Debating an anti-gunner (part Deux)
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
JustinJ
Member
One big problem there. No modern society can exist without water, potentially toxic substances or vehicles. As much as we value them the same can not be said of privately owned firearms.
justice06rr
Member
I think this may be a good option. I could never live in a state where your God-given 2A rights are prohibited where I live. Debating with the anti's is usually a pointless excercise.
ZeSpectre
Member
I don't remember where I picked this up but I had it in my "gun talk notes" file.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
The survival of any culture or society has as a vital component the ability to defend itself.
The only way to assure survival against the inevitable predations of competing cultures is to be armed.
Privately owned firearms are a vital component of that condition.
Historically, unarmed and disarmed cultures and societies are systematically taken over by competing cultures when they become (or choose to be) unable to defend themselves.
If you honestly believe that the security of a free State does not depend on armed individuals, then I'm not sure how to get that message across.
"Small arms in private hands" is not optional.
Disarmed population = FAIL.
Said another way, the historical record has shown repeatedly that gun control = murder.
If you, for yourself, believe that "guns are optional" to your survival, then that's a gamble you're free to make -- for yourself.
I'm not buying it. You can sell it to you're blue in the face.
And I'm not buying it.
At all.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Correct, although the same could be said for voting. Granted, I don't think either of us would want to live in such a society. The free vote has led to horrible destruction throughout history, just as guns have inflicted terrible damage (especially in warfare, with the approval of the majority).
TCB
JustinJ
Member
Russians citizens were actually armed prior to the Bolshevik revolution. Their weapons failed to protect them from the competing culture that resulted in mass killings. Its just not that simple.
Even more so today, guns in the hands of private individuals will never defeat a military backed government. I'm sorry but its just not realistic. No modern gov't can be defeated without military backing by the opposition. Small arms do not win wars today. Without artillery, anit-tank and anti-aircraft weapons our AR15's are a joke against a real army.
Historically there are plenty of countries that have had strict gun control for some time without the genocide you claim is inevitable. The factors leading to such events are far more complex than gun control.
No it hasn't. In the vast majority of industrialized nations that implemented gun control there was no genocide. Mass killings are generally the result of a dictator rising to power in the wake of a civil war. A new totalitarian regime seeks to stamp out all opposition.
What i'm selling or buying is not the issue. If one tries to argue to those who support gun control that more gun laws will result in Stalinistic genocide they will be considered delusional and discount pretty much everything else said.
denton
Member
You mean like the American Revolutionary war, where the Brits firmly subjugated their disobedient colonies?
On the other hand, if someone should ask, "When have private firearms ever tipped the balance of battle?", one answer is December 7, 1941.
After Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and our west coast were only thinly defended. The Japanese could have fairly easily occupied either. The Japanese knew the mathematics of military losses, occupying and holding territory in unarmed countries. It came out after the war that they were very nonplussed about what it would cost to occupy an armed country. The senior officer's comment that is on record is, "We did not make a mistake stepping in that quicksand."
Of course, Midway turned the tide in the Pacific and from then on, Japanese invasion was not feasible.
You also have to realize that private arms do not usually have to defeat an army in order to win. They only have to make the price of tyranny or invasion unattractively high.
Tommygunn
Member
A Japanese invasion was never feasible. They never had the logistics. Maybe -- maybe -- if they'd have been able or willing to give up their plans for a "Prosperity Sphere" in the Western Pacific area and retasked all their military to an invasion they might have irritated a bunch of Californians or Oregonians.
The reason they attacked us was to prevent us from interfering in completing their military takeover of that part of the world, and they felt hitting our naval resources in Pearl might provoke a short war which they would quickly win.
I won't argue that guns aren't important for a society. The Russians may have been armed before the Revolution but how many would have actually desired to overpower the communists?
The North Korean population is disarmed and arming them would not cause a revolution; they're all either starved too much to be able to fight or they're too submissive to their beloved leader.
JustinJ said:
That would depend upon a number of factors.
Should a second "civil war" erupt in America, the size of this country itself would be in favor of the opposition to the govt. While AR 15s might be a joke against the type of firepower the government has available, the equation alone ignores certain principles of guerrilla warfare. One is the use of those small arms to acquire bigger arms.
