Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
shotgunshooter3
Posts: 6,114 Senior Member
"Defending" firearms and gun ownership, what approach do you use?
shotgunshooter3
Posts: 6,114 Senior Member
I'm sure many of us here have gotten into a debate, or an outright argument with an anti over why we should have gun rights, etc. What I am wondering is if there is any specific approach that you use? I mean a certain set of facts, examples, etc.
I used to use the old "People should be held responsible for their evil actions, not the items they use." I would bring up thinks like vehicular manslaughter, knives, crowbars, etc. Then I would also bring up stuff about the financial benefits of hunting, blah blah blah.
I've found, especially here in the world of so-called "higher education" (something I'm believing less and less everyday), that people don't like to listen to things like that. As such, I've shifted approaches. I've gone from appealing to logic on what I guess is a moral platform, and almost entirely cite laws and regulations. Thankfully I have Supreme Court cases such as DC v Heller and Castle Rock v Gonzales to cite basically saying that any arguments stating the 2A only pertains to a militia (which, BTW, I don't count the federally trained and funded National Guard as a militia) are null and void.
Don't get me started on back when Concealed Carry on Campus here in Texas was up for debate. Even these supposedly smart professors are just plain stuck on stupid in some cases, and their loyal sheep students are even worse...
I used to use the old "People should be held responsible for their evil actions, not the items they use." I would bring up thinks like vehicular manslaughter, knives, crowbars, etc. Then I would also bring up stuff about the financial benefits of hunting, blah blah blah.
I've found, especially here in the world of so-called "higher education" (something I'm believing less and less everyday), that people don't like to listen to things like that. As such, I've shifted approaches. I've gone from appealing to logic on what I guess is a moral platform, and almost entirely cite laws and regulations. Thankfully I have Supreme Court cases such as DC v Heller and Castle Rock v Gonzales to cite basically saying that any arguments stating the 2A only pertains to a militia (which, BTW, I don't count the federally trained and funded National Guard as a militia) are null and void.
Don't get me started on back when Concealed Carry on Campus here in Texas was up for debate. Even these supposedly smart professors are just plain stuck on stupid in some cases, and their loyal sheep students are even worse...
- I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Replies
Because if it's really about saving lives, deaths caused by firearms are way down the list after cars, bathtubs, cigarettes, etc.
Jerry
Trying to convince some idiot gun hater is like a crazy cat lover running through Wal-Mart yelling "I like cats I love my kitty and I want you to like my cat too!" The people that hate cats are going to think your nuts and will never listen to you. So stay home and enjoy your cat and dont waste your time trying to make some nit wit change his small mind.
Girlies with chick flick-soaked minds (Not women; those are other kind): "I carry a gun to defend from violent criminals with my life my most precious and fragile possession: My wife" This is usually followed by a deafening silence and the classic "I wish my man will be like that" look from the female public...priceless; end of argument. Men hate me for leaving them like selfish cockroaches in front of their mates, but since most usually are, I don't care about it.
Men: "It's not my fault you don't have the balls to defend yourself" followed by the classic " Well....it's YOUR problem if your mommy doesn't allow you to have a gun, or a motorcycle, or
a free night with the guys, or a sports car, or a (Insert man toy). Turn around and go for another beer, since the male crowd will do the rest for you.
Busybody hippie PC minions: Don't deserve to be called men.....and don't deserve to be called women!; you know their kind with the intellectual "I'm-better-then-you" attitude. I ask them "Wanna go shooting this weekend so you know what you're blabbing about?" The usual excuse is something like "I don't like to take part in violent activities" or "I have to update my Facebook profile with pics from my recent trip to Europe".
Arguing with morons is boring, so I patronize them the way they love to be.
Also helps a lot turning around and asking to the wife in the other side of the room "Hey honey, who's the best shot in the house!!" and being answered "You bet your useless kneecaps that I am!!"....next subject....
Ruger LCP = 9½ oz, Average policeman's weight = 180 lbs. Which would you rather carry all day?
1. Try to not be defensive, but rather take the opportunity to educate and debate. Honestly try to understand the opposition, present your side and find truth.
2. Don't get mad. You get mad because you want to win the debate. Winning isn't the goal, expressing your view base on facts and experience is the goal. Preconception of people who are against guns can be and usually is rather deep. You should be satisfy with just putting some doubt in the preconception. Stay composed and pleasant. It's easier to "disarm" someone with pleasantry than anger.
3. Don't think the opposition is stupid. Listen FIRST. Have patience and digest their argument. Ask for clarification if necessary, then compose your response. Many gun owners have "canned" responses and rush to fire off as much argumentative facts and figures as possible without debating the point put forth.
