Debating an anti-gunner.

[Trent]

Manco, I steered clear of 9-11 arguments. As much as I wanted to say we still need to outlaw plastic box cutters.. I couldn't bring myself to roll that deep in the mud.

I did quote a couple of multi-casualty traffic accidents. Kind of felt bad for that, but it drove the point home that everyone dies. Traffic accidents are preventable (to a point), cancer isn't, but dying at the hand of a robber or gunman? Yeah. That I can prevent. Or at least give it my all.

There IS a delicate method to approach it (I kept the entire transcript to review and think about, for improvements). Timing is kind of key.

Keeping it NON insulting is CRITICAL.

She thanked me on multiple occasions for being so civil, I think that made some major bonus points. Point of fact, she said - and I quote:

"Jennifer XXXX: Trent, I wish all gun owners were like you!"

"Trent Lawrence: Jennifer - You'd be REALLY surprised how many gun owners are like me. "

 

[Trent]

On another debate, which was strongly leaning left (towards an AWB/etc), I wrote this;

"The gun control / gun freedom argument really boils down to this:

Do we want the government to control our ability to defend ourselves (potentially, against the threat of that very government body)? I mean, what we are talking about here, is handing over OUR ability to defend ourselves in a manner we see fit, to the government.

To that, I ask, "what has the government EVER taken over that they haven't ROYALLY SCREWED UP."

I do NOT rely on the police force to protect me from bad people. I do NOT have a private security force or a personal bodyguard to protect my family. Sure, we could put a guard in every lobby of every business in America. What will that cost us? Would it even make a difference? Hell, despite having all the money they can throw at it, we can't even protect our own AIRPORTS or BORDERS effectively.

No, I do not trust the government to protect me. I DO trust that they will tally up my death by violent felon, to add to statistics. I DO trust they'll take pictures of my corpse. I DO trust that they'll write reports and do a token investigation. (But if I were to get killed, you wouldn't see the entire police force out looking for someone's blood, as if, say, a cop were murdered, because we live in a society with dual standards behind every badge.)

I trust ME.

Unfortunately I live in the last state that does NOT allow me to protect myself, outside of my own home and business (where I *do* carry a firearm). When I take my family to the theater, or park, or {wherever}, I have to make a conscious choice to either go completely unprotected, or to break the law myself.

Some choice, that.

Then there's the ultimate solution.

In today's "modern" world - and I say we've been quite pampered in the last 67 years following WWII, since that generation is for the most part, totally gone now - people often overlook that the most critical reason for gun ownership, PERIOD, is to ensure the government serves the people, and NOT the other way around. There's been far too many atrocities in recent history to just "hand over" the tools that the population needs to ensure perpetual freedom.

It's been that way since the BIRTH of this country. It's HOW this country was formed. And to give up that right - to limit ourselves to useless weapons - only invites what will inevitably happen if we were to lose that right.

Government taking absolute control? Absurd in this country. There's a gun for every single HUMAN here.

Take them away - what do we have? Harsh Words and sticks? Really?

Read this. It's from a VERY famous document.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[Manco]

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.

That's a matter of their very different culture rather than the availability of certain weapons. For a counterexample, tell her that guns are frequently used for suicide in the US and that they get some blame for this from some, yet Japan's suicide rate is so much higher (WAY higher ) despite the unavailability of guns. This makes two points at once: 1) culture plays a larger overall role in the level of violence (and types of violence) than the availability of weapons; and 2) when guns aren't available, those who are motivated to kill (whether it's themselves or others) will find a way, no problem.

Another counterexample would be the UK, in which violent crime is quite high and the availability of guns is low--for cultural reasons, presumably, knives have been the weapon of choice there instead.

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.

I don't think this has anything to do with the low levels of violent crimes there, at least directly. As for the suicide rate being so high there, I think that's been around for quite some time, and is part of the culture (where I guess one's sense of personal shame can be a powerful force in one's life).

