steelerdude99
Member
Remember the power of presenting statistics (right or wrong statistics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis
- Thread starter cnorman18
- Start date
- Status
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
It is not in some people's interest for this fact to be widely known. For them, the RKBA is a wedge issue used to prevent constituents from straying from their side. If they maintain a perceived monopoly on that one defining issue, then all of their other horrible policies can be more easily rationalized.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
My grandfather always said that figures don't lie,
but there is nothing to keep liars from figuring.
but there is nothing to keep liars from figuring.
Nushif
Member
Overrated.
If someone is a true ANTI I wouldn't bother arguing with them.. NOTHING you say can change an irrational fear of what they dont understand.
If someone is just afraid of guns then I will engage them in NON POLITICAL "gun talk".
I try to not focus on the self defense aspect of it as many people dont think as we do and the thought of shooting another human even in defense of their life may steer them away.
I have introduced many "anti's" into shooting by starting with skeet shooting then moving into target shooting. Not one person I have met isn't interested in the challenge of shooting.
If you have someone you like enough to hang around and they are worth your time to try to convert don't bring up politics at any point.
If someone is just afraid of guns then I will engage them in NON POLITICAL "gun talk".
I try to not focus on the self defense aspect of it as many people dont think as we do and the thought of shooting another human even in defense of their life may steer them away.
I have introduced many "anti's" into shooting by starting with skeet shooting then moving into target shooting. Not one person I have met isn't interested in the challenge of shooting.
If you have someone you like enough to hang around and they are worth your time to try to convert don't bring up politics at any point.
swinokur
Member
Don't forget the King of gun statistics lies:
The Violence Policy Center.
The Violence Policy Center.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Did not Mr Sugarman have an FFL at one time or another? I seem to recall threads here at THR or TFL regarding that little factoid.
What's that Doc Holliday line from Tombstone? "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."
In my opinion, the single hardest question to answer for RKBA anti's is "Why do you suppose the framers added that RKBA clause (and others) into the contract rider (BORs) the States demanded before they'd agree to ratify the Constitution?" Then if need be, I'll add,"A hint... It wasn't about hunting or sporting purposes." When they head towards the old chestnut of stating "Single shot Muskets... etc" I counter w/ "Self defense is a human right, be it from Tyrants, wild savages, criminals or beasts and sometimes you need more than one armed individual to help clear the problem." (a well regulated militia perhaps?)
Not that it does much good changing their minds, but I have had others listening in agree with a head nod or a smile. Again, it's about 50/50 where I live and play. YMMV
Always invite them to go out shooting, if just to see the look on their faces. A few might actually take you up on it, tho it's doubtful. Always take The High Road.
swinokur
Member
Just checked the BATFE web site. Mr. Sugarman still has a type 01 FFL registered to the address of the VPC. I'd like to know the story behind this.
Hypocrite. bet your bottom dollar.
but liberal theology has always been hypocritical. like the Soviet apparachiks who espouse Communism while living in their luxurious Daschas outside Moscow.
After all liberalism is about control. The old do as we say, not as we do thing.
Hypocrite. bet your bottom dollar.
but liberal theology has always been hypocritical. like the Soviet apparachiks who espouse Communism while living in their luxurious Daschas outside Moscow.
After all liberalism is about control. The old do as we say, not as we do thing.
powell&hyde
Member
I agree 110% with you Baba.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
See the signature on post #79. 
JTHunter
Member
This may be a 4 year old post but the OP makes an excellent and valid point!
Nushif
Member
::brain asplode::
azmjs
member
Long diatribes are the worst approach. Especially when they accuse people of things that you don't have any idea whether or not they've done.
Do you respond well to people who tell you that you're birds of a feather with the Westboro Baptist Church? Of course not.
If you're actually trying to convince a liberal, then you have to make analogies with things that a liberal values.
The best argument for gun rights is the Heller decision. It's the law of the land, according to the supreme court, which goes a long way in the world-view of liberals.
Liberals are also usually concerned with making things fair, and guns are a great equalizer. They allow women to protect themselves from stronger men, gays to protect themselves from people that hate them, Muslims to defend themselves from boogey-man lynch mobs, etc etc. Any persecuted or disadvantaged group benefits from the power that guns provide. And there's always the rather potent point that it's just plain unwise to let one half of the political spectrum outgun the other.
Mixing gun politics with conventional politics can only hurt the cause, if you're trying to convince someone whose politics you disagree with.
Avoid statistics, because they aren't arguments- much less convincing arguments, and because anyone can find a statistic to "support" anything.
The most important thing is to draw analogies. Learning is the process of relating something you don't know to something you do, and becoming convinced is similar.
People aren't going to change their core beliefs, but if you can present something in a way that it aligns with, in some aspect or another, a person's core beliefs, then you can convince him to support it.
The cardinal rule is to be honest with yourself about whether you want to convince people to support gun rights, or whether you want to provoke anti-gun people.
If the latter is the case, deep down, then we're all better off if you abstain. Spite is very real, especially in these times of such deliberately incited partisan rancor.
Many people who really don't have any problem with guns would happily use the issue as a cudgel to spite and punish the right.
v samizdate
Do you respond well to people who tell you that you're birds of a feather with the Westboro Baptist Church? Of course not.
If you're actually trying to convince a liberal, then you have to make analogies with things that a liberal values.
The best argument for gun rights is the Heller decision. It's the law of the land, according to the supreme court, which goes a long way in the world-view of liberals.
Liberals are also usually concerned with making things fair, and guns are a great equalizer. They allow women to protect themselves from stronger men, gays to protect themselves from people that hate them, Muslims to defend themselves from boogey-man lynch mobs, etc etc. Any persecuted or disadvantaged group benefits from the power that guns provide. And there's always the rather potent point that it's just plain unwise to let one half of the political spectrum outgun the other.
Mixing gun politics with conventional politics can only hurt the cause, if you're trying to convince someone whose politics you disagree with.
Avoid statistics, because they aren't arguments- much less convincing arguments, and because anyone can find a statistic to "support" anything.
The most important thing is to draw analogies. Learning is the process of relating something you don't know to something you do, and becoming convinced is similar.
People aren't going to change their core beliefs, but if you can present something in a way that it aligns with, in some aspect or another, a person's core beliefs, then you can convince him to support it.
The cardinal rule is to be honest with yourself about whether you want to convince people to support gun rights, or whether you want to provoke anti-gun people.
If the latter is the case, deep down, then we're all better off if you abstain. Spite is very real, especially in these times of such deliberately incited partisan rancor.
Many people who really don't have any problem with guns would happily use the issue as a cudgel to spite and punish the right.
v samizdate
- Status
Similar threads
