Need assistance with a debate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bobarino

member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
1,625
Location
western Washington
this is with a guy that i've debated before that is fairly anti and i need some more sources to discredit him. so here's how its going so far:

he says: ''My point in the past is you aren't safer owning a gun. When you add in the increased domestic violence and accidents, many studies say worse off."

i ask him to cite any studies that back up his case and he comes up with this:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

and this:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr

and this:

http://chronicle.com/errors.dir/noauthorization.php3?page=/weekly/v49/i35/35a01801.htm

titled: 'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue

and this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

and this:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/zimring.html

that starts off with this sentence:"'The authors show that most killings in America do not have their origins in criminal activity:banghead:

he then goes on to cite various "studies" from the VPC that supposedly discredit the Kleck and Gertz study and posts things like this gem from the VPC:

"an August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapon-related offenses among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. CCW license holders are committing crimes - including murder, rape, assault and burglary - but because the gun lobby makes it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license in most states, the full story has not yet been told.''

i figure since he is quoting the brady bunch and the VPs i can quote the NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc right? of course, he will lend it no credence, but still believes "studies" from the VPC? i must admit my head is spinning. this guy has no logic whatsoever and will absolutely not believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. in other words, a typical leftist.

so anyone have some good resources? hard cold fact from unbiased sources would be great. help me beat this guy into submission!

Bobby
 
crime stats in Fla alone show that when the CWP went into effect crime dropped. It also showed the crimainal are smart and when there was a crime they looked for cars that has out of state (non permit) tags. (or rental cars) Also look at chicagos crime rate they can't own much of anything and there are shootings all the time. I am the one that gets called in a 3 am to save some sorry A$$ gansta who was shot multiple times from a drive by.
I will try to find some good stats that hold water...
I know your fusteration.
 
Well, those studies he refers to aren't exactly very neutral about the subject (the Brady, for example, puts out a lot of BS related to the 5.7x28mm gun systems and are the main reasons of creating that crappy and underpowered SS196 ammo)
 
Last edited:
Reliable Sources

Entrez Pubmed is a data base of abstracts of medical literature. It is free, but you may have to buy the full text, although not in every case.
Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (MMWR) is an excellent, gummint pub of all sorts of death and sickness data. Again free, my tax $$ paid for it.
British Medical Journal (BMJ) also is accessable on line for free.
Good luck.
 
Ask him if we should ban cars because of all the 40000 auto-related deaths each year.
 
Most killings are not crime related???? Does that mean that criminals are more often than not not successful in killing their victims?

The other person has the responsibility to back up his assertions; not your responsibility to knock them down. If he dismisses NRA, GOA, etc. out of hand then it is fair enought to dismiss Brady and VPC out of hand.

He should be ready to verify and back up any gems he quotes from any sources. Again, not your responsibillity to discredit them. That quote about accidents is one example. Are we talking about firearms owners being more likely to have firearms accidents than non owners? Sort of like those who own autos are more likely to be involved in auto accidents than non-owners?
 
Two words = one name: John Lott

Google on John Lott, find his work, and it should discredit anything the Brady Gang can throw at you.
 
thanks for the link JayB, thats a great one! his main argument is that concealed carry does not reduce crime, but causes crime rates to fall more slowly than states that ban CCW or increase crime rates outright. i still can't believe i got suckered into trying to defend against the VPC and brady. i must be an idiot.

Bobby
 
All arguments moot.

the 2A wasn't contingent on accident rates, suicides or murders or B.S. emotions. If society doesn't want guns, they should call for a constitutional ammendment.
 
check the CDC website. They have a report on a study they did that says gun control shows no corollation to crime.
 
Stats are just that: STATS

Studies show that 99.9% of violent criminals watched TV within 24 hours of commiting their crime......


Just because you can draw a correlation between two things doesn't mean there is a cause and effect relationship.

Besides he uses Data from the brady center; a corrupt organization whose leader uses straw purchases to buy her son a shotgun.
 
There was a DOJ report that showed gun control wasn't helping, and another that said that concealed carry actually lowered crime rates. Sorry I don't have links, but I read both reports from links on this site, someone will remember the thread and help us out.....
 