Harrassing techniques are also important. A few guys armed with rifles would be spectacularly outmatched by an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. But chopper pilots have to sleep.
Another factor is what the nature of this revolution would be, and would the army and other regular forces be willing to fire on Americans? If our government had devolved into an abject tyranny I suspect that collecting those heavy weapons needed might not be such an impossible mission.
Not saying a war would be easy. And I'm not saying the perfect unblemished application of guerrilla techniques would win -- it might not. We fought against guerrilla warriors in 'Nam and lost that war only because we lost the political will to continue it here, at home.
The war our nation's founders fought was hardly a sure bet. Had England not been at war with France and able and willing to expend more resources here, I think we'd still be taking tea at 4:00PM. Even as it was, a single event in the hours before the Battle of Trenton might have altered the outcome; a British officer pocketed a note that would have informed him of Washington's approach, and had the British been prepared they might have prevailed; had Washington lost, our ability to prosecute the war further might also have been lost. It was a near miracle Washington had been able to hold his army together at that point and a loss would probably have been GAME OVER for the Continental Army and the American Revolution.
Still, the original "Revolutionary War" was one of the few examples of a successful war of that nature in history. As such we should be happy that we still have the ability to go into a voting booth this November and "vote the bums out" in a peaceful and legal manner as it still represents the best hope we have to get this country back on a sound economic and social footing.
armoredman
Member
Of course, which is why Soviet occupied Afghanistan is such a peaceful Socialist Republic today.
Ignition Override
Member
Armoredman:
I wish that I had a t-shirt of your photo.
You could combine that image with the "10+ minute wait for police to respond to somebody banging on your door-not a normal, false house alarm".
I've got $60 waiting to buy two of those t-shirts with a similar quote, or something better.
It would be interesting to show it to some "British" or European tourists.
I wish that I had a t-shirt of your photo.
You could combine that image with the "10+ minute wait for police to respond to somebody banging on your door-not a normal, false house alarm".
I've got $60 waiting to buy two of those t-shirts with a similar quote, or something better.
It would be interesting to show it to some "British" or European tourists.
armoredman
Member
Make t-shirts if you want - send me one.
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,659
Hmmm
D'ya think that those Stinger missiles that we sent over had anything to do with the results?
Do you see the weakness in that set of details? Hypotheses contrary to fact. Referring to possibilities that did not occur is not a strong basis for argument. If you want to argue with antis, you have to do better than that. Gotta stay away from what "might" have happened or probably have happened and stick with what did.
D'ya think that those Stinger missiles that we sent over had anything to do with the results?
Do you see the weakness in that set of details? Hypotheses contrary to fact. Referring to possibilities that did not occur is not a strong basis for argument. If you want to argue with antis, you have to do better than that. Gotta stay away from what "might" have happened or probably have happened and stick with what did.
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
First off, at that time the disparity between privately owned weapons and those of the military was infinitely smaller than today's. Musket vs musket is very different than AR vs B1 Bomber. Second, the Americans had military backing. Third, they were facing an invading army. The British army had a place to go back to.
This is pure fantasy. As i already said in post #43 there is no credible source that an armed population played the slightest part in their decision making. As Tommygun explained it was just not feasible for actual reasons. If the japanese army invaded every military age male would have been immediately drafted and sent to fight with military issued weapons. Everybody else would have high tailed it east. Do you really believe old men and women with hunting rifles would have had any impact what so ever? In WWII it was about armor, artillery and air power. The day of the rifle winning wars was long gone.
They don't all have to sleep at the same time. Nor do the tank crews, bomber pilots, drone operators, artillery crews, etc.
If the army won't shoot on the civilians then what do privately owned arms have to do with anything? Hell, if they wouldn't shoot before you can bet they will when some fella with a rifle starts shooting at them.
The North Vietnamese were receiving massive military aid from other countries. But again, we were an invading army. In a civil war there is no home country to retreat to which changes things immensely.
denton
Member
Hmmm.... except for the post-war conference of senior officers from the US and Japan, where careful notes were kept, and this issue was discussed. The fact that the US was armed was a key factor in Japan's decision to make a hit and run attack without trying to occupy territory. Of course, there were many good reasons for the decision, as there always are, but the armed populace was one.