American culture is very different (for one thing, the people are shameless in comparison ). Putting guns aside, the US is simply a more violent place than Japan, culturally, and the UK is more violent still. Adding guns back into the equation, so many Americans view guns in terms of protection--and a sufficient number of criminals realize this--that I think the wide availability of guns reduces the crime rate from the baseline set by the culture alone, whatever that happens to be.

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.

And these alternative weapons are already illegal, but that is not going to stop a mass murderer. Similarly, outlawing guns would have no effect on criminals except to relieve them of the fear of being killed by their victims. In particular, I'd expect home invasions to increase significantly--closer to the rates we see in the gunless UK.

 

[Justin]

If other means are far more deadly but just as available why are they used at such a small frequency compared to guns?

Guns are chosen, I suspect, for a couple of reasons. The thing that makes them a great defensive implement is their ease of use. Same goes when applied to offense. This does not, however, mean they are the most effective method to taking lives in mass quantities.

The other reason why most rampage killers choose guns is probably cultural. Pop culture sends a mishmash of messages about guns being both sexy and deadly, and for most people, from urbanite hipsters who've never seen a gun in real life all the way to a lot of the membership on this forum, guns hold a talismanic mystique.

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?

Simple incendiary devices can be constructed out of gasoline. It appears that Holmes did exactly this for all of the booby traps in his apartment, and, if this article is to be believed, Holmes has at least a basic working knowledge of explosives and incendiary devices, and was clearly willing to construct them. Why he chose to use guns vs. incendiary and explosive devices is a question that only he could answer, but I have little doubt that he could have been just as deadly, if not moreso, had he not had access to guns.

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.

The same could be said for free speech and a right against unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, such an argument is going to be too esoteric for most.

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.

This is the most important point we can possibly make in any debate about enforcing gun control. Trying to ban guns or magazines in the U.S. would be about as futile as trying to ban iPods.

 

[Manco]

Manco, I steered clear of 9-11 arguments. As much as I wanted to say we still need to outlaw plastic box cutters.. I couldn't bring myself to roll that deep in the mud.

Understood--this example is perhaps too extreme in a way that could elicit more emotion in some folks rather than helping control it. It's always helpful to know one's audience--the specific person, if possible--and understand their point of view so that you can make an argument that would be relatively easy for them to comprehend and accept. It's not always easy (I fail at this quite frequently ), but I think it's good to keep in mind and try.

Keeping it NON insulting is CRITICAL.

She thanked me on multiple occasions for being so civil, I think that made some major bonus points. Point of fact, she said - and I quote:

"Jennifer XXXX: Trent, I wish all gun owners were like you!"

That would be very helpful, but not very easy in many cases, as it's frustrating to debate with those who are reacting emotionally to a recent event. :banghead: We have to try, though--our opponents do tire out at times, but in the long run they are extremely determined and dominate most of the propaganda outlets (e.g. news media, public schools) in this country. Our effort must be more grassroots out of necessity, and we must be equally determined, if not more so.

On another debate, which was strongly leaning left (towards an AWB/etc), I wrote this;

"The gun control / gun freedom argument really boils down to this:

Do we want the government to control our ability to defend ourselves (potentially, against the threat of that very government body)? I mean, what we are talking about here, is handing over OUR ability to defend ourselves in a manner we see fit, to the government.

To that, I ask, "what has the government EVER taken over that they haven't ROYALLY SCREWED UP."

Personally, I try to stay away from anti-government arguments when in a debate with anti-gunners. Frankly, I think some are "spring-loaded" to view us as kooks whenever we get into that (due to ad hominem propaganda), and then we have to convince them that we're not terrorists or whatever. I don't shy away from the subject here in this forum, of course, but I think that pragmatic arguments based on what's best for society as a whole (framed as described earlier), followed perhaps by some discussion of rights and liberty (depending on the specific audience), usually work best. At the most, I'll mention that the police can't usually get to you in time to save you, which is also a pragmatic matter.

 

[tomrkba]

Those against self-defense and concealed carry have a motto: "It is better to die than to try."

The motto of those who have a self-defense mindset is "Better to try and maybe die."

