My conversation with an anti - how'd I do?

[twenty711]

[09:57] K: Gun Related Deaths 2002

UK: 81
Canada: 816
US: 30,242
[09:58] R: whats that supposed to be
[09:58] K: Scary
[09:59] R: where did you read that
[09:59] K: on a news bullitin
[09:59] R: from 5 years ago??
[10:00] K: The US had 37 times more deaths due to guns compared to Canada and 373 more compared to the UK.
[10:00] K: And that number is rizing quickly for the US
[10:00] R: site your source
[10:00] K: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636102.stm
[10:00] K: Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you crazy gun owning american
[10:01] R: Figures do not distinguish between crime-related and accidental or self-inflicted deaths
[10:01] K: I'm pretty sure most of them would be murders as compated to self-inglicted, and even if they are mostly selfinflicted you americans are DUMB
[10:01] K: If you don't know how to use a gun then DON'T
[10:01] R: no you can't assume stuff like that
[10:02] K: yeah you can
[10:02] R: think of all the suicides and then top on accidents
[10:02] R: you have to use real data instead of guessing
[10:02] K: another reason people shouldn't have guns
[10:02] R: why they should kill themselves with a knife to the stomach?
[10:02] K: why not let everyone have a gun so they can either shot themselves or someone else?
[10:02] R: they are going to kill themselves
[10:03] R: if they are going to kill themselves they will with or without a gun. and i think yeah they should have one so they could shoot someone else who may be looking to do them harm
[10:04] K: well you don't have to make it easier for them
[10:04] K: you always think you should solve a situation with violence?
[10:04] K: if no one had guns then no one would have to worry about it
[10:04] R: that's a nice fairy tale you should put it in with the 3 little pigs
[10:05] R: guns do exist, believe me.
[10:05] R: if someone is going to kill you would you let them?
[10:05] K: but if people did't feel compelled to get a gun to protect themselves then there wouldn't be the need
[10:05] K: Two wrongs don't make a right
[10:05] R: no you have that totally backwords
[10:06] R: if criminals didn't comit crimes there wouldn't be a need to protect yourself
[10:06] R: criminals by their very nature comit crimes though
[10:06] K: but if they didn't have such easy access to guns - frig buying guns i nthe US is like buying candy
[10:06] R: uh no it isn't
[10:07] R: they may have easy access on a "black market"
[10:07] K: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
[10:07] R: which by its very nature is not regulated because its totally not legaal
[10:07] K: If they want a gun they can get one that day
[10:07] K: no problem
[10:07] R: you have an instanteous background check
[10:07] R: and you can only get long guns the same day
[10:07] K: All guns should have to be registered, have tracking chips in them, and people should have to have full background checks as well as take a test in order to own on
[10:08] R: all legal guns are registered, tracking chips are an invasion of privacy rights, and full bakground checks are done every single legal purchase
[10:09] R: (tracking chips also don't exist for guns either as of now)
[10:09] K: why would you care if your privacy was beign invaded - it might save your life someday
[10:09] R: i would always care if my privacy was being invaded, it could save my life someday
[10:09] K: If your gun is stolen, and used to commit a crime and there is no other evidence but the fact it was your gun, no prints but yours on it - you're ****ed
[10:11] R: yeah - that's my responsibility to keep it locked up. but if it stolen and used in a murder, i wouldn't be instantly guilty. but it would take investigation and evidence to clear me
[10:11] K: anyways i have other things to do later
[10:12] R: alright, if yo uhave any more questions i'm happy to answer



Where did those Figures she had come from? Anybody have statistics that are more accurate? How'd I do?

 

[Mannlicher]

how did you do? I think you wasted your time. The anti gun crowd is not open to discussion and not amenable to compromise.
I don't discuss gun control with that crowd of socialists. Your time would be better spent in organizing voting efforts.

 

[twenty711]

I don't walk away from a fight. Besides this is a friend of mine and she just sprung this on me no provocation.

 

[waynedm]

I'm guessing she's from the UK? Yeah, how'd that Americans having guns against the British thing work out again? Next time they're in a World War maybe we just won't come help them out with our crazy, self-operating guns that commit all these terrible crimes on their own.

