My philosophy for debating antis

[Skribs]

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

For specific events, yes. But fists can be used to commit murder. Knives can be used to coerce or attack, and I've even heard of studies which state that a knife is more likely to scare a victim into compliance than a gun. In Britain, when guns were outlawed, murder with guns drastically dropped, and murder with knives increased by roughly the same amount. So yes, I think that if you take away the guns, the crime will still be there. And it's impossible to take away knives from civilians (Britain has severe restrictions even on bladed weapons and they still have a lot of stabbings).

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.

As I mentioned above, reducing gun crime results in an increase in other types of crime. The reason is you are simply taking away the tool. The line of thinking is either: 1) taking away the gun takes away the means to commit the crime (untrue) or 2) taking away the gun takes away the desire to commit the crime (even more untrue). People don't commit crime because they have a gun. They commit crime out of desparation, emotion, greed, or sadism. Take away the gun from any of those, and they'll use a tool they have at hand (knife, baseball bat, tire iron, all of which have innocuous uses) and commit the same felony, be it robbery, rape, or murder.

 

[Ignition Override]

You guys made many excellent points.

 

[beatledog7]

...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.

And there are many cases in which one can reasonably conclude that the criminal would not have become a criminal if he or she had grown up in a household that fostered and enforced personal accountability and respect for others.

Yes, some people who grow up in such households do commit violent crimes, but what sort of childhood/teenage home life would you expect to find most prevalent in the histories of violent criminals?

 

[wep45]

firearms, politics, religion, everyone has a different point of view. Why waste time/effort trying to change?

 

[xnmw]

firearms, politics, religion, everyone has a different point of view. Why waste time/effort trying to change?

because.... every once in awhile, we vote on some of these issues.

 

[Skribs]

firearms, politics, religion, everyone has a different point of view. Why waste time/effort trying to change?

As xnmw said, we vote on these issues. I want people to vote like me on a lot of things, but especially on firearms.

 

[blarby]

Much like "debating" universal civil rights, the time for this too, shall pass.

One day.

 

[JustinJ]

And there are many cases in which one can reasonably conclude that the criminal would not have become a criminal if he or she had grown up in a household that fostered and enforced personal accountability and respect for others.

How does that observation help solve any problem? Do you want to institute conception licenses to ensure only good parents have kids? Forced sterilization? Have the government decide who can have a baby? Given nobody ever has a reasonable idea of how to fix that problem it is essentially just a straw man argument.

 

[beatledog7]

JustinJ,

I'm not in favor of any government program to help alleviate this. It is the proliferation of government programs, in many ways rewarding this lack of personal accountability, that has largely caused it.

The fix is quite simple. Take away the poor substitute for personal accountability, and over time personal accountability returns. It will be painful for some in the interim, but it's where American society must go.

 

[JustinJ]

I'm not in favor of any government program to help alleviate this. It is the proliferation of government programs, in many ways rewarding this lack of personal accountability, that has largely caused it.

The fix is quite simple. Take away the poor substitute for personal accountability, and over time personal accountability returns. It will be painful for some in the interim, but it's where American society must go.

Poor parenting, most often associated with poverty, and the production of criminals is by no means new. It can be argued that government actions have increased this problem but it can also be argued that other types of government action, and inaction, have held or increased poverty levels and the associated crime. Another huge factor i would argue is glorification of certain types of criminal activity. In reality the problem is very complex and there is no single solution.

 

[beatledog7]

I agree that it is complex and will take a long time to solve. Frankly, it will never be completely solved. My analysis tells me that gov't is more of a contributor to the problem than a solver. The belief that more gov't is the solution to problems is THE biggest problem.

 

[Trent]

tagging to read later.

 

[EnfieldEnthusiast]

In Britain, when guns were outlawed, murder with guns drastically dropped, and murder with knives increased by roughly the same amount. So yes, I think that if you take away the guns, the crime will still be there. And it's impossible to take away knives from civilians (Britain has severe restrictions even on bladed weapons and they still have a lot of stabbings).

