how to counter this anti-gun argument?
This is a discussion on how to counter this anti-gun argument? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I wonder if these Gun Control People realize that Many Many More people are killed by Automobiles every year than those from a firearms.
April 18th, 2007 10:12 AM
I wonder if these Gun Control People realize that Many Many More people are killed by Automobiles every year than those from a firearms.
It is a proven fact that 30 Percent of all head on collisions fatalities are in results of suicides. And that doesnt count those that are killed by pure recklessness.
So if they want to take thier vehicles to the scrap metal yards and start walking they would make a bigger impact than wasting thier time on Gun Control..
April 18th, 2007 10:22 AM
I may be the exception, I don't know, but I haven't fired at a silhouette target except for qualification in over a year. I have been shooting bullseye targets as I find them much more challenging. I do not carry what I believe to be the most damaging ammunition either, and when circumstances permit, I do carry O.C. spray.
Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER
My intention should I draw my weapon is get the predator to cease their predatory behavior. If I can achieve that by simply displaying my weapon great! If I do have to fire I intend to only fire until hostile activity ceases. If that is a single shot that turns out to be non lethal, fantastic. If it takes more than that so be it.
To say that the primary function of handguns is to send a lethal projectile somewhere I feel is irresponsible and could be twisted by the anti's for their propoganda purposes. The primary purpose of say, my Ruger MKII target, is to put a hole in a piece of paper precisely where I want it to be. The projectile is not lethal until the person firing it makes it so by their choice of target.
After a tragedy like this I feel we need to be very careful about what we say, and how we say it. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a very emotional issue for both sides, and we can't give in to emotion when we make our arguments, or we will make no more sense to them than Rosie does to us.
April 18th, 2007 11:33 AM
The UK is an excellent example of this. They have abolished almost every kind of firearm as well as passed many laws against violence. And yes, you don't see as many firearms-related incidents (although there are still plenty), but what you do see is a rise in crime. The criminals don't always use guns, but they know that their victims are unarmed and so they are becoming more and more bold. Another unfortunate byproduct of these laws is innocent citizens are being thrown in jail for defending themselves - they are being prosecuted by the very laws that are supposed to protect them. I remember reading one account of an old man who killed a burglar and injured another with a shotgun, after the burglars came into his house. The old man was thrown in jail and the surviving burglar was given taxpayer money with which to hire an attorney to sue the old man. Another incident was an old lady who used a BB gun to scare away some hoodlums from her home; I can't remember exactly what happened to her, but she got in trouble with the law.
Criminals don't necessarily need firearms to commit crimes, but citizens need firearms to defend themselves. A gang of punks armed with nothing but their fists can easily overpower you even if you are armed with mace, or a tazer, or even a knife, but if you have a gun you can hold off a whole gang.
April 18th, 2007 01:08 PM
An argument she made against this goes something like this:
"An unarmed person is much more able to defend themselves against an ax than a gun. A gun can be used to kill multiple people from 50 feet away in a short amount of time. But an ax must be used up close and people have time to react and either stop the threat or run away. Yada, yada, yada..."
Perhaps you could ask her how she would defend herself if cornered by a large ax wielding nut-case and had no way to escape? Have her outline her options. It should be a very short list.
2. Pull her own "concealed" ax from her belt and...
April 18th, 2007 01:26 PM
I'll respectfully disagree. The intent of carry and using a weapon in self-defense is to stop the threat. That's it. If the end result of that is death than so be it. Killing someone is not the point of the discussion. You train to defend yourself with the best weapon for the situation and you train to use that weapon with the greatest amount of proficiency and expediency possible to end the threat. When the threat has ceased than your lawful use of self defense has ceased, whether or not that defense results in death or not is secondary. That applies to any tool used be it a gun, axe, knife, car, newspaper, what have you.
Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER
As to the OP, all you can do is present the facts and hope that your sister listens to both sides of the argument and decides for herself. If she wants to live in a different reality from normal society, in that I mean that all guns would just disappear, than that's the outlook she'll have to live with. The reality is that guns will never go away, ever. It just won't happen. That's the reality we have to live in. She might as well get used to it and decide how much her life means to her and to her family.
Before asking her this next question, ask her to not give you an answer right away. Have her think about it, really think about it and question herself about her thoughts and emotions.
"Faced with a situation where you have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no one is coming to save you, are you going to lay down your life or fight back?"
I bet I know the answer to that one.....
"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.