 

[rockstar.esq]

Hopolophobia is what it is, the irrational fear of guns. I'm consistently amazed that idiot anti's seem unfazed by the simple truth that a criminal won't follow the law no matter what. Further they seem to believe that the violence they're so afraid of will somehow become less deadly as a product of legislation. I recently explained to an anti that a concealed carry permit isn't a "license to kill" or a "permit to brandish". They're so consumed with the idea that anyone with a defensive mindset must be paranoid that they forget that the laws have almost always addressed their concerns.

I applaud your efforts to talk the thing out.

 

[Amish_Bill]

Except for tossing out that all legal guns are registered and you can only get long-arms same-day, not bad. It was nice ammo against them, but not accurate.

(many states are like mine and have no registration and do not impose waiting periods on handguns)

 

[CNYCacher]

Stats are not fair because you are comparing total death between countries with VASTLY different populations.
Example: I think more people live in California than live in the whole country of Canada.

The only useful discussion in this debate is crime rates.

 

[sterling180]

I think that you did rather well twenty711,in managing to have a decent debate with this anti.

Now onto the issue of gun crime:this person,should understand that there are two different types of gun crimes:the first being with illegal weapons and legal weapons.Deranged people will kill for fun,with legally-held weapons and the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres,occured in the UK and were considered,one of the worst cases,in the world-along with Columbine and Port Arthur.

It's amazing that they group mass-murdering psychopaths,with ordinary criminals,into one gun crime category.

UK criminals don't have stolen legally-held weapons,for criminal use,only some deranged license-holders to.Thomas Hamilton and Micheal Ryan,were allowed permits for guns,despite opposition from fellow,gun members and people taht knew them.

I think that this person should research into the fact that the crazies,that cause gun massacres,are very mad and that not everyone is like them-and that cops don't do their jobs properly,by not enforcing stringent checks on them.

 

[Zen21Tao]

A few arguments that stuck out to me:

US total crime v. other country's total crime
When gun grabbers cite "stats" its always TOTAL number of offenses. Sure, when we 240 million more people than the UK and 265 million more people than Canada, sure we are going to have more total crimes. But try looking at per capita (of per 1000) crime figures

Also, it is hard to draw causation from possible correlations across different countries where there could so many different variable (social, econimical, governmental, etc.) at play.

You have a much more accurate look at the effects of firearm bans on crimes by looking at the crime statics for an indivual location before, during, and after the ban. Look at the raise in crime after guns were banned in the UK and how crimes dropped in states right after they allowed concealed carry.


If criminals didn't have guns they wouldn't commit crimes
This is just an assinine assumtion to make. The entire historical record of humanity from the cave men to the first people to have guns dispoves this assertion. Crime existed way way before guns did. Guns, just like any other historical weapon, are a tool used to commit crime, not the root cause of crime.

Guns need to be regulated/restricted to make society safer.
Antis love to claim that their number one goal isn't banning guns, it is to make society safer and this may inturn required gun bans. However, someone truly interested in making society safer would apply their efforts where the most accidental deaths occur. There are far more accidental deaths each year from auto accidents, drownings, poisonings, doctor mistakes, etc. Surely those motivated by desires to make the world safer (and a dislike of guns) would focus on these incidents first.

 

[paddykern]

US: 30,242

That number is correct according to the CDC

[09:58] R: whats that supposed to be
[09:58] K: Scary
[09:59] R: where did you read that
[09:59] K: on a news bullitin
[09:59] R: from 5 years ago??
[10:00] K: The US had 37 times more deaths due to guns compared to Canada and 373 more compared to the UK.
[10:00] K: And that number is rizing quickly for the US
[10:00] R: site your source

Wrong!
According to the CDC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control):

2002 Number of Deaths 30,242

2003 Number of Deaths 30,136

2004 Number of Deaths 29,569

30,242 in 2002 compared to 29,569 in 2004 (latest data) it would seem that the rate is going down not "rising quickly"
http://http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

 

[AZ Jeff]

Wrong!
According to the CDC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control):

2002 Number of Deaths 30,242

2003 Number of Deaths 30,136

2004 Number of Deaths 29,569

30,242 in 2002 compared to 29,569 in 2004 (latest data) it would seem that the rate is going down not "rising quickly"

An important point to note with those CDC numbers is that approx. 50% of those deaths by firearm are SUICIDE, and NOT criminal in nature. That little fact tends to be glossed over by many of the gun-control crowd.

