Discussions with gun controllers

[AMProducts]

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).

It's actually really easy... ignore the gun entirely. Posit "I like freedom, to me, guns are freedom. If someone's idea of freedom is a pot farm, 3 wives and 2 husbands, or a shoebox apartment in the city, that's fine. In a pluralistic democracy it's only right that each person is free to decide what his freedom is. The only thing that isn't freedom is telling other people what to do."

At that point, the only fact is they hate freedom and don't want you to be happy. At which point, you can start picking them apart on ideological honesty... which they clearly don't have.

 

[PiratePast40]

One of the bigger questions here is being ignored. With most all of these discussions, and after you've proven that none of their control measures actually resolve the real problem, the question will be asked. "so what do you suggest we do to stop the problem of....."? That question can end with a general comment of gun violence, or get more specific with respect to felons with guns or children getting guns. It all boils down to the desire to "do something", even if it's ineffective, or for someone to be punished in some way.

They may even acknowledge the irrefutable evidence that none of the laws they propose, or existing laws could have prevented most of the deaths. If they are truly concerned, they will back off. But if they are controllers, they will continue to press you for a solution. And since more laws aren't the solution, will insist that people like us are the reason that Cain slew Abel. For the controllers, it has nothing to do with compassion for fellow human beings. It's about the narcissistic urge to be seen as someone who is superior to everyone else and solves their problems.

 

[Gunguy45]

Conversations with someone who is irrational on a subject are always pointless. It's like trying to argue someone out of religion.

Two arguments to determine if you have someone who will listen:

1: FACT there are about 300 million firearms in private hands in the U.S. at the moment. That's a 33% increase since 1999 when the UN estimated 200 million. If guns in private hands increase crime, why has our violent crime rate dropped about 40% since 1999?

2. Washington has probably the highest per capita number of people with concealed carry permits in the country. Why do we have a violent crime rate consistently 1/3 lower than most of the country, including states with incredibly strict gun control?

Therefore, it is not reasonable to assert than guns cause violent crime.

They may argue further, but if they just ignore those facts or give you an entirely irrational answer, just walk away. Arguing guns with a gun control fanatic is "like teaching a pig to sing: Wastes your time and annoys the pig." -Mark Twain

Also, don't use cliches like Rosy Odonell's spoon, or similar "bumper sticker" stuff. It's really confrontational and you don't need it to make the argument. Calm, consistent outlining of facts should do it. And your biggest and primary source should be crime stats. they aren't a "suspect number." Just remember, no one ever got over fear of snakes by having them thrown in their lap. So ease off the confrontation and just be calm and consistent. We have all the facts on our side.

 

[Gunguy45]

One of the bigger questions here is being ignored. With most all of these discussions, and after you've proven that none of their control measures actually resolve the real problem, the question will be asked. "so what do you suggest we do to stop the problem of....."?.

Easy honest answer. Things are getting better every year as it is, even if we did nothing.
More detailed: We have a problem with the drug war. It's costly and not working and produces LOTS of violence that otherwise wouldn't be happening.

We have a problem with endemic, generational poverty, poor education and lack of opportunity, especially in our African American population (46% roughly of all homicides are among 12.8% of the population, almost ALL black on black). I'd be happy to throw money at the problem in any way that would be effective.

We have problems with access to actual GUN SAFETY information. Maybe take that 11% federal excise tax and use it for vouchers for gun safety classes?

We have a problem in enforcement of the long-standing prohibition of felons having guns. (It's rarely enforced with any teeth. Adding 1 year when they're already looking at 5-10 for other crimes, is not a deterrent).

Those are all things we could do that would have a very real effect on lots of things associated with "gun violence." So if you actually care about the violence, there are some specific things. If your return argument is that we need more gun control laws, none of which have EVER been shown to have any effect on crime, well, I will write you off as not actually caring about the things you claim to.

 

[AMProducts]

Those are all things we could do that would have a very real effect on lots of things associated with "gun violence." So if you actually care about the violence, there are some specific things. If your return argument is that we need more gun control laws, none of which have EVER been shown to have any effect on crime, well, I will write you off as not actually caring about the things you claim to.

Gun Violence is simply a subset of the violence that happens every year anyways not because there are objects to commit it with, but because there is violence.

Conversations with someone who is irrational on a subject are always pointless. It's like trying to argue someone out of religion.

This is exactly my point, if you know the argument is going to become one about belief, head them off at the pass and take it to "I believe guns are freedom" which makes any potential counter arguments strictly about "freedom". What we all know, and mostly haven't developed rhetorical devices for is addressing exactly what we know the other participant is all about. Arguing facts in a debate that is fundamentally about belief whether you believe that everyone deserves freedom, or that some people deserve more freedom is one of those arguments that can really only be won by exposing the fundamental ignorance of this position.

