Online Debate with an Anti

[Ohio Rifleman]

Anti says:
is that a gun?
Me says:
Yes it is. Shooting's a hobby of mine
Anti says:
I hate guns
Me says:
*shrugs* That's your perogitive...but I think they're fun
Anti says:
I think they're dangerous and they kill people
Me says:
I won't deny guns are dangerous, but, and I'm sure you've heard this, but guns do not kill people, people kill people
Anti says:
people with guns kill people
Me says:
So what? Before guns, people with axes, swords and clubs killed people
Anti says:
it's a lot easier to kill somebody with a gun than with a knife
Anti says:
far less personal
Me says:
I won't deny that, however, before guns, the strong ruled over the weak, men ruled over women, and the oppressed had no way to fight back
Anti says:
you don't even have to look in the person's eyes
Me says:
Again, I can't deny that
Me says:
But, I should point out, that you can kill someone with a blowgun or a bow and arrow without looking into their eyes
Anti says:
have you ever tried that
Me says:
Of course not
Me says:
While I am an avid archer, I'd never consider turning either my guns or my bow on another living thing unless absolutely necessary
Anti says:
it's a lot easier to miss
Me says:
True, but in the right hands, a bow and arrow can be just as deadly as a firearms
Anti says:
that's why the Indians won right?
Anti says:
oh wait they didn't
Me says:
The Indians put up a Hell of a fight
Anti says:
the reality is they didn't have a chance
Me says:
I'm not saying a bow and arrow is just as good as a gun, but they're both ranged weapons...you don't have to "look into the person's eyes" to kill them
Anti says:
not against the Gunds
Anti says:
guns
Me says:
Even so, they held their own for quite a while
Anti says:
they never held their own
Me says:
What about Little Big Horn?
Anti says:
they just postponed the inevitable
Anti says:
little bighorn was to do the stupidity of Custer
Me says:
But, I suppose, that shouldn't have mattered...because the Americans had guns and the Indians didn't
Anti says:
that's right and they weren't Americans at that time they were English and French
Me says:
The United States was still fighting the Indians long after the Revolutionary War
Anti says:
I guess the point is I still don't like guns
Me says:
And I still do *shrugs*
Anti says:
I wonder why
Me says:
Because they are fun to me
Anti says:
what's fun about a gun
Me says:
It's fun just to shoot at paper targets and the like. It's relaxing for me
Me says:
Also, should the worst happen, I can use them to defend myself, my home and my family from aggression
Anti says:
aggression from somebody else with a gun
Me says:
Quite possibly, yes
Anti says:
if nobody had guns there wouldn't be any problem
Me says:
I don't think so.
Me says:
Long before there were guns, people still slaughtered each other mercilessly
Anti says:
will certainly somebody wouldn't come into your house and try and shoot you with a bow and arrow
Me says:
No, but they could use a knife, a machete, a lead pipe..
Anti says:
I know they did slaughter each other guns just made it a lot easier
Me says:
And so what? It is human nature to fight and to kill each other. The tools we use are irrelevant
Me says:
Guns just level the playing field.
Anti says:
it's too bad that it's human nature to fight and kill each other
Me says:
I agree, but that's the truth
Anti says:
I don't think that we should play into that
Me says:
Maybe some day, we won't....but as long as there are people who don't, good people must defend themselves
Anti says:
I think we should evolve
Me says:
I won't argue with you there, but I don't know when, or if, that will happen
Anti says:
I think of good people don't have guns it's a step in the right direction
Me says:
If good people give up their guns, the bad people won't, and good people will be left defenseless
Anti says:
we do have the police
Me says:
The police can't be everywhere at once
Anti says:
we are a relative civilization
Anti says:
more people are killed BECAUSE they have guns in their house
Me says:
And why do you think that?
Anti says:
it's a fact
Me says:
According to whom?
Anti says:
according to whoever studied the statistics
Me says:
Who studied the statistics?
Anti says:
I don't know his name
Anti says:
but you should read something about it
Me says:
I've done a lot of research, I'm a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, and I believe that people have a fundamental right to defend themselves
Anti says:
and I'm supposed to be impressed by that
Anti says:
