Ask An Anti

Status
Not open for further replies.
FBI Uniform Crime Report

You can ask her, "If gun control works, why has crime (per 100,000 inhabitants) increased by 313% from 1960-2006?"

Your average anti doesn't know this, because documented facts aren't real important to them. If you ever go to an anti-gun blog, you'll see that they deal in emotion, misrepresentation, general confusion and lack of knowledge regarding firearms, and lies.

Click on this link, and when you're finished, click on US Crime for a detailed breakdown.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Antis don't like it when we present them with documentation to back up our claims. Don't be surprised if she has a tantrum before it's all over, because they're big on tantrums, too.

As I'm sure has been mentioned, DC and Chicago have had gun bans for 32 and 23 years respectively. DC still boasts one of the country's highest homicide rates. There was a piece on CNN a few weeks ago, about how the DC Police are beside themselves, trying to deal with all of the illegally owned guns on the street. Criminals don't honor gun bans, it would seem.

In Chicago, street crime is rampant. I lived there myself for a year and a half, in the Gold Coast, which is a nice area. However, every Friday night, I could hear gunfire coming from Cabrini Green (notorious public housing project), only 4 blocks away. Cabrini Green is run by a drug gang called the 'Gangster Deciples'. The History Channel devoted an entire episode of "Gangland" to the Deciples, and Cabrini Green. They reported that hundreds of shootings have taken place there over the last couple of decades. I guess nobody explained the concept of a gun ban to the gangstas.

You may also want to mention that some of their anti-gun heroes are gun owning/carrying/hiring hypocrites. There's Rosie O' Donnell, who has a California CCW Permit, and who has hired armed body guards to protect her, and to accompany her children to school. When called on this, on her own blog, Rosie claimed that her case was "special", because she "spoke out against the NRA". I saw it with my own eyes. Like the NRA would hire hit-men to go after opponents. Then there is Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who both have California CCW Pemits, which are nearly impossible to get. Sen. Charles Schumer (NY) also carries. Anti-gun Jesse Jackson's entourage has enough weapons to retake Mexico, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse himself carried a gun.

And the president of the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarman, is the holder of a Federal Fireams License. The VPC is a vehement anti-gun organization, dedicated to disarming the population of this country. Josh also has a cache of "assault rifles", stashed at a suburban home (someone else's) in Arlington VA. What makes this special is that the ATF requires FFL applicants to be actively engaged in the business of firearms (selling, buying, repairing, customizing, etc.), so Josh lied to them. There were a couple of threads here on THR 2 or three weeks ago, so do a search. You can make a copy of Josh's FFL for show and tell. :D

These people are elitist hypocrites, which is quite common on the anti-gun side. They are anti-gun for everyone but themselves.
 
Ensure that you provide reliable, easily accessible sources for your factual information--perhaps print out a page for her viewing pleasure of sites such as the CDC, and so forth.

I really like the one that goes:

"Well, s/he was killed by a gun, so guns are bad."

"Knives are used to kill people, too. Why not categorize them as bad?"

I'm curious--How would you respond to the argument that "guns are designed purely for killing purposes, whereas knives are meant for less deadly purposes"? (Seriously, I heard this from my brother only yesterday... :p )
 
If she mentions "assault weapons":

Point out that more people are killed with knives and baseball bats every year than with rifles of any kind. Ask how controlling semiautomatic rifles makes us safer from people with baseball bats and knives. Point out how the Korean grocers defended their businesses during the Rodney King riots in LA with those very assault rifles from people with baseball bats, knives and bricks.
 
I'm curious--How would you respond to the argument that "guns are designed purely for killing purposes, whereas knives are meant for less deadly purposes"?

pluriuminterrogationumxk1.jpg


:p
 
I'm curious--How would you respond to the argument that "guns are designed purely for killing purposes, whereas knives are meant for less deadly purposes"?
Uh, guns ARE meant for killing purposes, that's kinda the point. Sure, there are hunting guns, and target shooting guns, but we all know the 2nd amendment isn't about shooting deer, breaking clay, or putting holes in paper at obscene ranges. Even antis know this, they just refuse to acknowledge it.
 