<----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)
April 18th, 2007 03:01 PM
He probably got the gun from the U.S..
Originally Posted by nn
It's George Bush's fault that he is dead.
April 18th, 2007 03:14 PM
mcp1810...I dont believe the truth is ever irresponsible inspite of the the fact that it might be twisted.
gddyup...I agree with your comments, well said.
It seems as though we tend to sugarcoat the reality of the chioce we have made (CC) to the anti's. All of us have made a decision that we would be willing, if necessary, to take another person's life by lethal force...that is a fact. Otherwise we would employ "non-lethal" means such as bean-bags or plastic bullets, etc.
I think we would get further with the other side by admitting this and focusing the discussion on the fact that the posibility exists to defend ourselves/others with deadly force. Focus on their sense of justice and we might get further.
God bless, HOLYROLLER>
April 18th, 2007 06:24 PM
Tell her that if Turtles were Outlawed then only Outlaws would have Turtles.. Maybe she would understand then......
April 18th, 2007 06:39 PM
Tell your sister this:
When the government takes away gun ownership rights from honest, law-abiding citizens, the criminals (i.e., the guys that break the law everyday) will still have guns and will commit crimes everyday to obtain more guns.
Defense against assults from criminals (or the mentally deranged) that use other types of weapons, such as bats, axes, knives, HIV-infected syringes, etc., actually require some sort of physical prowess and training. Imagine a 65 year old woman trying to defend herself in her own home, in the middle of the night, against a knife-weilding rapist, intent on doing her harm.
Ask your sister how the potential victim could defend him-or-herself against multiple attackers.
Here's a couple of local examples of what I am talking about: Last fall, an ederly couple closed up there store and drove home. They were followed by a perp (later discovered to be a frequent customer) after the day's receipt. When they got into the carport, the old man entered the house. The wife was attacked by the perp. The perp went inside and attacked the husband, who put up a fight (best he could for a man in his sixties). The perp fired several shots at the male victim but missed. When he exited the kitchen, Maw Maw had time to retreive a revolver from the glove department and shot the perp several times. He fled with an accomplice and died several hours later at a local hospital.
A local minister and his wife were attacked by pit bulls in their own yard. The wife saw the pit bulls but was attacked. The husband went to his wife's aid and was attacked.
The point? In the first case, no advance warning of the attack, but the victims were prepared. In the second case, the victims saw it coming but weren't prepared.
Let sis knaw on that for awhile.
Tell your sister this: you love her, you respect her opinion, but she is so totally off the mark as to be laughable.
Good luck to her.
April 20th, 2007 02:01 AM
I hope this isn't against any rules. This article is a little long, but truly struck a chord with me (primarily because the logic followed the conversation my phsychologist wife and I had in bed at 11:00).
A personal belief is, if someone believes something, but the rest of the world seems to disagree, it's time to reevaluate. So after reading the list of international comments bashing America's policieis toward guns, I was reevaluating and came to the same conclusions as this article.
It's a little long, but has many good points. I'd suggest excerpts to address individual questions, as I doubt an emotional arguer (as the vast majority of anti-gunners tend to be) would be able to sit through the whole thing.
The False Promise of Gun Control by Daniel D. Polsby
April 20th, 2007 03:26 PM
great article, unfortunately it is too level headed and appeals too much to a logical mind for most anti-gun hysterics to be able to comprehend..it might be very persuasive for those that are on the fence or generally unfamiliar with the particulars of the debate
Originally Posted by cj
April 29th, 2007 07:48 AM
Another avenue to pursue may be along the lines of the intent of the founders. I am not asserting that this is the only purpose of the second amendment, but merely one of them. The amendment was put in place to ensure that the populace was armed in order to protect itself from a tyrannical government. You will not even have to argue the protection from criminal stand point.
The founding fathers thought citizens needed weapons to ensure the government did not encroach upon liberty. I do not think you will have to do more than pose the question to her of, "What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people *with* guns?"
If you take the guns from the people then they become defenseless in the event of a tyrannical government.
April 29th, 2007 08:45 AM
It's not an argument. It's a plea. Seriously though ...
Originally Posted by Chris17404
In a nutshell, the argument doesn't work because: felons won't disarm; the state cannot find all arms even if it chose to do so; hence citizens being armed is the only practicable solution.
The long-winded version ...
