lwknight
Member
That confirms what most of us have already suspected.
How to debate with anti-gun relative
- Thread starter duns
- Start date
- Status
That confirms what most of us have already suspected.
ReadyontheRight
Member
My son just did a 7th grade report on New Zealand. One of the questions was "population below poverty level". New Zealand's governement says it has "No poverty".
La La land.
La La land.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I doubt you're likely to have much sway on your friend. A basic belief in a fundamental individual right of self defense is the essential underpinning of the RKBA.
Your friend recognizes no such right for either himself or others, and instead engages in postmodern equivocation that all but openly validates the motives of violent criminals while simultaneously condemning those forced into committing an act of violence in defense of themselves when confronted by criminals willing to initiate violence.
If you stop to think about it for a moment, this is an example of such epic double think that even George Orwell would likely boggle at how ludicrous it is.
It can be argued that there are socioeconomic reasons for why violent criminals behave as they do, and your friend may be correct that society may have an obligation to address those reasons, but that's a sunshine and lollipop discussion for the social worker/idle academic crowd to discuss while sitting in Starbucks.
The absolute last place to worry about such notions is you or your loved ones are being threatened with physical violence on a dark street.
Your friend recognizes no such right for either himself or others, and instead engages in postmodern equivocation that all but openly validates the motives of violent criminals while simultaneously condemning those forced into committing an act of violence in defense of themselves when confronted by criminals willing to initiate violence.
If you stop to think about it for a moment, this is an example of such epic double think that even George Orwell would likely boggle at how ludicrous it is.
It can be argued that there are socioeconomic reasons for why violent criminals behave as they do, and your friend may be correct that society may have an obligation to address those reasons, but that's a sunshine and lollipop discussion for the social worker/idle academic crowd to discuss while sitting in Starbucks.
The absolute last place to worry about such notions is you or your loved ones are being threatened with physical violence on a dark street.
Last edited:
Tim the student
Member
Good luck.
He sounds like a maroonie.
He sounds like a maroonie.
Gouranga
Member
LOL, Sounds just like a girl I dated in High School. We still talk on Facebook every now and then. She is about as liberal and anti as you can get. I debate her mainly for fun. I am never going to change her mindset, she will never change mine. We both think the other is ridiculous on where they stand.
I graduated high school more than 15 years ago. and we have debated this since then.So I would not expect you to change anything in his mind. About the only thing that will is if he ever has one of these poor, undereducated, victim of society thugs come into his home and kill him or one of his family members.
I mean I feel bad for folks less fortunate than I. I help them out through charities and donating my time and talents to helping when I can. ALL my sympathy for them disappears the second they break into someones home, or attack someone. I had a pretty messed up childhood at times but I have not and will not ever use it as an excuse for committing a crime. I suppose he also does not believe in personal responsibility.
I graduated high school more than 15 years ago. and we have debated this since then.So I would not expect you to change anything in his mind. About the only thing that will is if he ever has one of these poor, undereducated, victim of society thugs come into his home and kill him or one of his family members.
I mean I feel bad for folks less fortunate than I. I help them out through charities and donating my time and talents to helping when I can. ALL my sympathy for them disappears the second they break into someones home, or attack someone. I had a pretty messed up childhood at times but I have not and will not ever use it as an excuse for committing a crime. I suppose he also does not believe in personal responsibility.
SonofGilnockie89
Member
+1 Davey Wavey
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
You cannot argue with this. You could enslave him/ or steal all of his belongings and point out that he has no means to defend himself, but you don't want to do this with a relative.
Some people are psychologically blocked from confrontation and will never see the bad in anyone. i.e. The paint fumes made Hitler kill 10 million people, it wasn't his fault! The only way to deal with this is to point to a woman you both know in an abusive relationship who just will not leave her spouse, because she cannot see the bad in him - and draw analogies.
" are ridiculously rare in any society" cite McDonald. More Americans were shot in Chicago than in Iraq and Afghanistan over the same period.
NZ has basically crippled it's military and police, but allows private ownership of weapons absolutely forbidden in the US: Full-Auto MG's, Main Battle Tanks, Wings of fighter bombers. So he may have a point in NZ, however NZ is a special case and I don't think it applies in 99% of the countries in the world.
Basically, he has a different set of foundational beliefs and you cannot change his mind without changing those. Those will not be changed by talking - you need to take him to the killing fields of Cambodia or something similar to make him recognize that there are bad people in this world that must be dealt with. However, you probably don't have the time or money for this so I would just skip it and take a nice vacation to NZ - great hunting, beautiful scenery and every land mamal is considered a pest to be eradicated.