 

[Trent]

Just saw this on Amazon - has anyone read it, and is it a worthy read? Just looking for more ways to debate anti-gunners.

"The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You'Ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bias-Against-Guns-Everything/dp/0895261146

 

[Justin]

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.

Japan's justice system operates nothing at all like the justice system of the US. As I understand it, in Japan, crime suspects are afforded very few civil rights, and it's quite common for suspects to be beaten until they confess to a crime, and/or held nearly indefinitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Japan#Major_issues

Working from the assumption that the Wikipedia article is a reliable source, it appears that much of their low crime rate can be attributed to a criminal justice system that would be considered downright brutal if implemented in the US.

Furthermore, Japan instituted exceedingly strict gun control starting as far back as the 17th century. A strong tradition of gun control, coupled with a societal structure that is deferential to authority, an authoritarian judicial system, and the fact that Japan is a physically isolated island nation all probably factor into the fact that Japan's strict gun regulations work at all.

If someone claims that Japan is an example of gun control that works, you should ask them to explain just how, exactly, they would institute and enforce Japanese-style gun laws on a nation with a strong cultural history of gun rights, a culture that is fiercely individualist, affords certain rights to those accused of crime, and is not surrounded on four sides by oceanic waters.

 

[Manco]

The other reason why most rampage killers choose guns is probably cultural. Pop culture sends a mishmash of messages about guns being both sexy and deadly, and for most people, from urbanite hipsters who've never seen a gun in real life all the way to a lot of the membership on this forum, guns hold a talismanic mystique.

I'm sure that guns hold a mystique for anti-gunners, as well. It is definitely to our advantage to break this mystique in any debate (as implied many times earlier--I'm just relating it to what you said), and argue truthfully that guns are most ideally suited for defensive purposes. This should NOT be a requirement for us to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights in principle, but nevertheless it may win more points with some people than ideological arguments that more than a few of us tend to concentrate on.

This is the most important point we can possibly make in any debate about enforcing gun control. Trying to ban guns or magazines in the U.S. would be about as futile as trying to ban iPods.

I like that this is a pragmatic argument, but I'm not sure how many antis could be convinced of it, given examples such as the UK and Australia. We could bring up the failure of Prohibition as an example, and that may work on some, but not against those who are convinced that repealing the 2nd Amendment and confiscating all firearms would yield so many wonderful benefits to society that we'd never look back.

 

[DefiantDad]

You can let her know about these events in Japan (which I had posted on the Aurora thread before):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

The Akihabara massacre was an incident of mass murder that took place on Sunday, June 8, 2008, in the Akihabara shopping quarter for electronics, video games and comics in Sotokanda, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan.

At 12:33 p.m. JST, a man hit a crowd with a truck, eventually killing three people and injuring two; he then stabbed at least 12 people using a dagger (initially reported as a survival knife), killing four people and injuring eight.

Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department arrested Tomohiro Katō, 25, on suspicion of attempted murder. The suspect, dressed then in a black T-shirt with a jacket and off-white trousers, was a resident of Susono, Shizuoka. He was held at the Manseibashi Police Station.

Two days later on June 10, he was sent to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office. He was later re-arrested by the police on June 20 on suspicion of murder. During the trial, prosecutors sought the death penalty, and the Tokyo District Court agreed, sentencing Kato to death.

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

I am sure the analogy and point is obvious. Weapons used: Knives. Automobile.

 

[Justin]

I'm sure that guns hold a mystique for anti-gunners, as well. It is definitely to our advantage to break this mystique in any debate (as implied many times earlier--I'm just relating it to what you said), and argue truthfully that guns are most ideally suited for defensive purposes. This should NOT be a requirement for us to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights in principle, but nevertheless it may win more points with some people than ideological arguments that more than a few of us tend to concentrate on.

Guns, especially handguns, are suited to defensive use. However, it would be a lie to say that the features that make them good for defense don't also make them good for offense.

I like that this is a pragmatic argument, but I'm not sure how many antis could be convinced of it, given examples such as the UK and Australia. We could bring up the failure of Prohibition as an example, and that may work on some, but not against those who are convinced that repealing the 2nd Amendment and confiscating all firearms would yield so many wonderful benefits to society that we'd never look back.

