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

RR said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the purpose to which you put your arms is frequently recreational. That's part of the reason it seems a needless error to hold that the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

A reasonable partner in discussion will not require you to admit something not true for the promise of a bit of credibility.

RR said:
The anti's are not after biathlon rifles
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Didn't a UK Olympic small bore team need to train out of country because their arms were prohibited internally?

In order to know what they don't want, you would first need to know the limit of what they do want. I am not certain that many of them know the limits of what they want.
 
True, they are after all of them.

And yes, most people's most time consuming use of a firearm is recreational. Most people own firearms solely for recreational purposes. I've used them extensively for recreation and hunting. Some defense as in defending domestic animals from predators and aggressive ferals. This does not change or replace my original purpose of owning firearms for self defense.
Some firearms are never used for any purpose but pride in ownership.

General MacArthur could use the corncob pipe as a pointer, but the intended purpose is smoking tobacco.

I do get your point, and I'm really not meaning to be argumentative in any way. I'm just saying that we all know the core usage for gun upon inception of the concept.
 
RR said:
I do get your point, and I'm really not meaning to be argumentative in any way. I'm just saying that we all know the core usage for gun upon inception of the concept.
Click to expand...

I am not offended, and I don't think you should avoid being argumentative where the topic involves the efficacy of arguments. Different arguments will be received differently by various people.

I would resist consenting to something "we all know" because lots of mischief can follow those words. We all know that mostly bad guys and a few good guys carry guns, but we know that from cowboy programs and detective shows. We all know that fully automatic weapons needn't be aimed from film and TV.

Lots of little boys now grow up in a culture in which the idea of a toy gun isn't allowed by their mothers. There is a combination of unfamiliarity and a bit of phobia amongst some populations. Addressing that in a productive way is a worthy goal.

Certainly, one should be calm in discussing the ideas because no one likes a loud argument at a dinner party. One should be able to disagree with error without being disagreeable about it in demeanor.


Let me just note this about the Skokie 1st Am. issue. An ordinary first reaction is outrage at the idea of swastika laden marchers making their way through a jewish neighborhood. People don't just naturally intuit that permitting such a thing could be part of a larger good.

However, we have a tradition of correcting would be censors, of challenging them to make principled distinctions, and of explaining the greater good in protecting the right of individuals against the government in matters of speech. That didn't just happen; it is the result of education and advocacy. When done well, it is much more than mere disagreement.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Just a point, legit surveys show that this needs to be broken down.

Most Americans support the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.
They also support measures to keep guns from criminals and the dangerous mentally ill.

They interpret more gun control has the latter but it is interpreted by antis as support for draconian or total bans.
 
Lots of little boys now grow up in a culture in which the idea of a toy gun isn't allowed by their mothers.
Click to expand...
I wasn't allowed to own a toy gun. Of course, the reason was a bit different. I started learning on real guns at an early age.

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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the only survey I saw that provided the actual wording for the question had it listed as this:

"Would you support measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and persons with a history of mental illness?"

Who wouldn't answer yes to that? That doesn't automatically transition to 90% support for bans or registration. I imagine the responses would be different if the question had been posed with more specific wording.
 
Regarding the 90% stat, I've always asked whether they truly believe a politician would actually vote against something that really had that level of support. Politicians maintain their careers by their votes. Congress didn't support it precisely because the issue didn't have that amount of support.
 
The thing that is tipping the balance toward gun control is that the urban dwellers now outnumber rural numbers. By and large, Urban peoples only see two kinds of people with guns, Criminals and police. Thus, if your not the police your someone to be feared. Educating them differently is going to be a long hard struggle. Realizing that the major news media and the educational system is against us. As they do education by mass methods, we are doing it virtually one person at a time. On our side is logic, on theirs is emotion. Overcoming emotion is very, very difficult.
 
The urban point is well taken. Urban city dwellers and associated upscale suburbs usually are antigun.

The sports argument is meaningless to most of them. The SD argument may work if not presented in some extreme fashion.

It is correct that having little experience with firearms and not coming from a tradition of ownership, work needs to be done.

In states with a firearms tradition, you do find more city folks that are gun friendly.

I have to say this - urban dwellers tend to be more on the socially progressive side of the fence. They see gun ownership correlated with conservative social issues and thus feel if the gun owners believe that world view, they are probably wrong on their support of gun rights.

