"For every good gun story there is a bad one..."

[RetiredUSNChief]

I've encountered this argument a few times in the past; I give an example of how proper use of a firearm saved a person's life, and the anti gives an example of how a firearm was used to murder someone, then acts as if their example negates mine.

I'm not sure how to respond to it other than stating that infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding for the sake of the criminal's actions doesn't make any sense. I've heard the "84 million firearm owners killed no one" cliche, but is there any meat to that argument? It would seem to me that the overwhelming number of firearms in this country are owned and used for legitimate and legal purposes (not just self defense), but I'm not sure as to how I should go about presenting the purported statistics.

Any help is appreciated!

OK.


What these people EXPECT from someone who opposes their point of view is direct opposition to their point of view, and very likely they expect that opposition to take place via statistics and citing various sources. In otherwords, they expect people to counter them on a battlefield that's defined by their own personal lack of first hand experience and the tactics that go along with that. All they typically have is what they've been spoon-fed by various anti-gun sources.

So avoid doing this. Be creative. Be different. Approach things obliquely instead of head on, where possible. Learn to lead them by the nose into situations where their point of view simply is not viable. (LEAD them, don't dump them into scenarios. Leading them means that they take the initiative in choosing the path they wish to follow, right up until they reach the end you've set up for them to find.)


First of all, you need to realize that some people are simply close-minded and do not care for anybody else's point of view, no matter how well backed up it may be or how badly their own point of view may hold up under the light of scrutiny.

For these kind of people, you'd do better making a solid, hard-hitting (even emotionally grounded) point and then simply cutting off any further discussion on the matter, perhaps by leaving. If there are witnesses, perhaps you'll make an impact on a few of them. Don't argue their point and don't give them a chance to rebut yours. And if your example is good enough, then any attempt to rebut your example will make them look like an uncaring *ss for doing so.

For example, if you have any personal experiences or a close family member who has had a personal experience, that you could relate, then deliver the story firmly and leave. (But don't make up stories...that's the venue of our opponents.)

"You know, my wife was attacked during a robbery/rape attempt by a large man with a knife in a parking lot while she was opening the car door to get our baby girl out of the car seat. If she didn't have her gun with her that night then I'd be a widowed father right now, or maybe even just a widow."

No name calling, no opportunity to reply. Leave.


If their actually willing to intelligently discuss the issue and how they feel about it, then you can take any number of alternate avenues. You can invite them out to do some target shooting and learn about guns, you can engage them in role playing, you can introduce them to people who have used guns in defense, or any number of creative ways.

 

[denton]

If you use the IMF list of developed countries only Estonia (5.2) has a higher incidence of homicide than the US (4.7).

If the discussion is limited to a particular list, you'll almost always get a result that is different from the global result. For a representative result, you either have to take a random sample, or you have to throw the whole population into the pot. Anyone can go list shopping and get any result they want. That's the clever fallacy that the antis have foist upon us. They are violating the fundamental requirements of statistical sampling to get the answer they want.

It is just as logical to compare with a list of countries on the American continents. In that case, we get Honduras at 91.6, El Salvador at 69.2, Venezuela at 49.1, Belize at 41.4, and so on.

It is also just as logical to compare with a list of major world powers. That would put China at the bottom with 1.0, the US in the middle at 4.7, and Russia on top with 10.2 (which many say is a very lowball estimate).

Since there are not a huge number of countries in the world, there is no reason to rely on samples. If you're willing to swallow the assumption that all countries have the same definition of "homicide" (not true) and that all are equally honest in reporting their numbers, then you find that the US is 104th in a list of 186 readily available countries. As I said, right in the middle of the pack. Of course, that assumes that you can bring yourself to believe that Somalia has a 1.5 homicide rate, and is thus a much safer place than the US. Or that Western Sahara is safer than the US because they are not on the list at all. They are not on the list because having any form of functioning government is an on-again off-again matter there.

The US is simply not a particularly violent place. We could do better, but we could do a lot worse, too.