Aaaarghhh!!! So infuriated! Debating anti-gunners!

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pond James Pond

New member
Well, I've just come out of a luke-warm, if not heated, debate about gun rights, gun-ownership and self-defence and gun ownership and I'm seething.

I'm not expecting any arguments in favour, I'm just venting to people who will understand my frustration.

The attitudes that exist relating to firearms beggar belief. So too do some of the arguments that mutate before your very ears in order to try to counter your own points of view.

"Owning a gun is just to kill..." Uhhh, no it it flipping well isn't: it's just about stopping someone from hurting you and yours, and it they walk away all the better.

"You can just walk into a shop and buy guns in the US.": Uhhh, no you can't (well.... not everywhere.... ;)) There's NICS and FFLs.

"There are nutters who shoot people, so no one should be allowed to have guns": So, what? Because of a minuscule % of nutters who ignore the law anyway, I shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to protect my family from said nutters?!

Ye gads, it winds me up!!!
I've got jaw-ache from clenching!!! (or perhaps it's from all those words being shoe-horned into my mouth...) :rolleyes:

OK, the cathartic venting has made me feel better, so...
Rant over....
 
Any semblance to rational thought or critical thinking has been destroyed, for the majority of people anyway, by the propaganda from the media and from the education system. Go your own way and let them drown in their own excrement.
 
"There are nutters who shoot drive over people, so no one should be allowed to have guns cars"
Click to expand...
FIFY
Click to expand...

Well in the EU, deaths from cars outnumber deaths from legal firearms 5:1, but yeah... no one talks about banning those 4-wheeled death machines!

In fact I was very careful not to argue regarding the US' 2ndA: I was speaking purely from the perspective of EU legislation!! In other words the simple logic of law-abiding people being allowed the possibility to choose a means of effective self-defence, should they want to, even in the absence of a Constitutional right.

Despite that, a whole bunch of pseudo-truths were brought out on parade relating to US mass-shootings (which had to be corrected): proof-positive in my mind that all these arguments were just regurgitations heard in the media.
 
Pond, many years ago my mother gave me what I have come to know is profound advice: "When you argue with a fool, you are liable to act like one." Unfortunately I don't always abide by this wise counsel. I want to think that a well presented rational argument will win fools to my side. This rarely works. Keep the faith.
 
The thing is this person is by no means stupid.

Furthermore, I've made no secret that I used to think in very much the same way prior to my experiencing, getting into and subsequently educating myself about firearms.

This isn't about stupidity: it's about education and knowledge
 
Save your energy for fun things.

Do not waste time, effort or money to convert the leftists - 99 out of 100 times you will fail.

Develop more friends and co-workers from the right. You will be a happier man.
 
Pond, I have friends and family who are so committed to the idea that government can, and should be responsible for taking care of us that the idea of an armed society is completely unthinkable. These are not stupid people, but their ideology can not accept that freedom from governmental interference in our personal lives is fundamental to freedom. They are educated, intelligent people who foolishly believe that they know what is best for you and me. All we can do is present our case, and hope that like you and me, they will realize that what they think they know just isn't so.
 
"Owning a gun is just to kill..."
Click to expand...
Most of my guns weren't purchased for any kind of killing at all. Not even while hunting or in self-defense.

I do have a couple that are primarily for self-defense and a few more that are primarily for hunting and I suppose it might be reasonable to characterize those guns as having the purpose of killing. That said, I've never actually needed one for the former purpose and only very rarely get the opportunity to do the latter.
"You can just walk into a shop and buy guns in the US."
Click to expand...
Probably more true than not.

There are restrictions on who can buy and there are legal hoops that one must jump through to make the sale legal, but in general, if you qualify and are willing to jump through the legal hoops you can walk into a shop and leave with a gun within an hour. It's not exactly like buying milk & bread, but it's also not anywhere nearly as difficult as the typical European model where you have to go through a long approval/licensing process before being allowed to go to the store an buy a gun.
"There are nutters who shoot people, so no one should be allowed to have guns"
Click to expand...
If we restrict the entire population based on the actions of a few screwed-up people, we might as well all live in padded rooms, and wear jackets with sleeves that buckle in the back.
 
When I argue with anti-gunners, which is unfortunately often, I explain to them the 4 commandments of gun safety (we all know these of course but they don't).

1) Always point the barrel in a safe direction.
2) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target.
3) Always assume a gun is loaded.
4) Be certain of your target and what is behind it.