I agree with everything that was posted above except one thing.. I think there is something that you can do to change his mind. There is a saying that a liberal is someone who simply has not been mugged/raped/armed robbed yet.. Once that happens, they immediately swing to the other side.
Take this clown to the worst part of town late at night. Take his cell phone from him. Take his identification from him. Leave him with a sizable amount of cash in his pocket. Pull up to the most nefarious appearing group of individuals you can find. Stop the car. Put the clown out of the car. As you drive off, tell the "thugs" that your buddy is a drug dealer that just sold a pound of cocaine, and that he has the cash on him. Drive off.
This, and only this, will absolutely change his mind about his beliefs on ones rights to self defense. If it does not, at least you tried, and you can rest easy realizing that he lacks the ability to think rationally, and no amount of wisdom will be imparted on someone who's mind is so closed that not even a ray of sunshine, or intelligence, can break through. If he is killed, you have still bettered the RKBA position by removing one from the ranks of our enemy.
Seriously though, this person has lived a sheltered, pampered, life. Once he gets out into the real world, and has some exposure to reality-his views will change. With age comes wisdom. This guy has neither.
Take this clown to the worst part of town late at night. Take his cell phone from him. Take his identification from him. Leave him with a sizable amount of cash in his pocket. Pull up to the most nefarious appearing group of individuals you can find. Stop the car. Put the clown out of the car. As you drive off, tell the "thugs" that your buddy is a drug dealer that just sold a pound of cocaine, and that he has the cash on him. Drive off.
This, and only this, will absolutely change his mind about his beliefs on ones rights to self defense. If it does not, at least you tried, and you can rest easy realizing that he lacks the ability to think rationally, and no amount of wisdom will be imparted on someone who's mind is so closed that not even a ray of sunshine, or intelligence, can break through. If he is killed, you have still bettered the RKBA position by removing one from the ranks of our enemy.
Seriously though, this person has lived a sheltered, pampered, life. Once he gets out into the real world, and has some exposure to reality-his views will change. With age comes wisdom. This guy has neither.
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
When an anti gun person says that those who kill in self defense are no better than those who maliciously commit murder, I have to give up on them at that point. There is talking sense with that level of insanity present.
Last edited:
MikeNice
Member
Sherman pretty much nailed it on the head. If this guy can not recognize the difference between a rapist, or a murderer, and someone defending their family, he is too lost to save.
sm
member
How to debate with anti-gun relative.
Fire the relative.
Now using the energies saved from not debating with them:
-Introduce a new person to shooting.
-Assist a range or club, on "new shooter day", "ladies day" "kids day", Conceal Carry class, or similar. Even if nothing more than cooking on the grill.
Fire the relative.
Now using the energies saved from not debating with them:
-Introduce a new person to shooting.
-Assist a range or club, on "new shooter day", "ladies day" "kids day", Conceal Carry class, or similar. Even if nothing more than cooking on the grill.
W.E.G.
Member
Isn't he the clever lad.
When his front teeth are smashed-out, his car is stolen, and his loved ones are threatened with worse, he can debate with his attackers who is the most noble and wise.
When his front teeth are smashed-out, his car is stolen, and his loved ones are threatened with worse, he can debate with his attackers who is the most noble and wise.
BCCL
Member
Next time he says that, knock him down and take his wallet, see how fast he screams about his rights.
Deanimator
Member
He's a nihilist. It appears to me that he identifies more with the perpetrator of criminal violence than with the victim. This is not a all uncommon in anti-gunners, and especially with British and Australian anti-gunners. I suppose I can now expand that to ones from New Zealand. He's like those women who send undergarments and marriage proposals to serial killers, like Richard "The Nightstalker" Ramirez. Those two guys in Connecticut who raped and slaughtered the doctor's wife and daughters are like rockstars to him. They did something he'll never have the audacity to do. That it destroyed four lives and could have been prevented by the appropriate use of deadly force by the doctor is of no concern to him.
He subscribes to the "game preserve" model of society where the average non-criminal citizen is just another species of "antelope" on which violent criminals prey, like lions, "thinning the herd". Like a game warden, the idea of the antelope growing fangs and claws and disemboweling the lions is "unnatural" and horrifying to him. Here in the United States, such attitudes almost invariably have a racial component, with non-White crime victims being seen as expendable "resources".
