closet anti - frustrating

[silicosys4]

I just finished having an argument with a friend of mine who is self described as "pro gun" but being in favor of "common sense".
His argument revolves around his personal experiences. He was convicted of a B&E felony at age 19 in which he was "cheated" into getting a felony when the homeowner overestimated the damage value on paper when his friends and him broke into his house and were caught. Smaller damage value = non-felony charge. It was just a one time thing, stupid kid thing, supposedly, and since then he has kept clean, stayed employed, and gone to school, but his mistake cost him.
Basically he used GZ's recent shenanigans to start an argument about the merit of further 2a restrictions based on "irresponsible gun owners and mental patients"
He basically feels that "bad" and "irresponsible" gun owners should have their 2A rights completely removed immediately, and that "babbling mental patients" should have their 2A rights completely revoked. He said that "the government can be trusted to decide who's "crazy" and who's not, and that arguing otherwise is redneck paranoia.
His definition of "bad and irresponsible" gun ownership would be "carrying your gun in public, hurting people, and scaring people."
He said he has seen "plenty of people who are crazy and own guns". When I asked if those people had hurt anyone or done anything illegal he said no, but common sense says they should have their 2a rights revoked anyways, and so should other crazy people. I asked him if he was aware that hurting people was illegal and carried penalties of the law up to and including felony charges that restrict 2a rights for those convicted of the appropriate level of violent or nonviolent crime, and he said it wasn't enough, we need to be proactive....that current penalties for irresponsible gun owners weren't strict enough.
I reminded him that due to his felony charge for a nonviolent crime he committed not involving a gun that he was unable to own guns, and that he often argued against the restrictions to his life in that regard, how did he think other people who were convicted of non violent "irresponsible" gun useage not already defined as illegal should be penalized?
The argument went downhill rapidly from there, with his last words being " so you think some 19 year old kid (himself at his felony) should be restricted but not raving lunatics? Just the wild Wild West out there? Some friend." At that point I was done and just turned my back and walked away.

How do you successfully argue with the "pro gun" anti? The guy who plays holier than thou and feels what's good for the goose is not good for the gander? I'm honestly pretty much done with the guy as I've taken big steps to make progress with his attitude, and always it comes back to some stupid argument that involves restricting someone else's right for "common sense" while restoring his rights that were removed for what I believe is a justified punishment.

 

[Mauserguy]

I can’t state whether your friend is a good man today, but I can state, as a recent victim of a residential burglary that it is not a “non-violent’ crime. Burglary is inherently violent. In my case, a burglar, presumably one individual or set of individuals, have been terrorizing my neighborhood. In one case, he crushed a family dog to death under a small fire safe.

I know, we are all supposed to presume people have good intentions and we’re to understand how difficult their childhood was, but frankly, if somebody breaks into my house, I’ll assume that they are a threat to my family and myself and I’ll deal with them with appropriately, not with understanding.

Your friend is very wrong. He committed a major crime and should feel lucky to be alive today.
Mauserguy

 

[Warp]

So he's a convicted felon who wants to take away other's gun rights because he is frustrated at his own situation. He isn't pro gun.

19 years is not a kid, and at 19 years old you know better than to break into somebody's house.

Play stupid games...

PS: As a convicted felon he cannot vote, correct? There are probably more useful people to spend time and energy on.

 

[danez71]

How do you successfully argue with the "pro gun" anti? The guy who plays holier than thou and feels what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?

This is my theory and what Ive done in life.

When the "holier than thou" and "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander" talk comes out I politely point it out... and keep pointing it out.

Eventually, the person either comes around or they stop associating with me.

 

[KTXdm9]

So he's a convicted felon who wants to take away other's gun rights because he is frustrated at his own situation. He isn't pro gun.

19 years is not a kid, and at 19 years old you know better than to break into somebody's house.

Play stupid games...

PS: As a convicted felon he cannot vote, correct? There are probably more useful people to spend time and energy on.

I'm with Warp.

 

[barnbwt]

His argument revolves around his personal experiences. He was convicted of a B&E felony

I find his faith in a system which he asserts screwed him over...disturbing. His world view is obviously founded in projection, and his early blunders have obviously left him rejecting his God-given ability to regulate his own behavior; therefore he trusts no one else's ability to regulate their behavior, either.

We've had this debate since Hobbes and Locke, and the two camps are ultimately divided into those whose experiences have caused them to lose faith in the human race, and those who think we are capable of ascension. Animals destined either for domestication or enlightenment.

"When the "holier than thou" and "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander" talk comes out I politely point it out... and keep pointing it out."
In my experience, "soft anti's" (the kind who aren't fire-breathing armored crustaceans) usually haven't thought very hard or in depth about the gun issue. Their opinions are "gut instincts" founded in personal anecdote, rumor, and emotion. Thus, their logic is full of holes and contradictions. But, having not thought through the topic in a purposeful manner and proven each point of their world view, they are not aware of the flaws in their reasoning. Helping them identify these (which is not rubbing them in their face )will help them work past their errors of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion they can actively believe in (and not simply parrot).

