Gordon Fink
Member
Zundfolge said:
You do realize, of course, that they feel exactly the same way about us?
~G. Fink
Why are they still fighting against CCW?
- Thread starter AJ Dual
- Start date
- Status
You do realize, of course, that they feel exactly the same way about us?
~G. Fink
Zundfolge
Member
So?Gordon Fink said:
They can feel that way about us and thats fine, once they set their feelings aside and look at the facts they soon come around to our way of thinking (unless they are actually "partisans" and/or "hopolophobes" in which case the refuse to think about the issue anyway and facts are irrelevent to their position).
The advantage is that we are demonstrably right ... when it ceases to be an argument of opinions and becomes opinion on one side and fact on the other we win.
My point in that while thing is you have to use different strategies with the different kinds of antis, so you have to accurately identify which type of anti you're talking to right away.
You reason with the duped.
You don't waste your time with the partisans or the hopolophobes.
You work at removing the power speakers from their places of power through the system, or prepare to kill them if it comes down to that (not the ideal situation, and certainly a last ditch effort, but lets be honest ... the ultimate purpose of RKBA is to have the tools for "liberty tree refreshment via blood").
Too often we on the RKBA side tend to assume that the masses will come to our side once they realize that gun control is a plot to make it easier to get us on cattle cars ... while that may be their end game, pointing it out just looks like paranoia.
We're much better served by talking to "the duped" about how guns in the hands of the law abiding reduce crime, guns are not evil, guns are fun, gun control doesn't make anyone safer (in fact may make us LESS safe). We're also much better served by not wasting our time trying to reason with the unreasonable (the partisans and hopolophobes). Lord knows I've beat my head against the wall arguing with partisan/holophobic antis and its done little good (occasionally when these debates are witnessed by "the duped" they will come around on their own).
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Soybomb said:
It is good you don't promote that concealed carry laws reduce crime as in terms of numbers and trends, they don't. Matt Woodward from Gun Tests got me looking into this after he cited data on how crime drops when concealed carry is implemented and noted the contrast with states that have crime continue to rise at the same time. His words didn't make sense. So I checked.
In 1996, Texas instituted its CHL program and crime dropped. That is a fact. It is also a fact that in 1996, the crime rate dropped in places like California, Mass., and New York who did not implement CHLs. So is Texas' CHL program powerful enough to reduce crime across the country? Of course not. It is sort of like talking about how good a company is doing because its stock price has increased in value during a bull market. During bull markets, a lot of companies have stocks that increase in value without the companies actually doing any better than they were.
For Texas, the trend in decline started around 1992-1994 and has continued downward. In, crime across the US recently hit all time lows even in states without concealed carry. We have been in a bull market for crime reduction.
Of course, would concealed carry really make that much difference in a crime rate? As concealed carry pertained to the concealed carry of guns in locations where people would not otherwise being carrying, then most home crimes don't pertain because people can already have guns at home (in most places and they don't need to be pissant pistols). So has crime actually reduced away from home as a result of concealed carry application of firearms? I don't know.
There is one statistic that is more valuable than the rest, in my opinion. While overall crime rates may not experience a significant change as a result of legal concealed carry, it does allow for a significant change in the power base of a concealed carry person who is attacked and is able to fight back with a gun out on the street. Concealed carry laws give the individual the opportunity to legally carry a gun for self defense and have that gun for emergencies. I have no doubt that in most situations where deployed, a concealed carry person faired much better as an armed person than unarmed.
It doesn't matter if concealed carry is driving down crime or not. What does matter is that concealed carry is allowing folks to protect themselves in a very powerful manner even though overall crime rates may not be greatly influenced.
ElTacoGrande
Member
AJ Dual said:
Exactly. Once shall-issue passing, the gun debate is pretty much over. Issue like mag capacity become trivialities when there are hundreds of thousands of people around the state packing guns every day. It is truly the end of the debate because, once the law passes, nothing really changes anyway. No shootouts, no wild west. Perhaps there's some reduction in crime, but the effects are subtle, and there are no negative effects.
Sarah Brady would have to get a real job if all the states went shall-issue.
ElTacoGrande
Member
antsi said:
Gordon Fink
Member
Zundfolge said:
Or so we feel. Both sides can prop up their opinions with questionable data. If the duped want to believe that guns cause crime, there are plenty of studies that support this position.
We have to argue from principle or concede that if the statistics don’t support our cause, then firearms should be banned. Unfortunately, most gun owners are not consistent in their principles, which makes building a consensus on the right to arms that much more difficult. The cause can never be truly won until that inconsistency is eliminated.
