Ask An Anti

Status
Not open for further replies.
City of Kennesaw 1981 (Year Before Gun Law Passed)
Population: 5,242
Total Part 1 Crimes: (per 100,000 pop): 4,332

City of Kennesaw 2005
Population: 28,189
Total Part 1 Crimes (per 100,000): 2,027 -7% from 2004
Click to expand...

I just saw the "per 100, 000" there. So am I correct in thinking that there were 270 or so Part 1 Crimes in 1981, and 570 or so Part 1 crimes in 2005?

Mike
 
I have found more stats - with a link

http://www.disastercenter.com/georgia/crime/2285.htm

The number of violent crimes increased from 13 in 1980 to 36 in 2005, while the population grew from 5,084 to 28,189.

So the population increased by about 486%, where violent crime went up by about 276%.

Violent crime per 100,000 people bounced all over the place between 1980 and 2005. It drop in 1985, tripled by 1990, dropped again by 2000, jumped again in 2001, dropped in 2003, and jumped again in 2005.

If the law hasn't changed that frequently in Kennesaw, then something else must be causing those changes. It's probably not an apples to apples comparison. A city that more than quadrupled its population in 25 years may have seen a lot of changes in the economics an diversity.

I don't know anything about Kennesaw. Is the 500% increase in population because it changed from a mostly rural town to a suburb of some bigger city?

For comparison, note that the violent crime in oen of the cities with the worst gun laws - NYC - dropped pretty dramatically in the same period.

Violent Crime per 100,000
NYC Kennesaw
1980 2125.8 255.7
2005 673.1 127.7

% Decrease 68% 50%

Property Crimes look about the same (NYC decreasing more rapidly between 1980 and 2005 than Kennesaw

Property Crime per 100,000
NYC Kennesaw
1980 7968.4 3638.9
2005 2002.4 1933.4

%Decrease 75% 47%

Not sure how strong Kennesaw looks as an example, but I am no whiz at stats.

Mike
 
Ask her if she realizes the two latest school shooting in Israel were stopped by teachers (incident #1) and a student (the last attack) with guns, by shooting the attacker.
 
Best advice I have is let her say her piece, while making notes, and then go point by point down the list and discredit every point and statistic. When she blows up, pause and let her rant a bit, then continue in a calm manner. By the time you get to the end of the list, she'll be totally livid. Remember, don't turn it into an arguement.

An old guy once told me - Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Then record this and play it for her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A

When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes......
 
Superlite, the two sides in the pro/con RKBA debate are obviously deeply polarized. Those who are "anti-gun" are not so different from us in that they are familiar with all the arguments and have stocked up on the rebuttals. The girl presenting the dissertation may very well prepare to deal with opposing viewpoints in much the same way that the OP is - assuming (prudently) that she is as passionate about her POV as we are about ours.

P.S. - I am curious to hear how it all pans out.
 
Ask her if she's comfortable fist-fighting an assailant.

If she uses anything silly like "that's what the police are for," counter
Click to expand...

with "In 95% of this country police response times are five minutes or more. Do you think you will be able to hold your own with a 250 pound felon for that long?"

ECS
 
If we've got to ban guns from citizens' hands because of what criminals do with them, then we've also got to ban military weaponry from all nations around the world, because no matter how many aren't being used to slaughter millions today, there were many in the near past that abused their "gun rights" to murder millions; and even today, if the citizens of North Korea were all armed, they'd easily overthrow the corrupt government ran by Kim Jong Il; since the citizens of North Korea are unarmed, they're essentially slaves now. Hitler would not have had such an easy time in slaughtering people if they were all armed; Stalin wouldn't have had such an easy time slaughtering so many people, if they were all armed; the U.S. of A. wouldn't be here right now, if citizens weren't armed back during the Revolutionary War.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment because they knew how important it was for all good citizens to be armed, to thus protect their liberties. Our freedom is not protected by mere paper with words written on them, nor by our current military! But solely by ourselves being independently courageous with our own will and strength to stand up for what is right on a daily basis... with guns in our hands.

The 2nd Amendment was written solely because the founding fathers knew better than to ignorantly trust government with all the power of arms alone. They knew if the citizens were armed, even if/when the government disobeyed the Bill of Rights (which is law government MUST obey, or else...), then the people are there to literally 'police' the government back into service with which they were voted in to perform... "or else."

What are words of protest, without the might of arms to back them up? Words alone are useless when it comes to trying to talk criminals into morality. You need to show and have force in this world, if you want to protect yourself from tyranny, whether private or government tyranny.

So many today are so ignorantly shortsighted about why we have firearms in citizens' hands in the first place.

Some actually think it was only for hunting. I'd love to laugh in their face, if I ever meet them.

Others say the 2nd Amendment is supposedly outdated (wow, talk about ignorance) because it was only because the U.S. needed many militiamen to fight off foreign governments back when America wasn't as regulated as it is today.