that you are a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association
Me says:
No, but it should tell you about my beliefs
Anti says:
I think it's despicable
Anti says:
I'm very clear about your beliefs
Me says:
I'm not so clear about yours. What's wrong with people who use guns in a safe, responsible way?
Anti says:
I just think it's unnecessary, if you like to play cowboys and Indians use plastic guns
Anti says:
or use rubber tip darts
Me says:
A lot of things are unnecessary...to be brutally honest, all you NEED is food, water and shelter
Me says:
Besides, there is the Second Amendment to contend with
Anti says:
and that's what we should focus on
Anti says:
the Second Amendment was written when people had to have guns to shoot food
Anti says:
not other people
Me says:
I believe that it was written as a hedge against potential tyranny by the government. Governemtns tend to be much more leery about oppressing an armed population
Anti says:
well there isn't any such government now
Me says:
The Second Amendment gives us the means to resist oppression by our own government, and foreign invaders
Anti says:
I'm not worried about being killed by the Republicans or the Democratic
Anti says:
in the Army will take care of foreign invaders
Me says:
Why not have an armed population as an additional deterrent? And what if the army is used to oppress the people?
Anti says:
I think the Second Amendment is just an excuse
Me says:
For what?
Anti says:
to have a gun
Anti says:
the Army is not going to attack the population
Anti says:
and even if they did you are in no position to fight them with your silly rifle
Anti says:
they havefar more sophisticated weapons than you'll ever own
Me says:
And that's why, in Iraq right now, a ragtag group of guys with AK-47s and RPGs are holding off the most powerful military the world has ever known with all our sophisticated weapons?
Anti says:
I think if you're worried about armed oppression here in United States I suggest to move to some other country
Me says:
I believe that the Second Amendment is an insurance policy of sorts...you hope you never need it, but if you do, you're glad it's there
Me says:
I just know it COULD happen some day
Anti says:
I'm not
Anti says:
the world could explode some day but I'm not going to build a bomb shelter
Anti says:
there is a better chance that you'll get hit by lightning but you still in the rain
Me says:
So, you don't believe in preparing for bad things that may or may not actually happen?
Anti says:
nope
Anti says:
I don't worry about them
Me says:
So, I assume, you don't wear a seatbelt when you're in a car?
Anti says:
I do, it's the law
Me says:
As is the Second Amendment
Anti says:
but I don't worry about having an accident
Me says:
Maybe you should
Anti says:
the Second Amendment isn't a law
Me says:
It is in the Bill of Rights, part of the Constitution, supreme law of the land
Anti says:
neither is Constitution of the bill of rights
Anti says:
you should read your history
Me says:
I have
Anti says:
it is not supreme law of the land
Me says:
Um, I'm sorry, but it is
Me says:
The Constitution is
Anti says:
there isn't one law in the Constitution
Me says:
Then why is our entire government based on it?
Anti says:
tell me one law that's in the Constitution
Me says:
First Amendment, the gov't is not allowed to suppress freedom of speech or freedom of religion, if that's not a law, what is?
Anti says:
that's not a law it's a right
Me says:
The Bill of Rights are a group of laws that says what the government is allowed and what it is now allowed to do
Me says:
not*
Anti says:
they are RIGHTS that's why they call it The Bill of Rights not the Bill of Laws
Me says:
And if you're right...then it is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms....if we deny that one right...what's to keep the government from denying other ones too?
Anti says:
you have the right to keep and bear on arms and form a militia which we already have it's called THE ARMY
Anti says:
you can't read just part of the Bill of Rights or of the you've got to take them as a whole statement
Me says:
You're right...I'll go find the whole thing
Anti says:
have a nice evening reading
Me says:
In the early days of the Republic..."militia" meant all able bodied males 17 and over
Me says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Unfortunately, the Anti left before I could send the actual text of the Second Amendment. This is the very first time I've had a serious debate with an anti, online or in person. How did I do? Thoughts?

