Argument/discussion with my dad today

[Redneck with a 40]

My dad has been a long time supporter of gun rights and the 2-A. However, today he pissed me off. I was discussing the proposed assault weapons ban and the fallacy of such a ban. I used the fact that out of 551 homicides in Maryland last year, 4 were committed with "assault weapons". My point was that in the overall firearms related crime, assault rifles are statistically irrelevant. My dad's response, "its not irrelevant to those four victims". He was implying that because 4 people got shot with an "assault weapon", the AWB was justified! He was accusing me of being emotional! He's the one using the emotional argument! I took him to task on this, he got pissed and shut the conversation down. I told my dad that I "stood for freedom". His response, "society's rights are important as well". Since when does society in general decide my personal rights, when it comes to gun ownership? These comments from my dad have me concerned, I cannot accept this line of thinking. Just last week my dad stated that "freedom is more important than safety".

My dad seems to be overly concerned with what other people think and feel, I personally don't care what other people think and feel about me, or my hobbies.

 

[bogie]

Typical response - Anecdotal evidence is basically useless in the scientific world, but emotionally it runs VERY strong.

Don't force the issue - but keep at it in a low-key way. You're not gonna win by butting heads.

Besides, just think of the numbers of lives we could save if we raised the drivers' license age to 21...

 

[rickomatic]

Agreed with the part about keeping it low keyed. No arguement is worth ruining a family relationship over. If the topic is too hot, then steer clear.
However, should the "discussion" come up again, try steering it this way.

You mentioned that he's always been pro 2nd Ammendment. I take it, by that, that he too is a gun owner. If so, it'd be pretty easy to find statistics that show that his "gun of choice" is just as "guilty" or more so of homicidal death as the EBRs are.

If it's all about saving lives, then is he in favor of the government denying his right to own his gun of choice?

Also, point out to him that it's a typical divide and conquer game that the anti's are waging. We gotta stick together.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

If 4 people were killed last year from falling down the stairs would he be in favor of outlawing stairs? Is that absurd? Stairs don't have a mind of their own, they are inanimate objects...but so are guns. Would those 4 people be any less dead if someone killed them with another type of gun? What about a knife, a hammer, a car? Does it matter to them what object killed them or does it matter that someone killed them? I would think the latter.

 

[telomerase]

He'll never change his mind if the AWB becomes "his position", so don't argue directly. Just figure out who he hates the most that supports it, and point it out... nature will take its course.

 

[.cheese.]

I gave up trying to get my family to understand the issue months ago.

It won't happen unfortunately. Guns to them are evil no matter what. They worry about me carrying daily. When I ask them what changes who I am when I carry, they say, "Nothing but it puts you at increased risk." and then when I try to probe them about that they just shut it down and say that "Guns kill people." yada yada.

I tried, I failed.... best thing I can do is just continue about my business and eventually they'll figure out that nothing bad comes of it, if anything, one day it might save my life, and then they'll have to face the facts - but the reality is that I try to stay away from trouble as much as possible, so if all goes to plan - nothing will ever happen - period.

You can't force people to see eye-to-eye on any issue, especially an emotionally-driven issue like guns.

It's like trying to force Holocaust deniers to face the reality that, yes, it happened. When there is some other issue driving an opinion, it makes seeing reality (or at least what you feel is reality) harder to do.

 

[Clipper]

So can you find out how many of those 547 other murders were committed with 'acceptable' firearms? Might put things in perspective for him. Then again it's been my experience that you could successfully argue a case before the US Supreme Court, but you can't change your dad's mind once it's made up...

 

[Tommygunn]

Well, the 99.27404718% of those who were killed by non assault weapons should be just as "ticked" that they're dead from "non" assault weapons. If you factor out the 0.725952813% who died from "assault weapons" would he then decide to ban ALL guns.

 

[waynedm]

Besides, just think of the numbers of lives we could save if we raised the drivers' license age to 21...

Agreed. At least to 18 would be nice.

 

[Steven1281]

Be glad you have a Dad around to argue with. I still miss mine.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Be glad you have a Dad around to argue with. I still miss mine.

+1. My dad got strange when we last talked about guns. I told him I wanted a .357 mag. His thought was: Don't do it, they're only for killing people. Dad was always for guns and shooting, but at this point, he was in the first stages of Alzheimer's. I changed the subject and never broached it again. I sometimes wonder what he would have thought if he'd known that I bought a .44 mag instead of a .357. Doesn't matter now as he was always my buddy. I lost him in 1987 and still miss him a lot.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Redneck

"society's rights are important as well"

This statement is flawed. Broken, actually.

Groups -- especially fuzzily described groups -- do not have rights as a group.

Now, I understand that there are arguable exceptions to this, but "society" doesn't have rights.

Individuals have rights. Society only "has rights" as a function of the rights of its individual members.

A specific grouping -- a unit, platoon, congregation, company staff, or the citizens of Ohio, only have rights as the aggregate expression of the rights of its members.

Right to life. A group doesn't have to right to life, its members do. Right to free speech. A mob doesn't have this right. Individuals do.

It's easy to attempt to confer individual rights upon a group, but it's only possible within narrow boundaries. "Mankind" doesn't have the right to own a gun, each individual man does.

"Mankind" only has the "right to survive" to the degree that individual men have the duty to ensure its survival. Wolves and lions and bears and cockroaches acknowledge no such right of humanity.

The "rights" of man are only valid to the degree they are acknowledged and sanctified by men.

When you begin to arbitrarily assign "rights" to blobs and globs of people, you impose tyranny to a greater or lesser degree on individuals.

I am a Big-Endian. I declare that all Big-Endians have the right to open the big end of a boiled egg rather than the little end. It shall be an offense against Big-Endians to be caused to witness the opening of an egg by its smaller end. Violators shall be prosecuted. (Apologies to Jonathan Swift.)

So then you carve up "society" into little sub-groups: blacks, natives, gays, women, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, farmers, urbans, and "immigrants." And you assign special rights, like the "right" not to hear a specific word, the "right" to have a special prayer moment in school, the "right" to a special holiday, and so on.

And every "right" granted to the group infringes the rights of individuals.

Did you catch that subtle mistake above? ". . . every right granted to . . ."

Every right GRANTED??

There's where it breaks. "Society" only has "rights" when a body superior to it "grants" them. And what's superior to society? Why, government, of course.

Natural rights are not granted. They can be acknowledged, protected, guarded, and enshrined, but not granted.

Once you admit of the possibility that government "grants" rights, you've bought the tyranny package.

Society is a construct, not a natural entity.

Society, thus, has no inherent natural rights.

Individuals have natural rights.

An individual's rights protect him from society's impulse to enforce conformity, to subsume the identities of its members into its own "greater identity," to subordinate the individual to the "greater good" of the whole.

Oh, gosh. This has turned into something of a rant. Sorry about that.

One final thing. In a nutshell:

Rights cannot be granted, only guarded.​