Been in an Internet fist fight for days

J

jimpeel

New member
I have been in this jousting match with some Liberal anti-firearms freaks for several days on the MSN boards.

They are mostly into personal attacks, circular arguments, and that ol' "need" saw.

I've been holding my own pretty well for a guy fighting on four fronts. One of them claims to be a lawyer but can't spell, can't form cogent sentences, and can't read the plain text of the law. :D

I need to know where I can get the study where they measured the injury rate for people who offered no resistance, fought back with hands, fought back with other weapon, or fought back with a firearm.

Any help out there?

If anyone wants to join in or just go read the threads for a good laugh they are here:

http://groups.msn.com/WhatsNews/new...LastModified=4675547098198199853&all_topics=0

http://groups.msn.com/WhatsNews/new...LastModified=4675547825251848086&all_topics=0

http://groups.msn.com/WhatsNews/new...LastModified=4675547819188140084&all_topics=0

http://groups.msn.com/WhatsNews/new...LastModified=4675547767326266819&all_topics=0
 
the only study ive seen was an anedoctal one of compiled grizzly bear attacks on people with or without firearms and whether they ended up being dinner.

You cant really look at data from places like Canada and some European countries as firearms have been loosely regulated there for years.

Just like capital punishment isnt much of an argument. Its been shown that the murder rate actually peaks a few days after and execution.

The thing Ive notices most about the hard core antis...is that they have never ever picked up a gun..let alone shot one..

fear breeds ignorance...

you might get farther if you try and invite some of the idiots down to the range for a shooting day and see how it goes from there.
 
459 - If your the fella I'm thinking of, join the board and help him out. Maybe the information coming from a fello Democrat will make it a little easier to believe.

If your not the fella I'm thinking of, just ignore me. :)
 
and Jim if a democratic regime votes that guns are no longer allowed you no longer have the right to own a gun. In the same way you don't have the right to drive on the pavement, make rascist remarks to people, run around naked in public etc.
Click to expand...
Is this guy a lawyer in this country?
 
The MSN sites are really chickens---. They have no attributes like search, PM, last post, sorting of columns, nothing. No edit function either. I complain about it all of the time and tell the managers that they need to discover vBulletin.

I guess a small business concern like Microsoft can't afford a decent posting board.
 
and Jim if a democratic regime votes that guns are no longer allowed you no longer have the right to own a gun. In the same way you don't have the right to drive on the pavement, make rascist remarks to people, run around naked in public etc.
Click to expand...

I assume he meant "drive on the sidewalk", I drive on paved roads on a daily basis. That said, driving on the sidewalk is not an inalienable right protected by the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Another inaccurate statement he made is about "racist remarks". Though I abhor racism in all its forms, I still recognize the freedom of speech that citizens of the U.S. continue to enjoy. People who make racist comments might be an ignorant, mean-spirited bunch of people that "just don't get it", but we must grant them a right to their opinion. So long as they have hurt no one and commited no crime, they have the right to say what they want, no matter how much their opinions reek of stupidity. The only reason that freedom of speech is possible in this country is that there are no qualifiers for it, no committees to decide which speech is wholesome and which is destructive. Because as soon as you add that to the equation, it's not really free speech anymore.

We're a democracy, but there is a foundation on which that democracy is based, and hence, limits to the power of the legislators. America is not a country whose government can disregard its own founding principles whenever they become inconvenient.
 
if a democratic regime votes that guns are no longer allowed you no longer have the right to own a gun
Click to expand...
Being from England would explain why he can't wrap his mind around our form of goverment.

But being a lawyer, which presumes educated, he should understand the concept of having a basic knowledge of a case that you are going to argue
 
America is not a country whose government can disregard its own founding principles whenever they become inconvenient.
Click to expand...
Sing it, brutha!
I generally use the same argument for all of our constitutionally protected rights. First, I explain (with supporting evidence) exactly what the Bill of Rights means to say on the matter. Then I explain that it can only be changed with an amendment to the Constitution. Then I contrast their conflicting view with another Bill of Rights issue and point out their fundamental hypocrisy.
Ex: Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment rights usually support the 1st Amendment in reference to freedom of religion. So I goad them into a temporary 'argument' about separation of church and state and then apply their arguments to the 2nd amendment.
Finally, I summarize with a sentiment like what stratus has said here.
 
jimpeel, I'm sure your enjoying the internet fist fight, but it's more analogous to shadow boxing. You will work up a sweat, you will get in shape, but you will never get the satisfaction of a knockout.

