Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by cnorman18, Sep 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cnorman18

    cnorman18 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    I understand that anti-gunners sometimes lurk here in hopes of finding material to support their "cause". I rather suspect that this thread won't be getting copied for that reason.

    If any anti-gunners are reading this--here's a simple, straightforward question: Why do you find it necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?

    Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if you have to lie to defend your cause, there must be something wrong with it. And THAT, to me, is by far the most effective and telling argument against you anti-gunners. If your cause is so righteous, why can't you promote it without a consistent pattern of deliberate distortions and outright lies?

    Your anti-gun organizations, like Handgun Control, Inc., publish statistics on the enormous number of children killed by handguns. The public reacts with horror, as well they should--IF those numbers were accurate. If one examines them, though, one finds that you define a "child" as anyone under the age of 25; the numbers include, e.g., the deaths of two 20+ year-old drug dealers in a gang shootout; they include the death of a 24-year-old murder suspect shot by a police SHOTGUN (not a handgun); they include the suicide of a 19-year-old after he committed murder; they include the deaths of armed robbers who were shot by store owners defending themselves; and on and on. You know that these statistics are deceptive, yet you continue to present them as meaningful. Why?

    You publish statistics on the number of "children" killed in handgun "accidents", claiming that this happens daily and that "hundreds of thousands" of children die from this cause every year; but, again, examine those numbers and one will find that they include "children" in their 20s and even "accidents" that are deliberate shootings and suicides. The actual number of children under 10 who are killed in genuine accidents in any given year is less than 15, and that has been true for decades--and those accidents almost invariably involve a loaded handgun left lying around by an irresponsible adult, often a criminal drug dealer or the like. You know all this, but deliberately withhold this information. Why?

    You routinely ignore, ridicule, or "debunk"--without even an attempt to produce any actual evidence--statistics that show that guns in the hands of legally armed citizens prevent more crimes than are committed by armed criminals. You DO pay attention to reports of civilian self-defense, though; those reports are routinely included in your tallies of "handgun deaths". You know this is dishonest, but you continue to do it. Why?

    You deliberately blur the distinctions between semi- and full-automatic weapons and between military and civilian weapons; you repeatedly imply that full-auto "machine guns" are available for casual, unregulated purchase. You are not ignorant or "confused" on this matter. If one goes to your websites, one will see you speak openly about exploiting the ignorance and confusion of the public about guns, and in so many words. You are conducting a well-planned and carefully conducted disinformation campaign worthy of the KGB. Why?

    And the major media are in your pockets. I have personally seen stories (plural) about semi-automatic weapons on the major broadcast networks that were accompanied by video of NFA-regulated Class III weapons in full-auto fire--and seen those same stories REPEATED, without comment, correction or alteration, AFTER the network had been informed of the inaccurate and deceptive nature of the pieces. Why?

    In the same way, falsified statistics from HCI and their ilk are slavishly parroted by the networks and big-city papers, while the countering facts and genuine, accurate statistics from the pro-gun side remain invisible. Why?

    For instance: What about the fact that armed citizens frequently STOP or PREVENT crimes? The LOCAL media (depending on where one lives) will sometimes carry stories of civilians defending themselves and their families with legally-owned weapons; here in Dallas, such stories appear a couple of times every week. Nationwide, they must happen hundreds of times every day. But one will NEVER see such a story make the national news. That is a set policy that appears to be carved in stone. You know it happens--but you won't talk about it. Ever. Why?

    (A note to pro-gunners on countering falsehoods and distortions in the media: By all means, write and email the major papers and networks with your objections and corrections--they need to know we're awake and watching out here--but don't expect it to do any good. You will inevitably be dismissed as a benighted redneck. Better to address your LOCAL media. They're much more likely to respond. When you see a biased story on TV, write the network--but write the local station, too. THEY are ultimately responsible for what goes out under their call letters. If the reporting is especially bad, it could be fun to write their competition, too. It might be hard for an editor to resist a story on how a rival station or paper aired or published an egregious falsehood...)

