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

Status
Not open for further replies.
To counter the "Guns are made only for killing"... "It is true that Some people need killing"... look around and smile.
Click to expand...
That's a terrible idea, and it feeds into the mentality that we're somehow callous towards violence.

The other side uses emotional appeals because that's all they've got in their repertoire. We're smarter and better than that.
 
They cannot be reasoned with. It doesn't matter how reasonable your argument or pro-2nd position is, the antis and nannies - those truly committed to the cause and those causing the most ruckus - are not going to be reasoned with. It's almost a religion for them, and true faith cannot never be swayed by facts or reason.

When the dust settles, uber lib states like CA, NY, NJ, and IL are going to be very restrictive about CHL, while gun friendly states like TX, OK, TN, and AK are going to be fairly free with CHL's. Neither side is going to convince the other of it's respective merits. It really is cultural. If you don't like uber lib views on guns and you live in an uber lib state, you have two choices: cozy up to the anti-gun culture and comp yourself to the other side, or move to a state that isn't out to snatch your guns or keep you from having them.
 
Baba Louie said:
To counter the "Guns are made only for killing"... "It is true that Some people need killing"... look around and smile.....
Click to expand...
When are we going to get it through our heads that one reason many people are anti-gun and will vote for politicians who promise to restrict gun rights is that they are afraid.

They are afraid of violence. They are afraid of guns. They are afraid of people who have guns. They see a gun owner as a potential mass murderer.

Yes, that's nonsense. But that's also reality.

It's not a reality that you can challenge by simply saying you're a good guy. It's not a reality that you can challenge by proclaiming your peaceable disposition. Saying, "I'm really okay" doesn't work.

To make an impression, you need to show them. You need to show them by the way you behave, by the way you participate in life and in the world, that gun owners are good, honest, peaceful people. And that takes time.

Reinforcing negative stereotypes of gun owners isn't going to help us.
 
Making sense to liberals is a non starter. You will never debate them into a new way of thinking.
The left has taken a systematic approach to removing gun rights from America.
At least 40 years worth of nibble nibble and shaping the debate have gotten us to this point. A pure propaganda offensive that was never intended to convince you to change.
Its about your Grandchildren, Its they whom they count on to vote away our freedoms after we have died off and are unable to defend.

Sad state really, but it is in fact our own fault. We let them PC us into a corner were their voice is the only one heard.

Think about it. We are to the point now that a constitutionally protected right hinges on a single election. Hillary wins and we are done.
 
The left has taken a systematic approach to removing gun rights from America.
Click to expand...
We steer away from Left/Right politics in this forum. That mindset is the main reason why.

It's just too easy, and when things are that easy, they're usually inaccurate. I know several people who identify themselves as liberal and/or progressive? Are they "lefties?" They'll chuckle and say, "heck, yes."

Several of them are gun owners and avid shooters. They support gun rights, and they bemoan the fact that many of their peers have drunk the anti-gun Kool Aid with such zeal.

So, why don't we hear from them? Because they know they'll be lampooned and mocked. Because so much of the gun culture has swung so far to one political pole. They don't want to hear Sarah Palin or Scottie Nell Hughes crack one-liners about how stupid liberals are, so they don't go to the conventions.

We have done ourselves a great disservice by allowing that to happen.

Think about it: who stands a better chance of making a successful pro-gun argument in a university or urban social setting? Liberal gun owners. But they're already in the minority, and they're afraid of speaking up for fear of being branded Tea Party zealots.

And here's the thing. "The Left" as a whole isn't all that big on gun regulation. A small minority in that camp continue to be the drum, and the majority nods and halfheartedly agrees because nobody in their peer group is around to tell them differently.
 
We steer away from Left/Right politics in this forum. That mindset is the main reason why.

It's just too easy, and when things are that easy, they're usually inaccurate. I know several people who identify themselves as liberal and/or progressive? Are they "lefties?" They'll chuckle and say, "heck, yes."

Several of them are gun owners and avid shooters. They support gun rights, and they bemoan the fact that many of their peers have drunk the anti-gun Kool Aid with such zeal.

So, why don't we hear from them? Because they know they'll be lampooned and mocked. Because so much of the gun culture has swung so far to one political pole. They don't want to hear Sarah Palin or Scottie Nell Hughes crack one-liners about how stupid liberals are, so they don't go to the conventions.

We have done ourselves a great disservice by allowing that to happen.

Think about it: who stands a better chance of making a successful pro-gun argument in a university or urban social setting? Liberal gun owners. But they're already in the minority, and they're afraid of speaking up for fear of being branded Tea Party zealots.

And here's the thing. "The Left" as a whole isn't all that big on gun regulation. A small minority in that camp continue to be the drum, and the majority nods and halfheartedly agrees because nobody in their peer group is around to tell them differently.
Click to expand...

I tried to quote just parts of it but I felt it was all well-written. The political parties today have separated themselves on issues that sometimes simply do not lump well together. Ideas on economic policy and gun rights are, among other things, issues that individuals find prevent them from fully identifying with either major party. When you are discussing a single issue don't assume that you know where others stand.
 