What I'm saying is, unfortunately, your more than likely wasting your time. So, unless you enjoy debating individuals who can not stay on point, and who refuse to succumb to logic despite it's almost intoxicating allure... ya might as well throw in the towel on behalf of your blood pressure.

Good luck, you have more patience than I ;) .
 
From The Firing Line's Library: http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/RKBA_handbook.html

DON'T MESS WITH TRUE BELIEVERS.
In the time you spend trying to convert one hard core antigun person to our side, you could have gone out and motivated and organized 20 people who already think like you do. Go with the flow. It's easier on your nerves, and much more effective. Personally, I have converted several anti-rights true believers, but never again! Lots of NRA members are not registered voters. A lot of gun owners aren't NRA members. Even more folks have no idea of their elected officials' positions on gun issues. Where is your time most effectively spent? Think about this before you spend an hour writing a clever response to a silly message you found somewhere on the internet.
Click to expand...
 
TheBluesMan, from the library you note above:

STOP THE SABER RATTLING -- NOW! Avoid those shrill folks who sound
threatening or talk about doomsday. It's a waste of your time. These
noisy folks remind me of a couple in a failing marriage who only talk
about a getting a divorce instead of talking about their real problems.
If they don't solve their problems, separation or divorce becomes the
inevitable outcome. Some people get pumped up on silly fantasy
scenarios. I do not.
Click to expand...

Can this PLEASE be a sticky in the Tactics & Training forum!!! :D
 
I believe the information you seek on firearms being the only means of self defense that result in less injury than non-resistance comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Report - and it is referenced in one of Gray Kleck's books either Point Blank or Targeting Guns. I'm thinking Point Blank.
 
Tell him to kiss your hairy American ass. That brit is 229 years, 4 months, 12 days and 9 hours too late to mandate laws in this country.
 
I finally told the "lawyer" to kiss off and that I was putting him on my "ignore list" -- another feature these cheap a-- boards lack -- and have not read any of his posts since. After that, some of them over there actually started asking some pertinent questions like: "Can a CCW open carry or does it have to be concealed?"
 
Liberal = French for "Surrender"


I think Ann Coulter hit the nail on the head..."Liberals feel there is one set of rules for them, and then there is a set for everyone else"

.
 
Save yourself the migraines and inevitable disappointment when you don't change their minds. Let retarded dogs lie, and let them wet their pants when someone breaks into their houses and they have to fend off the intruder with their mother's broom.:cool: :D
 
Kleck and Lott's books. What you really need to do is go to a university library and tap into the sociological/criminological data bases. That will bring up references to the professional work on the issue. A librarian can show you how.

It's been well studied. However, you won't change true believers. I have firmly of the conviction if Kleck and Lott's data came out the other way, gun folks would be cursing themand calling them LIBERALS.

Luckily, the data are positive for the gun side of the argument.
 
There are none so blind as those who will not see

I have been in this jousting match with some Liberal anti-firearms freaks for several days on the MSN boards.
Click to expand...
You don't need to go to the MSN boards - there are plenty of moronic Demosocialists who lurk here to debate with!:D

But seriously - we may be able to 'convert' fence sitters or those who are undecided about the gun issue, but we can't hope to convert the hardcore antigun bigot. Debating with them may be entertaining, buy it is by and large a waste of time.

The only way I have ever heard of an antigun bigot being convereted is when they are about to be robbed/raped/brutalized by a predatory thug and a gun owner/CCW holder puts his/her ass on the line and saves them.

Even that won't convert the most blind and stupid of antigun bigots like Sarah Brady and others of her tribe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top