Debating an anti-gunner (part Deux)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trent

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
So .. I started a previous thread about debating anti-gunners in Illinois on social media sites. Talked about strategies, tactics and so on. How we need to be proactive and open towards such debates, ad nausea.

After our blatant anti-gun governor in Illinois pulled his old "switcheroo" stunt on that bill and injected his anti-gun rhetoric in to the body of it yesterday via amendment-veto...

All those anti-gunners are back out in full force.

It seems they take the Governor's position and statements as de-facto GOSPEL, and are no longer listening to rational arguments.

They're now making the SAME arguments they were before, and I'm using the SAME logic as before which (I had thought) was very persuasive, but in the end they just keep quoting our damn Governor.

"But it's for the SAFETY of the CHILDREN."

I remind them that MY children are trained shooters, and quite safe BECAUSE of firearms (not "in spite of"), and suddenly I'm perceived as a demon from hell monster because I've taught children how to SHOOT.

I'm at the end of my rope here guys.

I just can't win.
 
You're right.

Some people are not going to be swayed by an argument or a debate. You are one of those people, and so are they. It is a pointless waste of time to think you can educate the ineducable.

Stop trying to win debates. Focus your energy on educating the open minded folks who have a sincere motivation to learn.
 
Debate

About debate.....I didn't read through part one so I don't know what your depth of knowledge is. A competently prepared debater can effectively argue either side of an argument. This recognizes that both sides have a list of facts that each uses to compose their arguments. In many cases, the facts on both sides are the same, interpretation is different.
Are you capable of producing a competent argument for gun control? If not, you may be short on facts.
Pete
 
Ah.....the old, "It's for the children argument."

I always like to ask them if they own a computer and have internet access (If in person). I then ask them how they can reconcile owning such dangerous devices such as computers, cameras, etc when they can obviously be used for child pornography and by internet predators. Wouldn't they feel better going to a public place using a computer? Don't they feel like they are part of the problem by supporting companies that market these devices to everyone?
When they say that they aren't criminals I remind them that they aren't criminals right up until the point that they become one.
I ask them if they are willing to get rid of their home computer, "For the children."
 
You can never change someone's mind about an issue on which his position was reached on a purely emotional basis; his mind was not involved in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I gave up trying to reason with anti-gunners years ago. Now when questioned, I just walk away with no comment.
 
Give up. Guns kill far fewer people than either cars or doctors, but you'll never convince people that either one of them should be banned. Your best bet for your own sanity is to politely decline to argue the point.
 
Stop talking and start moving. Move to another state. If enough rational hardworking folks like you relocate to a more gun friendly environment then the antigunners who remain in your present state will have to pay for their opinions.

Yep, moving is a pain. You gotta figure out which is more painful to you...living where you are oppressed or moving to someplace where you are not. John Wayne called 'em "Pilgrims..."
 
I don't debate with antis. Many of them are basing their arguments on feelings rather than rationality and it's virtually impossible to counter emotion with reason. Some of the others seem to have a fantasy where there are no guns in the world at all, and are working on the premise that once all guns are gone the world will be safe. These people are not rational and talking with them is pointless.
One of the best responses I ever heard was just a few weeks ago while I was with a friend of mine who was talking with his 19 year old daughter. She said, "I don't like guns and I won't ever need one!" He asked her if she was willing to bet her life on that. She said, "What's that supposed to mean? I'm not betting on anything." He told her she sure was betting and she was betting her life, something that can never be replaced. She got real quiet for awhile and then said, "I never thought of it that way." I don't know if he convinced her but he sure made her think. Maybe she changed her mind. At any rate, he says she quit with the anti-gun talk and hasn't said a word about it since.
 
Pete - Damn good point. I totally forgot about the lessons I learned in school on how to formulate a proper debate. Time to study up on gun control. :)

J-Bar (and others) - Have to stay close to my servers, datacenters, and livelihood. Just can't relocate all of that on a dime.

Besides, I'm not going to give up and leave my home because some people want to take away my rights.

Washington, Jefferson, et al, didn't just keep moving West to get away from British influence and control. They valued their freedoms enough to stay put and slug it out.

I hold gun owners who still fight the good fight in California in very high esteem, compared to someone who just up and trucks their family off to Vermont or whatever. Why? Because they're not giving up.

If we all give up and move to more friendly states, what happens? In the end the states with the most electoral votes, and no gun owners (E.g. California, Illinois, etc) will push their agenda on EVERYONE else at the Federal level.
 
"Washington, Jefferson, et al, didn't just keep moving West to get away from British influence and control. They valued their freedoms enough to stay put and slug it out."

When you decide to follow Washington's and Jefferson's example and take up arms against the government that you find oppressive, I wish you luck.
 
J-bar - Metaphorical only. I wasn't proposing taking up arms against anyone (thought that was clear by my post's phrasing). What I was stating is those guys were willing to lay down their LIVES for what they believe in, if it became necessary.

I'm not going to run away from this problem. People who just want to "move away" to a better place, will lose, in the end.

Consider this absurdly impossible scenario:

If ALL pro-gunners moved to one big happy state and lived in peace together, leaving the other 49 states full of anti-gunners, how long do you think it would take the other 49 states to strip that one state of their remaining freedoms? The fact is there's still "more of them" than there are "of us".

No, we need to continue to fight in EVERY state, ESPECIALLY in the draconian restrictive AWB states.
 
Amen. I get darn tired of being told to leave ground my family has owned for 150 years. Most people today are locusts. They move around for jobs. They have no roots. Worried more about their property value, and salery than anything else. I could make a ton more money somewhere else. But I grew up here, visited this house (maternal grandparents) since I was born. I'll be darned if I'm leaving because some morons in Chicago disagree with my way of life. I disagree with theirs, but you don't see me trying to legislate them out of it. The tides are turning. It is becoming en vougue to prosocute corruption. We have 2 CONSECUTIVE govornors in PRISON. And the sentancing judge said he would make the sentences longer till they got the message, WE"RE SICK OF IT!
 
Anti-gun arguments are based upon an emotionally immature fear of guns or the fear of the power a person with a gun has. They are NOT based on saving lives, safety, lowering crime, or interpretation of the Constitution. They don't care about any of those things. They are just scared of guns. When you realize this and tailor your arguments accordingly you will be more successful. Honestly, I think the only way to change their minds is to take a anti to the range. Teach them about guns first and go from there.

If you think about it, they are afraid of inanimate objects. They are attributing actions, feelings, evil, violence, etc......to an inanimate object that is incapable of any of the attributes they give it. Their argument is irrational from the beginning.
 
2ndAmFan: Antigunners "seem to have a fantasy where there are no guns in the world at all, and are working on the premise that once all guns are gone the world will be safe. "

No seem to it. Carl Bakal in "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You" 1959 spun a dream of a world where deaths due to shooting recedes to the vanishing point as all the guns are rounded up. And presumably pried from the cold dead hands of the owners who would refuse to surrender them.

A guy in my hometown killed a woman in a boarding house just up the street from me and sometime later killed two people in their home. He used a knife and a baseball bat. I am sure he and many criminals like him would feel safer in a gun-free world. I would not feel safer. A gun is not a big advantage to a vicious attacker, but it is a big advantage to a defender. The antis cannot understand that.
 
Of course we agree; neither of us is suggesting taking up arms.

But my point is, you are having difficulty convincing friends and neighbors that their anti-gun views are irrational. How much luck are you going to have with your governor?

I believe pro second amendment citizens can have an impact by removing their tax dollars from a state that is anti-gun, and moving to a pro-gun state. California and Illinois are already hurting for tax money. The pro gun people who remain in those states are feeding the monster, not changing its mind.

Each individual has to decide for themselves. I had a career change 10 years ago, after a 3 three job search. During those 3 years I had financially attractive offers in states that I did not want to move to. I waited until I found a job in a fairly gun friendly state which matched my career goals.

At the end of a person's career, they will have to look back and decide whether they sold out or not. I am satisfied that I did not. Your role models, Washington and Jefferson, pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. That is a tough ideal for any of us to follow. You have to decide if continuing to give your tax dollars to a state government that you oppose is consistent with your role models. It's a tough choice to make. Good luck with it.
 
Never debate any anitgunners, they are too stupid and nuts to reason with. They will discard any logical argument and no matter what info you share with them, they will ignore. They are not worth your time to debate with.
 