In fact, I think we are right both in principle and in practice. This is why the expansion of carry privileges does help our cause. When the disasters fail to materialize, firearms restrictions become harder to justify. However, we must not forget that the carrot of concealed-carry reform is dangling from the very big stick of state power.
~G. Fink
James T Thomas
Member
eternal vigilance
Another "reason" that the fight continues is the same reason some in our own nation chose to be loyal to George III; it seemed to them to be in their own self interest.
That their neighbors were being forced to house enemy troops, have their firearms confiscated, that all were being eaten alive by taxes, duties, etc, did not take skin off of their noses.
They were intellectual elite, and knew, absolutely, what would be best.
That is -for them. They would be part of the system, and could work it to their advantage.
As an example, I'm always amazed to follow the kids I knew from childhood who eagerly volunteered for student government, council and the like.
They made a place for themselves, and would work the system, to elevate their interests above that of those who had not the power.
The fight has been continuing by people like that before CCW, way back to the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and before.
They are amoung us, and will always be; here and contending.
Another "reason" that the fight continues is the same reason some in our own nation chose to be loyal to George III; it seemed to them to be in their own self interest.
That their neighbors were being forced to house enemy troops, have their firearms confiscated, that all were being eaten alive by taxes, duties, etc, did not take skin off of their noses.
They were intellectual elite, and knew, absolutely, what would be best.
That is -for them. They would be part of the system, and could work it to their advantage.
As an example, I'm always amazed to follow the kids I knew from childhood who eagerly volunteered for student government, council and the like.
They made a place for themselves, and would work the system, to elevate their interests above that of those who had not the power.
The fight has been continuing by people like that before CCW, way back to the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and before.
They are amoung us, and will always be; here and contending.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Not so. Sorry.
Yes, any nitwit can concoct fraudulent data; the rigorously gathered data that's been analyzed fairly and squarely, however, clearly demonstrate that so-called "gun control" does nothing to reduce violent crime. To the best of my knowledge, there's no data that conclusively demonstrates a clear causal connection between firearms ownership and reduced violent crime.
I concur that we should argue from principles, but conceding that "if the statistics don't support our cause, then firearms should be banned" is patent nonsense.
Whose statistics are you talking about? Who gathered them? Who analyzed them? Who scrutinized them? Who did the peer reviews?
Realistically speaking, if data existed to demonstrate a clear causal connection between firearms ownership by the law-abiding and violent crime, we'd have seen it by now. It's a leftist extremist holy grail. That it doesn't exist doesn't trouble them in the least: they can loudly pretend it exists, and they have it in hand.
By the way, Zundfolge: I think your analysis of people who support so-called "gun control" is at once very well thought out and worthy of elaboration. I think you've got the substance of a serious essay in hand.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Standing Wolf, over the past several years, I've found that quoting statistics makes peoples' eyes glaze over.
One side presents their statistics, and the other side presents theirs. For the average citizen, it doesn't matter which is more true.
"My statisitician can beat up your statistician."
People need information in sound-bite formats.
For example, if somebody says "X number of permit holders in Texas were arrested for crimes," I'll say that may be true, although the percentage of permit holders who do so is tiny. And then follow that up with the question: we give people the privelege of driving cars. Just because a very few people abuse this privelege, should we prevent everyone else from driving cars?
Another example: somebody says, "I heard that a Minnesota permit holder shot his brother's car to keep him from driving drunk." To which I respond that there is no law requiring people to get a permit to do something stupid. And, to the best of my knowledge, there's no law that requires someone to get a permit to shoot another person.
IMO, the best question to ask is whether a person has the right to defend himself or his family against an attack by violent criminals. Few people could say "no."
The next logical question is then whether law-abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves or family against attacks by criminals.
In the end, though, this is all just pure politics. The anti's own at least a majority of the Democrat party, and the Republicans think they own us 100%.
Whatever happens with the WI Assembly veto override on Tuesday was probably decided weeks ago. The Democrat leadership allowed certain senators and representatives to side with the NRA, but required that at least one flip.
However, the Democrat leadership wasn't anticipating daily news stories about the US attorney convening a secret grand jury looking into Doyle's fund-raising. This issue is huge, and will likely continue to get coverage right up until the elections.
So, no matter what threat or bride Doyle's people have presented to Steinbrink or Van Akkeren, the question is whether Doyle can follow through.
