Debating an anti-gunner.

[Trent]

Was involved in a VERY lengthy conversation on Facebook with an aggressive anti-gunner today, friend of a friend sort of thing.

Took 4 hours and about 80 lengthy posts back and forth with this lady, but by the end she admittedly had changed her opinion, and swayed markedly from where she started.

For anyone else involved in discussions with anti-gunners this week or in the future, remember; Reason, logic, and level-headed attitudes prevail.

Everyone is very emotionally charged right now, and the anti's have come out of the woodwork. Be calm and cool. Don't get hostile or insulting, and you have a chance of winning the day. Remember you can't win every debate - some people just won't change, period. But someone who's not entirely set in stone can be swayed, positively or negatively.

Lots of minds being "made up" right now. LOTS of people speaking out. Make your voice heard but make sure it's done with ETIQUETTE.

Awful lot at stake right now. So keep it cool.

Just my .02.

 

[fireman 9731]

Same deal here, mis-information is the biggest problem among antis. Use facts and common sense. Guns are tools no different than anything else.

 

[alsaqr]

For many years i debated and argued with anti-gunners; finally gave it up. Debating an anti-gunner is like wrestling a big hog. You get covered with hog manure and mud while the hog enjoys it. If you win the wrestling contest; you're still covered with hog manure and mud.

 

[Wicked]

Might be beneficial for others if you could post some of your fact based arguments for others to read in case they come into the same situation and aren't as "armed" as you with the knowledge to back up their belief.

 

[Trent]

That's the problem with being on the defense, alsaqr.

Gun owners need to go on the OFFENSIVE. Push our right to protect ourselves.

I live in the last state that doesn't have concealed carry - trying to fight as hard as I can. That means trudging through the mud with as many Chicago residents as I can find.

 

[303tom]

I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.............

 

[gp911]

Be firm, factual, and willing to walk away. These types of discussions often degenerate because the anti position is largely defined by emotional knee-jerk responses. Don't lower yourself to that level when they start frothing at the mouth, just walk away from it or hold firm and stay logical & calm. Have facts to back up everything you say.

 

[Trent]

I just held firm and rational. It was very difficult, because I *wanted* to get PO'd, especially when they brought in stats on children's deaths. (I didn't sink to the level to counter those, I feel that throwing dead children around in an argument is just... low ball.)

You guys have to keep in mind, I've had THREE family members die from self-inflicted gunshot wounds (father, uncle, and great-grandfather). Logic and reason are the only reasons I've overcome those hard emotions and become such an avid believer in firearms rights (not privilege, RIGHTS).

Anti-gunners who have never shot a gun, owned a gun, or been the victim of violence - who spout facts and statistics, are almost universally disarmed by my stories of personal loss. Because I lay those black marks out right along WITH the facts.

Yes, guns kill people. They kill people I loved.

But they can also PROTECT the people I love.

It's really as simple as that. Everything else is just points of argument.

 

[alsaqr]

That's the problem with being on the defense, alsaqr.

Gun owners need to go on the OFFENSIVE. Push our right to protect ourselves

i've 'been fighting gun control for 50 years. My state has CCW, "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground". We did not get that stuff by attempting to reform anti-gunners. We got where we are today because we pushed our legislators and mostly ignored the antis. Our "stand your ground" law was signed by a "liberal" governor.

 

[SilentStalker]

I have been going through this same thing for days. However, I am starting to lose the fight because they keep coming up with more and more stats that say gun bans are successful in lowering violent crime rates. I find things that state otherwise but I have to admit their findings seem to outnumber mine and they seem to be from more valid sources. So, I need all of the help I can get coming up with good sources to show them that gun control is bad and does not deter crime.

 

[JustinJ]

The old line "guns don't kill people, people kill people" needs to be dropped. Repeating this silly phrase will not convince anybody and makes those who say it look out of touch with reality. Nobody believes guns pull their own triggers. Those who advocate gun control object to the fact that guns allow people to kill with greater ease and efficiency.

 

[mljdeckard]

I try to make the distinction between true ignorance and people who are just haters. I can work to correct ignorance, actually chaning the mind of someone who made it up a long time ago is a different prospect entirely.

 

[Chevelle SS]

How do we debate that guns don't make it easier to kill people?

 

[Trent]

Silent; you been here yet?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

All stats drawn from government agencies, to the best of my knowledge. LOT of material there.

 

[Trent]

Chevelle;

I won that part of the argument with this argument:

"There are FAR more deadly instruments that can be used than firearms. Banning firearms would only push mass murderers in to the realm of Oklahoma City. Chemical explosives in the US (or the world for that matter) are laughingly easy to obtain. Just a visit to your nearest internet pyrotechnics shop, or, Wal-Mart away. You can manufacture high-grade ammonium nitrate explosives with those "twist and break" cold packs they sell at the pharmacy, for instance.