The conference was held in 1960, and is reported by Massad Ayoob:
So there you have a credible source, naming witness, date, and location.
Saying "there is no credible source" would require that you have searched all global sources and have have verified that none exists. That's a pretty hard statement to defend.
And as for the American Revolution, I'm pretty sure you did say "never". When someone comes up with a single example contrary to such a sweeping statement, which is usually easy, it doesn't do much good to try to say that that one didn't count.
Not to get too far off topic here guys (Which is happening) - but we're venturing in to SHTF scenario territory with this. Keep it away from SHTF - we have a valid discussion to bear out relating to our rights.
This being said, since someone HAS brought up the fundamental reason as to what our second amendment is for (a moderator at that), here's the synopsis;
* It is not a specific right to carry a concealed pistol to defend ourselves;
* It is not a specific right to keep HUNTING weapons;
* It is not a specific right to keep SPORTING weapons for competitions;
* It *IS* a right to keep and bear arms. Period.
The right is second only to the freedom of expression (our most fundamental human right, aside from living), there is a reason it's #2, and not #12, or #238.
Could a civil war be fought and successfully prosecuted only with small arms? No. Would small arms play a massive role? Undoubtedly. You can't TAKE and HOLD ground with an AH-64. You can only visit for awhile, and make new friends from a distance.
There is a very real argument for armed citizens below; bear with me - (this is not a SHTF argument).
*IF* there was ever a civil war in this country again, it is almost inconceivable that the military would be strictly on one side or the other - troops are humans and citizens too, and whatever triggered the PEOPLE to insurrection would undoubtedly be stirring the hornets nest in their ranks as well. But this country is enormous. The entire armed forces of the United States wouldn't be able to ferret out every person with a rifle in West Virginia, let alone every state in the Union. They'd have to pick their battles, and those battles would be (almost exclusively) protecting their soft underbelly of logistics and support.
With supply chains stretching 4,000 miles from coast to coast over open, rolling, unprotected interstate, there is not enough military hardware in the world to protect everything against an "enemy within", let alone, proactively going after a target they cannot FIND.
Consider this when you consider what role small arms would play - no matter how MODERN a military is, if there are sufficient armed people in any population, fully suppressing them in a country of OUR size, is unfeasible.
Small arms, on a widespread basis - 300 million guns and counting - would give ANYONE thinking of seizing unilateral control of this country pause to consider.
Anyway, that's as far off the beaten path I'm going on that one. Small arms are a deterrent to oppression. Nothing can entirely prevent the possibility, but that right is there for a very specific reason, and it is still as valid a reason as it was to begin with as long as humans and metal projectiles do not agree with one another biologically.
Back to the topic at hand;
While (I believe) it is a FINE topic for discussion amongst those seeking the intellectual challenge, it makes a VERY POOR topic for discussion with anti-gun folks because those people UNIVERSALLY believe in government provided SECURITY over FREEDOM.
So for the purposes of debating, NO, I will not go there, other than "My second amendment rights are just as protected as YOUR vocal opinion against them; I respect your voice and your opinions, YOU need to respect *MY* rights to own firearms. Period. End of discussion." (IF it gets to that point in a debate; I'm universally done, because they aren't seeing reason whatsoever.)
Anti-tyranny discussions, however, derails the topic of discussion with an anti-gunner to the point firearms take a back seat, and your sanity becomes the forefront of the discussion.
This being said, since someone HAS brought up the fundamental reason as to what our second amendment is for (a moderator at that), here's the synopsis;
* It is not a specific right to carry a concealed pistol to defend ourselves;
* It is not a specific right to keep HUNTING weapons;
* It is not a specific right to keep SPORTING weapons for competitions;
* It *IS* a right to keep and bear arms. Period.
The right is second only to the freedom of expression (our most fundamental human right, aside from living), there is a reason it's #2, and not #12, or #238.
