semf
member
How about Each One Teach One Day.
What ? You could do better?
grrrrrrrr.....arguing with the ignorant
- Thread starter synoptic
- Start date
- Status
What ? You could do better?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
It is impossible to convince someone of something if they are ignorant of the base fundamentals regarding what you're talking about.
This is true. It is also going to be impossible to convince someone of something if they don't agree with your interpretation of the base fundamentals regarding what you are talking about.
Knowing all the facts, pro gun folks will argue that guns are responsible for saving many more lives than taking of lives and that for any given situation, a gun in the hands of a good guy are more likely to bring positive closure to the situation more often than not. The risk of injury or death to non-combatants or unintended actors (the good guy or people the good guy is attempting to protect) is miniscule.
Anti gun folks can see the same information and rationalize that anytime a person is wrongfully/unintentionally shot with a gun (as by the good guy shooting himself, bystander, or other unintended actor) that such actions could have been prevented. What the antis have argued indirectly is that we can't control the actions of law breakers who take lives, but we can control the actions of law abiders and as such we can keep law abiders from having guns and this will make many of the unintended shootings by the law abiders go away as the law abiders won't have any guns.
Pro gun folks will argue that the numbers are on the side. This is an attrition concept where it is believed that guns are valid for use because in the final analysis, more bad guys than good guys are going to be killed by the good guys and hence the gun is a rightful tool. I personally like the attritional concept and believe the odds are in my favor over that of the bad guy. Anti gun folks do not think such reasoning validates the use of guns.
Both sides can be completely aware of the raw data and of the fundatmentals of the argument and still reach differing conclusions on what is right or wrong. The classic interpretational example is the glass of water with equal parts of water and air. One side claims the glass is half empty. The other side, seeing the same glass, claims the glass is half full. Half empty is the negative connotation and half full is the positive connotation. Both interpretations are correct and shot an understand of the water available but also shows mutually exclusive positions on the status of the water. This is a simplified example, but sufficient for the point that both sides can arrive at different and seemingly valid interpretations based on full knowledge of the data under consideration.
You really have to understand that there comes a point in discussions where you have to agree to disagree and leave it alone or you will likely come out of the deal looking like a reactionary hothead. When you reach that point, you have come to a culmination of disparity between the pro gun belief system and the anti gun belief system. You might as well be arguing that your god is better than their god as both sides of the argument can see the same information and arrive at differnet conclusions based on their own beliefs.
Getting mad or upset with your opposition does ZILCH to help convince and promote your position. Believing that your opposition is ignornat or unintelligent because they don't agree with you or behave as you belive is best indicates that you have established and US and THEM categorization and anyone who isn't US is inferior because they are ignorant.
This is true. It is also going to be impossible to convince someone of something if they don't agree with your interpretation of the base fundamentals regarding what you are talking about.
Knowing all the facts, pro gun folks will argue that guns are responsible for saving many more lives than taking of lives and that for any given situation, a gun in the hands of a good guy are more likely to bring positive closure to the situation more often than not. The risk of injury or death to non-combatants or unintended actors (the good guy or people the good guy is attempting to protect) is miniscule.
Anti gun folks can see the same information and rationalize that anytime a person is wrongfully/unintentionally shot with a gun (as by the good guy shooting himself, bystander, or other unintended actor) that such actions could have been prevented. What the antis have argued indirectly is that we can't control the actions of law breakers who take lives, but we can control the actions of law abiders and as such we can keep law abiders from having guns and this will make many of the unintended shootings by the law abiders go away as the law abiders won't have any guns.
Pro gun folks will argue that the numbers are on the side. This is an attrition concept where it is believed that guns are valid for use because in the final analysis, more bad guys than good guys are going to be killed by the good guys and hence the gun is a rightful tool. I personally like the attritional concept and believe the odds are in my favor over that of the bad guy. Anti gun folks do not think such reasoning validates the use of guns.
