Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Trent, Dec 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    Back again!

    Tonight I spotted this nefarious quote on facebook.

    My Response (part 1/2)

    Part 2 /2

    (I typed up after dinner, following other people in a heated debate)

     
  2. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    Concord, CA
  3. horsemen61

    horsemen61 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,371
    Nice I like your approach :D.
     
  4. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    Perfect. Thanks a bunch! :)

    That'll put the nail in the coffin.

    Someone in the thread mentioned:

    PRO:
    The next reply was ANTI:

    In my closing post;

     
  5. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    With the Federal court rendering Illinois' ban on concealed carry unconstitutional, and a battle in the legislature of epic proportions on the horizon, it's more important than ever to sway the public opinion in our direction, in a polite, concise, and effective manner.

    Every chance you get.
     
  6. horsemen61

    horsemen61 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,371
    Way to finish strong leave em speechless loved the Chicago line lol:D.
     
  7. olafhardtB

    olafhardtB Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    356
    You are casting your pearls before swine, it is arguring with a manhole cover
     
  8. mjkten

    mjkten Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    SC
    Arguing with a manhole cover maybe, but demonstrating to other viewers that this person is indeed a manhole cover may be more to the point.
     
  9. hq

    hq Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,024
    Location:
    Finland
    There are always two sides in every legislative action:
    1. The positive effect, ie. how effective the suggested means are in correcting a problem.
    2. What will the side effects and collateral damage be.

    Prohibition of alcohol is a prime example of a noble and idealistic law that went horribly wrong. Negative side effects far outweighed the perceived gain, which also was nonexistent because it impacted only those who wanted to obey the law and didn't pose a problem that was addressed.

    Most importantly, there's a constitutional principle of innocence until proved guilty. No-one can't be punished for crimes he didn't commit and a loss of means to defend oneself is in effect a punishment. Convicted felons have lost it for a good reason, they've caused it themselves. Accusing the vast majority of CCW holders for being potential murderers because some murderers have had a valid CCW permit is not only childish but insulting, illogical and downright idiotic. It lacks even the most fundamental basic of understanding causality; absolutely no-one commits a murder because they just happen to have a CCW, and even suggesting that banning CCW could prevent a homicidal person from committing a crime is beyond any logic and reason. A determined killer isn't the slightest bit concerned about having a permit to carry a firearm when he doesn't even care about being sentenced to life in prison or even death for what he is determined to do on purpose. As we've seen countless times, the only thing criminals like these are concerned about is the balance of power - just one, equally determined law-abiding citizen with a firearm can stop them. Some of these citizens wear a blue uniform, most don't.

    I've never comprehended the level of utter stupidity and denial of logic required for someone to become an anti, not to mention failing to correct his misguided and propaganda-induced beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence. Anti-gun mindset resembles a religion, a cult of the worst kind that has a self-righteous doctrine of disregarding all facts and counterfeiting "evidence" to prove their predetermined point at all costs, ad nauseum.
     
  10. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    USA
    The irrational anti (legal) gun religion is similar to the Green religion of man mand global climate change. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, self important, synchophants.
     
  11. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    If any of your antis are arguing from an emotional basis, you will never convince them - just look at politics and religion - also both highly emotionally charged issues.

    Keep it clear like you have, but do NOT let them drag you down into a "shouting" match; that will help make the point even more - that gun owners are calm and rational, not hyper emotional and out of control
     
  12. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,270
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Over the years, it's become abundantly clear that studies released by the VPC have about as much academic credibility as The Flat Earth Society.

    Kudos to Trent for being willing to strike a blow against the ignorance spouted by that dishonest cult.
     
  13. holdencm9

    holdencm9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,369
    Well done Trent. I like to follow your endeavors with debating antis here, because I don't have the patience to do it on facebook or any other websites. I used to, but not anymore. I think you had good facts and well-presented this case, that report about the VPC's fraudulent data is golden. And you know the good folks here at THR will keep you from straying too far in the direction of emotion-based arguments.

