Just sharing my "tack" when debating people who want semi-auto rifles banned citing mass events

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.D.P said:
I'm from Las Vegas, I live less than 5 miles from the largest mass shooting in our nation's history. The man that carried out that act bought his guns legally, he followed all the rules. Nothing was going to stop him. My argument with people since that fateful October day has been "guns don't kill" "people kill". Like intox said guns are just an easy method to carry out a cowardly act. He could have used many methods, he took the easiest. Gun control isn't the answer, respect for guns and human life is the only answer. I will raise my children to shoot and hunt and they will always know the responsibility that comes with owning and firing a firearm, I wish everyone could have that.
Click to expand...

Education in what I call "Firearm Morality" is DEFINITELY something sorely missed in our nation...I agree 100%. Many times I'll touch on that point with a story from my youth when I was around 4 or 5 years old. My dad had bought me a BB gun (one of the old lever action Daisey BB guns) and I wanted to be like my father and bird hunt, So I went out and shot several birds around the house (blue jays, red birds, ect).

I showed my dad thinking he would be proud....lol. He TORE my ass up with a belt and explained to me that you NEVER shoot something to just be shooting it. He made it crystal clear to me way back then that unless it was about to kill you or feed you that a firearm was the absolute wrong choice.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
One needs to focus on the real problem of homicide. If a person isn't sincere enough to look at the big picture and the total homicide stats then they aren't really trying to solve the problem. All they want to do is address what looks to them to be the root cause (firearms). People trained in the field of sociology will tell you to dig deeper as it more than likely is a cultural problem. For instance in 2015 Mexico's homicide ranking was #22 in the world while the US was #94. El Salvador was #1. Different cultures, different homicide rates. There are far fewer guns in Mexico per person than the US. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Click to expand...

First off, I agree with what you said in this post; however (Ah yes, that famous John Snow quote, "anything said before 'but' is horse$%^&.") I think the real problem is not what we traditionally consider to be Homicide. The numbers in the homicide statistics are driven by suicide. Further, suicide is "up" all over the world. There is no meaningful correlation between countries with restrictive and relaxed gun control laws. These deaths of despair and driven by other factors.

It is a bit funny, but not in the way of humor, I was giving a very canned speech that I have on this (PowerPoint and all) to a group of strong liberals (they weer the democratic party committee for a large city). Someone said something that was not in my speech, but was true, further, the fact that one of theirs came up with this gave them greater ownership of the point. She commented that we could consider many of the mass murders to be forms of suicide. This left those many unfortunates in a grey area between murder and suicide, murders that would not have happened if the suicide issue had been addressed sooner.

As much as the "black gun" is a conspicuous and proximate cause, the real problems are the drivers of suicide. All of the arguments over which guns are good and which are bad is simple a sideshow, distracting us and keeping us from putting our real effort into a place that the effort can really save lives, that problem is as NPR puts it, despair.
 
Hasaf said:
It is a bit funny, but not in the way of humor, I was giving a very canned speech that I have on this (PowerPoint and all) to a group of strong liberals (they weer the democratic party committee for a large city). Someone said something that was not in my speech, but was true, further, the fact that one of theirs came up with this gave them greater ownership of the point. She commented that we could consider many of the mass murders to be forms of suicide. This left those many unfortunates in a grey area between murder and suicide, murders that would not have happened if the suicide issue had been addressed sooner.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Those mass shooters are committing suicide, just about everyone of them. So are bombers with suicide vests. Those numbers are small compared to the number of people who kill themselves in a multitude of different ways.

So suicide is a huge issue, weather you do it with a truck, a bomb or a semi-auto rifle. I just think it's unfair to single out the method and not address the actual cause which of course is mental health.

We don't spend enough money on that in this country. We're way behind the curve compared to other countries with our standard of living.

Good point.
 
Hasaf said:
First off, I agree with what you said in this post; however (Ah yes, that famous John Snow quote, "anything said before 'but' is horse$%^&.") I think the real problem is not what we traditionally consider to be Homicide. The numbers in the homicide statistics are driven by suicide. Further, suicide is "up" all over the world. There is no meaningful correlation between countries with restrictive and relaxed gun control laws. These deaths of despair and driven by other factors.

It is a bit funny, but not in the way of humor, I was giving a very canned speech that I have on this (PowerPoint and all) to a group of strong liberals (they weer the democratic party committee for a large city). Someone said something that was not in my speech, but was true, further, the fact that one of theirs came up with this gave them greater ownership of the point. She commented that we could consider many of the mass murders to be forms of suicide. This left those many unfortunates in a grey area between murder and suicide, murders that would not have happened if the suicide issue had been addressed sooner.

As much as the "black gun" is a conspicuous and proximate cause, the real problems are the drivers of suicide. All of the arguments over which guns are good and which are bad is simple a sideshow, distracting us and keeping us from putting our real effort into a place that the effort can really save lives, that problem is as NPR puts it, despair.
Click to expand...

That is honestly some quantum physics stuff right there.

It never once occurred to me to view these shooters as a suicidal break down, but that actually fills in a lot of gaps. Good stuff.
 