Gun control in the UK is hardly a proven benefit. The UK has had tremendous problems with violent crime in the wake of instituting their gun control laws. The same could also be said of Australia.

However, even if both countries were a sterling example of the effectiveness of gun control, neither nation has ever had a strong shooting culture.

 

[DefiantDad]

In fact, in Japan, from what I understand, there is a subculture of "gangs" that use knife assaults as a kind of initiation rite and/or the usual "thing to do" for such gangs. It could be so prevalent that they don't even report it (and definitely not a priority to report it in English worldwide).

The other aspect of firearms rights awareness is HISTORY.

The perfect example is a HISTORY LESSON using Hitler and the rise of Nazism because it is the best example in living memory. German citizens (including the Jewish CITIZENS) increasingly gave up arms rights. If I recall correctly, the first to go were those deemed to be mentally "deficient"...

The right to arms is a very challenging right to defend against but is the best "acid test" for the level of liberty in society; I am preaching to the choir here, but just wanted to post these as examples of things to discuss with an anti.

Ask what would have happened in Tiananmen Square if the students were not completely defenseless. Let's not forget they were peacefully protesting for democracy (before being gunned down and rolled over with tanks). China might not be communist anymore, if they had not been so easy to "take care of."

I find that the discussion going to the level of politics and citizenship, is easy to argue than about crime, etc. with educated antis.

(If they say "the USA is a democracy already" you can say "So was Germany before Hitler.")

 

[gp911]

The compliment one poster received reminded me of a good memory. One friend of mine who is very anti-gun (a UK expat living in France) once conceded a long facebook debate with me by saying "honestly if all gun owners thought like you we wouldn't need gun laws at all". I took that as quite a compliment. Too bad he's still so anti.

 

[Trent]

Manco, later in the conversation I found out she lived in NYC. So I'm really glad I didn't bring up 9-11.

I've been asleep too long. You know, not like unconscious, just ... not active in gun rights. 15 years ago in my early 20's I was as pro-gun, outspoken, and (admittedly) rash as a person could get. Even ended up on the news on TV once, gave a speech out on the courthouse steps about why we should have concealed carry. (Didn't do much good, only got about 30 seconds of airtime..). People in town still talk about it though. 15 years later... "hey you remember when you gave that speech at the courthouse and they brought the SWAT team up from Springfield..." (banghead).

I would like to find.. more refined approaches, and these online dialogs I've been having on social networking sites are good practice for face-to-face conversations, where I tend to have more difficulty.

I also agree (and try to avoid) the whole discussion on the fundamental REASON we have a second amendment, because it DOES tend to put you right in to the realm of the "quack" when you're trying to have a serious debate with someone. However, *I* feel very strongly about that. (ergo, my 50 cal isn't just for fun - yes it is that, but it's ALSO there in case my kids/grandkids/etc ever need one, you know, for real).

Thanks for the insights.

 

[mortablunt]

I agree with what has been said. Earlier this year, I was involved in a lengthy debate on another forum about guns. Here's the link.

http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/96537-should-guns-allowed-protection.html

It didn't end as well as Trent's FB discussion, but we got some really good hard debate over it.

 

[Manco]

Guns, especially handguns, are suited to defensive use. However, it would be a lie to say that the features that make them good for defense don't also make them good for offense.

My point was that the suitability of guns for defensive use (over other classes of weapon) makes them good for "ordinary" citizens to have in society, and the fact that they're suitable for offense is negated by the fact that there are equally or even more suitable weapons for committing mass murder anyway. I'm trying to find arguments that work for those with certain points of view that are different from my own--finding some common ground on which we can have a productive discussion.

Gun control in the UK is hardly a proven benefit. The UK has had tremendous problems with violent crime in the wake of instituting their gun control laws. The same could also be said of Australia.