FWIW, you may also wanna hit the MADD site, or something similar, and get the number of folks who are killed in automobiles... Then bring up the number of people who are killed in legitimate shooting sports.

Oh, heck... Ask her which is more dangerous - a high school rifle marksmanship team, or a cheerleading squad.
 
So you want to take all the guns out of citizens hands
fair enough
you ask people to hand them in
the nice law abiding people will
CRIMINALS WON'T
YOU'VE JUST DISARMED THE % OF THE POPULATION WHO COULD BE TRUSTED WITH GUNS :banghead:
 
Good suggestions but don't expect well reasoned answers from her. It will be interesting what she bases her argument on besides select statistics and recent shooting events. If so I would try to redirect the focus on the real problem, an increasing amoral society. You could ask her why we didn't suffer these spectacular events when we could simply walk into a hardware store and purchase a gun or order one from a Sears catalog. She will not want to go there and may try a smoke screen like we don't have women's sufferage or slavery anymore thanks to progressive thought, blah blah blah. I would be ready for those but try to get her back on topic.
It won't be easy.
 
Poor girl has no idea that she's up against THR. After this is over, perhaps treo could offer a smile, a handshake anb a trip to the range!
 
I read somewhere that 95% of self defense uses of guns end without a shot being fired.

The norm for self defense with a gun is to convince the attacker that they could die if they attack. When an attacker is looking down the barrel of an Innocent's gun, he realizes that a gun is designed for killing and is usually convinced to stop his attack. This decision saves his life as well as the life of the Innocent.

The fact that guns are designed for killing is the reason that they work so well without killing.
 
Ask if she feels that all men/women are truly created equal. And when she responds in the affirmative have the largest, meanest looking person you can find, challenge her to a (insert your violent physical interaction of choice) for the contents of her wallet or pocketbook, car keys, etc., then for the right to determine who's "right" it is to decide her fate. Her's or his.

This one will probably be the most effective, especially in in making her understand. I've used this drill plenty of times, using myself as an example of the opposition. At 5'11", 180 pounds and pretty solid, someone like me would be able to overpower just about any female who does not have an equalizer like a gun or taser that she knows how to effectively employ.

It's been amazing how many of these ladies expressions went from confident to shocked and concerned when I said "what if I was to attack you right now". Of course I won't and it's a very dramatic way to make a point, but it does make that point. Very clearly.
 
Ask her if there are any other parts of the Bill of Rights she doesn't care for... when she says no, ask her how she likes the Patriot Act thus far!

This is all moot. I'm sure once you get one barbed question out there, the professor will realize his/her mistake of NOT letting you debate her, and will not let you have the floor for long at all. We they to let you debate her, all of your information and stats would be available to her beforehand, and she would be able to form a rebutal. Instead, you get to blindside her with stats that a) she's not prepared for, and b) can't dispute the validity of, due to lack of prior disclosure.

In my Sociology and Social Ethics class many years ago I got to debate someone about gun control. She was well overmatched. When I pointed out falacies in her information during the debate, even the PROFESSOR sided with me, and told her she was incorrect. One of the great things on my side, though, was that the CT state constitution specifically states that the right to bear arms is allowed explicity for self defense.

Ben
 
Sure:

Three sailors check into a hotel. The hotel owner wants $300 for the room. The guys cough up $100 each and check in. After a while the owner is thinking it is Veteran's Day and he wants to do his part. So he sends the bellhop upstairs with a $50 refund. Now the bellhop knows he can not split $50 three ways so he pockets $20 and gives ten dollars each to the sailors. This works out to the sailors paying $90 each for the room.

