Aaaarghhh!!! So infuriated! Debating anti-gunners!
- Thread starter Pond James Pond
- Start date
- Status
K-Mac, I agree that the touting the 4 gun safety commandments won't convince an anti-gun activist, but it is not the anti-gun activist I am trying to convince. It is the people, i.e. voters, who are reading the discussion that I intend to convince.
I have posted that argument several times in public forums, namely Yahoo, and I get mostly thumbs up. I also made a Toastmasters speech about the 4 commandments. The replies that come from folks who don't own guns or don't know about gun safety are all positive.
We will never convince an anti-gun activist that guns are safe if one follows the rules, but we can convince non-activist voters.
I have posted that argument several times in public forums, namely Yahoo, and I get mostly thumbs up. I also made a Toastmasters speech about the 4 commandments. The replies that come from folks who don't own guns or don't know about gun safety are all positive.
We will never convince an anti-gun activist that guns are safe if one follows the rules, but we can convince non-activist voters.
Pond James Pond
New member
No. Sorry.
Have to disagree.
If you were to do a poll on here of what people hoped to achieve by owning a gun in the context of self-defence the answer I'd expect to see most is "to end a threat to my or my family's well-being.".
In other words, we wouldn't be making the assailant's death our intent. It may be the end result, but that does not make it the goal. It's certainly not mine and I doubt it is yours.
We've all heard of psychological stops, someone being wounded to the point of not being able to continue an attack. Neither of those need end in a death, even if they might.
So saying we own something that may well kill is not the same as saying it is owned in order to kill.
Well, let's put that in context. Firstly, I don't know that there are so many more Europeans that are anti-gun as there are Americans of a similar thinking. What there are, are probably a great many with little opinion on it. The UK is not Europe so basing any continental view on them would be a mistake, if that is what people might be inclined to do. Even there, the pro-gun movement is larger than people realise: it just lacks political muscle and public support due to the indifference of many.
Then there is the cultural back-ground, irrespective of history. There has never been, to my knowledge a period in history comparable to those of the Americas when it comes to private gun-ownership of things such as revolvers etc. IE non-hunting weapons. Hunting with guns was also more for the aristocracy rather than the working classes who might have tended toward trapping. There also hasn't been the wild expanses that made personal armament more necessary as it was in the pioneering days of the US.
Finally, the recent history that you refer to, framed guns in the minds of people as things that were carried by trained troops. Those of the regimes you cited would have been oppressive, making an association in people's minds one of an unpleasant thing they'd rather not see again, coupled with the fact that private ownership would probably not have ended well for the private owner if they'd gone up against a unit of such troops even if the valiant efforts of the Warsaw up-rising are considered, although that was still a paramilitary movement.
So there simply isn't the same association in Europe of the gun being a hallmark of the independent, self-reliant individual that has evolved in the US, so naturally the same attachment is not going to exist.
You will never get anywhere with them and they won't get anywhere with you.
Calls for gun control are the social norm. Gun owners are in the "uncool" group. You are the social injustice. The tide is turning against us.
It may take a few years, but Australian/UK type gun control is coming our way
Calls for gun control are the social norm. Gun owners are in the "uncool" group. You are the social injustice. The tide is turning against us.
It may take a few years, but Australian/UK type gun control is coming our way
James, I understand what you're saying, and I'll try to clarify my point(s).
You're in a better position to know, so I'm pretty sure you are right about a poll. My point is, that in order to be able to stop a threat, in a worst case situation, DEADLY force is required. We understand the point of defensive shooting is to STOP the attack, but only deadly force (properly applied) can do that in every case. If they die as a result of being stopped, that's too bad for them.
This is the crux of their argument. Since guns CAN kill, they assume the only reason for having them is TO KILL. AND they think that is a bad thing.
I'm saying its NOT a bad thing, and that doesn't fit their world view.
I don't quite know how you have a cultural background without its history.
We have a similar thing in the US, without the trained troops. Large numbers of urban folk only see guns in the hands of criminals, police, and on video screens as entertainment. so they only associate having guns with crime, and many would prefer if the police didn't "need" to carry them.
I was going to mention the Warsaw uprising, but left it to you. The point here is that culturally, few Jews of the era felt fighting was the moral high ground. And it essentially wasn't until it was obvious the choice was fight, or die.
