Interesting Argument Against Anti-Gunners

If we say "screw you" and leave,
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying we should flip them off and leave, I'm saying that politeness to people who already hate us is wasted effort.

Absolutely, we should inform the misinformed, and educate the under educated. But being nice to the fanatic gets us nothing with them, and doesn't get us as much as it used to with those whose minds are not totally closed.

Like it or not, there is a growing segment of our society that views politeness and civility as weakness. Rude is cool, to all too many people these days.

One certainly needs to target one's style of argument to the audience, and what plays well to the "great unwashed" doesn't go in high class (or those who think of themselves as such) society.

"your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries! Begone, or I shall taunt you again!" Isn't the best approach for all things, but in some circumstances, I see nothing we lose by it. :D
(and it does feel good!:rolleyes:)
 
I think that until we can elevate the issue of guns past a "right" and "left" argument, then we will finally have a good conversation about it. So many problems in this country derive from the pontificating of politicians to pander to their constituents and win elections. The world isn't black and white and neither are gun issues. When those gun issues are somehow intrinsic to the inability of governments to address mental health and poverty, it's no wonder that the gun owners are the ones being harangued. Many of the horrors surrounding guns have nothing to do with guns at all, but an unwillingness to address the core of the problem. In any way, it serves all governments to restrict your access to firearms. For mass shootings to stop, it would require huge infrastructure overhauls and money. I don't know what country you think you live in, but I can't think of many politicians that are guilty of actually getting anything done. Why get your hands dirty when you can just write a law? It's the American way!
 
There are very few original arguments on the internet or FTF for that matter, Mostly it's quote mining, parroting other arguments or statistic posting.

So I'm leery of accusing people of out right lying. Usually they just accept arguments made by their conferees without checking on their own.

In the end the only thing we can co is just make the best argument that we can. Converting the people we're arguing with should come second or even third.
 
I read the article. While I agree that the anti-gun people are infuriating most of the time, and don't listen to any sort of logic, telling them to @#!# you or any variant only makes us look like the rednecks they proclaim we are.

I don't waste my valuable time with them anymore. If I think the person is somewhat reasonable (very rare), I'll sometimes offer to take him/her to the range, and offer to supply guns/ammo/PPE. They usually decline...but I have had one or two bite, and even though they don't want to admit it, they have a good time (who wouldn't, it's fun!).

Taking the low road is easy, and they want us to do it. Don't take the bait. I simply try not to argue with them because it just raises my blood pressure.

U.L.
 
Most of my conversations with people who are anti-gun go something along the lines of:

1. A gun is an equalizing force. Having a gun (and knowing how to use it) keeps you from being a potential victim to anyone who is physically stronger.

2. For those who are scared of guns, are they more scared of an object that cannot do anything by itself, or more scared of a potential rapist/murderer?

3. A gun gives you options. There is no guarantee that it will save your life, but it will give you an option that you would not have otherwise had. Your life would be completely at the mercy of your attacker.

4. I owe it to my family to be able to protect them.

What other arguements do you guys use?
 
What other arguements do you guys use?
Click to expand...

It depends on whether I'm feeling playful, snarky, or actually think there is a chance of teaching them something.

Part of that depends on their approach to the subject. If they are the "I don't like guns, guns are dangerous" group, you need to find out if their minds are made up or not. If they are, forget changing them.

"guns are dangerous!"
Yep, that's the whole point!

"I don't like guns"
Well, then perhaps it's best you don't have any....

"nobody needs a ....."
Nobody needs a (pick one of their favorite things)

and when they come back with the "that's not the same!", tell them, Yes, it is. You are deciding what I need, based on YOUR OPINION. I'm just doing the same.

Tell them its a right, their eyes glaze over
Tell them about personal protection, their eyes go out of focus
They hear but do not comprehend. Find something they can personally relate to.

and when they respond with "my ....never killed anyone!", well, neither did my gun. OR give them the reality that no inanimate object kills without the hand of man involved. Or the fact that there are very few things in this world that have NOT been used by MAN to kill with.

That's one potential tactic.

there are plenty more.

Lately, I've been leaning heavily on the "why should I have to justify my life choices to you?" thing. Probably because I'm old and working on my curmudgeon status...
 
