Your Best Arguments and Talking Points against Anti-gunners and Fence-Sitters

[DanTSX]

Yeah, arguing the definition of "assault weapon" with an anti is just going to make their eyes glaze over. Make sure you correct them on "Clip" and "Magazine" too. That will really show them the errors of their ways. Once they know what the legal definition of an assault weapon is, they'll finally "get it" and want to get a "modern sporting rifle" or whatever it is for their children.


I kind of like it when antis call my rifles assault weapons.

 

[Buzzcook]

The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. When the claim is about setting aside a constitutional right the burden is even higher.

There are very few arguments that can be used to set aside a constitutional right. The most common argument is a "compelling public interest".

Even given compelling public interest they also have to prove that what the propose is the best means of achieving their goal.

Just making people meet their burden of proof is usually all it takes.

 

[leadcounsel]

Dialogue. Ask questions and let them answer. It's then quite easy to box them in like a chess match with logic, emotion, or information, depending on the audience.

I have yet to hear an answer that has stumped me.

The big ones:

Gun control leads to total control which leads ultimately to no civil rights and genocides of minorities, women, and undesireables. This scares the hell out of anti-gun bed wetters.

Only cops and military should have guns, they are professionals. But when you point out the causes they are generally for, disarming police and military, that tends to shut that one down.

"Who needs an XYZ...?" is a slippery sloped applied to any consumer good. Take computers - with the internet you also get child -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-, identity theft, viruses and stolen information, hackers, etc.

We have laws against murder. Anyone willing to ignore that will find a weapon and be undeterred by silly background checks or weapons bans.

The real victims of gun control are the weak, targeted victims like women and elderly, etc. because you are removing the very tool that is an equalizer.

Most gun massacres occur in 'gun free' zones. Most violent nations are those where their civilians are unarmed. Often that violence is perpetrated by the government.

They generally just give up in frustration.

 

[Tom Servo]

Gun control leads to total control which leads ultimately to no civil rights and genocides of minorities, women, and undesireables. This scares the hell out of anti-gun bed wetters.

Have you actually successfully used that? Because most people I've spoken with tend to dismiss the allegation out of hand. This isn't 1938 Berlin or 1915 Constantinople, and unless the wolf is at the door, they're not going to take that argument seriously.

I've seen the rest shot down at various times as well. Those arguments may ring true with people who are predisposed to agree with us. To the fence-sitters, they come off as fear-mongering. The antis have heard them so many times, they've come up with effective rebuttals.

Are their rebuttals accurate or true? Perhaps not, but they know how to frame them in a manner an audience believes.

 

[rickyrick]

Anti-gunners can usually recite a pro-gunners argument before it comes out of them.
Most pro-gun lines have been worn out on them.

 

[zukiphile]

Dialogue. Ask questions and let them answer.

An effective dialogue will require that one listen to the answers given. I only note this because it is so often missed.

A lot of people will tell you honestly why they choose a position, and a lot of people choose their positions poorly. If you discuss the matte with someone and you get to "I'll have to consider that further", that's a victory.

Many people also incorporate an undue emotional component into a rationale for a position. If you get someone to "Well, I just feel...", it is likely that you aren't dealing with a position that results from a competent process.

The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

I don't agree that burden shifting is an appropriate or useful part of argument. It amounts to an assertion that you've no obligation to explain your position. That never works.

You may be certain that one restriction or another sets aside a constitutional right, but your adversary rarely will be. Moreover, if you are going to make any positive claims, for example that the meaning of the 2d Am. is too clear to be so easily misinterpreted, you will carry the burden anyway.

Finally, and depending on the audience, discussing the other 9 amendments in the BoR can be useful too. I like to compare how the tactics used against the 2A is often used to attack the 1A.

I concur.

 

[LancelotLink]

Here's another one I use. 922(r) compliance. I simplify it to make it easier for a non firearm owner to understand. My conversations usually go something like this:

Them: But we need to do something, guns are so unregulated ...

Me: I agree, but the problem is not that guns are so unregulated, they are highly regulated. The problem is the regulations are idiotic. For example, on some guns, they require you to use a foreign made part if a piece breaks. Its a felony to us an American made part, as that's considered arms production. But if you use enough US made parts, its ok since that helps the US economy. If that sounds stupid to you, the AG probably agrees as there have been no known prosecutions under this law since it was enacted over 20 years ago.

