Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My debate with an Anti.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by DerringerUser, Oct 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DerringerUser

    DerringerUser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    238
    For the record, I am "Shooterandproud", and the Anti is "Yolanda". She made the first post.


    Thoughts, comments? What should i fix? I need some constructive critisizm to help me for my next debate (dont go crazy now).

    And just a little backround info, she has a watermelon as her Avatar, and i have an F22 fighter.
     
  2. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Years ago Oleg dropped some wisdom on me when I was arguing with some stupid antis.

    Don't try to wrestle with a pig, you'll only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

    Or to quote the computer in war games;
    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?



    "yolanda" is beyond hope.
     
  3. DerringerUser

    DerringerUser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    238
    I already realized that. My only goal was not to make me look like an idiot, as there were about 5 people in the debate, this is just the worst anti out there.
     
  4. quatin

    quatin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    970
    really shouldn't push people's buttons. especially if you are trying to make an honest debate out of something. Calling people's arguments ignorant and baseless doesn't offer much content for debate. Yes, she may have provoked you, but never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
     
  5. lionking

    lionking Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,614
    well she is right about the fact that a Apache helicopter is seductive,would love to get a ride in one!



    my advice is just stay polite,if you say something to her that makes sense she will probably think about it after the debate,not wanting to loose the debate.
     
  6. DerringerUser

    DerringerUser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    238
    Thanks for the input, although you have to admit she was trying to put words in my mouth, and her claims were somewhat baseless.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2006
  7. lionking

    lionking Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,614
    notice that I edited my response but you captured it as a quote.She didnt go off into a tantrum like some other antis have..... but I just had to think about what I typed again and decided calling her somewhat intelligent was not proper.

    To single out America as being the only country raised on violence is wrong.Think about places like Somalia,thats a dangerous place.And ah Europe,the so called civilized part of the world.Though there has been more violence and wide spread death in Europe through the ages than most elsewhere.
     
  8. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,652
    Location:
    Sunny San Diego
    When I argue with antis, i try to minimize my use of analogies. IMO, a gun is not a tool. A hammer is a tool, a screwdriver is a tool, a multimeter is a tool. I think guns are weapons.. like a sword, spear, crossbow etc. A weapon's primary purpose is to hurt/kill stuff. At first you mention that a gun can be used to stop an attacker.. and then you start talking about how a gun is simply a tool. I'd pick one argument and go with that.

    When people ask me why I want guns, I tell them because guns are extremely effective weapons. Also, they're good for punching holes in paper.. my primary purpose for owning guns is for defense though.
     
  9. DerringerUser

    DerringerUser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    238


    Hey, you're entitled to your own opinion. If you think she's intelligent, then thats your opinion. Ill edit my post on your request though.


    I see. But, most of the people i know use guns for target practice or hunting, but thats just me.

    I also consider weapons to be tools, but you're right, i think it would be a good idea to separate weapons from tools.
     
  10. ProguninTN

    ProguninTN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    416
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Pepper Spray

    I have scenarios for when pepper spray is not effective/appropriate.
    Pepper spray has a limited effective range. An attacker must be within close proximity in order for it to work. If your attacker has a weapon with long range capablities, (gun, knife (they can be thrown) or any other object that can be thrown, pepper spray may not work.

    Pepper spray will not stop a charging assailant.

    Pepper spray can have blow back if sprayed into wind. Guns don't have that problem.

    If an attacker with a knife or blunt object is sprayed while in close proximity, he can still flail wildly despite impaired vision.

    I hope this is helpful.
     
  11. lionking

    lionking Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,614
    nope,calling her intelligent was wrong of me which is why I took that out.I said that because at least she didnt start using 4 letter words every 2 seconds which I saw in other debates posted.

    she used some of the old cliches like a gun being a extension of a mans pride if you know what I mean,whatever.The fact that she singled out America for being prone to violence both as the nation and individuals shows me she is biased and she will stay that way till one day maybe a light will go off in her head and goes "ding"!...which probably when that happens will be because someone threatened her with a robbery or worse.
     
  12. Axman

    Axman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Golden Valley, AZ
    I am still inclined to believe that a gun is a tool. Generally it's a tool to kill and a tool for amusement. One gun owner uses the tool to hunt and kill a deer (or any other animal you wish to insert) for food. Another gun owner will use the tool to defend himself by killing an attacker. The next gun owner might use it to murder someone. The final gun owner just likes to relieve stress by putting holes in paper.

