Rebuttal Points for Anti-Gun Editorial

.455_Hunter

Member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
5,064
Location
Colorado Front Range
What would be some good rebuttal points for the below vitriolic editorial?

Its a pretty good summary of the bigoted hate directed towards armed citizens.

By the way, "Shall not be infringed" is NOT a good rebuttal point.

Thanks!

In a gun-crazed culture fed by fear, any little action can trigger a tragedy


In a nation of emotionally fragile men armed to the teeth with weapons of war, merely existing in public has become a life-and-death gambit.

The most recent incident involving trigger-happy men incapable of controlling their rampant and overwhelming fear of everything in the world resulted in the shooting of a 14-year-old girl who made the mistake of playing hide-and-seek with friends in her local neighborhood.

On Sunday morning, a group of teenagers cast a shadow on David Doyle’s window in Starks, La. Doyle’s response was to immediately retrieve his gun.

As Doyle stepped outside, the teens were running away. They were presumably off on their next weekend adventure. Doyle, without provocation, under no immediate threat and without any knowledge of who was running from his yard, took aim and struck one of the teens in the back of the head.

The girl is expected to make a full recovery but the fact that she even found herself in this circumstance is a testament to the need for greater gun control in the United States.

In the past month, previously “responsible and law-abiding gun owners” have successfully taken aim at a 16-year-old Black child who rang the wrong doorbell while trying to retrieve his younger brothers from a playdate, a 20-year-old white woman who pulled into the wrong driveway and two cheerleaders in Texas who mistakenly tried to get into the wrong car in a store parking lot.

It was less than two weeks ago that parents and children in an exurb of Houston were executed for asking a neighbor to stop firing his AR-15 in his front yard because their baby was trying to sleep. That’s how prevalent guns are in America. Infants can’t sleep because the neighbor’s AR-15 is too loud.

While we don’t yet know all the circumstances surrounding Monday’s shooting of a campus safety monitor outside a middle school in North Las Vegas, Metro Police stated that the victim was hit by a “stray” bullet. Like a stray cat or dog, there are now “stray” bullets in our neighborhoods.

It’s bad enough that we must endure violence from white supremacist monsters like the man who killed eight people Saturday at a mall in Texas. Now Americans are being gunned down doing everyday things by panicked gun owners who fire at any shadow or because of the mildest stimulation. This is what a daily diet of fearmongering from right-wing TV and the internet will get you.

When will the American people say enough is enough?

An overwhelming percentage of Americans support reasonable gun control such as basic educational and training requirements, universal background checks, waiting periods, safe storage requirements and bans on bump stocks and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet we have failed to exercise the political power of these majorities by voting National Rifle Association mouthpieces out of office.

Instead, we’ve allowed MAGA Republicans to return the United States to the violent and terror-filled era of Jim Crow. Nearly all of these bizarre shootings of people just going about daily life have happened in conservative states where gun laws and concealed carry laws are extremely loose. While Republicans chide the liberal “snowflakes” for being too sensitive, they’re the ones quite literally shooting people for ringing a doorbell.

Irrational fear and firearms are a deadly mix. They are also stock-in-trade for the conservative universe.

We have written about the need for reasonable gun control in the past and we will continue writing about it until politicians and voters alike take meaningful action. More than 20,000 Americans die each year from gun violence, not including suicide.

That’s more than the number of deaths that would occur if there were a 9/11-style terrorist attack every two months in the United States. Or approximately three times the number of U.S. soldiers killed during the entire combined 20-year span of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even in the deadliest year of the Afghan war, 2010, there were still 20 times more Americans killed by guns in the U.S. than American soldiers killed by the Taliban.

Think about that. It’s not hyperbole to say that the prevalence of guns has turned the streets of America into a war zone. It’s a statistically supported fact.

Yet Republican elected officials (and a handful of Democrats) continue to do nothing, effectively blocking progress that could save tens of thousands of lives every year.

