Anti-Gun Talking Points™

[BrigandTwoFour]

When you've been debating the antis long enough, sooner or later your logical and technically accurate arguments will be dismissed as "NRA Talking Points." It's a common tactic that they believe simply excuses them from having to address your argument. The fact that I, and I assume nobody here, has ever actually been handed a list of NRA talking points is irrelevant.

On the other hand, the Antis certainly do have their talking points. Here is the latest in that generation...

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/07/ARS-GVP-Conversation-Guide.pdf

I'm sure most of us have seen these employed already. Might as well be prepared for them, and know where their sources are coming from.

[Firefly]

"Talking Points"

I have guns because I want to.

I don't have to argue or defend my position. This ain't a college thesis.

I don't chump out homos, dudes that wanna be girls, or 50 y/os into My Littke Pony.

All I ever want in life are a few things I enjoy. Everything I own is something I bought.

I've seen more people dead from motorcycles and MOPAR, but I don't harsh on them.

Why can't these bisexual dogooders leave people alone?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

STATES THAT HAVE PASSED
COMMONSENSE GUN LAWS
HAVE REDUCED GUN VIOLENCE BY UP TO 40%

Funny, no citation on that one.
-They like to go to state levels, because it makes the south with low population areas look like war zones. The real unit should be by zip code, if not smaller. Chicago's North side sees few deaths, the west and south have all the killings, the east sleeps with the fishes.
-"Up to" is a classic marketing term of art for not promising something. Maybe one state one year saw 40%, all the rest were lower.
-Denver's murders doubled after we passed our 'common sense' gun laws in Colorado... not saying there is a link, just that these stupid laws don't have an effect on criminals.
-What laws, where- they don't say.

Actually, just look at the citations for most of the damning 'evidence'- it is all just echo chamber from their other groups.

Why doesn't the NRA take this and dismantle it? Oh, because if they actually won an argument, people would give them less money.

[Moose-Knuckle]

They use "common sense" a lot in their rhetoric but I don't think they know what it means . . .

[Eurodriver]

I got to the second page, saw this...


Background checks have stopped over 2.4 million gun sales to prohibited people, like felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. Unfortunately, loopholes in our laws allow up to 40 percent of gun sales to still go unchecked, allowing gun violence to become the new normal.

Thought: "Hey, I think I've heard that before...and that those 2.4 million (probably mostly minority democrat leaning folks) are rarely prosecuted"

Source: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/


Our ruling:

On the numbers, Ayotte is on track. In one year, more than 80,000 background checks were denied at the state and local level and federal authorities pursued 44 charges in court, as the senator claimed. However, the report she cited is based on 2010 numbers, not 2012, but that’s small potatoes.

So let us indeed pass more laws that will only apply to rich white collar guys who get hemmed up on accident - because they're the true threat.

Gun store owners should start calling 911 every time a prohibited person fails a background check at the place of purchase. "A felon is trying to take my firearm!" Let's have 88,000 911 calls per year in the Missouri Regional Area alone.

[Averageman]

Gun store owners should start calling 911 every time a prohibited person fails a background check at the place of purchase. "A felon is trying to take my firearm!" Let's have 88,000 911 calls per year in the Missouri Regional Area alone.

And while we are at that why don't the States simply stop allowing people who are Felons and use a gun in a crime plead a charge down and somehow erase the fact that the gun was even there?
All those folks who plead that fact down are being considered non-violent offenders and soon they will be back on the streets thanks to some nifty legislation.

[gunrunner505]

Listen to you guys, confusing the issue with facts. Come on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BoringGuy45]

"Talking Points"

I have guns because I want to.

I don't have to argue or defend my position. This ain't a college thesis.

Yep, and that's what kills the pro-gun position. The anti-gunners talk to us like we are their subordinates, and we need to justify ourselves to them: Unless you can come up with a good reason why we should let you own guns...

Here's my message to them:
How about kiss our ass? How about you KNOW why, so take it and shove it! How about you guys have admitted on many occasions that an "assault weapons" ban won't keep said weapons out of the hands of criminals? How about until they disarm, we are NOT going to disarm. How about as long as you demand we surrender our 1st Amendment rights and bookend that with a demand for our 2nd Amendment rights, we're going to tell you to kiss our ass? Period. Blow us. Eat a bag of shit. Die of AIDS, then come back to life and die of cancer. I'm sick of this bullshit.

