My philosophy for debating antis

[Skribs]

I've argued with people. I've talked on this forum. I've read news articles and their comments. I've seen dozens of statistics that are biased put out by both sides, and a lot of hogwash thrown out there. What I've come to realize is that these 5 points pretty much cover anything from a total ban on guns to "well, we should restrict magazine capacity", in terms of how much gun control one says they desire. I posted 4 of these in another thread, but it was buried down, and I just wanted to post in its own topic to see what others thought.

I might add, the other thing I've learned is that you can debate with a lot of people, but there are true hoplophobes out there, and by their own admission you will never convince them of anything. I've also learned that sometimes the best way to debate is to ignore them entirely and bring up the subject with the other people involved when said hoplophobe is not present.

On to my points, this is essentially covering two types of weapons, the "assault" (and I'm using that term just because it's a legal cliche) weapon and the "acceptable" weapon, as labelled by the gun control advocate. These are loose definitions. I.e. a total ban on guns would make any firearm an "assault" weapon by this definition (but knives would be "acceptable"), a ban on 10+ cap magazines would make a Glock an "assault" weapon, but a 1911 "acceptable".

1) The "assault" weapon is not as dangerous as the anti would lead you to believe.
2) The "acceptable" weapon is much more dangerous than the anti would lead you to believe.
3) Asking for us to justify the "assault" weapon is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make the "assault" weapon illegal, it doesn't mean it won't be used in crime.
5) Even if you somehow eradicate the "assault" weapon, simply removing the tool won't solve crime - crime is caused by motive, not tools.

#1 and #2 are especially great because they even cover suggestions like "he could have shot him in the leg"...an attitude which ignores the fact that many people shot in the chest with a handgun survive (meaning even a COM shot isn't "shoot-to-kill") and the fact that a shot to the leg can easily be fatal.

Since the hot-button topic today is automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, I'll use that as an example of my thought process. Essentially, the idea is that guns are okay, but automatics are not for civilians. Therefore, in this particular argument, automatics are "assault" and everything else (including semi-automatics) are "acceptable", according to the anti.

1) Full-automatic isn't that much different than semi-automatic. People with fast trigger fingers can fire a semi-automatic just as fast as a full-auto. Therefore, you're not seeing a significant leap in lethality by going full-auto.
2) Semi-automatics actually encourage accurate fire instead of spray-and-pray, which can actually lead to more deadly encounters.
3) Asking for us to justify full auto weapons is essentially putting us on trial for something that should be a constitutional right.
4) Even if you make full auto weapons illegal, it doesn't mean they won't be used in crime. Older weapons, stolen weapons, or modified semi-automatics can still be used to provide criminals with full-auto.
5) Even if you take away full auto weapons, it doesn't mean the crime will be stopped. Criminals have a plethora of other options available, including semi-automatics, gasoline, explosives, or chemicals, that can cause significant damage.

Anyway, that's my new philosophy on the debate. It essentially covers everything from banning carry to banning guns to banning so-called "assault weapons".

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is hard to use reason and facts on people who think with their emotions.

 

[Skribs]

It is hard to use reason and facts on people who think with their emotions.

Hence my caveat in paragraph 2...

ETA: I guess I should say I've had more success with this line of thinking debating fencers or pro-2A folks who believe that there is an "acceptable compromise".

 

[MrCleanOK]

Some of your talking points seem to be "this Level 10 scary object isn't much scarier than a Level 7 scary object". I get the point you are making, that if we can have the Level 7 item, and the differences are small, we should get to have the Level 10 item too. That argument can just as easily be flipped the other way. Just something to think about. . . .

 

[Skribs]

That argument can just as easily be flipped the other way.

It depends. Where I came up with this philosophy was after reading one of the numerous articles that states that the AR-15 "assault rifle" fires a round that is more powerful and accurate to longer ranges than standard hunting rifles, which is a flat-out fallacy (a medium-caliber bolt-action is going to be significantly more capable than an AR-15 in both power and long-range accuracy). But you have people like my hoplophobe coworker (actually, she loves weapons, just is anti-gun), who read this and believe that the AR-15 is the ultimate ray of death.

 

[Tipro]

My approach to debating antis:

Either gun restrictions are too lax, having no effect on gun violence, or they are too draconian, and remove precious liberty. This approach takes very few statistics, and is readily understandable. Meaningful restrictions can be agreed upon which aren't anti-gun or anti-liberty.