Well, almost nothing. Hours before a key legislative deadline, two Republicans joined six Democrats as a Texas House committee passed a bill to raise the minimum age to purchase AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles from 18 to 21. The bill passed after months of lobbying by the families of victims of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde. The bill’s passage was a rare moment of progress from a small minority of Republican legislators who typically offer nothing more than thoughts and prayers while the rest of us bury our loved ones. They advocate that the solution to gun violence is more guns. And they trade the lives of children for campaign donations from gun manufacturers. They babble inanities about mental health.

In other words, they contribute to the problem so they can stay in power.

Is your career, dear politicians, more important than the lives of Americans? Spare us your empty thoughts and prayers. Instead, go to a few funerals. Sit with the devastated families. Listen to their anguished laments. Imagine the sight of parents throwing their bodies over their children to shield them from high-velocity bullets.

And then tell Americans that modest and reasonable gun laws are too burdensome. Tell us why we need to die, so gun manufacturers can thrive.


—The Las Vegas Sun
 
Every rebuttal point would be logical, factual, verifiable, and devoid of emotion. And therefore ineffective. Those who respond to emotional appeals like that editorial will simply be unwilling to consider alternative opinions.

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone could craft an effective rebuttal that has a prayer of getting published.

I would love to be wrong.
 
The very real problem is that the "anti" side is not actually open to discussion. They have firmly cleaved to "I'm right and you're wrong!"

And no mere words will shake that fundamental assertion.

In a more perfect, more rational, world, "we" could be clever and point out that it's "fascist" to support gun control, which ought to cause anti-fascists to be abhorrent to the notion, let alone the laws.

But, "our" opponents do not operate from rational arguments. They are perfectly willing to express and hold sacred, views which should be anathema to them. This comes from a mental disconnect that they rules and laws they want will not affect them. In other words, No rules for ME, only for THEE!

This allows them to chatter on endlessly with little or no concern for the words they use, or whether those words are correct or not--the argument does not matter to them, they have already decided. And "we" are expected to conform, to obey--our "betters" have spoken. Even when that speech is gibberish.
 
Dear Las Vegas Sun,

Since 1899, there have been more than 450 million firearms manufactured in or imported to the United States. Estimates of American gun owning households range from 39-51%. Untold millions of Americans do not commit crimes with their guns, using them for personal protection, hunting, target shooting, collecting and other lawful purposes.

When a drunk driver causes a traffic fatality, your paper doesn't blame Budweiser, Smirnoff or the liquor store where the driver made his purchase. Your paper doesn't demand more drunk driver laws, doesn't demand the carmakers install in car Breathalyzers or a safety device that prevents a drunk from operating that vehicle. Even the bar or restaurant where he was served rarely takes the blame for overserving. Instead, society correctly lays blame on the person responsible, the drunk driver. Oddly, that drunk driver didn't have to fill out a federal form or undergo an FBI background check in order to purchase his beer, wine or whiskey.

Once you can grasp the concept that the gun isn't the problem, it's people, you can take the first step to fixing the problem. And the fix isn't more gun laws. All the background checks, all the age limits, all the restrictions on certain types of firearms can't fix evil and people who commit evil acts. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
Tom Hart, Plano, TX
 
I say don't engage since they lead with hyperbole, dehumanize gun owners and try to make readers fearful of guns, gun owners.
Just arguing with a crazy person at that point.
Anyone who does engage they are going to try and drag you down to their level so you sound like an unhinged lunatic with guns and can be used to prove their point.
 
But, "our" opponents do not operate from rational arguments. They are perfectly willing to express and hold sacred, views which should be anathema to them. This comes from a mental disconnect that they rules and laws they want will not affect them. In other words, No rules for ME, only for THEE!
That dovetails perfectly with what I've been saying, which is that guns are a "zero sum game." That is, that if you have guns, you are stronger, and your force is multiplied, if your opponent does not have guns. Thus, disarming your perceived opponent is just as important, if not more important, than arming yourself. And the antigunners, even the ones who personally don't have guns, are reasonably confident that they control the authorities who do have guns.

Where this theory breaks down is in the vast number of modern guns already in private hands. There's just no way, at this late stage, to restrict the supply of guns to any named group. What we're seeing, then, is the complete "democratization" of force within the civil society.
 