I'm with 44AMP on this. I decline to be civil and rational toward those who are not being civil and rational toward me....especially where my rights and safety are concerned. Think of it in the context of the use of force continuum....would you meet a violent attack with deescalation and contrition, or with matching or superior force?
 
I would like to think [that] if Yogi were still with us, he would say 'You never need a gun,





Until you really need a gun'.

WILL
 
Guns, like a lot of other things, I put in the category of

Better to have it and never need it, than need it and not have it.

other slogans I find amusing are

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away"

or
"why do you carry a gun?"
"because a policeman is too heavy!:rolleyes:"

When you call the police, who shows up?
Someone with a GUN!!!!

you can also shoot holes in any "study" or "statistics show" arguments, but to be credible, takes a little research. One that still shows up in arguments, and sadly is still spewed by certain talking heads is the "gun in the home is XX times more likely to kill you, or family member"...The numbers used vary sometimes, 43x, 19x etc. If you do a little research, you can find where this comes originally from the Kellerman study, which was lauded when it first came out, the author got awards. Later, actual review of his methods debunked the study, and the awards were recalled/withdrawn. The statistic is bogus, but simply will not go away in the minds of the true believers.

The base idea, that having a gun turns EVERY person into a ticking time bomb, UNLESS its on the job (police, military, private security) is idiocy, but one they seldom refuse to recognize.

Where do they think the people who make up the police, military, etc., come from, anyway? The general public, that's where.

They are fine with the idea of guns in the hands of the people they believe they control, and want no guns in the hands of anyone else.

You might mention the DC columnist (carl rowan?) as an example, who for years railed in print how no one but the police & military should have a gun. but, when a teenage kid jumped his back fence to go for a midnight swim in his pool, the columnist shot him! With a gun! With a gun that was ILLEGAL in DC at the time. And his excuse? "as long as our society is awash in drugs and violence, he was going to protect his family" (or something very similar).

Its elitism at the core. It not about right or left politics. Its not about any other issue. Its about an "all for me, none for thee" attitude.

Or, if their eyes haven't fully glazed over, you could point out that everyplace in the world where there has been genocide, there has been gun control (of some type) first. Gun control may not cause genocide, but it seems to be a necessary precursor...

Another thing you can point out, when you face the "guns are bad, we'd all be safer without them" types is the simple fact that there are no guns in prisons (other than the guards).

If guns are the problem, they should by perfectly safe and comfortable inside a prison, by their own logic.

Guns are not the problem. Bad people, doing things with guns, are the problem. And no amount of wishing or deep convictions and heartfelt belief will put the genie back in the bottle. Guns are here to stay, unless, you want to live in a prison.
 
The statistic is bogus, but simply will not go away in the minds of the true believers.
Click to expand...
That's actually a tactic that's worked well before an audience.

"The studies all say..."

"What studies? Can you cite one for us, please?"

"Well, um..."

"Can you name one?"

"It's for the children, and...um..."

"What I can tell you is that ____ found that _____ many times. His study was published by _____ and quoted in _____ magazine/website."

Drop the mic and watch them stammer to change the subject.

An easy way to deal with the Kellerman numbers (because they're being used again) is to ask one of the following:

  • That's fascinating! Can you provide me with a link to his raw data? (Nope. He has never released it.)
  • Are you aware that he had to adjust his numbers down sharply after only a cursory review?
  • How many of those homicides in the home were committed with the occupant's gun rather than a gun the assailant brought into the home? (They can't say because Kellerman didn't consider that.)
  • Are you aware that he often got his statistics on gun ownership from neighbors, distant relatives, or other parties who could not verify whether or not the victim owned a gun?
  • Are you aware that he made no effort to distinguish lawfully-owned guns from those in the hands of criminals? The latter group tends to live a lifestyle that entails a much greater risk of violence compared to the general population.

Antis very rarely do deep research on their sources. Hence the whole silly mess around the myth that 40% of all guns are sold without a background check, as well as Feinstein's feeble argument that the AWB had any effect on crime. I can provide easy citations to refute both of those.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the comment about "not having to justify my life's choices" to anyone.

A lot of antis will ultimately concede on people having handguns for personal protection. After doing so, they deflect by saying something like this:

"Although I have no reason for having a handgun, I see some utility in having one; but why would anyone need high capacity gun or assault weapon?"