4. KNOW your facts and sources so that you can ask the opposition to present theirs, for a fair debate. These facts include statistics on crimes and state laws. Know the laws and cite them with confident. Nothing will shut up the opposition faster than asking them to cite their sources and statistics. Remember, you are prepared, they are not. All they usually have is emotional view of guns. If you don't know something, state that you will look it up. DON'T make up "facts".
5. Avoid the Constitutional "my right" argument, which is usually better saved for 3rd or 4th discussion, focus on safety and preparedness. One of the most frequently heard question is "do you feel safer with a gun?". My answer is always "No, I'm more prepared. The safeness of the surroundings doesn't change because I'm armed. I'm just more prepared to deal with whatever." Seat belts and fire extinguishers are who common analogous objects that have use similar to guns in term of preparedness.
6. Avoid jokes and smart alec responses. You will only agitate the opposition. We gun owners find a lot of the sayings like "cops are too heavy..." funny and entertaining, but they are not effective in a debate. Instead of "seconds count, cops are minutes away", try to find out the average police response time a crime scene in your area and cite that. Ask them to share their personal experience of how long it took for police to respond last time something happened to them. The idea is to get them to relate their experiences to your factual advantages.
7. For those who call for more gun laws, one of the main arguments to make is that criminals have not and will never follow gun laws. Ask if they think criminals will follow more new gun laws. Ask them why they think criminals would if they say yes.
8. What you do outside of the gun ownership and how you conduct yourself among others make a difference in your persuasive perception. If you are usually a cocky jerk off in every day encounter to others, your words will command very little respect. On the other hand, if you are a respectful upstanding person, what you have to say will merit some considerations from the opposition.
9. If all else fails, agree to disagree and walk away. You should get a sense for whether or not it worth your time with whoever you are debating with. A much as you believe in your knowledge. Keep an open mind.
Good luck.
:beer:
Al
Shoot I am a Vietnam era Marine, everyone knows we were baby eaters, so, they just do not discuss what they do not want to know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzFJxX8yoY
Jerry
But to the question: I've discussed gun ownership quite a few times with anti-gun people, and I find that insulting them or being too intense is also counterproductive.
How do I approach it? First I freely admit that if a person is a genuine pacifist, my hat's off to this belief. A true pacifist does not believe in any sort of personal defense, guns or not, involving violence.
But if someone's not a genuine pacifist, and therefore open to some sort of physical self defense, it then becomes a matter of degree. I also bring up the fact that on three separate occasions, I have prevented a woman (total strangers in each case) from being brutally beaten, raped, or murdered by intervening in the attack, chasing off the attacker or preventing the attack from going further. Is that acceptable, I ask, saving a woman from severe injury or worse by my having a gun to dissuade the bad guys?
In other words, I present situations that may have been "solved" via firearms, even if not actually fired. And I also remark that if someone else is against having a firearm, that's a choice. I choose otherwise, and I'm legally, morally, and constitutionally allowed to do so.
I'm never going to persuade a rabid anti-gunner to change his mind. But if someone's being, mmm, knee-jerk anti-gun without giving it much genuine thought, I can at least plant the seeds of gun ownership being a matter of personal choice. The dispute or argument won't be "won" but maybe by presenting a non-confrontational alternative, the other side may at least admit to an equal basis for pro-gun vs anti-gun.
I add that the same way he/she has every right to dislike guns I have the right of liking them and that as the same way I have no right of thinking ill of them for choosing not to like and own gun/s they have no right of thinking ill of me for choosing to own and like them as long as I do so in a legal and responsible manner.
In an nutshell it boils down to neither side having the right of forcing their morals on the other.
--Let them argue against that! Nobody in college has ever attempted to challenge me on that.... Ever!!!
I have to agree with Teach here..^^^^^^^
The basic misconception here in the USA is that the police, and other LEO's are going to protect you!!! NO Sir!!!! the police arrive after the crime is committed. Not before or during. Police and other LEO can't see into the future nor can they predict crime, they don't know you are in the middle of a home invasion, until ya call them. Right? So that means it is left up to the individual to protect what is his/her's.... It's the indivual criminal mind that commits the murders, not the gun. Granted the gun may be the instrument of that was chosen by the criminal to perform the dasturly deed, but the criminal had to convience him/her self to carry the act out. If any gun that I now own or have owned has murdered anyone, they haven't told me where the bodies are. hahahhahahha. Either a loaded gun and a non loaded gun can sit in a gun safe or locked box from now until Hell freezes over and that firearm will never commit an act of violence. It takes the human factor to do that.