Start with how we agree that violence is bad. We want to live in a safer world. But we should focus our energies where beneficial change can be had, while keeping in mind the detrimental affect some restrictions have on the very legitimate right of personal gun ownership.

Go to the AWB. It represents a large portion of what the anti's want to happen, and they would herald its reinstatement as a victory. The AWB limited newly manufactured magazines to 10 rounds or less. The Columbine shooting took place (in a "gun-free" zone) while the AWB was in effect. One of the two shooters brought with him thirteen ten-round magazines. Limits on magazine capacity, in essence, do nothing to stop acts of massive violence. The rest of the AWB focused generally on cosmetic features of rifles, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the rifle's actual lethality. Thus, such restrictions are ineffective, and a waste of time. They are a distraction and waste political energy. (You can argue that not having a 100-round magazine infringes on your constitutional rights, but that's a losing battle with most anti's. Once you agree with them on a goal - a safer world - and explain to them clearly how laws like the AWB wont help, you have a much better chance of getting them to come around).

The anti might conclude that the AWB just didn't go far enough, and we could have draconian measures which severely limit, and perhaps altogether prohibit, personal gun ownership. Admit, for the sake of argument, that this could lower gun violence. However, with something like 150 million guns in the country, it would take several decades to notice any difference. Additionally, currently, all gun sales are subject to background checks. If you make gun sales illegal, you push the market underground and no one will be subject to the check (and, of course, sales would still be going on. See the war on drugs).

More importantly, such prohibitions on individual gun ownership take away from the vast majority of responsible gun-owners in America a legitimate right to effective protection for themselves and their families. Point to women and the elderly, who are often victims of crimes, and are often targeted because they are weaker, easier prey. Often, the best, most effective means these people have for defending their lives is a firearm. It's unrealistic to believe that in every, or even most, cases where one could justifiably act with lethal force in self-defense (in other words, you will die if you do not kill the bad guy), that you will always be able to save yourself or others w/o a firearm (a firearm doesn't save you in every case either, but it certainly increases your odds). People have a right to life, and others don't respect that. We need an effective and practical way to defend ourselves from very real threats. You can also talk about sporting, but that's less important as a "right" than is self-defense to a lot of people, and anti's will relate much easier to a desire to defend oneself than a desire to kill turkeys.

So, where does all this leave us? Restrictions are either too lax, having no effect, or are too stringent, making it unduly difficult, or even impossible, for responsible citizens to acquire a means to defend themselves. The problem is for too long the approach has been towards the weapon itself. We need to focus on who is getting firearms, and how to make it more difficult for the wrong people to get them. I believe most gun-owners don't feel guns should be available in vending machines, and that some restrictions on who can own a weapon is appropriate. Don't be crazy, don't be paranoid. Accept that reasonable regulations are okay, but that we need to rethink what they are. Ask why the current background checks aren't working. As a community, perhaps we should rethink private sales and background checks on those. Just because we believe in capitalism, doesn't mean insurance companies and banks shouldn't be regulated at all. Just because we believe in the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean gun sales shouldn't be regulated at all. Approach the issue with common sense and a desire to find reasonable solutions to very real problems, and you will win them over.

 

[Skribs]

Tipro, the problem with regulation is, as you have said, whatever you make impossible commercially will be possible on the black market.

I do agree, though, that the problem isn't with the weapon - it's the people. I believe a lot of our societal issues could be fixed with better social programs. Focus on the actor, not the tool. If there is someone who should not be on the street with a weapon, he should not be on the streets, period.

I used to think like you, that there is such thing as "reasonable restriction". But this is the only constitutionally-protected right that people feel we need to compromise on to the degree that we do. Try telling a pastor he can only preach 80% of the Bible, a reporter he can only cover certain stories, a citizen that his home can be searched because of a local clause...no, it doesn't happen.

 

[KingMedicine]

I've turned more antis by taking them out shooting then arguing with them.

Hell, I'm selling an ar of mine to a former anti next week. Took one range trip.

 

[horsemen61]

anti

Skribs I agree with you 100 percent.

 

[r1derbike]

I don't debate antis. We always agree to disagree after considerable wasted time.