Dumb discussion anyway.

What if it was true that you would not be "safer" in general when owning a gun? So what?
You would not be safer in some respects and safer in others and you may value them differently than any other person. Any economist worth his salt (and there are precious few of them outside the Austrian School) knows that valuations are subjective and interpersonal comparisons are impossible in principle.

On one hand you would be safer from having to face unarmed (and untrained) criminals or thugs of a tyrannical government.

On the other hand you would be in more danger due to accidents, malfunctions, etc.
Your would be in more danger of dying from disease/accident because resources (money) used for arms/training could have been used for better/safer food, clothing, housing, transportation, recreation, investment, etc.

So what? Your prioities and valuations are unique and come part and parcel of that thighy we call the free will.

miko
 
ya, its hopeless. i gave him links to debunk his VPC and brady bunch publiacations and he won't even read them. he somehow manages to convince himself that the data backs up his assertions that concealed carry increases crime. i kid you not. its really quite amazing. he still cites the brady/VPC stuff but absolutely won't give any credence to Lott/Mustard, or the Kleck/Gertz studies or ANY of the information in JayB's excellent link. he says he won't believe anything criminals have to say. its truly mind boggling to see people that are truly that desperate to cling to their preconcieved notions and ingrained beliefs that even when faced with cold numbers and unbiased research and facts, they still stick to their guns, so to speak. i hate to have to admit defeat but i simply can't argue with someone who's emotions are permanently branded with the propaganda of the antigun crowd. its like hitting your head against a brick wall. it feels good when you stop. thanks for the help folks!

Bobby
 
i usualy counter by telling the anti to put their convictions on the line. tell them to make a large sign for thier front yard. that has the sign needs to say that this home does not believe in the useage or ownership of firearms, other weapons or the belief in self defense. make sure the sign is cleary visible from the road and passers by. than ask how long do you think it would take for a home invasion to happen. how much damage could a bad guy(s) do before the police can respond, that is if they respond since phone lines are often cut or the people dont get a chance to call before the bad guys are in control of the house. do you think you would sleep well knowing your home is a easy mark. bad guys are normaly lazy and will take an easy mark instead of taking a chance that someone will fight back, and that is why firearms and knowing how to use them is so important.
 
There is no one as blind as he who will not see. Both of you are convinced of the pure rightness of his view, and neither wants to even consider the other's ideas. Agree to disagree on the issue and either part company or keep the relationship off the subject. Many antis are good people, even good companions.

Of course, the only thing to do with the "gun owners and their families should be hunted down and exterminated" bunch is to avoid them, keep guns away from them, and vote against their puppet political candidates.

Jim
 
its ok, i don't even like the guy and he lives 6 states away. its an online debate. (i'm such a geek) i'm civil of course, but if i never speak to (type to) him again, it wouldn't break my heart.

Bobby
 
You are dealing with bigotry. His bigotry is based on the prejudice that people interested in firearms are criminals; "you know how those ******* are" and we are the social *******.

Don't try intellectual arguments with bigots--they don't deal in intellect.
 
It's not a debate. In a debate, both sides listen to the other side and respond.

This person's mind is made up and you can't change it.

DM
 
Tell him 100% of male serial rapists utilized a penis. Ask him when he is going to turn his in.
 
Statistics from the Brady bunch!

Ask him if he would consider statistics from the NRA to be unbiased? He would not I am sure but he throws up to you statistics from arguably the most anti gun group in the country. Ask him if he believes that guns are the cause of domestic violence? Would this violence for instance not occur if there was not a gun in the house? Most domestic violence cases are not gun related. Spouses are beaten or mentally abused. As for accidents, the primary cause is little or no training or disregard for gun safety rules, not the mere presence of a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Years
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Deanimator
Deanimator
C
  • Locked
The Latest From The enemy
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Strings
S
The_Next_Generation
  • Locked
"Ban Assault Clips!"
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
gbran
G
C
  • Locked
Something funny I found online
Replies
8
Views
417
Standing Wolf
S
J
  • Locked
1.3% of licensed dealers sell 39% of crime guns....
Replies
4
Views
574
lucky_fool
L
Back
Top