    It seems to me that the strongest single argument we gunowners have in this fight is that simple question: If your cause is so righteous and morally correct, why do you have to lie so much? Why, in fact, is your "case" made up almost ENTIRELY of lies, deliberate distortions, and omissions of fact? Can you not defend your positions by simply telling the truth? We gunners do that all the time. Why can't you?

    I'd like to see that question aired more publicly and much more often. I'd like to see someone--anyone--on the anti-gun side try to answer it.

    And answer it without lying.

    Well? Can you? And if not--

    WHY?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2007
  2. sublimaze41

    sublimaze41 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of Western New York
    Fantastic post! Thank you for taking time to clearly define the HCI's manipulation of the facts. Trying to clarify their statistics only labels you a "gun fanatic" and difficult to reason with as they would likely describe it.

    Tell enough lies long enough, and with enough zeal, will lead to many people believing it as true. HCI knows that. Just watch how fast their propaganda machine fires up with the next gun related tradgedy.
     
  3. Skirmisher

    Skirmisher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Michigan
    Everyone knows that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes fact.:banghead:
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The whole of leftism has always been based on the premise that groups of people mysteriously hold rights individuals don't. People who start with lies always end up with lies.
     
  5. Lew

    Lew Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Location:
    Wyoming
    It's an excellent question! May I ask a few? I prefer scenarios, because they're more difficult to sidestep.

    A man breaks into a young woman's house when she is alone. For clarity's sake, he says, "I'm going to kill you." There are 7 seconds between her and great bodily harm. Does she have the right to live? If "no," then why not? If "yes," then how? What can she use? Pepper spray? A knife? A bat? These all offer a glimmer of hope at best to overcome a much larger and stronger assailant. What about a firearm? If "no," then why not? It offers her the best chance to live. How much of a chance does she deserve?

    When you get down and really ask them to declare where exactly "they" stand on allowing an innocent person to live, it tends to make them think. If you get an unacceptable answer (more like disgusting to you and me), then what if it was (insert somebody they care about here)? Would their answer change? If "no," then they really are a cretin and any argument about valuing human life is refuted. If "yes," then how can you differentiate between who gets to live and die? Only people they know? Where's your equality, now?

    We try and try, but it's right near impossible to understand their way of thinking. Make that fully impossible. It's so sad.
     
  6. cnorman18

    cnorman18 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Lew:

    "I prefer scenarios, because they're more difficult to sidestep."

    I've found the opposite to be true. As soon as you say "What if..." to an anti, they come back with fifty more--usually on how the situation should have been avoided in the first place. You'll never get one to deal with the situation as you've presented it. "She should have done (x) before it got to that point" or "Let's look at the real problem here" seems like an answer to them, though it isn't; and you'll never get them past that, or to admit that you've asked a real-life question that needs an answer. Everything is theory to them; showing that it could have been prevented somehow (which is ALWAYS true) is somehow a solution.

    I think "Why do anti-gun people and organizations lie so much?" is VERY much harder to deal with. When confronted with verifiable facts and evidence of their own deception, they usually stamp off sputtering and fuming--and that's about as good as it gets with most of 'em.
     
  7. Tom Bri

    Tom Bri Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Location:
    Rockford Illinois
    Funny thing I have noticed several times. Look at a picture in the newspaper of 'guns' confiscated, or turned in during one of those buy-backs. Count the number of BB guns, pellet guns, paintball guns that are obvious even in the blurry pics. Outnumber real guns by a good margin, with the caption and article extolling the number of guns 'taken off the streets'.
     
  8. Fisherman_48768

    Fisherman_48768 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Thumb of Mich.
    A lie never becomes a fact, it just starts to be believed as a fact.
     
  9. Thegungal

    Thegungal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    San Antonio
    Over the years I wonder how many murders and suicides have been called "Accidental shooting" to cover something up.

