one reason why the media works so hard to use the uninformed and the inarticulate as "spokesmen" for the pro-gun movement. When they slip up and have a REAL debate between somebody who knows not just the facts, but the other side's arguments, and a witless dolt like Toby Hoover or Father Phleger, there's always blood and body parts strewn about, invariably those of the anti-gunner.

Spyvie
March 7, 2009, 04:28 PM
Spyvie, you only quoted part of what I said.

Sorry Gamera, I knew what you meant, and I was trying to reinforce your point.

jakemccoy
March 7, 2009, 04:29 PM
I like to explain that a machinist can make a working firearm from scratch in his garage. Black powder can be easily made from naturally obtainable supplies, Ect…

There is no way all firearms can be removed from our society. No possible way.

I'll add that criminals in prisons have been known to make crude guns.

The following are examples that mass media would rather not broadcast...

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/07/gallery-of-home.html

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=20451 (scan for "home-made gun")

http://atriclesofinterest.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/prison-staff-take-refuge-as-inmates-fire-homemade-gun/

Duke of Doubt
March 7, 2009, 04:34 PM
jakemccoy: "It's actually been done before and is still a problem with knowledgeable prisoners, and I'm not talking about smuggling in firearms."

Example?

Gamera
March 7, 2009, 04:44 PM
Spyvie - gotcha, thanks!

Deanimator hit the nail on the head. I was reading somewhere (an anti-gun facebook group I think) that there were "better ways" to fight against an attacker, "like a knife or your bare hands or whatever". So I guess that means that the antis would rather:

a. Use a knife. Yeah, stab them repeatedly in the stomach until their entrails start hanging out. Make sure they don't grab the knife and use it against you!

b. Use some sort of bludgeon. Break the bones in their hands and arms, knock their jaw off, or put a crack in their skull. Make sure they don't get the bludgeon from you!

c. Fight with your hands. Gouge their eyes out, bite chunks of their flesh off, knock teeth out of their head. Make sure they don't do the same to you!

It seems to me that guns are the most civilized way to defend yourself!

jakemccoy
March 7, 2009, 04:47 PM
Duke, see post I edited.

Bill of Ojai
March 7, 2009, 04:49 PM
Smuggling is big business. Anti's don't consider that every other evolved nation in the world is manufacturing forearms at a prodigious rate. China, Korea, Switzerland, Germany, South Africa, France, Austria, Russia, and more.

They also fail to consider how many "antiques" are around in the U.S. fully capable of deadly firepower.

Deanimator
March 7, 2009, 06:38 PM
I'll add that criminals in prisons have been known to make crude guns.

Not just crude ones. Guns & Ammo once did a story on prison contraband guns, and one of them was a fully functional submachinegun, the equivalent of some of the guns manufactured for the German Volkssturm at the end of the war. At that point, the antis either change the subject, start pulling "facts" out of their colons, or scream a racial epithet and run away.

I like to talk about the final generation MAC 11s where the only forging was the barrel. Even the bolt was a cheap stamping, filled with molten lead during assembly for inertia mass. The firing pin was just a stamped projection on the bolt face.

I tell these cretins, "Why don't you try banning crack cocaine first, and see how that works out."

CapnMac
March 7, 2009, 06:42 PM
Japan has the most stringent gun control in the world.
And, yet, they still have "gun crime" somehow . . .
None so blind as those who will not see.

Deanimator
March 7, 2009, 06:46 PM
Deanimator hit the nail on the head. I was reading somewhere (an anti-gun facebook group I think) that there were "better ways" to fight against an attacker, "like a knife or your bare hands or whatever". So I guess that means that the antis would rather:
Whenever this drivel comes up in discussions of women's self-defense against rape, I ALWAYS say, "Here's a news flash: Xena, Warrior Princess was NOT a documentary."

Most 110lb woman vs. 210lb man encounters end like the Officer Tony Abbate vs. Karolyna Obrycka bout seen on YouTube by most of the world. I've said and truly believe that some of these curs don't mind if a woman defends herself against a rapist, so long as she's ultimately defeated, and is seriously injured in the process. More than a couple of them appear to consider a savage beating "foreplay".

Years ago in usenet, there was an Englishman who was very aggressively vocal about how women shouldn't be allowed to carry guns because he was "afraid that he'd be mistaken for a rapist and shot". My next words to him were, "How is it that you typically act around women that you expect to be 'mistaken' for a rapist? I suggest that you put down that butcher knife, pull you your pants and go home. You'll be just fine." And yes, there are more than a few degenerate beasts who say that a woman should let herself be raped rather than seriously harm a rapist. I derive a special satisfaction from publicly humiliating filthy wretches like that.

sm
March 7, 2009, 08:20 PM
Antis.
Sometimes I gotta wonder if Anti's are not wired more "wrong" than criminals.

