Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[Trent]

No small surprise, the various people I've debated with came back out of the woodwork again this morning on the full offensive with renewed vigor.

Arguments made:

"I'm not particularly in favor of gun laws, despite my political affiliation. It's one of the few differences between me and the democratic party.. However, NY is on pace to only have 250 murders this year, after only having 300 last year. That really is remarkably low for a metropolis like that. I'm not saying it's all because of gun control, but those are the stats "

My response:

XXX, I don't know where you get your stats, but NYC, proper, had 515 murders last year, and 536 the year before, according to the FBI crime stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...2011/data-tables/table-4/table-4-montana-ohio

They also had 1,092 forcible rapes, 19,773 robberies, 29,829 aggravated assaults, 140,457 property crimes, 18,159 burglaries, 112,864 larcenies, and 9,434 car thefts.

The 2010 stats let you break it down further (by state)

In New York (Total)
860 homicides (NYC = 62.3% of all murders in the state)
517 via firearm = 60% of murders with firearms
173 via knives = 20% of murders with knives
22 via bare hands = 2.5%
148 via "other" = 17.2% of murders with things other than firearms, knives, or bare hands

Your argument implies that the various firearms bans in New York have had a positive effect on crime rates.

So, consider Texas. Look it up on that site. In the state with the "most guns" and a very pro-gun society, Texas also landed right at 60% range of homicide rate by firearm.

California (with even stricter laws than NYC) ranks in at 69% rate, murder by firearms.

Meanwhile, Vermont, with constitutional carry - no permit required - the right to own full auto weapons, and those dastardly evil james bond silencers, had a whopping 7 murders, state wide, with 2 of those being by firearm - for a rate of only 28%.

Incidentally, Peoria, IL alone has had more murders than that by firearm, in a state with absolutely NO right to carry, whatsoever.

We also have a VERY high rate of murder by firearms here - with over *80 precent* of murders in Illinois were committed by firearms.

Which you aren't allowed to even carry.

How many of those could have been STOPPED - if honest, law abiding people were allowed to protect themselves?

 

[Skribs]

Very good points, of course any time you bring up gun use in a gun-banned state or city, it's because "they brought the gun in from somewhere else, if the whole US had gun laws it wouldn't be an issue."

I also believe it to be a huge fallacy that if you take 100 murders and figure 60 are commited with guns, that you would reduce the murder rate to 40 by successfully banning all guns. Some people might be dissuaded by not having guns, but by and large people who want to commit violence will find a way to do so.

 

[youngda9]

Game-Set-Match.

Nice reply !

 

[hermannr]

In my county, (physically bigger than the state on CN) there were two murders last year, one with a baseball bat, one with a knife. (this is in a state with unlicensed OC, and shall issue CC)

There are about 40% of the YEARS in the last 20 when there were no murders in this county. There are definately many more houses here with guns than without.

 

[Trent]

Round 2, with a "Reverend" who lives in Brooklyn. (Man social media ties people together.. he replied to a comment made by a friend of mine who lives in Pekin, IL)

This one is tricky. He's not particularly being anti- or pro- gun, in fact, he pretty much avoids taking any side. His ultimate message is quite clear - "guns are unnecessary - they will not help anyone or prevent this from happening".

This is no logic; this is emotion, and the argument is ultimately flawed.

He posts:

Rev. D. Haberer: The shooting in outside the Empire State Building was the action of an angry man who was seeking revenge. It took place in a safe neighborhood and would have not been preventable if everyone there had a gun as would the Colorado shooting. Things happen. We do not need more gun laws but I'm not sure we need more guns. It is always unfortunate that we only talk of gun control after an unpreventable event. One side calls for more guns and the other more gun control. I have never been in a situation where I needed a gun for protection and I am pretty sure most people haven't either. There are communities where guns might be necessary, the Mexican border where drug cartels are threatening farmers as one example but most of us don't live in them. The shootings in Chicago were gang related. How many reading this live in such neighborhoods. American's are obsessed with guns yet we don't talk with or know our neighborhoods. What makes neighborhoods safe is not guns or police but neighbors who know each other and watch out for one another. Good neighbors know when there is potential danger. We overcome evil with good. Neither more guns or more laws is the solution. We need to look to a higher way. 59 years in NYC and never needed a gun. Lived in lots of questionable neighborhoods. Just my opinion.