Theres and old adage and generally accepted saying that some say the Sigmund Freud said I don't know if he actually said this or not but anyway:
Sigmund Freud:
"A fear of weapons is a sign of **** sexual and emotional maturity". And wether or not Freud said that or not its a pretty good saying.....
Saying that guns kill people is like saying that "Rosie O'Donnell is fat because someone gave her a fork." There are some anti-gun anti-freedom bleeding heart liberal's that a gunowner is never going to convience that owning a firearm is a right not a prilivage...... One of my favorite things to tell anti's is "Fear not failure, Fear only Regret"
..As each generation comes after me there is an increase in the "paradigm".to " do away with personal gun-owner ship" part of this is the fact that public education is nothing more than indoctrnation centers now and now Halls of Learning,, are brainwashing our youth and corupting the minds of the youth with Liberalism and facist way of thinking,conviencing the young folks today that there is no need to self-protect yourself anymore and blah blah blah.........
When John Ashcroft was Attorney General he filed with the Supreme Court in 2002. Ashcroft wrote: "The Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals..to posess and bear their own firearms."
Amendment II to the US Constitution A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)
And what part about 'shall not be infringed' that folks do not understand is beyond me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Total antigunners can't be easily changed but the fairly neutral person is strangely fascinated by target shooting. Agreed, Buford. I've taken quite a few fence-sitters shooting over the years and they've always enjoyed themselves. Just take it slow and easy, and be polite.
And Robert, it's "paradigm".
If I determine right away that they're a rabid anti-gun idiot, I don't waste my time arguing with them. I tell them they have the right to NOT own a gun, just like I have the right to own one, and leave it at that. Further conversation will be rude and to the point.... "GO AWAY. YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY PRIVACY."
HOWEVER, if I'm not convinced that the person is truly rabid about their sentiment, and suspect that they are just spewing rhetoric they heard elsewhere (this encompasses MOST of the public), then I take the time to respond in a non-aggressive manner and refute their arguments. If this takes a turn south, see above.... if they're actually willing to listen, then I'll at least try to convince them to keep an open mind on the subject. I usually use comparisons to fire-extinguishers and seatbelts to make them realize that a gun is just another tool, and how it's used is the real determination as to whether it's a wonderful thing or a horrible one.
*IF* I think there is any chance I can get them to join me for a trip to the range, this is my FAVORITE approach. *MOST* people who are not unduly biased against firearms, have a curiosity about them, and will take a favorable view if you'll just take the time to educate them, and demystify firearms for them. One trip to the range is usually worth 10 hours of discussion trying to convince someone what it's all about.
Luis
Thanks samzhere,, More than likely he is, but its makes a "John Brown" good conversation piece!!!!!!!!!!!!
:that::agree: This I have done too in the past and will continue to do. It actually works good.
:cool2::that: Thank You samzhere!!!!!!!!!! I can't spell worth a crap and never was any good at spelling... I have somewhat improved over the years, its not as bad now as it used to be... I should have looked it up, but I was in a hurry to finish, so I could get to the trap range.... Anyway when one finds typo's in ones article then that tells me they have throughly read the post!!!!!!! Thanks again sam!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS. Post has been edited and corrected.
Only by New age liberal PC "feel good" pop psychologists, Freud is still the father of modern Psychoanalysis / therapy.
Not at all, Doc. All modern psychiatry has debunked Freud -- "new age" or old school, there's not a single group of modern therapists who believe Freud's theories any more, not just the pop writers, but ALL actual MD therapists who actually treat people. If you can point out any legit psychaiatrists (MDs) to me who believe in Freudian theory, I'll admit I'm wrong however.
I'm not a psychologist but I've read extensively on Freud (I find him fascinating, hightly intelligent, and a great historic figure despite his theories being shown invalid).
His obsession on sexuality is simply a Victorian mindset. He's also full of it regarding the mental inferiority of women and non-white "races". It's also been thoroughly disproven that dreams can be "interpreted" in any meaningful way, except in very broad terms to show the person is in anxiety. Modern dream analysis is now based on EEG readings and clinical analysis of brain function, now 100% scientific.
How much Freud have you read, actually? For example, try reading "Interpretation of Dreams" without breaking out into laughter at Freud's 19th century misogyny. Historically he's worth studying, if only to see how his bias against women and his cultural prejudices have influenced his theories.
Carl Jung is more valid, simply because he's more scientific, but even his theories need to be reinterpreted in light of pure clinical lab results.
Thanks for the numonick technique? memoronick?....Theres a name for using spelling techniques, I can't remember exactly... (gettin old ain't for sissy's)!!!!! Correct me if I am wrong samzhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rotflmao::spittingcoffee: