"He had a gun, he could have shot somebody!"
- Thread starter SEKLEM
- Start date
- Status
SEKLEM said:
America, especially our young people have been Brainwashed into believing guns are evil. Our education system is a good source for the Brainwashing as is the Media, Music and Hollywood.
Here is what Eric Holder said back in 1995.
“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”
He also said that the school board should have some form of anti-violence or anti-gun message every day. “Every day, every school, at every level,” he stated.
“We have to be repetitive about this,” he said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-against-guns/
jimbo, I don't doubt for a minute that you are right. I have to deal with them on a daily basis in retail.
As for Eric Holder, I get the impression he's talking about the neighborhood he was raised in. Not. So where does he get these ideas?
Just spinning an anti gun slant, and considering the larger issues being anti gun means anti old fat middle class white guy. Basically, it's racist.
As for Eric Holder, I get the impression he's talking about the neighborhood he was raised in. Not. So where does he get these ideas?
Just spinning an anti gun slant, and considering the larger issues being anti gun means anti old fat middle class white guy. Basically, it's racist.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Let's not go down the rape argument road. It has been a disaster for some. In one gun control debate a progun academic told an antigun female that having female organs doesn't mean she is necessarily a prostitute. He thought he was being clever with that cliche and was thought by all to be a rude idiot.
The gun is a tool argument is also not convincing except to the choir. You do not understand concept formation. The core of the gun concept is its usage. That is as an instrument of lethal force against people or animals. True, it doesn't do it on its own but it's purpose when used is lethal force. Sports usages are training for or derivatives of lethal uses.
A hammer or reproductive organs do not have a core use as an instrument of crime, violation or lethal force. They can be misused, of course but that isn't the issue.
The antipathy to guns comes from their core conceptual usages. That is what must be combated or explained with logic and reason for availability.
If you spout cliches, sexual innuendos, denounce others as deranged for having apprehension about the firearm's core concept - you don't do the RKBA any good in an argument.
The gun is a tool argument is also not convincing except to the choir. You do not understand concept formation. The core of the gun concept is its usage. That is as an instrument of lethal force against people or animals. True, it doesn't do it on its own but it's purpose when used is lethal force. Sports usages are training for or derivatives of lethal uses.
A hammer or reproductive organs do not have a core use as an instrument of crime, violation or lethal force. They can be misused, of course but that isn't the issue.
The antipathy to guns comes from their core conceptual usages. That is what must be combated or explained with logic and reason for availability.
If you spout cliches, sexual innuendos, denounce others as deranged for having apprehension about the firearm's core concept - you don't do the RKBA any good in an argument.
"He had a gun, he could have shot somebody!"
Is the same as saying;
"He had a car, he could have drove it!"
"He had a calculator, he could have done math!"
Glenn is absolutely correct, that is it's core usage...
The original statement is completely correct, you are only fooling yourself by thinking any other way.
To somehow try to invalidate a persons true statement does your cause no good.
As I sit here with my coffee cup, I think... If someone told me that my belief that I could possibly drink coffee out of it was irrational... Well, I wouldn't think to much of your opinions after that
Is the same as saying;
"He had a car, he could have drove it!"
"He had a calculator, he could have done math!"
Glenn is absolutely correct, that is it's core usage...
The original statement is completely correct, you are only fooling yourself by thinking any other way.
To somehow try to invalidate a persons true statement does your cause no good.
As I sit here with my coffee cup, I think... If someone told me that my belief that I could possibly drink coffee out of it was irrational... Well, I wouldn't think to much of your opinions after that
rick and Glenn: your "core use" argument is subjective: They are just tools, and may be misused just as a hammer or a pencil or a keyboard may be ....... I'll bet the majority of guns in this country have never been shot at a target even resembling a person...... I know I'd never seen a silhouette type target until I joined the military, despite growing up with guns all around me from a very young age.
I stand by my argument. To adopt the other side's Minority Report BS is to play their game, and on their terms. I will not.
I stand by my argument. To adopt the other side's Minority Report BS is to play their game, and on their terms. I will not.
I think it's evidence of the cognitive bias called "Functional Fixedness," which limits your ability to see different ways to use a single object.
Awhile back, Rory Miller wrote a great little piece about training your own mind to be more flexible.
pax
Awhile back, Rory Miller wrote a great little piece about training your own mind to be more flexible.
pax
Son of Liberty
New member
Cooper called them "hoplophobes" and I fear an ever-increasing portion of our population is becoming afflicted with that illness - by design.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Functional Fixedness is part of the concept formation literature.
As far as you not buying into the argument, that is exactly my point about the choir not seeing how guns are perceived by some and the relative uselessness of the 'tool' argument.
Your view of pizza as food is subjective. It could be used as a hat.
The core utility of a hammer is different from the core utility of a gun.
The emotional response of the choir not giving in is all nice and dandy. It is no utility in crafting arguments. I prefer to use arguments that are not discarded on the surface. That's called the inoculation effect. Make a stupid argument and later sensible ones are rejected.
So I should have an AR-15 because it is tool that throws little 55 gr to 62 gr pieces of metal around.
Receiver of that argument - NO, it is weapon - that's stupid. It is too dangerous to have because of its weapon usage.
You - NO, it's a tool that throws little pieces of metal.
Receiver - yeah, right.
You need to make an argument why folks should have access to weapons. By calling it a tool, you in fact buy into an anti 2nd Amendment position.