I reply:

Rev, I respect everyone's opinion regarding gun control and responsible gun ownership - even if those opinions don't match my own. However, that respect has a line - and that line is when those opinions turn to actions which suppress or restrict my ability and right to protect my family.

We don't live in a city where police are on every corner. In fact, we're over 20 minutes outside of town, and the police response time here is generally over 15 minutes. That's an eternity if you are waiting for assistance.

As a Buddhist, I would agree that it would be nice if one could simply wish away violence and the world would live at peace. But I also have an understanding that people have been killing people and hurting people since the beginning of time. Regardless of how civilized or modernized or religious a culture becomes, this will not change. Perhaps you're lucky you have never needed a gun. Perhaps you consciously or unconsciously chose the proper routes to avoid, perhaps something was "looking out for you" from above, if you believe in such a thing.

I believe in my ability to terminate violence aimed towards myself and my family swiftly and efficiently. I believe that a 100 pound woman has the right to defend herself EFFECTIVELY against a 250 pound powerful male rapist.

There were 536 murders in New York City in 2010. There were 1,092 forcible rapes.

How many of those women would disagree with you, Reverend, about their right to defend themselves against a more powerful male aggressor who intended to defile them in the most inhumane, primitive, and evil manner?

I'd bet all 1,092 of them; assuming all of them lived to say such words.

{sorry about the mentions of religion - I felt that saying what I am in this case was beneficial to the argument at hand. don't need any further comments or criticism if it pertains to religion, thank you in advance; RKBA / debate points encouraged!}

EDIT: clarifying that I don't want to devolve this to a religion thread; keep it to RKBA please

Thanks!

 

[Trent]

Getting more complex. Again, not specifically anti-gun, but the overtones are there. The issue I have, and the reason I'm continuing the debate, as it were; public figures (reverends included) who express their views influence MANY people.

His response:

Rev. D Haberer: Murder rate in NYC is high put confined to certain neighborhoods. So wide spread gun possession doesn't necessarily stop it. Most gun violence is gang related not random attacks on innocent people. The statics need to be closely looked at. Where were they concentrated and who is involved. As a Christian I believe you overcome evil with good. Most places are safe and most people with some street wisdom can avoid confrontation. Fear drives us to be a gun culture that not every culture is. You want a gun get one, I am not for banning guns. Just believe from experience their is a better way.

My Response:

Trent Lawrence Not everyone can simply move away or leave a "bad" area. I have a friend who lives & works on the south side of Chicago - in a neighborhood with the highest murder rate in the country, by far. (33 people have been shot within the last week)

He, himself, was shot this year while stopped at a red light on the way to work. Stray round that his car door fortunately slowed down before it entered him; didn't penetrate his body deeply. His home has been burglarized twice this year.

He can't "up and move" to a safer place, as with most people nowadays, he doesn't have the financial ability - he's one of the fortunate who actually HAVE a job, a rare commodity in certain parts these days. But beyond that, even, he is not going to be pushed out of his home or the neighborhood he grew up in. Nor should he feel compelled to do so.

Love thy neighbor all you want - doesn't guarantee they will love you back. You of all people should recognize that there are both good, and evil people in this world. While you may have faith and hope that everyone can be saved from sin; that is certainly not always going to be the case. Mankind was granted free will, and with that comes the ability to commit evil acts upon fellow man.

A gun is nothing more than a tool - used for good or evil. Even in the hands of police, or governments, it can be used towards either end; committing evil, or preventing evil from doing further harm.

People should have the right to defend themselves. They do NOT have this right in many parts of the country. Turning a blind eye to the problem, or avoiding the problem altogether, is not a solution.

I certainly commend your beliefs - the echo my own in many ways - but we differ on that one, important point. I'd rather have a gun in my hand when evil calls on me, than a telephone and a prayer.

 

[Trent]

(For the record, I truly, wholly, dislike emotional based debates)

 

[beatledog7]

Crime can be defined as a somehow stronger party taking advantage of a somehow weaker party to commit an unlawful act.

Violence is the most often chosen lever of the physically stronger.

Firearms strengthen the physically weak, thus discouraging the physically strong from leveraging that strength against them.

Wherever the physically weak may legally arm themselves, the physically strong who would seek to harm them are wary. Wherever the weak must legally disarm, the strong who would seek to harm them are unabated.

One might argue that this also means that the physically weak can arm themselves and thus become strong enough to be the perpetrators. While true, that doesn't justify keeping the weak weak.

