Why aren't we better using facts to counter the Antis' arguments?
- Thread starter DanMar757
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
The anti-gun cult are LIARS.
That's why I direct my arguments at PROVING it.
It DOES produce results in the undecided and the uninformed.
If he's relatively intelligent, even a person apathetic about a subject doesn't like being LIED to about it.
That's why I direct my arguments at PROVING it.
It DOES produce results in the undecided and the uninformed.
If he's relatively intelligent, even a person apathetic about a subject doesn't like being LIED to about it.
Nicky Santoro
Member
OP, the antis aren't interested in facts. They hate guns and that hatred is visceral. I once saw an interview the the head of the NY ACLU during which he was asked why they don't defend the 2nd Amendment. His answer was "We don't like guns". Julia Gorin wrote a good piece about this called "The Ant-gun Male". It pretty much says it all about why facts don't interest the antis.
Traffer
Member
It is my firm belief that facts mean nothing to antis. It is not about reducing gun violence to them. it is about punishing a stereotypical "gun owner". In my opinion the antis are compelled by hatred. It is the same with abortion. It is more a matter of punishing the "hated" adversaries (Christians) than it is about women's rights.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
Our government and that of other Western countries has grown immensely and now interferes in our social and commercial life far more than it did eighty years ago.
So-called progressive intellectuals and various Social Justice Warriors are acutely aware that when it comes to armed citizens their political value consists in their role as a defense or deterrent against government violation of the social compact.
DanMar757
Member
I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses above. I do agree that trying to change a died in the wool anti's mind on gun control is a monumental waste of time. My real interest here is how to effectively counter the oft-repeated lies that they spew in an effort to win some of the fence-sitters over to our side. I feel like if we don't continue to hammer away at their untruths and do it in a respectful and effective way, then we are just ceding the argument to the liars. I believe that we need to use the irrefutable truths to prove that we are winning the debate. NRA membership has soared as a result of the anti's attempts to take our rights away; gun and ammo sales are running at all time highs; poll after poll shows that we have the high ground - this to me proves that we as a nation continue to embrace our 2A rights. We just have to make sure that we continue to pull the undecided in our direction whenever and wherever we possibly can!
Sheepdog1968
Member
They know they can't win on facts so the antis have moved on to using emotions.
AStone
Member
Spoken like the dude sitting in the back of the room
with a smirk on his face who never learned how to study.
Internet polls like the POPVOX poll a not an accurate gage of what the public thinks about an issue. At best they might be a gage as to which side is more motivated. The reason is that they are not a real scientific poll. Pretty much any internet poll has the same problem - you can vote as many times as you like.
Despite all the hype, guns are not a big issue for the majority of the US population. They aren't on gun forums and they aren't reading articles that have links to internet polls. You don't hear from the majority in the middle in an internet poll. However, if a professional polling service calls them and asks they to take a side on an issue they will do so.
Oh, brother. Not all liberals are anti-gun, and if you always present it that way, you have lost half the battle. In fact, if it could be wrestled from the traditional left-right debate, we could separate it from the other issues and make real headway.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
The antis don't have a monopoly on playing the emotion card.
Incorrect. That's not how POPVOX works.
I don't debate Antis to try to win them over. I debate with them to expose their fallacy-riddled thought processes. I don't call them names or attack their character. I LOVE it when they start calling me names and jumping to conclusions because it exposes their narrow-mindedness, lack of self-reflection, hasty generalizations, and bigotry.
I expose myself to that vitriol so that fence-sitters can see the difference between an unhinged anti-gun zealot, and an average person who simply wants to maintain the RKBA and 2A for their intended purposes.
I expose myself to that vitriol so that fence-sitters can see the difference between an unhinged anti-gun zealot, and an average person who simply wants to maintain the RKBA and 2A for their intended purposes.
You are correct, I was thinking one of the other recent internet polls. However, POPVOX is still not a scientific poll. After a quick visit, (and looking at another thread telling people to hit a POPVOX poll) I see that POPVOX allows people to sign up for a poll. That does help in limiting repeat voters (assuming you can't sign up for multiple accounts) It doesn't take care of the problem of people self selecting to take part in the poll. Again, it is a measure of enthusiasm on an issue.
A scientific poll selects participants at random.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Facts don't matter ... except to fence sitters."
And the only reason there are fence sitters, is because the issue doesn't matter to them. Humans are actually really good at forming opinions really quickly when they care to, believe it or not, so anyone lacking one must really not care about the topic at hand.
" My reason for choosing carefully who I engage."
A wise decision. Unfortunately, that also reduces the number of engagements to mere hundreds at a time (at best), vs. the tens of thousands of pro/anti diatribe ongoing at any given moment
TCB
And the only reason there are fence sitters, is because the issue doesn't matter to them. Humans are actually really good at forming opinions really quickly when they care to, believe it or not, so anyone lacking one must really not care about the topic at hand.
