argument against gun control... wait for it

[Koda]

Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is. (http://opinion.ijr.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/#.V2sle7HBJu8.facebook?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=header-mobile&utm_campaign=Sharing)


I think most folks here will appreciate this quick read. While the short story is "screw you" there is some great reasons listed in the article explaining why exactly gun control is a lie....

Enjoy

Read More

 

[Flopsweat]

This week a coworker said, "Well, eventually we're going to have to have stronger gun laws." I did not use the above strategy. I pointed out that stricter gun laws have never worked in the United States. He said they worked in Europe. I told him that if he looked closely, he'd see that while crime and murder by firearms went down, crime and murder in general went up. I asked him if he truly thought that someone who had decided to do something really heinous with a gun would hesitate to get a gun illegally if they couldn't get one legally. I told him that we have 22,000 gun laws in the united states and we don't need any more - we need to enforce the ones that we have. I told him that the bulk of murder and violence with firearms is done by a very small group of people, and that we know where to find them, but no one will do anything about it - no one on either side of the issue. He knew what I was talking about and seemed to agree. I told him that if we remove "gun crimes" committed by gang bangers from the figures, that we compare favorably to most European countries.

The conversation ended amicably, and I think I gave him food for thought. We had several other pleasant, friendly conversations on other topics that day. Later, in a meeting, he complimented my work and abilities in front of the group. I'm not sure I'd have gotten the same response if I'd used Mr. Schlitchter's suggested approach.

 

[Koda]

I'm not sure I'd have gotten the same response if I'd used Mr. Schlitchter's suggested approach.

to clarify I didn't post the article to suggest we use its screw you approach, but I did note your response was in line with many of the points made in the article and with respect. Well done.

Always be civil folks, the righteous have nothing to hide its the evil side that has to lie and usually loses their temper on the subject.

 

[Osarion]

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."

I'm kinda wondering what this "real argument" is that he'd be willing to debate over?

 

[Flopsweat]

to clarify I didn't post the article to suggest we use its screw you approach, but I did note your response was in line with many of the points made in the article and with respect. Well done.

Always be civil folks, the righteous have nothing to hide its the evil side that has to lie and usually loses their temper on the subject.

I didn't intend to imply anything about you, just the author. I didn't even finish his article. And just so I don't sound too high-and-mighty, I have used his approach in other situations over different subjects. It's just one of the many tools in the toolkit...

 

[Koda]

I'm kinda wondering what this "real argument" is that he'd be willing to debate over?

thats a good point

 

[Stomper]

This is sooooo October 2015 ago....

Gun Rights Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control.

 

[nammac]

These are all truth and we know that. It's tough to beat back the fallacy of the anti gunners arguments or information when there's not equal coverage.

Unfortunately the news we consume today is less than 10% fact and more than 90% opinion. How in the world can you fight that uphill battle, even on an individual basis? Most Americans behave more like lemmings than reasonably educated adults...

 

[albin25]

The main thing I find generally doesn't work, is using statistics to defend a
pro-gun position against a liberal or a progressive anti-gun zealot. Mainly because they intentionally use statistics to lie and distort. They will therefore assume that your statistics, like theirs, are also fabrications, distortions and misdirection. Rational discussion will seldom defeat the irrational, facts will seldom defeat emotion with talk. Primarily because the irrational have unlimited resources at their disposal (their unicorns can fly and talk if they need them to). While the emotional have, "But, it still feels wrong" at their disposal.

Peace lasts only as long as "Reason" retains enough cash and patience to deal with "Emotion" breaking everyone's toys, drawing on walls, and name calling ...
...The Nation has pretty much run out of funds and is burning through it's' remaining credit cards, and patience seems to be on life support. The time for Reason to take Emotion to the woodshed is quickly approaching.

 

[Koda]

The main thing I find generally doesn't work, is using statistics to defend a
pro-gun position against a liberal or a progressive anti-gun zealot. Mainly because they intentionally use statistics to lie and distort. They will therefore assume that your statistics, like theirs, are also fabrications, distortions and misdirection.

My experience is similar except the other side either ignores my statistics or accuses it of being fabricated and "pro gun" biased dismissing it altogether as part of the conversation, whereas proclaiming their statistic is not "anti-gun" biased, and scientifically proven.