 

[KTXdm9]

Very good points, of course any time you bring up gun use in a gun-banned state or city, it's because "they brought the gun in from somewhere else, if the whole US had gun laws it wouldn't be an issue."

I also believe it to be a huge fallacy that if you take 100 murders and figure 60 are commited with guns, that you would reduce the murder rate to 40 by successfully banning all guns. Some people might be dissuaded by not having guns, but by and large people who want to commit violence will find a way to do so.

Ding ding. I don't understand the obsession with "gun" violence to the exclusion of others. In many instances, I think it's about control and "I know best" over anything else.

To the OP, keep fighting the good fight. You have way more patience than I do.

 

[Trent]

Thanks guys. I keep cross posting these various debates to THR for three reasons:

#1 Feedback from you guys. This is important as it allows me to further refine the manner in which I present myself (and, by and large, the gun community at large since each of us is effectively representative of the whole)

#2 Additional material - this allows a feedback loop to progress - similar to the decision loop in self defense. Each iteration of this, I progressively grow "better" at it.

#3 Assistance to others - this is an extension of #2, wherein I become part of YOUR feedback loop.

In this last case, with the dear reverend, what we have is a closet anti-gunner who is very VERY wary and intelligent at debating. I find this disturbing on two levels. First, he pushes his propaganda out to people who trust him as a guide to faith and morality. Second, he won't openly admit to being anti-gun, because if he did, he wouldn't have the opportunity to preach this side business to people who are more pro-than-anti, thus losing potential converts.

My decision loop on this went as follows:

As soon as he responded to the thread I was on (which was STRONGLY going in the pro-gun route by a NUMBER of people), I first did some research on him.

I found on his social media page a number of "likes" to anti-gun organizations, and many postings specifically about guns in relation to new stories. These were mostly sympathetic emotional - about Aurora, etc, "prayers to those who .." bits. However, in the comments where he responded to others on there, he continually talked about a society where guns are no longer considered.

Bottom line - it was very clear to me his agenda is to remove all guns from the planet and evolve in to a higher order of society. A worthy cause! But one which - at the present time - is quite foolhardy. You can't just dis-invent a technology like firearms.

Anyway.. whatever "robes" your opponent wears, never be afraid to express your opinion. RESPECT theirs, but show you are firm to your convictions, and back it up with logic.

In this case, because the nature of who I was conversing with, this became far more of a spiritual / emotional discussion than I usually prefer to engage in.

But I'll fight on any battlefield and use every tool at my disposal.

 

[Trent]

Final response from our dear reverend.

I must have shook him up a little, there's a lot of spelling gramatical errors here.

I'm pasting it in, in original form, unedited:

Rev. D. Haberer: I am not saying you can't have a gun or a concealed carry permit. I definitely support the right to carry. Having lived in bad neighborhoods and grew up in in one I choose nite to carry and thing their is a better way. You don't love your neighbor because he loves you back you love your enemy because when enemies ti God he lived you. Fear not those who can take your life fear only God. Trusting Godd is a dangerous thing.

I think he meant to say "I choose not to carry and think there is a better way"

The last two sentences... I'm just not sure about. As a representative of faith, of Christianity, I probably wouldn't go around saying "trusting Godd(sic) is a dangerous thing".

But he's right.

If all you trust is God, if you take no action on YOUR part, that IS a dangerous thing. While commendable if that's your belief, I have no desire to be a martyr and give the ultimate sacrifice if I have any say in it.

Which is essentially how I'm closing my argument.

I will not post the final comment I make as it will be almost entirely religious based, quoting some scripture (once upon a time I was Christian, not Buddhist, and I know how to close this argument down properly).

There's no need to go there on THR, though, so this will be the final entry on this story. (Religious debate is "verboten", as it should be).

 

[Trent]

I believe that the closing argument SHOULD be posted - I'm kind of proud of it. Mods, if you feel this is inappropriate content for the high road, please feel free to edit as necessary.

Reverend; we all have to make our choices, and that is the ultimate gift - and curse - that God gave humanity - free will. You can choose to trust in God and to have faith that he will protect you. Should harm come to you at the hands of an evil man - priests have been killed before - you can trust that He will use your death as a message to others, and your sacrifice will live on to preach peace and tolerance.

I used to, once upon a time, be a Christian man. My path in life as a youth was chosen for me - when I entered adulthood, I chose Buddhism as the path that fit my spirit, beliefs, and way of life the best. However - I still have a profound respect for Christianity, and for those who practice the faith. My previous experiences with Christianity - including running a youth group - do allow for some deep insight in to your perspective, and I completely understand how your stance fits your beliefs. Absolute non-violence is commendable.

HOWEVER.

I would caution - and ask - that you are careful in how you present these views to your flock. You are in a position to provide a spiritual and moral compass to your congregation. This is a powerful position and must be handled with the utmost respect. Encouraging others to follow in your path on THIS matter is particularly dangerous, because people will listen.

YOU may be able to give your life freely at any time for God, and find peace in the afterlife. However, should the father of a family of 8, who is the sole breadwinner of the family, lay down his life without offering resistance at the hands of an assailant - it affects more than just that one man, and his soul. It affects his family, his wife, his children.

If that same man's FAMILY is threatened, he has a duty as a protector to fulfill, to protect his family from physical harm - just as YOU have the duty to protect your congregation from spiritual harm. If a man's wife, sons, daughters are threatened by evil, he has the obligation to protect them. For to sit idly by and let harm come to them is a sin.

Likewise, in the absence of a man, the wife has the obligation to protect herself, and her children, so that she is not defiled and her children are not brought to harm, by evil.

And finally, BOTH the mother AND the father have the duty as parents and caretakers to provide the knowledge to their children, so they can in turn protect the next generation.

Evil will never truly go away - for as long as there is good, there will be evil. Thus, even if we miraculously are awarded by God (or your higher power of choice), a perfect world to live in, without evil, without malicious intent, we must remain eternally vigilant so that it does not manifest itself again.

Unfortunately, as long as we have free will, this will never happen. There will always be two sides to the coin, darkness to light. One simply cannot exist without the other.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my feelings, and I truly appreciate that you have expressed yours. This conversation was enlightening, and I hope others can find their path through it.

 

[Trent]

And the other shoe drops.

Rev. D. Haberer There is always darkness and light and Jesus took the road of nonviolence. I will follow him and [ask] all others to do likewise.

Sometimes you just can't win these debates.

But I keep trying.

(Told you he was closet anti-gunner - took the better part of 5 hours to finally get a confirmation out of him though.)

 

[Trent]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of moderation, I will continue this.

I have NEVER debated anything with a man of the cloth before - this is new ground for me. Perhaps - if the mods do not mind - a few good Christian men could chime in on this?

I do NOT like this religious backed argument against guns, one bit. This makes my gut get all twisted up.

My response:

Jesus could walk on water, heal the sick with a touch, turn water to wine, and come back to life.

I don't have such abilities. But I do trust my ability to stop an assailant, and live to provide for my family another day.

Self-defense is a very well thought out, and heavily documented aspect in nearly *every* branch of Christianity. Catholics, in particular, have written doctrines dating back to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas codifying the very subject, outlining the means, methods, and situations which force is justified. (RE: St. Thomas, Summa Theolgica, II-II, Q lxvii, a. 7)

I'm not familiar with your particular branch of Christianity - but perhaps you could enlighten me on precisely why you believe in non-violence? Many passages in the Bible make it very clear that in certain situations - protection of chastity, family, and innocents - that force - even lethal force - is just and righteous.

How do you countermand those passages of the Bible?

 

[General Geoff]

wasn't there a passage in the bible of Jesus saying something along the lines of, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"?

 

[Sam1911]

You know, Trent, I think that is one of the most RESPECTFULLY presented arguments for a moral duty to defense of self and others that I've ever read.

There is, of course, a strong tradition of absolutist pacifism in a few "Christian" sects, and folks can convince themselves that their faith requires almost anything, logic, reason, or even the written texts of the religion they nominally believe they adhere to, notwithstanding.

I say, well done. VERY well done. You probably will not win him over, but you may provide deep and meaningful food for thought for many more.

 

[Trent]

Thank you, greatly, for the affirmation Sam.

I was very nervous posting this particular debate on THR this morning, because my experience watching other people's religious debates has left a bad taste in my mouth. They usually devolve in to mud-flinging almost from the get go. And I recognized the potential for that to occur - even here - once I opened "pandoras box".

But the fact remains, people ARE using religion as a backing for an anti-gun stance. And this presents a nearly unassailable fortress for anti-gunners, particularly when you have what we have locally here - churches working WITH the state / City to push an anti-gun agenda. They're mixing religion and politics in a very disturbing way here.

