The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis

I respectfully disagree

In response to Islandphish and RPVCYemen:

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't regard this as a particularly good tactic in a one-on-one conversation; I intended this as a topic to be brought up in public fora and in the press. Anti-gunners keep getting mileage from phony numbers and deliberate deception, and it's foolish to allow those falsehoods to go unchallenged.

In a private conversation, appeals to personal experience, logic, and common sense are of course more effective--but if one's opponent brings up fake statistics, those ought to challenged. That seems fairly obvious to me.

When--not "if"--one can demonstrate that statistics are distorted or deceptive, it's a very strong argument indeed. As far as proving that the deception is deliberate, consider this from the Violence Policy Center website:

"The [assault] weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

This is hard to defend. It's an outright admission of deception, of an intention to exploit ignorance and confusion to further their plans. Read in context, it's even worse; the writer admits that "the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public", and that exploiting the fake issue of "assault weapons" is a way to get gun banning back on the agenda. There are more such examples, but this one admission gives the lie to their claims of merely wanting an "honest public debate." information like this ought to be made available to everyone, and allowing such manipulation and deception to continue without opposition is not a good idea.

I don't consider pointing out that our opponents use phony numbers and other deceptions to further their cause a "3rd grade" argument. However, making that statement, and telling me to "keep acting big and brave on pro-gun boards"--while merely dismissing good arguments and not offering alternatives--IS a bit of juvenile posturing. Neither of those remarks were appropriate, whether one agrees with my post or not. Disagreeing with another poster is fine, but slapping him in the face isn't. We're supposed to be on the same side here.

a few remarks

I see I'd better spell C-A-T here. Some of the criticisms above are fairly fatuous, and some others seem to assume that I'm a gibbering idiot. All seem to have missed the point of my initial post.

In my original post, I thought I made it clear that the subject of deceptive statistics and statements on the part of gun-control advocates is to be broached <i>ab initio</i>, from the beginning. It's intended to be the opening subject of the discussion, not a response to arguments from the other side.

When deception is the SUBJECT, it falls to one's opponent to respond, which can be difficult: "Well, that's not lying; we're just not correcting a misunderstanding..." pretty shaky ground. Or perhaps, "Those statistics are still valid, even if we interpret them differently..." pretty uncomfortable territory again.

My intent, I thought rather obviously, was to put the other side on the defensive for a change. I'm tired of seeing pro-gunners scrambling to respond to scurrilous attacks and, yes, lies. Let them scramble to justify their questionable tactics for once.

I don't think I have advocated anywhere that one should respond, in a public or private debate, with the bald assertion "You're a liar!" what I said was that if deceptive stats or specious "facts" are brought up, that <i>they should be challenged</i>. The kind of polite "Now wait a minute" response given by Mike is exactly what I mean. I did NOT say, "Call him a M.F. liar and give him one across the lips!"

Civil debate is civil debate; but it is perfectly acceptable in civil debate to BEGIN a discussion with a forceful, even provocative statement, and make one's opponent argue from the position that "It's not really THAT bad..." The antis have been doing that to us for decades, and it's a legitimate and effective form of argument. Let THEM explain why leaving falsehoods uncorrected, or using distorted numbers, isn't exactly the same as "lying".

Just as claiming that twisting and cherry-picking "facts" and skewing statistics isn't really "lying" is, as has been stated, an arguable position, so is the statement that such practices are deceptive, manipulative, and falsify the real situation--and therefore are indeed tantamount to lying. If antis can routinely characterize is collectively as bloodthirsty, ignorant yahoos and Neanderthals--which we are NOT--why can we not characterize them collectively as liars, which in effect and in intent, they clearly and consistently ARE?

Again, to spell C-A-T, the accusation of "lying" is a general statement against the movement, not a personal one against an individual clergyman or anyone else, and should not be used in that manner.

As for citing sources and "doing my homework"--again, I am not an idiot. I did not pull the facts I cited out of thin air. Guncite.com, the NRA site, John Lott's site, Gary Kleck's site at Florida State, and any number of others linked to those, contain more factual information--and, yes, discussions of views critical of the work of Lott and Kleck, et. al.--than one could use in a dozen debates. The fact that I did not load down my post with a few dozen footnotes does not mean that I'm ignorant or unprepared.

In any case, I'm glad my post has sparked such a vigorous debate. My initial assertion was that I'd like to see some discussions that begin with US on the attack and THEM on the defensive for a change. If that involves slightly--if even that--overstating the case, then so be it. I think I'll stand by that.

The definition of "fatuous"

"If there were no guns, no one could be shot to death."

True.

And if there were no germs, no one would get colds.

If there were no sharp things, no one would get cut.

If there were no evil in the world, we would all be good.

And if my grandmother had four wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Do you know a magic spell that will make all guns suddenly vanish?

If not, your remark has no more meaning than those above.

There is no law, no campaign, no program, NOTHING, anywhere or at any time, than can ever make all the guns go away. And as long as one bad guy has one gun, I want one too. You don't have to own one, but if you can't get his gun, you can't have mine.

(Honestly. You wonder how some people can find their way to the bathroom in the morning.)