I'd have two words for him: "Hurricane Katrina." Or go with the LA riots several years ago. The weapon you describe would be the best for the kind of rioting that ensued from the "entitlement class." Looting, raping, pillaging WAS occuring and will so again. Maybe in your town! There IS a place for citizens to have AR-15's that has NOTHING to do with hunting or even directly with the Secon A.
Gun Rights: How do I win this argument...
- Thread starter Tarvis
- Start date
- Status
doc2rn
Member
Tell him to read John Connor's article entitled "Little Lizzie" from the Handgun magazine archive.
Wait - are you claiming anyone ever listened on Point/Counterpoint? The were just yapping at each other.
A debate is about winning - and there are many strategies. You may elect to listen to your opponent, in order to counter his arguments. You may also chose not to listen to his points, and just keep presenting your strongest case, ignoring anything the opponent has to say. In a strictly formal debate, there are rules that require you to rebut each other in specific time frames, etc.
But in a less formal setting, no one is required to specifically rebut the arguments of their opponents - that's only one of many strategies to win. I am also not sure that "listening in order to rebut" is the smae as "listening and taking it heart".
We cite stats from districts with strong gun control and high crime rates (DC, Phily, etc). They cite districts with very little gun control and high crime rates (mostly southern states). We cite districts with very little gun control and very little crime (mostly northwestern states). The cite states with very strong gun control and very little crime (mostly northeastern states). Is either side really listening?
Mike
My point is that anti-gun people usually are not anti-gun because they have not read the Constitution. They are usually anti-gun, or anti-you-need-an-AR15, or whatever, because of an emotional response and the Constitution is irrelevant to that. They may think the 2A applies to the military, police, maybe not, maybe they think it's hunting, maybe they don't understand what it means, misinterpret it, etc. Who knows? That's an entirely different debate and will totally cloud the issue without adding any enlightenment to the conversation about why should this gun or that gun or any gun be illegal or unnecessary.
Yes that's exactly what you have to do. That's because the facts and history don't have anything to do with the decision that this other person is making. They are not saying, "because of history, you don't need an AR15". They are really saying, "because it is scary and military looking, you don't need an AR15". You don't debate that by saying "but historically ... the Constitution ... militia ... revolution ... tyranny ... civilians need access to tanks and nukes ..." You want to ratchet UP the fear, then go this route.
You don't have to be a psychologist to understand the basics of human communication.
mr.72 said:
And the reality is that most of us are not pro-gun because we have the Constitution. We are probably pro-gun or anti-gun for reasons completely unrelated to the Constitution. Most likely emotion (we like guns) and personal history (my dad took me shooting with him).
Mike
cambeul41
Member
Yes I mentioned this in post #41:
I would add things like fear, a sense of responsibility to protect others, etc. to the list of emotional reasons many of us own guns. There is no problem with that. We do nearly everything in our lives based at least partly on emotion. We are emotional beings. If you deny that then you won't be able to get along with anybody!
I don't understand. Are you saying that if you are debating someone about something (again, not for any kind of official competition) and they make an excellent point, you are unwilling to say "You're right" because "Winning" is more important? That sounds like bad sportsmanship and closed-mindedness to me.
In an informal setting, why even debate if you refuse to admit you're wrong? Why debate someone who you know will never, ever admit they're wrong? There are issues where both sides make good points, where "gray areas" exist, but you can't take yourself so seriously that you go into a debate unprepared to make ANY concession to logic.
I don't mean to be offensive if I sounded that way, but we can agree to disagree
</thread drift>
I am not sure that calling someone "Snidely Snotworth" and suggesting that the person to whom you are talking should be physically beaten is very convincing.
But I will give the author a lot of credit - he's taking the fight to the enemy. A pro-gun article in American Handgunner? - that's just pure raw unadulterated courage there.
Mike
BruceRDucer
Member
This seems to be the general fact. We may never understand why some people view the world and its affairs as a kind of FLATLAND, where no forces strive for supremacy. Maybe people have never seen anything more violent and threatening than a Television Set?
Why do some people view modern man as somehow, exempt from history?
What we do know is that large numbers of people apparently do see life this way, as though things which occurred in the past, such as tyranny, oppression, violent disturbances and so on, have been magically edited out of our common experience. These are the ones who are convinced that the individual citizen should be disarmed.
It is almost too corny to be true. I agree with what mr. 72 wrote.
/
Well basicblur... I could explain why people "find this so difficult to understand" but what difference does it make? You have to meet people where they are if you want to communicate with them or educate them. Having open disdain for people because you think they are stupid or uninformed will not give you the opportunity to influence people or help them to become better-informed.
People are not basically stupid. They are not intentionally uninformed. They are just normal. You are not smarter than everyone else, and probably not any better-informed. You just have a different experience and perspective. It is pure arrogance to think you are truly smarter.
Consider this: intelligent, well-informed, educated people often have a completely different opinion than yours. In fact there is a high likelihood that there are people that know a lot more about what you think you know all about, and know even more about things you have never even heard of, who also have a different opinion than yours. They have good reason to believe the way they believe, maybe better reasons than the reasons you have for your beliefs.
Arrogance and a lack of respect is a really quick way to lose an argument, as well as losing all of your credibility.
People are not basically stupid. They are not intentionally uninformed. They are just normal. You are not smarter than everyone else, and probably not any better-informed. You just have a different experience and perspective. It is pure arrogance to think you are truly smarter.
Consider this: intelligent, well-informed, educated people often have a completely different opinion than yours. In fact there is a high likelihood that there are people that know a lot more about what you think you know all about, and know even more about things you have never even heard of, who also have a different opinion than yours. They have good reason to believe the way they believe, maybe better reasons than the reasons you have for your beliefs.
Arrogance and a lack of respect is a really quick way to lose an argument, as well as losing all of your credibility.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Wow, and the fact that folks believe that history repeats itself simply because people are uninformed or stupid are equally in the same mentally challenged position. History repeats itself for a variety of reasons and surprisingly, history fails to repeat itself equally well for a variety of reasons.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Familiarity also plays a part. You and I are largely immune to the "AR-15's are evil death weapons that will blow a deer to smithereens and are only suitable for mass murder" BS, because we know enough about guns to know it's BS. Someone like the anti described in the OP, on the other hand, may be susceptible to that type of propaganda because they don't know enough about the technologies in question to see through the specious claims.
- Status
