How to Thwart a Debate with an Anti

Status
Not open for further replies.

jakemccoy

Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
2,601
Location
Northern California
I’ve wasted my fair share of time arguing with anti-gun people. One of my friends is a typical anti-gun person with victim mentality, etc., the whole nine yards. She periodically comes to my house with a group of friends to go wine tasting. One night an issue comes up about a paper target I mistakenly had lying around. She makes the remark, "You shoot these targets with BB guns, right?"

I hesitate to answer because the truth would force me to reveal I own guns that are substantially more powerful than a BB gun. That's not something I advertise to people in my house who aren't super close to me. I answer anyway because my personal rule on that issue is that I answer truthfully when asked because it may be an opportunity to show others positive aspects of gun ownership. When people visit my home, they tend to have more respect for me.

I respond, “No, I shoot those targets with real guns and real ammo; I own real guns.”

She goes on to say some stuff in typical anti-gun fashion. Sites like thehighroad.com prepare me for these situations. I don’t want to cloud the point of my post here with the details of what she says. Just fill in the blanks with whatever anti-gun people typically say and that’s good enough.

I don’t get caught up. I simply say, “Well, if you’re afraid of guns, then you shouldn’t own one.”

(Silence)

My last comment ends any debate before it gets started, and it’s definitely about to get started. This woman is an attorney and so am I.

My last comment compromises her position in front of her other friends that respect her as a leader. My comment implies that the problem is not with guns; the problem is with her. My comment also lets her know that I have no intention of entertaining any discussion of why I should not have guns. She’ll probably ask me to take her to the pistol range the next time she visits…lol

I share this story as an approach you might want to take if you want to say something but don’t want to get caught up in some long debate that goes nowhere.
 
in europe... the first thing they ask you is : "but do you have a "carry licence ? "

first of all, many of them are totally ignorant about gun laws, and always mix up carry licence, and right to own.

In Switzerland, owning is pretty easy, even full auto..

On the other hand, from 1999, carry licence are not delivered anymore, unless you can proove that somebody wants to kill you, or that you are you very wealthy (and indeed that you will be threatened for that )

It's a total pain in the ass.. because we face a double problem.

Guns are everywhere. We statistically have more than 2 gun per inhabitant in the country.. So it makes them relatively available for criminal who dont intend to respect the "carry licence" prohibition...

On the other hand, the respectfull citizen won't carry.. (you risk jail and 40 000$ if you are caught..)

Until now, we have very low crime rates, but what will happend in the future.. with increasing balkanic immigration, social and economic crisis..

I wonder..
 
The argument I've used with several liberal acquaintances...

"So, you think guns are bad, and they should be banned. OK... your wife / girlfriend / daughter / son is home alone, some thugs bust in the front door and make their way toward them, declaring their intent to rape and / or kill them. Do you want them to call 911 (after all, we all know cops are always around when we need them) and wait on the cops, or do you want them to be able to defend themselves?"

The typical response is "Sure, I want them to be able to defend themselves, but there's just so much violence and crime caused by guns"

Me: "No, the OPERATORS of the guns (and bear in mind not all crime even involves a gun) are causing the violence... "

Them: "Well, I guess it'd be OK if SOME people had guns"

Me: "and who do you want to decide... Me? You? The Government? The Old Lady down the street? Who?"

That's usually enough... If one applies simple logic, and puts them in a situation where they can not deny the value of the 2nd amendment, in it's use of protecting human life (yes, it protects other things, but to these bleeding heart types, it's a soft spot), you can't help but win. Have had a few get angry (typical response for one that just can't reason), at that point I just drop it.
 
I heard this one recently:

When you hear the following,
I believe only the government should have guns, you know, the police and the military...
(This quote is invariably uttered by a lefty/liberal.)

Respond immediately with, "So, you think Dick Cheney should have all the guns, someone like YOU should have none, and some one like HIM should decide who is ALLOWED to defend himself and who isn't?"

Don't bother trying to argue logic. Someone who is emotionally based will not be able to overcome their emotion until death at the hands of another becomes a reality for them.
 
I'm still hung up on the notion that you got picked on for having a target laying around your own home. If she came in my house her head would probably explode.

scanners3.jpg

2008-02-06-scanners.jpg

Oddly enough the second pic was found on huffingtonpost.com..
 
Beautiful.
When people say that only the government or cops should have guns, I say something along the lines of, "I'm not classist, so I don't think that the rest of us should be reduced to second-class citizen status."
 
"Why do you think you need to carry a gun?"

"I don't need to. I like guns, so I choose to. If you don't like guns, you are free to choose not to."

"Well you shouldn't be allowed to! You can't justify doing so!"

"I don't play that game. You can't justify taking away my rights. Justification, in this case, is your responsibility, and you cannot do so. You have only emotion but no facts on your side."
 
When I encounter the "police and military" type - I like to ask if they would like a sign on their house that states "This is a gun free home!" When they say no I explain that if the police and military were the only ones that had guns - in effect every house would have one of those signs.

Usually works!
 
When people say that only the government or cops should have guns, I say something along the lines of, "I'm not classist, so I don't think that the rest of us should be reduced to second-class citizen status."

Interesting. This is the exact question I ask antis I talk to, i.e., "would you be comfortable knowing only the police and military are armed?" Thus far, none has said they honestly are. I just smile...
 
[they] invariably make the shift from their not liking guns to their being entitled to enforce their preference upon us.

That is what chaps my hide. The elitists think they know what is best for everyone. They generally do not believe in absolute truth, but they do believe absolutely in their opinions.

It is not very High Road, the things I want to do to them, that is.
 
nor cal, breeding ground for moronic ideals

My in-laws are the anti gun type and I'm so tired of it. I live in Santa Rosa, Ca and it just seems harder and harder to even find a gun shop. Having to constantly hear uneducated people (when it comes to firearms) give their self serving ignorant opinion all the time is exhausting
 
SO many of these antis are anti-government, anti-police, they think George Bush is equivalent to Adolf Hitler, they think the cops are racist, fascist pigs - but once you bring up guns, then, whoa daddy, they become the most pro-government people ever, arguing that the police and military are the only ones who should have the monopoly on power.

Use this hypocrisy against them. Ask them if they love the government. Ask them if they trust the government. Of course they'll say no. Then ask them why they think the government should be the only ones armed.
 
I like to retort with "that's what Hitler said as well."
I was once in the MacDonalds next to the laundromat having lunch during the wash cycle. The old guy who cleaned tables started giving me crap about my NRA hat. He started babbling about banning guns or what-not. I said something about how the Germans had done that and that somewhere along the way, we'd misplaced 6,000,000 Jews. He then volunteered that he wasn't sure that was such a bad thing. Anti-gunners and neo-Nazis, same tactics, same beliefs...
 
Bringing them around to quit blaming the object (instead of the operator) as Evil is easy. Just point out... "If you are free to assume my owning a gun must mean I am a dangerous killer then I'm free to assume you having female-specific physical apparatus must mean you are a prostitute."

:cool:
 
The T shirt

The T shirt should read "Hoplophobes shouldn't own guns!" They will have to go look up or ask what hoplophobe means and then it will sink in.
 
Golden Hound, I too use that reverse logic on 'em. Usually these types of people are always looking for something to blame for the failed social policies that they support. Others are just plain people pleasers with poor self esteem who identify with, and some cases benefit from the ill gotten gains of, the criminal element in society.

There are also those who make the idiotic claim that guns are evil and if we could just get rid of them society would be better off. My typical response is "maybe that's why Cain killed Able........because he had a gun" :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top