Them: (whatever they say)

Me: Instead of spending resources on counting parts, a lot more could be done by following up denied background checks. etc. etc.

Its always good to direct the conversation to a real approach, making the discussion twofold. Eliminating wasteful and ineffective laws while offering a solution. This prevents the other side from simply dismissing your arguments as simply being "no" to everything.

 

[Spats McGee]

The typical pro/anti discussion that I get into is on Facebook. That means that: (1) there's always an audience; (2) I don't know who the audience is or ow its comprised; (3) the audience is at least semi-computer-literate and has access to the internet. So I go forward on the theory that there's at least one fence sitter and one anti-gunner out there. As a result, I remain civil. I need to sound reasonable, and reasonably educated. Appearances matter. I can't sound like a digital howler monkey shrieking, "IT'S MAH RAHT!"

Here are some of my typical responses:

Anti: 4 children were killed in Chicago over the weekend. There are too many guns on the streets.
Me: How many of those children were killed by people who lawfully owned those firearms? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. I'll bet that if you follow those stories, you'll find out that the shooters were already violating the law just by having those guns.

Anti: The 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia.
Me: Two points: (1) When the 2A was written, every adult male was part of the militia; and (2) the United States Supreme Court disagrees.

Anti: The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms, only muskets!
Me: By that logic, the 1A doesn't apply to television, radio, email, the internet, only to things created with 18th century printing presses. Besides, the Supreme Court has addressed this idea, and it called the idea "bordering on frivolous."

Anti: 90% of the American people support more gun control.
Me: I doubt that, but even if it's true, so what? If 90% of the American people were opposed to women voting, would you support that, too? Rights aren't up for a popular vote.

Anti: 40% of all gun sales are done without a background check.
Me: Do you know where that statistic comes from? I'll tell you. It was a telephone survey of 251 people (a statistically insignificant sample), and it was conducted in 1993. The FBI's NICS system wasn't launched until 1998, and that background checks aren't required for intrastate transfers. Besides, do you really think that violent, convicted felons are going to go through background checks?

Anti: That's why we need Universal Background Checks!
Me: I understand the desire to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill, but: (1) convicted, violent felons have already shown a willingness to disregard very serious laws; and (2) the mentally ill tend to have a great deal of difficulty following laws. So who will be impacted? Folks who are already inclined to follow the law.

Anti: Anyone caught transferring a gun without a background check should be prosecuted.
Me: See above. Besides, there's already been testimony in front of Congress that the DOJ "doesn't have time to prosecute paper crimes." The number of people prosecuted for lying on the 4473 is absolutely miniscule, so how about we start by prosecuting violations of laws already on the books, rather than write a bunch of new laws that won't be prosecuted?

Anti: Nobody needs an assault weapon.
Me: Technically, nobody "needs" to vote, either. But our society needs for us to vote. So need doesn't have a lot to do with it. Besides, have you ever read the definition of an "assault weapon?" Maybe I'm just not that bright, but I don't understand how a pistol grip or a bayonet lug makes the cartridge that's fired from a rifle more deadly.

 

[zukiphile]

Its always good to direct the conversation to a real approach, making the discussion twofold. Eliminating wasteful and ineffective laws while offering a solution. This prevents the other side from simply dismissing your arguments as simply being "no" to everything.

How do you square that with a discussion of other explicit constitutional rights?

What is the real approach to the persistence of human error and evil?

Them: But we need to do something,...

To know what to do, we need to know what it is we seek to remedy. One problem is a "There oughtta be a law!" reflex. When something bad happens, people suppose immediately that there oughtta be a law that would have prevented it.

If we apply that model to speech, we see a world in which a vibrant 1st Am. protects a very wide right against the government. There is a lot of speech I don't like, but its efficacy is limited by a public atmosphere in which a full range of responses is available. That isn't the only way to do it. There are places that legally restrict expression. Is the result better, or do those places still have bunches of odious speech and a limited ability to respond effectively?

It is a bad thing to have Illinois National Socialists march through Skokie, but aren't we all better off in an atmosphere in which disapproval of that sort of thing is a matter of widely held consensus? Several European countries prohibit use of any of those symbols, but what has that accomplished?

Americans have firearms and pressure cookers and cars and pools, and those things all end up killing people because people either make errors or act with malevolence. We can make laws that take pressure cookers and pools and cars and firearms away from the potentially negligent and malevolent, but then none of us will be able to swim, drive, shoot or do whatever one does with a pressure cooker.

