My debate with an Anti.

[Kentak]

We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation.

Spoken like a true socialist.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Lastly, I will just say: don't get angry at those that are anti-gun or anti-tobacco. We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation.

That's just scary. "We know better than you. It's for your own good. Get on the train, Für Ihr eigenes gutes"
Some people are too far gone to argue with.

 

[1911Tuner]

Pigs

Another "Never" that applies to pigs is:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."

 

[Gordon Fink]

DerringerUser, you lost the debate as soon as you insulted her, which you managed to do in your very first post.

~G. Fink

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Having read the entire thread DerringerUser was posting in, I can't help but shake my head. He basically got smacked around, particularly by using the "guns save lives!" argument which was met with "If guns weren't needed to save lives, would you be against gun control?" line. Quick, backpedal to the "rights" argument! He need to pick a line of reasoning and stick to it.

The worst part was where he links back to The High Road, gloating about posting the conversation here. Then again, posting comments from THR over on the other board to rile-up the gun control crowd isn't exactly taking the high road.

I really dont understand why Anti-gun zealots dont go after banning cars, or airplanes, or other dangerous machines.

Statements like this don't win arguments or make much sense. It's about perceived utility. Yes, many people die from car accidents. However, the perceived utility of cars greatly outweighs the risks. Those who wish to ban guns don't see the perceived utility to outweigh the risks.

 

[Cosmoline]

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.

I'm a proud coward. But I've run into many, many antis--esp. from overseas--who regard it as a man's duty to get in punchups over women, insults or just because they're drunk out of their minds. They dislike firearms because they view them as "cheating" or "cowardly." The same idiots will wax poetic about katanas, though. They're like children on a playground.

I've been arguing with these people since the grand old days of the Michael Moore Message Board. I don't have much use for arguing statistics or engaging in some cost vs. benefits analysis. As others pointed out, these guys will ALWAYS view the cost of firearms as outweighing the benefits. And indeed most of them come from states and nations where the majority does feel that civilian owned firearms have no useful place in the modern world. The policy arguments throwing statistics and cost/benefit analyses back and forth have already taken place where they are, and the firearms lost.

These days my arguments tend to run to the core of the matter, which has nothing to do with the policy debate. We're talkign about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not about the merits of owning firearms. It's a natural right, and among other things it means that all the statistics and utilitarian analysis are meaningless. It doesn't even have to do with wether they think firearms are good or bad. The core question is whether the state has the right to strip you of deadly weapons whenever it feels the desire to do so. To strip you of the means to defend yourself beyond a playground punch-up level, as the British government has been doing for decades now.

In a thousand arguments on dozens of boards, I've found it comes down to the question of how you view the individual's relationship with the state. It actually has very little to do with firearms. The question is whether you are SUBJECTS of the state, beholden to the state for your day-to-day existence, or CITIZENS who operate within a state but who still retain core rights against state intereference. You will find that the antis reject the notion of natural rights, and that they view rights as transitory products of temporary agreements among elected representatives. The state giveth, the state taketh away. From that point of view, it makes perfect sense that the majority of representatives can engage in a cost-benefit analysis and decide to round up all the firearms.

 

[G36-UK]

I've seen far too many arguments that center around "need".

"You don't NEED assault weapons"
"You don't NEED handguns"

It's almost as stupid as the "It's for the chiiilllldreeeen" argument.

Yes, there may be no need, but a far more valid point may be that there is absolutely no need for the kind of laws that anti-gun groups demand.

 

[Axman]

"You don't NEED assault weapons"
"You don't NEED handguns"

You don't need a Big Mac with fries for lunch either but if one wishes to eat it then by all means chow down!

 

[Lemon328i]

As many anti's are women and liberal, I sometimes use the topic of abortion to illustrate the illogic of gun control.

No one "needs" to have an abortion, it is a choice. If the Government has no right to tell you what to do with your body, what gives you the right to decide who can own firearms? It should be a personal choice. They often go on with firearms might harm them, to which I counter that the child they terminate could have been the one to cure cancer or AIDS. Hypotheticals do not negate the right to choose.

If owning guns is cowardly and not owning one is courageous, then
killing a fetus is cowardly for it takes courage to raise a child (especially if single).

I personally support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but I'll be damned if I let one of them trample on my rights when I support their's.

This tactic makes those who can actually think consider a different angle to firearms, while it drives the ultra-liberal (who can't actually think) into a seething frenzy! Fun, fun fun!