Could a civil war be fought and successfully prosecuted only with small arms? No. Would small arms play a massive role? Undoubtedly. You can't TAKE and HOLD ground with an AH-64. You can only visit for awhile, and make new friends from a distance.
There is a very real argument for armed citizens below; bear with me - (this is not a SHTF argument).
*IF* there was ever a civil war in this country again, it is almost inconceivable that the military would be strictly on one side or the other - troops are humans and citizens too, and whatever triggered the PEOPLE to insurrection would undoubtedly be stirring the hornets nest in their ranks as well. But this country is enormous. The entire armed forces of the United States wouldn't be able to ferret out every person with a rifle in West Virginia, let alone every state in the Union. They'd have to pick their battles, and those battles would be (almost exclusively) protecting their soft underbelly of logistics and support.
With supply chains stretching 4,000 miles from coast to coast over open, rolling, unprotected interstate, there is not enough military hardware in the world to protect everything against an "enemy within", let alone, proactively going after a target they cannot FIND.
Consider this when you consider what role small arms would play - no matter how MODERN a military is, if there are sufficient armed people in any population, fully suppressing them in a country of OUR size, is unfeasible.
Small arms, on a widespread basis - 300 million guns and counting - would give ANYONE thinking of seizing unilateral control of this country pause to consider.
Anyway, that's as far off the beaten path I'm going on that one. Small arms are a deterrent to oppression. Nothing can entirely prevent the possibility, but that right is there for a very specific reason, and it is still as valid a reason as it was to begin with as long as humans and metal projectiles do not agree with one another biologically.
Back to the topic at hand;
While (I believe) it is a FINE topic for discussion amongst those seeking the intellectual challenge, it makes a VERY POOR topic for discussion with anti-gun folks because those people UNIVERSALLY believe in government provided SECURITY over FREEDOM.
So for the purposes of debating, NO, I will not go there, other than "My second amendment rights are just as protected as YOUR vocal opinion against them; I respect your voice and your opinions, YOU need to respect *MY* rights to own firearms. Period. End of discussion." (IF it gets to that point in a debate; I'm universally done, because they aren't seeing reason whatsoever.)
Anti-tyranny discussions, however, derails the topic of discussion with an anti-gunner to the point firearms take a back seat, and your sanity becomes the forefront of the discussion.
Then there's always the REVERSE of the argument; which I reserve for the very nastiest and vulgar of opponents.
WE live in a country which respects and protects our right to keep and bear arms. There are 300 million guns in this country, and people legally carry them in 49 states.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE GUNS - YOU SHOULD LEAVE. Emigrate to the UK, or to Australia; both fine English speaking countries ... with no guns. Obviously the United States is not to your tastes.
WE live in a country which respects and protects our right to keep and bear arms. There are 300 million guns in this country, and people legally carry them in 49 states.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE GUNS - YOU SHOULD LEAVE. Emigrate to the UK, or to Australia; both fine English speaking countries ... with no guns. Obviously the United States is not to your tastes.
Tommygunn
Member
Pete D. said:
Well, d'oh!!! I was simply SPECULATING on what an alternate possibility might have been had certain actualities been diffferent. It is a fact that England and France were at war (this is historically one of the reasons why France agreed to help us) and this made England choose where to devote its war resources. Certainly an alternate can't be proved, but that hardly qualifies as a "weak detail."
The business of the British officer pocketing a note is historical fact. Would America have lost had he read it? General Washington would certainly have lost at Trenton; the rest is speculative, but given the condition of the Continental Army at the time I think it's a pretty fair guess.
Sticking to "what did happen" is fine and well but if you don't understand why it happened or what alternate possibilities (or consequences) were possible you could well blind yourself into the false belief that just because you're taking a path some earlier people did that you will inevitably obtain the same results. IN a situation where there is a clash of wills, the other side gets a vote too .... and the bad guy may actually READ THE NOTE the next time 'round.
Now, shall we engage in a speculative guess as to what might have happened if the captain of the Titanic had actually ordered the ship to take a more southerly course that cold night in April, 1912?
JustinJ said:
True.
I think maybe I didn't express myself clearly -- being oblique does have drawbacks. While on ground, Apache pilots and tank crews are as human and vulnerable as anyone else; they're also a finite resource.
