Why aren't we better using facts to counter the Antis' arguments?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanMar757

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
34
Location
Southeast VA
Why aren't we as a community better using the facts that are available to us to counter the repeated mistruths used by the Antis, from Obama on down? For instance I keep hearing the position that the NRA "represents" the gun manufacturers and not the citizens of the US and that the "majority" of US citizens are FOR more common-sense gun control such as assault weapon bans or magazine capacity limits. It seems as if all the leaders have to do is utter these mistruths and they become the new reality for some when the facts would soundly dismiss them as the lies that they are. A simple review of POPVOX trends for support/opposition to the Presidents latest suggested Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence would show that the majority of Americans are against this set of actions by large margin (currently running at 81% opposing and 19% supporting) or the trend for H.R. 4269, Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 (currently 96% opposing and 4% supporting). It seems to be lost on these knuckleheads that the NRA's strength comes from it's membership numbers, which have soared on the basis of our community mobilizing to counter their gun-grabbing tactics, not from being supported by gun manufacturers. Although there is undoubtedly some support that comes from manufacturers as well, the elected officials in the legislative branch are rightly voting the will of their constituents - because they know who will vote them out of office!

What can we as a community do to better use these and other facts, such as crime rate statistics and even criminal demographics in our arguments against further infringement on our rights?
 
You're asking two very different questions here.

Why aren't we doing this? versus How can we do to this better?

Before tackling any of this, you need to understand that education only works when the educator is addressing a need (as in a desire to learn something specific) that the student has. You can't teach something to someone who isn't interested in learning about it. This isn't a myth or stupid cliche, it's a fundamental tenet of education.

I think that's the biggest obstacle we face in dealing with people who oppose the RKBA. Just last night, an anti told me I need to go re-read the Constitution, because the only "militia" he knows of is the National Guard. I mean, how many times and in how many places has this particular part of the Second Amendment been addressed and clarified for understanding, over the past few years? I honestly believe most of the people who are opposing us on the gun issue simply don't care about the learning the truth. If I'm right about that, then there is nothing we can do to change their minds, educate them, etc.

It's not a matter of inadequate education, it's a matter of an unwillingness to learn. This issue is much more about emotion than it is about facts and data.
 
I'm not as concerned about the ones that have made up their minds and will never be swayed by simple truth - my concern is that by not repeatedly and consistently blasting the misinformation with the facts, we are allowing the continuance of the spread of their urban myth. They repeat these mistruths so frequently, and in many cases without an articulate (and fact based) response, the fence sitters are getting the wrong impression of what the will of the masses really is. Of course, it doesn't help that they are aided by the liberal media and their continual repeating of the untruth!
 
Of course, it doesn't help that they are aided by the liberal media and their continual repeating of the untruth!
Agreed. Can we really compete with it? What happens when one major media outlet (assuming we had one steadfastly in our corner) goes out and repeatedly announces that other outlets are intentionally lying about A, B, and C? News as usual, right? Who's gonna believe it?

Truth be told, I think there's a greater concern over the many people who properly understand the second amendment, yet still oppose it and want to see it amended further to deny gun ownership to the common man. I don't think these people are nearly as small a minority as we might want to believe. I ran into one at work a couple weeks ago. Middle aged nurse who went on and on about Sandy Hook and the children, and if we cared about the children we wouldn't be clinging to the 2A so strongly, and would allow them to amend it... my jaw hit the floor, man.
 
Good Question. The unfortunate problem is that facts don't matter to the anti's or most of the general public.

The other problem is that most of our 2A guys don't get involved in any activism and many don't vote. Trying to get our community active and working in politics is like squeezing blood from a stone.

Bottom line, we need to get a LOT more active to defeat these miscreants on the left and their media. Facts are good for the folks in the middle who can think, the rest just need to be defeated and we do that by getting active in the process...TEA Party groups are the way to go...
 