Not all guns were outlawed,like in Venezuela,as we don't have a total ban & this only applies to the British mainland countries,England,Scotland &Wales.The Isle Of Man & Northern Ireland & The Channel Islands,don't have our bans in place.Yes you are correct about what happend in Britain.Also we've more immigrants,who've settled in Britain,post 1997,due to increased immigration levels by New Labour & stabbings,assaults,etc are always on the increase,like the one in Victoria station-due to tribalism.

 

[rondog]

MY philosophy for arguing with antis -

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and annoy the pig, and make it squeal loudly.

 

[GBExpat]

I never waste my time trying to debate antis.

If they would like to come shooting with me, GREAT, otherwise I walk away and ignore them.

 

[akodo]

be careful with your points one and two. Depending on how it is done, that can fall into the Logical Fallacy of 'Sorites paradox'

Stealing 1 dollar is a minor crime. What if you steal $2, is that substantially different or is it also a minor crime? (It's also a minor crime) What if you steal $3, is that substantially different from stealing $2, which we have determined is a minor crime? etc. Using this you can work up to $10,000 and declare that it is wrong to consider that 'grand theft' if it is no different from stealing $9,999 which is still 'minor theft'

Same thing if you argue with guns 'but it is only a very tiny amount more dangerous, not enough to be signfiicant'

 

[justice06rr]

I guess my only addition to the debate the anti's is to ask them, " if you had to defend yourself or your family against a large bear, any other violent animal, or (gasp) a zombie, would you rather have a wooden pole or a firearm?

For the most part I stay away from debating with anti's as it can become a pointless debate. But we can still promote our 2A rights in their absence.

 

[RBid]

It is always worth trying to convert an anti. Even if it works once out of 100 tries, that is one more vote and voice on our side, and one less against.

Keep it simple.

Use points for which there are no sound arguments.

Example:
My father asked me why I think people should have the ability to own "assault weapons".

I said, "There are more than four million privately owned 'assault weapons' in the US. They are used in fewer than 200 murders, each year. The simple truth is that we use them for legal activities. Why should we ban them? Seriously. You're four times more likely to be killed by bare hands."

He grumbled a little.

I told him to Google US violent crime by year, and note the trend since the AWB expired.

Done.

Dad came into my store yesterday to look at guns.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I hate to say it, but I've pretty much given up debating with anti's. All the ones I've met have been so close minded that even giving them factual relevant statistics seems to do no good.

 

[Halal Pork]

Debating gun ownership and the Second Amendment can be two different arguments.

In regard to gun ownership, I realize there are people who believe the police have the task of protecting private citizens and that being armed should be left to peace officers. Every now and then I talk with people who hold these opinions. I ask them a question along the lines of "if someone is trying to kick in your bedroom door where you and your wife (or husband) and baby are trapped, would you prefer to be on the phone with a dispatcher and armed or on the phone with the dispatcher unarmed?" People who consider this scenario will admit they'd prefer to be armed. Others who are so ingrained in a particular dogma will refuse to consider the scenario altogether and offer straw man rebuttals and red herrings without addressing the question directly. Some people can be swayed to reconsider their point of views but others are set in their ideology and can not seriously consider the question you've asked them.

As far as arguing the Bill of Rights goes, that's a whole other can of worms. I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone tell me the Second Amendment gives us the right to have a state National Guard. At this point, there is no way to sway the person with which you're speaking. There are any number of good points I could put forward, but the other person has already demonstrated a complete devotion to burying their heads in the sand and refusing to address the issue at hand, instead embracing dogma, rhetoric, ignorance.

More people are swayed by some traumatic or semi-traumatic personal experience than any sort of verbal exchange. There are some people who can't be reached until it is too late for them and yet others who live long, happy lives in blissful ignorance of the world around them. You could run over any number of scenarios with them but until they see violence firsthand some people just won't hear what you're saying.

 

[Baba Louie]

While I did post a brief, glib response earlier on (post #16), after pondering a bit more and reading and re-reading others wise posts, I offer the following:

Debating with an anti.
1st define terms agreeable to both sides.