Is that better?

 

[rickyrick]

You cannot correlate and compare guns to pressure cookers, cars, baseball bats, knives and and other object that causes harm and expect to win the argument or alter opinion.
You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types. You can use a hammer as a weapon, this is true, but the primary purpose of a hammer is not as a weapon. You can use a gun to drill holes in stop signs, but that's not it's primary purpose.

Once you admit it's a weapon, and don't compare it to a hammer or a fire extinguisher, you may gain credibility with someone. The anti's know what a gun is for, don't try to insult their intelligence by telling them otherwise.

 

[zukiphile]

One course we take in 1st Am. discussions is educational. One can confront an impulse to use government to quiet a speaker by explaining why that impulse is incorrect or not properly desirable.

You cannot correlate and compare guns to pressure cookers, cars, baseball bats, knives and and other object that causes harm and expect to win the argument or alter opinion.
You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types.

The problem with that position is that it isn't true. On can compare all sorts of things. Moreover, lots of firearms just shoot paper and gongs.

A purpose is a goal or intent. Inanimate objects cannot possess purpose. A person can put an object to a purpose. Tiger Woods' wife may put a golf club to use where her purpose is to teach him a lesson about fidelity. That doesn't make a golf club a weapon or marital aid.

While a firearm is designed to shoot bullets, the purpose to which it is put hinges on the user (which gets us back to the persistence of man's error and malevolence).

Once you admit it's a weapon, and don't compare it to a hammer or a fire extinguisher, you may gain credibility with someone. The anti's know what a gun is for, don't try to insult their intelligence by telling them otherwise.

A gun is for whatever one uses it for at any moment.

You might gain credibility with someone by ratifying an error they hold. No person susceptible to reasoned discussion can have his intelligence insulted by a description of design and purpose. If the person with whom you discuss the matter is repelled by correct description, gaining credibility with them isn't going to get you far.

 

[Spats McGee]

You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types. . . . .

Some are also designed to kill birds, but that's neither here nor there.

This is one of the reasons I avoid the "guns are just tools" argument. In a very loose sense, they are tools, but more specifically, they're weapons. They're arms.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to keep and bear tools. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[44 AMP]

Gun control leads to total control which leads ultimately to ....

The problem with this kind of statement is that it is an absolute, and therefore of little value. Gun control CAN lead to that, Gun Control HAS led to that in the past in many places.

But the undecided don't usually look much further than what is currently around them, and it hasn't happened here, yet. They don't understand that it could. They don't believe that it can.

Likewise the "2nd Amendment right is there so we can overthrow a tyrannical govt" argument has no traction today, and the anti's have worked hard to convince everyone that anyone who espouses that "right" is a wackjob nut, and probably a ticking time bomb.

they are aided in this by all the wackjob nuts who are on "our side" who do push this argument. It may be true, but its not relevant, today.

Here's a couple of points you can add to your ammo box of arguments, but they are specialty rounds, and you have to target carefully.

One is actual world history. But keep it simple. Simple like everywhere there has been genocide, one common factor is the people being killed don't have guns and the ones doing the killing do. Small point, but important, I think.

Another point, if you are dealing with someone who has their ability to reason is that the more laws you make, the more the legal system has to do, and the effort going into gun control isn't going into catching violent criminals.

If you are dealing with those who can only wrap their mind around soundbytes and slogans, one I always liked is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

Another potential argument is the "law of the jungle". I like to apply a variation of this when they say "we'd be better off with no guns at all, (for anyone)..." etc.

If NO GUNS AT ALL makes you feel safe, you should feel totally safe inside a prison! There are no guns in there, at all!! What's that? Speak up!...oh..I see, you wouldn't be safe there? Why not? There's no guns!...etc...

So are guns REALLY the problem? Or just YOUR SCAPEGOAT for the evil people who use them???

for the "Nobody NEEDS" arguments, I like to point to the minimum wage. Nobody NEEDS more, its a govt standard, right? You need more? pfft, you're just greedy! etc.

These aren't going to convert the undecided, just a few examples of things meant to get them to THINK...with the hope that if they actually think about things, they'll see the anti's arguments for the lies they generally are.

 

[zukiphile]

Some are also designed to kill birds, but that's neither here nor there.