    And like mjkten points out, you may not ever convince the initial poster he is wrong, but you will perhaps convince (or at least give pause) a lot of other quiet observers. We must remember we aren't only visible to those we directly address in facebook but possibly anyone can read those messages.
     
  14. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    Woke up to this;

    I need coffee before I go off on this dude, try to keep it civil. (Brother of original guy who posted the VPC link and sludge, must run in the family)
     
  15. hq

    hq Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,024
    Location:
    Finland
    Ouch. That was predictable; a loud but well-funded ideological minority and its diciples claiming to speak for the masses, without being able to substantiate absurd claims about "feelings" of no less than a million people. Likewise these individuals are completely incapable of providing any evidence about any regularity or probability of collateral damage - that kind of imaginary scenarios are 99.9% a product of their own, sick imagination.

    They live in a massively biased, hollywood-brainwashed fairyland they've created in their own imagination, not reality.
     
  16. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    Since we've switched from a statistics argument (which I won) to an emotional argument (which is nigh-impossible to win), my response followed suit:

     
  17. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    A week in the murder capital of the USA without a single act of violence or homicide?
     
  18. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    One cannot doubt the truthiness of his opinion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  19. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    Original poster responded
    My Response
     
  20. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    There is an ultimate irony here, is the original poster of the VPC stuff used to WORK for me.

    In my lifetime I've had to draw a firearm ONE time in self-defense or defense of others. And it was to save HIS scrawny butt. :)

    When he worked for me, he fixed a customer's computer. Left a voice mail saying he removed the virus, what website it came from, and told the customer to be careful visiting sites like that.

    The website happened to be a porn site, and the customer's fiancee/wife got the message before he did.

    So suddenly and quite unexpectedly we have a 220 pound body builder crashing through the front door of the office. He screams "you're dead -------------" and tries to jump over the counter to get to my tech.

    I step back and pull a firearm from under the counter (mainly so HE isn't between ME and the FIREARM). I don't POINT it at him, just back up a few steps at low ready.

    I yell STOP.

    Guy freezes in his tracks at the sight of the firearm. Says "that's not a real gun."

    Continuing to point the weapon at the floor, I say "it most certainly IS real. And you need to leave. Right now."

    Guy backs up and leaves. Goes to the POLICE station and turns me in. Detectives come. Investigate the incident. Determine I didn't break any laws. No charges filed.

    Anyway.. for a guy who was SAVED one heck of a beating at one point, by me - he should know better than question the benefits of firearms in self defense.
     
  21. jrdolall

    jrdolall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,685
    Location:
    Southeast
    The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA. If they can guarantee me that EVERY gun in the country would magically disappear then I would agree with them. I don't care about reduction in numbers or what happens in England or Australia. Our culture has always involved gun ownership and personal responsibility (though the personal responsibility is fading).
    The news does not report when a legal gun owner defends himself, his family or his property with a gun because it is rarely newsworthy. They ALWAYS report when a person uses a gun for bad reasons. Anits will never respect your ideas just like I will never respect theirs. As one person put it, the best you can hope for is that someone who is sitting on the fence sees your facts and realizes that you are correct.
     
  22. MoscowMike

    MoscowMike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Idaho
    jrdolall said "The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA."

    I, on the other hand, don't care if I'm shot, knifed or hit over the head with a cricket bat. Without access to firearms the smaller, older or weaker person is at the mercy of the bigger and stronger goblin.

    The anti's want to focus on gun violence. It's a red herring. Firearms are an equalizer.
     
  23. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    USA
    It is frustrating to try to apply logic, and reason to a person that relies purely on emotion which is displayed by most antis. The arguments they've derived from indoctrination, brainwashing, and the liberal media do not hold up to facts, and data, but they could care less.
     
  24. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,112
    Location:
    Illinois
    His brother Tyler chimed in again.

    I responded.

     
  25. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Toss this one out.
    Of course, if he's talking about his right to feel protected by the police... well, I suppose he can to feel whatever he wants, but I don't think feelings are a protected right under the law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page