Both parties have staked out their positions on numerous DIVERSE issues. And they also take the position that if you don't agree with the party line, 100% ON ALL ISSUES, you are not welcome, and will not be allowed to hold any position of influence in the party.

On the gun issue, things get even more muddled, because one side admits only to the potential for harm that guns have, and denies their potential for good, and because most people (by numbers) don't really care, until/unless guns have had some personal impact in their lives.

"There are no atheists in foxholes"

If you don't plan on invading another country, why have an Army, Navy, or Air Force? A lot of those who don't think private individuals should be able to be armed admit that a national military is a necessary "evil".

The recognize the necessity, but only on a national scale. They refuse to see that the SAME necessity also applies to individuals.

Consider asking them to follow their logic to its "logical" conclusion. IF gun possession is what puts us at risk, then why isn't the inside of a prison the safest place to be? ALL guns (and all other weapons) are prohibited there....

The problem (which their side adamantly refuses to see) is what PEOPLE do, NOT what they do it with.
 
The result of adopting the European anti-weapon view is charging a crime victim for resisting.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by European anti-weapon views. That seems rather a broad brush for a place of half a billion people and huge cultural diversity.

Secondly, she might be charged with possession of an illegal weapon, not with defending herself.

Do I agree with a law that prohibits people having a self-defence device such as Mace (or a gun for that matter)?
No, but your summary of the situation is still inaccurate.

On top of that the source is RT: not a media outlet I associate with impartial, full-disclosure reporting.
 
Several of them are gun owners and avid shooters. They support gun rights, and they bemoan the fact that many of their peers have drunk the anti-gun Kool Aid with such zeal.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Most people on here might view me as a "lefty" with my heinous liberal Euro opinions on an array of stuff. So be it. But I don't think people would call me anti-gun.

The world is way to big and varied for a "one-size fits one lot and another size fits the others", black and white view of its inhabitants; politically or otherwise.

I've said this about 3 times in the last week on here, for various reasons but I was pretty staunchly anti-gun before I started learning about firearms as a pursuit, discipline and means of self-defence.

It can happen... Which is why I will still happily discuss gun ownership with those who reject it, citing my reasons, the facts I believe support my view, not to mention that I used to think like them. In fact, that last point often gives them pause, because they can't just label me as a narrow-minded gun-nut who's closed to all other ideas.

Ironlically, this is exactly what the person I was debating the other night did at one point: the response to my having the views I do was simply that I was a rifle-man like the NRA folk and was therefore bound to think the way I do.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
We see pro-gun people on both sides of the spectrum, but there is a difference between being pro-gun and being pro-2nd Amendment, the difference being if your advocacy is based on respect for a Constitutional right, whether you own one or not, or if its just based on the fact that you like guns, and would like to keep yours. I prefer people who are both, but if I have to choose between pro-gun and pro-@A, I find pro-2A to be much more reliable advocates.
 
Don't feel left out, James. Some of us are involved in causes that wouldn't go over well in many meetings of "gun people." It annoys me a bit that I sometimes have to hobnob with some pretty awful (to me) political talk to get folks motivated on the gun issue.
 
You think arguing with anti-gunners is frustrating. Do you realize the frustration they face arguing with pro-gunners? :D

Both sides claim to be right.
Both sides claim to want to do what is best for people.
Both sides think the stance of the other side is a safety concern.
Both sides are HUGELY prone to arguments of emotion.
Both sides are prone to misrepresenting data.
Both sides cherry pick data to argue.
Both sides think the other side is composed of illogical individuals.
We blame the media. They blame the NRA.
Both sides call what the other side is doing with educating children to our views as "indoctrination."
Both sides, this thread included, are prone to ad hominem attacks.

The list could be extended quite a bit. The point is, both sides believe in their causes and assign different levels of value to different types of information as being relevant. As James noted, the person he was arguing with wasn't unintelligent. He seemed surprised by this, but the truth of the matter is that there are indeed geniuses and mentally challenged people on both sides of the gun issue. So this implication that it is a matter of intelligence (as also indicated by the ad hominem comments) is silly. It is a matter of values, and emotions are a big part of a person's values.

So arguing with a person or group that holds a different set of values than you will undoubtedly be infuriating, if you let it get the better of you. Infuriation is an emotional reaction.
 
I have great respect for those who can set aside ideology and emotion when discussing gun issues with those in the other camp. I don't do that too well. It is for that reason I avoid arguing with anti-gun folks. Most know what I think regarding the 2A, and are not really interested in why. When asked I will do my best to articulate our position, but prolonged debate serves no useful purpose. I love conversation and spirited discussion of ideas, but a man has to know his limitations...
 
So what do you call the people who are not, and don't even try to be consistent when they assess blame?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver, they (rightfully) blame the driver.

When a serial killer strangles a victim, they blame the killer.

When someone is shot, they blame the GUN!!

I don't call that genius....
 
For all of you who are citing 2A to James... remember he is NOT in the U.S.A. IIRC he is located in ESTONIA where 2A does not exisit.
 
For all of you who are citing 2A to James... remember he is NOT in the U.S.A. IIRC he is located in ESTONIA where 2A does not exisit.
Click to expand...

For me referencing the 2A, in this context simply speaks to the human right to defend oneself and that guns are necessary to that end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top