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

[Paladin7]

Speaking for myself only...I am an NRA member and member of my state RKBA group, I'm also a leader in the largest TEA Party Group in my state and am very active in getting our Candidates Elected and for the ones that we did get elected, meeting with them regularly to keep them focused on voting the right way on our positions, 2A being one of the most important.

I also have personally held rally's and worked with our group to march on our state capital and meet with our electeds.

Our group writes Op Ed pieces to the local papers, is very active on the internet, and is actively taking the fight to the antis.

I am also a member of a Sportsman's Club, one of the biggest in the state and am active with them as well.

The thing that makes me very upset, is that most of the gun folks we meet in our state are not involved in the fight at all. No one appears willing to get active and many do not even keep themselves up on the issue or vote.

This, in my opinion, is the major issue we face. If all the gun owners in the US became more active, even in a small way, we would be able to change the course of politics in this country on the 2A Issue.

That is worth fighting for!

 

[TimSr]

I think most of us do a good job of arguing facts. The problem is that we are trying to use facts to argue against emotion, and the two don't square. And when your argument is based on emotion, you have the luxury making up your own facts to support the emotion.

When your child is afraid of the dark, no matter how many statistics you quote about monsters never attacking children, they are still convinced that one is under the bed ready to jump out as soon as the light goes off because they saw it in a movie.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by roscoe

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.

Yet, despite what you say, you support politicians who ARE anti-gun -- like Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, and so on

When you support people like that, it is intellectually dishonest to claim you are not anti-gun.

 

[roscoe]

When you support people like that, it is intellectually dishonest to claim you are not anti-gun.

Simply not true. The problem is, gun rights are not the only issues of concern to me. I strongly believe in a whole host of other issues (separation of church and state, rights for gays to marry, freedom of speech, etc.) that are consistent with my libertarian leanings and that are more often defended by Democrats. So I try to convince Democrats, via a range of methods (supporting pro-RKBA Democrats, letters to congressional representatives and senators, letters to the editor) that guns rights matter to liberals as well. In fact, I am actively trying to separate guns from the left-right debate completely.

You are way out of line to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, and even more so to claim I am anti-gun.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Simply not true. The problem is, gun rights are not the only issues of concern to me.

You can erect all the excuses you like, but the simple fact is, when guns are confiscated, it's because you liberals voted for politicians who openly declared their willingness to violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[roscoe]

You can erect all the excuses you like, but the simple fact is, when guns are confiscated, it's because you liberals voted for politicians who openly declared their willingness to violate the 2nd Amendment.

There is no sign guns are about to be confiscated, so your statement is working off a false premise. In fact, gun rights have expanded over the last two decades. You may prefer the us vs. them mentality, but it is politically counterproductive. I am doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds, and have changed the viewpoints of more than 40 liberals, most of whom are now gun owners with a stake in the debate. The fundamentalist attitude you display makes like-minded folks feel good, but will never change the voting habits of people whom you appear to hold in contempt, but in fact hold the key to expanding gun rights.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

One of their deceits for which I'm always on the lookout is, "You're x times more likely to be killed by a gun you own than to kill somebody in self-defense."

Apart from the fact that suicide is the largest motivation of gun facilitated homicides, I make the following irrefutable argument:

"Have you ONLY defended yourself with a gun if nobody has DIED? If an attacker flees at the sight of your gun, have you NOT defended yourself?

Do you hold people who use the martial arts to the same standard? Have you NOT defended yourself with the martial arts UNLESS someone has been choked, beaten or kicked TO DEATH?

And what about chemical sprays? Should women carry sarin or mustard gas in preference to pepper spray or mace?"

I've never seen an anti-gun cultist who could effectively address that argument. I don't expect I ever will.

 

[Jackal]

Simply put, facts dont matter to anti's. Fact: African Americans make up 15% of the U.S. population. African Americans commit 55% of gun related homicide's in the U.S. (2013 CDC statistics) If African American's would slow down on murdering each other, gun related homicide rates would plummet. Statistics are racist and your automatically labeled racist for quoting them.

If our govt actually WANTED to cut gun deaths down to an extremely low rate, they'd invest in shutting down gang activity, aka domestic terrorism.

 

[mnrivrat]

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

Presenting proper facts is not the problem.

Do you own a major media outlet ? That is the major source of the non-facts (lies) that we face.

Networks like CNN and MSNBC represent and perpituate the lies being told to the general public. They are the 800 pound gorrila in the room. They are the propaganda machines for those that want to distroy our rights to protect ourselves

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is no sign guns are about to be confiscated, so your statement is working off a false premise.

Certain guns HAVE been confiscated, along with "high capacity" magazines in some areas.