This is one of the reasons I avoid the "guns are just tools" argument. In a very loose sense, they are tools, but more specifically, they're weapons. They're arms.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to keep and bear tools. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

I agree about the breadth of the protection, however, many firearms aren't weapons, at least by design. Rather than being a combat tool, lots of these things are designed specifically for sport. An item for clays may not be much of a weapon, but is certainly an arm. My biathlon rifle would be less effective in combat than one Boston pressure cooker.

Moreover, even the purpose in employing a weapon is not typically to kill. To act with an intent to kill represents a pathology. On the other hand to fight with an intent to win, with the consequence of death is very different.

The problem with the "a gun has one purpose, to kill" position, aside from being incorrect, is that it rhetorically relegates firearms to a sort of malignancy to be reduced.

One will encounter all sorts of different audiences, each with their own peculiarities, but when is addressing middle class, educated suburbanites, it is the kind of population that doesn't like deer culling because they are afraid that their children might see a dead dear. They may eat meat, but they will not countenance watching its death.

A "purpose to kill" is both incorrect and rhetorical poison. That's why advocates hostile to the right use it.

 

[DanTSX]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

 

[zukiphile]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

You won't. People typically can't be argued out of a firmly held belief.

However, many of us see this come up not from committed antis but from people unfamiliar with firearms and opposed to public tragedy.

 

[LancelotLink]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

Because what works for me won't necessarily work for you and vice versa. I have my own ways of arguing. Everyone here does. Having a repository of ideas allows people to pick and choose approaches and methods that best suits their own personalities.

 

[rickyrick]

The sword was not designed to trim sideburns.

The pistol in my holster was not designed for sport. I use it for fun quite frequently. But fun is not why it's a right.
The rifles in my home do not have a primary purpose for fun, although, I do use them for fun frequently as well.

I concede that there are some special purpose guns designed for sport, but the initial purpose when firearms came about was to be a weopon.

The second amendment has nothing to do with fun or sport. It is not about hunting.

The constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the opportunity to pursue it. I frequently smile when shooting, but that's just me rambling.

The anti's are not after biathlon rifles

I consider sport to be a consequence of the invention of firearms.
It's quite fun.

 

[Pond James Pond]

But we have the Constitution, the internet, Freedom of Speech (backed up by the 2nd Amendment) and TFL members to spread the truth through our words, actions and how we live our lives.

Whilst I wish it weren't the case, I'd say that in reality the above is not true.

The Constitution is clearly not universally recognised the way TFL members would like across the USA.

The internet serves no one and everyone uses it to their benefit when it comes to politcal, theological or financial aims. I couldn't say that it serves gun owners rights more than others.

Regarding the different amendments I would say that it is more a case of Freedom of Speech protecting the Second Amendment rather than the other way around. It may not always have been that way, but that is the way I see it now based on what I see being described by concerned TLF members...

I do agree however that TFL and the likes of its members are part of the public face of gun ownership and, by and large, do a good job of showing that there are many very responsible and reasonable gun owners, not to be tarred with the brush some lobby groups like to stroke so indiscriminately.

On a wider point, the issue of gun-owners fighting to protect their right or privilege is alive and well in many parts of the world.

On to the question though. I think about why I am glad to be a gun owner and I think of questions that would elicit those ideas in others:

-Is the area you live/work/hang out guaranteed to be crime free?
-So,what would you do if attacked?
-Would you wife/friend/partner etc be able to also run away?
-If not, what would then do?
-How long do you think the police would take to arrive?
-Would that be enough time for your attacker(s) to do you and your company harm?
-How many times do you think an attacker could stab you and make a clean -escape before police arrive? 1-5? 6-10? 11-15?
-How many could you survive?
-Would you not want some means of defending yourself?

They may not capitulate and agree, but with the smart ones you can see it gets them thinking.

I leave at that.

On the whole I think those against guns are mostly that way because they only see guns from the perspective of what they (the guns) can do to them (the individual) rather than what the guns could do for them.

 

[psalm7]

Theres few actual fence sitters out there . Most folks have a opinion but some avoid confrontation and will not voice their opinion so they seem like a fence sitter . If someone was a fence sitter on a major topic do you think you could count on them or want them in your corner ?
As far as the anti gun crowd I do not waste time with them as liberalism is a mental disorder and its like arguing with a wall .
Best thing to do is be a good example to follow and stand up for whats important to you .