But my point was that gun control was successfully implemented in those countries, pretty much. I'd rather concentrate on proving that gun control was not a benefit in those countries and would be harmful to the US in particular than try to convince them that it could not be done--I think that defeating the reasons for trying to do something would have a more powerful, lasting effect than claiming that it cannot be done.

However, even if both countries were a sterling example of the effectiveness of gun control, neither nation has ever had a strong shooting culture.

Which is why I would argue that gun control would hurt the US more--it has helped reduce the violent crime rate throughout our history, in my opinion (based on the point of view of criminals, who naturally harbor some fear of encountering armed victims).

 

[Dreamliner787]

There's no point in debating them it goes no where and I've never seen one changed their mind. Better to put effort into getting those of like minds to use their voice, especially to their political representatives.

 

[DefiantDad]

There's no point in debating them it goes no where and I've never seen one changed their mind. Better to put effort into getting those of like minds to use their voice, especially to their political representatives.

Not necessarily true in all cases. Probably true in "most" cases but YMMV.

I have successfully debated a number of original-anti's and they now honestly understand why gun rights (and the 2A) are so important, serving as the acid tests for a country's quality of life / quality of liberty.

 

[Trent]

Dreamliner, just takes practice and a smooth tongue. You CAN change their opinions. Might take a long time, but persistence pays off.

 

[Trent]

As an example; I had a debate with a Chicago resident on Facebook about concealed carry in Chicago. He was adamantly AGAINST it. He'd been SHOT recently by a stray round.

After a few weeks, and many, many conversations, he's come around. Took for-fricking-ever, but he now agrees that it would help end their war-zone environment up there.

What REALLY swayed him, in the end, was the # of FOID owners in cook county, combined with the national averages for gun owners that get concealed carry permits (where allowed).

He said "What good will a few people with guns do? Besides confuse the police?"

I said (after citing some stats):

"We're talking about the equivalent to an INFANTRY division, and that's if it falls at the national average. With the violence up there, you'll likely see an initial upsurge in CCW applicants FAR above the national average. You'd be effectively DOUBLING the number of people who can respond to violent crime twice over what the current city police force is. THAT is substantial number of people that may be nearby for to help you, even if YOU decide you don't want to carry a weapon for whatever reason. The bad guys already HAVE guns, and are using them freely. What this will do is simply increase the ODDS that someone will be able to HELP you."

Anyway paraphrasing there from memory, but close enough for horse shoes.

 

[Alaska444]

On another debate, which was strongly leaning left (towards an AWB/etc), I wrote this;

"The gun control / gun freedom argument really boils down to this:

Do we want the government to control our ability to defend ourselves (potentially, against the threat of that very government body)? I mean, what we are talking about here, is handing over OUR ability to defend ourselves in a manner we see fit, to the government.

To that, I ask, "what has the government EVER taken over that they haven't ROYALLY SCREWED UP."

I do NOT rely on the police force to protect me from bad people. I do NOT have a private security force or a personal bodyguard to protect my family. Sure, we could put a guard in every lobby of every business in America. What will that cost us? Would it even make a difference? Hell, despite having all the money they can throw at it, we can't even protect our own AIRPORTS or BORDERS effectively.

No, I do not trust the government to protect me. I DO trust that they will tally up my death by violent felon, to add to statistics. I DO trust they'll take pictures of my corpse. I DO trust that they'll write reports and do a token investigation. (But if I were to get killed, you wouldn't see the entire police force out looking for someone's blood, as if, say, a cop were murdered, because we live in a society with dual standards behind every badge.)

I trust ME.

Unfortunately I live in the last state that does NOT allow me to protect myself, outside of my own home and business (where I *do* carry a firearm). When I take my family to the theater, or park, or {wherever}, I have to make a conscious choice to either go completely unprotected, or to break the law myself.

Some choice, that.

Then there's the ultimate solution.

In today's "modern" world - and I say we've been quite pampered in the last 67 years following WWII, since that generation is for the most part, totally gone now - people often overlook that the most critical reason for gun ownership, PERIOD, is to ensure the government serves the people, and NOT the other way around. There's been far too many atrocities in recent history to just "hand over" the tools that the population needs to ensure perpetual freedom.

