1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Help Me Demolish My Anti-Gun Aunt's Gun Control Scheme...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CmdrSlander, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Solo

    Solo Active Member

    Sep 15, 2004
    If a gun is an extension of a penis, what is a purse?
  2. Archie

    Archie Participating Member

    Dec 31, 2002
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    Logic will not matter.

    Commander, I fear no argument will have any sway over your aunt.

    She is operating from an emotion based point of view. She has been convinced (brain-washed is a similar but harsher term) by the Leftist faction (including 'the media') that guns are evil and do not belong in an enlightened society. She is a true believer.

    She might be swayed by an emotional argument and experience; for instance the Luby's restaurant shooting in Killeen, Texas in October, 1991. One of the survivors was a woman named Suzanna Hupp, who's parents were murdered in the shooting. She later became a member of the Texas Legislature. This is another case of a mass murder being facilitated by anti-gun laws.

    Perhaps showing the vast number of mass-shootings that have encouraged by 'gun laws' might have an emotional effect on your aunt, but logic never will.

    You have my sympathy, by the way.
  3. jrdolall

    jrdolall Senior Member

    Feb 3, 2012
    Any time you get into a discussion with an anti you must clearly point out that this is not about "need". If you concede that one word then you have lost the argument.

    Very few of us "need" a 100 round drum. I don't "need" the 3 safes full of assorted guns I own. I have owned and carried firearms virtually all my life and not once in those 50+ years have I ever "needed" the gun I was carrying for SD. I have never "needed" the guns I have designated for HD.

    I don't "need" a cell phone that allows me to watch porn while driving. There is no public road in the USA where going 100MPH is legal so I don't "need" my F150 that will easily surpass that figure (as will pretty much every production car).

    There is a process for changing the Constitution. It was put there for a reason. That is why women can vote and why we have freedom of speech. Use that process and attack the rights of gunowners. If enough people agree then the 2A can be repealed. If not then leave it alone.
  4. 95XL883

    95XL883 New Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    “-The average person has no need of a semi-auto... those that want them want them as a result of some kind of perverse desire (she conflated it with penis size or, shall we say, the lack thereof). “

    I’m only going to respond to this one right now. When I was 5 years old, I was the victim of a violent predator. Since that day, I have lived with a standing death threat on my family if I ever discussed it with anybody. The a*****e even had the gall to call my parents and threaten them as well. (They thought he was talking about my older brother and hired a bodyguard for him.)

    I kept my silence until my mother passed last year. While I’m a grown man now and rationally know my attacker is so old, if he is even alive, he is no real threat anymore, in one way I’m still 5 years old protecting my mom by keeping my nightmare to myself. (I still worry a little that I might somehow be endangering my siblings by mentioning it even now.) I’m mentioning it now to shake off some of the hold that a*****e still has on me.

    When I was a young man, I was very strong and while scared, was confident that I could defend me and mine with my bare hands.

    I’m 57 now and nowhere near as strong as I used to be. I carry a full size 9mm with a loaded 17 round magazine. If I ever have to, I will use it to protect my wife, my children and me. (I look for every opportunity to avoid ever needing to use it. I’ll take insults and disrespect rather than chance a confrontation. If a confrontation is unavoidable, I will look for every possible way to diffuse it. But if I ever have to, well, that’s why I’ve got it.)

    I’ve had no legal trouble in my life. I’ve taken insults and abuse rather than risk a confrontation. I’m considered a model citizen, held a job all this time, been a good dad and husband, active in the community and supportive of others.

    For me the desire is simply to keep my family and me safe. Evil strikes without warning. It strikes without mercy. It strikes the weak, the unprepared, the unaware and the naïve. At best your aunt is naïve.

    Carrying has nothing to do with the size of my penis. That is an insult to me. I was violated by evil because I was weak, unaware and naïve. Your aunt owes me an apology. You can tell her that from me. She owes every victim an apology. After what I have been through, I can’t help but wonder if she is really a sympathizer with evil or even evil herself. (Sorry, I don’t mean to insult her. But anybody who would deny anybody their right to protect themselves speaks or acts on their belief, I have to question their motives. Nobody is made safe by stripping their ability to protect themselves.)