Facts are "anti's" kryptonite, they just shut down and repeat whatever they already said. If you slowly repeat the facts again they will just tell you "Well, we need to do something."
 
"Facts" you say? What are these "facts" about which you speak?

The problem really isn't the issue with the facts but with emotional sentiment tied to the problem. You can argue that gun use save X lives and be 100% factual and have your argument countered by gun use taking Y lives which is also 100% factual. Which number is more salient? That would depend on one's perspective.

Facts don't matter to the antis? Have you seen some of the stuff John Lott writes that so many people quote? Correlations are not causations and statistical extrapolations are not actual facts, but they are used as such.

Then there is the problem of determining which facts are actually facts. Both sides have been terribly adept at massaging the facts to suit their own perspective. If the data aren't massaged, then the definitions get reworded to cater a side's particular perspective. Look at the discussions on "mass shooting."

Then there is the issue of the "untruth" of the media. This is a whole mixed ball of wax. A lot of the information in the media is accurate, but discounted by us when we don't like it. A lot of the information is inaccurate as well, not necessarily being the fault of the media (the media reporting what has been told to the by the police) and some certainly is the fault of the media. We don't like the media because they thrive on anything going wrong with guns (as well as all sorts of other negative events).

And what about us doing more towards activism. Activism in our community is 100% great so long as we approve explicitly of how it is being done. If we don't approve it, it is apparently wrong or stupid. Look at the open carry movement in Texas. That is being hated by folks on both sides of the gun issue. While a lot of people supported open carry, they will classify you as stupid, showing off, begging for attention, or irresponsible if you actually do it.

We seem to spend a lot of time and effort calling for activism and then not following through. We often talk a big game, but fail to play a big game, but if we play too big, it scares the other players.

In the end, nothing is as diametrically opposite as we would like it to be. Many of the same "facts" that can be used in our favor are the very same "facts" that can be used against us. Facts are nothing more than data points and what is more of concern is how those data points can be applied and interpreted. The antis don't recognize our 'facts' and we don't recognize their 'facts.' Funny how that works.
 
Not to mention they have the mainstream media squarely in their pockets to repeatedly blast their message and perspective. Senator Marco Rubio said it best at the debate, the Democrats have the biggest and most influential SuperPAC, the main stream media.
 
Here's the thing that got me started - There are some untruths that they continue to quote as fact that are very easily disputed. One is the idea that they have the majority in their camp. If you can believe that POPVOX represents a cross section of America, then the trends would indicate that we clearly have the majority. Am I mistaken on this? Is POPVOX more along the lines of FOX News? If it is a reliable, unbiased representation of American opinion, we should throw this TRUTH back in their face every time they say that MOST Americans favor whatever gun control scheme they are pushing on that day!
 
It seems unlikely that, for anyone alive today, the world is exactly the way they wish it would be in every detail. Because there is discordance between what is the case and what we wish the case would be, we all engage at some point in time in wishful thinking: the desire that our situation be something other than it really is.

There is certainly nothing wrong with this, and it can manifest in any number of ways — for example, in the daydreams which inspire us to make the necessary changes so that our lives will be more as we desire. When it comes to logical arguments, however, wishful thinking can create problems by blinding us to unpleasant truths and getting us to believe as true things which have little or no connection to reality.

One way in which wishful thinking can be seen in arguments is through the process of rationalization — a perversion of rational arguments in defense of an idea which you should know better than to accept and defend.

When we rationalize things, we are trying to show that it is rational to believe something we wish were true, but which in reality isn’t true and isn’t actually rational to believe. Rationalizations are common and appealing because they serve as effective means by which we can continue to believe things that make us comfortable while appearing to the whole world — and in particular to ourselves — as rational people. In other words, we appear to believe something because it is rational to do so, not because we simply want our beliefs to be true.