King, you may have the perfect argument. Let 'em do it.

 

[beatledog7]

I believe a lot of our societal issues could be fixed with better social programs.

We have too many and spend way too much on social programs already. The one we really need is free: Parental accountability.

If little Sammy's unacceptable behavior goes unchecked by his parents, preteen Sammy escalates that bad behavior, teenage Sammy turns to drugs and/or violence...and so on.

Make parents accountable for the behavior in their children that leads to violent behavior, and you solve most of the problem with no additional programs and very little if any additional cost. If the police come and arrest Sammy's dad when Sammy steals a car or knocks over a 7-11, Sammy's dad is motivated to fix Sammy's behavior. Some will argue that parents aren't technically at fault when their child goes wrong, and I agree. But they are accountable, just as the Captain of a ship is accountable for his ship running aground even if he is fast asleep when it happens.

 

[Skribs]

I didn't say more social programs, Beatle, I said better. You are right, the problem is that people are not taking responsibility for their own role in things anymore. But if we just let it simmer, it's never going to go away.

 

[planetmobius]

Actually, its just never going to go away.

 

[JustinJ]

Might the conclusion an anti would draw from 1 and 2 be that the acceptable weapon should be banned as well? Regardless, the decision to ban something is generally not just a numbers game. For most there is a value judgement as well. Sure, deaths by "unacceptable guns" may be small relative to those by "acceptable guns" but if one believes there is no value in private ownership of the "unacceptable guns" they will likely believe no deaths are worth its presence. A common analogy is that cars cause more deaths annually than guns by far. However, the vast majority of people see and experience countless benefits from vehicles. For that reason society generally accepts car deaths but still tries to mitigate the risks.

3 should maybe say "something that is a constitutional right" rather than "should be". However, that is a whole other can of worms. For example, does the second amendment prohibit regulation in any form? Why or why not? On what court rulings do you base your position? etc.

The problem with 4 and 5 is that they seem to say that reducing gun violence must be an all or nothing proposition. Most don't believe that if a problem can't be solved completely then it is not worth while to try and reduce the incidence or damages of it. Its sort of like saying seatbelts should not be required because they will not stop all deaths from automobile accidents.

 

[Skribs]

Justin, the great thing is you can take that line of thinking and stretch it to the new acceptable!

"We need to ban automatics!"
"Semi-auto can be just as dangerous."
"We need to ban autoloaders!"
"Revolvers can be just as dangerous."
"We need to ban guns!"
"Knives can be just as dangerous."

Eventually they'll realize that anything, from fists to everyday tools (like kitchen knives, hammers, etc.) can be used in the majority of crimes and that the tool used won't change the outcome.

You can also circle around to points 4 & 5, that banning it won't stop the use, and even if you stop the use, it won't stop the crime.

 

[Baba Louie]

My philosophy for debating antis... "Tools are gadgets. People are weapons". There's a lot of angry people out there.

(It's not the tool you fool. It's the fool, not the tool!) Most anti gunners don't get it.

 

[JustinJ]

Eventually they'll realize that anything, from fists to everyday tools (like kitchen knives, hammers, etc.) can be used in the majority of crimes and that the tool used won't change the outcome.

The outcome of an attack won't be changed if its a gun or a fist used? Not hardly.

Not to mention, the availability of guns do allow one to kill or rob with a much higher chance of success and probability of getting away. Drive by shootings are a prime example.

You can also circle around to points 4 & 5, that banning it won't stop the use, and even if you stop the use, it won't stop the crime.

Again, telling people that you can not stop all gun related crimes will not convince them that efforts should not be made to at least try to reduce them. And yes, there are many cases in which one can reasonably conclude that the crime could not have been committed if a gun had not been available.

 

[JustinJ]

My philosophy for debating antis... "Tools are gadgets. People are weapons". There's a lot of angry people out there.

(It's not the tool you fool. It's the fool, not the tool!) Most anti gunners don't get it.

I'm not an anti-gunner but I don't get that line of thinking. Guns do enable "fools" to commit some crimes. For some crimes they are a necessary part of the equation. Nukes, dirty bombs, nerve gases, etc are just tools too. Would you argue that they should be available on the open market since they are just a tool? I'm sure you can see how impractical that would be.