Of course, the easiest and most convenient mass murder tool is just a gas-pump away."

I then linked to the Wiki article on the MOST devastating mass murder performed in the United States - almost 200 killed and 500+ injured in an arson job.

Mass murder doesn't need a firearm. It just needs a MOTIVATION.

One other point of fact; if you were to somehow miraculously ban ALL private ownership of firearms and ensure 100% of the firearms in the nation were accounted for and destroyed, a full auto rifle is no further than the nearest cop car trunk and crowbar away. (Or, if you believe in the 21 foot rule, a short sprint with a knife.) Police won't stop carrying. Therefore there will ALWAYS be a supply of guns for someone looking for one.

Of course, getting rid of every firearm in the country is sheer fantasy. Could never happen.

 

[SilentStalker]

Nice. Thanks Trent, that will help me out a bit.

 

[Chevelle SS]

ok thanks

 

[Captain33036]

I commend you for this. I think it is something all who feel comfortable doing so, should do.

I recently had this conversation with a gentleman from Australia, a country in which he cannot own a firearm. He was all in favor of banning guns and argued that guns led to violence and death.

He was disarmed, so to speak, with a simple question:

Was no one ever killed before the invention of firearms?

After that, I took him to a range to shoot. NOW, is an advocate of firearms ownership and I hope he will work to restore Australians rights, in that regard.

So, good job to you. Keep going.

J

 

[snakeman]

well worded trent

 

[Trent]

To those who don't want to take the time to defend gun rights (in a debate, verbally, whatever).. remember.. when those rights are gone, who's going to speak for you?

You can't wait until AFTER the fact.

I, for one, do NOT want another assault weapon ban. I'd rather hit the ground running and jump in on each and every dialog I see about guns, to provide MY viewpoint.

If left unchecked, anti-gunners will appear to have no opposition.

Behind every blade of grass (which in the modern digital keyboard-warrior age is facebook, twitter, etc), we should give them opposition. STRONG, UNITED opposition.

Don't let them post ANYWHERE unchecked, un-argued, un-debated.

That's my take on it.

I've been idle, not contributing, not participating in 2nd amendment rights for FAR too long. I'd pretty much thrown in the towel on Illinois. I mean, we just can't win, with Chicago. Not anymore.

I DEMAND the right to protect my family when I take them out to the movie theater, to a ball game, to a park.

I do NOT have 24/7 security or bodyguards or a cop that follows me around. I am responsible for MY own well being and that of my family. I will NOT accept the security provided by the state, as it is inadequate.

And I won't bend.

 

[bigfatdave]

I generally win over the fence-sitters with; facts, politeness, and a general revealing of superstitions - plus pointing out the misinformation policies of the various anti-gun lobbies (for example,l the Brady campaign deliberately reinforces the misperception that an AR15 is a machine gun)

and I offer range time - I'm not often taken up on it, but offering to stick a gun in someone's hand generally gets them to see reason or admit that they're projecting their own insecurities onto others

 

[JustinJ]

Okay, i guess i'll play devil's advocate:

"There are FAR more deadly instruments that can be used than firearms. Banning firearms would only push mass murderers in to the realm of Oklahoma City. Chemical explosives in the US (or the world for that matter) are laughingly easy to obtain. Just a visit to your nearest internet pyrotechnics shop, or, Wal-Mart away. You can manufacture high-grade ammonium nitrate explosives with those "twist and break" cold packs they sell at the pharmacy, for instance.

If other means are far more deadly but just as available why are they used at such a small frequency compared to guns? The amount of cold packs needed to do the OK bombing is completely impractical. Today large quantities of ammonia nitrate is tightly monitored and unavailable to most. Amounts needed to carry out a large bombing are in fact more difficult to acquire than you probably think and manufacture without accidental detonation of most explosives is beyond what most are capable of. While yes, mass murders could certainly still occur via other means they become much more difficult and easier to catch before brought to fruition than with a firearm. Acquiring chems, delivery method, manufacturer, etc. is far more complex and fraught with risk of being caught than just walking into a gun store. Removing firearms may not absolutely prevent all mass murders but is reducing them not also a worthwhile accomplishment?

Of course, the easiest and most convenient mass murder tool is just a gas-pump away.

With modern building methods and fire codes it is actually much harder than many think to create a fire large enough that spreads fast enough to kill a large amount of people. As older buildings get torn down and modern ones built the likelihood of this gets smaller and smaller. Pouring gasoline around an occupied building is also something not likely to go unnoticed. Again, if it is so effective why so rarely employed compared to firearms?