Being honest, I would rather listen and learn from a criminal, than a Anti. In fact I have learned some valuable street tips from ex cons, and other criminals.

Did I ever share about the time I was with a ex con, and this anti fella is mouthing off about "anything mini is bad..."

Ex con pointed to some good looking young babes in mini-skirts, grinned, and then when the light stopped traffic, we crossed the street, leaving the anti just standing there looking like an idiot.

Judicator
March 7, 2009, 10:02 PM
When I argue with antis, I usually approach the issue from the other direction. "Suppose all guns were banned, and everybody actually does turn them in, now the strong and vicious people will rule society."

Or something along those lines. The point being that guns are the only things that allow the weak to be on equal footing with the strong.

RDCL
March 7, 2009, 10:22 PM
I always try to avoid arguing with the anti-gun folks, but if pressed I will. I also feel kind of sorry for them in that the world of guns & the shooting sports presents a joy and fascination they will never know or understand.
I'll usually state that a gun.....any gun (even LOADED)....is a harmless piece of steel until a human being picks it up.

I've always been sick & tired of their use of the word "need".....as in: "Why do you NEED a gun"? I'd respond that "need" has nothing to do with it!

"....I WANT a gun and thats all you NEED to know about it" Same thing with full-auto.....hell no I don't NEED full-auto.....but I WANT it.:D

With the current state of anti-gun rhetoric, and where we are going....it is truley sad. Somewhere in the wild a bald eagle weeps real tears for us.

Yeah, yeah.....corny, but I believe it.


Russ

rojocorsa
March 8, 2009, 12:12 AM
I do not get chances to argue that much. Only time I did was when I talked to some lady who believed the myth of Glocks being undetectable in metal detectors. She believed it because she said she had read it in an article written by some laudable journalist.
Everything ended when I informed her that all glocks have steel slides, barrels, internal parts, etc.

gallo
March 8, 2009, 03:48 AM
It is useless to argue with antis. If anyone approaches you about guns, invite him to the range. If they give you a lame excuse for not going and still persist in debating, you'll know it's a lost cause.

Arcticfox
March 8, 2009, 03:54 AM
I've never succeeded in converting an anti. They act on emotion, not logic or reason.

+1

Logic never seems to overcome emotion.

Rocksurly
March 8, 2009, 04:04 AM
I love using this quote on them :D

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

Eustachius234
March 8, 2009, 04:44 AM
Just leave the left coast & avoid the North East, and you'll run into a lot less weenies ...

Duke of Doubt
March 8, 2009, 07:46 AM
RDCL: "I've always been sick & tired of their use of the word "need".....as in: "Why do you NEED a gun"? I'd respond that "need" has nothing to do with it!"

Intellectually I'd agree. But I finally got tired of making that case. About fifteen years ago, I had had enough. When a nice but socialist friend started in on the need versus greed thing, I announced, a little menacingly, that I needed a yacht. He started trying to answer that I didn't really "need" a yacht, but all your normally longwinded correspondent did was repeat, "I need a yacht," in a vaguely intimidating tone. A little light bulb finally went incandescent over his cranium, and he never used or, I believe, thought in terms of "need" again.

Grey_Mana
March 8, 2009, 10:01 AM
A broadhead arrow from a 75 pound-pull bow has more stopping power than a .308.

Anyone can make a shepherd's sling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon) , and Wikipedia reports that they are still being used in the 3rd world, where people don't have access to guns.

calldog
March 8, 2009, 10:25 AM
This has worked for me in the past. Probation of any type has never worked in this country. When Americans are told they can't they will to prove they can. By doing this do we not create more criminals, that were once honest, with guns. Even if all guns are gone will criminals not use something else? A gun helps honest people defend themselves against someone that is stronger or the many that intend to do harm.

