Need help with Argument
I hope this is posted in the right place.
I am involved in an argument about criminals, gun control, etc. with a FLAMING liberal and wanted to track down some information.
I read somewhere that the majority of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
Does anyone know where to track down statistics on this?
I will search the net and also try to get my blood pressure down in the meantime.
What is this person's stance? Do you think you can cut through all of the emotion and present facts?
OK. I have calmed down and can speak (maybe) coherently.
I appoligize for even starting this post because the idea of even continuing this argument is a little ridiculous. I realize that arguing with this person is like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you accomplish is frustrating the teacher and irritating the pig.
But since I started it, a little background is in order. The argument with this 70 year old co-worker was about violent crime and the need to punish violent offenders.
When I said that a violent offender should be severely punished, his remark was something like, "why, you can't be sure he will ever do this again".
I know I should have realized I was talking to a wall and just walked away but instead I told him that the majority (I believe I said over half) of violent crime was committed by repeat offenders.
At that point he said that he didn't believe any of my statistics because I was always wrong about them. Of course, he couldn't remember any statistics I provided in the past that proved to be false information.
He then stated that he would search the internet to prove me wrong. So I decided to search for the statistics myself.
This guy made statements like, "I have lived 70 years without having a gun or being attacked. . . I think we are all fairly safe for the most part".
I started this post as SIGguy indicated: with a lot of emotion and for that I am sorry. I will try to calm down and think before I waste people's time with my venting.
Stay safe out there.
Paul - sometimes we have to vent, need to vent. And here is about as good a place as any where you'll at least find a rational and attentive audience!
He of course at 70 - shares with many 70 year olds the good fortune to have never been attacked - good for him. I am lucky to have reached 61 with so far no gun pulled one me, but I carry! He could however be mugged and/or shot tomorrow! He may have driven for 54 years and never had a flat but - would this make him no longer want to carry a spare? I wonder!
His take on offenders is so niéve as to be laughable - his head needs to come out of warm dark places and into the sunlight of the real world.
I fear you will achieve more success shouting at a brick wall than influence this guy's dogma - it is embedded - and unlikely to change now. The only hope for his kind is, them being mature enough to sit down and debate the issues in detail, with an open mind. Seeing tho as his mind is probably where the sun don't shine - I doubt success is likely.
Here's a link that will help you that was provided by member "4my son" in another thread: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
You have been given some great 'on-line' leads, but...
you will most likely NOT change many liberal minds in today's world. People seem to either be for or against...few, do I find to be in the middle.
I may try SOME debate, but I can usually sense quickly if it is worth my while. I usually walk away from some of the flaming liberal types thinking...DON'T call on me for assistance when the SHTF...
Stay safe...stay away from liberals!
A similar thing happened to me last week in Idaho. I found a pair of gloves at a truckstop I liked and put them on the counter with my coffee to pay for them.
The gentleman (used loosely) behind me, (looked about 65-70 ish) Spouted out, "You expecting bad weather?"
I replied, "Uh, no. I am expecting normal weather."
He snaps, "Then why are you buyin' gloves?"
I said "I don't like getting diesel on my hands when I fuel the truck."
He made some comment about never getting his hands dirty and I bit back a comment of his not needing to use toilet paper. On the way out the door he says to me ...
"You run for Prime, huh."
I said, "No, I just like their line of coats and hats." (Here's your sign)
He says, "Well that is one company I would never drive for."
I said, "Good, we have met our quota for bitter people."
My wife laughed at me and as we got in the truck...
Some people don't really think or belive what is coming out of their mouths, they just want to argue with you. I don't really care for bitter people... they tend to make everyone around them bitter too. I don't like myself in a bitter mood, I like being in a good mood.
For this individual, I would do the research and print off proof. I would keep it handy but not pursue coversation myself. At his point in his life he is not going to change with out a tramatic event to inspire the change. So there is no point in wasting time on it.
If he were to pursue the conversation, I would use the data to back up my position and nothing more.
I would just agree with the poor SOB. I would also pray for him.
Paul--no sweat here...you are among friends...vent away. Lord knows I do from time to time (Re: Chicago post)
My mother told me "Never argue with a fool for those passing by may not be able to tell who is who." I have tried to follow this advice, sometimes more successfully than at other times.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, about one-half to two-thirds of violent felons go on to repeat their evil acts in the future. The U.S. FBI Crime In The United States report is also a decent source. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons reports similar findings. The State of California tracks some decent numbers with respect to recidivism rates, as do most state and federal prison systems. These trends aren't seen only in the U.S., either. And, generally speaking, the more prior convictions, the greater the likelihood of another violent crime.
Originally Posted by PaulG
No surprises, really.
Do a Google search on "recidivism rate", "recidivism rates", "repeat offenses" and similar terms. You'll find a lot of material with an hour's searching.
Paul--I reread our posts...my intent behind my question was, can you cut through the other person's emotions and present your facts...either way--no harm, no foul.
Thanks for the kind comments and the helpful links.
As for cutting thru his emotion and presenting a logical argument, I don't think that will happen. After all, he is an avid listener of Al Frankin. Of course, when he comes to my office, he will generally here Laura Ingram or Glenn Beck, so I shouldn't complain.
He has in the past stated that he thinks I am a good guy and that is why he can't understand my "radical" (his words, not mine) beliefs.
Even though he starts these little "discussions", when you disagree with him, he becomes VERY agitated. I talked with other co-workers after the incident and they all said that they have quit arguing with him because he gets so upset they think he might have a stroke.
After giving the matter a lot of thought, I think the best approach will be to just refuse to argue with him.
He is a real paradox. He is really a caring and giving person. He has proven that he will give the shirt off his back to help people in need. So I am just as confused with his beliefs and he is with mine.
I really do hope that he will go to the grave much older than he is now and without ever having been physically assaulted. I would rather he continue in his ignorant bliss than be physically hurt.
I just wish I could find a way to keep people like this from imposing unworkable rules (gun control) on me.
Oh....well. Thanks again and stay safe out there.
This guy sounds like he's looking for someone to fight with him (verbally). I would continue to do research and reinforce *my* arguement--sounds like someone good to practice on, because you will run into more like him (1960's era hippie influence). You might not be able to change his mind, but maybe influence those around you who hear the conversation.
If you give up--he "wins"--which is the tactic the other side uses to defeat positions they do not like. They wear you down until you give up--yes, we may be arguing with "fools", but so far, the "fools" have gained a lot of political ground and influence in public policy. Stand your ground--you have the facts, you have the heart, and you are RIGHT in the application of the 2nd Amendment. Don't let him change your viewpoints or sway your desire to engage in a 2A debate.
As far as the "radical" statement--how radical is it to exercise 1st and 2nd amendment rights?