Gun control, pro/con arguments.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Hey guys,

Have you ever noticed the gun control argument seems to be the same stale arguments over and over? We should try to come up with a list of them and try to formalize them. I don't mean a bunch of "you suck" pseudo-argument, but reasoned rebuttals to the common arguments. Almost a set of talking points. Does such a thing exist?


For example, here is an argument I saw today...


"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own an assault rifle would think if they were ever shot by one, don't you?"



What is this argument really saying?

1. First, it is clearly an appeal to emotion. In this respect it really isn't an argument but a rhetorical move.
2. It is making the argument that they would "feel different" if they had been shot by an AR. They might. Traumatizing events often lead to emotion overriding logic. A woman who is raped may also think that all men should be castrated.
3. Obviously, the person making this argument doesn't understand what an assault rifle is. They either believe that it is somehow better to be shot by a lever-action 45-70 or they are only pretending this is about assault weapons. I believe the later. Likely, they would ban all guns because they don't personally feel the need for them.

Any other thoughts?

[dbrowne1]

If I were shot by an "assault rifle" I'd probably think, "Wow, that really ****ing hurt."

Sort of the same thing I'd think if I were shot by a bolt action gun, or a side by side shotgun, or a musket, or a bow and arrow, or a sharp rock...

[FMF_Doc]

the main fact that escapes the liberal tree hugger mindset is a very simple concept:

bans and restrictions only limit the law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves and others, while criminals who are not going to follow the laws are still going to be armed and more brazen in a gun free climate.

The only form of "gun control" that I am for is this:

enforce the more reasonable existing laws, and have severely increased penalties for using firearms in criminal acts. Other than that the government should stick to foreign policy, tax collection and repairing highways, the Bill of Rights is self explanatory.

[30 cal slut]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own a Porsche would think if they were ever run over by one, don't you?"

[30 cal slut]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own a penis would think if they were ever raped by one, don't you?"

[30 cal slut]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own an I-pod would think if they ever damaged their hearing, don't you?"

[30 cal slut]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own a Glock .40 S&W would think if they were kaboomed by one, don't you?"

oh wait a second ... :confused:

[Failure2Stop]

Greg-

I think you touched on the problem with making a comprehensive list debunking the emotional bullshit these people spout:
It is beyond reason to them.
They have an irrational approach to it from the start. You simply cannot reason with those that ignore reason and fact in their emotional plea to save everyone from themselves.

All we can hope to do is to show reason and fact to those that are curious about the subject. No matter how many times Rosie O'Donnel and Sarah Brady's "facts" are proven to be distortions, exaggerations, misconstrued, wrong, or just plain fabricated will they ever about-face and admit that firearms are not the real problem. They are not believers in "Gun Control", they have become "Gun Control". It is part of who they are, in their minds.

People that are apprehensive of guns can become tolerant of or even accepting of firearms, but to shift someone that has an emotional reaction to firearms such as hate, fear, or loathing will never become an enthusiast. The only people that really listen to reason are those that are not quite decided on the matter.

[PRGGodfather]

People rarely let the facts change the way they feel... ~ Unidentified ACLU Representative

[BrentPete]

While we can't force people to change their beliefs I think it could be very beneficial to discuss why we support firearm rights and try to create a list of reasons to support individual firearm ownership rights. "I am against excessive gun control because..."

-I am against gun control because guns prevent much more violence than they cause.

Data about gun crime and defensive use of firearms supports this reasoning. Gary Kleck, in his book "Targeting Guns, Firearms and their control" Published by Aldine Transaction in 1997 (p. 151) found that: "defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns."

Is that along the lines of what you were thinking Greg?

[Heavy Metal]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own a Glock .40 S&W would think if they were kaboomed by one, don't you?"

oh wait a second ... :confused:


[BITCHSLAP!!]


You needed that.

[Heavy Metal]

Rember, the point of these arguments is not to win over the radicals.

The point is for them to be shown as fools to the undecideds and those with weakly held beliefs.

You are nto trying to convert them, you are trying to put giant shoes, makeup and a big red plastic nose on them.

[Caeser25]

Rember, the point of these arguments is not to win over the radicals.

The point is for them to be shown as fools to the undecideds and those with weakly held beliefs.

You are nto trying to convert them, you are trying to put giant shoes, makeup and a big red plastic nose on them.

b/c their arguments aren't based up by facts.

[30 cal slut]

[BITCHSLAP!!]


You needed that.

