It's a civil right -

[dmazur]

I had a discussion with a "not pro-gun" person and I believe I may have gotten something through the fog.

I explained that the recent Heller decision recognized self-defense as a civil right, and asked if he had a problem with civil rights.

"Well, no..."

OK, well then think of a gun as the most effective tool available at present for self-defense. Try to quit thinking of it as a problem in itself.

"OK..."

So, assuming the person only does lawful things with a gun, including self-defense, which is a civil right, you shouldn't be against people carrying guns.

"No, wait. There's more to it than that. Guns are bad. They're only designed for killing people."

So I stopped him, asked him to back up, quit thinking of guns as inherently bad. They're a tool for self-defense, which is a basic civil right.

He didn't capitulate, but he agreed I might have a point.

It's not my job to convince anti-gun people they're wrong. However, I saw an opportunity, and I just might have introduced a voice of reason to someone who previously wasn't listening.

 

[lions]

"No, wait. There's more to it than that. Guns are bad. They're only designed for killing people."

It always amazes me how people cling to those clichés even in the face of reason. Their feelings against guns are engraved into them so deeply it is almost impossible to get around. It drives me nuts!

 

[joshk-k]

Well, so here's a question (based on a conversation I had with my girlfriend last night): I said to her that a gun is an inanimate object, and is not, in and unto itself, any different than, say, a car. And in fact, you're more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

Her response, which I would like some help in countering, since I think it's a reasonable point, was: Acknowledging that a gun is an inanimate object, the difference between it and a car is that a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction (generally killing).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Josh

 

[Thernlund]

Does she eat meat? Killing is sometimes as necessary as driving.


-T.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Humans have lifted themselves out of the mud by means of personal weapons. We 21st Century Americans are so thoroughly insulated against the realities of life that we forget that reality, but it's always there. Weapons are tools, every bit as important as any other, and MORE so than cars. If someone came threatening your life, a car won't keep you alive nearly as well as a gun will, and staying alive will always be higher in the hierarchy of importance than getting to Starbucks and back.

Remind her that, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If she won't accept that, ask her why it's acceptable for a police officer to carry a gun, but not a law-abiding citizen. She probably feels much safer knowing others carry guns on her behalf. Remind her that, at times, her life may depend on her, or another citizen, like yourself, taking arms up on her OWN behalf, as hard as that may be to comprehend.

If she won't accept any of those points, you should accept that she is comfortable enough in her own ignorance that noone but her will change that, and move on. It may take a big scare to wake her up. Pray that she survives that big scare, if it ever happens.

 

[skinewmexico]

I'd tell her "wow, good things cars weren't designed to kill, they're shockingly efficient at that now." Guns are also designed for sport, and recreation. You could apply her same arguement to knives (just ask the English). Or bats, which are just a glorified club (ask a baby seal).

 

[skinewmexico]

We 21st Century Americans are so thoroughly insulated against the realities of life that we forget that reality, but it's there.

What a great statement. I was thinking that same thing conceptually, while I was reading an article on Slate about vegans and honey, or some such nonsense.

 

[Thernlund]

...ask her why it's acceptable for a police officer to carry a gun, but not a law-abiding citizen.

Ummm... I think I'd avoid that question unless you want to take a solid left turn into the differences between us and Japan or England. While a just question to be sure, it will quickly create more hassle than it was worth to start with I think.

Basically, consider how much arguing you're really ready to do with her before you kick the thing into high gear.


-T.

 

[Mannlicher]

as I have often said, arguing with anti gun folks is a waste of everyone's time.
I guess it is an ego trip for some, all this trying to make another person believe the way you do.
For me, I just go my way, and let others do the same.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Thernlund,

I've actually been able to convince my own wife, slowly but surely, with arguments exactly like that one. A reasonable person, once they have accepted that the use of force is at times necessary, should be able to see that one may defend their own life and not merely rely on defense from another.

Of course, some people aren't reasonable, which is why I added my last paragraph.

 

[gunNoob]

Yes guns were designed for killing but they are necessary. The only reason that the idea "guns are bad" is engraved in people is because guns are used in wars and people die. People are afraid. They don't see them as protection like we do, they see them as something that could kill them.

 

[Thernlund]

I've actually been able to convince my own wife, slowly but surely, with arguments exactly like that one. A reasonable person, once they have accepted that the use of force is at times necessary, should be able to see that one may defend their own life and not merely rely on defense from another.

Oh I agree. I'm just saying that taking that route may lead into an entirely different discussion that you may or may not be prepared for.

I remember a discussion I had with my wife once about apartheid. Ended up a fight about the extra responsibilites fame brings to ones life. Pfff.


-T.

 

[scottgun]

My repsonse to "guns were designed for killin" is that my guns must all be defective since they have never killed anyone. Yet they function just perfectly for punching holes in paper targets or knocking over cans.

In reality, a gun is designed to launch a metal projectile in a controlled fashion, nothing more. How the operator decides to use it is up to that person.

 

[drgrenthum]

Mannlicher,

I often wish that i could go my way and let the anti go theirs. Problem is that they are the ones that wont let things be and want to impose their wills and vaules on others via the law. So any and everyone that can be converted or at least convinced to sit on the sideline, helps lessen the chance guns will every be prohibited.

 

[skinewmexico]

Tell her about Gonzales vs. the City of Castle Rock.

 

[TallPine]

Some things just need killing.

 

[General Geoff]

Killing is not inherently wrong.

 

[scrat]

Josh k



a gun was designed to propel an object at a high rate of speed. a gun was not designed to kill. its what you do with it that determines that. I use my gun to propel objects in paper and at steel targets. A top fuel dragster is designed to move a vehicle at a high rate of speed. So is a jet fighter. its what the people behind the wheel and yoke do that determine the output. A bow and arrow is designed to propel an arrow at an above average speed. its not designed to kill.