My response to those like him is, "NO, I refuse, and there's NOTHING IN THE WORLD you can do about it." That's always fun, because they're used to having their aberrant and pernicious dogma pandered to. When somebody gets in their faces and tells them to chase themselves, they get all flustered and don't know what to do. Mostly they fall back on profanity, racial slurs (where applicable) and impotent threats. For extra fun, throw in, "I've got a gun and you don't. I'll do what I want."
He has a right to his opinion, no matter how mindnumbingly stupid and cravenly evil. Conversely, you have every right to mock him and hold him up to ridicule for it. And if he doesn't like it, what's he going to do? You're the one with the gun.
oldbear
Member
Excellent advice.
When the topic comes up I just refuse to discuss it. I’ve found it best not to argue with folks who have views that are so opposed to mine. They are unlikely to change their minds, and at my age I really don’t believe that I will change my views either, so why waste the energy?
CoRoMo
Member
+1
I'm going to have to let a family member or two go. Not because of this issue, something else, not gun related. Anyway, life's too short to keep with crappy company.
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 507
So I had some free time...
Wow, man. That dude's off kilter. Let's see...
Well, next time you meet, knock him down and take everything he has. After all, he has no human rights, which means he has no right to own anything unless you give him permission. Indeed, it is his duty to yield up to you whatever you want, whenever you want it. Oh, he could certainly try to protect himself, except (a) he has no human rights, and therefore no right to self protection (presumably even if you intend to kill him(!)), (b) and since he needs permission to do or own anything (because he has no human rights), he has to seek your approval before engaging in self-protection, and (c) since has no right to harm you, his only recourse is in harsh words – if (b, again) he first asks to use, and you allow, those harsh words. (Well, that's wrong, he has no human rights, therefore it is his duty to await your command to speak, or act...)
Oh, and why should he look to you for permission? If he asserts no human rights for himself, others are perfectly entitled to do so, they are perfectly willing, and they are legion.
Sweeping generalization, here, so let's get specific.
Once-upon-a-time, in my sleepy little college town, three fellows working in a local grocery store were murdered by two thugs armed with a knife and shotguns. The goons took turns beating and stabbing the three workers before deciding it was too much work, whereafter they finally shot the incapacitated three (one of whom had been stabbed nine times wit the knife and bludgeoned with a shotgun before being finished off). Murder was their original goal, by the way, as they desired to leave no witnesses.
After improving their socioeconomic plight by murdering three men, and to the tune of $1,200 in cash, one of the murderers paid some bills, threw a steak-cooking party for friends, those steaks taken from the store where he'd murdered three men. His accomplice spent his socioeconomic boon on clothing and jewelry.
The lead in this murderous scheme was described as having come from a good family. He had even worked his way up the ladder in the very store where he later committed his crime, having becoming assistant manager before slacking off and getting fired.
The victims were described thusly: “They were just great guys, going to college to try to make better lives for themselves.”
Notice the contrast between murderers and victims. The victims took a crappy, low-paying job because it was honest work that helped pay for education that they believed would better their socioeconomic status.
The murderers, on the other hand, instead of taking honest work or other honest measures that would improve their socioeconomic status (such as maintaining the job that at least one of them had, once-upon-a-time, held), chose instead to murder and steal. One may say that murder and theft are not equivalent crimes, but each causes harm to another. One can be recovered. The other cannot. But the issue is not one of recovery or of excuse. Instead, it is one of right and wrong. One's socioeconomic plight has nothing to do with choosing wrong over right.
The victims in this case were compliant, cooperative, and have been dead now for 25 years.
Once again, one's socioeconomic plight has nothing to do with choosing wrong over right.
Moving on.
Fact? How does he know? This is an unsupported claim. You can't do that in a serious argument. Murder attempts may be rare, even ridiculously rare, but the rarity of disaster does not help those who suffer it. Let's put that another way: say the odds of getting murdered anywhere may be low, but low odds do not change the fact that, for the victims, the odds are always 100 percent, and those victims remain 100 percent dead. (See, for instance, the story above.)
Last part bolded because of the Aramoana massacre, and every other murder in New Zealand (or anywhere else) of the innocent by the predatory. Had the dead the means to effectively retaliate, they might not be dead. To deny anyone such opportunity, or the tools by which to exercise it, is immoral.
Addendum: it is the criminals' propensity to commit crimes that determines crime rates.
This hasn't worked out well for the Maori, has it? Setting aside the unfair aside … remember that this is the reason there is a U.S. in the first place. Our history tells us what can happen when governments continually overreach, and the bright fellows who wrote our Constitution put something in there to reminds us all – no matter how much it may pain or bedevil those who deny it – that a certain human right must be recognized, even protected, so that history cannot repeat itself.