Intox I am glad you had some luck reasoning with these people. I have liberals on my facebook feed from my college days and over here my social media is an absolute firestorm of rage, ignorance, and fear. If what I am seeing is any indication of what is going on out there in the rest of the country, I fear there is going to be a huge anti gun push like we have never seen before if Dems can get any seats back. I hope we can batten down some legislation while we can because it is coming.
 
I understand that you are trying to make rational arguments. I don’t think that it’s possible to have a rational conversation about such an emotional situation. No matter what you say, in their eyes you will be wrong or uncaring or worse. I think its better to just respond with empathy something like: “I don’t understand how some deranged person could possibly want to murder a bunch of helpless kids in a school”. Just my tack.
 
Could save MANY lives each year by banning abortion (that usually makes their head explode and I use it late in a conversation).

I will point out that their car can break the speed limit and that we could save 1,000's of lives if we simply put a governor on all cars to go no faster than 10mph. Oh, and ban cars that look fast as their owners MUST want to run over school children.
 
Kaybee said:
I have liberals on my facebook feed from my college days and over here my social media is an absolute firestorm of rage, ignorance, and fear.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "absolute firestorm of rage, ignorance, and fear" is not directed as much at the inanimate object (the gun) as it is at the people who own such guns. Battle lines have been drawn, and it's the urban elites and their fellow travelers versus the "gun culture" ("redneck yahoos," "Trump voters," etc.). The gun issue is just one visible manifestation of a very deep (and growing) polarization in this country. What I'm seeing is the utter intolerance of each side regarding the other. I've been around a long time (I'm 72) and this is unprecedented in my experience. The hatred and demonization is just unbelievable. And both sides are guilty. To each side, its opponents are no longer Americans, but are something else.

A way has to be found to bridge this gap, or this country is in serious trouble.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA I agree with you. I feel like people have lost the ability to talk to each other and discuss anything with nuance. Everything is reduced to polarized memes, tweets, and taglines.
 
Kaybee said:
Everything is reduced to polarized memes, tweets, and taglines.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Internet is largely responsible for this. I find that in talking to people face to face (without the anonymity of the Internet), they are much more reasonable. Even marginal antigunners can be persuaded, if provided with the facts. Much of their antipathy is, frankly, due to complete ignorance of the laws and of the gun world in general. They read things in the media that are outright lies. This can be remedied if we don't resort to calling them names (such as "liberal," "commie," "Democrat," and so on).
 
CoalTrain49 said:
So suicide is a huge issue, weather you do it with a truck, a bomb or a semi-auto rifle. I just think it's unfair to single out the method and not address the actual cause which of course is mental health.
Click to expand...

CoalTrain: I think I'm correctly understanding your full point, but forgive me if I'm not. While I'm not a mental health professional, I personally think there is a distinction between:
1) someone who thinks that taking their own life is their best option to the problems they believe they have, and
2) someone who believes that dying for a particular cause (whatever it may be) is a glorious way to "end ones journey on Earth".​

When anyone takes the people from the first category, and puts them in the 'gun violence' category, I disagree with that. And, from what I've read, it appears that is currently the model in the statistics that are published by the gov't folks.

When someone behaves in the second category, uses a firearm to do harm to others, and then takes their own life, or continues to do so until they are killed by armed citizens or police, I do think it's fair to put those number in that category.

The problem that continues to frustrate me has been said by so many already: a firearm of any kind is simply a tool that magnifies force.
  • A mechanic uses a wrench to turn a bolt tighter than they can tighten with just their hands; a larger wrench= larger force multiplication.
  • A carpenter uses a hammer to push a nail into wood, with more force than they can with just their fingers.
  • A shooter uses a firearm to magnify their strength to hunt for food, defend themselves against a physically capable attacker, or.... in the cases of people with a mental health problem, to attack other people.
Just like AlexanderA wrote above, I am truly concerned for the direction our Country, our Nation, and our society as a whole are heading.

PE
 
Look, by making arguments here, you are "preaching to the choir". You are talking only to people who agree with you. If there is a large political shift in 2018 and 2020, that is not going to get you anywhere. I think you need to think about what you can live with. The majority of the public cannot see the need for the semi-automatic version of assault rifles to be as available as they are, which is as available as any other firearm not covered by the NFA. You need to think about how to tailor laws to satisfy this demand while still being tolerable to you. Otherwise you will simply be left out of the discussion, just as the Confederates were left out of the discussion of the best way to end slavery.

I am sorry to throw a stink bomb here. I do not like angry arguments, or even telling people things they do not want to hear. But in my opinion, the above are the facts. The only way to avoid it is if the Republicans do not suffer heavy defeats at the polls, and even that may not suffice.
 
Last edited:
Ohen Cepel said:
Could save MANY lives each year by banning abortion (that usually makes their head explode and I use it late in a conversation).

I will point out that their car can break the speed limit and that we could save 1,000's of lives if we simply put a governor on all cars to go no faster than 10mph. Oh, and ban cars that look fast as their owners MUST want to run over school children.
Click to expand...
I like to use the cell phone analogy.

