I think this'll help you out....
Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth
This is a discussion on The Anti Discussion... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; ... and ways to counter it. I am looking for some good books, articles, stats, reports to use to counter the anti discussion and support ...
... and ways to counter it. I am looking for some good books, articles, stats, reports to use to counter the anti discussion and support concealed carry. I would also like crime stats in relation to the AWB (I know crime stayed the same and in some cases rose while it was in effect and dropped afterwords and I can't find those stats anymore). I'd appriciate it if we could combine some good ones here so I could go through them. I'm looking elsewhere, but most of my sources are rather slanted toward the antis.
We really as a subculture have got to start getting our act together or we are going to loose our rights, but that's a whole other post.
" Refuse to be a victim, make sure there is a round chambered ! "
Just call me a pessimistic optimist !
U.S. Navy vet 1981-1992
OMO but I think you'll do better to understand what the anti's talking points are, and figure out how to refute them.
With that in mind, I think this is the best place to start:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
"Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington
Have an open and honest discussion. Listen to what they have to say and why. Do not refer to them as anti's, liberals or the such. Invite them to come out with you to the range. Fear of the unknown is a powerful thing, help them see your side without putting down theirs.
I'm your worst nightmare, a liberal with a gun.
For the longest time, the main anti point was that the 2nd Amendment pertained to "... a well regulated militia...".
They have always been against "black guns" like semi-auto versions of M-16s b/c "there's just no reason for a civilian to have one" but here's the counter to that: Our founding fathers wanted us to have the same types of arms in our house that out military has.
Try to find what their 'hot buttons' on the issue are and then bring out the counter-point. Very often, crime statistics, which support our views, will neutralize their arguments.
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.
Yep. If they're willing, it should work well. But start with a .22!Invite them to come out with you to the range. Fear of the unknown is a powerful thing, help them see your side without putting down theirs.
"I pledge allegiance to the war banner of the united states of Totalitaria. And to the Republic, which no longer stands, several bankers, who are now god, indivisible, with Bernanke bucks and credit for all."
Easiest way to turn an Anti is teach them how to shoot.
Here is my line I use a lot and it works 90% of the time.
"I can't believe you carry a gun. "
"Do you consider yourself an open minded person?" 99% of the pop considers them to be open minded. "I've been unarmed before just like you and I found I didn't like it to much. Come to my side for a day and learn how to shoot therefore even if you don't like it you will at least understand it, therefore it will strengthen your argument the next time around, since it seems your very interested in the subject matter."
If I get them to the range and teach them how to shoot. Usually, they leave with a new respect for it since the range always has a female on staff working that day.
“Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll
Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!
Here's something I posted in response to an anti on another forum:
Read about Kennesaw, GA. Back in 1982, they instituted a local ordinance that required all heads of household to keep and maintain a firearm. This was in response to a handgun gun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. When Kennesaw started the ordinance, they had a higher-than-the-national-average per capita crime rate. It has been 25 years, and the results are in. There have been no murders and the crime rate is over 20% lower then it was in 1981, and all this is despite the fact that population there has quintupled. Contrast that to Morton Grove Illinois, the town that instituted the handgun ban. Their crime rate rose immediately after the gun ban (by 15%), despite the fact that the crime rate in the county rose only 3%. Morton Grove's population didn't even increase, it went down. Anyway, I'd say that's at least excellent anecdotal evidence, two towns that made two different choices and had drastically different results over a 25 year period.
Yes, the world has gotten smaller, but it will always be too big to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
I'd also be careful about statistics. While they have their place, remember that it isn't hard for any side of any issue to get one study from somewhere or "adjust" statistics to match whatever they want to provide evidence for.
Also, keep in mind that it is difficult to figure out whether statistics really prove anyone's point, as correlation does not necessarily equal causation. In other words, just because one variable moves along with another, doesn't necessarily mean they have much, if anything, to do with one another.
Yeah that's the problem. We are getting beat over the head by stats though and we need to return the favor as well to support the argument. Its how things work in public opinion now...
John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" is a scholarly discussion that fully backs up the notion of concealed carrying citizens. It's full of graphs and statistics but you learn a lot if you work your way through it.
Some of Massad Ayoob's magazine articles and bound compilations of same might help you.
The anti's main ploys are to misrepresent the nature of firearms and exaggerate the effectiveness of police. They describe semi-auto firearms behavior as if fully automatic, capable of "spraying lead" in all directions. They try to get their listeners to believe that all we have to do is call the police and we'll be immediately saved, neglecting to the reality that in most armed robberies/burglaries, the crime is over and done with before the police can hope to arrive on scene. In arguing with them, we must point out that the main function of the police in these cases is to get medical assistance for you and to investigate the crime (often leading to arrest and prosecution of the guilty), but they aren't able to offer protection, as much as they might like to. They also tend to color all gun owners as somehow criminal, despite the community of permitted CCW's being among the most law-abiding demographic you could ever identify.
They argue that in an armed street robbery scenario, one is best off just doing what the robber demands. John Lott's statistics show that an unarmed victim really is statistically better off complying with the robber, but is statistically even better off defending himself with a firearm.