    A galvanized pipe is also a tool to direct water and other various liquids from the source to the destination. Some people use the tool for it's intended purpose, to channel water. Another user will beat someone to death with the pipe. Along with the anti-gun, protester's horse!

    A bow and arrow is also a tool for killing. Fact is most people use them for target shooting. Some use them for hunting. Others, maybe murder!

    There is a saying that the clothes make the man. But the weapon does not make the cold blooded killer.
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I believe you'd have more success teaching a cat to whistle than reasoning with someone who believes such nonsense.
     
  14. Zen21Tao

    Zen21Tao Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Rather than be on the defensive trying to convince libs why guns shouldn't be banned I think it is more effective to put them on the defensive by making them try to defend why the negetive effects that come from banning guns should be forced on the American people.

    To do this, look up the stats for the number of gun uses for self defense and the number of guns used in crime. I can't remember the exact numbers but I know the former is higher. Point these figures out to her and let her know that by banning guns more people are made defenseless against attackers than saved from gun crimes. Then ask her why she thinks so little of human life that she would strip innocent people of their only means of self-defense and then throw them helplessly to the wolves.*

    * Any rebutal she tries to make saying that it is caring for human life that makes her want to ban guns will fail since there are for more lives saved by guns than lost to guns.
     
  15. Steve499

    Steve499 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    628
    Location:
    Central Missouri
    Any discussion like this invariably includes, sooner or later, the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The antis say it refers to the national guard while the pros say (correctly) it is just what it says, the people.

    Rather than get into court precedent, etc., where one can be bogged down by citing various decisions made by various courts, the discussion should be steered toward the "rights" aspect of the bill of rights instead of the individual amendments.

    Do all humans have basic rights regardless of what political system they happen to find themselves or does their government properly decide what rights the citizens enjoy? Almost anyone you ask that question will swiftly say there are basic human rights all humanity is born with. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is written into our founding documents as those rights we are given by our creator. If a government says, and does so legally by it's own standard, that a group of people, Jews for example, have no right to any of those, do the rights in fact not exist for that group or is that group being deprived of natural rights? Legality,as defined by the government through it's subordinate branches,can be anything the government wants to say it is. The basic right to be able to defend ones self exists regardless of what the government says on the subject. The right of self defense pre-exists any form of government. Any government which says we have no right to defend ourselves or prevents us from legally having the means to do so does not eliminate the right, it merely deprives us of a right humanity has always had and always will have.

    This idea about not really needing the 2nd amendment to justify owning firearms was in a thread I read either here or on TFL recently. The author did a much better job explaining it than I have, and If I can find it I'll post a link.

    I have a right to own a firearm regardless of what the government decides, since I have a right to defend myself and my family. The government may criminalize me for it but they do so unjustly and the right exists nonetheless. Ask those who say the government can justly deprive us of our basic rights to self defense if that same government at some point says the citizenry cannot freely speak, is that also just or does the government become opressive only at that point?

    Steve
     
  16. JJpdxpinkpistols

    JJpdxpinkpistols Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I think the first thing you want to avoid is calling someone “brainwashed,” regardless of their mental abilities.

    The second thing you should watch out for is the term “baseless”. An opinion is inherently baseless, so calling it such is calling the kettle…well, you get the idea. Facts can be baseless, but not opinions.

    The third thing I would suggest would be sticking to facts OR theory. Don’t try to tackle both. If you start throwing out facts and figures, be prepared for their use of facts and figures. That means reading through and isolating the failures in methodology in the studies that they cite. That means reading the studies produced by the other side. I could think of many better things to do with my day. Like deworming a football stadium full of dogs.

    If you can stick to theory, ask them first if they have a right to be safe? If so, do they have a right to be only ½ safe? Maybe 1/3 safe? Do they believe that people have an inherent right to safety for themselves and their families, then ask them if they would really, truly trust the lives of their children to a can of seasoning. Would they be willing to bet the lives of their own kids to the response of a police officer that has to DRIVE to them.

    In some cases, you will find an anti that is not able to EVER change. Example: My mother is a Quaker. She has decided that for HER, she would rather travel the road of Pacifism. In the events above, she would consign her charges to her predetermined fate. I have rejected that concept, and as such, we just steer away from that conversation. Its her belief, just as mine is the opposite. Keep in mind that you have a RIGHT of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one says you have to exercise that right.

    Oh, and Oleg is right.
     
  17. Nicky Santoro

    Nicky Santoro Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Not worth the band width. Kind of like explaining King Lear to a dog. It looks at you intently, but at the end goes "woof". It's a dog. That's what they do. Same with an anti.
     