Others mainly think it's for protection against private criminals. <-- That goes without saying, once you consider the main and literal reason We The People have guns: To protect the people from corrupt, criminal government.

You tell her: You can argue crime statistics 'til you're blue in the face, but private crime has nothing to do with why the 2nd Amendment was written! It all has to do with GOVERNMENT criminals, and our protection from them!

I heard people saying George W. Bush said the Constitution is simply a GD piece of paper? You know what? He's right... it is only a piece of paper... if all citizens are unarmed and defenseless. Government doesn't listen to paper and ink; government has no morals! Government believes themselves to be the moral superior, and thinks themselves to be the rulers of the land! What is paper and ink, spelling out "Bill of Rights", to mean, when the people are too ignorant, too scared, too complacent, too UNARMED enough not to protect that Bill BY FORCE?

So, you see... having guns in our hands goes much deeper than mere private criminals breaking into our house, my friends.
 
Update

Had the "debate" I won the rest of the class was actually laughing
A transcript is posted in the thread "Ask An Anti Reprise"
 
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Ronald Reagan
 
i dread arguing with an anti.

its like trying to teach a hamster to ballence a check-book, you can spend hours doing it, and youll still be deadling with a simple minded being.

most anti are too brainwashed, or ignorant.

when it boils down to it, i can say this: we have guns, and they dont, if you want our guns come and take 'em.

but that aint the attitude to have now is it?

i dont remember who had it, but somebodys quote said something like:
"the fear of weapons denounts both a mental and sexual immaturity"
something along those lines...

we all fall back on the if guns cause crime, then pencils make mistakes blah, blah.

i find it funny that people only attack guns, (small % of which are used in crime)

and yet they dont try to ban cars (drunk driving)

tobacco/alchahol (drug related death and disease)

there was this person in my class, your typical "hippie" type. coexist stickers on this person's car and notebooks, vegetarian, anti-hunting, anti-gun. That person started arguing with me one day, so i says "if you really want all people to coexist, why the hell are you trying to take away my hobbies and passons, and destroy my way of life?"

i swear, the look on that persons face was priceless...
 
I always ask them why the majority of U.S. citizens believe that the Constitution grants people the right to bear arms. Their argument usually goes something like this, "Everyone else in America is wrong and somehow I am smarter than everyone." Or "The Constitution is a living document..." All of which just leaves little moments for you to make her look stupid and therefore countering the effects of her "persuasive" speech. Nothing ruins an argument better than making the speaker look stupid.
 
"You don't need a semi automatic rifle to hunt deer with."

You could go into how the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting deer but reason and logic often fail.

I find it easier to deal with many of the anti gunners on a more emotional basis. Try to equate their statement to something they might like to do. "You don't need a bull horn to stage a protest either."

"I don't need a gun, that's what the police are for."

Much more effective if you can make it personal. "If your daughter/sister/mother was being attacked by a murderer/thug/fill in the blank bad guy, wouldn't you want them to have a gun to be able to save their life?"
I find it best to use someone else in that question because so many seem to say they would rather die first, but aren't so quick to make a loved one a martyr.

Most important, don't argue just to win or to crush their spirit. We don't want more "enemies", the goal should be to win them over. Try to be gentle yet bold.
 
Final Update

If you're really interested I actually did win the "debate". The professor actually invovked the mercy rule after about 15 minutes.

The anti inquestion is now considering buying a firearm due to a rising crime rate.
How weird is that?
 
The City of Kennesaw is about 10 minutes away from me- and is part of Metro Atlanta. I never hear about violent crime there, but then again, the City I live in, Acworth, has a law stating every landowner must own a rake... Plus, there is little violent crime in the whole area, despite a large population growth/influx from being so close to Atlanta. Last year, the city of Woodstock had their first murder in over 10 years. (Less than a 15 mile difference)

In case youre wondering, a "cabin on the outskirts of town" would be tricky. It is pretty packed.
 
If you're really interested I actually did win the "debate". The professor actually invovked the mercy rule after about 15 minutes.

The anti inquestion is now considering buying a firearm due to a rising crime rate.
How weird is that?
Click to expand...

@ treo: :cool: Thumbs up. Sounds like you did good.
 
In 2006 Switzerland had 12 deaths from firearms for every million of its ihnabitants. Netherland and had 15 per million, Canada and Australia 20, Finland 24, and the USA 56.

Switzerland is the country with the lowest crime rate of all studied countries..

When you know that Switzerland is one of the country of the world with most firearms per inhabitants, you'll understand that there is NO link at all from prohibitive laws and an improvement of situation concerning violent crimes.

It's even the opposit. Great Britain, where handguns were banned like 10 years ago, sees its guncrime statistic peridically and dramatically increase !