The 2nd protects weapons and not tools as they can be used as instruments of force to protect self and others, defend the nation and prevent tyranny. They are not protected as 'tools'.
Why should a 'tool' be protected? You are saying that you have toy for sport or a tool and please, please Antigunner let me have my toys and tools. Please.
As far as you not buying into the argument, that is exactly my point about the choir not seeing how guns are perceived by some and the relative uselessness of the 'tool' argument.
Your view of pizza as food is subjective. It could be used as a hat.
The core utility of a hammer is different from the core utility of a gun.
The emotional response of the choir not giving in is all nice and dandy. It is no utility in crafting arguments. I prefer to use arguments that are not discarded on the surface. That's called the inoculation effect. Make a stupid argument and later sensible ones are rejected.
So I should have an AR-15 because it is tool that throws little 55 gr to 62 gr pieces of metal around.
Receiver of that argument - NO, it is weapon - that's stupid. It is too dangerous to have because of its weapon usage.
You - NO, it's a tool that throws little pieces of metal.
Receiver - yeah, right.
You need to make an argument why folks should have access to weapons. By calling it a tool, you in fact buy into an anti 2nd Amendment position.
The 2nd protects weapons and not tools as they can be used as instruments of force to protect self and others, defend the nation and prevent tyranny. They are not protected as 'tools'.
Why should a 'tool' be protected? You are saying that you have toy for sport or a tool and please, please Antigunner let me have my toys and tools. Please.
This thread took an interesting turn.
Glenn, you are absolutely right about argument based on the "He had a gun, he could have shot somebody" not comparing to the one with the car. This find of fear is pontificated with WMDs and how the USSR and USA got into the Cold War. It's a fear I can understand a bit better know. I know I don't go to bed every knight wondering of North Korea will attack the US but I'd imagine some do and I would understand that.
I don't want anyone to feel there is cause to fear me personally because I carry a firearm, that's irrational.
Glenn, you are absolutely right about argument based on the "He had a gun, he could have shot somebody" not comparing to the one with the car. This find of fear is pontificated with WMDs and how the USSR and USA got into the Cold War. It's a fear I can understand a bit better know. I know I don't go to bed every knight wondering of North Korea will attack the US but I'd imagine some do and I would understand that.
I don't want anyone to feel there is cause to fear me personally because I carry a firearm, that's irrational.
I am not an academic, nor am I a political speaker in a debate, but it seems to me he could have been both effective and clever had he turned the focus on himself and been self deprecating rather than a non-PC implication at her. He could have said "Having male organs does not make ME a rapist any more than having a gun makes me a killer".
Sometimes absurdity is best demonstrated with absurdity, and sometimes the best way to debate it well enough to sway people is to make it interesting enough that non-academic people will actually listen to it. The theory that you can sway someone's irrational opinion that is formed by emotion, with rational dry facts, without invoking any emotion is, in my opinion, a bit flawed as well.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It is best to stay away from gender/sexuality/male organ comments in general. It doesn't gain you points anyway you slice it.
It is true that folks are more responsive to vivid and emotional arguments that dry rational ones.
I personally speak to the need of self-defense with vivid instances like the Petit family or the L'ecole Polytechnique. In each case, defenders with firearms might have stopped horror. The potential defenders in those cases were useless or fled.
On the governmental level, I speak to the new wave of scholarship on how African-Americans with firearms were instrumental to the Civil Rights movement.
So, would you anti-gun person prefer want not to be able to defend yourself or others from horror or protect those who stand up for their civil rights?
It is true that folks are more responsive to vivid and emotional arguments that dry rational ones.
I personally speak to the need of self-defense with vivid instances like the Petit family or the L'ecole Polytechnique. In each case, defenders with firearms might have stopped horror. The potential defenders in those cases were useless or fled.
On the governmental level, I speak to the new wave of scholarship on how African-Americans with firearms were instrumental to the Civil Rights movement.
So, would you anti-gun person prefer want not to be able to defend yourself or others from horror or protect those who stand up for their civil rights?
I do agree with this, all one need do is go to any of the (non gun related) social sites, and look what happens if anyone says anything even remotely positive about gun ownership. The next couple dozen comments are all about guns as sex fantasies, compensation, and worse. The level of anger, hate, and resentment is astounding!
When I hear something like "he had a gun! he could have shot somebody!", it always reminds me of an old joke (which does touch on gender).
Cowboy, been working on fences, goes to the Saloon for a drink, gloves and wire cutter in his back pocket. Sheriff comes in, and says he's going to arrest him, for cutting fences, because he has the tools in his pocket.
Cowboy answers, "well, you better arrest me for rape, too, Cause I sure got the tools for that too!"
"don't judge a book by it's cover" applies to more than just books.
Son of Liberty
New member
It is a tool and was a tool long before the 2nd Amendment existed. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees our inherent human right to self preservation by whatever means necessary. No document can grant or rescind our inherent human rights...unless we allow it to.
If someone has a problem with the 2nd Amendment, I tell them fine...feel free to repeal it...but even if you do manage that little feat, you still ain't gettin my guns.
Sorry, I don't play PC games when discussing my tools...or my rights. ;-)
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Nice thoughts, pragmatically useless in debate. It leads to good ol' right to have a nuclear bomb and tubs of anthrax at home.
They are just tools to make a big noise and some germs.
As I said, emotional applies don't do us that much good and the 'tool' argument isn't a selling point.
They are just tools to make a big noise and some germs.
As I said, emotional applies don't do us that much good and the 'tool' argument isn't a selling point.
- Status