 

[Baba Louie]

Next time, add the facts about governments in the 20th century being responsible for the murder of ???120 million??? of their own recently disarmed citizens who disagreed with the central government (look up exact info on JFPO website).
Point out that firearms are used to defend law-abiding citizens more often than they are used for criminal intent (refer Kleck and Lott's info).
Genocide of 500,000+ in Rwanda using machetes against unarmed citizens from other tribes. Might firearms have helped stop that genocide in the right hands?

Remind them of the British atrocities layed upon the early colonists including the disarming of citizens, remind them of Paul Revere's ride, the shot heard round the world, etc. stating that this is who we are and perhaps he should be the one considering leaving as the RKBA's is part and parcel of our heritage.

Auto's cause more deaths in US than firearms but when weighed against their usefulness, that's OK... I guess. Why the fear of firearms?
Ask if they've ever gone target shooting or shot clay pigeons?

Know that you'll never win a debate against similar opponents. You might sway them or cause them to think... which might cause a pain between their ears... if they can feel anything.

Ask them (again) why they prefer to live in a world where, as you stated, the strong will rule over the weak... a situation deemed unacceptable in this nation per the stated rights enumerated (and otherwise) in the BOR's?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

And Then There's Japan

The only nation to successfully COMPLETELY eliminate firearms after they were introduced was Japan.

The nation was immediately reduced to government by the strong, subservience by the weak. It was brutal and it was bloody.

The nice thing about history is it allows us to learn from the mistakes of others without having to freshly make all those same mistakes ourselves.

Who was it said, "Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself."

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Oh -- you did pretty well.

I'd have to say you kept your head pretty well.

It's not easy to remember every "correct" response to random illogical arguments on the fly.

Well done.

 

[Odd Job]

The sad thing is that the sentiments expressed by that anti probably represent about 90% of the UK citizens' viewpoints. Just reading that, reminds me of many discussions I have had with educated colleagues here in London.

 

[Zundfolge]

Anti says:
it's a lot easier to kill somebody with a gun than with a knife
Anti says:
far less personal

I've always loved that attitude (and I see it a lot ... ESPECIALLY from anti gun martial artists).


Oh, so murder is ok if its "personal"?

 

[mbt2001]

You did a good job.

Seriously... He has something to think about now. Interesting how your beliefs (our beliefs) are relatively consistent and the anti's are just all over the board. Basically, he believes that the government is good and will protect him even when he admits that the government is corrupt and is killing innocent people (Indians, Iraqis...)

There should be no excuse for ignorance.

 

[Zundfolge]

Also, send him the link in my sig (the "Imagine" one).

Debunks that whole "if guns were gone there would be peace" bs

 

[Sharps-shooter]

you know, it's perfectly possible to kill someone with an arrow or knife without looking them in the eyes. You just get behind them. I have killed many a hog by straddling its back and cutting its throat and neck veins. Never loked one in the eye.

 

[Sniper4Life]

Seems to me that you did pretty good for your first time. I have arguments like that all the time with my english teacher, she is as left as they come.

"I've always loved that attitude (and I see it a lot ... ESPECIALLY from anti gun martial artists)."

There are alot martial artists that love guns, and I am proud to be one of them.

 

[Handgun Midas]

That was good.

Y'know, it's about time we put together a script for shutting down an anti.
Like the one telemarketers use to keep polite people on the phone.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Thanks for your support. Like I said, this is the first time I've ever debated with an anti, and I must say, it felt kinda like this: :banghead: My main concern in the debate was planting the proverbial seed in the anti's brain and maintaining the high road. Besides, if I'd started name-calling like "sheeple" and "socialist" I'd be doing RKBA more harm than good.

 

[SigAlert]

Owning a gun is a moral choice

(Long Time lurker here)

What it boils down to for me is that I hold myself (and other legal gun owners) to a higher standard.

When we purchase a firearm, and keep it in our homes, we are making a promise to our community.

1. I know how to safely operate and maintain my firearm

2. I will keep my firearm out of the hands of unauthorized people (esp. CHILDREN)

3. I will not use my firearm to commit a crime

This is what it means to be a responsible gun owner. It's a tall order, and one that some people aren't up to. But those who are, have the ability to make the world a safer place.