What do you think might have happened if, culturally, that group (or any other) believed in fighting back, and was armed? If every time a stormtrooper squad went to destroy a shop, or clear an apartment building for "resettlement", if one or two took a bullet, that might have an effect on their determination, don't you think?
The idea that one need or should not be armed, because you (personally) can't win, and likely won't survive is one that makes their job so much easier.
Yes, they lost in Warsaw, as in many other places, where decent people tried, and failed. But that doesn't make them wrong to have tried.
Not in my opinion, anyway.
You're in a better position to know, so I'm pretty sure you are right about a poll. My point is, that in order to be able to stop a threat, in a worst case situation, DEADLY force is required. We understand the point of defensive shooting is to STOP the attack, but only deadly force (properly applied) can do that in every case. If they die as a result of being stopped, that's too bad for them.
This is the crux of their argument. Since guns CAN kill, they assume the only reason for having them is TO KILL. AND they think that is a bad thing.
I'm saying its NOT a bad thing, and that doesn't fit their world view.
I don't quite know how you have a cultural background without its history.
We have a similar thing in the US, without the trained troops. Large numbers of urban folk only see guns in the hands of criminals, police, and on video screens as entertainment. so they only associate having guns with crime, and many would prefer if the police didn't "need" to carry them.
I was going to mention the Warsaw uprising, but left it to you. The point here is that culturally, few Jews of the era felt fighting was the moral high ground. And it essentially wasn't until it was obvious the choice was fight, or die.
What do you think might have happened if, culturally, that group (or any other) believed in fighting back, and was armed? If every time a stormtrooper squad went to destroy a shop, or clear an apartment building for "resettlement", if one or two took a bullet, that might have an effect on their determination, don't you think?
The idea that one need or should not be armed, because you (personally) can't win, and likely won't survive is one that makes their job so much easier.
Yes, they lost in Warsaw, as in many other places, where decent people tried, and failed. But that doesn't make them wrong to have tried.
Not in my opinion, anyway.
Pond James Pond
New member
A point I made myself in my response. However, my own position is that while a deadly outcome may well arise it is not my stated/preferred end goal. I did not buy a gun in order to end a life. I bought one, rather, to preserve one. As I said, that a life may end as a result is a possibility but it is not the objective in mind for why I own a gun. That an anti-gun advocate may say that it is, is pure speculation on their part; an assumption as you noted, not a fact.
With respect to the rest, my point about cultural background beyond history was trying to separate the underlying relationship to guns regardless of the last 100 years. However, yes, a badly phrased sentence given the two go hand in hand.
All the same, in the case of the Jewish people was their lack of initial resistance due to an actual rejection of firearms or was it due to a more pacifistic life-ethic? I feel it was the latter.
And I believe the disparity in opinions on this subject stems from the fact that, taking Europe into account on a larger scale, there was not the time in history during which gun-ownership fused itself the the daily life of the common man the way it did in the discovery and "taming" of the continental USA.
So for a large part it is not an active rejection of guns over here (although that does exist), it is rather an indifference: most have never seen them as part of someone's everyday existence. Compound that with the way guns appear in films and TV series....
In any case, the anti- attitudes that would seem most familiar to an American are more defined in the Western European nations. For many Europeans, the European Union which is on such shaky ground right now, has done exactly what it said on the tin: it's kept Europe peaceful and so there are three generations that have not felt vulnerable in the geopolitical sense the way their forebears may have...
Nations like the Balkan states, Czech Rep, Slovakia and other ex-Soviet states tend to be more accepting of it. It may well be because they've suffered more in the passing decades and would not wish to again.
Last edited:
boatdoc173
New member
as frustrating as it is
the folks who advise not arguing with these idiot are right
after all they believe gun control does something=sheeple
the folks who advise not arguing with these idiot are right
after all they believe gun control does something=sheeple
Pond James Pond
New member
Well, yes and no. Let's say that the hit rate is low:
What is the point of freedom of speech and the debating model that is central to democracy if we don't use it to challenge views we disagree with? I've had discussions like this in the past where people have perhaps not told me that I'm right after all, but they've clearly left the discussion with something to think about. That doesn't happen if someone is entirely closed to opposing views.