 

[Stomper]

Has something to do with a certain river in Egypt, I believe.






For those less abstract astute, the answer: Denile

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Been down that river before ... And up its tributary creek without a paddle. LOL
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

To be honest I have used that "argument" before.
Usually when faced with someone who won't listen to me or repeats the same old tired lies , slogans or overworked misrepresented "facts" etc ...
You can't reach such people. We have indeed come to a "Failure to communicate."
I do my best to avoid those people. Their minds are made up and no looking back for them.

We do need to remember that there are people out there, who have honest questions and concerns.
These are the people we need to reach out to and give a good answer to , when they ask their questions or state their concerns.
Answers that are factual and not of the "bumper sticker logic" or snappy one liner kinds.

And hence my dilemma:
I have many questions about guns , gun owners and they way we as a people are now versus the way we as a people were in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written.
Too many questions and not enough answers makes it difficult for me to give a good honest answer to many of the people asking about guns and whatever it is they are asking about.

I do believe that if you are a law abiding legal citizen, then you should be able to own the firearm of your choice without a lot of fuss.
By "firearm of your choice" I mean anything from a flintlock to a military issue M4 Carbine and the like.

That being said , I know of or have seen gun owners who I wouldn't trust with a squirt gun much less the guns they do have.
This does not mean that we need to restrict all gun owners because of the actions of a few.
But when those few and the criminals who use guns to commit their crimes are made to be the standard by which all gun owners are judged by , then we are in trouble.
Andy

 

[Vaultman]

from the OP article...

"There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent..."

To tell you the truth I am SO FREAKING TIRED of the "common sense" term. Ifeel like puking every time I hear it.

 

[The Heretic]

Haven't read the whole article, but the author does make good points; many gun control advocates argue from at least an emotional standpoint, and many lie/slander and insult gun owners, purposely.

Also, many are hypocritical. I had a supervisor who was very straight-forward about it (if he was serious, he was often known for saying things just to get a rise out of people); "I don't mind owning guns, I just don't want other people owning guns". For those in positions of power, and/or in places where they have more than the usual police presence/response, they want to have "their" guns (whether privately or wielded by their armed guards), but don't want others to have any guns.

It does come down to who has the power.

 

[Hrethgir]

Just had a run-in with a friend of a friend on Facebook over this. It was about the sit-in they were doing, and I was wondering why the Dems are always saying we need more gun control laws, but as soon as a Republican put one up, they vote it down. By the end, I was labeled as someone completely against gun control (something I never said), and because of that, I was fine with future mass shootings. I brought up valid pints, and they either ignored them completely, or spun the words around backwards. I have screencaps of the entire conversation if anyone is interested.

 

[Koda]

I was wondering why the Dems are always saying we need more gun control laws, but as soon as a Republican put one up, they vote it down. By the end, I was labeled as someone completely against gun control (something I never said), and because of that, I was fine with future mass shootings.

I had the same conversation and results. It gets frustrating

 

[The Heretic]

Just had a run-in with a friend of a friend on Facebook over this. It was about the sit-in they were doing, and I was wondering why the Dems are always saying we need more gun control laws, but as soon as a Republican put one up, they vote it down. By the end, I was labeled as someone completely against gun control (something I never said), and because of that, I was fine with future mass shootings. I brought up valid pints, and they either ignored them completely, or spun the words around backwards. I have screencaps of the entire conversation if anyone is interested.

That is how some people respond. They either do it purposely and knowingly, or they are in such a literal rage that they are blind to what you are saying. Those that are in a rage are the very people who probably shouldn't have guns and maybe that is why they think no one else should either. In psychology, it is called "projection".

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

 

[Hrethgir]

I had the same conversation and results. It gets frustrating

It does, so I just stopped responding, it wasn't getting anywhere. Can't wait to run into them at the next BBQ at my friends house!

 

[The Heretic]

I had the same response in a forum I used to frequent, when someone asked the forum about it's thoughts on "universal healthcare". When I shared my thoughts in as rational a form as I could, I was attacked as an unfeeling uncaring a****** who wanted sick people to die. I left that forum shortly after - they were supposed to be a forum where people didn't attack others, but apparently that only worked if you went along with the majority.