Ever talk to anti's?? Here is a list that might help you. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ever talk to anti's?? Here is a list that might help you.


Debunk Brady
03-20-2007, 08:36
Every time I have a discussion with an anti, I go browsing the internet for statistics that I vaguely remember. Usually when I find them they have no sources, which detracts from credibility.

Accordingly, I compiled a list of statistics WITH SOURCES and tried to put it into a reader-friendly format. If you ever have a discussion with an anti, this list might help you.

Warp
03-20-2007, 16:30
Do you know of http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

3/325
03-20-2007, 17:11
Hmmm... New bedtime reading!

Panzerfaust
03-26-2007, 18:49
Read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. This book will arm you with some of the nastiest arguments the world has ever seen for how gun prohibitionists (I love that term, thanks, by the way) are wrong and be able to back it up with irrefutable proof without all the statistics.

Behold, the wisdom of John Ross. Consider these points very seriously, and it will cripple most arguments about gun kontrol. The rest can be extrapolated on.

Don't let them talk you in circles.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.
Let me give some common examples I've often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:






THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Hunh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross

Dukeboy01
03-27-2007, 14:11
Good posts. Thanks for the links.:thumbsup:

ATXChris
06-09-2009, 17:32
Giving this one a BO-inspired Bump.

squirreld
06-09-2009, 18:51
gunfacts 5.0

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Gun-Facts-Download

mrmedina
06-10-2009, 07:08
gunfacts 5.0

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Gun-Facts-Download

Excellent, Thank you!

Jack22
06-14-2009, 21:16
Behold, the wisdom of John Ross. Consider these points very seriously, and it will cripple most arguments about gun kontrol. The rest can be extrapolated on.

Post continues on . . .




Wow! That's really good stuff! Thanks, Panzerfaust!

BLACKMAGICK
06-14-2009, 21:22
Oh, it's a sticky, doesn't need it.

elenaidan
07-10-2009, 19:15
John Ross! You the man!

eightycubes
03-05-2010, 08:11
Some great points Panzerfaust. I've printed copies to pass along to friends. Thank you.

sbhaven
03-05-2010, 12:44
Also it helps to understand the mentality of those who are anti gun so you can effectively discuss firearms with them.

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm)

CarryGLSF
03-29-2010, 09:19
Some useful and fun pro-gun one-liners:

An armed man is a Citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Gun Control is not about guns; it’s about control.
If guns cause crime, then cameras cause pornography.
Free Men should not have to ask permission to bear arms.
If you don’t know your Rights you don’t have any.
Those who trade Liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
Guns only have two enemies: rust and Liberals.
Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Peace through superior firepower.
Call 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs easier and safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the Rights you are willing to fight for.
The American Revolution wasn’t about tea and taxes – it was about taking guns!
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
The pen is mightier than the sword – unless you are in a swordfight!
Those who live by the sword have a fighting chance.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t.
Blaming a gun for crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie O’Donnell being FAT!
My Gun? I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Firearm safety – It’s a matter for education, not legislation.
The day they want my guns they’ll have to bring theirs.
An armed society is a polite society.
Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
How can you praise freedom, and condemn that which gains and preserves it?
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Shooting. The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.
My wife and my gun: ’til death do us part.
When they come for your guns, give them the ammo first!
If you are free to be a liberal – thank a man with a gun!
Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun!
Guns are smart enough. We need smarter politicians.
Bolt actions speak louder than words.
Gun control... it’s not a new idea... Just a bad one!
Ignatius Piazza's all time favorites:
The D.C. Gun Ban works – just ask James Brady.
When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away...

KCCAD
03-29-2010, 14:49
tagged

AK74play
09-25-2010, 21:05
Tagged: Some useful and fun pro-gun one-liners:

An armed man is a Citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Gun Control is not about guns; it’s about control.
If guns cause crime, then cameras cause pornography.
Free Men should not have to ask permission to bear arms.
If you don’t know your Rights you don’t have any.
Those who trade Liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
Guns only have two enemies: rust and Liberals.
Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Peace through superior firepower.
Call 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs easier and safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the Rights you are willing to fight for.
The American Revolution wasn’t about tea and taxes – it was about taking guns!
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
The pen is mightier than the sword – unless you are in a swordfight!
Those who live by the sword have a fighting chance.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t.
Blaming a gun for crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie O’Donnell being FAT!
My Gun? I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Firearm safety – It’s a matter for education, not legislation.
The day they want my guns they’ll have to bring theirs.
An armed society is a polite society.
Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
How can you praise freedom, and condemn that which gains and preserves it?
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Shooting. The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.
My wife and my gun: ’til death do us part.
When they come for your guns, give them the ammo first!
If you are free to be a liberal – thank a man with a gun!
Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun!
Guns are smart enough. We need smarter politicians.
Bolt actions speak louder than words.
Gun control... it’s not a new idea... Just a bad one!
Ignatius Piazza's all time favorites:
The D.C. Gun Ban works – just ask James Brady.
When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away...