In Great Britain, even if the guncrime is half the US guncrime, it has increased of 50% in the 90's , going from 10 for every millions of inhabitants, to 15 in 2000. The guncrime increase is impressive since the new1988 laws, and even more the 1997 legislation. From 1997, all handguns were banned after the Dunbane killing, in Scotland. Even though, guncrimes commited with handguns are increasing.
Click to expand...

I have pages and pages of such statistics. I only need to translate them if you need them. Just tell me.
 
The pure fact that THE MOST DANGEROUS cities in America are the ones with the stiffest gun laws should be evidence of the fact that gun laws A) don't work and B) are counter productive.

In the average year, 200-300 shooting homicides occur in Washington DC or Chicago or Los Angeles, yet handguns are basically illegal there. How does an anti-gun person explain this? Guns are already illegal and that doesn't magically save people.

Yet other large cities where guns are legal are not nearly as dangerous.
 
I've brought up that exact point with anti's. What they usually do is this: they don't believe me, and they ask for an official reference for those statistics. In person, the only thing you can say is "well, you're just going to have to trust me, or look it up yourself - I can't make the statistics appear right in front of me." The anti will probably just look skeptical and feel like they've won the debate. Another thing that they say is, "well, guns should be outlawed everywhere, that way they can't just go to another state and get a gun."
 
Forget facts, go emotional

Liberals are indoctrinated with being "pro choice"

You say to them, do you have a right to control your body? You know their answer.

You say do you have a right to protect your body? If they answer no, just look at them with a confused dumb look and say "Okay".

Assuming they agree that personal protection is okay, ask them what they suggest.

Martial arts, don't have time to study.
Mace, Doesn't work.
Stun guns, Don't want to get that close
Knives Got to get too close, it will be taken away from me.

Then you say, how about a gun.
Then listen to all the reasons not to.

When they say guns are ineffective, you say, good point, I'll take training.

When they say dial 911, you say I could shoot an attacker X amount of times before I would get a response from a 911 call.

Besides, if you are a bad person, if you put out bad Karma, bad Karma will come back to you. If you run into me, it could be 3 to 9 rounds of 230 JHP 45ACPs.

Nicki
 
Here are some very effective points I found on John Ross' website. Too often I find myself arguing the wrong point in response to the staples of the anti-gun people. I may be factually correct (I am an engineer after all) but I'm missing the mark when it comes to making the point to "those people". Mr. Ross came up with (I think) some more effective ways to argue the usual points. Still factually correct and all, but much more effective. (Now if I could just get him to help me advocate for nuclear power! As an ex-Navy nuke, I find the situation much the same as with guns, the same kind of irrational anti-s causing problems. Arguing the facts gets nowhere with them. In fact one of them with no science or operational experience told me once "I choose not to believe you.")

Anyway, back on topic, and pasted below from his site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070115025334/www.john-ross.net/mistakes.htm

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.

Let me give some common examples I've often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:


THEY SAY: We d be better off if no one had guns.

WE SAY: You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns. (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.



THEY SAY: Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they re only for killing people.

WE SAY: I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah. (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: Your claim that they re only for killing people is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they re good practice.



THEY SAY: If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.

WE SAY: Studies have shown blah blah blah (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don t we throw out the Fifth Amendment" We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?



THEY SAY: I don t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.

WE SAY: It doesn t do any good, criminals don t wait five days, it s a waste of resources blah blah blah. (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)


WE SHOULD SAY: Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a safe one with the government as chief nanny.



THEY SAY: In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.

WE SAY: Uh, well, uh...


WE SHOULD SAY: Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.



THEY SAY: We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let s put that aside for a moment. It s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don t need to do anything if you don t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.


FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: You know, I m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.

THEY SAY: Hunh?

YOU SAY: Well, passing this proposal won t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?
Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross 9/14/05
Click to expand...
 
What they usually do is this: they don't believe me, and they ask for an official reference for those statistics. In person, the only thing you can say is "well, you're just going to have to trust me, or look it up yourself - I can't make the statistics appear right in front of me." The anti will probably just look skeptical and feel like they've won the debate.
Click to expand...
Why not memorize the source?

If somebody asks me to provide a source, I give them one - e.g. Department of Justice/BATF/etc. study conducted in year XYZ. If possible, I'll even write it down. "Look it up." :)

In any argument or debate where facts are brought into question (most of them, I'd imagine), precision sells - and winning is a debate isn't at all about convincing your opponent, it's about convincing the audience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Ask An Anti Reprise The Great Debate (Not)
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Treo
T
T
  • Locked
Need help with gun control arguments.
Replies
24
Views
932
Sheslinger
S
P
  • Locked
My wife stuck it to the anti-gun bigots!
Replies
8
Views
1K
winstonsmith
W
M
  • Locked
Holocaust Day in History Class
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
6K
sniper5
S
O
  • Locked
Pro/Anti family members?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
USAF_Vet
U
Back
Top