Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-20-2007, 08:36   #1
Debunk Brady
Senior Member
 
Debunk Brady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 202
Ever talk to anti's?? Here is a list that might help you.

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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Debunk Brady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 16:30   #2
Warp
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Warp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NE of Atlanta
Posts: 30,339
Do you know of http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...4-0-Screen.pdf
__________________
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I HIGHLY recommend Google Chrome and Adblock to all world wide web users. (I would have left GT a long time ago without these extensions!)
Warp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 20:41   #3
Smithers
Senior Member
 
Smithers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 213
I HIGHLY recommend Google Chrome and Adblock to all world wide web users. (I would have left GT a long time ago without these extensions!)


You *should* leave GT, please.

Glock Talk is free partly due to the ads we see.
Smithers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 17:11   #4
3/325
Infidel Artist
 
3/325's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kingston, WA
Posts: 2,094
Hmmm... New bedtime reading!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
*
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
*
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
3/325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 18:49   #5
Panzerfaust
Senior Member
 
Panzerfaust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 867
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'm Glock and Dagger and I approved this message...

Equal opportunity destroyer.

Dungeon Masters don't have levels... dork!!!

Oxymoron of the day: political science.
Panzerfaust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2010, 09:11   #6
eightycubes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oak Ridge, TN
Posts: 14
Some great points Panzerfaust. I've printed copies to pass along to friends. Thank you.
eightycubes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 12:08   #7
Gen4 Fan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightycubes View Post
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.
Gen4 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 05:56   #8
debbert
Senior Member
 
debbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North Perry, OH
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzerfaust View Post
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!
debbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 06:45   #9
Jeremy_K
Senior Member
 
Jeremy_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 1,146
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. 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.

Last edited by Jeremy_K; 04-23-2011 at 06:46..
Jeremy_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 19:08   #10
DB1985
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Maryland Heights, MO
Posts: 21
Thanks for the information!
DB1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 21:59   #11
MisterMark
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 37
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.
MisterMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 21:26   #12
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy_K View Post
"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.

Last edited by brokenprism; 08-14-2012 at 21:27..
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 06:20   #13
Merlin40
Merlin40
 
Merlin40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 175
Blog Entries: 1
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.

Last edited by Merlin40; 04-25-2013 at 06:25..
Merlin40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:11   #14
sr556m9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy_K View Post
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. 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
sr556m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 01:11   #15
Lisbeth
Imagine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: gunshine state
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzerfaust View Post
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

HOW GUN PEOPLE DRIVE OTHERS AWAY FROM GUNS AND TOGUN-CONTROL:

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.

2. 2. "THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one hadguns."”

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.

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.


4. "A gas chamber or electric chair..... “ la-la land,complete turn-off.

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.

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.

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.

8. licenses for car but not for weapons - you answer with agreat wad of BS apparently intended to confuse their concern.

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.

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.

SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING WRONG:

You are addressing YOUR concerns and YOUR values, notTHEIRS.

You are giving them NO ANSWERS to their concerns.

You are highly insulting and dismissive.

You are making outlandish claims that establish you as paranoidand delusional in their eyes.

You are too busy thinking how clever you are about statingyour own ideals.

You don’t even know what their concerns are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Lisbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2013, 21:49   #16
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisbeth View Post
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.

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.


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.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 13:01   #17
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisbeth View Post
I am a recent convert to the pro-gun, anti-gun-control side.So you may want to pay attention.

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

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.

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.
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 07-29-2013 at 22:46..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 16:24   #18
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,715
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 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.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 07-29-2013 at 16:25..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2007, 14:11   #19
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,597
Good posts. Thanks for the links.
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Dukeboy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2009, 17:32   #20
ATXChris
Owns One Gun
 
ATXChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 380
Giving this one a BO-inspired Bump.
__________________
"Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all — they are attempting nothing new." - Anthony de Mello
Glock 17 (Dawson Precision Sights, LWD 3.5# Connector, Glock NY1 Spring, LWD SS Guide Rod, LWD Slide Cover Plate, LWD Plug)
ATXChris is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 613
125 Members
488 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31