*sniff*

[Pops506th]

I try to hit 'em with something from this

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[crowkiller]

You can not argue with them based on facts and common sense cause they aren't able to compute the former and lack the latter. They lack any form of wisdom, understanding and reason.Emotion based arguments might get some where with them but I doubt it. I think the die hard anti's are a totally different species.

[exkc135driver]

Rember, the point of these arguments is not to win over the radicals.

The point is for them to be shown as fools to the undecideds and those with weakly held beliefs.

You are nto trying to convert them, you are trying to put giant shoes, makeup and a big red plastic nose on them.

Here's the deal ...

X percent of the public is anti-gun, believes that firearms are evil, that Glocks can pass through airport security undetected, that AR-15s are machine guns, etc. There is nothing that we or anyone else can do to change their minds, and it is a waste of time to try.

Y percent of the people are pro-gun. They are us. There is little point (I did not say no point) preaching to them, as it is for the most part preaching to the choir.

Z percent of the people have not formed an opinion yet, or may only have weakly-held opinions on gun control. They could join either camp. They can still be persuaded one way or the other. Those are the people we must identify and educate. If we can reach enough of them, we will win.

[mmike87]

"I always wonder what all the people who feel the need to own an assault rifle would think if they were ever shot by one, don't you?"


Dammit, why didn't I shoot first!

[bkb0000]

anti-gun people are typical party-line followers. they're no different than anti-lifers or gay marriage people or anyone else who voted for the Obamanation. to be a "good liberal" means to follow the party. if you disagree on these, you're not a good liberal and must be racist or something.

[marauder4]

I always respond with a question along the lines of...

"hows that murder ban going?" or "hows that drunk driving ban going?"

The blank looks on their faces are worth the effort...

Bart

[Failure2Stop]

It seems that I have inadvertantly hijacked the thread with my above comment. Apologies Greg.

Just as exkc135driver said, some people are beyond help, some don't need help, and there are some that can be swayed with a little information and fact. I absolutely agree that compiling a list of supposed "facts" from the antis and supplying honest answers is a really good idea. The thing is that we must be completely honest- no emotional appeals, no twisting of facts, no bullshit. This website is not only visible to pro-2A folks. If someone here posts a distortion or lie and nobody fixes it, it will just add fuel to the Antis' fire.

We have to face and discuss the bad side of guns- people use them to hurt and kill other people, many of them innocent. People have accidents with guns and hurt themselves or others. Kids have gotten ahold of loaded guns and caused injury or death to themselves or others. The reason that private firearms ownership by civilians is worth these occurences must be made clear. Appeals that they are secured by the 2A is not sufficient, the BOR can, has, and will be altered.

Anyway, I would like to see what responses/rebuttals to the statements made by anti-gun organizations the members have to share. It would be a nice database for the next time you see a statistic thrown up somewhere.

I watched "Bowling for Columbine" a few years ago and pretty much filled up a notepad with the "facts" presented. Upon a little research I discovered that most were distrotions or lies. Maybe we could start somewhere like that- watch BFC (or the Brady website, or whatever) and note the "facts", post them here, and let the members do the research.

[The_War_Wagon]

GREAT article here by John Bowman entitled, "When Guns Are Outlawed...Only Government Will Have Guns"- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bowman3.html - as it points out how world gummints (especially the Marxist, do-gooder flavored ones :rolleyes:) killed MORE people, than all the wars of the 20th century combined!!! :eek:

I especially love his closing argument - from his closing paragraph;


I earnestly desire that everyone in the world becomes or remains a staunch advocate of widespread, unregulated gun ownership. There are few, if any, paradigms one could adopt to better ensure personal safety and peaceful pursuits. Such a paradigm would mitigate crime, reduce warfare, and, by far the most important, provide the ultimate backstop – when unalienable rights and Constitutions fail – against the most heinous danger all inhabitants of the world face: democide. It is neither a joke nor the subversive tripe you have come to expect from the phrase to say, support gun ownership! If not for yourself, do it for the children.

:D:D:D

[crowkiller]

Rember, the point of these arguments is not to win over the radicals.

The point is for them to be shown as fools to the undecideds and those with weakly held beliefs.

You are nto trying to convert them, you are trying to put giant shoes, makeup and a big red plastic nose on them.

This is a good pointand the right direction we need to go imo.

[kingc]

All the gun grabber and haters are rabid moonstruck anti-gun. We have a state rep that was elected on the Koat-tails of Obongo. Every frickin vote is ban guns or no on pro gun issues. We had a recent concurrence vote on cleaning up language in a UUW bill. It was like 100-3 for the concurrence. This broad voted no.

These people are like bloodsuckers. They smell the blood. They grab the guns. They need to be squashed.