2nd, historical USA POV, control of weapons by individuals v. govt, which includes the situation back then e.g., Pilgrims etc not allowing guns in the hands of the Natives up to 1770s North American British Colonies and disarming of citizens by Redcoated Kings Men thru the post Civil War when armed black Americans caused a few in power some concern, Bonus March/34NFA (I cheat and tie the two together with no backup, my bad), 68 GCA tied to assassinations and civil unrest of the day.

If the Pro or Con side agree to the above as factual history, ask their opinion of same... (As in)
3rd, Was that GOOD or was it BAD? (a wise response could be, answer depends on whose OX is being gored at the moment)

4th, ask them if they knew or know why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. (some do, most do not in my own experience)

5th, Bring up the two often cited SCOTUS court cases, Castle Rock v Gonzalez and Warren v. DC explaining in simple terms that the courts have ruled citizens are basically on their/our own with little to no LEO protection. (very very few people outside of the gun community know of these two cases, I've had people argue that I MUST BE WRONG!)

Yes, I will admit to them that weapons IN THE WRONG HANDS are dangerous; be they guns, steak knives, sticks, rocks, automobiles, etc (see post 16) and I will go farther and state that I know a few people who should NOT own firearms as their impulse control is non-existant and/or they have anger management issues.

With a few, I have chosen to back down and agree to disagree as none of the above seems to penetrate. Closed minds are closed. Smile and wish them a safe trip home.

As I am not in Debate Club in H.S., I don't try to WIN any debate, but plant a thoughtful seed instead. Ask them to ponder the above and get back to me if they choose. If I feel it wise, I offer to take them shooting.

If they do come back for more and/or we do go shooting somewhere in the next go round of discussions, if I want to get all Zelman JFPO on them, I discuss gun control elsewhere and the end results on the populace (I never mention pre WWII Germany, let them). Again, you might be surprised by how few people actually know the number of dead as a result... and besides, that, that awful genocide word... that could NEVER happen here, right? Ask the native americans about that.

Otherwise, shooting firearms is a fun sport with very useful side effects and a whole lot of history with them, both good, and bad. Depending on the user of the implement in question of course.

While I might not change their minds, perhaps someone else listening in, who might be more of a fence sitter on the subject and hopefully has an open mind, might gain some insight. While I know I am preaching to the choir here at THR, while I typed this out there are 397 members and 1254 guests viewing the forums. Maybe a lurker will read this thread and gain some insight, maybe join us?

A boy (or old man in my case) can dream can't he?

But on the other hand, I, like others here, can debate, er, discuss the opposite side as well and really frost some gun owners with my discourse using the old "Well Regulated Militia" and "Free State" angle of attack using the convoluted reasoning that "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "reasonable regulations" per SCOTUS Heller v DC (hey, if I'm going to quote SCOTUS for one, might as well use it for the other... however sad that logic is).

 

[aarondhgraham]

Never try to teach a pig to sing,,,

Never try to teach a pig to sing,,,
It just wastes your time,,,
And annoys the pig.

That's my philosophy in debating with anti's.

They are not capable of rational discussion,,,
They are dealing from pure emotion,,,
Not rational intellect.

I always think of a movie quote when I think of anti's:

Do not try to understand them,,,
Do not try to make them understand you,,,
For they are a breed apart and make no sense.

Aarond

.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Quote:
Do not try to understand them,,,
Do not try to make them understand you,,,
For they are a breed apart and make no sense.

"Last of the Mohicans" ?

 

[ArthurDent]

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

This is the honest truth. Despite my better judgement, I was trying to marry a strong anti two years ago. She is a very smart woman, but her bias against guns was almost totally emotional. Her feelings were so deep-seated that I doubt she would ever be able to lose them.

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

This is the best plan if you can pull it off... knowledge removes fear of the unknown. I finally got my ex to the range a couple of times (a major act of bravery on her part!) and she conceded that the folks on the range were very safe and could possibly be allowed to own guns... but she still thought the general public should certainly not be allowed!

Never try to teach a pig to sing. ...

Like I said, opinions on guns are VERY deeply rooted, and are not likely to change.

However, I wish everyone luck in trying.