It's been that way since the BIRTH of this country. It's HOW this country was formed. And to give up that right - to limit ourselves to useless weapons - only invites what will inevitably happen if we were to lose that right.

Government taking absolute control? Absurd in this country. There's a gun for every single HUMAN here.

Take them away - what do we have? Harsh Words and sticks? Really?

Read this. It's from a VERY famous document.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Dear Trent, I believe you are living in a different time and a different age than I live. Who would have ever thought that the Feds would control all health care and be upheld by the Supreme court. America is no longer the WWII generation that would have fought against government control of all of these things. Unfortunately, my father's generation is now almost all dead or way too old to fight back any longer.

We ARE living in a generation of massive government intrusion into every part of our life. It is only a matter of time before they conquer this arena as well. The healthcare issue is an example of the Feds going against the will of the people who massively and overwhelmingly opposed this act. Guns and further control?

Only a matter of time before they figure out how to do an end run around all of it. The UN Small Arms Treaty is a real threat in the works as we speak. I have absolutely no trust that the Feds right or left will oppose it. In fact, if they don't approve it this year, it will just sit there waiting for a "friendly" government to enact it. I don't hold out much hope that we will prevail forever in this as well. We are sitting on the slippery slope to the full abrogation of our constitutional freedoms. It is today in critical care and I don't hold out a lot of hope it will survive.

 

[Manco]

There's no point in debating them it goes no where and I've never seen one changed their mind. Better to put effort into getting those of like minds to use their voice, especially to their political representatives.

Not to pile on, but as I stated earlier, many anti-gunners haven't given the subject much serious thought, so there are a lot of things they simply haven't thought of. I can understand, because it seems rather obvious to many people that guns are capable of causing great harm, including mass murder in the hands of those so-inclined, and since they've had no use for guns themselves in their life experiences thus far, it is easy for them to think (especially if they're only thinking with their emotions whenever there is a mass shooting) that it would be better if guns weren't so readily available to civilians. With some education (only the truth, of course, as the facts are on our side anyway), carefully and tactfully administered, however, I think that many of these people can at least come to understand and respect the views of the gun community, and throw off their prejudice or bias against guns (it's OK--nobody is born knowing everything). Some have even joined our ranks.

On the other hand, no amount of debate could ever change the minds of hardcore anti-gunners--they've given plenty of thought to the subject, and are still opposed to the private ownership of guns for whatever reasons (which may vary widely between individuals). These are not the people most of us are talking about here. Some of these people have changed their minds once they've actually been at the mercy of armed criminals (which does tend to encourage epiphanies or shifts in one's point of view), while others will never, ever be convinced by anything. I for one am not concerned about this small minority, only their disproportionate influence over a receptive public. But we can influence the public, too, and it behooves us to do this and to do it right--even if it's just one person at a time.

 

[peterr77]

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

 

[MachIVshooter]

If other means are far more deadly but just as available why are they used at such a small frequency compared to guns?

There's no debating that firearms are one of the easier ways to kill a (relatively small) qanatitiy of people. That doesn't change the fact that other methods are used and do work, and are used with greater frequency and devastating effects where guns are less available. My guess is if the theatre shooter had been a prohibited person, we'd be reading about an individual who blocked exits to the theatre and tossed in a few molotov coctails or something. It's not difficult to create an inferno in a venue like that using simple accelerants. Or he could have just attached a detonator to a small acetylene tank covered with ball bearings. That's would've been ugly.

Today large quantities of ammonia nitrate is tightly monitored and unavailable to most.

This guy stocked up for weeks and months. The same can be done with fertilizers, and in small quantities, it will go unnoticed.

manufacture without accidental detonation of most explosives is beyond what most are capable of.

Seriously? Simple bombs and incendiares are just that; easy to make, easy to employ. The technology we have avialable today also makes remote detonation easy in the extreme; A pre-paid mobile phone is all that is needed for a detonator that will work anywhere there is cell service.

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.