So, let me see if I understand the logic here. The hypothesis is that an unarmed citizen has a better chance of defending against "axes" than guns. The implication being that criminals must be made to no longer have guns, so that citizens will only have to defend against "axes" instead of guns. Okay. One question: how can that be made to happen? Criminals have access to guns. Criminals have an underground that provides guns. The state and its law enforcement folks don't know all criminals and underground networks. Even criminals that have been forcibly made to have axes instead of guns will simply trade them for guns at the earliest opportunity.
The result? Guns are prevalent in the criminal community and will continue to be so. Destroy all guns and stop their manufacture? Fine, then it will be knives. Or baseball bats. Or short sprinkler pipes. Or tire irons. Or, whatever implement of lethal destruction is at hand. Can't stop that, since criminals will find a way to be armed no matter what you, the state or anyone else thinks or does.
The state could attempt to forcibly find and take all firearms. But that would require actually finding all of them, and that' simply not possible. The state doesn't know who all criminals are, nor where all firearms reside.
The only way in which the state can achieve full disarmament is via a house-to-house search of every citizen, forcibly taking all arms found. But once that method is known, all folks desiring to skirt that disarmament will long since have made those guns disappear. Besides, this is America. That is illegal and unconstitutional; people implementing such a policy would be guilty of treason and crimes against the Constitution. Any such order to disarm would be an illegal order. I'd like to think that, simply because of that, it ain't gonna happen.
So. That's the reality. Hence, there's only one other option. Given that criminals will continue to have lethal weapons, the only other option is to decrease the likelihood that those lethal weapons will have the desired effect (ie, the death of the citizen being attacked).
Without life-long training in martial arts and/or sheer dumb luck of being able to manually disarm a felon with a lethal weapon, the only practicable solution is: arm the citizens, every last one of them, with the state's blessing. (Who is this "state" by the way, if it's not us, every citizen? It's merely a matter of doing it.) Since this is America, don't do that by force; simply step aside (a la Vermont) and allow citizens to choose whether they as individuals shall exercise their right to bear arms in defense ... and let them do so. No matter the cost to the criminals, even the death of them.
Last edited by ccw9mm; April 29th, 2007 at 11:32 AM.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
April 29th, 2007 05:49 PM
Your sister has to come to terms that her feelings and wishes, while noble, are essentially irrational and based on the emotion of fear, and a utopian desire of having a totally crime free and gun free society.
If she cannot come to terms with that, she will never understand that that her dreams of living in a society having no guns is dream/desire that will never happen and cannot happen. Period! It is an absolute fact based on so many reasons it would be impossible to list!
No matter how much one wants it to be different, it isn't. That is reality! If she as an intelligent and hopefully, rational person, cannot accept that reality, no amount of knowledge or education or presentation of facts and evidence will save her from herself and those who hold the same opinions as her.
Is she refuses to see the logic and realities, based on fact, truth and countless examples from the many members who have posted here on this subject, I'm afraid no one will be able to convince her otherwise. Sadly, some people are just sheep, willing to be blindly led to slaughter.
Of course, they will deny that they are such creatures, and put forth some sort of argument they conjur up in their minds how they cannot be the sheep, that they are more intelligent than the rest of us, better visionaries than the rest of us, but a rational person will know that it isn't true. Your sisters emotions and fears and rationale is based on her lack of knowledge or ignorance of certain basic truths and realities that are just plain too numerous to list here.
If you would like to see my examples and rationale on how to convince a non- beliver, based on facts I know of and my personal experiences, please read my two posts early this morning in response to the post by (Dman... "Slowly converting someone? I hope so) in this same catagory.
Sorry I am still new to this board and not sure how to link to those posts on this post.
Good luck with your sister and hope you can win her over.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
April 29th, 2007 06:09 PM
heres a nice little clip. every once in a while something that isnt stupidly liberal shows up on tv. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg
By ArmyCop in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 18th, 2010, 12:06 AM
By Agent47 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 17th, 2009, 02:01 PM
By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: September 15th, 2008, 02:40 AM
By DasBoot in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 24th, 2007, 11:05 PM
By Kel-Tec2006 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 26th, 2006, 09:35 AM
Search tags for this page
anti gun counter arguments
anti gun wack jobs
argument to keep a gun
billy ferry fire
billy ferry winn dixie
billy ferry winn dixie fire
concealed carry arguments
counter anti gun argument
countering anti gun arguments
counters to anti gun arguments
how to counter gun argument
how to counter the anti gun arguement
Click on a term to search for related topics.