Right now, it doesn't look like he can.
One side presents their statistics, and the other side presents theirs. For the average citizen, it doesn't matter which is more true.
"My statisitician can beat up your statistician."
People need information in sound-bite formats.
For example, if somebody says "X number of permit holders in Texas were arrested for crimes," I'll say that may be true, although the percentage of permit holders who do so is tiny. And then follow that up with the question: we give people the privelege of driving cars. Just because a very few people abuse this privelege, should we prevent everyone else from driving cars?
Another example: somebody says, "I heard that a Minnesota permit holder shot his brother's car to keep him from driving drunk." To which I respond that there is no law requiring people to get a permit to do something stupid. And, to the best of my knowledge, there's no law that requires someone to get a permit to shoot another person.
IMO, the best question to ask is whether a person has the right to defend himself or his family against an attack by violent criminals. Few people could say "no."
The next logical question is then whether law-abiding citizens should have the means to defend themselves or family against attacks by criminals.
In the end, though, this is all just pure politics. The anti's own at least a majority of the Democrat party, and the Republicans think they own us 100%.
Whatever happens with the WI Assembly veto override on Tuesday was probably decided weeks ago. The Democrat leadership allowed certain senators and representatives to side with the NRA, but required that at least one flip.
However, the Democrat leadership wasn't anticipating daily news stories about the US attorney convening a secret grand jury looking into Doyle's fund-raising. This issue is huge, and will likely continue to get coverage right up until the elections.
So, no matter what threat or bride Doyle's people have presented to Steinbrink or Van Akkeren, the question is whether Doyle can follow through.
Right now, it doesn't look like he can.
beerslurpy
member
The best way to convince people is to present them with logical arguments that make more sense than the garbage already in their heads. Sometimes this requires quoting statistics, but often not.
For example, you can point out:
-violent criminals dont obey laws against having guns
-<insert evil weapon x> isnt actually used in any crimes
-gun control doesnt disarm the police or governments, a major source of guns for the black market
-the people you worry about misusing a concealed weapon already have them and already misuse them
-having a concealed weapon doesnt create an obligation to use it at every opportunity- it merely gives you another choice
-the life and body of the victim is more important than that of the attacker, especially when harming the attacker will prevent the harm to the victim
Basically you attack underlying (and obviously false) assumptions upon which hostility towards RKBA is founded. CCW is great because it cleverly disproves many of the "unchallengable" assumptions of the anti-RKBA crowd. Once they realize that most people are fundamentally good and trustworthy, everything else goes out the window. Some even begin to trust themselves.
For example, you can point out:
-violent criminals dont obey laws against having guns
-<insert evil weapon x> isnt actually used in any crimes
-gun control doesnt disarm the police or governments, a major source of guns for the black market
-the people you worry about misusing a concealed weapon already have them and already misuse them
-having a concealed weapon doesnt create an obligation to use it at every opportunity- it merely gives you another choice
-the life and body of the victim is more important than that of the attacker, especially when harming the attacker will prevent the harm to the victim
Basically you attack underlying (and obviously false) assumptions upon which hostility towards RKBA is founded. CCW is great because it cleverly disproves many of the "unchallengable" assumptions of the anti-RKBA crowd. Once they realize that most people are fundamentally good and trustworthy, everything else goes out the window. Some even begin to trust themselves.
VorpalSpork
Member
It's a turning point, not the end
State-issued concealed carry permits certainly do not mark the end to the gun debate, they simply mark a turning point in that debate. Instead of being on the political defensive, fighting the passage of new restrictive legislation, we are now beginning a political offensive to revoke some of the anti-gun laws. We may have stopped losing ground, but we still have a lot of ground to gain back. Open and concealed carry without a license, repeal the NFA, and most of the GCA, etc. Those are not now trivial tasks.
ElTacoGrande said:
State-issued concealed carry permits certainly do not mark the end to the gun debate, they simply mark a turning point in that debate. Instead of being on the political defensive, fighting the passage of new restrictive legislation, we are now beginning a political offensive to revoke some of the anti-gun laws. We may have stopped losing ground, but we still have a lot of ground to gain back. Open and concealed carry without a license, repeal the NFA, and most of the GCA, etc. Those are not now trivial tasks.
Zundfolge
Member
I've been chewing on that analysis for a couple of years ... I should just commit the time to writing it out as a full on essay. Too bad I'm so lazyStanding Wolf said:
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Please do. If you want copy editing help, let me know, eh?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked