armoredman, I couldn't figure out how to quote your picture & get it to come up, but I am TOTALLY ripping this off later. Just so's you know.armoredman said:
Debating an anti-gunner (part Deux)
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
One of my coworkers pretty much hates guns, and always will. It doesn't matter if there are other tools (even if you bring up something more deadly, like a bomb). It doesn't matter if there are other reasons to use them. She has flat-out told me she doesn't care to learn, and guns are a freedom we shouldn't have. She carries weapons in self defense (melee weapons), but hates guns. There will never be any convincing her.
armoredman
Member
Spats, feel free. 
Thanks for the compliment.
Skribs, give your co-worker the website Kult of Athena, plenty of good melee weapons there, ask her if they would be good concealed carry weapons? I would prefer the small sword or warhammer, myself.
Thanks for the compliment.Skribs, give your co-worker the website Kult of Athena, plenty of good melee weapons there, ask her if they would be good concealed carry weapons? I would prefer the small sword or warhammer, myself.
JustinJ
Member
If one is not open to hearing another's point of view why expect others to be open to theirs? If one can't defend their position but refuses to change their mind that is close minded. Works both ways. One should always be open to being swayed by debate if a better reasoning is provided.
FireInCairo
member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 710
To the OP: I'm going to send you a PM.
Last edited:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
"Minority"
There is a tendency, it seems, to assume that we (the pro-liberty, pro-gun crowd) are somehow in the minority.
I would like to point out that this is a flawed perception.
The fact that the majority of people in the population don't want to run your life, have no desire to meddle in the affairs of others, and are not busybodies, tends to bias government in favor of the busybodies. There is a significant percentage -- but not a majority -- of the population who fret endlessly about what other people do, and feel that other people must be regulated.
A government by such folks is called (citing Jeff Copper now) a "polypragmonocracy" (see here).
Step back and take a deep breath.
There may be more busybodies in government, there may be more anti-gunners in that sphere, but they do not represent the majority. Unhappily, the majority are busy with their lives, and too often cannot be roused to slap down the busybodies, which lands us in places like artificial cultures where Nerf and bubble wrap are the solutions.
You want do disarm me? Hey, that tune is so familiar . . . wait . . . oh, yeah: that's been the song of every dictator in the last century, commonly preceding genocide and ethnocide. So, since you feel I should be disarmed, what horror do you have planned for me, against which I should be unable to defend?
Hey, you don't want to defend yourself, knock yourself out; just leave me out of that, okay?
So, you have a phobia. Fine. You're afraid of guns. Freud had some remarks on that. Me, I have a different phobia. I fear the tyranny that so predictably follows the disarming of the people. In fact, what a coincidence, our country's founders had a similar fear. Actually, the prospect of being disarmed bothered them so much, they amended the Constitution prior to ratifying it. Yeah. Disarming the people. Horrible idea.
Tell you what. I'm not a busybody, and I don't try to dictate how others live their lives. As long as you don't try to foist your fears on me and try to constrain how I live MY life according to your own private phobias, we can get along. Deal?
There is a tendency, it seems, to assume that we (the pro-liberty, pro-gun crowd) are somehow in the minority.
I would like to point out that this is a flawed perception.
The fact that the majority of people in the population don't want to run your life, have no desire to meddle in the affairs of others, and are not busybodies, tends to bias government in favor of the busybodies. There is a significant percentage -- but not a majority -- of the population who fret endlessly about what other people do, and feel that other people must be regulated.
A government by such folks is called (citing Jeff Copper now) a "polypragmonocracy" (see here).
Step back and take a deep breath.
There may be more busybodies in government, there may be more anti-gunners in that sphere, but they do not represent the majority. Unhappily, the majority are busy with their lives, and too often cannot be roused to slap down the busybodies, which lands us in places like artificial cultures where Nerf and bubble wrap are the solutions.