As someone once said - 'If you want to get unsafe guns off the street, buy them yourself'

 

[Wes Janson]

Anti says:
it's too bad that it's human nature to fight and kill each other
Me says:
I agree, but that's the truth
Anti says:
I don't think that we should play into that
Me says:
Maybe some day, we won't....but as long as there are people who don't, good people must defend themselves
Anti says:
I think we should evolve

And that really sums it up right there. "I'd prefer to imagine a nice wonderland of peacefulness than deal with the cold reality of the world I live in". It's the sort of mental attitude one finds in a child who has not yet matured: the unwillingness to accept facts. Hopefully we WILL evolve..and become less stupid.

 

[Zundfolge]

My main concern in the debate was planting the proverbial seed in the anti's brain

Don't worry about that. In general, antis are not likely to be turned by a debate, nor are they likely to accept these seeds in their brains (partially because their arguments don't reside there ... they reside in their hearts as the anti gun position predominately an emotional one).

Your actual target when debating antis is not the anti, but the fence sitters watching the debate. THOSE are the ones who will accept those seeds because they don't have a vested interest in either side winning ... their pride isn't on the line and they aren't going to feel shame if they "lose" and change their position.

So in that regard, ya done good.

 

[jnojr]

How did you do?

I think you wasted an awful lot of your time on that ninny. There was no chance you were going to "educate" him or "make him see the light"... he already knows he's right.

So, what was the point?

 

[Zundfolge]

So, what was the point?

read my post right before yours for one of the points.

the other point is to hone your argument so that if some fence sitter asks you honest questions about RKBA you can give them an intelligent response.

 

[romma]

Me says,,, you did good!

 

[SoCalShooter]

Stalin and Hitler both disarmed their population, that worked out well for the people they did not like.

That was a rather stupid person you were having an argument with, its a RIGHT not a LAW? so if its my RIGHT then how can it be taken away? Silly. Very poor argument on that persons part, probably a 13 year old.

How did you do?

I think you wasted an awful lot of your time on that ninny. There was no chance you were going to "educate" him or "make him see the light"... he already knows he's right.

So, what was the point?

The point is! That was another battle front, that person probably spews the same fallacious arguments to other sheeple, its necessary to beat the sheep over the head everyonce in a while, never back down from a these fights even if you think you are gonna lose and if that is coming near call in for backup, like he did and went and quoted the document itself. The ninny was obviously someone who has had no interaction with guns.

We cannot afford to let these types of people infect others and letting them slide because they are just NINNY's is not a good reason, even to the point of frustration it will get through to them at some point. Even if this guy still does not like guns he will probably think about looking up the Bill of Rights to strengthen his own argument and hopefully realize that he has no legs to stand on.

Goodwork Ohio Riflemen. He is the one who left the field of battle before the fight was over, you made him retreat nice work.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Goodwork Ohio Riflemen. He is the one who left the field of battle before the fight was over, you made him retreat nice work.

Thanks for your kind words, SoCalShooter. I'm just doing my part to help defend the Second Amendment and the RKBA. I should point out that this anti claimed to be an 18 year old female. Make of that way you will. It is funny how she left before I could quote the Second Amendment verbatim. I also had no defense for the idiotic argument that Bill of Rights are rights and not laws...I didn't really understand that.

 

[Axman]

Anti says:
it's too bad that it's human nature to fight and kill each other




It's nearly like arguing invalid points on a BBS or in a chat room. It's human nature.

 

[mondocomputerman]

"I believe that it was written as a hedge against potential tyranny by the government. Governemtns tend to be much more leery about oppressing an armed population
Anti says:
well there isn't any such government now"

There isn't?

 

[TX1911fan]

Perhaps you should have pointed her to Article VI of the Constitution:

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I've never heard anyone stupid enough to claim that the Constitution is not the law.

 

[Handgun Midas]

It's nearly like arguing invalid points on a BBS or in a chat room. It's human nature.

But some people don't believe in human nature.

Some people don't believe in evolution.
Some people don't believe in violence.


I'm becoming quite convinced that convincing some people that human violence is inevitable is like convincing an athiest that god loves him.