Discussions with gun controllers

[ZA_Survivalist]

Best way to make them understand?

This is going to sound harsh but:
(Not literally)
Have their house broken into by a bunch of thugs.
Have them or their daughter raped.
Have them attacked on the street by a racist group of thugs.
Have them on scene during a public shooting, defenseless and in the path of the shooter.

Those are the main experiences that will and have altered their opinions. They are sheep. Too stupid and lazy to think for themselves.. They just parrot everything they hear.
They deserve to experiance why we truly need firearms.

Wait until government overreach here soon.. Thats why we need modern sporting rifles with standard capacity mags. I may not be able to stop a tank should our government and armed forces turn on us.. But I can shut down their logistics. Supply convoys are easy targets.
Hopefully that never happens, but our forefathers had experianced it and knew its in our nature.. Its a matter of time.

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

Doesn't owning a pool increases your likelihood of drowning? Should owning a pool and having a child that has unmonitored access to the pool be a crime? Should there be a law requiring me to have to go through lifeguard training and water sanitation instruction if I want to own a pool? If I own a pool, does that mean I need to have a fence around and lock it to prevent people from having access to it? Or is having a pool a right since it's my property and I just need to simply be careful and teach my kids how to swim and be responsible since drowning is a danger?

Don't forget that a pool means you child is 100 times more likely to drown than be killed by a gun!

"If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is."
The Chicago Sun-Times.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a few hours, you realize he likes it"

Well, I'm an engineer...and I don't mind getting a little dirty.

Me neither, climbed up and down too many bridge construction forms being sure the re-bar was right, the forms would hold and all that!

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[RVTECH]

Those are the main experiences that will and have altered their opinions. They are sheep. Too stupid and lazy to think for themselves..

It MIGHT alter the opinions of a few - but I'd bet less than you would expect. I believe the majority would still rationalize the belief that fewer guns would still be safer overall as opposed to the few that might be used to save them or their loved ones.

 

[Koda]

It not always about winning the debate but creating awareness. Sometimes those gun controllers aren't aware of other perspectives or facts and you never know who is sitting on the fence. Be polite and if their tempers get riled quietly back away that's one person your not going to change and probably don't want to associate with anyhow.

 

[Monica Cowles]

Unfortunately, for many who live in their own self-imagined utopia, the only thing that will change their minds is a dose of harsh reality...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/brutal-home-invasion-scars-heal/story?id=24588314
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/cc...ith-ohio-state-representative-michael-debose/

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Anyone got any advise? I've gotten myself (intentionally) into a couple arguments with gun control supports to try to find a tactic that will work for them.

I actually started an essay on this subject and was going to finish it over Christmas in time to help my fellow OFF members defend our rights against an assault by Oregon's new majority of democratic legislators.

Unfortunately these Oregon lawmakers will have to be reasoned with since they are now free to make any stupid rule they want.

First off, do not alienate the opposition by name calling or insults. Nobody likes to think of themselves as "anti". As conservative Christians do we consider ourselves to be "anti-abortion" or "pro life"? Also you are not going to win any points by calling them "Libtards" or yelling "My constitutional!" like Alex Jones, who came off like a rabid barking dog on CNN.

Remember that most people only get the surface of a story from the popular media and cannot be bothered to look deeper. The recent passage of ballot measures proves it. In Washington voters said "Background check good" and voted yes to the title without reading the 18 pages of BS. In Oregon voters said "Yeah sure legalize it already" not knowing how much eight ounces per person realy is. And four plants per household? There goes your pot sales tax.

Most laypersons get their gun knowledge from Hollywood, mixed up politicians and the media. A little bit of non-condescending education can go a long way towards breaking the ice. Nobody wants to admit that they are wrong so don't gloat as they slowly see things your way.

More later.

 

[U201491]

Anyone got any advise? I've gotten myself (intentionally) into a couple arguments with gun control supports to try to find a tactic that will work for them.

What I've found is that they clam up whenever any of the following happens:
*Presented with facts counter to what they believe
*Presented with reasons their facts cannot be used
*Perspective is applied to their facts using something like car deaths vs gun deaths per capita
*Explaining the errors of the study and the bias (i.e. stats from the Assault Gun Ban)

They resort to name calling and insulting, and the worst part is they don't even realize they're doing it! Then they say that I'M name calling and insulting THEM! They get angry and swear...yet if I actually do any of that then I'M the sensitive emotional bad guy!

They claim my arguments are logical fallacies, and my facts are wrong, and I am misguided and immediately assume I belong in the "Dont Educate Me" group (his words)...but when I ask them to please educate me. Tell me of these logical fallacies, and correct my wrongs. They cannot do this, and they clam up.