You want do disarm me? Hey, that tune is so familiar . . . wait . . . oh, yeah: that's been the song of every dictator in the last century, commonly preceding genocide and ethnocide. So, since you feel I should be disarmed, what horror do you have planned for me, against which I should be unable to defend?
Hey, you don't want to defend yourself, knock yourself out; just leave me out of that, okay?
So, you have a phobia. Fine. You're afraid of guns. Freud had some remarks on that. Me, I have a different phobia. I fear the tyranny that so predictably follows the disarming of the people. In fact, what a coincidence, our country's founders had a similar fear. Actually, the prospect of being disarmed bothered them so much, they amended the Constitution prior to ratifying it. Yeah. Disarming the people. Horrible idea.
Tell you what. I'm not a busybody, and I don't try to dictate how others live their lives. As long as you don't try to foist your fears on me and try to constrain how I live MY life according to your own private phobias, we can get along. Deal?
JustinJ
Member
I couldn't disagree more. The majority of the population may claim such things but in practice it is anything but the truth. The only political party that makes a real effort to put such principles into, the Libertarian party, is a small minority.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Libertarian
The problem the Libertarian party runs into is mostly one of marketing.
If violates the principle "say only what can be heard." I had a friend, a dentist, who preached libertarianism to me for years, only I just tuned it out: it sounded kinda extreme-over-the-top as a policy system.
So one day, I sat him down and said, "Explain this to me. Don't lecture me, just explain. Teach. Be prepared to define your terms and provide background."
Happily, he was well equipped (shocked, but well equipped) for that discussion. I learned much from him.
Most people will embrace, individually, the principles in that policy system, but have their own doubts and fears. Any attempt to simply "spray" them with recitals of those principles simply triggers the "OMG! Unconventional! Craziness alert!" response.
We have, for the most part, a population of reasonably intelligent people who have been badly fooled for a long time.
It takes some work to un-fool them.
Most people do not want to run your life. Really. They're just not used to the idea of not having someone out there running our lives.
Baby steps.
In the meantime, see my remarks on disarming populations above.
The problem the Libertarian party runs into is mostly one of marketing.
If violates the principle "say only what can be heard." I had a friend, a dentist, who preached libertarianism to me for years, only I just tuned it out: it sounded kinda extreme-over-the-top as a policy system.
So one day, I sat him down and said, "Explain this to me. Don't lecture me, just explain. Teach. Be prepared to define your terms and provide background."
Happily, he was well equipped (shocked, but well equipped) for that discussion. I learned much from him.
Most people will embrace, individually, the principles in that policy system, but have their own doubts and fears. Any attempt to simply "spray" them with recitals of those principles simply triggers the "OMG! Unconventional! Craziness alert!" response.
We have, for the most part, a population of reasonably intelligent people who have been badly fooled for a long time.
It takes some work to un-fool them.
Most people do not want to run your life. Really. They're just not used to the idea of not having someone out there running our lives.
Baby steps.
In the meantime, see my remarks on disarming populations above.
JustinJ
Member
Again, the evidence completely contradicts that notion and its by far more than just party affiliation. The only difference is one side at least does not pretend to oppose gov't interference in people's lives. While i don't believe in gun control it can at least be argued that guns often facilitate people hurting each other. Other rights that receive wide opposition directly affect nobody but the person exercising them.
Yelovitz_503
Member
I've been having a relatively reasonable debate with a guy I knew from back in school, he is thoroughly anti gun. We've each been able to frame our arguments in respectful ways so far, although it's been about a week since I sent something and he's been quiet. Overall their points lack reason and logic, however, and are mostly based in emotions (primarily fear). I'll never understand why one man sees a problem and shrinks from it, while another sees a problem and equips himself to deal with it; but I guess that's the human race for you.