We don't do liberal and conservative but it is a real world problem. If the head of the NRA (as Chuck H did in the past) goes off on social issues, it is a big negative for convincing folks who may be fence straddlers or socially progressive.
 
I know we don't do liberal type versus conservative type, but; there's a growing movement of people who would be considered both. This is good news. I know many people that used to be solid liberal anti-gun that have turned pro-gun because they have come to understand individual rights and freedoms.

I was a strict conservative and now have moved to have both left-right beliefs. Both sides do entail some individual freedoms while attempting to restrict others.
True freedom comes with the support of ALL individual rights, whether you like them or not.

The biggest gains are made when people realize that chipping away at one groups rights actually chips away at all rights.
Government tends to do that in a creeping fashion, mostly unintentionally but sometimes by design.

If you get someone to realize that,to truly control guns, every home must be searched... The will change their mind. Except, it has been proven that anyone with the "I have nothing to hide" attitude is the most dangerous for everyone's rights; they will vote to pass the law.
 
There are no virulent anti-gun activists in my family or circle of friends, so the only folks I get to argue the issue with are in Paltalk chatrooms and blogs. The process is the same. I let them vent with the details of their position, then I ask them if they really believe that stuff, and when they say they do, I hit them with my favorite quote from Mark Twain:

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure...that just ain't so."

I then become condescending and insulting, calling them morons at worst, or at best, diagnosing them as hoplophobic and suggesting they seek treatment for that pathology.
 
I have seen in a few places, "How are those gun free zone laws working for you?" Maybe we need to push that harder.
Click to expand...
Actually, we may need to stop using that argument altogether.

Yes, the majority of shootings have occurred in no-gun zones. But we have exceptions, the most notable being Tucson. There was at least one armed person on site, but they didn't stop the shooter.

Ever since LaPierre's disastrous post-Newton speech, the antis have been asking us why a "good guy with a gun" hasn't stopped public shootings. It puts us in a rhetorical corner.
 
A minuscule part of the population carries in public. Even though the number is growing, the odds of the armed citizen being in the right place at the right time are fairly low (in my opinion). Even among license holders, the rate of carry is low. It's just inconvenient or uncomfortable. So if your looking for the good guy with the gun to save the day, it just won't happen.

I do not carry to stop the mass shooter. I carry to protect me and my family, that's the end of my reasons.

I did need a gun once, as a civilian, to defend myself. The unfortunate part of that story is that a didn't have a pistol with me that day. I was injured. I discovered on that day this fact: a modern cellphone touch screen does not work if it covered in your own blood. That's the one phrase that will shut up an anti-gunner.
Fortunately no one lost their life that day, but I would have been justified, no doubt. I have never left home without one again.
 
As I recall a young lady with a handgun stopped a church shooter a few years back . Maby the NRA could start putting the hundreds of Armed Citizens articles from the front of The American Rifleman on some of thier public adds , in the shooting magazines its just preaching to the choir .
 
Actually, we may need to stop using that argument altogether.
Click to expand...

I disagree Tom. There is definitely a move now to repeal the gun-free zones, particularly at military facilities. About 70 congressmen have petitioned the commanders to make a change.
 
"Your 12 year old son/daughter is alone in a house with a serial killer-rapist. The police are 5 minutes away. You have the choice of placing in their hand, at that exact moment, a 38 revolver or a cell phone. Choose now."
 
We need positive arguments.
Click to expand...

The difficulty is that those who have guns/carry guns do so because there is an acknowledgement that, however low the odds, they could be the victim of an attack.

That realisation is what makes many decide to carry even if they've never had one spot of trouble.

Making an argument for gun ownership that doesn't cover this is tough, and missing the point somewhat.

MHO.
 
The difficulty is that those who have guns/carry guns do so because there is an acknowledgement that, however low the odds, they could be the victim of an attack.
Click to expand...
"I carry a gun as a prudent safety measure" is a good way of putting it.

"What are you going to do when a 300lb Communist meth-head velociraptor decides you're his next meal" is not so good.

I've seen guys evangelize to women that they need guns to prevent rape. "Imagine a rapist is banging down your door!" They don't want to imagine that, and really shuts down the conversation.

As advocates, we have a blind spot when it comes to putting ourselves in the other person's shoes. Some of our arguments, no matter how correct, don't resonate with people who haven't had to deal with violence.

The other side already accuses us of fear-mongering for profit. We don't need to do anything that might make that accusation look true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top