Using classic arguments of facts and comparisons are deemed unfair logical fallacies, any common argument fails because they've heard them and ignored them already (if guns kill people, spoons make people fat; 2nd Amendment anything; guns don't kill people, people kill people; guns are just a tool; criminals don't obey laws; et al.)

Is there ANY way to get through to these people? Getting excited in the arguments only leads to them assuming I'm a fanatical, using words such as "ammosexual" to describe me (which is actually kinda neat, at least one of the definitions).

My Advice. Don't wast time trying to install intelligence into turds. They don't absorb and you only feed them and make them bigger turds.

Those people have an agenda and a mindset that is non alterable. I have tried for 68 yrs, well actually a bit over 50 and maybe one in every 500 will even listen.
The one issue that sways a few is when they become a victim and have no means to defend them selves and the perp does some serious harm to them.
Then a few rethink their stance, but far from all.
That is how far gone they are. Also the fact that many are out to damage our entire system and an armed America is in their way.

Overall the scenario they live in is not close to compatible with a patriotic self dependence. They are for the most part nanny state lovers and worse.

So why waste your time with people that park on those boards. Spend it changing the minds of your neighbors and those not totally corrupted by the global Marxists/communists and socialists.

People that gravitate towards anti gun boards are 100% a waste of valuable time and efforts !
They have about as much value to society as that of bad anal gas and not worth giving any form of platform to, as in, an argument.
They will only use you to elevate their ego and cause, regardless of the discussion outcome. No matter what, in their warped mind batch they are right and logic and truth and reason does not play there at all.
Just pray they become a victim of the world they want to create for others. maybe they will get mugged on the next trip to the store. That just, possibly, might get their attention. Doubtful but possible.

.

 

[RVTECH]

Sometimes those gun controllers aren't aware of other perspectives or facts and you never know who is sitting on the fence.

Good point but those who are 'off the fence' (and on the 'left' side of it) are pretty easy to spot and they ain't crossin' over any time soon!

 

[2506]

What you will often see is that most of a gun control advocate's argument is based upon is EMOTION and the assumption that if there were no guns in the world then there wouldn't be murder.

"Save the children!"

That's the biggest argument I hear...more children die each year from poisoning from chemicals under the sink or drowning in the bath than they do from shootings, yet all we hear about is how bad guns are and how they need to be regulated more.

Most of their stats are skewed as well...anti-gun stats go by "homicides" instead of murders. Homicides include police shootings, suicides and negligence...hell if someone was shooting a firearm on the range and it blew up, flung a piece of the slide back and killed them- the Libtards would call it a homicide by a firearm and add it to their numbers.

The main thing is to stay on point, stay cool and remain mature about your topic. Don't get upset and resort to name calling- then they've won their argument (they'll just call you a psycho that won't reason).

I, personally, like to bring up an analogy about buying a pool.

Doesn't owning a pool increases your likelihood of drowning? Should owning a pool and having a child that has unmonitored access to the pool be a crime? Should there be a law requiring me to have to go through lifeguard training and water sanitation instruction if I want to own a pool? If I own a pool, does that mean I need to have a fence around and lock it to prevent people from having access to it? Or is having a pool a right since it's my property and I just need to simply be careful and teach my kids how to swim and be responsible since drowning is a danger?

If they won't meet you on this point, then their is no real point in talking with them anymore.

Getting cognitive thinking with someone pre-programed to think is difficult. However, if their argument is "yeah, yeah, we all heard about the 'spoons make me fat' speech" then throw it back at them.

"How about you shut off Rosie O'Donnell for a day and do some research, yourself?"

To add to the pool analogy--you should ask why insurance companies charge more for liability coverage if you have a pool, but not for firearms? Don't you think insurance companies understand risk better than any of us? It seems to me if firearms were so dangerous, my homeowner's insurance premiums would be higher if I owned a gun, right?

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Screw that, I paid for the damn nut and will spend my last ounce of energy forcing it to bow to my will.

This might be easier!

 

[IronMonster]

I dont have one that big, But this is actually me forging some hammer blanks under my 210 ton forging press

 

[44mag2ndamend]

The I's have it then, new home for all anti gun pistachiotards.

 

[tiggers97]

Some good debate advice. I'd add:
1) you don't have to win every point (battle) to win the debate (war). If your objective is to influence and get them to think differently about even just a few major points, you have won. Let them win a few minor points (or at least not insist on beating them at it). And next time they might just be less combative and more receptive. Put your self in their shoes: Would you want to debate with someone who was "always right"? Even if you are?