I *strongly* suspect that this Reverend's sudden and unexpected appearance on a thread I commented on is due to recent public criticism I've been giving of the city of Peoria. The church there appears to be affiliated with HIS church in New York City. So it appears in the face of confrontation, they've appealed to "the big guns" to come in and lend a hand in the social debate. MY profile is locked down, and is friends-only, but the person's profile on which this debate is occurring is NOT.

And he appeared, quite literally, out of nowhere. No mutual friends whatsoever.

So, he brought the fight to me. It doesn't help his case that he brought this fight to me where he did - a friend of mine is an old school-mate, a housewife who is pro-gun, and this is occurring on her wall. Which gave me an easy entry to providing women's protection as a very strong foundation to build an argument.

(I've been winning the hearts and minds of women in Central Illinois to the pro-gun side all summer, very successfully, by the way)

10 or 15 years ago, I could NOT have had this debate, at least not in this fashion. I used to be firmly in the camp of "from my cold dead hands", and to hell with any arguing. "It is as it is, and you can all kiss my ass if you don't like it".

Harsh, but that's the way I *WAS*. And I freely admit it.

As I've grown older, and hopefully wiser, I have learned that the first rule of having a respectful argument is to be - and more importantly - remain - respectful. I don't mean this from a "No disrespect intended, BUT" fashion either. That is just insulting, on a number of levels. Statements which start out as "I don't mean to sound like an ass, BUT".. well, they tend to make one sound like an ass.

However - if you TRULY accept that the other person has every right to feel the way they do, then you can look at the problem from a whole new avenue. "Thinking outside the box" - it's useful. In every case - you have to first identify the root cause. Where are they drawing their fundamental argument from?

Once you identify the root cause, you ferret out as much information as you can about WHY they feel that way, prioritize it, and address each point in order of importance.

Do they feel this way because of personal tragedy? I've been there. Lost three family members to firearms.

Do they feel this way because of religion? I'm Zen Buddhist, a firm believer in non-violence and a better world. I can work that angle too, and fight on that battlefield. The first thing to understand is SELF DEFENSE IS NOT VIOLENCE. It is ANTI-violence. Even the monastic monks know this, as they are (traditionally) very skilled in the arts of fighting and combat, all the while promoting a non violent life.

Do they feel this way because of family, peer pressure? That's an easy one too, more or less. You have to convince them to think for themselves, first. "My parents don't like guns". Well... How do YOU feel? Have you ever shot one? Been trained on one? and so on. You have to work those from an EDUCATIONAL angle.

Do thy feel this way because of a party line? THOSE are actually some of the toughest nuts to crack, because political zealots are NOTORIOUSLY hard to get to deviate from their stance. They only have strength in their arguments through sheer force of numbers - and are highly resistant to any topic that pulls them off the party line and out on their own. Usually, you have to use flanking attacks - other hot topics, that you can work back IN to a gun rights argument. You first have to separate them from the party line on SOMETHING, if you are going to separate them on a secondary issue.

There's other arguments/rebuttals, but my fingers are sore. I've been typing for 7 hours straight today, and I have to go load up some gear to get recoil therapy in this afternoon.

 

[Trent]

He's getting dug in. Earlier he said he believes in the right to carry, etc.

Now, his tune is changing rapidly.

Rev. D. Haberer: The government is given arms to protect it citizens. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and do good to those who seek you harm. Again I am against gun ownership. I don't see the need and guns are an American thing compared to the rest of the western world.

This next part may be offensive for some readers - this is clearly becoming an emotional struggle for him. He's out in the open, confessed to being anti-gun and against private ownership of firearms in direct contradiction to what he previously said.

So I present in order, an argument based on our civil structure, an appeal based on his invitation to compare us to "western nations"..

... and a very nasty moral situation for him to make a decision on.

(The last part is what I'm concerned with - I've never gone this deep on the offensive, usually sticking to facts, statistics, and rational, logical reasoning.)

Oh, and by the way, since he's clearly out in the open and expressed his desire to strip our rights completely away, this is no longer - strictly speaking - a polite conversation in my eyes. At this point he has crossed the line in the sand that I drew earlier, and opined that my rights, in his eyes, are not a right at all, but a privilege that SHOULD be revoked.