JohnL2
March 8, 2009, 11:17 AM
Because people infected with the make it a "perfect world" and "moral superiority" mindset are simply impossible.
I accepted that line for a good portion of my life and guess what? The world doesn't work that way. Never has. Never will. I accept that. And conduct myself accordingly with capability and restraint and some serious firepower.

augustino
March 8, 2009, 11:37 AM
This TO ME, is simply a case of it being impossible to legislate values and morality INTO criminals as well as impossible to legislate guns out of the hands of criminals.
The fact is that any gun control law will only be obeyed by law abiding citizens and NOT criminals. The thugs are not walking into a gun shop, filling out the paperwork and buying the firearm legally and legitimately. So making it impossible or illegal for law abiding citizens to do so takes the firearm out of their hands and does nothing to keep it out of the criminals hands. If legitimate firearms totally vanished, which is an impossibility. Criminals would make zip guns! So then the ammo would need to be banned. In fact certain criminal elements are noted for using "ball peen hammers" to inflict terror and kill their opponents. So let's ban all ball peen hammers! And didn't Al Capone use a baseball bat to kill one of his foes?? Well let's ban baseball bats...

KarenTOC
March 8, 2009, 11:51 AM
I think some anti reasoning goes this way:

"Yes, criminals will always have guns. There's nothing we can do about that. But, if guns are banned, then the millions of law-abiding folks who die each year in gun cleaning accidents, and domestic disputes, and heat-of-passion arguments and negligent discharges will be saved. If one child's life is saved because he didn't play with his daddy's gun, then it will be worth it."

The idea that criminals will still have guns isn't the issue.

ps: I bought into that for years.

peetee32
March 8, 2009, 12:15 PM
i think antis, deep down, just want less violence, gun crime and death, but don't know any other way to get that done besides making gun laws.
without thinking, they just think, hey ban this type of gun, and we are that much safer. put it to a vote saying, " hey you want to protect your kids from guns?" of course you do...so blindly people will vote with their hearts and not minds.

i do have a problem when the antis bring up school shooting scenerios though. a kid, who normally would not have access to gun, and would not have the ability or means to go out seeking illegal guns, or making them on their own, and wouldn't try using a weapon like a knife or club...take their parents legal guns and use them for evil.

of course they want to stop this from happening, we all do. but logically there is no law that can be passed to prevent this. the only thing (which would be crazy) would be to have some kind of gun owner inspection to see how you keep your arms stored. locked and unloaded at all times, except for the one "emergency" type gun with some kind of quck release lock, fingerprint type lock so you could open it in an emergency. any gun owner failing these suprise inspection would be heavily fined etc.

please don't pick apart my agument, because i myself could do it. i know the flaws to my "crazy" plan above.

rather i put it to you, the gun supporters....are there any gun laws or ways to prevent this type of action? i think, at its core is to identify the type of PERSON or CHILD that would steal the gun and use it for evil. the problem with that is you get the recent scenerio of the teacher calling the cops on the kid writing the pro gun essay in college:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html

so what do you think? any ideas?

Superlite27
March 8, 2009, 01:00 PM
Like many of you, I don't argue with anti's anymore.

I wasn't saying much in the debate about guns. (There were 2 anti's against me).

It is useless to argue with antis.

I always try to avoid arguing with the anti-gun folks,

Hmmmm. Yeah, I guess you people are right. I have always believed that the Second Amendment was worth fighting and dying for. However, there aren't too many everyday opportunities for me to risk life and limb in defense of this noble idea. So I've always said to myself, "Self...since I work a 40 hour week, there isn't really much time for me to be as active in support of the 2A as I would like, so the least I can do is to make some small attempt to change the minds of those who oppose it whenever the chance arises."

I always thought the tinyest little sacrifice was still a worthy thing, no matter how small. I've never felt that my attempts to persuade those opposed to firearms freedom were a waste of time, because I don't think anything done in the name of freedom is ever a waste of time.

But you have all convinced me. I guess you're right. Actually taking a stand and attempting to show people the truth is "useless". As a matter of fact, pointing out the futility of arguing in support of the Second Amendment to those who would hasten its demise has convinced me. I will no longer participate in using my voice to defend the Second Amendment against those who would do it harm. You have all convinced me of its pointlessness.

KarenTOC
March 8, 2009, 01:29 PM
But you have all convinced me. I guess you're right. Actually taking a stand and attempting to show people the truth is "useless". As a matter of fact, pointing out the futility of arguing in support of the Second Amendment to those who would hasten its demise has convinced me. I will no longer participate in using my voice to defend the Second Amendment against those who would do it harm. You have all convinced me of its pointlessness.

I think the OP was talking about useless arguing with a close-minded anti. Debate and discussion are totally different, and definitely not pointless. Please, continue to debate and discuss. We all should.

Baba Louie
March 8, 2009, 04:05 PM
Old saying... "For some, no explanation is required. For others, no explanation will suffice."

Jeff Cooper's quote, "An unarmed man can only flee from evil and evil is not overcome by running from it" (or words to that effect) comes to mind also.

One can point to the UK where now, knives are on the chopping block (as it were) once guns were eliminated from the law abiding.

Utopian, starry eyed, ivory towered sycophants will continue to believe what they feel is best, is best for all. The (false) assumption that if one is nice to people they will always be nice to you. I am reminded of John Lennon (Imagine), he who was killed by an obsessive and deranged fan (short for fanatic), an incident as loaded w/ tragic irony as is his song Come Together, with its whispered "shoot me" lurking in the background. (how prophetic) :uhoh:

Pragmatic realists see the world a bit differently perhaps. Smiling at everyone they meet, listening to their very interesting discourse, acknowledging when they are right, knowing full well that one is prepared and equipped to... deal with whatever evil comes your way, and they, perhaps less so.

C'est la Vie. No?

Gamera
March 8, 2009, 04:44 PM
When a nice but socialist friend started in on the need versus greed thing, I announced, a little menacingly, that I needed a yacht. He started trying to answer that I didn't really "need" a yacht, but all your normally longwinded correspondent did was repeat, "I need a yacht," in a vaguely intimidating tone. A little light bulb finally went incandescent over his cranium, and he never used or, I believe, thought in terms of "need" again.

Whaaa?

jakemccoy
March 8, 2009, 05:46 PM
Hi Superlite,

Check out my Youtube channel below to get a sense of how I'm spending my free time more productively.

Instead of arguing, I'm inviting people to browse my Youtube channel.

People are more likely to accept information if I step back and allow them to digest information comfortably on their own.

Regards,
-Jake

flyboy1788
March 8, 2009, 05:50 PM
I find it ironic that all of these "educated" individuals are the ones who most lack common sense.

gallo
March 8, 2009, 06:33 PM
Great work, Jakemccoy.

Triphammer
March 8, 2009, 07:01 PM
Quote"rather i put it to you, the gun supporters....are there any gun laws or ways to prevent this type of action?"

Maybe we could make it illegal to murder, injure or cause mayhem?

rondog
March 8, 2009, 08:12 PM
Encounters like that are when I wish I had the personality to go all "Gunny Hartman" on 'em.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/funnies/gunny.jpg

6_gunner
March 8, 2009, 08:48 PM
I hate debating. If they aren't convinced after I've layed the facts out for them, it isn't going to do either of us any good to continue the discussion.

Arguing with hardcore antis doesn't accomplish anything and it further undermines my faith in humanity. I generally avoid it. Facts and logic don't work against people who are entirely governed by emotion.

As many have noted, antis just don't think the same way that we do.

The only time I feel obligated to butt in is when they lie, and there are innocent bystanders around to hear it. If it's just a herd of mindless antis congratulating each other for being so civilized and humane, I figure they can have fun in the dream land they've created for themselves. If there's a danger of them infecting others with their garbage, I'll take the time to set the facts straight. I figure I owe it to humanity to ensure that unfortunate passersby doesn't go from uninformed to misinformed.

Duke of Doubt
March 9, 2009, 04:21 PM
Gamera: "Whaaa?"

Meaning that his use of "need" as a criterion for distribution of rights and wealth implies his right to prioritize my preferences, rather than mine. I found this highly offensive. I also wanted to point out to him the fact that we were, at the time, actually traveling by yacht. Without it, we (or he) would be in the drink. At that moment, he needed a yacht, which I suppose I had the power to take away. He saw my point.

Ed Ames
March 9, 2009, 04:50 PM
I split between two themes depending on audience.

1. "The question is not whether you can control. Yes it may be possible to ban private or all gun ownership. The question is, can you live with the consequences of that control? We can see in every area from prohibition to interstate speed limits that gaining even 90% compliance can cause major shifts in society and major reductions in safety and quality of life for everyone. To truly erradicate guns would mean controlling access to metalworking tools, tracking metal purchases, and a host of other measures that would harm everyone through reduced recreation and innovation for a start."

2. "People are inventive and laws can't stop them from fulfilling their needs. So long as people feel they need to do things we consider criminal - including murder - they will procure or invent weapons. "

Of course I try to be more concrete than that with most people.

mljdeckard
March 9, 2009, 05:43 PM
The statement is absolutely correct and logical, and you were right to say it. However, these people have no use for logic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Still Yet Another "I Argued With An Anti" Thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!