hockeybrianboy
04-04-2011, 05:46
Ask them; it's 3 A.M. it's just you and a 300 lb. guy on pcp. You both have 2 fists and that's it.

Who wishes they were carrying a gun now?

debbert
04-23-2011, 05:56
Read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. This book will arm you with some of the nastiest arguments the world has ever seen for how gun prohibitionists (I love that term, thanks, by the way) are wrong and be able to back it up with irrefutable proof without all the statistics.

Behold, the wisdom of John Ross. Consider these points very seriously, and it will cripple most arguments about gun kontrol. The rest can be extrapolated on.

Don't let them talk you in circles.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.
Let me give some common examples I've often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:






THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Hunh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross

I have recently been dealing with gun prohibitionists and this article will make things much easier and smarter to convey.

Thanks!

Jeremy_K
04-23-2011, 06:45
Some of my worst conversations have been with fellow gun owners, namely hunters. They ask "why do you need high cap mags"? "Why do you need an assault rifle"? Those are meant for one thing only, killing. :upeyes: They get real quiet when I ask them "why do you need a pump shotgun"? Why do you need a gun period? The Indians hunted with bow an arrow. Cavemen hunted with spears and rocks. I'm not knocking hunters as I am an avid hunter. I just choose to have a variety of different types of firearms besides your stereotypical hunting arms. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

DB1985
11-27-2011, 18:08
Thanks for the information!

MisterMark
05-13-2012, 21:59
After spending years trying to convince people that the problem is the criminal and not the weapon, it became clear that there is little that can be said.

Where the fear of guns is entrenched you have no chance of changing anyone's mind. It isn't going to happen. Accept that. It is possible to sow some seeds. To encourage people to think, and to perhaps use one of the previously listed arguments to lead to a question.

But if you don't accept how hard it is for people to question their deeply held belief systems the argument will bring nothing but bad feelings and frustration.

My advise, should you wish to use any specific arguments or tactics is to speak kindly, speak softly and retreat to silence quickly.

Asking the person if they really want to hear your response before you answer can help open their mind.

If you get the golden opportunity to really open someones eyes please PROTECT THEIR EGO. Let them save face, and give all respect due to someone who has taken the tremendous step of changing their mind on something that is core to how they see the world. It is rare, painful, difficult and amazing thing that they have achieved.

Fear of guns is as deep as any religious or political belief.

I0WA
07-27-2012, 16:07
Just stole this from Reddit.. pretty good IMO

Bad people use the internet for child pornography, so if you support a free and open internet you are supporting child pornography. When the framers of the Constitution wrote the 1st Amendment, they obviously had no idea that technological advancements like the internet would come along.
I'm not saying we need to ban the internet, but we need internet control to stop the bad guys. All IPs should be registered with the government, and you should need to pass a psychological evaluation before being allowed to get on the internet to make sure you won't drive the permanent psychological harm of children, which some would argue is worse than death for those that are sexually abused.
I'm tired of hearing about ****tards on Reddit DEFENDING THEIR INTERWEBZ.
But the internet is not designed for CP and serves so much greater a purpose, guns are only designed for murder.
My guns are designed to keep bad guys breaking into my home and murdering me, which for me is more important that open information.

concretefuzzynuts
07-27-2012, 16:13
Good stuff.

sbhaven
07-27-2012, 18:41
Mark Levin said the following on his radio show to a caller when talking about the CO shooting and guns...
Levin07202012.mp3 (http://podfuse-dl.andomedia.com/800185/podfuse-origin.andomedia.com/citadel_origin/pods/marklevin/Levin07202012.mp3)
(At about the 59 minute mark)

People who don't own guns are telling the rest of us that we shouldn't either. Seems to me that they've made a life choice about themselves and their own families that if somebody breaks into their home, weather than can outrun the bullet to the telephone. You know that is their decision. But they don't have a right impose that decision on you and me. Even putting the Constitution or the law aside. The most valuable thing we have is our family and our lives. In that context nothing else matters, or liberty, or lives, our person-hood. And if some-body's is trying to take it, or abuse it, or harm a loved one, well then by god we have to do be able to do what ever we can to stop it. And if you want to unilaterally put yourself into a position where you can't, that's up to you. But don't impose that position on the rest of us. That's all.

brokenprism
08-14-2012, 21:26
"Those are meant for one thing only, killing."