Ideally one would not rebutt. The editorial is an expression of frustration with rampant violence in today’s society. I too am frustrated and concerned with the uptick in violence and crime in recent years. The author has unfortunately bought the leftists narrative that violence is caused by guns, rather than that gun violence is an indication of several wider societal issues such as over permissiveness in general, poor education, a breakdown in morality, an associated increase in fear by many in society, and a decline in policing and police deterrence of crime by virtue of the anti-policing movement, itself an offshoot of the leftists movement, ironically. So, there’s nothing to rebutt. The concern with increased violence and crime is reasoned and justified. The view that guns are the cause of such crime and violence is absurd and can only be held if one is willing to suspend critical thinking and rational analysis. In such cases, rebuttal is utterly ineffective.

Providing a rational analysis for those who are neither captive to irrational ideology nor necessarily well informed on the issues may be in order. It is reasonable to point out that crime rates across the board are on the rise, concurrent with both substantial restrictions on policing and a movement in high crime urban centers by leftist district attorneys to decriminalize a range of anti-social behaviors and actions, diminish the deterrence of crime through lighter sentencing and non-prosecution of arrested criminals, and to deselect the provision of law and order by the state (whatever may be the jurisdiction). The left has worked very hard and very effectively to remove the guard rails that society erected after the last period of social decay that their predecessors created in the sixties and seventies. The younger generations have no experience of the drug wars, rampant crime, and high murder rates that raged into the eighties, rendering large parts of our nation’s capital a smoking pile of rubble and free-fire zone; leading to a substantial pendulum swing, with legislation such as the Crime Bill rammed through the Senate by the current President whose Alzheimer’s robs him of his own memories of that era. They cannot recall the New York City that Giuliani cleaned up with such extraordinary measures as the extremely effective “stop and frisk” policy that the privileged left is so horrified by. The heat has been turned up slowly and now the frog does not understand that it is boiling.

It may be worth pointing these facts out and that the amount of gun crime is remarkably low given that Americans own, at the very least, one gun for every man woman’s and child in the country. It is possible that there are those who will recognize that it is rising crime, a lack of police deterrence, and media fear-mongering that drive most of the incidents addressed in the editorial to which you refer. I however am not hopeful that a rational analysis of the state of the union will do much in the way of swaying.
 
Dear Las Vegas Sun,

Since 1899, there have been more than 450 million firearms manufactured in or imported to the United States. Estimates of American gun owning households range from 39-51%. Untold millions of Americans do not commit crimes with their guns, using them for personal protection, hunting, target shooting, collecting and other lawful purposes.

When a drunk driver causes a traffic fatality, your paper doesn't blame Budweiser, Smirnoff or the liquor store where the driver made his purchase. Your paper doesn't demand more drunk driver laws, doesn't demand the carmakers install in car Breathalyzers or a safety device that prevents a drunk from operating that vehicle. Even the bar or restaurant where he was served rarely takes the blame for overserving. Instead, society correctly lays blame on the person responsible, the drunk driver. Oddly, that drunk driver didn't have to fill out a federal form or undergo an FBI background check in order to purchase his beer, wine or whiskey.

Once you can grasp the concept that the gun isn't the problem, it's people, you can take the first step to fixing the problem. And the fix isn't more gun laws. All the background checks, all the age limits, all the restrictions on certain types of firearms can't fix evil and people who commit evil acts. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
Tom Hart, Plano, TX
Great job, I hope you actually sent this to them!
 
Not a surprise that the article starts the narrative by condemning all men and all gun owners. They might want to try actually enforcing the laws on the books instead of fanning the flames of hysteria. Gun and home owners would be far less worried about a knock on the door, if police were allowed to do their jobs. This writer has his/her panty hose in a bunch and there is no rebuttal that would impact that kind of fear mongering. Best thing is to cancel your subscription
 
t’s bad enough that we must endure violence from white supremacist monsters like the man who killed eight people Saturday at a mall in Texas. Now Americans are being gunned down doing everyday things by panicked gun owners who fire at any shadow or because of the mildest stimulation. This is what a daily diet of fearmongering from right-wing TV and the internet will get you.

^ That’s what a steady diet of left wing TV, social media and .gov will get you.

That’s why others get all the attention and they outright ignore any that do not fit their narrative.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale/story?id=98166039

It’s kind of like the looting of businesses and arson, are called “peaceful protests” because they are in support of those criminal activities, while people that protest things they do like are called “insurrectionist” even if they are unarmed, thus by definition cannot be.
 
Not a surprise that the article starts the narrative by condemning all men and all gun owners. They might want to try actually enforcing the laws on the books instead of fanning the flames of hysteria. Gun and home owners would be far less worried about a knock on the door, if police were allowed to do their jobs. This writer has his/her panty hose in a bunch and there is no rebuttal that would impact that kind of fear mongering. Best thing is to cancel your subscription
About 40% of gun owners are women and growing, so they can't even get that right.
 
Great job, I hope you actually sent this to them!
I didn't.
But anyone is free to copy, paste and send it to any media outlet they want.
"Letters to the Editor" and "Editorials" really only matter to us old people. Those under age 40 rarely read, much less subscribe to a newspaper, even the online edition.

If you dislike an editorial, contact the three advertisers that newspaper still has. Express your dislike and question the advertisers continued support. Then cancel your subscription. If you are reading a free online version, stop. Don't give them the clicks.
 
It's pretty obvious that removing guns from the hands of criminals, drug addicts and the insane is not the agenda of the anti-gunners.
They are busily decriminalizing the possession and use of firearms by people that are in these groups wherever they can.
No, their primary concern appears to be otherwise-law-abiding gun owners that might wish to resist some part of their agenda,,, ,
 
I didn't.
But anyone is free to copy, paste and send it to any media outlet they want.
"Letters to the Editor" and "Editorials" really only matter to us old people. Those under age 40 rarely read, much less subscribe to a newspaper, even the online edition.

If you dislike an editorial, contact the three advertisers that newspaper still has. Express your dislike and question the advertisers continued support. Then cancel your subscription. If you are reading a free online version, stop. Don't give them the clicks.
If anyone does send it, I doubt that paper would print it.

I just hope and pray these scumbags that like to shoot up schoolrooms never realize that a repeating shotgun loaded with buckshot is infinitely deadlier than any AR or an AK...at short ranges.
By the way, "Shall not be infringed" is NOT a good rebuttal point.
"Shall not be infringed" is an absolute. It is in the Second Amendment. I can't think of a better rebuttal point. Anyone on the other side that doesn't like it...will get this answer:

"You don't like it....change the Constitution."
 
Last edited:
Not a surprise that the article starts the narrative by condemning all men and all gun owners. They might want to try actually enforcing the laws on the books instead of fanning the flames of hysteria. Gun and home owners would be far less worried about a knock on the door, if police were allowed to do their jobs. This writer has his/her panty hose in a bunch and there is no rebuttal that would impact that kind of fear mongering. Best thing is to cancel your subscription

And that is part of the problem! Our judicial system has become a "revolving door" that releases perps on ankle monitors or even OR with little or no follow-up. Then you have prosecutors like Kim Fox in Chicago and Kim Gardiner in St. Louis, both of whom were backed by Bloomberg- and Soros-backed groups. These are prosecutors that are more interested in "social justice", defund cops, and not prosecuting certain crimes, and this allows those metro areas to continue the "F.U.D." (Fear, Uncertainty, Despair) and keep the public agitated so they want "something done" without realizing they are being manipulated (or "herded" like cattle or sheep).
 
Instead, we’ve allowed MAGA Republicans to return the United States to the violent and terror-filled era of Jim Crow.
What do "MAGA Republicans" have to do with stupid people doing stupid things with firearms?

And what in the heck does the "violent and terror-filled era of Jim Crow" have to do with stupid people doing stupid things with firearms?

Reporters, columnists and anyone else writing op-eds for the news media need to be called out for turning anything gun-related or gun crime-related into a political issue, i.e., making it due to the conservatives; they also need to be called out for making anything gun-related or gun crime-related an issue of racism. Reminding these writers of the racist history of gun control is a good start. Encouraging them to engage their critical thinking skills, probably a non-starter, as most of these folks are not possessed of same.
 