Certainly their base of operations would be well guarded, especially during war, but I am not saying it would be easy, just maybe a little more likely than downing a Apache with a rifle. War is a lot of things but I think we all could agree; "easy" is not one of them. I actually prefer General Sherman's pithy description ....
denton
Member
Trent, to your point, some people make the argument that having an armed populace is bad policy. The Founders knew the risks of having an armed populace, and the risks of having a disarmed populace. They chose to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Those who want to argue that is bad policy are a couple of centuries late to the argument.
JustinJ
Member
Massad Ayoob was not there so does not count as a citeable source. It's just not true.
Read the second paragraph. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Tommygunn
Member
JustinJ said:
A great deal would depend upon how an engagement took place.
Army personnel have been queried about their willingness to openfire on civilians in a situation where guns are being confiscated and, IIRC, most said they would not be willing to do so.
Certainly soldiers would return fire if fired upon and I suspect a civilian "militia" might do the same as well.
As General Eisenhower said; "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." In other words, "crap happens." It's easy to guess straightforward events in somewhat logical manner but in reality sometimes things go "sideways."
JustinJ said:
That is true, BUT remember; we won nearly every engagement we had with the North Vietnamese. Even the Tet Offensive, so often played as a "disaster" for us, was, in reality, a disaster for the enemy. Simultaneous attacks in multiple cities at a time we thought the north wouldn't be able to? That's the line Walter Cronkite tried to lay on us.
I've spoken to vets who were at Tet; they have all said the only difference they noted was more targets to shoot. We won the battle on the ground but lost it in the hearts and minds of Americans back at home. We lost the war the same way.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I get tired of the anti-gun rhetoric, just like all of you. My cousin strongly anti-gun cousin posted a picture on Facebook this morning which showed a gun control advertisement she recently saw in Boston. It was basically a statistical scare tactic, that said something like:
This sign also included a lighted "counter" which indicated that 4,216 kids have been killed by guns since the 2010 elections.
HERE IS THE RESPONSE I WROTE TO MY FAMILY MEMBER:
"As I'm sure you might have already guessed, signs like this bother me. I believe they're misleading since they fail to scale the number of deaths against the sample size being examined. Statistics like this only look scary until you put them in perspective with the fact that we live in a country of well over 300,000,000 people.
By contrast, 5,493 people died between 2009-2010 from accidental exposure to smoke, fire, or flames (sorry, I know it isn't the same two years, but that was the latest data the CDC had prepared, and also accounts for the same approximate period of time). Also, during that same period of time 62,539 people died from "accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances", while only 22,508 people had gun-related homicide listed as their cause of death. You're nearly 3 times more likely to die of poisoning or chemical exposure than you are to die from gunfire.
Moreover, a statistic like the one being touted in this picture fails to examine the issue in any depth. It merely looks at the mechanism of death, and provides no breakdown of how those deaths actually occurred. Associating the terms "death" or "killed" with guns often fails to recognize the fact that these statistics regularly include the following cases, which would be of little concern to most people: suicides, shootings by police officers, self-defense shootings, and accidental shootings. Even the more statistically isolated category of "homicide" typically includes shootings by police officers, defensive shootings, any and all other types of justifiable shootings, and even (sometimes) suicide. As such, some of the gun deaths are justifiable, and may have led to the preservation of innocent life. Other deaths, particularly the self-inflicted variety, could have easily occurred via another mechanism had a gun not been available. Suicide deaths without guns are typically nearly on par with suicide deaths via guns. Guns certainly aren't the only way to kill oneself, even if they are often used for such a purpose.
All of this is still ignoring the fact that many homicide victims are involved in the gang and drug cultures that you and I are not. A lot of murder victims could be defined as armed and willing combatants, if we ever conducted a detailed analysis of these homicides.
Interestingly, the statistics in the United States have also generally indicated that you are approximately twice as likely to kill yourself as you are to be killed by someone else. But, we aren't all walking around in fear of the fact that we may off ourselves before someone does it for us!
Just some food for thought."
Banner said:
This sign also included a lighted "counter" which indicated that 4,216 kids have been killed by guns since the 2010 elections.