That's patently untrue. The firearm makes it necessary for the actor to be physically present at the crime scene, thus increasing the odds of being captured or killed. Other methods allow the actor egress prior to the carnage, or to have everything in place and not even be near the scene. And materials that can be used to create explosive or incendiary weapons can be bought with cash, no questions asked, totally untraceable.

Acquiring chems, delivery method, manufacturer, etc. is far more complex and fraught with risk of being caught than just walking into a gun store.

Once again, untrue. Not difficult to manufacture explosive devices and procure or manufacture detonation devices without making a blip on the radar. Your average guy can assemble a remote RF detonator or timer with a few things from radio shack and basic instructions that don't need to come from the anarchist cookbook.

Removing firearms may not absolutely prevent all mass murders but is reducing them not also a ? worthwhile accomplishment

I know you say you're playing devils advocate, but this just seems inflammatory

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?

It's not that difficult to create a fire that absolutely destroys a building in short order, and one that is planned could easily trap the occupants inside.

Why not used more often? Because most shootings are not random; They have a specific target. While the madman may not care about collateral damage, he wants to be sure that he gets the person/people he is after. If your average bomb is a broadsword and your precision bomb is a scalpel, a firearm is the needle used to peirce cells under SEM magnification.

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.

Well, I submit that the downsides to firearms are also greatly offset by their benefits. Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here on THR.

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.

This seems to be what has taken the wind out of the sales of many grabbers. They realize that a ban is going to have zero effect in a country that has 300 million firearms in circulation. Even if they don't understand the other reasons bans don't work, they get this one.

 

[Trent]

"Soft" anti-gunner log (this one - friend of mine - liberal Democrat, he just wanted drums banned). His text marked with "Greg:"

Greg: I really haven't heard any major politicians or media people really talking about banning any weapons, just some grumblings about 100rd magazines..

I'm gonna speak how I really feel, and before you fly off the handle, please keep in mind that A> this is coming from a former infantry soldier in the US Army, B> I am your friend C> I believe 100% in the Constitution

The reason I see for the 2nd amendment is to protect me from my government. Am I really any more protected with a 100rd drum than I am with a 30rd mag? Due to military weaponry nowadays, small arms would be virtually useless in an actual conflict with the government. They'll just shoot a hellfire off a drone and you're done. Or a rocket or a tank round or some type of HE/frag round. Or even bring in their mounted heat ray and immobilize you. Anymore the 2nd amendment is unfortunately just about like every other part of the bill of rights.. It looks great on paper, but they don't really guarantee anything anymore, the government has either eroded them to oblivion or walked right around them. With that said, there could be an argument to be made that civilians should be allowed to own everything the military has. Obviously, that's never gonna happen.

Now with that said above, what purpose would 100rd magazines serve besides mass murder? lol I mean at least with a 30rd magazine you might get a decent chance to bumrush the attacker when he stopped to reload or change weapons ya know..

As far as the fun factor, civilians can't really go full auto/burst so there really isn't all that much more fun with a semi 100rds than 30rds.

I just wanted to let you know what was on my mind about it. Not trying to convert anyone or even say that they should be outlawed, just my $.02 I hope everyone who hops on the thread can be adults and have a simple conversation!


---
Me:
Greg, Full auto is legal in 46 states with the proper licensing. We're not one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5EcyksD2I

(Me taking good advantage of a 75 round drum to shoot a boat.)

Base on your argument we should all be driving 4 cylinder 50mpg hybrids because V8's that make 412 BHP are dangerous, use too much fuel, cause property damage and fatalities, and "there's no reason to drive over 65/70/whatever"

We (speaking for the gun community) have "given in" and "given in" and "given in" for too long.

EVERYONE is standing their ground on what we have, and pushing for more. Why? Because every time we hear "oh we'll stop *if* you give up your high caps", next thing you know you can't legally own or buy diddly SQUAT and you have to give a thumbprint to buy a box of ammo. (RE: California.)