Boy do I get sick of that one -- guns are only for killing people. That's not actually true, but let's say it was. I'm sure even they could name people who need to be killed, some of them in the nick of time. Bin Laden. Hitler. Taliban insurgents. Timothy McVeigh. Holmes. In the same breath they say we have police to protect us (we don't) but hiding in that statement is a tacit admission that the gun, used by the cop to impose his ultimate will, is good and necessary. So it's the citizen with the gun that bothers them. Usually at this point I say they're welcome to their opinion, and they can stand behind me when the SHTF.

sr556m9
08-15-2012, 10:11
Some of my worst conversations have been with fellow gun owners, namely hunters. They ask "why do you need high cap mags"? "Why do you need an assault rifle"? Those are meant for one thing only, killing. :upeyes: They get real quiet when I ask them "why do you need a pump shotgun"? Why do you need a gun period? The Indians hunted with bow an arrow. Cavemen hunted with spears and rocks. I'm not knocking hunters as I am an avid hunter. I just choose to have a variety of different types of firearms besides your stereotypical hunting arms. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

Same here. I love hunting, but I am sick and tired of the "hunter mentality" when it comes to gun ownership. I refer to these people as "Gun Owner Light." They fail to see the big picture.

A good way I've found to shut up antis is to just tell them "Come get em" They have no rebuttal for that haha

John Rambo
08-15-2012, 12:08
Every time I have a discussion with an anti, I go browsing the internet for statistics that I vaguely remember. Usually when I find them they have no sources, which detracts from credibility.

Accordingly, I compiled a list of statistics WITH SOURCES and tried to put it into a reader-friendly format. If you ever have a discussion with an anti, this list might help you.

Latest one had her boyfriend's friend or something shot and killed by a friend, something crazy like that. Not sure if she saw it or not. Guns throw her into flight or fight mode. Been hanging around her more and more, finally got to the point where Sunday, she had to plug her phone in. She reached down over me next to her bed where I had put my gun on the ground next to my phone in the charger, and hooked hers up. No real reaction to the gun. I'd call that progress.

Its not about facts with anti-gunners, because their reasoning is not based in logic. Its about showing them that responsible, calm, NORMAL people own and carry guns. That doesn't mean you go on some dumbass open carry crusade or try to sit them down and make them uncomfortable with a bunch of talk about guns. No, all that does is drive them farther away from guns. It means you show them that people, very nice and friendly people, legally carry and don't pose a danger to them. Eventually they just get used to it.

frizz
08-15-2012, 18:45
General comment...

When you talk to and anti, being combative and aggressive is not the way to go. Be polite and calm even if they aren't. If they start getting agitated, don't respond in kind.

It is helpful to say that you understand their concerns... We all agree with that mass shooters are awful and are frightening, and that establishes common ground.

You can counter by pointing out that a home invasion is also frightening, and that the cops do not have the ability to respond in time.


If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.

ConcealedG23
08-15-2012, 19:20
If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.

I really believe this to be true. This whole gun/anti-gun thing boils down to perception. If you can show them that you are reasonable and have sound logic that backs your perception, the seed can be planted. If you are perceived as an unreasonable person unwilling to consider their point of view and find common ground, they will listen to little to nothing that you say.

D

brokenprism
08-26-2012, 01:12
This is an excellent historical overview to gun control, it's motives, and its effects.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

Jerry
08-26-2012, 11:18
I really believe this to be true. This whole gun/anti-gun thing boils down to perception. If you can show them that you are reasonable and have sound logic that backs your perception, the seed can be planted. If you are perceived as an unreasonable person unwilling to consider their point of view and find common ground, they will listen to little to nothing that you say.

D

It's obvious you have not had many debates with "TRUE" anti gunners. Logic and fact mean nothing to them. They run on pure emotion. They are not interested in stopping crime (Gun control only increases crime. Proven fact!). There only interest is disarming the common man.

John Rambo
08-26-2012, 12:55
It's obvious you have not had many debates with "TRUE" anti gunners. Logic and fact mean nothing to them. They run on pure emotion. They are not interested in stopping crime (Gun control only increases crime. Proven fact!). There only interest is disarming the common man.

