Very frustrating conversation with a "liberal"

Any conversation I ever have with a "Progressive", turns into an argument. For the most part, I just don't bother anymore. I don't care if they hate guns, assault rifles or don't believe in shooting coyotes. I just want them to get out of my way. I can't save or convert anyone, I can only hope they don't find out that they might be wrong, the hard way. ;)



Be Safe !!!
 
You're missing the point. Gun control in Britain, Canada, etc, hasn't lowered crime. The best that can said, is that it's changed the tools used in crime. The more draconian the gun (and now knife) laws have increased in Britain, the higher the violent crime rate has risen.
Click to expand...
kodiakbeer, I'm not missing the point. You are correct, but it's irrelevant. The crime rate will always be too high; if banning guns doesn't lower the crime rate, they will argue that more must be done to reduce gun smuggling, or that poverty is the problem, or that we need stab-proof knives. If the crime rate goes down without banning guns, sociological factor are the reason. You can never win this argument, even if you're right; it doesn't matter how little crime there is, reducing crime will always be the justification for infringing on civil liberties.

I can understand the desire to reassure people who are afraid of guns and also afraid of crime, but by arguing these points, you are just reinforcing the linkage. We do not need to fall into this trap. The crime rate has nothing to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of our civil liberties. I'll say it again, our RKBA is a crucial and constitutionally protected right; this Right is NOT dependent on whether or not it lowers the crime rate.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1755
 
He owns several of the "hunting" type firearm.
Click to expand...

What isn't a "hunting type" firearm? Rifles, shotguns, and handguns are all used in varying capacities as hunting arms.

Another point I don't entirely agree on is that the high rate of violence in the US has to do with cultural problems not inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

If he's in favor of doing everything possible to reduce violent crime rates (although it is not clear that banning classes of firearms will do that), presumably he's in favor of ditching the 4th and 5th amendments?
 
LaserSpot said:
it doesn't matter how little crime there is, reducing crime will always be the justification for infringing on civil liberties.
Click to expand...
You speak as though the liberal ideology exists because its adherents are searching for a way to restrict peoples' rights. You know demonizing the Enemy, such as deliberately misrepresenting their intentions to be willfully malign, is a really bad starting point for an educated discussion, right?
 
You know demonizing the Enemy, such as deliberately misrepresenting their intentions to be willfully malign, is a really bad starting point for an educated discussion, right?
Click to expand...
Yes I do, and I agree with you. If you're not willing to respect and understand someone's point of view, they will never be willing to see yours. The Brady Campaign is made up of good, well-meaning people trying to do the right thing. There is no a vast left-wing conspiracy to take your guns away. No matter how much you disagree with someone, keep in mind that they are expressing an honestly held opinion from a different point of view.

Of course you should not start ranting about liberty; you will just be dismissed as a paranoid nut-case, especially if it starts with "The tree of liberty must be refreshed ...".:D
 
I'm with JohnK on the predictable outcome of a discussion with folks who base their civic opinions on emotion. I have seen a few undergo a life-changing event which underscored the fact that there are detestable, evil people in this world who will only be deterred by the solemn knowledge that random good folks will blow a cat-sized hole through them- if pressed to do it.
 
If your friend believes in the three statements you listed in the beginning of your post it logically follows that semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols fit into those statements also.

Why does he feel semi-auto weapons should be banned?

If he thinks the 2nd Amendment allows a person to own a firearm for self defense purposes and to guard against tyranny, why would he feel the need to ban semi-auto firearms?
 
If you are frustrated because someone doesn't change a deeply held conviction over the course of a single conversation, you are in for a life of frustration. Normal people do not do that.

If you express a position with merit, someone on the other side who possesses a normal amount of courtesy and reason may come to see the merit in what you've said over time. That doesn't mean he converts or submits; it means he sees that you have a point. Once a person sees that you've a point, he can reconsider the merit of his own position.

Part of the trick of a conversation about guns is being sure that both people are discussing the same topic. If one person is discussing a civil rights and political issue based on constitutional ideas and the other is discussing a safety based on his anxieties about society, you may not be discussing the same topic.
 
