I was hearing this on the radio, I thought it so compelling that I would share it with you all.
First, I have to make the disclaimer that most anti-gun people are thinking with emotions and not with logic, and as is the case, most of the time, reasoning doesn't work, facts to liberals is like cryptonite to superman... as the saying goes.
So here's the plan, there are basically two sides, people who are for 100% gun removal, believing that will create a "safer" environment, and those who feel that an armed society is a polite society. So here's how we can test that.
Next time you are trying to convince someone that guns deter crime, use this arguement.
Which of the two would you feel would make you safer from break-ins and home invasions? A sign on your front door that read "This house does not believe in guns and is a 100% gun free zone" or a sign that says "The owner of this house is not only armed but trained in the effective use of a firearm".
The second part that they always bring up is, well it might be great, but do you actually want everybody to be armed? So extend that example out a little bit:
If you were a criminal, and everybody in a given neighborhood had to have a sign on their door, and the sign had to be one of the two given above, which would you rather see? Of course every criminal would love to be guaranteed that there is no gun in the house they are trying to rob.
It's funny, during the LA riots, I remember seeing the gun stores just bone dry. Was it just gun-toting right winged wacko's in there? Nope, they all had guns already. It was mostly these EPA tree hugging liberal democrats. It was just such a funny sight, all these democrats bitchin about the waiting period, complaining about the fact that every day they have to wait is the chance their store or their house might be looted...
Albert
First, I have to make the disclaimer that most anti-gun people are thinking with emotions and not with logic, and as is the case, most of the time, reasoning doesn't work, facts to liberals is like cryptonite to superman... as the saying goes.
So here's the plan, there are basically two sides, people who are for 100% gun removal, believing that will create a "safer" environment, and those who feel that an armed society is a polite society. So here's how we can test that.
Next time you are trying to convince someone that guns deter crime, use this arguement.
Which of the two would you feel would make you safer from break-ins and home invasions? A sign on your front door that read "This house does not believe in guns and is a 100% gun free zone" or a sign that says "The owner of this house is not only armed but trained in the effective use of a firearm".
The second part that they always bring up is, well it might be great, but do you actually want everybody to be armed? So extend that example out a little bit:
If you were a criminal, and everybody in a given neighborhood had to have a sign on their door, and the sign had to be one of the two given above, which would you rather see? Of course every criminal would love to be guaranteed that there is no gun in the house they are trying to rob.
It's funny, during the LA riots, I remember seeing the gun stores just bone dry. Was it just gun-toting right winged wacko's in there? Nope, they all had guns already. It was mostly these EPA tree hugging liberal democrats. It was just such a funny sight, all these democrats bitchin about the waiting period, complaining about the fact that every day they have to wait is the chance their store or their house might be looted...
Albert