I'm sorry, but the first part of your argument is deeply flawed from a sociological point of view. Your statement implies "It's Citizens" - but the Citizens do not belong to the government, but rather, the Government belongs to it's citizens. This is a very important point, and should not be taken lightly.

The government, and those in the line of duty who are sworn to protect us, are never close enough when they are truly needed. If they were, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of murders, rapes, assaults, and other senseless acts of violence every single year in America. Trusting in the government to protect the citizens is fruitless, unless you consider where the governmental body comes from - "We the People".

Now, if you consider the foundation of all government power, the citizens of the government - which is exactly the way it IS legally structured - then the argument can be presented that the citizens, being the root of government power, are responsible for their OWN protection.

We - the people - allow the government (via our representatives) to HIRE police and military to provide for our additional protection, but ultimately, we are each individually responsible for our OWN protection. The police and military allow for more people to specialize their roles in society - in such a way as we no longer need to maintain "every able bodied man" as qualified with small arms, have mandatory enlistment periods, and so on. Hiring a body of security provides for people to become more specialized at what they do, versus, say the Swiss or Israeli model of civil service, where every adult of age is REQUIRED to serve in the military.

However, because we HIRE security does not EXCUSE us of the responsibility for protecting ourselves. Police - almost universally - show up AFTER a crime has been committed. They can make an arrest, sometimes, but they CAN NOT BE GUARANTEED TO PROVIDE SAFETY. The only sure-fire way to provide 24/7/365 security for every individual is to divide our society in half, and have half of society serve as individual guards for the OTHER half of society full time. Which, of course, is completely unfeasible.

What part of the "Western World" are you referring to? United Kingdom? Australia? And their draconian gun laws? You do realize that in BOTH cases, violent crime rose MARKEDLY after they enacted their firearms bans.

What about the Swiss? Very low murder rates, and every adult is issued - and keeps at home - a full auto assault rifle.

No, the differences here, and the root of violent crime, is our corrupt and degraded society, itself. Guns only serve as a vehicle 60% of the time, on average. Which means 40% of the time an armed civilian will be on MORE than even terms with their assailant, and 100% of the time they will be at least on even terms.

You would disarm your fellow Christian men, and tell them they cannot, with morality, protect their families? Their young daughter's chastity at the hands of a rapist?

Tell me Reverend. If your daughter was being raped by a man in front of your very eyes, would you not strike the offending evil perpetrator down, with the Wrath of God himself flowing through your veins? Or would you wring your hands together and plead for him to stop, in the name of God?

 

[Trent]

Oh wow.

This is getting quick now.

I've got him so flustered he can't type; or autocorrect is kicking in and mangling his words.

Rev. D. Haberer Stoping someone from doing violence does not require a gun. U believe in defending others the question is do we need guns. Government is instituted by God. Ppolice, the arny etc arson given by God to punish evil doers.

I can't win this. He's invoked the God defense ...

I'm facing a fanatic lunatic, guys.

What the hell.

Where do I POSSIBLY go from here?

Because to continue to argue, the way he has backed himself up here and worded his statements, the only move is to question God's authority over mankind. Which I'm not going to do, because I still carry respect for the faith of others.

 

[Trent]

Done and done. Wiping my hands of this one.

Final statement, and I'm shutting the damn computer off to go let off steam.

Clever, Reverend.

The way you have phrased your response requires that I attack the very root of Christianity itself - God, and his authority over mankind. I'm sorry, but even though I'm not of your faith, I WILL NOT resort to an attack of that banal nature.

I will give you my answer, since you obviously do not have the guts to answer my question.

I would not allow the man raping my daughter to draw one more breath.

I'm truly sorry that you are so entrenched in your anti-gun propaganda, and your agenda, that your final and only argument boils down to religion. You are, sir, using your faith and religion as a shield on a matter which should be decided among humans, and humans alone.

Your earlier statements expressing your belief in the right to carry, followed by your final transition in to your statements that individual people should not be allowed to own guns, that only the military and police should be allowed to provide for our security, shows that you ARE IN FACT using your religious faith as a vehicle to drive your anti-gun propaganda.

Now that you are "exposed" - this conversation was duplicated on more than one other message board - I hope that the publicism of your TRUE stance will keep honest, hard working, American Christians from being mislead by your socialist political agendas.

Thank you and have a very nice day.

My blood pressure is FAR too high to continue now, he succeeded in getting through to me in a way that I didn't anticipate; although I should have expected this outcome.