Also, for the record - I will always be civil on gun debates. I know these things scare the living **** out of some people and I respect their feelings. I'm the same way with most stuff - drugs, abortion, etc. I have my views, others have theirs, I recognize that. I'm not on a crusade to change everyone's minds or bend them to my own will.

Only thing I'm doing is making sure people understand what MY views are. Because there is a flip side to the gun control coin, and it affects the lives of people like me.
---


Greg:
Nahh.. Some places don't have a speed limit. Sometimes you need to pull a trailer.. Etc.. And don't get me started about how the oil companies are in bed with the car manufacturers lol

I understand the slippery slope argument, I really do. It's the same reason why you'll likely get more use out of the bill of rights as ****paper than a legal document. But I just can't get past there not really being any good reason for drums other than mass murder. I guess I'm just trying to say that I'd just prefer to have laws that actually make sense as opposed to looking at it like "I have a musket, the army soldier has a musket. We're on even footing."


----
Me:
Since you are after one, I'll present you a good reason for "big magazines."

You say they're for mass murder. So where do you set the line? Standard capacity on an AR-15 is 30 rounds. Same with AK47, etc. That too much? How about 10? Or 5? How much firepower is too lethal? Many "reasonable" people would argue that any more than *1* round is too much, because if you're target shooting, why would you need more than 1 at a time? You have all day to sit there and plug rounds in to the chamber, right?

They started that VERY SAME ARGUMENT in U.K. and it ended up with all semi-auto rifles being banned. Single shot only.

Personally, I feel 30 round magazines are FAR more "dangerous". You can carry more, more conveniently. You can CHANGE them faster. They're far less prone to jamming (remember, Aurora? The drum caused a FTF that ended the AR-15)

There's a reason the military settled on 30 round magazines. It's the most efficient way to bring the ammunition to battle and have it used in the most efficient manner.

If ANYTHING, the fact that he had a drum magazine PREVENTED deaths. What if he'd walked in there with a set of MOLLE pouches and 10 30 round mags? He'd have 3 TIMES the death-dealing power he had with the one Beta mag.

Greg, bottom line - I agree with you that there is an emotional argument against "magazines of mass destruction".. but it's just that, emotional. The math doesn't add up when you analyze it. Regardless of container, the human body can carry a LOT of ammo. Whether you have 100 rounds in 1 drum that's hard to carry, or 120 rounds in 4 mags (which will fit in the same pouch, by the way), or you have a bag of 50 10 round magazines....

Consider the 10-round limit imposed during the 10 year assault weapons ban. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY showed that made one iota of difference on violent crime. All it did was screw with all the legal gun owners. Why? Because you can shoot and kill someone just as easily with 10 bullets as you can with 13 (double stack 45), 15 (40 S&W), 17 (most 9mm's), etc.

DC snipers also used an "evil AR-15 assault weapon". Never fired more than ONE SHOT in any location. Killed a lot of people in the process.

No, the emotional grab for high capacity mags, it just doesn't have any traction dude. At least, not any that makes sense.

----

Greg: I've shot weapons with 250rd belt boxes and above.. The M-60, SAW, 50cal, etc.. And personally what I've found is that full auto is mostly useless when you're actually trying to kill someone. A good aim/shot on semi is worth at least 10 auto rounds.

----

Completely agreed, Greg.

Anyway, a highly trained marksman can kill 10 people with 10 shots. So again, where do we draw the line?

Remember, mass shootings didn't just pop up out of thin air with the advent of the semi-auto rifle. SEVERAL high profile shootings (including the University of Texas, JFK assassination, etc) were committed with bolt action firearms. Even Virginia tech was largely played out with a Walther 22 caliber handgun and 10 round magazines.

To resolve the "aim" of the anti-gun community, limiting ownership or restricting possession of firearms, or accessories, the only end game that will satisfy them is a complete ban on ALL firearms.

Once standard or extended capacity magazines are banned, the next shooting will be with a reduced capacity mag. Eventually we'll end up with shooting sprees with shotguns, and they'll want to take those away. Oh wait. He had one of those, too. In fact, if I recall correct, he OPENED with it. Smart guy, use the most devastating weapon first.