2) Frame it in their language. What's that? You both speak English? Well, there's 2nd-amendment English, and then there's gun-control English. As others have mentions, it's based more in emotion than facts. So lead them, don't try to fight them, from emotion to fact. Put it in terms like civil rights, such as allowing ex-slaves to own firearms in the 1800's vs the need to control them by restricting firearms. Put it in terms of the war-on-drugs (was incarcerations and prohibition the answer?), civil rights (MLK asked for a concealed carry permit AFTER his home was bombed, but was denied by the local government), or even AIDS (you don't catch AIDS from sharing a toilet seat, and your not a potential murderer because you own a gun).

3) Don't make the gun-control discussion about guns. A lengthy read, but I think worth while for making up a new strategy: Take the Guns Out of the Gun Control Debate.

Note: There's always humor to make your point: Gun-control is like asking me to get a vasectomy because the neighbor has too many kids.

 

[Brigadier]

I always ask them 'If you don't want to own a gun, then why do you rely on guys with guns to protect you and your family - the police?'

 

[oknow]

at least one school district is starting to see the light

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/23/ohio-school-district-mulls-giving-teachers-access-to-guns/

Ohio school district mulls giving teachers access to guns
Published November 23, 2014
FoxNews.com
Facebook185 Twitter135 livefyre639 Email Print
A small Ohio board of education is weighing new school security measures that could give teachers and staff access to loaded guns.

The Dayton Daily News reported Sunday that the Riverside Local School board in central Ohio's Logan County has held recent discussions on placing guns in schools and plans to revisit the issue Dec. 16. Superintendent Scott Mann said the goal is to protect children from potential threats involving weapons.

"If people know you are protected and that can help us a little bit more, I'm all for it," said Mann, who oversees eight schools. "Just to reiterate -- it's going to be a community decision."

Mann told the paper he opposes having teachers carrying guns in the classroom, but does favor placing guns in locked boxes in schools.

He said that is what another Ohio school district, Sidney City Schools, has been doing.

Sidney placed loaded guns in 30 lock boxes in strategic locations in its seven school buildings. The boxes can only be opened by a fingerprint sensor.

The guns are accessible by 34 staff members and security officers trained to respond to an active shooter situation.

"If a shooting can take place in an Amish school in Pennsylvania, it can happen here in Sidney or any other place," Sidney Superintendent John Scheu told the News.

Mann said the school board would hold community forums to take public comment if the issue advances.

 

[Legs]

My last discussion with a gun control advocate went nowhere, despite (what I thought) was good, sound logic. Ended with the bliss ninny spouting the George W Bush rhetoric, that his policies then, made gun control mandatory now! WTF... can't they get away from that line?

 

[bolus]

I usually explain my situation and ask for their advice. Give them the feeling of control over the situation, so that they dont feel like they are trying to win an argument.

I got my first gun after having several people give me death threats at work. Then we had someone show up in the parking lot saying he had a knife and was going to kill someone in the building and the police addressed the situation by putting him on a bus to Portland. So we all were given pepper spray and we had an panic button put in the office. We had to use it once and the police not only called to make sure they needed to come, but also took 10 minutes to get here. But they are understaffed because of budget cuts.

So how best should I protect myself and my family?

 

[GunnyG]

Anyone got any advise? I've gotten myself (intentionally) into a couple arguments with gun control supports to try to find a tactic that will work for them.

What I've found is that they clam up whenever any of the following happens:
*Presented with facts counter to what they believe
*Presented with reasons their facts cannot be used
*Perspective is applied to their facts using something like car deaths vs gun deaths per capita
*Explaining the errors of the study and the bias (i.e. stats from the Assault Gun Ban)

They resort to name calling and insulting, and the worst part is they don't even realize they're doing it! Then they say that I'M name calling and insulting THEM! They get angry and swear...yet if I actually do any of that then I'M the sensitive emotional bad guy!

They claim my arguments are logical fallacies, and my facts are wrong, and I am misguided and immediately assume I belong in the "Dont Educate Me" group (his words)...but when I ask them to please educate me. Tell me of these logical fallacies, and correct my wrongs. They cannot do this, and they clam up.

Using classic arguments of facts and comparisons are deemed unfair logical fallacies, any common argument fails because they've heard them and ignored them already (if guns kill people, spoons make people fat; 2nd Amendment anything; guns don't kill people, people kill people; guns are just a tool; criminals don't obey laws; et al.)

Is there ANY way to get through to these people? Getting excited in the arguments only leads to them assuming I'm a fanatical, using words such as "ammosexual" to describe me (which is actually kinda neat, at least one of the definitions).

Someone once told me that I shouldn't be using my principles when arguing against their pro-gun control stance...

 

[Medic!]

Look. I have a gun. And you don't. So you fear and hate me. I have a gun. So I can love or hate you more effectively.