Provided the environment is not combative it means they may well take what you've said and mull over it. They may also change opinion somewhat or even fully. So, if a person does change their view, all the other obstinate people who wouldn't even listen were worth the headache.
What is the point of freedom of speech and the debating model that is central to democracy if we don't use it to challenge views we disagree with? I've had discussions like this in the past where people have perhaps not told me that I'm right after all, but they've clearly left the discussion with something to think about. That doesn't happen if someone is entirely closed to opposing views.
Provided the environment is not combative it means they may well take what you've said and mull over it. They may also change opinion somewhat or even fully. So, if a person does change their view, all the other obstinate people who wouldn't even listen were worth the headache.
Last edited:
pjp said:
Indeed. Arguing a difference can improve the quality of both positions. Viewed this way, a person with whom you argue a difference isn't an enemy in any important sense.
On the contrary, a really good argument can't be had with a person who isn't in some sense a collaborator in the conversation; that's an essentially friendly activity. When one sees life this way, argument becomes an hedonic act; no frustration can be found in it.
Agree, compared to Europe, America is unique in our overall attitude about gun ownership. And yes, it stems from our frontier heritage, our Revolution from England in colonial times, the taming of the west, etc. And, guns being a part of the daily lives of many people continues through this day. Not just the necessary defensive use of them against crime, but the agricultural use of guns by farmers and ranchers across the country, every day. And, our tradition of using those guns for sport hunting, as well.
But even in America, today, a lot of people are indifferent to the subject, until/unless you break it down into things that might personally matter.
People who don't want the thug on the street corner armed can be fine with duck hunting, for instance. They don't duck hunt, no one they know is harmed by duck hunting, so they really don't care (other than the no hunting of any animal types). But they do know that that armed thug, in their neighborhood is a real threat. Possibly they know someone who has suffered from criminal attack (what the media & the anti's love to call "gun violence").
These are the people who support gun control passively. In their world, guns only do one thing, kill people, so laws that "prevent that" get supported.
Yes, there you go. Indifference is what empowers the zealots drive for ever more restrictions.
Pond, I feel your pain.
I get upset because here on this forum we are almost entirely rational and clear thinking (yeah I know I'm biased but we really are!) and the other side is a lot of arm waving, 'the streets will run red!', 'just ONE life', 'FOR THE CHILDREN', and my personal favorite, 'nobody needs a (whatever)...', drama queens. They won't listen to reason.
Even Bernie Sanders, the highest level of professional politician can't sound good so what chance does an ordinary guy have in a debate? (Bernie tried to defend his voting for the PLCAA (the law that protects gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits) and he came across as apologetic and defensive and making excuses for his vote.
The best thing you can do is take them shooting and maybe they will see the light of reason.
I get upset because here on this forum we are almost entirely rational and clear thinking (yeah I know I'm biased but we really are!) and the other side is a lot of arm waving, 'the streets will run red!', 'just ONE life', 'FOR THE CHILDREN', and my personal favorite, 'nobody needs a (whatever)...', drama queens. They won't listen to reason.
Even Bernie Sanders, the highest level of professional politician can't sound good so what chance does an ordinary guy have in a debate? (Bernie tried to defend his voting for the PLCAA (the law that protects gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits) and he came across as apologetic and defensive and making excuses for his vote.
The best thing you can do is take them shooting and maybe they will see the light of reason.
Pond, I feel bad for you. Its' bad enough here, except that I think most of the antis don't really believe their own arguments, they just repeat them like a slogan. I've also discussed the topic with foreigners here, and with many its like a different plane of reality. It's most offensive with celebrity immigrants such as Piers Morgan, who move here and then bash OUR Constitution, while talking about how great things were in the place they left.
I lived in a very anti-gun state for a few years, and I understand your frustration. It's probably more frustrating for you discussing a foreign country with people who are personally ignorant of that country.
I would have thought that some of the attacks in Paris, especially those where unarmed police were killed, or 147 people killed by a few armed terrorists would open a few eyes, but I'm not seeing it. I guess it mirrors our inability to understand the logic that a "gun free zone" is a good idea, no matter how many unarmed people die in them. I feel your pain.
I lived in a very anti-gun state for a few years, and I understand your frustration. It's probably more frustrating for you discussing a foreign country with people who are personally ignorant of that country.