" My reason for choosing carefully who I engage."
A wise decision. Unfortunately, that also reduces the number of engagements to mere hundreds at a time (at best), vs. the tens of thousands of pro/anti diatribe ongoing at any given moment
TCB
Vern Humphrey
Member
Using facts against liberals is only marginally effective. Most of them have received an anti-fact vaccine. You could have a US Government report in your hand, and if they didn't like it, they would say, "I don't believe you."
Joshboyfutre
Member
One thing that I really think would help is when we meet and fall into discussion about guns with people that are against them is to not go into argument mode with them try to be understanding that they are misinformed and put the facts in front of them calmly and in a nice manner and maybe one by one we can turn some people around. if we all do, it will make a difference. One thing's for sure the news isnt going to educate people about guns with the truth
Sistema1927
Member
Facts are lost on those who operate on emotion.
"Yes, your facts show that the more guns there are the less resulting crime, but I feel..."
"Yes, 50 years of the 'war on poverty' haven't helped, but I feel..."
etc., etc. etc.
"Yes, your facts show that the more guns there are the less resulting crime, but I feel..."
"Yes, 50 years of the 'war on poverty' haven't helped, but I feel..."
etc., etc. etc.
This is not limited to liberals, and couching it this way is not useful. I spend a lot of time trying to convince certain branches of conservatives about the facts of biology, but you can hold facts in front of some folks and they will literally deny that they exist.
When people have taken a position on something, and you try to make them think about it in a new way, it literally hurts. I see this all the time. It creates cognitive dissonance, and it takes a lot to push through that.
J-Bar
Member
Most "hate" is a product of fear. I saw this when many years ago I invited our local newspaper editor to shoot at a supervised range after he had published another anti-gun editorial. Smelling the opportunity for another editorial he agreed.
Before going out onto the range I got permission from the Range Officer to give the editor a safe handling lecture in the range office. I opened the padded case containing two revolvers on the table and the editor immediately went pale and started to shake. He had an immediate visceral reaction to the sight of a real gun lying on the table in front of him. We talked a moment and to his credit we continued with the review of the four rules.
We then went to a private booth at the end of the firing line and he shot several groups with each gun, a .22 and a .38, and actually shot pretty good groups. I had told him to let me know when he had enough, and after about 50 rounds we ended the session.
On our trip home he said, "I'm glad we did that. It took some courage for me to pick up those guns."
I nodded and said, "Yes it did. There was courage on both sides." He looked at me saying "Both sides?"
"Yes. I don't know you well, but I handed you a loaded gun." He hadn't considered that.
I don't think he was over his fear of guns, but I don't recall anymore anti-gun editorials from him either.
So to put this story in the context of the thread, our best argument against the antis is the personal approach, one on one, if they allow it.
Before going out onto the range I got permission from the Range Officer to give the editor a safe handling lecture in the range office. I opened the padded case containing two revolvers on the table and the editor immediately went pale and started to shake. He had an immediate visceral reaction to the sight of a real gun lying on the table in front of him. We talked a moment and to his credit we continued with the review of the four rules.
We then went to a private booth at the end of the firing line and he shot several groups with each gun, a .22 and a .38, and actually shot pretty good groups. I had told him to let me know when he had enough, and after about 50 rounds we ended the session.
On our trip home he said, "I'm glad we did that. It took some courage for me to pick up those guns."
I nodded and said, "Yes it did. There was courage on both sides." He looked at me saying "Both sides?"
"Yes. I don't know you well, but I handed you a loaded gun." He hadn't considered that.
I don't think he was over his fear of guns, but I don't recall anymore anti-gun editorials from him either.
So to put this story in the context of the thread, our best argument against the antis is the personal approach, one on one, if they allow it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
And sometimes very subtle liars.
Not so long ago, I read an anti-gun article that used a pie chart to show that guns kill as many people as automobiles (yet oddly enough the author didn't mention banning CARS!)
But what the graph showed was that 2/3s of "gun deaths" are suicides. Guns don't CAUSE suicide! People living in totally gun-free countries, like Japan, can have high suicide rates.
Suicide is predominantly CAUSED by clinical depression. If we apply reductio ad absurdum to the argument, we see the author is basically saying, if you have a man so depressed he's willing to put a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger -- but he can't get a gun -- then his depression would be magically cured and he would go through life skipping and whistling!
Obviously, people who make arguments like this are immune to facts and logic.
AStone
Member
roscoe said:
I appear to be on the same boat as roscoe.roscoe said:
I, too, am a certified biologist ...
and <drum roll> ecologist.
My3 diplomas say as much.
On polls, I come out partly conservative,
(strongly 2A, pro-military),
but I support health
and 'environmental' issues
(which makes me partly liberal
).See sig line for guns.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