Anti-gun arguments are based upon an emotionally immature fear of guns or the fear of the power a person with a gun has. They are NOT based on saving lives, safety, lowering crime, or interpretation of the Constitution. They don't care about any of those things. They are just scared of guns. When you realize this and tailor your arguments accordingly you will be more successful. Honestly, I think the only way to change their minds is to take a anti to the range. Teach them about guns first and go from there.

If you think about it, they are afraid of inanimate objects. They are attributing actions, feelings, evil, violence, etc......to an inanimate object that is incapable of any of the attributes they give it. Their argument is irrational from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Remember...I am on your side. I own about seventy-five firearms and store lots of ammo. (Qualifies me for one of those headlines: "Secret Arsenal Discovered in Private Home".)
That being the case....your comments sell the other side short and that is a danger. Yes, there may be some immature fear of power, etc. but to attribute that to all of those folks who oppose gun ownership is a mistake. Likewise, to say that "they" do not care about saving lives, safety, lowering crime, etc. is a hasty generalization. Many, I submit, do care about those things very fervently.
About that fear of inanimate object idea.....we get stuck on that old ploy because it is so convenient...."guns don't kill people; people kill people", and then we cite the for instance of the guy down the street who killed his ex-girlfriend with a knife and another who bludgeoned a person to death with a bat.
We have to do better than that. Pretty obviously, a firearm makes whoever is intending mayhem a way more efficient killer than someone armed with a knife. Cite an example of a mass killing with a knife that is on the scale of Viriginia Tech (32 dead, 17 wounded), Ft. Hood (13 dead, 29 wounded), or the recent shootings in Aurora (12 dead, 58 wounded).
Knife? Baseball bat? Not.
You know that the idea that pops up in the anti- gunner's mind is that prohibiting gun ownership would at least have made each of those, not impossible, but less likely.
Not recognizing what the real concerns are in the antis arguments and focusing on the irrational parts lends itself to irrationality.
Pete (shooter, Reloader, hunter, NRA life member)
PS - 09/11/2001.....all done without firearms.
 
Last edited:
The debate is always "What are gun owners going to give up this time?". It is never framed as "What are the limits of government power?"
 
Random thoughts, no particular order:

The "guns don't kill people" idea was framed in Roman times by Seneca as "The sword is not a killer. The sword is a tool in the hand of a killer."

A good friend of mine's wife was very anti-gun. One day he asked me to take the two of them to the range, since he had his wife convinced to at least give it a try. I brought my wife along, and we started her out with a Single Six and worked around to my wife's 38 and even a couple of shots with my 45. The experience wasn't anything like she expected, and she had a great time. She went home a converted shooter. One hour for a complete flip.

My younger daughter, anti-gun, gazed out her bedroom window in the middle of the night to see three people (turned out to be druggies) trying to get in the back door. SIL moved to protect the younger kids, and she went flying down the stairs to protect their teen-age daughter. Halfway downstairs, she realized that if they did get in, the only thing between them and her was her pajamas. That flip took about half a second. Next morning, she demanded and got the loan of her mother's 38, pending purchase of her own. It was kind of cute to see her get in touch with her inner mother bear.
 
the government doesn't give a damned about your children's safety. they only care about controlling your children's lives (and, therefore, your's). "safety" is just an excuse.

murf
 
I will add that some of the anti-gun people do indeed care about human life BUT thier opinion of gun control laws is not BASED on that feeling but rather on their own personal fear of weapons. If they TRULY cared about human life they would respect people's ability to defend their life rather than denying it.

An anti-gunner will claim they care about saving lives when they talk about banning AR15s even though there is no reason to believe that infringement on people rights with actually accomplish that. The truth is the goal isn't to save lives, the truth is they are afraid of AR15s and the thought of banning them will make them feel better. They don't care if only a few criminals will have them, they care only there is fewer of them in ANYBODY'S hands so they feel safer. Their arguments are base on fear and their ignorance of weapons. The only people, in my book, who truly care about human life are those who are willing to defend it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Trent
  • Locked
Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
5K
Neverwinter
N
A
  • Locked
Why are they still fighting against CCW?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
P
  • Locked
How to debate with anti-gunners
Replies
8
Views
678
KriegHund
K
D
  • Locked
A Debate with an anti Caught on tape!
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Joe Demko
J
J
  • Locked
Anti-gun lobby venom
Replies
14
Views
810
Justin
Justin
Back
Top