The west as a culture has largely eschewed slavery for the last 150 years, however that has not stomped out the deep seated racism that "some people are just better than others". This is a major reason why the junk-science of eugenics is still exercised typically under other names.

Until we are willing to admit in an open way that our cause is not just gun rights, but is fundamentally tied to human rights we will be forced to endure such derisive terms as "ammosexual". While I think the term is funny, calling someone a name and then dismissing them is really at the same ideological level of "Jim Crow" or "the n-word" and you should call them on this. Ideological consistency and honesty are largely ideas that went out the window in the 1950's, it's getting to be about time to bring it back.

 

[Gunguy45]

.

Gun Violence is simply a subset of the violence that happens every year anyways not because there are objects to commit it with, but because there is violence.

Ok, WOW you said a lot, and as I'm a long-winded guy, I'll try to keep it brief. ( I agree more than I don't).

As for "Gun violence," you'll notice I put that in quotes. What counts is VIOLENCE, not the method. But for someone who's heard nothing BUT "gun violence," it's sometimes useful to couch it in their own terms, rather than argue a central premise. -I care about results and nothing else.

This is exactly my point, if you know the argument is going to become one about belief, head them off at the pass and take it to "I believe guns are freedom" which makes any potential counter arguments strictly about "freedom". What we all know, and mostly haven't developed rhetorical devices for is addressing exactly what we know the other participant is all about. Arguing facts in a debate that is fundamentally about belief whether you believe that everyone deserves freedom, or that some people deserve more freedom is one of those arguments that can really only be won by exposing the fundamental ignorance of this position.

Until we are willing to admit in an open way that our cause is not just gun rights, but is fundamentally tied to human rights we will be forced to endure such derisive terms as "ammosexual".

No argument from me at all on your central point, which is that the right to self defense is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a political right. And interfering with that HUMAN right is suspect from it's very notion.

And I have yet to meet a gun-control person who will argue with me that a gun makes a 65-year-old woman have a CHANCE (vs. 0 chance) at self defense against an unarmed 20-year-old attacker.

That's really all I can claim with absolute certainty. Guns make the poor or the rich, the weak or the strong, infinitely more empowered than the criminal attacker. This is simply indisputable if you're dealing with a rational person.

I could cite a hundred different bits of factual evidence and not have as strong a point. Do you think your mother, who has to undergo whatever checks and barriers to ownership there may be is safer with a gun or without one?

If not, why are you making her undergo a process that not one criminal in 10,000 will ever bother with?

I happen to believe that the lesbian married couple should be able to go to the abortion clinic with sidearms on their hip and a machine gun in their trunk, and afterward stop at the marijuana store for pain relief.

In other words, I believe in personal freedom and the freedom to yes, take on a tyrannical government if it becomes absolutely necessary. That is the essence of the 2A.

Make THAT statement to a doctrinaire liberal on gun control and I promise you you'll get confusion. THEN you can have a conversation. You know, the things where minds are changed.

THAT, is all I care about. I've done it, personally many times. My Dad, who Gods bless him was a devout Atheist and Gun control person and FAR, FAR to the left of anyone who has ever won a congressional election was persuaded to our side by one simple proposal: "Do you really want J. Edgar Hoover to be the only guy in the country with guns?"

Changed his religion with one question. Know your opponent, understand his premise. Then seek to kill that premise with incontrovertible fact.

 

[tiggers97]

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.

Your freedoms threaten my control, and so I will take it from you!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/daniel-zimmerman/anti-anti-gun-agitprop-contest-entry-7/

 

[Gunguy45]

Your freedoms threaten my control, and so I will take it from you!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/daniel-zimmerman/anti-anti-gun-agitprop-contest-entry-7/

That's not an answer, It's FU to your opponent, It contained ZERO of the many rational arguments that people have posted on this thread even.

Frankly, if you believe this ridiculous link has any relation to an actual "argument," you are both sadly mistaken and no more than fodder for our opponents.

Because apparently you have no facts, but just emotion. Th very thing we asccuse gun-phobes of having.

 

[308]

My take is more towards the psychology of the issue. With most people, false beliefs create emotions and those emotions drive the behavior.

False beliefs often come from negative experiences. These experiences can be based upon a real personal experience, or an experience projected from another person. The problem is, one cannot use words to change the beliefs of a person who is reacting on these past negative experiences because they are limbic in nature.

What can change a false belief is a new and positive experience. One just needs to be patient with the person and recognize what is driving them....that is, if one actually cares about them or what they think in the first place.

 

[Medic!]

Yes. In a way it's FU to your opponent.

But the point is. You don't have a gun so what are you gona do about it? I'm not trying to threaten them. I'm trying to make them think.

Sometimes you may not be able to reason with person. And that someone may have a knife and want to rape your wife! What can you do about it? Clean her up when he's done?

 

[deadeye]

It is not the tool they should focus on it is the act, that is the part that they just cant grasp.