    Seriously, A well respected member of a community kills himself. To save grief or the truth gettting out, (and however it happens, Friend of a cop, judge, mayor, makes the call...) and says "Unfortunate accident" and that is what we hear "He was cleaning his gun and...." (how many times over the years have you read that?, I have a number of times)

    People always want something to blame, cant accept the truth or dont want the truth to get out. It is the nature of people.

    If guns are so dangerous and gun owners so incapable of self control, Gun Shows, Stores and Ranges would be Killing Fields, Heck, there would be a daily body count at most Wal-Marts. Yet, it seems "gun free" zones are where the worst cases happen.

    AHHHHH, it is all so insane.
     
  10. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    Guns have become a scapegoat for incompetence.
    You can trace the issue all the way back to the decline of self-responsibility (the last time you really see it is the late forties). Now, instead of taking responsibility and acting against the guilty criminals, we blame the innocent and helpless (yes, helpless) firearms.
    I think we can win by re-injecting self-responsibility into our nation. Take back the education system. That, to me, is the answer.
    We need to stop devoting energy to the leaves of this weed and go for the root. The root is the education (both from the media and the schools) that every new generation has received. Just like Nazi Germany, people are passing the blame for failure off onto an innocent. Fight against the root, and the leaves will die.
     
  11. v35

    v35 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    V35 Family Compound, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    Skirmisher is quoting Josef Goebbels, the original proponent of this policy. The concept didn't die with him.
     
  12. camslam

    camslam Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Chilling Out in the Valley of The Sun
    That is really all they have. I have gone the rounds in one of our local papers online forums anytime an issue of guns is raised. The anti's come out in force, but what I have noticed is once I show them documented facts or statistics, they drop off like flies. Some still try to push forward their illogical crap, but if you hit them with actual facts, I have seen it make some difference.

    The other problem I encounter is the endless list of hypotheticals that they throw out regarding gun owners, CCP holders, etc... While I battle with them on the facts, I try to point out that the type of scenarios they put forth have never or rarely ever happened. While the actual events I use to address the need for guns happen on a regular basis or frequently.

    I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but for the most part, Liberals see things emotionally and that is where the disconnect is for me. Because they FEEL strongly about something, that makes it right. Versus, what facts, logic, or reason prove to be right. That is what drives me the craziest. When I ask them to prove me wrong, or to answer a simple question, they never have a eloquent response, because the facts don't back up what they say. Usually it ends with them making some kind of snide remark or personal attack. That is what you do when all you have are lies and emotion to prove your point. :)

    We all need to keep on fighting the good fight, because it is all we can do.
     
  13. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    The antis would argue that a lie in the service of a greater good is not really a lie at all. The end justifies the means. Playing devil's advocate, I would say:

    "If lying means that a child's life is saved, it is worth it."

    Know your enemy.
     
  14. Macpherson

    Macpherson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    "If lying means that a child's life is saved, it is worth it."

    This is another example of what side is in the right, not only does the lef twist the truth, they obscure it with an emotional fog.

    I would ask this question: Is saving one person (or even hundreds) worth throwing away the God-given rights of every man woman and child in this country?

    I would say no. And I think the founding fathers would agree with me.
     
  15. langenc

    langenc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    921
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Great post. Will copy and distribute with mail for the next couple months.

    Since this was adressed to antis should have said "...why do you... not why do they.
     
  16. langenc

    langenc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    921
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Great post. Will copy and distribute with mail for the next couple months.

    Since this was adressed to antis should have said "...why do you... not why do they.

    That is my bugaboo with a lot of people. Salesman that say "they decided to blah blah blah" when it could/should have been "WE decided to...." or is not the individual part of the company. I have told salesman that called on me and said "they" "dont you mean we?" They kinda say yea....!
     
  17. cnorman18

    cnorman18 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    good point

    The point about "they" vs. "you" is well taken. I shall edit the post as has been suggested.

    I phrased it as I did, of course, because most readers here are NOT anti-gunners (unless we have one heckuva lot more lurkers than we suspect).

    Thanks for the suggestion.
     
  18. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,255
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    It has been my experience that there simply is no argument that will change a dyed in the wool anti. That said, most folks are not nearly so committed to that cause. Sometimes it takes hours, sometimes it takes years, but thus far I've been able to get every "anti" I know personally to at least accept that it is our right and that no one should be allowed to strip it from us. This usually takes everything from explaining the gun itself to quoting our forefathers and constitution, etc.

    Most folks have simply become very disillusioned by the media, and have had no one to explain the other side (or truth, as it is sometimes known). Often that clarification is all it really takes.

    I suggest that rather than trying to take on the whole group of die-hard anti's, we all do it one little person at a time. Just take that hour to engage someone that says "I hate guns", rather than dismiss them as the enemy of our cause. It really can be effective.
     
  19. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    712
    As a psychology major, I can offer some information that might help us understand the viewpoint of someone who is anti-gun.

    Internalization is the justification process that one goes through when they need to change their view on any given topic. This process is triggered by cognitive dissonance, which is a pretty way to say "it makes me feel bad."

    For example, take a politician running for public officer. He/she is offered a large sum of money in order to support the cause(s) of the person giving said politician said money. The politician does not believe in their cause, but recognizes the power of the money he/she is being offered.

    The politician will likely change their viewpoint to collect said money, and thus ends up believing in the cause that the politician is changing his/her view to.

    Anti-gun people do the same.
     
  20. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    The hilly SE
    “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”

    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

    “It is not truth that matters, but victory”

    And, of course, “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

    All attributable to Adolph Hitler.
     
  21. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    Tremenously effective original post and follow-ups.

    Oh, how it reflects my own frustration and anger with the antis' nonsense.

    The trick now is to not feel that the above venting removes your motivation to keep on punchin' back.

    How much did you spend on your last gun --$300, $400, $1000 ?

    Now take 20% of that and join the RKBA organization(s) of your choice!

    Write the check now!
     
  22. ROMAK IV

    ROMAK IV Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    It's pathological! For some anyway. You have the antigun liberal politicians, and they lie like crazy, and not just about guns. They fear being exposed and thus the will demonize those with opposing views. You know like blaming gun owners for criminals murdering children. With the major old media on their side, they have pretty much succeeded. The really pathological people, defined as those that have an unhealthy fear of guns, see the JPFO article, have their fears fed by the politicians, many of which own guns themselves. The actual dangers from firearms, are overstated a hundredfold or more and the pathological people believe it, and won't listen to other views because gun owners are demonized as racists, dullminded, extreme, and right wing. So, people like Wayne LaPierre are evil men who give guns to kids while the actual people that murder children are themselves, victims of society and commit crimes because "guns" were available. Is the life of one child worth getting rid of all the guns? Just try telling someone that more kids will die if you get rid of guns.
     
  23. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    You almost got it right. Allow me to correct you.

    You have politicians, and they lie like crazy
     
  24. Dick1911

    Dick1911 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    The Old North State
    :) An excellent post and much food for thought. I believe many of the antis are sincere in their beliefs and don't realize they are spreading falsehoods. They have been deliberately mislead and used by some people who DO know that they are spreading lies and not facts. I wish there was some way to identify them and expose them for what they are doing.

    :scrutiny: I'd also like to know where some of the anti organizations get the bulk of their money - it would'nt surprise me if it came from places other than the USA. After all, it would be easier for any group who wishes harm to our way of life if we weren't so well armed.

    Anyone out there know how we can follow the money? That would be the most effective way to expose them.
     
  25. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    Excellent post, and Skirmisher very likely hit the nail. Although there are a good many well-meaning but ill-informed people on that bandwagon...there are also a good many who are perfectly aware of the truth, and simply don't care. It's not gun control that's at the root of their agenda. Never has been. It's people control that they want...and that they intend to have, regardless of their methods. They crave power. They feel that it's their entitlement...their birthright.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page