My question is this; If the sailors paid $90 each and the bellhop kept $20 that only comes to $290.

[3 sailors X $90= $270 + $20 = $290]

Where is the extra $10?

If she can't answer that than have her explain why all of the most free countries in the world have the highest rates of gun ownership with an explanation that does not involve the empowement of the people through force of arms.
 
The teacher says I can't debate the issue W/ her

Did a bunch of you skip this part of the OP?

Instead barbed, questions, ask real questions.

What the heck is the point of writing a debate script for the poster, when the teacher said "no debate". Was that sentence too complicated to parse? :)

If she asserts that gun control leads to less crime, instead of asking her a question that asserts facts the NRA or pro-RKBA types, ask her why she believes that gun control leads to less crime.

The teacher has set the rules - you can ask her questions that explore her argument (her assumptions, etc), but you can't ask her a series of questions intended to show she's wrong.

For those who seem to be confused, a series of questions intended to show someone they are wring is called a ... debate. Is everyone clear on that now?

I think that what teacher is suggesting is that you could ask a series of questions that explore her assumptions:

Would you be opposed to gun control if it were the case that gun control increased crime?
Are your assumptions based on moral principals or social policy?
Do you believe that there is inherently morally wrong with using a handgun for self-defense?
Are you uncomfortable with the idea of allowing the public at large access to lethal weapons?

Notice that none of these are silly attempts to prove her wrong - they are attempts to understand the assumptions she is making, without attacking the validity of those assumptions. That's the difference between "pointed questions" and a "debate".

Mike
 
Haven't we outlawed illegal drugs? Why are they around? Isn't the behavior of criminals themselves against the law? What is the ratio of lawful gun ownership to criminal activity with guns? Compare that to the % of drivers at 11:00P.M. on a Friday with some alcohol in their system. It's time to look deeper into the stats the antis give about "children killed by gunfire", to see who these 'children' really are.
 
Where is the extra $10?

If she can't answer that ...

And if she asks what that has to do with the topic of discussion, you look like an idiot who memorized a math puzzle ...

Or she sarcastically does the math on the board in front of the class, and you look like an idiot who can't do math.

Not what I would call strong move, when every outcome makes you look like a idiot.

Mike
 
well someone who believes in gun control doesn't fully understand the issue and sees things only in black and white. hence the idea all guns are bad no mater what, always forever. someone like this is easy to manipulate. since you can only ask one question make sure its one that she cannot easily wiggle out of and she will look silly trying to dance around

ask: "In 1937 Hitler said we have full gun registration, our streets will be safer. Hitler advocated gun control, so did Stalin. Are you saying Hitler and other brutal dictators of totalitarian regimes were right?" i can almost guarantee she will say " that is not what i meant " be sure to point out that yes that is what she meant then if you really want to stir the pot call her a hate mongering racist. it works for the news outlets
 
This is the biggest hammer I've found for gun control debates. Ask her this, her brain will melt.

"Given the racist, classist, sexist, ageist, anti-gay, and generally bigoted outcomes and intent of gun laws past and present, how can a liberal like myself support them? I can no more support gun control laws than support Jim Crow laws or segregated schools."
 
Maybe you should just point her to this site and this thread before she's finished with her paper. She'd probably call the whole thing off.

Nice comments for the most part folks. I particularly like the one about the Bill of Rights not once referring to "the people" and meaning some collective. Shows how little I know about these things.
 
Get a copy of John Lotts boot-More guns less crime and review some of his numbers.

Remember police are only" minutes away when seconds count"-or better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it-and cite fire extinguisher, fire insurance, auto insurance-and the person carrying.
 
She will get pro-control arguments from kids whose lives center around school sports and the teacher won't see that he or she is being a damn fool by agreeing with them. The info that these kids have about guns comes from movies and TV.
 
Plurium Interrogationum happens a lot, I'm guessing.

...I was serious. I thought my brother raised an interesting point with that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top