 

[barnbwt]

...and we have not one, but all three presidential candidates of the largest political party as well as its sitting president openly talking about Australia along with the president. A political party somewhat notorious for its determination in passing measures once thought inconceivable in this nation (Great Society, various health care fiascos, oppressive environmental regimes, outright bans on machineguns, assault weapon bans, gay marriage --whether you support or reject these ideas, they were all once considered outside the government's scope of authority). If this newfound fervor for confiscation takes hold, we may well be facing that impossibility within the space of one or two political cycles (a decade or so).

To the remaining 6%-12% of pro-gun Democrats;
Please don't try to tell us it's merely rain on your/our heads when your party has rapidly slid into abject hostility toward one of our most critical freedoms (well, it's not just one, but whatever). Your denial of the clearly obvious is historically linked to the greatest calamities imaginable; it's not just you & yours who will reap the whirlwind. It is directly analogous to a prominent politician promoting segregation or slavery, to the delight of some +80% of their party. Despite gross exaggerations about the oppressiveness of assorted Republican Party policy goals, the closest thing to an analogue to the confiscation talk is the anti-immigrant fervor, and it at least isn't directed toward American citizens. Unless this new found anti-gun zealotry is the death throes of the Democrat political structure (in which case, why bother staying on the sinking ship), any continued support they receive from anyone will ultimately prove extremely dangerous (in which case, why would you wish to be a part).

If you're pro-gun, it's become patently obvious that the Democrat party has moved on from your needs, and sees your continued support as expendable. Which is easier; working to influence the Republican party at the grassroots to moderate a bit on certain social/economic issues you may also care about, or going against a vehement, ardent hatred of American's 2nd Amendment rights supported by billionaires and plutocrats on their turf?

TCB

 

[JSH1]

Which is easier; working to influence the Republican party at the grassroots to moderate a bit on certain social/economic issues you may also care about, or going against a vehement, ardent hatred of American's 2nd Amendment rights supported by billionaires and plutocrats on their turf?

That really depends on where one ranks unrestricted access to guns in their list of political priorities.

 

[Slamfire]

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?

Because it is not about logic or facts.

The lady who wrote the column, "What is was fake on the Internet this week" gave up.

What was fake on the Internet this week: Why do we even bother, honestly?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...net-this-week-why-do-we-even-bother-honestly/

Typically, we use this space to debunk the various hoaxes, charades and conspiracy theories that afflict social media each week. But this week, I can’t do it. I must abstain. Because someone’s done a study on debunk efforts like this one, and bottom line? They’re all in vain.

What she found is that the people who believe in the crazy stuff don't read debunking articles. The same is true for the anti gun crowd. They are not interested in hearing, listening, understanding, your arguments. Instead, they are just against guns. I think it an irrational survival strategy, if there are no weapons, than nothing and no one is going to hurt you. Something like that. The anti gunners want guns banned because they are attempting to organize the world according to fit their survival strategy.

Anti gunners are irrational. You are not going to change their views. What you have to do is out vote them. We live in a representative democracy. If more pro gunners go to the voting booth and vote in pro gun Government representatives, then we will keep our gun rights. If more of the irrational anti gunners show up and vote in anti gun representatives, then we lose our firearms.

It is not about logic, it is about political power.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you're pro-gun, it's become patently obvious that the Democrat party has moved on from your needs

If you're pro-Constitution, it's become patently obvious that the Democrat party has moved on from your needs. They are doing the same thing to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Region, Right to Due Process, and so on that they have done to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[roscoe]

If you're pro-Constitution, it's become patently obvious that the Democrat party has moved on from your needs. They are doing the same thing to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Region, Right to Due Process, and so on that they have done to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Yeah, the Democrats are constantly going around preventing people from going to church. It's a top priority!

 

[Deanimator]

Yeah, the Democrats are constantly going around preventing people from going to church. It's a top priority!

When it comes to Little Sisters of the Poor, that's not a gun in their pockets.

And I say this as a liberal agnostic.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah, the Democrats are constantly going around preventing people from going to church. It's a top priority!

Now, there's liberal sophism for you!

The left opposes the free exercise of religion -- military chaplains, for example, are not allowed to preach against things the liberals espouse. The left wing wants to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives for employees -- a violation of Catholic morality. The founder of Chic-fil-a is told by the mayor of Boston that Boston doesn't want his business because he believes homosexual acts are immoral.

 

[roscoe]

When it comes to Little Sisters of the Poor, that's not a gun in their pockets.