I should also mention that he was out there proselytizing the day of the Aurora shooting which I found horribly inappropriate. I injected a bit of my point at the time but mostly what I told him was "let's wait until a proper amount of grieving time has passed, then I will have this debate with you". As promised I waited until the following Monday and wrote him back, but I couldn't help but notice the side which accuses the other side of being heartless, insensitive monsters was also the side shoving families out of the way and hopping over bodies to get to their soapbox. (yes I'm talking about the antis)
A great book is Armed by Kleck and Kates, they have a wealth of sources to cite and frame their argument logically and effectively. I usually encourage people to read this book when I give up trying to reason with them. I'm sure they find it utterly repulsive but then again having all the facts and sources cited right there is effective in silencing most of their unreasonable tyraids. The fact is that the VAST majority of legal gun owners never hurt anyone in their lives and are MORE responsible than a lot of other citizens due to the responsibility they have been given. I fail to understand why someone who hasn't seen fit to equip themselves to defend their own life also wants to disarm me so I am unable to defend my life or theirs.
You appear to have come down with Ed Zachary disease, because you hit the nail Ed Zachary on the head. Do gun owners encourage everyone to go out and arm themselves? No. Do we force citizens who have no interest in guns to learn to shoot, and train them in tactics? Nope. So why do we all have to give up what we believe in for them? It's stunning how intolerant the 'party of tolerance' can be when it comes to something they don't understand... but wait, shouldn't they strive to understand it and find some common ground even if they disagree? Wouldn't that be the openminded and tolerant thing to do? With such a disgusting double standard I find it hard to continuously debate with these folks. No other hobby/sport/pass time/life decision comes under such overbearing scrutiny so much of the time. You can't tell a car collector "well you can have that car, BUT we're going to put a tiny gas tank in it so you can't go far without needing to fill up again, oh and we're also putting a speed limiter in there because you have no reason to be driving faster than 45 mph anyway", yet our lifestyle is fair game. Aren't these the folks who champion equality, tolerance, and understanding? I guess not when it comes to something they have an irrational fear about..
Last edited:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
What evidence would this be?
Don't get me wrong, I know a whole bunch of people who vote for the "let us take care of you" crowd. They, themselves, are not interested in running my life (or yours), rather they just accept that somebody should do that kind of thing.
And so they elect pathological busybodies willing to lie to them about a broad spectrum of things in order to secure the public office they seek.
To project that pathology onto the people who have spent a lifetime being fooled into accepting that they should be "managed" rather than owning their own lives would be an error.
Garbage In, Garbage, Out.
Intellect doesn't perform in a vacuum. If you feed intellect an endless stream of garbage, you'll get computational garbage for a result.
Don't write them off.
You may not be the person who wakes them up, but given sufficient exposure to real data, the wake-up does eventually occur. Not everyone will be reached, but the number who can be is large.
In my short time as a shooter and 2A advocate, I have encountered more people willing to listen to reason than those not willing to hear it. However, you can't just "whip it out" and lay it on them. "Say only what can be heard." (one of these days I will remember who said that). If you present your case in such a way that there's no intersection between their current reality and the truth you offer, there will be no acceptance.
Patience. Kindness. Smile. Mutual realities. And for those who turn out to be relentlessly rabid about banning guns: "What horror is it that you have planned for me that I must be disarmed?" For people that require a little more voltage: "You know, I never figured you for a supporter of slavery."
Your experiences may incline you to believe that "most people" are busybody control freaks.
Mine inform me that "most people" are just badly misled -- by those busybody control freaks.
The control freaks are the minority. Don't let them fool you.
powell&hyde
Member
I think maybe accidentally I would spill some doe Estrous scent on them.
Seriously:
America’s founding fathers believed that gun ownership was necessary to guard against a tyrannical government and to provide individuals with a means of self-protection. Their reasoning was well-founded. The King of England had no desire to heed colonial demands for democratic rule and several Native American tribes showed no sign of peaceful surrender of their lands for colonial expansion. A gun was necessary to stay alive, hunting for food and protection against people if Ill intent.
The justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today. This year marks the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the United States Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Since that date, we have overthrown our government every two years – at the ballot box – peacefully, except for during the 1861-1865 War of Southern Aggression, and even then, elections in the North continued unabated. Today, anyone with sufficient cash and a steady stream of talk radio loudmouths can overthrow the American government. Guns provide great campaign slogans, but guns don’t vote – people do!
Here we have a beautiful example of an anti either completely oblivious to or just ignoring the deterrent effect of firearms. The Anti's would have us believe that the only way to judge the effectiveness of guns is to look at how many times they are fired. In “study” after bogus study, antis compare how many times citizens shoot someone in self-defense and compare it to the number of people shot by BGs and use the disparity in the numbers to claim that guns are not effective in self-defense.
In this case, the Anti's is claiming that because the government has not become tyrannical while its citizens have been armed, it won’t become tyrannical if we disarm. This is sometimes referred to as ‘wishful thinking’. I imagine the Anti's believes it was the moral purity of the United States that kept Japan from invading the mainland and not, as Admiral Yamamoto is frequently quoted as saying, because “there would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Seriously:
America’s founding fathers believed that gun ownership was necessary to guard against a tyrannical government and to provide individuals with a means of self-protection. Their reasoning was well-founded. The King of England had no desire to heed colonial demands for democratic rule and several Native American tribes showed no sign of peaceful surrender of their lands for colonial expansion. A gun was necessary to stay alive, hunting for food and protection against people if Ill intent.
The justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today. This year marks the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the United States Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Since that date, we have overthrown our government every two years – at the ballot box – peacefully, except for during the 1861-1865 War of Southern Aggression, and even then, elections in the North continued unabated. Today, anyone with sufficient cash and a steady stream of talk radio loudmouths can overthrow the American government. Guns provide great campaign slogans, but guns don’t vote – people do!
Here we have a beautiful example of an anti either completely oblivious to or just ignoring the deterrent effect of firearms. The Anti's would have us believe that the only way to judge the effectiveness of guns is to look at how many times they are fired. In “study” after bogus study, antis compare how many times citizens shoot someone in self-defense and compare it to the number of people shot by BGs and use the disparity in the numbers to claim that guns are not effective in self-defense.
In this case, the Anti's is claiming that because the government has not become tyrannical while its citizens have been armed, it won’t become tyrannical if we disarm. This is sometimes referred to as ‘wishful thinking’. I imagine the Anti's believes it was the moral purity of the United States that kept Japan from invading the mainland and not, as Admiral Yamamoto is frequently quoted as saying, because “there would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
I'm trying to avoid getting into no-no topics but i can't really answer that question without doing so. What i'm referring to is to the public's positions on the legalities of a whole slew of topics. One example, drugs. Until recently the majority of americans opposed the legalization of even marijuana and many still do, even for medical purposes. Legislation to control what we eat is supported by many. Opposing the legalization of gay marriage and plural marriage is another although public opinion is finally changing. It wasn't that long ago when many opposed even interracial marriage. Another disturbing matter is how much public support there was for laws like the Patriot act. If i hear another person say in reference to the fourth amendment "those who have nothing to hide shouldn't worry about being watched or searched". When people make arguments against gun control based on the principles of liberty but then support the government telling people what to put in their bodies or who they can marry it stinks of hypocrisy.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
I do believe you're creating a generalization based on your perceptions.
I also believe you may have presumed that there is some monolithic entity called "the public."
You don't win this by pitting yourself against "the public."
You win this by persuading individuals.
I also believe you may have presumed that there is some monolithic entity called "the public."
You don't win this by pitting yourself against "the public."
You win this by persuading individuals.
armoredman
Member
Arfin, do you mind if I borrow these sayings? Might get some poster mileage out of them, don't know yet.
ArfinGreebly said:
JustinJ
Member
Not really interested in debating semantics but what i am saying is that there is a large percent of USA citizens who hold certain opinions on issues that absolutely entail running other people's lives. In many cases that is or has been the majority who have held such views. Obviously that does not mean all people.