For instance, I recently came across an excellent hip-hop act by the name of Latyrx, with a very passionate, positive message of empowerment and the need of the under-served to rise to meet their full potential and responsibility in the world --and gun control. Massive dissonance in those messages, but I'll bet it never occurred to the artists (unless that message was dropped in by label producers --always a possibility)

I convinced myself of my 'radical' pro-gun views almost immediately upon thinking critically about the topic, and have seen precious little logic that changed my calculus since then, though I strive to remain open to thoughtful opposing opinions on the matter (few and far between, I've found). Not bad for a guy who once thought 9mm handguns should be banned instead of assault rifles (which is more faux-logical from an anti-crime-statistics perspective, but suffers the same lack of actual analytical thought about human behavior). Therefore, logically, another person who follows a similar logical progression through the topic should inevitably wind up with the same conclusion. 1+1=2

I may not agree with Ayn Rand on all things, but she was dead on in saying "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

TCB

 

[stressed]

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Akita1]

On the surface, sounds like he never grew up.

 

[Davek1977]

I tend not to worry about the opinions of those who cannot own guns, nor vote to keep anyone else from owning guns. A convicted felon isn't high on my list of people I need to "convert" to my way of thinking in regards to guns and/or gun control. I have never been a saint myself, but I knew as well at 19 as I do at 36 that breaking into homes and stealing the property of others is wrong, and someone who is convinced they got screwed by the system because it was overstated how MUCH they stole/damaged (not calling into question that they did indeed commit the offense) obliviously suffers from a self-centered (some may say victim-like) logic that common sense and facts won't ever be able to change. He thinks his way of thinking is rational, and that anyone not in agreement is obviously wrong on every level, facts be darned. You can't debate people like this and expect to ever change their minds. He's "right" and he knows he's right...damned anyone who contradicts his fantasy narrative.

 

[fallout mike]

You can't fix stupid...

 

[Schwing]

I usually just point out that hoplophobia (the fear of weapons) is a valid mental disorder... anyone diagnosed with it should not buy a gun

 

[armoredman]

At age 19 I was wearing my countries' uniform. I'm no saint by any means, but anyone who blames "youthful indiscretions" at that age is full of it.

 

[MedWheeler]

How do you argue with him? You don't. He's bitter at his own self-created situation, a victim of his immaturity at that age (and that likely continues) and at the very laws he so strongly supports.

At 15, I joined the local fire department. At 17, I was graduating from high school, and enlisted in the US Army, with a report date set for just after my 18th birthday. I was also working from just before my fifteenth birthday.

In Florida, burglary (so-called "B&E") is a felony whether or not anything is even stolen.

 

[rdhood]

I find his faith in a system which he asserts screwed him over...disturbing. His world view is obviously founded in projection, and his early blunders have obviously left him rejecting his God-given ability to regulate his own behavior; therefore he trusts no one else's ability to regulate their behavior, either.

Bingo. Further, he believes that if the world were "fair", then government would take guns away from all of those who (he perceives) committed "worse" offenses than his "paper felony"... or else allow him to have guns.

He has a point.. and he may even be right in that government SHOULD take guns away from some number of mentally deficient folk. But" 1) the world is inherently unfair, 2) whether or not he believes his felony is a paper felony , he committed the crime and now he has to pay.

Some of us believe that once you have done your time , you ought to have your constitutional rights restored. Some of us believe that should only apply to non-violent offenses. So your friend has sympathy in the gun community for rights restoration. He should operate from THAT viewpoint, rather than the "by comparison I'm a good guy" position. He is not winning any friends in our community with that argument.

 

[9MMare]

IMO he realized he cant trust his own judgement and so he doesnt trust anyone else's either.

 

[itsa pain]

I can’t state whether your friend is a good man today, but I can state, as a recent victim of a residential burglary that it is not a “non-violent’ crime. Burglary is inherently violent. In my case, a burglar, presumably one individual or set of individuals, have been terrorizing my neighborhood. In one case, he crushed a family dog to death under a small fire safe.

I know, we are all supposed to presume people have good intentions and we’re to understand how difficult their childhood was, but frankly, if somebody breaks into my house, I’ll assume that they are a threat to my family and myself and I’ll deal with them with appropriately, not with understanding.

Your friend is very wrong. He committed a major crime and should feel lucky to be alive today.
Mauserguy

The law and order guys that preach fire and brimstone for others seem to have a very different outlook when their kid runs afoul of the law. Then every stop is pulled out every excuse is made for the kids innocence. I have seen this many times

 

[km101]

I will have to say that age 19 is legal adult status in most states and is no longer "youthful indiscretion". He seems to be taking the stance that he is not responsible for his actions ie: he feels screwed by the system. So he want the system to screw everyone else?

I think I would find others to associate with.

 

[HexHead]

Sour grapes. You might want to rethink your friendship.

 

[SC Shooter]

You should have higher standards for friends. I don't care that 19 year olds can stay on Daddy's insurance, he's still a man and should be acting accordingly. B& E is not a silly Indiscretion. And to try to put the blame on the owner for overstating the values of the goods stolen, defies the imagination. Get new friends.