One of the arguments I use is that law abiding gun owners are responsible people. If you go to the FBI crime tables and pull out firearm deaths and and show them against the number of against the millions of legally owned firearms in the United States. The number that abuse firearms is very small.

That is the segment of the population where the laws need to be addressed. not against law abiding gun owners. A law establishes a societal norm. The enforcement of the law and the punishment of the law breaker is where the solution lies. However you have the one per-centers who do not believe in the rule of law. So you can pass all the laws you want on gun control and it will not change criminals or the one-percenters.
 
Where do I go with this now? There is no logical way to convert him.
Click to expand...

There is no logical way to convert him because his position is not based on logic. He has embraced gun control on the basis of emotion and has already rejected logic through his rationalization of his personal gun ownership.
 
Fear is a powerful motivator. Fear of guns. Fear or someone taking your guns. Fear of terrorists. Fear of government.

If someone is afraid of guns, it is emotional, but it is perfectly valid to them. If someone talks about a "left-wing conspiracy", I consider that illogical, and based on fear as well.

Being truly objective and logical about anything is very difficult. The vast majority of people that say that they are purely logical are far from it. Formal logic is a very difficult thing to wrap your head around, and statistics? That way madness lies.

The right-leaning and conservative sides of the political spectrum are every bit as guilty of using fear and emotionally-based rhetoric as the left. It has been a tool of politics as far back in history as we have been able to look. "The mob" is most easily motivated by simple, emotional things. They most fear things they do not understand - guns, other races, other cultures, other countries, and other points of view.

Accusing someone on the other side of the argument of being illogical, or hopeless, or unable to change only mirrors your own tunnel vision. Absolutely no gun control whatsoever (ie. let small children take full-auto weapons to playtime) is as silly as absolute gun control. The trick is finding the right place in the middle. To claim that your own viewpoint is purely correct and purely logical is the height of arrogance.
 
Once heard of an Australian military member being interviewed by an anti-gun journalist. Seems the journalist (a female) was upset because the military was teaching a course to young teens on many aspects of shooting, archery, survival, etc.

Although SNOPES said the supposed conversation never took place, the logic of the military guy's response to one of her comments is fantastic.

After listening to her describe how this program served only to "equip youngsters to be violent killers," the Aussie officer replied: "Well, just because you are equipped to be a prostitute doesn't mean you are one, does it?"

The point here is that it's all about mindset, and I really like this story...
 
Don't use that argument - it sounds clever but when used, it turns off audiences for its vulgarity. It's a joke for the choir, that's all.
 
Glenn said:
it turns off audiences for its vulgarity
Click to expand...

You're right of course, unfortunately. I just tend to be a little more PI (politically incorrect) than I should be sometimes.
 
A professor used that argument in some college discussion on gun control. Since it was fake - that crucified him once. Then his perceived inappropriate vulgarity crucified him again. It was in the college business newspaper.

There was little sympathy for him. It's like the Hitler quote - fake and gets you nowhere.
 
Whether the interview was fake or not doesn't really matter. IMO, the analogy and the point it makes are sound. If people have been crucified for using this statement, I have to wonder if the reaction is due to the vulgarity or because it strikes a nerve and the "crucifiers" don't want to admit it.
 
Sometimes people just become set in their ways - and arguing with them gets you nowhere fast. Usually if you push an argument it just becomes a point of pride for the person involved to not let you win - so no one is listening or rationally considering the issue at that point.

As someone else said most people don't change in a day - don't argue - agree to disagree and if he is amenable sometime go shooting with him - earn his trust and respect and given time he may hear what you are saying. That is about the only way I see people change - time, experience, and trust.

I have two close relatives - one is stubborn and set in his ways, but if you just say your thoughts and agree to disagree with him and then let him take the time to check it out on his own and think about it awhile - he will more often than not come around.

The other knows everything about everything - I once heard him lecture a mother of two on childbirth and how she was wrong about whatever it was. Sometimes I am surprised he is still alive - but you really can't talk to him about any issue - and sometimes you just have to know when to let it go.

I would say something about arguing with women, for any extremely young guys on here, but heck I had to learn the hard way so why should I spare them the pain. So I won't be accused of sexism I should say something for women about arguing with guys, but really they don't need any help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top