Then I offer a conclusion: If these 4 simple rules are followed, a gun is no more dangerous than any other blunt object.

For gun owners or people who have learned gun safety, this lesson is redundant. But few people know the 4 commandments of gun safety. They are not common knowledge, as they should be. When I post them in a public forum, it becomes obvious how few people know them.

Speaking from experience, only the most anti-gun zealots will continue to disagree with you, and they will do so making fools of themselves. You can always point to one or more of the 4 commandments to destroy their arguments.
 
When debating anti-gunners, remember that they do not care to be confused by facts. IMHO, the anti-gun arguments boil down into two basic categories: (1) emotionally-based arguments; and (2) top-down societal arguments. There is much overlap and the "if it saves just one life," could reasonably fit into either or both.

1. Emotionally-based arguments: The anti-gunners are prone to much hand-wringing and wailing, proclaiming the horrors that will no doubt befall any society that allows its common people to be armed. "Look at little Johnny! He was just turning his life around . . . " Frequently, "little Johnny" hadn't really succeeded in turning his life around, and was killed in a defensive gun use. Nonetheless, to the anti-gunners, he had potential and therefore deserved to live. These are the same folks crying, "He could have shot him in the leg."

"Think of all of the toddlers that are caught in the crossfire, killed by guns every year." Let there be no doubt, an innocent killed is a tragedy. However, that is true regardless of the means of death. As others have noted, many are killed by cars and bathtubs. Some are even killed by air bags. This is a bit of a trickier situation, in that it gets off into a situation that really is horrible to contemplate. IMHO, the fault often lies with a parent or guardian who neglected to secure his or her firearms. When that's the case, the next question is often one about secure storage laws. And then we turn to enforcement and run headlong into the Fourth Amendment (at least in the USA)....

2. Top-down societal arguments: "30K people are killed every year by gun violence." I'm sure we've all seen or heard breakdowns of those numbers. How many are gang shootings? How many are suicides? How many are committed by persons already prohibited from possessing firearms? All valid points.

My theory on this: Governments view their respective societies from a top-down view. They look at gross national products, total numbers of jobs created or lost, percentages gained or lost. They don't care that Joe Schmoe, individually, lost his job and won't be able to pay his electric bill next month. In other words, governments care about how many people are killed. Gun owners care who is killed. The hypothetical example I have used is this: "(1) imagine that Congress could pass a law that would somehow (magically) limit the number of deaths by firearms in this country to 1; but (2) that 1 will be your child next year. Would you vote for it?" From a top-down view, such a law makes a ton of sense. For a parent of that child, it's abhorrent.

As for myself, I have a right and a responsibility to protect myself and my family, and perhaps those near and dear to me. I do not necessarily have the same right or responsibility to protect the rest of the country, or the world.
 
Pep in CA, you can make the argument that guns aren't dangerous if you choose, but I don't buy it and I am committed to the 2A as anyone. It is certainly not a persuasive argument to someone who thinks government has the responsibility to protect society by taking all guns. The 4 Rules are as irrelevant to anti-gunners as is a discussion of clean coal to a tree hugging activist.
 
Last edited:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Click to expand...

I was going to mention this, but wasn't fast enough. ;)
here's another one, equally apt, I think.

Never wrestle with a pig. All you get is dirty, and the pig likes it!
Click to expand...

It is amazing to me, how many Europeans are so firmly against private gun ownership. Considering just the past 100years or so of their history, it just boggles my mind.

Fascists, Nazis, Soviet style Communists, and all other totalitarian governments are always big proponents of gun control. They want guns only in the hands of their people.

"Owning a gun is just to kill..."
Click to expand...

Sorry James, but Uhh, yes, it flipping well IS!...
yes, we would prefer not to, but we should not deny that there are times in this world when killing is needed. Nor should we be ashamed. That is really their entire argument, killing is shameful & wrong (MURDER most certainly is, but not all killing is murder), and we should be ashamed if we possess the tools to do it.

"Die if you must, but never fight back" is not a philosophy I find attractive. Morally superior and dead, is still dead.
 
yeah, good luck with the high blood pressure, Mr. Pond....
I'm too lazy to debate any more.
I just ask "hmm, how do you figure?" I've found that most anti-gunners like to talk.
Eventually, with just a bit of prodding, they usually walk themselves into a hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top