Both sides can be completely aware of the raw data and of the fundatmentals of the argument and still reach differing conclusions on what is right or wrong. The classic interpretational example is the glass of water with equal parts of water and air. One side claims the glass is half empty. The other side, seeing the same glass, claims the glass is half full. Half empty is the negative connotation and half full is the positive connotation. Both interpretations are correct and shot an understand of the water available but also shows mutually exclusive positions on the status of the water. This is a simplified example, but sufficient for the point that both sides can arrive at different and seemingly valid interpretations based on full knowledge of the data under consideration.
You really have to understand that there comes a point in discussions where you have to agree to disagree and leave it alone or you will likely come out of the deal looking like a reactionary hothead. When you reach that point, you have come to a culmination of disparity between the pro gun belief system and the anti gun belief system. You might as well be arguing that your god is better than their god as both sides of the argument can see the same information and arrive at differnet conclusions based on their own beliefs.
Getting mad or upset with your opposition does ZILCH to help convince and promote your position. Believing that your opposition is ignornat or unintelligent because they don't agree with you or behave as you belive is best indicates that you have established and US and THEM categorization and anyone who isn't US is inferior because they are ignorant.
synoptic
Member
That sounds great
I may not be able to do better, but by god I can sit here and tell you what you're doing wrong
Seriously though, get a nationally recognized "go to the range day" and partner up with some rape prevention groups and such and we can slowly sneak our message in as well as give those we reach an excuse to ehad out to the range with us. Why are anti's so effective? They have most of the mainstream media on their side. The tv stations wouldn't dare turn down a rape prevention ad though, so why not use something of that sort to sneak our message in with? We could actually get the stations to unknowingly promote our message. Just something to think about
Balog
Member
gino wrote:
Uhhh, what? JPFO, GOA, KABA, Liberty Belles etc etc ALL believe in this. JPFO especially.
Uhhh, what? JPFO, GOA, KABA, Liberty Belles etc etc ALL believe in this. JPFO especially.
semf
member
O K so you can do better.
Some guy started a National Ammo day that seems to be picking up steam. Why can't somebody start a Range Day. Somebody smart get behind this.
My sister had a bad experience with guns. Blames guns, not the gun's wielder.
I was explaining how Kali's gun control laws were unconstitutional. She replied, "Well, maybe the Constitution needs to be changed."
:banghead:
AFAIK, there's only one Amendment that preceeds the RKBA, and that's the one that allows statements like hers. But from whence that freedom, eh? Hmmm.....
I was explaining how Kali's gun control laws were unconstitutional. She replied, "Well, maybe the Constitution needs to be changed."
:banghead: AFAIK, there's only one Amendment that preceeds the RKBA, and that's the one that allows statements like hers. But from whence that freedom, eh? Hmmm.....
BluesBear
member
Reminds me of the talk going on back in the mid 90s when Kentucky was getting ready to finally enact a CCW law.
I was a regular caller to the local talk radio station (WWKY). This station was pro-gun so one day the afternoon call in show featured a visit by one of the female state representatives that voted in favor of the new law.
However in her conversations she had said that she supported the state ban on CCW in a school. When my turn on the air came around I asker her why she felt this was good. She replied that you didn't want students in school carrying guns. I asked her if she realized that the proposed law specifically limited the right of CCW to those over 21? I pointed out to her that there were very few 21 year old high school students even in Kentucky.
I then went into my standard "what if" about the perfect place for a pervert to take a woman and some children hostage for unspeakable acts was the typical "Mom picking up the kids in a minivan AT SCHOOL" since obviously she wouldn't be armed. She stammered a little bit and said that maybe this could be changed "down the road".
I just pray that there were some sensible mothers listening in that day.
labgrade
Member In Memoriam
Interesting, all the talk about "the antis."
I've had more head-butting sessions with the "pro" side than any other - assuming that they can git their head out.
Something about the "right to keep & bear" ...
"Of course we have the rkba!" But, mandatory training, no guns in schools/planes/churches, support of Brady, ad nasuem.
& these are "pro folk."
I could go on.
I've had more head-butting sessions with the "pro" side than any other - assuming that they can git their head out.
Something about the "right to keep & bear" ...
"Of course we have the rkba!" But, mandatory training, no guns in schools/planes/churches, support of Brady, ad nasuem.
& these are "pro folk."
I could go on.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