I then linked to the Wiki article on the MOST devastating mass murder performed in the United States - almost 200 killed and 500+ injured in an arson job.

Another problem with this argument is this. Everybody agrees that housing is necessary and any downsides, injuries or deaths from their existence are greatly offset by the benefits. While a small amount die from building fires how many more would die from exposure and disease without them? Unlike living structures handguns and black rifles are not truly essential to a modern society.

One other point of fact; if you were to somehow miraculously ban ALL private ownership of firearms and ensure 100% of the firearms in the nation were accounted for and destroyed, a full auto rifle is no further than the nearest cop car trunk and crowbar away. (Or, if you believe in the 21 foot rule, a short sprint with a knife.) Police won't stop carrying. Therefore there will ALWAYS be a supply of guns for someone looking for one.

This is just no practical. Sure, a handful of guns may be taken that way but the majority would be recovered quickly as the second the crime is committed an entire police force will be searching for the perpetrator. Also, cop cars generally do not have full autos in the trunk.

Of course, getting rid of every firearm in the country is sheer fantasy. Could never happen.

Probably the best argument to make. Removal of all firearms is just not practical and the government action it would require would exceed what the majority of Americans would tolerate. Even those who believe in gun control.

 

[Trent]

Heh I thought it was over. She just chimed back after two hours with "Japan" - no guns, no swords, lowest homicide rate in the world.

I reminded her it took the complete and unconditional surrender of their country, and the use of TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS, to pull off that disarmament.

 

[Trent]

JustinJ - the point I was trying to make is if you take away the guns, OTHER methods will become more practical. A few pipe bombs or a molotov cocktail in place of the smoke grenades would have, sadly, made that theater attack FAR worse than it was; with or without the gunfire.

(Necessity is the mother of invention, and this applies equally to sane people AND psychopaths.)

Also, a side note. Isn't it ironic that when a cop is killed or attacked, every police officer within a hundred miles gets amped up and ready to bust heads, but when it's an ordinary citizen, they show up to fill out reports and take pictures?

(Not trying to bash on cops, not by any means - just trying to point out that there are different levels of "response", and you cannot DEPEND on a police officer to be there when you "need" one.)

For what it's worth, I can draw and fire to end a bad guy's attack, faster than I can pull a cell phone and dial 911.

 

[Manco]

I won that part of the argument with this argument:

"There are FAR more deadly instruments that can be used than firearms. Banning firearms would only push mass murderers in to the realm of Oklahoma City. Chemical explosives in the US (or the world for that matter) are laughingly easy to obtain. Just a visit to your nearest internet pyrotechnics shop, or, Wal-Mart away. You can manufacture high-grade ammonium nitrate explosives with those "twist and break" cold packs they sell at the pharmacy, for instance.

Of course, the easiest and most convenient mass murder tool is just a gas-pump away."

This is definitely one of the more convincing types of arguments , as arguing with antis is not all about reason versus emotion--things they just plain haven't thought of play a huge role, and we have to make sure that they truly understand and acknowledge these points each time, because for some it's about the only way to break through their emotions and prejudices. This should be the first type of argument made, in my opinion.

Once they begin to dissociate guns and mass murder, and realize that guns are only tools, then we can point out that guns are ideal for personal and home defense, while things like bombs are obviously not, and that taking guns away from people would only render law-abiding citizens defenseless, while mass murderers remain as dangerous as ever (they can use bombs but we cannot). Now that we've broken through to their reason and can use logical arguments, we can go back and point out that in practice in the real world gun control would not take even guns away from criminals in the first place, since they could simply acquire them illegally. The bomb and fire alternatives are simply an extreme example to drive home the pointlessness of gun control--the real point is that it doesn't work at all, and may in fact increase violent crime since unarmed victims will naturally embolden criminals.

I then linked to the Wiki article on the MOST devastating mass murder performed in the United States - almost 200 killed and 500+ injured in an arson job.

Mass murder doesn't need a firearm. It just needs a MOTIVATION.

Or an airplane if you count organized international terrorism. That was something most people didn't think about, either.

One other point of fact; if you were to somehow miraculously ban ALL private ownership of firearms and ensure 100% of the firearms in the nation were accounted for and destroyed, a full auto rifle is no further than the nearest cop car trunk and crowbar away. (Or, if you believe in the 21 foot rule, a short sprint with a knife.) Police won't stop carrying. Therefore there will ALWAYS be a supply of guns for someone looking for one.

Of course, getting rid of every firearm in the country is sheer fantasy. Could never happen.

Exactly right on all points, and I think the main thing to take away here is how to approach an argument with an anti, both in the points you've made and the order in which you made them--throwing out random facts, however convincing they may seem to us, may fall on deaf ears otherwise.