How to Thwart a Debate with an Anti

[scrat]

I like it where can i get my tshirt. that would make an awesome tshirt. "if your afraid of guns then you should not own one."

 

[Igloodude]

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...

That's kinda scary. I mean, we all generally debate/discuss with anti-gun folks on the shared underlying assumption that murder of innocent people is bad. If that assumption is not shared, then suddenly you're actually arguing whether fascism, dictatorship, or genocide are net positives or negatives. I'd rather argue with a flat-earther, frankly.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The old guy who cleaned tables started giving me crap about my NRA hat.… 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.…

That should have provoked an appropriate but very impolite response.

~G. Fink

 

[scrat]

So who is going to make the tshirts. i will take 3 of them.

 

[another okie]

If you're making the t-shirts, be sure to remember that "you're" means you are, and "your" means belongs to you.

 

[Majic]

How to Thwart a Debate with an Anti

Keep your mouth shut and say nothing.

 

[jakemccoy]

"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."

I was holding back and limiting myself to a one-liner. That would have been my one-liner if I had thought it.

 

[Deanimator]

That should have provoked an appropriate but very impolite response.

He was old, so I didn't do any face ripping, but if he'd been a little bit smarter, he'd have realized he was being mocked.

 

[Deanimator]

Keep your mouth shut and say nothing.

"See, this gun nut can't refute what I've said!"

It's what anti-gunners ALWAYS say when no one responds. It's right out of the Holocaust revisonist's handbook.

I'm currently ripping faces on the Chicago Tribune website, discussing John (Jon?) Kass's recent column pointing out the hypocrisy of the "rules for thee but not for me" nature of gun control in Chicago.

My favorite part is when I can finish their arguments for them, and present them better than they can. You know you're doing a good job when they tell you that you aren't allowed to post there because they don't like what you say. Too bad they aren't the moderator(s)...

 

[kidcoltoutlaw]

If you call the police to help they will get there in minutes when seconds count and they will bring the guns you do not like,

Thanks,Keith

 

[Black Knight]

You might want to add to that, "If you are scared to be around people who own guns you show should not go where they are. Are you scared of me?" and see how she responds.

 

[Rachen]

That should have provoked an appropriate but very impolite response.

If it was in China, that would have automatically provoked a fist right to the face.

Why do these folks still speak up for the Nazi atrocities? WHY?

 

[ScottyT]

How to Thwart a Debate with an Anti

Shoot them... or at least pistol whip some sense into them...

I really like the "worked for Hitler" line.

Any hardcore anti will not listen to any logic or statistics, don't even bother arguing that way.

Here is a great article that a lot of you may have seen!
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ragingagain.PDF

 

[RLsnow]

im confused, are you mad at the guy who mentioned misplacing 6 million jews? or the guy that remarked it might not have been such a bad thing?

 

[RPCVYemen]

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

Other than the sophomoric assertion that the opponent's argument can only be based on fear, let's look the general form of the argument:

Well, if you are afraid of X, then you shouldn't own X - but I should be able to own X.

Lets substitute "weaponized anthrax" for X. So your argument is that you should be allowed to own weaponized anthrax, and any ninny who's afraid of weaponized anthrax should not own weaponized anthrax?

Let's take a step further back, the more generally:

Well, if you are afraid of X, then you shouldn't X - but I should be able to X.

So it's reasonable to say, "If you are afraid of nuking California, then you shouldn't nuke California, but I should be able to nuke California".

Does that sound like a reasonable argument?

It seems to me that implicit in your argument is the notion that no regulations may be made for the common good. That doesn't wash with me. I don't want my next door neighbor to be storing weaponized anthrax or nuclear waste, or a bunch of other things, just because he is willing to assert that it is safe.

In fact, I think it is reasonable (and correct ) to argue that gun control laws do not enhance the common good. But that's very different from arguing that we cannot look at the common good when considering policy.

Note that even the 2nd Amendment argues that the right to keep and bear arms is for the common good - "the security of a free State"!

Mike

 

[jakemccoy]

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[boilingleadbath]

Why should he be joking?

It is a logically weak argument, at least in general.

It depends upon the type of fear that the person in question has regarding the object. If the fear is of a personal type - perhaps related to a private incident involving firearms or that their firearm may be used against them or a dislike of the concept of a purpose-built weapon or whatever - that it IS perfectly valid. People with fears they (at some level) know are irrational can just bow to those fears without affecting others.
If the fear is that the availability of firearms may cause a generalized increase in crime (or whatnot), it fails as an argument.

Now, to allude to a stereotype, it may not matter that it's logically weak.

...but even if that assumption fails to hold, it does two things:
1) It shows your opponent is probably rational.
2) It shifts the burden of truth. The opponent now has to prove that guns SHOULD be regulated.

 

[jakemccoy]

.............................

 

[jakemccoy]

Some people here are overanalyzing my one-liner that I said while socializing with women looking to party.

 

[Golden Hound]

Shoot them... or at least pistol whip some sense into them...

Even if this is just a joke, it's in bad taste - when people say stuff like that it just gives the anti's an opportunity to say "look at how crazy they are!"

The only thing you should be shooting holes in is their arguments. Which is usually pretty easy because their arguments are always about as strong as balsa wood.

 

[KelVarnson]

I dunno, I take a simpler approach. I just give them an incredulous look, and say, "You're kidding! You don't like GUNS? How could you not like guns?!"