That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.

Jerry
08-26-2012, 13:53
That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.

I grewup in New Orleans. There is a large majority that fall into the "fear" category. Most large cities have them. They have been so indoctrinated by the police brass and TV media it's all btt impossible to brake through illogical fear. It makes no difference how one startsa conversation.

sbhaven
08-26-2012, 16:28
That accounts for an incredibly small percentage of antis, mostly reserved for politicans and talking heads who get rich off of preaching fear.

For the average anti, it boils down to that one word. FEAR. Real and uncontrollable FEAR. You're right, there is no logic or fact, its nothing but fear. The only way to change their stance is to make them more comfortable. And leading with, "You just want to disarm everyone!" doesn't do that.
Fear is an emotion.

Almost all anti's I've met over the years are aptly described in the link I posted earlier in this thread (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14882434&postcount=13). For almost all of them its their emotions that drive their negative view of firearms and those who posses (outside of law enforcement and soldiers) them.

Merlin40
09-01-2012, 16:12
I can't remember where I saw this, and I didn't write it. But it really hit home for me, as well as some of my anti-gun friends. The logic is almost impossible to argue with.

1) Get a steak from the fridge.
2) Get a sharp knife from your drawer.
3) Call 911, and start stabbing the steak.
4) Continue stabbing the steak, until help arrives.

5) Imagine that steak is one of your children or wife.

Think this can't happen? It's the primary reason I carry inside my home, and why I do not depend on 911 as my primary source of protection. JM2CW

Gen4 Fan
09-05-2012, 12:08
Some great points Panzerfaust. I've printed copies to pass along to friends. Thank you.

How can you be from TN and know who Ghoulardi is?

I love it, you Purple Knif.

Devans0
12-30-2012, 12:35
I could use some research help on this one. One argument that gets a lot of play is that certain countries have virtually no gun violence because they have banned guns. (The usual mentions are England, Australia, and Japan.) I notice that each of these countries are islands. Our permeable borders for drug shipments says to me that a gun prohibition will mean that guns will come in by the same ways. Mexico has very tough gun laws, but their death toll dwarfs our random-nut violence.

Discussion?

Grayson
12-30-2012, 17:53
Devans0 - It's always good to point out that our own freakin' BATFE put a LOT of guns in bloodthirsty criminals' hands Mexico, and there's not one guarantee that those guns or criminals will STAY in Mexico...!!!

Someone posted that eventually we'll be reduced to lever actions and revolvers while all the criminals are packing black-market Glocks and ARs and AKs. Would be a bitter irony if those black market rifles were provided by our own government!

leeward419
01-27-2013, 06:32
15,000 people each year are murdered, 926,000 defend themselves with a firearem (FBI, LOTT et al)

15,000 innocent citizens are killed by drunk drivers each year, zero defensive uses of automobile....henceforth...in the interest of public safety in preventing "CAR" violence...you may not drive your car on Friday or Saturday night....without background ck...no traffic or moving violations or you will be disqualified...then you MAY be granted a special license for friday and saturday night....it is 300 dollars, you will need to install fuel tank limiter that will limit the number of gallons in your fuel tank so when you do drive drunk...the damage you do will be limited
if you dont agree with this maybe you should clean up the bood and guts of the next victim,
you hate kids etc

Merlin40
04-25-2013, 06:20
A Re-post

I have used this in the past, when talking to the anti-gun crowd. (including my close-minded "entitled" brother).:

1. Get a steak from the fridge.
2. Get a steak knife from the drawer.
3. Call 911, and start stabbing the steak.
4. Continue stabbing steak until help arrives.
5. Look at steak.

That steak, is YOU, or one of your loved ones.

This scenario, usually shuts them up.

Merlin40
04-25-2013, 06:37
I talk to my brother on a weekly basis. He's a close-minded guy....He knows I have several weapons. He asked me "what kind of "twisted bastard", would have 5,000 rounds of ammo in his home"? (laughing as I type this). He calls me paranoid. I use the word, "prepared". I've asked him to come to GT, and read a little, to get better informed. THAT won't happen. LOL. After the recent shooting in Sandy Hook, he called me, and actually asked what kind of weapon he should buy. He doesn't want one of those "evil black rifles". Not much I can do, to ever convince him of my mindset, and why I feel as I do. He says I have "military training" (20+years in USN), and that I'm a "dangerous man". My home, is also, the first place he'd come, when SHTF. What else can I say?