Yeah, that is a ball of sticky wax, but when there are laws that contradict some religious doctrine, the civil authority must remain paramount. Ask the Mormons about 1890. Genesis 9:25 was used to support slavery and segregation, and various southerners opposed legalizing racially mixed marriages on religious grounds. But civil law rejected all of those positions. Today Christian Scientists are prosecuted if their children die (or get seriously ill) from lack of modern medical treatment.

Unless we decide to live in a theocracy, there is no other way to handle it. Yes, sometimes people have to do things they don't want to do. But we live in a society of conflicting values. In North Korea they don't have these problems.

 

[roscoe]

The left opposes the free exercise of religion

No, only when it interferes with the rights of others. If you are a duly elected or appointed civil official, you may believe whatever you want, or say whatever you want, but you must fulfill your civil responsibility first. But if following your religion interferes with my rights, then it must take a back seat.

America was the first explicitly secular country, and the first to reject rule by divine right. This means that we expect a lot of different religions, but having those conflicting beliefs should not interfere with civil authority.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah, that is a ball of sticky wax, but when there are laws that contradict some religious doctrine, the civil authority must remain paramount.

Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

 

[Deanimator]

No, only when it interferes with the rights of others. If you are a duly elected or appointed civil official, you may believe whatever you want, or say whatever you want, but you must fulfill your civil responsibility first. But if following your religion interferes with my rights, then it must take a back seat.

America was the first explicitly secular country, and the first to reject rule by divine right. This means that we expect a lot of different religions, but having those conflicting beliefs should not interfere with civil authority.

There is NO "right" to free birth control.

The Little Sisters of the Poor case is pure malice and nihilism.

And again, I say this as an agnostic.

 

[Elkins45]

Amazed this one is still open.

 

[roscoe]

Amazed this one is still open.

Yeah, me too.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

I am not sure how that contradicts anything I wrote. To me it means that there is no priority for religion in establishment of laws, or their enforcement. This interpretation is pretty well established by the courts, including the Supreme Court fairly recently.

There is NO "right" to free birth control.

That is not what the issue is. The question is whether employment law applies everywhere, or do we give exemptions to laws because an employer is religious? Would we suspend OSHA or health law for a religious butcher who argued he had to conduct his slaughter in a religiously-specified way that was either dangerous to employees or consumers?

 

[mnrivrat]

I'm a bit confused

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

vs

To me it means that there is no priority for religion in establishment of laws, or their enforcement.

Seems like "make no law" is pretty clear , while I am confused over how that converts to ""there is no priority"

any help on understanding this ?

PS: I do understand that no laws should be made giving priority to a religious concept or issue. In that sense they are somewhat the same.

The priority part would seem however to be more open to arguement since the 1st amendment itself gives priority to religion.

And - how does this all ty in to the original OP's thread ?

 

[barnbwt]

"That really depends on where one ranks unrestricted access to guns in their list of political priorities."

You know, we don't consider our politicians in favor of our Constitutional freedoms when they deign to barter them away with one another; in what way is this any different? If you are voting anti-gun, it had better be because of some overriding constitutional concern of immeasurable (read: existential) magnitude; I'm not aware of either major party openly pushing the idea of annihilating any of the Bill of Rights at this time besides the Dems and Gun Control, and to the extent that both are gnawing away at the others (1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, etc.) neither is markedly worse than the other.

As an educated voter, we should all really be voting for good governance before any other issues, and that means looking way on back to the founding principles and deciding what our feddies should be doing vs. what they are doing. From this point, the issues are few and very clear; it's only complicated because we've allowed the feds to encroach upon every facet of our lives at this point, to the degree that it is impossible to appoint satisfactory leadership (too many people, too many issues, too many constituents to possibly yield desirable outcomes for hardly anyone). It is accelerating, unsustainable, and will only get worse; it will get to the point of voting by majority to see which toe of ours is cut off, as opposed to not giving them authority to do so in the first place. The only solution to regaining sanity is for each of us to identify for ourselves where the greatest constitutional breaches have occurred, and vigorously work to repair the damage. I think most Americans possessing any knowledge of the issues would agree that RKBA is far and away subject to the greatest number and degree of variable, arbitrary, ill-founded, capricious, intentionally confusing, and abusive laws of any explicitly protected freedom, and in nearly all of our most influential population centers.

That the RKBA is a very stark acid-test for a candidate's secret aspirations (leader of trusted partners, or ruler of distrusted subjects) is a distinct bonus, but the need to promote candidates who will work to repair the centuries-old damage to our second liberty is more pressing to our ultimate prosperity than any passing vanity issue or grievance which can be neatly solved 'once and for all' by a single action (read: hard work vs. vanity politics). Fix this constitutional distortion, and believe it or not, a lot of the outrageous governmental abuses & side effects both sides rail against will resolve themselves.

TCB