Win what? My comments are not about winning. I'm refuting your position that people on the whole don't want to run the lives of others.
JustinJ
Member
Except there is no even mildly credible source that this was ever said. Nor does it make an ounce of sense given the logistics involved in such an invasion. In WWII and conflicts there after wars were won by artillery and air power. The idea that the Japanese army was worried about old men and women with hunting rifles is absurd. Towards the end of the war the germans were giving out every weapon they could find to their citizens but they were not even a speed bump against the Russians.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Eh?
Well, I'm not seeing it.
I'm completely in agreement that a large percentage of voters will pull the lever for pathological busybodies.
Where we diverge is where you extrapolate that to mean that those voters themselves want to run your life. There are whole piles of voters who opt for candidates that have made a promise that resonates with them -- free money, elevated privilege, increased influence, whatever.
I submit that there is a large segment of the population that has lost sight of what "liberty" and "freedom" actually mean, and want to enjoy personal prosperity without regard to what it costs and without regard to how prosperity is actually achieved -- the physics of prosperity.
As long as someone will promise (and hopefully provide) that, they really don't want to be bothered with the details. They've been given the script that is supposed to get this done -- support this, oppose that, encourage this, complain about that, and send money to my peeps -- and that's enough for them. The fact that some of them are also smart enough to try to fabricate some "logical" justification makes it look like more motivation exists than actually does.
It looks like we won't actually agree with one another on this.
You've presented your case, I've presented mine.
Short of an actual in-depth study, I guess that's what we have.
Go in peace.
Ask them what other Constitutionally protected rights they are willing to destroy for the safety of the children?
-shut down the internet? (big source of child sex trafficking plus pedophile hunting grounds)
-ban violent movies, games, rap music, etc?
-eliminate all unhealthy foods from restaurants and grocery stores?
-Shut down liquor stores to prevent underage consumption as well as DWI related deaths?
Honestly, if they are okay with those steps, there is nothing you will ever do to convince them.
This only works for issues where there is a reasonably balanced set of facts or interpretations. Try and debate that the world is flat and there are issues.
Akodo, there are people who want to do some of those things. Maybe not shut down the internet, but shut down any site that is used by predators or basically prevent anyone from using the internet before you turn 18. Because nobody ever lured a kid prior to Myspace coming on the scene.
A lot of people want to ban violence in the media...because apparently violence didn't exist before the media.
Some people want to limit how big of a soda you can buy...because NYC is batsmeg crazy.
A lot of people want to ban violence in the media...because apparently violence didn't exist before the media.
Some people want to limit how big of a soda you can buy...because NYC is batsmeg crazy.
3.
That's the magic number.
Number of homicides with rifles in 2010 in the ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
That's not even "assault weapons" - that's just "rifles". Could be all bolt action for all we know.
That's such an insignificant number as to be meaningless, as far as statistics are concerned.
I pointed out that there were 10 times as many people killed with bare hands, as there were with 'rifles' in general, let alone "assault rifles". Maybe we should ban MMA, martial arts, and boxing.
You know.
For the children.
That's the magic number.
Number of homicides with rifles in 2010 in the ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
That's not even "assault weapons" - that's just "rifles". Could be all bolt action for all we know.
That's such an insignificant number as to be meaningless, as far as statistics are concerned.
I pointed out that there were 10 times as many people killed with bare hands, as there were with 'rifles' in general, let alone "assault rifles". Maybe we should ban MMA, martial arts, and boxing.
You know.
For the children.
sugarmaker
Member
I've done this so many times...
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/p...ing_Unintentional_Injury Deaths_US_2009-a.pdf
drowning, poisining, motor vehicle are much more probable than firearm.
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/p...ing_Unintentional_Injury Deaths_US_2009-a.pdf
drowning, poisining, motor vehicle are much more probable than firearm.
- Status