G23Charlie
05-15-2013, 22:04
Glen Beck just came out with a new book titled Control.Only Ten dollars.This has plenty of good imformation.Barnes and Noble.

janice6
05-15-2013, 22:23
Last but not least, from that great statesman of the 20th century:


“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
<cite>Joseph Stalin</cite><cite><o:p></o:p></cite>

BobPistol
06-12-2013, 07:38
I will add the following argument against antis.

"If you blame guns for the violence and want to ban 'assault weapons' - is it OK for police to have them?"

The answer will likely be "Of course, they have to deal with armed criminals who are trying to hurt people"

My answer is "Then why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the same right? We also have to deal with armed criminals who are trying to hurt our families and children too. Are you saying that if you work for the government, that gives you the ability to have more human rights than those who don't work for the government?"

Hej Hej
06-16-2013, 12:44
gunfacts 5.0

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Gun-Facts-Download

Thanks....great info......

Hej Hej
06-16-2013, 12:52
General comment...

When you talk to and anti, being combative and aggressive is not the way to go. Be polite and calm even if they aren't. If they start getting agitated, don't respond in kind.

It is helpful to say that you understand their concerns... We all agree with that mass shooters are awful and are frightening, and that establishes common ground.

You can counter by pointing out that a home invasion is also frightening, and that the cops do not have the ability to respond in time.


If you are polite and reasoned, you have a fighting chance of winning someone, and a very good chance of planting our counter-position that gives them pause.

What you have the best shot at is showing an anti that a gun owner can be a nice person. That matters a lot.

Good points...thanks.

Lisbeth
07-20-2013, 01:11
Read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder. This book will arm you with some of the nastiest arguments the world has ever seen for how gun prohibitionists (I love that term, thanks, by the way) are wrong and be able to back it up with irrefutable proof without all the statistics.

Behold, the wisdom of John Ross. Consider these points very seriously, and it will cripple most arguments about gun kontrol. The rest can be extrapolated on.

Don't let them talk you in circles.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.
Let me give some common examples I've often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:






THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Hunh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

John Ross

I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.<o:p></o:p>

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.<o:p></o:p>

What changed re gun-control: I looked very carefully at guncontrol laws, both existing and proposed ones. I saw that, even if ALL theselaws were in effect, all the recent mass shootings would still have occurred.And, all the day-to-day criminal uses of guns would still have occurred. <o:p></o:p>

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous, and manyaccidents and suicides happen because of carelessness and the easy availabilityof guns. But it is also true that the police are not everywhere at all times.Criminals have guns and there is not much unarmed people can do to defendthemselves. So I am learning about guns. I own a Glock 19 and plan to get goodwith it and get a CCL as well.<o:p></o:p>

OK so far? You will hate the rest of this. I have toemphasize that my "conversion", as it were, took place with my ownthought processes. Most of you gun people were a huge IMPEDIMENT to my changeof mind. I have to say, most of you gun people are your own worst enemy. Icould write a book-length post on this, but I'll try to be brief, limit myselfto 10 points. Here we go.<o:p></o:p>

HOW GUN PEOPLE DRIVE OTHERS AWAY FROM GUNS AND TOGUN-CONTROL:<o:p></o:p>

1. "They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, MaoTse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive,totalitarian regime." I'm well aware this is one of the favorite sayingsof most of you gun people. Such statements are horribly insulting to non-gunpeople. It causes them to think of most of you gun people as obnoxious and delusionaland it causes them to get away from you and your opinions as fast as they can. <o:p></o:p>

2. 2. "THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one hadguns."”<o:p></o:p>

Their concerns are the many accidents and suicides that happenbecause of carelessness and the easy availability of guns. You do not addressthis. Very bad move. I'm guessing you do not address this as it is a real issueand you do not have an answer. Trying to snow someone with BS is a hugeturn-off, drives people away.<o:p></o:p>

3. "Better we should require every citizen to carry agun."
Translation: you are an extremist and they will want to get away from you assoon as they can. <o:p></o:p>

4. "A gas chamber or electric chair..... “ la-la land,complete turn-off.<o:p></o:p>

5. "When I need to protect myself and .... " Youthink you need to protect yourself with "a high-capacity, military-typerifle or handgun.... designed for conflict". NONE of them can even beginto imagine why you think you need such firepower to protect yourself - it makesyou appear paranoid and delusional in their eyes, and dangerous as well.<o:p></o:p>