I would have thought that some of the attacks in Paris, especially those where unarmed police were killed, or 147 people killed by a few armed terrorists would open a few eyes, but I'm not seeing it. I guess it mirrors our inability to understand the logic that a "gun free zone" is a good idea, no matter how many unarmed people die in them. I feel your pain.
Pond James Pond
New member
All this was after a shooting session, if you can believe it!!
Safety rules, .22 rifle shooting at 50m, 9mm at 25m...
It was not your usual debating position that the other person adopted.
Looking back it was a really weird situation.
It can be, and should, provided that both parties engage fully with the other.
If one participant raises points or questions which are subsequently dismissed or ignored it will make that participant feel the exchange is not so friendly or egalitarian; that perhaps respect is not being fully accorded by the other party.
Taking the debate I'm referring to as an example, this is what happened as it progressed. Such an experience taints the exchange. Hence my frustration.
Indeed, I've often said that, IMHO, one of the big problems of how guns are perceived is that people only see them in the sense of what guns can do to them, but never for them.
Exactly! Now, remember to remind those folks about the guns that the police carry. Those guns are carried, and used, FOR the benefit of the people.
Why do you carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy. It isn't JUST a joke.
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away....
why do you find so many businesses today having AEDs (defibrillators) along with first aid kits, and training employees how to use them?
Because the TIME between recognizing an emergency and being able to respond can make a life changing difference.
Everyone should be free to choose to wait on professional responders, but they shouldn't be forced by law to have to.
Having a tool that allows for killing is so that in the event of having to deal with a criminal, no killing either way will occur. The criminal will not kill or maim you or your family members if they are intent on doing so and you need not kill them unless given no choice. It allows for the peaceful resolution of potential conflicts.
Do not allow yourself to get worked up over gun control proponents though, not in front of them anyway
cool. Always act calm, cool, and collected
Do not allow yourself to get worked up over gun control proponents though, not in front of them anyway
cool. Always act calm, cool, and collected Baba Louie
New member
ADD EMOTION to your repetoire
To counter the "Guns are made only for killing"... "It is true that Some people need killing"... look around and smile.
To counter the "Nobody needs a..."... "No one needs a death dealing automobile"... glance around and smile.
Let them rant on... and you just nod your head once in a while in apparent agreement... notice this or that near or far and smile.
(My own private joke is this: while smiling [or is it more of a smirk?] I tend to think along these lines... "While you may have a valid and interesting argument, I have already killed you at least three times and haven't even thought about using a firearm in the process yet.") and smile some more.
Tell them you agree and that if it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, if not the knife, a rock, failing the rock they would limit sticks, soon to be followed by hands and feet. "We should make hands and feet illegal too! Doncha think?"
and yet I can pick up a wooden number 2 pencil or a coffee mug and wreak havoc among those unprepared... until it breaks.
Law abiding people will obey laws even when & if no laws are written down/enforced because law abiding people get along for the most part. But there are others who do not play the game of life in this fashion. You know this. I know this. Anti gunner knows this too.
Keep smiling tho. I've been told it's a little unnerving... Imagine that! Like someone could read my morbid mind or something...
But do go "emotional" on them. It's a methodology they understand well.
To counter the "Guns are made only for killing"... "It is true that Some people need killing"... look around and smile.
To counter the "Nobody needs a..."... "No one needs a death dealing automobile"... glance around and smile.
Let them rant on... and you just nod your head once in a while in apparent agreement... notice this or that near or far and smile.
(My own private joke is this: while smiling [or is it more of a smirk?] I tend to think along these lines... "While you may have a valid and interesting argument, I have already killed you at least three times and haven't even thought about using a firearm in the process yet.") and smile some more.
Tell them you agree and that if it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, if not the knife, a rock, failing the rock they would limit sticks, soon to be followed by hands and feet. "We should make hands and feet illegal too! Doncha think?"
and yet I can pick up a wooden number 2 pencil or a coffee mug and wreak havoc among those unprepared... until it breaks.
Law abiding people will obey laws even when & if no laws are written down/enforced because law abiding people get along for the most part. But there are others who do not play the game of life in this fashion. You know this. I know this. Anti gunner knows this too.
Keep smiling tho. I've been told it's a little unnerving... Imagine that! Like someone could read my morbid mind or something...
But do go "emotional" on them. It's a methodology they understand well.
- Status