 

[Robert]

That is a terrible arugument. There are very, very few people short of governments that can afford to field, let alone stock pile and maintain, stores of nukes or other WMD's. Criminals are going to commit crimes, some will use weapons.

Why should I as a responsible citizen be restricted because of the actions of a person that has already decided to break the law? Take away guns and they will just use something else. Do we blame spoons for obesity? Or does one make a choice to take an action or not. Punish the action, not the tool used and the rest of the law abiding public.

 

[JustinJ]

That is a terrible arugument. There are very, very few people short of governments that can afford to field, let alone stock pile and maintain, stores of nukes or other WMD's. Criminals are going to commit crimes, some will use weapons.

First off, it doesn't take stores to do horrific damage. Second, some WMD's, such as biological and chemical weapons, are not at all cost prohibitive to produce or maintain. Regulation of materials and equipment for production are the primary methods of preventing their use. Or how about a dirty bomb? Regardless, if there were no laws against them what would prevent a person working backed by a state or group bent on doing massive harm from funding their procurement? Should we be allowed to order VX gas from the middle east? How about convential explosives? Those are just a tool, right? Should C4 be sold with no greater regulation, or even less, than exists for firearms today?

Why should I as a responsible citizen be restricted because of the actions of a person that has already decided to break the law? Take away guns and they will just use something else. Do we blame spoons for obesity? Or does one make a choice to take an action or not. Punish the action, not the tool used and the rest of the law abiding public.

I don't believe responsible people should be prohibited from owning weapons. I believe we all have a right to self defense. But the argument of those who advocate gun control has nothing to do with "blaming the gun". They are not trying to "punish" guns. From their perspective it is simply removing a means.

The problem is that there is no good way to keep guns away from irresponsible people while not taking away the rights of responsible gun owners. An "anti" does not believe you and other responsible people should not have guns. Instead they believe taking from us is the only way to keep them away from irresponsible people.

Before you can convince somebody to change their beliefs you have to at first understand why they hold them. And the above arguments fail to do so terribly.

 

[Susanna]

Mine is maddeningly simple... I invite them to a range day to learn exactly what these evil firearms are, and how they work. more often than not, prolly 8 times out of 10, they not only change their anti stance, but become, if not active shooters, less antagonistic toward we responsible firearm enthusiasts... and prolly better than half of them become enthused.

Part of the problem is overcoming the media/government brainwashing they have been subjusted to all their lives... the other part is getting them to realize that gun enthusiasts aren't necessarily far right wing conspiracy theory whack jobs... but are normal people, Just like them... and that guns are a tool, much like a pool cue or power drill... and that instead of being magical, mystical, and fearful, they are inert as a hammer until used, and used safely, they are absolutely safe.

You take the political agenda out of the picture, and its amazing how many "evil leftist liberals" can become firearms enthusiasts. And on our side.

 

[r1derbike]

JustinJ, I would hazard a guess that irresponsible people (criminals) will always be able to get weapons, even if banned from law abiding citizens.

 

[JustinJ]

JustinJ, I would hazard a guess that irresponsible people (criminals) will always be able to get weapons, even if banned from law abiding citizens.

Of course some criminals will always be able to get guns no matter what. However, i have no doubt that if all guns were banned eventually the availability would become scarce. Over time only members of organized crime would probably just about be the only ones able to get them. Except given the quantity of firearms currently in the US this would take a loooooong time. It would also require confiscation which simply would be just about impossible to do in the US.

 

[Neverwinter]

I might add, the other thing I've learned is that you can debate with a lot of people, but there are true hoplophobes out there, and by their own admission you will never convince them of anything. I've also learned that sometimes the best way to debate is to ignore them entirely and bring up the subject with the other people involved when said hoplophobe is not present.

The best way to do it is when others are present, so that you can dismantle their argument in front of people for whom it matters. They don't need to convince them, you need to convince those who aren't already convinced with prejudices and irrational beliefs.

 

[powder]

I don't debate them-listen carefully while they rant, and nod silently.

Eventually, they will start to ask questions, which I can then answer in a mature and adult manner while at the same time de-bunking some of their myths. What usually happens is...A.) They walk away before asking any questions, saving me time and energy. B.) I convert them in a non-confrontational manner per sport, collecting, and putting food on the table. Piece o cake the NRA aint gotten a cue about yet: it's still NOT what you say, but HOW you say it.