  18. Nitrogen

    Nitrogen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Sachse, Texas
    There is no winning these types of debates.

    The best you can do is hope to make the other person appreciate your point of view. You do that by appreciating theirs; understanding and appreciating their fears, and then speaking to how their fears can be handled.

    It's basically a sales job. And yes, i'm in sales.
     
  19. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    DerringerUser,

    Some posters are advising you that it's a waste of time arguing with an anti. However, given that you are arguing with somebody on a public message board, it may not be a waste of time assuming there are lurkers or ambivialent posters around.

    Anyways, here's what I would have said in response to some of Yolanda's comments...

    There is a difference between "learning violence" and being exposed to violence.

    Japan's populace, as well, is exposed to an incredibly high-dosage of violence. One can see grown men on commuter trains reading comic books containing explicit rape scenes. Yet Japan has incredibly low rates of assault.The violence equation is far more complex than such shallow observations.
    Simply not true.

    Although the statistics referred to in this link are for murder only, the patterns for violent assaults are similar -- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html#table1 America's violence problem is not spread uniformly.
    Wow, drawing historical conclusions from historical nonsense? Most western towns had low rates of violence. The exceptions almost always being among mutual combatants. Women could walk virtually anywhere unmolested.

    Would you guess from watching John Wayne movies that roughly 1/3 of the cowboys (from some estimates) were either black or hispanic?
    You sure like to make sweeping generalities that simply aren't true.
    Typical.. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

    I chose my moniker because many people hold incorrect stereotypes regarding gun owners.You serve as a good example. The shooter and proud of it, doesn't refer to killing. Target shooting is far less violent of an activity than say football. The fighter plane, to me is a symbol of strength and defender of freedom. It's not an obsession.
    They can be related, in the same way learning a martial art can be related to violence. There are good (or constructive) and bad forms of violence.
    Again, let's see a substantive rebuttal, rather than pejorative comments.
    Same old theme. Attack or demean what you disagree with. Most aren't obsessed. If I have a fire extingisher, fire insurance, car insurance, etc., that doesn't make me paranoid or a coward. I consider it prudence and preparation. Learning how to use guns responsibly is also prudent. Your capacity for reasoning appears to be rather limited and narrow-minded.

    I understand why some people don't like guns and why they might be philosophically opposed to them, but to call gunowners "cowards" or "obsessed" merely demonstrates a shallow-mind and/or one unwilling to understand a viewpoint different from one's own.
     
  20. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    My advice is to be polite and on the attack, I suggest however that name calling or other slander is a waste of time. Keep your cool, use facts and personal experience to persuade them. Some are to ignorant to be persuaded, I agree with most of your argument other than the (for lack of better term) making fun of her or his argument. Remember this is the internet and people say a lot of things they know nothing about. The problem with most anti gun people is that they never try to see the argument from BOTH sides they see it from their side and their side only, cant argue, wont argue with someone who is not going to be open minded to any subject up for debate. I dont waste my time with a lot of anti's anymore they dont want to be enlightened they dont want you to have guns it gives them power over you if you dont have guns.

    Nice job otherwise bud.

    ********************************
    Comment on your next post:
    "We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation" same left wing bs they always think they know what is best for everyone else. Not all liberals of course I have met some very pro gun liberals in my travels and on this forum, its the ignorant extreme ones. I can only term most of those fallacious arguments that they replied to you with as ignorant.
     
  21. DerringerUser

    DerringerUser Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    238
    And this is what she posted after that:


    And this is what i wrote (went a little crazy here, couldnt help myself):

     
  22. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    She sure pushed my buttons. I was seduced by the A4 Skyhawk and the A7E Corsair II. I was also seduced by cop cars. They all carried guns. The aircraft had big guns, 20mm guns.

    I wonder if Yolanda has seen someone get pepper sprayed and keep on fighting. It is quite a show.

    Pilgrim
     
  23. Veprman

    Veprman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Tell her yes im a coward. I am afraid to fight one or more poeple who I know for a fact can beat the crap out of me.
     
  24. Axman

    Axman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Golden Valley, AZ
    No, men with guns are survivors!
     
  25. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    Pepper spray is a good thing to carry, but it is NOT a 100% stopper 100% of the time.

    I carry pepper spray, which is backed up by either a Glock 21, 30 or a 1911.

    My tombstone will not say, "He died that a predatory thug might live."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page