For example, there are people who indulge in too much alcohol, excessive drugs, smoking, poor foods, etc. while also claiming that none of it has ill effects on their health. Perhaps there are a few rare individuals out there for whom that may be true, but for the average person exactly the opposite will be the case — and when such a person offers lame arguments in defense of their claim, they are engaging in rationalizations designed to defend a belief which is based upon wishful thinking and not reality or reason.

Wishful thinking is dangerous because it impairs our ability to properly see and understand reality. There is a reason why our senses generally give us accurate information about the world around us: without accurate information, we couldn’t hope to navigate our world with any expectation of safety or success. We need to know what is going on around us if we are going to avoid danger or take advantage of opportunities.

We cannot do so, however, when our beliefs about that world are being founded upon what we wish the world were like rather than what the world really is. It’s even worse when we attempt to convince others to join us in our delusions, as if our beliefs about reality were in any way a means of changing the world into something else. Beliefs can be the cause of actions which in turn can change reality, but beliefs and wishes alone never managed to effect real innovations or transformations.

We can avoid the infection of wishful thinking in our own arguments by trying to stay attuned to what our wishes are, and thus how they might diverge from reality. If we acknowledge that we all are susceptible to wishful thinking, we may have an easier time forestalling it in what we say and write. Should we encounter this in the arguments of another, getting past it might be more difficult. It is rarely easy to get a person to see that their arguments are really rationalizations and that their wishes are not reality.

Such individuals have, almost by definition, convinced themselves that they are offering rational beliefs for empirical facts. Acknowledging that they are not is a twofold defeat: not only must they admit that they are wrong, but they must also admit that they somehow managed to engage in self-deception. But who wants to be guilty of that? This is an additional motive one may have to resist your critiques; the only way around this is to find some means of correcting them without bruising their ego, and by giving them a way to change their mind without having to admit quite so much error.

If they really do want to be as rational as they are trying to portray themselves, then eventually they will be able to look back and accept the presence of rationalization and self-deception without it being so difficult. In the meantime, however, a bit of compassion and understanding on your part will go a long way towards helping them get past their rationalizations and back on track to more defensible beliefs.
 
The unfortunate problem is that facts don't matter to the anti's or most of the general public.
Several studies in the last few years have demonstrated over and over again that facts don't matter to people who hold a different view on ANY issue: guns, politics, climate change, religion, health care, evolution, the shape of the Earth, 2nd law of thermodynamics, the best soft drink ... the list is endless.

Facts don't matter ... except to fence sitters.
 
Fact: 80% of shootings in this country are homies "ventilating" each other in the ghetto. No amount of gun legislation is going to cure that, ever...
 
Their "facts" are nothing more than propaganda.

For instance, on facebook you will see them saying things like "for every 1 person killed by someone using a gun for self-defense, there are 34 people killed in homicide."

I'm not sure how true that is, but they are assuming that if you pull out a gun in self-defense then either you or the bad guy is going to die.

We all know that thousands of people every year save themselves and others be merely pulling out a gun. Sometimes the gun is fired in self-defense but the perp does not die. None of these encounters are considered by the anti-gunners because they are not concerned with the facts. They are only concerned with doing anything they can to restrict firearms ownership. Every restriction is a success for them, even though they say things like "no-one will ever come for your guns". But this is what they truly want to happen. My own father (an ex-hippy) admitted this. "I'd love it if we could somehow take away all the guns. But that will never happen because there are too many of them."
 
Fun fact: 100% of people who have died were exposed to dihydgrogen monoxide at some point in there lives. When playing with words can be that fun, you can make any study or "facts" mean whatever you want.
 
Maybe the answer isn't to change the minds of those who have withered their rights through emotional persistence but, to educate the future generations of there rights and the way things should be. If you consider gun legislation to be similar to others you'd see a trend. Ask an older person is marijuana bad they say yes instinctively although facts have shown otherwise. You educate a youth and then ask them the same question. They quote the facts with which they were educated supporting otherwise. Thus Marijuana becomes legalized.

My answer to your question is more of a statement.
A young generation, if well educated, is able to see the facts and apply them while molding there society productively. All while a less informed and "mature" generation slowly withers along with there short falls.

Semper fidelis et deinceps
(Always faithful, always forward)
 
Last edited:
Several studies in the last few years have demonstrated over and over again that facts don't matter to people who hold a different view on ANY issue: guns, politics, climate change, religion, health care, evolution, the shape of the Earth, 2nd law of thermodynamics, the best soft drink ... the list is endless.

Facts don't matter ... except to fence sitters.

Studies are a big part of the problem. They can farmed out to Universities for credibility. But the funding source usually puts in a clause that says if the results don't conclude what was intended... it's like the study does not even exist. The funding source can ask the question differently to skew results. "All guns deaths ..." vs. "All violent deaths ..."

chuck
 
A lie can be shouted in one sentence. Refuting that lie can take a whole page.

You can shout a dozen lies in the time it takes to refute just one of them.

Getting to the truth and reporting it requires journalists who care and a network or newspaper willing to give the truth time and space. And, of course, the truth must be a politically correct one.
 
the #1 thing you can do personally is take non shooters out to the range to get them interested.

#2 donate to your states (or nra) shooting association

debating with antis is fun, but ultimately pointless

the main anti arguments I see are:

1) militia clause (show them federalist 46, militia act of 1903 and heller)
2) no one needs assault rifles (show them rifles are less than 1% of gun deaths, even less with assault rifles)
3) gun murders drop in australia/gun control states etc. (explain that gun control advocates only focus on GUN murders, not all murders. show them stats which show that murders dont go down even if gun murders do. show them homicides are correlated to blacks this makes them go ballistic, so agree that it is just a proxy for poverty which is what we really need to fix)
4) gun owners are more likely to die by the gun than to kill a perp (vast majority of defensive gun uses do not result in a death. CDC estimates 500K defensive gun uses/year)
5) US has highest GUN murder rate of developing nations (yes that is true, but our murder rate is segmented by subpopulations. If you look at blacks it is 18/100,000 white murder rate 2.65. The black population skews our overall murder rate up. This gives us a clue as to the actual problem)
6) suicides are high (I personally think people should have the right to suicide)

So based on all these, we should focus on answers that will help blacks to climb out of povert

Here are the actual problems as i see them and my gun control solutions. Some of which liberals would love.

1) welfare causes single family homes because if they are married there is a much higher standard to get benefits. Boys without fathers run amok. Allow people on welfare to get married
2) welfare has a cliff where you lose lots of benefits if you just make a little more money. Make benefits loss a fraction of the amount earned. You lose 10 cents of benefit for $1 of money earned from a job
3) welfare people have too many children - free birth control. Pay them to get permanent tubal ligations and vasectomies with decreasing amounts the more children they have. For example $40,000 if you have 1 child, 20,000 if you have 2, 10,000 for 3 5,000 for 4+ (you will get accused of eugenics, explain it is offered to all)
4) pay impoverished kids cash if they do well in school. I personally like the idea of contests so kids could win thousands at the local level and millions at the national level. This would help to put education more on an excitement level with sports.

5) legalize drugs and let drug only offenders out of jail to free up room
6) much stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes
 
Liberals have spent their entire lives manipulating and using emotional appeal to get results.....starts as children crying to their parents to get what they want. As adults they bring the same tool box to solve grownup problems. Media outlets do the same, tug at the emotional side of viewers with tears and sad pictures to get desired results.

It's not that we don't use facts more effectively.....we don't make the emotional argument well enough to support our cause.
 
Because we keep allowing them to draw us into the whole dance about whether or not we will be safer with, or without, firearms.

Gun control isn't about safety, crime reduction, or "the children." It's about power control. Even "they" know demanding power be handed over to the government would be a ludicrous action or argument, so they work to weaken their opponent..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top