[ABNAK]

Yep, and that's what kills the pro-gun position. The anti-gunners talk to us like we are their subordinates, and we need to justify ourselves to them: Unless you can come up with a good reason why we should let you own guns...

Here's my message to them:
How about kiss our ass? How about you KNOW why, so take it and shove it! How about you guys have admitted on many occasions that an "assault weapons" ban won't keep said weapons out of the hands of criminals? How about until they disarm, we are NOT going to disarm. How about as long as you demand we surrender our 1st Amendment rights and bookend that with a demand for our 2nd Amendment rights, we're going to tell you to kiss our ass? Period. Blow us. Eat a bag of shit. Die of AIDS, then come back to life and die of cancer. I'm sick of this bullshit.

Do you have a monthly newsletter? Sign me up!

[SomeOtherGuy]

The people on "that" side have no interest in rational debate. And frankly, everything they want has been shown to be useless or counterproductive to their claimed goal of reduced "gun violence" (I realize this is not the ACTUAL goal for most of them), so a sincere and rational debate doesn't benefit them.

The average voter isn't going to focus on rational issues either, and is going to simply knee-jerk in one direction or the other. Obviously, if we can't reach them rationally, we want them to knee-jerk in our favor.

We need some kind of political aikido - redirecting their ban efforts to work against them. Or, failing that, some way of simply making the anti side irrelevant - people who can blow hot air but don't get any traction and become less significant than Lyndon Larouche. How do we do this?

[Jsp10477]

How? Well, you play like they do. First you need a long term plan. Think 100+ years ahead. Next we need some big money supporters. Figure out a way to lead the media narrative. We need academia, pre-school through college. Freedom loving politicians and voters would round out the list. Sounds completely doable.

[BrigandTwoFour]

The average voter isn't going to focus on rational issues either, and is going to simply knee-jerk in one direction or the other. Obviously, if we can't reach them rationally, we want them to knee-jerk in our favor.

We need some kind of political aikido - redirecting their ban efforts to work against them. Or, failing that, some way of simply making the anti side irrelevant - people who can blow hot air but don't get any traction and become less significant than Lyndon Larouche. How do we do this?

We have already been doing that to an extent. As noisy as many of the prohibitionists are, many of their pet desires do not have widespread support amongst even themselves. The "guide" even makes the point to not talk about things like registration, bans, or confiscation because those things are not particularly popular. The reason they aren't popular is because we have been effective at messaging as well.

IMO, the way we continue to fight (and win) is by pointing out the half-truths and misrepresentations that the prohibitionists argue with. For instance, they continue to harp on the "gun show loophole." Page 7 of the guide says "Prohibited purchasers, including convicted felons and people with dangerous mental illness, can buy a gun online or at a gun show without a background check, no questions asked." We all know that such a statement is a twisting of logic over private party transfers designed to give an impression that I can go to Amazon and order a new rifle at any time. On the same page, it says, "Known and suspected terrorists can legally purchase and own guns." We know that this is a misrepresentation of due process. It preys on the uninformed- so it is up to us to do the informing by showing what these statements actually refer to and why the prohibitionists are shameless for using them.

The "guide" is full of misleading statistics, and worse yet they use their own propaganda organizations as the sources (since they know most people aren't going to check the footnotes). We need to be more informed, show why these people are wrong, and then spread our message on top of it. I've swayed more than a few fence sitters by having these very public debates, pointing out the falsehoods, and then offering to take people to the range (on my dime) to get a better understanding what this debate is actually about.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Forgot to add this. A key part of our message has to be the importance of rights, ALL rights, and how they apply to all citizens. Knowing the history of each of our rights, what conditions led to their enumeration, and what has been done across the board to limit them is a powerful motivator for many. There is certainly a portion of the audience who isn't going to listen- probably because they have authoritarian leanings and see no problem with sacrificing enumerated rights for some perceived goal. But we're not targeting them, we're targeting those who haven't really made up their minds.

[Koshinn]

If I was playing the Advocatus Diaboli, which I tend to do a lot, this document looks like something I'd make.

But I feel like my version would be better.

[The_War_Wagon]

http://3m12dd41gw8bqlgg62dfsvyl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/eaede5343c68b36909cdcb806d53e8e7-236x240.jpg


Just slap 'em. It's quicker, easier, and MUCH more satisfying. :sarcastic:

[Dist. Expert 26]

I've long since abandoned reasoned debate with these people. It's pointless. My new response is a simple "No", with an expletive thrown in for emphasis.

[SteyrAUG]

We need some kind of political aikido - redirecting their ban efforts to work against them. Or, failing that, some way of simply making the anti side irrelevant - people who can blow hot air but don't get any traction and become less significant than Lyndon Larouche. How do we do this?


Firearms are a "civil" right. Always put them in exactly the same context as voting and free speech. And we don't need no "Jim Crow" laws on our right to be armed and defend ourselves.

Saying we can't own certain guns is like saying certain kinds of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote, and in both cases "black" seems to be some kind of central issue.

So in conclusion, "I love my BLACK gun." I'm very PRO BLACK.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Firearms are a "civil" right. Always put them in exactly the same context as voting and free speech. And we don't need no "Jim Crow" laws on our right to be armed and defend ourselves.

Saying we can't own certain guns is like saying certain kinds of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote, and in both cases "black" seems to be some kind of central issue.

So in conclusion, "I love my BLACK gun." I'm very PRO BLACK.

#BackRiflesMatter

[SteyrAUG]

#BackRiflesMatter

#BlackRiflesMatter
#BlackGunsMatter
#StrikeTheSporterClause

[BoringGuy45]

We unfortunately have a society that has been brainwashed into being dazzled by numbers. It's because we want concrete, scientific proof on paper of how the universe is supposed to be. We don't like the answer of "that depends" to our questions. We want studies that can give a conclusive, universal answer to our questions, and we want to think that all our decisions are made based on the words of the smartest people in our society. Okay, well I do applaud the thirst for knowledge, the problem is, it's been manipulated by the left. They've turned studies, charts, and graphs into the new holy scriptures. They tell us over and over to throw out what we think is "logic" and "common sense", because it can only be if it matches up with their numbers! Read Buzzfeed or Cracked.com articles; over half of them are topics with titles like "5 things you probably think are common sense that science has proved to be bullshit." Simultaneously, the left has been brainwashing us into accepting without question whatever their authorities and wise men say. We have a generation of people who read those articles and say to themselves "Huh, that doesn't seem to make sense. But this article quoted researchers at MIT and Yale, and I'm not worthy of arguing with minds of that caliber, so I guess I just have to concede that I am wrong." So, the left uses this on gun control.

I tried to debate with a family member about the logic of being able to defend myself. He just threw numbers at me: The percentage of gun deaths in countries with gun bans vs that of the U.S., the percentage of gun deaths that were reduced when states passed assault weapons laws, the average chance of me actually being involved in an encounter with a violent criminal, etc. So, rather than try to debunk his numbers, I gave a simple logical question: If you were attacked by an armed person who was hellbent on killing you-he didn't just want your money-he was going to kill you if he had to sell his soul to the Devil to do it, would you stand a better chance of defending yourself if you had a gun, or if you were unarmed? He shook his head and said that it may SEEM that way, but experts agreed that against an armed attacker, you are LESS safe if you are armed because studies have shown that more people died in such situations when they had a gun than if they were unarmed. I asked how that was logical, and got the response about how the likelihood of me shooting myself or a loved one was who-knows how many times greater than shooting the bad guy, and how experts had demonstrated that an armed good guy confronting the shooters Newtown, VT, etc would have resulted in DOUBLE the body count...and I can't argue with this because these numbers were put out by EXPERTS at the TOP INSTITUTIONS in the WORLD!

So, don't think and reason, because we have people who will do that for you. That's why things are the way they are, and why we can't argue against them.

[Firefly]

I wouldn't even argue.

I just be all like "a ha HAAaa" and keep walking

[rocsteady]

Sorry, belonged in the Massachusetts ban thread

[rocsteady]

Also moved to Massachusetts thread

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We unfortunately have a society that has been brainwashed into being dazzled by numbers. It's because we want concrete, scientific proof on paper of how the universe is supposed to be. We don't like the answer of "that depends" to our questions. We want studies that can give a conclusive, universal answer to our questions, and we want to think that all our decisions are made based on the words of the smartest people in our society. Okay, well I do applaud the thirst for knowledge, the problem is, it's been manipulated by the left. They've turned studies, charts, and graphs into the new holy scriptures. They tell us over and over to throw out what we think is "logic" and "common sense", because it can only be if it matches up with their numbers! Read Buzzfeed or Cracked.com articles; over half of them are topics with titles like "5 things you probably think are common sense that science has proved to be bullshit." Simultaneously, the left has been brainwashing us into accepting without question whatever their authorities and wise men say. We have a generation of people who read those articles and say to themselves "Huh, that doesn't seem to make sense. But this article quoted researchers at MIT and Yale, and I'm not worthy of arguing with minds of that caliber, so I guess I just have to concede that I am wrong." So, the left uses this on gun control.

I tried to debate with a family member about the logic of being able to defend myself. He just threw numbers at me: The percentage of gun deaths in countries with gun bans vs that of the U.S., the percentage of gun deaths that were reduced when states passed assault weapons laws, the average chance of me actually being involved in an encounter with a violent criminal, etc. So, rather than try to debunk his numbers, I gave a simple logical question: If you were attacked by an armed person who was hellbent on killing you-he didn't just want your money-he was going to kill you if he had to sell his soul to the Devil to do it, would you stand a better chance of defending yourself if you had a gun, or if you were unarmed? He shook his head and said that it may SEEM that way, but experts agreed that against an armed attacker, you are LESS safe if you are armed because studies have shown that more people died in such situations when they had a gun than if they were unarmed. I asked how that was logical, and got the response about how the likelihood of me shooting myself or a loved one was who-knows how many times greater than shooting the bad guy, and how experts had demonstrated that an armed good guy confronting the shooters Newtown, VT, etc would have resulted in DOUBLE the body count...and I can't argue with this because these numbers were put out by EXPERTS at the TOP INSTITUTIONS in the WORLD!

So, don't think and reason, because we have people who will do that for you. That's why things are the way they are, and why we can't argue against them.


Then why do politicians have body guards?

[BoringGuy45]

Then why do politicians have body guards?

When ask a logical question like that to an anti-gunner, you're liable to get the same response: First, a blank stare that usually signifies that you've brought up a point they can't really argue without compromising their entire argument. Then, they simply retreat back to what they said before: "Uh...the fact is that EXPERTS have shown that statistics PROVE that you're safer without a gun! These were Harvard studies! HARVARD, for God's sake!"

[docsherm]

My favorite argument is when the libtards bring up that the writers of the Bill of Rights never thought that people would have automatic weapons. I agree with them and ask why I can own a cannon. They look at my all crazy when I inform them that all of the American cannons were privately owned. Then they say, "well that was different". Right.........

[SteyrAUG]

My favorite argument is when the libtards bring up that the writers of the Bill of Rights never thought that people would have automatic weapons. I agree with them and ask why I can own a cannon. They look at my all crazy when I inform them that all of the American cannons were privately owned. Then they say, "well that was different". Right.........

I always tell them the framers could have never imagined the internet so their right to free speech and press is no longer valid on the internet because random idiots can reach millions of people with their stupidity.

[docsherm]

I always tell them the framers could have never imagined the internet so their right to free speech and press is no longer valid on the internet because random idiots can reach millions of people with their stupidity.

I like that one too......tell them that Facebook is not covered in the 1st and they will have a crap themselves.

[Firefly]

My favorite argument is when the libtards bring up that the writers of the Bill of Rights never thought that people would have automatic weapons. I agree with them and ask why I can own a cannon. They look at my all crazy when I inform them that all of the American cannons were privately owned. Then they say, "well that was different". Right.........

"Well that was/is different"

ugh that phrase..... Not just about guns but in general.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Yes the 1st is only valid and protected if printed on parchment paper via quill pen, chiseled in stone, printed via a printing press, and or yelled from a town's square.