My response goes something like this: "What you call assault weapons are no different than any other type of semi-auto handgun or rifle. You just don't like the way they look, so just admit that you want to take people's rights away just based on how something looks." "In any event, I have over 10 assault rifles and about the same number of assault pistols". I'm always going to have them and millions of others like me have them too. If you think you don't need one, especially if a true disaster ever happens, then that's your deal. But, just remember, millions of others, like me, will have them and they will be loaded to their fullest capacities. And, if the government ever did ban them, the only people who wouldn't have them are people like you."

When it comes right down to it, the main reason most antis don't want you to have guns, especially AR and AK type rifles, is because THEY CAN'T' OR DON'T WANT TO OWN ONE! And, it makes them uncomfortable that other people have something they can't or don't want to own.

Believe me, many of these antis are the same people that chastise others for wearing a gold Rolex watch, under the guise of "that watch could feed a thousand babies...."
 
44Amp
Better to have it and never need it, than need it and not have it.
Click to expand...
This is my go-to when I have a discussion going. "Nope, no one needs a gun, until they need a gun. I know that I used to do martial arts and fight clubs when I was younger. It was a great experience, and those experiences taught me that I can't fight 2 or 3 people barehanded with a reasonable expectation of winning. I'm older and more settled now; I know it's my job to help protect my family, so I choose to own a tool that will help me overcome longer odds should I ever face them. I probably won't need it, lightning-strike odds that I should need it, but if I do, there will be no substitute at hand. Maybe your experiences are different." Let them think about it. Some people think that 'nothing bad will ever happen in my neighborhood." Some people have actually seen bad things happen and they will think "Hmmmm... can I fight 2 men at once?"

You can't think for people. Socrates proved that a couple millennia ago. The only thing you can do is lead them to ask the correct question while considering the correct circumstances and then leave the mental math to them.
 
during almost 30 years overseas i was in some dictatorships, and places that were "emerging democracies." a common refrain was, "if we were free to own guns like you americans we would never have been oppressed." i am enough of a student of history to know that my slavic and highland scottish ancestors were unfree because they were disarmed. i remember that our revolution started not over a church, a tax or a speech, it started because the crown moved to seize the colonials' stocks of firearms. if i can have a civil conversation with an antigunner then i politely make these points, but generally antigunners are fascists and wont pretend to listen.
 
I have posted similar posts in the past, but not in this thread so, bear with me please. Reading this reminds me that statistics [URL="https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html"/URL] if properly//improperly structured can be made to demonstrate the researchers many biases. On the other hand there are a couple of non measured statistical events that stand on their own for me without mathematical explanation. For instance, by definition 100% of home invasions happen in someone's home......(usually without warning) this for me is a pretty good reason to have ready access to some form of protection in the home 100% of the time since, at least in my case, this is where I would likely find loved ones/one that need protecting.

I find it interesting to note that in the aftermath of a home invasion one of the neighbors is almost always heard to say on television something like, “This is a quiet neighborhood, nothing like this has ever happened here. They were really nice people.” Use of the past tense is intentional.

I find that asking someone who should just happen to note a firearm in my home (not commonly noticeable) and ask, “Why do you need a gun?”, I enjoy stimulating thought on their part by asking, “If someone is kicking down your door, who would you call since you do not have a gun?” The unthinking answer, of course is “911”. My response, “Oh right, they are the guys with the guns and they may be 20-30 minutes away, plenty of time for mayhem.” This happened with one of my wife's friends who saw me in the home open carrying. The friend became somewhat uncomfortable at that point and admitted that she “just didn't like guns”. The rest of the encounter is history. To her credit we still entertain her in our home. It is possible that she feels a bit safer there?
 
Last edited:
I am reminded of the old joke/story about the homeowner, woken up at night (upstairs bedroom), looks out the window and sees a couple guys breaking into his shed. Calls 911, explains, dispatcher says "no units available for 20 minutes.

He hangs up. Waits one minute, call 911 and tells dispatch, "no rush, I shot them..."

Squad cars arrive within 5 minutes...actually catch the guys in the act...

Officer talks to homeowner, says "Dispatcher said you SHOT THEM!!!

He replies, "Dispatcher said you were 20 MINUTES AWAY!"

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top