Furthermore, once that fact is exposed and recognized, many of these gun control proponents suggest that somehow, if guns were further regulated, these suicides would not occur. Of course, there is no data to support that suggestion.

 

[JCF]

WRONG.

how did you do? I think you wasted your time. The anti gun crowd is not open to discussion and not amenable to compromise.
I don't discuss gun control with that crowd of socialists. Your time would be better spent in organizing voting efforts.

Wrong. Dead flat wrong.

You did very well... regardless of whether or not you changed her mind.

You NEVER waste your time civilly, intelligently, and respectfully defending your position in support of 2A rights. If nothing else, your actions serve to dispel the myth of the ignorant and self-interested gun owner who cannot and will not intelligently compete with the anti-gun argument.

The anti-gun crowd RELY on the position and actions stated in the above-quoted post. it absolves them of the need to think critically about their politics; when received as a response to a challenge it steels their resolve. It makes their job easy.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

Didn't the NRA lend them guns for their citizens in WW2? Although that might lead to her counting on the state for a heriot.

Where did i read that crime is recorded differently in GB? For instance, if three people put a bullet in me, it counts as one gun crime, and only if they're convicted, whereas in the US, it's three crimes, period.

Even if there wasn't a mote of metal on Earth, would that make anyone safer? Strength or numbers can still overcome any weaponless victim. A free adult's safety is their own responsibility, no matter who you are or where you live or what statutes you live under.

 

[mbs357]

I think you need a new friend.
She downright insulted you every chance she got.

 

[Schmidt Rubin]

Wow--haven't visited this forum in a while and I'm glad to see that it's just as I left it as far as what's being said. Glad to be back...

The day we realize that Liberalism is a utopian cult, not the result of reasoning based on reality, is the day we'll learn how to deal with it. How did you do? As well as any can do casting pearl before swine.

You say: "Figures do not distinguish between crime-related and accidental or self-inflicted deaths."

They hear <hands on ears>: "La-la-la-la-la-la-la...."

We need to defeat them, not debate them. Or defeat them first, then debate them when they are in no position to enact their poisonous ideology.

 

[razorburn]

You say: "Figures do not distinguish between crime-related and accidental or self-inflicted deaths."

They're all bad, so the anti probably doesn't see any need or reason to distinguish them. And even if we do, we still have a lot more gun related murders than they do. If you consider murder rates we also have much higher rates than they do. We have much a lower violent crime rate overall, but murders make up a proportionally much higher rate of it. You either lost, or at the least did not win the overall discussion or manage to open her eyes to anything. I'll get back to this later, as I'm very busy right now.

 

[Trope]

I have little experience changing anyone's mind when they're this set on thinking "guns are bad."

Having said that, I did get some people thinking when they went down the path of availability leading to bad things happening. When they say that if a person has a gun, they're more likely to commit a crime, etc., I try to make it less abstract and more personal. I ask, "If you had a gun, what would it take for you to use it in a crime?" They always respond, "well, I wouldn't ever do that." So then I ask them whether they think that answer would be any different for me having a gun. People who know me know that I'm neither violent nor a criminal so it's easy for them to agree that I wouldn't, either.

So then I make the point that the argument about legal availability leading to increased gun violence is really inaccurate. Almost anyone they can think of would be no more violent with a legally obtained gun than they would without it. Sure, there are some criminal types that might, but they're not going to be deterred by gun laws anyway.

Then I make the point that whomever is trying to tell them that guns lead to violence is probably trying to manipulate the facts, and is using fear as a form of control.

It doesn't cause them to change their minds instantly, but I think it does plant a seed of doubt about that particular silly argument. I know there is doubt, because for the most part, they back down on trying to prove to me that "guns are bad".