6. "THEY SAY: "If we pass this License-To-Carrylaw... "” and you respond "that's not important. What is important isour freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don'twe throw out the Fifth Amendment?" You completely ignore their very realfear, tell them it is not important, and then you try to change the subject tothe constitution when what they are worried about is the gun-fights at the OK corral. Again, moronic,driving people away. <o:p></o:p>

7. THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about afive day waiting period." Your answer is totally moronic to non-gunpeople. "I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with thegovernment as chief nanny." Well, they want to live in a SAFE society.Your values and their values are not the same - you need to address THEIR values,not your values. <o:p></o:p>

8. licenses for car but not for weapons - you answer with agreat wad of BS apparently intended to confuse their concern. <o:p></o:p>

9. "I'm amazed at how little you care about yourgrandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything"The biggest insult of them all. You SLAM their ears shut with this one. You guaranteethey think of you as rude and demented. They will run away from you ASAP. <o:p></o:p>

10. "internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt didsixty-odd years ago.....your grandchildren to have been stripped of their finalguarantee of freedom" You just convinced them you are a stark-ravinglunatic. <o:p></o:p>

SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING WRONG:<o:p></o:p>

You are addressing YOUR concerns and YOUR values, notTHEIRS.<o:p></o:p>

You are giving them NO ANSWERS to their concerns.<o:p></o:p>

You are highly insulting and dismissive.<o:p></o:p>

You are making outlandish claims that establish you as paranoidand delusional in their eyes. <o:p></o:p>

You are too busy thinking how clever you are about statingyour own ideals. <o:p></o:p>

You don’t even know what their concerns are. <o:p></o:p>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p>

I have just done you gun people a big favor in pointing outhow to communicate with and convince non-gun people about guns. I have beenaround you gun people long enough to know that you will not like the fact thatI disagree with you, and so therefore you will attack me (like night followsday). A useful response would be to point out what you disagree with in mypost, and to learn from the rest of it. <o:p></o:p>

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-28-2013, 21:49
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.<o:p></o:p>

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous,...



I have just done you gun people a big favor in pointing outhow to communicate with and convince non-gun people about guns. I have beenaround you gun people long enough to know that you will not like the fact thatI disagree with you, and so therefore you will attack me (like night followsday). A useful response would be to point out what you disagree with in mypost, and to learn from the rest of it. <o:p></o:p>


:yawn::rofl:

Your so-called big favor is the same old lame trolling that can't even come up with something original. Please tell us, o recent convert, how YOU would address these issues. Please tell us how your former opinion is that guns are dangerous, but that your conversion helped you see the light and determine that guns are still dangerous.

Jerry
07-29-2013, 13:01
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.<o:p></o:p>

My background: no guns. My former opinion: guns aredangerous, they need to be controlled.<o:p></o:p>

What changed re gun-control: I looked very carefully at guncontrol laws, both existing and proposed ones. I saw that, even if ALL theselaws were in effect, all the recent mass shootings would still have occurred.And, all the day-to-day criminal uses of guns would still have occurred. <o:p></o:p>

What changed re guns: Yes, guns are dangerous, and manyaccidents and suicides happen because of carelessness and the easy availabilityof guns. But it is also true that the police are not everywhere at all times.Criminals have guns and there is not much unarmed people can do to defendthemselves. So I am learning about guns. I own a Glock 19 and plan to get goodwith it and get a CCL as well.<o:p></o:p>
OK so far? You will hate the rest of this.

You aren't going to like my response either.

First; we gun people try and try again to explain EXACTLY THAT to you anti gun people. You don't listen. Your emotions override reason. It's not until you anti gun people have your own epiphany causes by some personal tragedy that the facts sink in.

Second; guns are not dangerous. One can place a loaded firearm in a corner and it will sit there until hell freezes over and do no harm. Read my sig line. People, both careless and bad, do fare less damage with guns than automobiles and swimming pools yet MORONS dwell on how dangerous guns are. How dangerous guns are is emotional drivel easily disproved with fact but ants ignore the facts.

I'm glad you finally got your head out of your ass, but firearm owners had nothing to do with YOU putting it there or making you keep it there for how ever long it was there. Place blame where blame belongs... your own ignorance and emotion.

sbhaven
07-29-2013, 16:24
Lisbeth, at first I was going to post a lengthy response to your wall of text. But decided against it due to the massive amounts of projection you heap upon gun owners.

Rather I would encourage you to read Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm) by Sarah Thompson, M.D. If you have an open mind as you read that article you'll see that gun owners are not the cause as to why you were anti gun. Your own emotions and fears were.