    She owes me an appropriate apology. Again I don’t mean to insult her or instigate a confrontation with you or her. I hope to never meet her. If I ever do, I will be respectful and polite, but until she appropriately apologizes and acts accordingly, I can’t see me ever liking her or thinking of her as a decent human being.

    To all I apologize for my harsh tone. I feel very strongly about this. I’ll avoid the fight if at all possible but I will not helplessly suffer such a crime again or allow my family to so suffer.

    PS. I’m a CPA myself.

    I've got to get back to work now.
  5. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Elder

    Jun 5, 2006
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    To me, she sounds too committed to be worth the effort.

    Fundamentally, the burden of proof is not on us to prove why we need or want guns. Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Keeping and bearing arms is the means by which that right is implemented. The Constitution protects that right, it doesn't give it to us. It is called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. The burden of proof falls upon THEM to say why any of these things is untrue.

    You're not going to convince her of anything.
  6. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Feb 18, 2007
    NE Ohio
    Liberals often close their minds, akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALA". Once they no longer are interested in discussion or logical debate, any effort you make will be fruitless. They are regarding you as foolish, uninformed (only the liberal doctrine is valid, in their opinion), and you are speaking outside of their permitted train of thought. The correct response to someone that denigrates your beliefs, way of life, posture of patriotism and the value of the Second Amendment as she did (by your words) deserves a response not allowed on THR. She is basically saying you are a fool, and doesn't want to hear anything from someone whom she puts so low on the smart list. As stated above, go shooting and/or move on to someone who will treat your argument with respect.
  7. evan price

    evan price Mentor

    Dec 7, 2005
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    Put her points right back at her, but reference the First Amendment.

    Or just ignore the old biddy.
  8. JonnyGringo

    JonnyGringo New Member

    Jan 29, 2013
    Drop her off on the South Side on Friday night........
  9. sgray

    sgray New Member

    Feb 24, 2008
    The REAL Cost......

    First, let me admit that I've changed very few minds that were already "set" in their own opinion.

    Maybe you could recommend to your aunt that she go visit a V.A. hospital and ask those of us who have been mutilated, burned, mangled, traumatized and/or simply injured that the reason their/our lives were "Trashed"
    ......" are irrelevant"
    Another argument that works for me (Re: "but who needs a 30 round" blah, blah "weapon of war"
    "When it's 3AM, your door has been kicked in, glass broken, , cops dozing at Krispy-Kream (etc etc) what would YOU want your hubby to be armed with while you cower under the bed?"

    "When the Secret Service starts using Flintlocks to protect our Coungress-scoundrels, I'll THINK about giving up my "ugly gun"....Maybe

    Best Wishes,
  10. soloban

    soloban Member

    Sep 8, 2009
    Madison, AL
  11. gazpacho

    gazpacho Participating Member

    May 28, 2004
    Call her a rapist.

    Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million rapes per year (google it, some Florida professor). Only rapists would want to stop rape prevention. Therefore, people who want to ban guns, must be rapists. :evil:

    Oh, and AR-15s shoot really small bullets, so people who use them must have giant dicks. Just don't tell Lance Corporal Michelle that she has a giant dick, or she might just shoot you. Some of them bolt action rifles shoot some Gawd aweful big bullet, but don't tell them hunters that they got tiny dicks, because they have rifles that shoot Gawd aweful big bullets . . . :D

    Finally, give her a giant sign to post in her front yard that says, "I am female and don't have guns. I have a great paying job and think the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper."

    She is the kind of person that deserves to get fruit cake for christmas.
  12. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Senior Member

    Feb 27, 2011
    I wouldn't waste a moment of my time arguing with this woman. Her "plan" is a crock, from beginning to end, and is based on profound ignorance of guns and their place in our society. Fortunately, people like her don't have the requisite political clout.
  13. SabbathWolf

    SabbathWolf member

    Oct 6, 2008
    Eastern Kansas

    Changed it a little just to make myself smile for a second during a time that we've not had much to smile about lately. No offense meant.