THIS, my friends, and fellow gun owners, is why I ABSOLUTELY HATE emotional based debates. They never, ever, ever end on a good note.

Mods, if you feel that I have crossed the line at any time, please advise and I will edit out the parts that you feel are offensive.

I welcome feedback of any nature, although I would advise against religious debate to keep the thread open.

I NEED A DEBRIEF - someone objective.

I don't feel I should have closed this on an emotional note, but man.. ugh.

Forget it. Prepare me better for the next battle, gentlemen. I hope I haven't let everyone down too much.

 

[Trent]

(On a positive note; if ANYTHING good came of this debate, it is that I exposed a previously closet anti-gunner as a true, hard core, anti-gunner).

 

[Sam1911]

I don't see any way to "win" this. If he's devolving into incoherency, about the best you can do is say, "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you were saying." Make him present a clear argument.

But in the end, when he runs out of clear arguments, he (and many people of similar habits) can always run to the arbitrary (that's what I believe and that's all there is to it) or find a comfortable circle to run around in where each rebuttal leads back to a repetition of an already rebutted point.

It is clear that the argument is not about right, or even about faith or gods. It is about belief in whatever HE has constructed to believe. Believing in a god does not require logic, nor proof. Believing in a self-conceived theory of non-violence or the superiority of a hypothetical gun-less existence does not require, and cannot be assailed by, proof or logic either.

 

[General Geoff]

Wow. Governments are instituted by god? I haven't heard that one before.

 

[Trent]

General Geoff; I have - Divine Right of Kings.

It's the basis for most forms of Feudal society / monarchies. Implies that royalty has the blessing and authority of God to rule over the common man.

Also, for a more modern, twisted, and spooktacularly odd version, refer to North Korea.

Sam;

I concur, I cannot continue this debate because his position is unassailable by logic, emotion, reason, or any other means.

He basically has said "God is the ultimate authority and I trust him to protect me."

No matter how I argue it, he's going to revert to God, and his odd views on the Divine Right of Kings.

This man is an odd creature - I've never encountered anyone like him before.

The only tactic I viewed as remaining, was to "bring him out of the closet" since he has CAREFULLY guarded his wording on gun control, and even stated on several occasions that he supports gun rights, concealed carry, etc, on every single point of reference I could research on him.

It was only once I dug deeper that I realized that it was apparent he was delivering his "true" message to people individually.

I'll admit freely - this guy scares me, and more than a little.

 

[Trent]

Final thoughts - I'm going to study the text of this debate for awhile, this is an entirely new angle and affects us profoundly, locally. There is a Church in Peoria, IL which has been accepting guns - no questions asked, even murder weapons are welcome - anonymously in exchange for $50 WalMart gift cards. They've SOMEHOW gained the backing of the IL state police and local police on this.

I am FIRMLY against such a practice because it essentially destroys evidence of serious crimes and disrupts the evidence chain to the point a conviction becomes impossible - murder, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery.

In essence, this church is denying my fellow citizens of our obligation to remove serious criminal offenders from society, and denying society the ability to prosecute such offenders. In essence, the "church" is giving them a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

I'm absolutely, 100% convinced now that Reverend's appearance was no coincidence and ties in to other public statements I've made recently regarding this. I *suspected* this earlier but he - at first - appeared to be quite moderate on gun rights. It wasn't until extended debate that he actually showed his true colors.

This religious angle on the anti-gun movement is highly disturbing to me on many levels. While it happens to be Christian, I know for a fact that not all Christians believe this way - nor Catholics - nor Jews (DEFINITELY not the Jews !!!). So, this is not a religious argument per se, but rather, how religion is being used to assault our gun rights.

Religion is a powerful force. More powerful than politics, than peer pressure, than damn near anything.

When applied to a political agenda, we MUST be ever vigilant. Religious fervor has been shown in history to spread like fever. We all know this - there are many black marks on our past, as human civilization has progressed, in which Religion has stamped out life, liberty, and freedom. NO religion is immune to this, because religions are formed of PEOPLE, and PEOPLE are fallible.

So please do not bring up strictly religious responses to this - this is a topic we, as gun owners, SHOULD address. But it has to be handled in a STRICTLY 'religion as a vehicle' fashion if we are all to keep our heads level and sight on target!

Thank you, and I look forward to feedback. This was a rough one for me personally.