HERE IS THE RESPONSE I WROTE TO MY FAMILY MEMBER:
"As I'm sure you might have already guessed, signs like this bother me. I believe they're misleading since they fail to scale the number of deaths against the sample size being examined. Statistics like this only look scary until you put them in perspective with the fact that we live in a country of well over 300,000,000 people.
By contrast, 5,493 people died between 2009-2010 from accidental exposure to smoke, fire, or flames (sorry, I know it isn't the same two years, but that was the latest data the CDC had prepared, and also accounts for the same approximate period of time). Also, during that same period of time 62,539 people died from "accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances", while only 22,508 people had gun-related homicide listed as their cause of death. You're nearly 3 times more likely to die of poisoning or chemical exposure than you are to die from gunfire.
Moreover, a statistic like the one being touted in this picture fails to examine the issue in any depth. It merely looks at the mechanism of death, and provides no breakdown of how those deaths actually occurred. Associating the terms "death" or "killed" with guns often fails to recognize the fact that these statistics regularly include the following cases, which would be of little concern to most people: suicides, shootings by police officers, self-defense shootings, and accidental shootings. Even the more statistically isolated category of "homicide" typically includes shootings by police officers, defensive shootings, any and all other types of justifiable shootings, and even (sometimes) suicide. As such, some of the gun deaths are justifiable, and may have led to the preservation of innocent life. Other deaths, particularly the self-inflicted variety, could have easily occurred via another mechanism had a gun not been available. Suicide deaths without guns are typically nearly on par with suicide deaths via guns. Guns certainly aren't the only way to kill oneself, even if they are often used for such a purpose.
All of this is still ignoring the fact that many homicide victims are involved in the gang and drug cultures that you and I are not. A lot of murder victims could be defined as armed and willing combatants, if we ever conducted a detailed analysis of these homicides.
Interestingly, the statistics in the United States have also generally indicated that you are approximately twice as likely to kill yourself as you are to be killed by someone else. But, we aren't all walking around in fear of the fact that we may off ourselves before someone does it for us!
Just some food for thought."
denton
Member
Ooops. Wait a minute. How did "credible" become "citeable (sic)"?
Whenever one of the anti-gunner's starts spouting statistics, I am somewhat reluctant to argue more statistics. Why? Because, in some sense, that's lending credence to the theory that "if the numbers came out right, gun control would be OK." It's not OK with me.
I am more likely to ask them questions about their statistics. "Where did you get those numbers? . . . Were you aware that the place which compiled your numbers includes anyone up to the age of 25 as a 'child' for their statistical purposes?" Or one of my other favorites: "Well, your statistic, 'all gun deaths in this country,' includes everyone who gets shot and dies, right? . . . Consider two scenarios: First, a father shoots an intruder bent on raping his 6-year-old daughter. That's one 'gun death.' Second, the same intruder shoots the 6-year-old in the head when he's done raping her. That's one 'gun death,' too, right? So according to your source, those two deaths are worth exactly the same. One 'gun death' each. Your statisticians may only care about how many deaths occur, but I care about whose deaths occur, don't you?"
I am more likely to ask them questions about their statistics. "Where did you get those numbers? . . . Were you aware that the place which compiled your numbers includes anyone up to the age of 25 as a 'child' for their statistical purposes?" Or one of my other favorites: "Well, your statistic, 'all gun deaths in this country,' includes everyone who gets shot and dies, right? . . . Consider two scenarios: First, a father shoots an intruder bent on raping his 6-year-old daughter. That's one 'gun death.' Second, the same intruder shoots the 6-year-old in the head when he's done raping her. That's one 'gun death,' too, right? So according to your source, those two deaths are worth exactly the same. One 'gun death' each. Your statisticians may only care about how many deaths occur, but I care about whose deaths occur, don't you?"
JustinJ
Member
So you mean to tell me that you believe Massad Ayoob is a more credible source on the topic than Donald Goldstein? That would be like saying Donald Goldstein's views on shooting technique are more credible than Massad Ayoobs.
Not to mention you have failed to even cite where Massad Ayoob said such a thing.
- Status