Some people who obey the laws use thier guns for hunting, sporting, recreation, self defense.

Some people who have no regards for the law use them for illegal activities.

A compound bow can be just as deadly as a handgun. It can do the same things. A person can use a compound bow for hunting, sporting, recreation and self defense. I have not heard of it being used however it can be used to break the law too. Kinda hard though for drive by shootings.


People who play baseball try to hit a ball with a stick. People who play golf try to hit a ball with a club. People who play basketball try to throw a ball through a hoop. People who target shoot. Try to shoot the projectile at a target. These are all sports. Sports where you try to do something with an object. Now i have never heard of a basketball killing anyone. However im sure no one would say they have never heard of a bat or club being used in a crime. Taking away guns does not stop the crimes. Taking away baseball bats does not stop people from playing baseball.


These are the things i use when talking about guns with an anti. I then tell them i bet i can beat you playing basketball, golf, baseball. If they want to try then i tell them i bet i can shoot better than you too. Either gun or bow and arrow, wrist rocket. Or just playn throwing this rock at that trash can 100 feet away. By the way did you know that a rock can kill someone too.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

Her response, which I would like some help in countering, since I think it's a reasonable point, was: Acknowledging that a gun is an inanimate object, the difference between it and a car is that a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction (generally killing).

Josh, the only reasonable response to this statement, as well as any other made by her, is as follows;

"Yes Dear."

After which you should tell her that you wholeheartedly agree with her that guns were designed for killing people and killing people is bad.

Then, assure her that this will all change when the government's new, top secret, Threat Incapacitation Device is approved by the FDA, USDA, CPSC, NASA, and the FCC. It may then, eventually, be cleared by the BATFE, FBI, CIA, NSA, and ultimately by DHS. Then your right to possess it, not withstanding with any "reasonable restrictions", and use it for self defense can be determined by District Court, the Court of Appeals, and finally by the SCOTUS.

Let her know that just as soon as this happens she can buy each of you one. that way you can relegate your "bad guns" to the practice of target shooting and food gathering activities.

But then again, if she gets sucked into buying the first model she may find that the price drops to half what she paid and the new model comes with the Reformatory Ray at no extra charge.

 

[Zip7]

Her response, which I would like some help in countering, since I think it's a reasonable point, was: Acknowledging that a gun is an inanimate object, the difference between it and a car is that a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction (generally killing).

Any thoughts?

So was the javelin, and it's now an Olympic sport, am I wrong? Because it also lent itself to a sporting pursuit as well. Jousting with a lance in the middle ages... the bow and arrow - same story. People enjoy archery as a sport in itself, and as a means of hunting game the same as they do with firearms.

Weapons were designed either for war, or for self defense or hunting and a number of weapons have always been used for all three pursuits, and thus the sporting use of weapons (such as the Javelin throw and us going to the shooting range, or competing at sporting clays, etc.) has grown out of it.

Cars, on the other hand were designed for transportation, so by a similar line of thinking, why allow people to race cars? They just go around in a circle....

When horses were the main mode of transportation, guess what the biggest sport in the country was?

People have competed in contests of skill ever since there have been people. Many sports grew out of everyday activities - who is the best driver, who can throw a ball the furthest, who is the best shot?

I like shooting, and don't feel the need to apologize to people who might be unreasonably frightened by that. These same people have no problem with me playing baseball, even though with a baseball bat I could kill them just as dead. Heck, the same people feel perfectly comfortable standing on a sidewalk as I drive by in a car, even though if I was a homicidal maniac I could swerve and run them over. But just owning a gun makes me dangerous?

 

[scrat]

agree 100% zip7

good post

 

[junyo]

So was the javelin, and it's now an Olympic sport, am I wrong?

Uh, so is shooting. Winter and summer Olympics. Trying to rationalize and explain is great, the point ("that a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction") should never be conceded in the first place.

In reality, a gun is designed to launch a metal projectile in a controlled fashion, nothing more. How the operator decides to use it is up to that person.

Done. End of argument.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

People are afraid.

Good sir, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

If an anti saw a firearm lying on the table, he/she would have no idea how to determine its condition. People fear what they do not understand, and rightly so; an ignorant person fiddling with an unattended firearm could easily harm someone or him/herself. The key is education. Once a person comes to understand how guns work, how to handle them safely, and how to shoot, they no longer fear them.

(In theory, at least. )

 

[joshk-k]

Zip7 said: "Weapons were designed either for war, or for self defense or hunting."

That is her point (created for killing of one sort or another), and, in her mind, what separates guns from other inanimate objects. And that is a distinction worth making, I think.

But I certainly will point out things like the Olympics as proof that many parts of society have moved beyond those basic functions.

Thanks for the advice.

Josh

 

[scrat]

Nope go back to the basic handgun or rifle. its sole purpose is to propell an object at a high rate of speed. So we design a muzzle loader a pipe that shoots a ball out at a high rate of speed. We then realize we have to rifle the barrel in order for the projectile to hit what we aim the gun for. Thus we are designing a pipe to propel an object at a high rate of speed to hit a target at a giving point. Sounds simple. However we had to overcome different powder types, ignition types, bullet types. Metal component types. problems we had. At first when we created these guns. we had problems making consistant barrels. then the machining had to be just right. Then metalurgy. some barrels would blow up. its taken a few hundred years to make the perfect gun with the right feel balance control to be able to project this object at a high rate and consistantly hit the target. Now whats the target. For me the target is a circle about 3 inches round where i have to keep 6 rounds in. making a tight group. Guns are made to propel objects at high rates of speed to hit a target. How well that gun is designed and how well the ammunition used will determine how well one can hit the target. Guns are not designed to kill.