Most of the shootings in the USA are done by "teens" that can't legally own a handgun.
Banning something only impacts law abiding people, criminals would have guns even if they were banned same as meth or fentanyl.
The places in the USA that have the most restrictive gun laws still have disproportionately more crime because criminals don't follow laws.
I'm not carrying a gun out of "fear" - I've had concealed carry 30+ years and never "needed" a gun.
I'm carrying a gun because there are criminals and psychos that will kill (or severely injure) people even if the victim gives the criminals what they want.
The gun I'm carrying holds 15+ rounds. What would be accomplished by limiting me to 10 rounds? Nothing, same as other worthless gun control that only inhibits law abiding.
If you don't like living in a country where law abiding people can own and carry handguns move to a freedom hating country, there are plenty.
 
As Doyle stepped outside, the teens were running away. They were presumably off on their next weekend adventure. Doyle, without provocation, under no immediate threat and without any knowledge of who was running from his yard, took aim and struck one of the teens in the back of the head.

This statement highlights the fact that it is the person that does the damage. Of course you never see that accepted by the anti's and never will. How can it be combated? It can't be. It's a completely different world than when I was kid. If that had happened in my kid days being yelled out would have been the worst that would have happened. Fast forward to my children's kid days and it would have been the same. Now it seems at least 50% of the population has run off the rails mentally and it's only going to get worse as the population continues to increase.
 
Some people have determined that their own family, wife, children, are not worthy of the parent risking their own life to protect them. Occasionally they feel bad when they see that other people will risk themselves to protect others. They want to take the guns from those protectors so that they won't feel bad about being cowards when it comes to protecting their own family. Who are we to disagree that their families are not worth protecting.

These people are comfortable, actually proud, to tell their kids we've called the police if someone's breaking in. Hide in your room, mommy and daddy will hide in our room. Good luck kids.
 
The very real problem is that the "anti" side is not actually open to discussion. They have firmly cleaved to "I'm right and you're wrong!"
CapnMac is exactly correct here. Most anti-gunners are zealots and a cult unto themselves and no amount of discussion or facts will change their beliefs. They are beyond reason. Don't let them frame the argument.
I think the best recourse is to continue to attack them in the courts because the laws, if not all the judges, are on our side. Also, whenever possible, connect with non-gun owners who don't have such hardwired anti-gun beliefs and turn them into gun owners and enthusiasts.
 
There is so much projection in this article. This is the one that really gets me:

nstead, we’ve allowed MAGA Republicans to return the United States to the violent and terror-filled era of Jim Crow.

If we're pointing fingers, it's not the MAGA republicans and the (mentioned earlier in the article) white supremists that took over sections of cities (like Seattle), or who are calling for segregation. It's cries for black doctors that only see black patients because white doctors don't know how to treat anyone but whites. It's for there to be classes without white students so that black kids don't have negative emotions. It's for neighborhoods that don't have racism, which means no white folk.

But, as Colion Noir put it in his recent video, if MAGA republicans and white supremists are a real threat...do you want to be disarmed against them? Or do you want to be more armed, so that if that threat materializes on your doorstep, you're not another casualty?
 
Sadly, it's all reduced to pre-K argument.
I'm right and you're wrong.
If you say I'm wrong it's because you like [bad thing].
You're wrong because you are [bad thing].

They will select [bad thing] because it's 'bad' not because it's accurate.
If you stop reacting to [bad thing] because it's absurd (and you are smarter than a 4 y/o), they will simply change which [bad thing] they are shouting at you. They literally do not care what the definitions are, as long as you respond, emotionally, to whatever [bad thing] you are declared to be.

And, as with any 4 y/o you cannot deflate their arguments by agreeing with them, as they will use your admission against you. It's all a tantrum. Sadly, we are not allowed to treat it like a tantrum and put them, visibly, in Time Out. Neither can we do as we might with 4 y/o and simply ignore them.

This is deliberate, too. Just like a toddler melt-down on a crowded plane, there is no right action a person can take that will not cause the surrounding crowd to not see you in a bad light. You take the blame for all the social discomfort caused by the screaming toddler.

And you cannot simply give in to their immediate demands, as as soon as you do, the demands will be increased. Even if that makes things demonstrably worse.

It's a Gordian Knot, and there's no simple slice to part the thing.
 
Back
Top