  14. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Feb 18, 2007
    NE Ohio
    "Fortunately, people like her don't have the requisite political clout." ............................................................................................................................. Recent political activity in NY and CO would indicate otherwise.
  15. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Senior Member

    Aug 29, 2008
    ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
    Some people can't be reasoned with. The smarter they are, the harder they are to sway the other way. They feel they are right so it has to be right. She needs to spend a day at a victim of crimes group therapy session. Obviously she feels "it" can never happen to her because she is smart and she is right. You may as well be talking to the wall.
  16. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Participating Member

    Jun 23, 2006
    Middle, TN
    Years ago I had a discussion with my FiL and his wife about guns. They were Psychologists. Both wanted to bash me about my conservative views on Guns, crime, etc. Of course one of their main points being that guns cause crime, and it was our (gun owners) faults that it happened.

    After that discussion I went and pulled several widely accepted published studies on recidivism rates of violent offenders and went after them telling them how it was Psychologists and their programs that was responsible for letting those felons out on society, they were enabling violent crime etc. Of course they argued that it wasn't the Psychologist's fault that it was the felon's fault. After which I pointed out the inconsistency of their arguments.

    They didn't agree, but they never brought the subject up again. Some times you are not going to win the debate, but at least you can get the other person off your back.
  17. vtail

    vtail Member

    Apr 3, 2009
    Find and introduce her to some folks that spent some time in pre-WWII Germany and Poland.

    Have them tell her some stories.
  18. denton

    denton Active Member

    Feb 22, 2011
    A lot of good points made... maybe a couple more:

    Don't defend your viewpoint. Make her defend hers.

    First, talk about the fundamental logical error that many make. They see that X% of homicides and Y% of suicides involve a firearm, and assume that if firearms were eliminated, that percent of the homicides and suicides would go away. The best evidence is that they would not. People simply find other means. Japan is practically gun free, but their suicide rate is twice ours. Obviously, they are coping quite well with their lack of firearms. Malaysia has practically no private firearm ownership, and their homicide rate is about the same as my home state, Utah, which is practically awash with firearms. As nearly as anyone can tell, if you eliminated all the firearms in the US, it would have no good effect on crime rates. More than likely, it would make things measurably worse. It's not the firearms that are the problem. It's us. Nobody has yet found a positive correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the homicide rate.

    If she's a CPA, talk in terms of balancing risk and reward.

    Ask her how many times per year firearms are used wrongfully. Then, point out that by the most conservative estimates they are used more than 10X as often to prevent crime. For every crime committed with a firearm, 10 are prevented with one. If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it to have an armed society?

    Criminals are not looking for a fair fight. They want an easy target. 93% of the time, if you show a firearm, your assailant will flee.

    If she wakes up in the night and a large, foul-smelling rapist is just entering her bedroom, exactly what's her plan? What's the conversation to occupy the three minutes or so that it takes a good police department to respond? Those minutes tend to be violent and ugly.

    I know what my wife would do. She'd put two rounds in his center of mass so fast it would make your head spin. That's the choice she has already made.
  19. TylerS

    TylerS New Member

    Dec 21, 2011
    Gilbert AZ
    Your aunt is looking at something too narrowly, as mathematicians tend to do, i.e. 2+2=4. Your aunt needs to think bigger. The problem is that the world we live in is not simple. The gun debate here in the United States is very analogous to the nuclear weapon debate. If you look at only the fact that the U.S. dropped a bomb on Japan and killed 140,000 to 240,000 people it seems and is a horrible thing that happened. The problem lies in that acute perspective of the facts. Now, if we include that had we invaded and it was as difficult as that pacific island campaign. We would have projectively lost approximately 1,000,000 AMERICAN Lives. So by simple math at least 750,000 lives were saved by the bomb.

    I know it was a long and simple argument and there are many more facts and arguments left out, BUT Guns in the United States including the black evil ones, when owned by responsible citizens save lives. Since 1812 the U.S. has not had a serious invasion into our territory, our government (until lately) has not become tyrannical, these among many other factors could be a direct result of the second amendment.

    As for self-defense according to FBI statistics and surveys approximately guns are used in self-defense approximately 650,000 times a year. Now this does not mean that had they not been there that someone would have been killed, but still that is really high. I personally have had to draw a concealed weapon in self defense and in my work (armed security) multiple times. I truly believe that if I had not had the gun awful things would have happened.

    The second amendment is not obsolete because it keeps government at bay, keeps citizens protected, and forces other governments to think twice about invasion. This is exactly why it was included in the Bill of Rights and continues to work today.
  20. Ratshooter

    Ratshooter Senior Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    A gun you hold in your hand and a purse you...put stuff in!:neener:

Share This Page