Them: We need to ban all assault rifles to save children's lives!
Me: OK, how many teenage automobile deaths could be prevented by banning all texting?

Them: Well, that's different because I need a phone for my personal safety. I'm not saying ban ALL guns, just the evil ones. Nobody needs an assault rifle to defend themselves. You can use some other, less evil gun for that.
Me: I'm not saying ban all phones. Just do a software upgrade that will eliminate the texting function. It would take 15 seconds. You can still place emergency calls or use hands free and BlueTooth voice calling. Distracted driving is still a bad idea, but texting while driving is recklessly placing oneself and others in immediate mortal danger.

Them: Uhhhhhh, but, I like texting because, umm, I need to be in constant contact with my social circle for the attention and validation I don't get from my parents....and stuff.
Me: Perhaps you could ask them to take you shooting? Its fun.....and stuff.
 
Monac said:
Look, by making arguments here, you are "preaching to the choir". You are talking only to people who agree with you. If there is a large political shift in 2018 and 2020, that is not going to get you anywhere. I think you need to think about what you can live with. The majority of the public cannot see the need for the semi-automatic version of assault rifles to be as available as they are, which is as available as any other firearm not covered by the NFA. You need to think about how to tailor laws to satisfy this demand while still being tolerable to you. Otherwise you will simply be left out of the discussion, just as the Confederates were left out of the discussion of the best way to end slavery.

I am sorry to throw a stink bomb here. I do not like angry arguments, or even telling people things they do not want to hear. But in my opinion, the above are the facts. The only way to avoid it is if the Republicans do not suffer heavy defeats at the polls, and even that may not suffice.
Click to expand...
We are not preaching. We are brainstorming conversational tactics for engaging in civilized debate with the slim slice of the American populace willing to rationally discuss this issue. Sure, you can't sway some people, maybe even most, on the Left, with logic. Their feelings don't care about the facts.

But every one we do reach- even if its just to make them actually think with their brain, rather than their heart, is a small victory in this cultural cold war.

This is how we fight the Left right now. I pray it doesn't become another sort of fight.....
 
A) "Preaching to the choir" is an common expression, NIGHTLORD40K. I would suggest not nitpicking like that in conversations where you are trying to persuade someone. Many people find it off-putting.

B) You are right, my post above is off-topic for this thread. I apologize, and will delete it if you like. Politics is everywhere now, and I should not be spreading more of it around. Thanks for being so civil.

C) Could I ask what you mean by saying it you hope it does not become another kind of fight? There is so much loose talk these days, it is far too easy to make incorrect assumptions about what someone else means. (If you find this question obnoxious, feel free to ignore it. You know what you mean, and that is enough, I suppose.)
 
No haterade here bro. Many other folks here have commented that our discussions serve no purpose since they are amongst like-minded individuals. But how can we go out into the world and make our case if we can't refine our arguments here first. It's even helpful when the Devil's Advocate speaks up, lol. Dissenting voices can speak to a common cause, at least on the Right.....not so much on the Left as they are quickly drowned out by hysterical cries of "Racist!" "Bigot!" or " Fascist!"

As far as nitpicking, are you referring to the technique of breaking down the Anti Gunner's arguments point by point? In my experience, yours may differ of course, this is the most effective way to reveal- to them- the illogic of their stance. Strip away each layer of their feelings-based world view, and lay bare to them the hard truth so that they have no choice but to face it.

I wasn't trying to nitpick your terminology, sorry- I just didn't think it applied here.

As far as the other kind of fight, well, I fully consider that we are currently waging a cultural cold war. Hopefully it stays cold, because the alternative is pretty horrifying.
 
A lot of participants here, and on other gun forums, are using "the Left" as shorthand for "antigunners," conflating the two. I just want to remind everyone that a person can be in favor of Single Payer health care, or publicly-funded college tuition (as examples), and still be pro-gun. We need all the allies we can get. No sense in alienating them by calling them "liberals" etc.

In this vein, I was shocked to read Wayne LaPierre's rant against "socialism" in this month's American Rifleman. It had almost nothing to do with guns, and came across as pandering to the extreme Right. It's this kind of polarization that, in the long run, is undermining gun rights. You don't want to force people to choose sides against us, and, to some degree, I think that's what's happening.
 
People view guns as a cost versus benefit issue. If someone has no idea about guns and has no inten tion if ever owning one, they want them banned. Cure: Take them shooting and encourage them to become a gun owner.
We have to take back the culture, or we may lose RKBA as some historical curiosity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Nys::pharmaceuticals, guns, & government = people bans
Replies
2
Views
983
glockman19
G
A
  • Locked
Time to pass some common sense gun laws that will actually save lives
Replies
14
Views
2K
LeonCarr
L
B
  • Locked
The unforeseen dangers of the terror watch list gun ban
Replies
5
Views
2K
X-Rap
X-Rap
P5 Guy
  • Locked
A Letter to the Editor
Replies
13
Views
1K
mgkdrgn
M
A
  • Locked
Who's to blame, the bureaucrats or elected things?
Replies
3
Views
411
faustulus
F
Back
Top