Wow, man. That dude's off kilter. Let's see...
Well, next time you meet, knock him down and take everything he has. After all, he has no human rights, which means he has no right to own anything unless you give him permission. Indeed, it is his duty to yield up to you whatever you want, whenever you want it. Oh, he could certainly try to protect himself, except (a) he has no human rights, and therefore no right to self protection (presumably even if you intend to kill him(!)), (b) and since he needs permission to do or own anything (because he has no human rights), he has to seek your approval before engaging in self-protection, and (c) since has no right to harm you, his only recourse is in harsh words – if (b, again) he first asks to use, and you allow, those harsh words. (Well, that's wrong, he has no human rights, therefore it is his duty to await your command to speak, or act...)
Oh, and why should he look to you for permission? If he asserts no human rights for himself, others are perfectly entitled to do so, they are perfectly willing, and they are legion.
Sweeping generalization, here, so let's get specific.
Once-upon-a-time, in my sleepy little college town, three fellows working in a local grocery store were murdered by two thugs armed with a knife and shotguns. The goons took turns beating and stabbing the three workers before deciding it was too much work, whereafter they finally shot the incapacitated three (one of whom had been stabbed nine times wit the knife and bludgeoned with a shotgun before being finished off). Murder was their original goal, by the way, as they desired to leave no witnesses.
After improving their socioeconomic plight by murdering three men, and to the tune of $1,200 in cash, one of the murderers paid some bills, threw a steak-cooking party for friends, those steaks taken from the store where he'd murdered three men. His accomplice spent his socioeconomic boon on clothing and jewelry.
The lead in this murderous scheme was described as having come from a good family. He had even worked his way up the ladder in the very store where he later committed his crime, having becoming assistant manager before slacking off and getting fired.
The victims were described thusly: “They were just great guys, going to college to try to make better lives for themselves.”
Notice the contrast between murderers and victims. The victims took a crappy, low-paying job because it was honest work that helped pay for education that they believed would better their socioeconomic status.
The murderers, on the other hand, instead of taking honest work or other honest measures that would improve their socioeconomic status (such as maintaining the job that at least one of them had, once-upon-a-time, held), chose instead to murder and steal. One may say that murder and theft are not equivalent crimes, but each causes harm to another. One can be recovered. The other cannot. But the issue is not one of recovery or of excuse. Instead, it is one of right and wrong. One's socioeconomic plight has nothing to do with choosing wrong over right.
The victims in this case were compliant, cooperative, and have been dead now for 25 years.
Once again, one's socioeconomic plight has nothing to do with choosing wrong over right.
Moving on.
Fact? How does he know? This is an unsupported claim. You can't do that in a serious argument. Murder attempts may be rare, even ridiculously rare, but the rarity of disaster does not help those who suffer it. Let's put that another way: say the odds of getting murdered anywhere may be low, but low odds do not change the fact that, for the victims, the odds are always 100 percent, and those victims remain 100 percent dead. (See, for instance, the story above.)
Last part bolded because of the Aramoana massacre, and every other murder in New Zealand (or anywhere else) of the innocent by the predatory. Had the dead the means to effectively retaliate, they might not be dead. To deny anyone such opportunity, or the tools by which to exercise it, is immoral.
Addendum: it is the criminals' propensity to commit crimes that determines crime rates.
This hasn't worked out well for the Maori, has it? Setting aside the unfair aside … remember that this is the reason there is a U.S. in the first place. Our history tells us what can happen when governments continually overreach, and the bright fellows who wrote our Constitution put something in there to reminds us all – no matter how much it may pain or bedevil those who deny it – that a certain human right must be recognized, even protected, so that history cannot repeat itself.
Last edited:
SSN Vet
Member
I often point out the premise of relying on compliance with gun control regulations by immoral individuals bent on committing criminal acts to keep law obiding citizens safe is irrational
CoastieShep
Member
Best thing you could do, is just walk away. It would be like fighting with a brick wall. No matter what you say, you're still fighting with a brick wall.
russ69
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 320
Tell him you can't wait until people are perfected. If there is a threat you are going to protect yourself rather than be slaughtered like sheep. Then you can ease right into the vegetarian argument this jackwagon is going to launch into next....There is no hope for some. Tell him you'll pray for him, that will make his head explode, LOL!
Thanx, Russ
Arkansas Paul
Member
The moment someone says this, I would immediately stop trying to convince them of anything rational.
As a matter of fact, if someone said this to me, I'd probably stop talking to them altogether.
- Status
