THIS is what we're up against.

THIS is what we're up against.

This is a discussion on THIS is what we're up against. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; If you want to beat the antis, this is one starting point... This was linked to in the Huffington Post, it's a Mother Jones article: ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: THIS is what we're up against.

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414

    THIS is what we're up against.

    If you want to beat the antis, this is one starting point...

    This was linked to in the Huffington Post, it's a Mother Jones article:
    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...ths-fact-check

    Now, many of us here have accused the liberal side of this argument of burying their heads in the sand.

    If we refuse to acknowledge the right's arguments with "pffft" I won't read that trash." Or, "their facts aren't." We are doing ourselves a disservice... And in fact, burying our own heads in the sand.

    We, all of us, are engaged in a battle. This battle, and all the skirmishes from now til the end of this war....

    If you are able, refute all of the contentions in the article... And then spread the word everywhere you can....
    BenGoodLuck likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    580
    I'll start with the first point:

    Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
    Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
    Gov Cuomo said in an interview on Albany radio:
    “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
    Drafts of the bill that he submitted actually called for confiscation NY Democrat begs Republican to keep gun confiscation proposal from public - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

    If I have time later, I'll respond to others

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array mano3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    999
    Good find. May explain why their side is adamant if they believe all the points as gospel.
    US Air Force, 1986 - 2007

    "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George Mason

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    Here's a good one:

    "Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without."

    Given that those with CCW licenses are simply more likely to have a gun with them (concealed or otherwise), than someone without a CCW, this is a no-brainer. You can't threaten someone with a firearm if you don't have one. Can this article be any more stupid than that?
    bklynboy and sdprof like this.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  5. #5
    Member Array chiefs-special-guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    alabama
    Posts
    347
    the problem with the mother jones "facts" is they are correlations, not causal findings. this sounds technical, but here is a simple way to view it. when someone says "states with more guns have more gun killings", say "people taking aspirin have more headaches". of course. the issue is one of identifying cause and effect. correlation (statistical association) does NOT tell you anything about causes. maybe people in states with more violence buy more guns to protect themselves. if they didn't murder would be worse still. the NSF reviewed all the gun/crime/violence studies in 2004, and concluded that the evidence so far available did not establish any causal links. now, i support the second amendment because i believe self-defense, and defense of one's family are basic human rights, beyond even the constitution. would i give up my guns for a perfect, nonviolent world? yes, i would. because then my goals would be obtained: my family would be safe. but that is not what is being proposed. the issue is simple: if someone proposes something that takes away basic rights from other people, then they better guarantee it will work. they must be willing to pay any price if it fails. but they are not willing to make any such promise. of course not. it is just political BS. this is obvious from the fact that our "leaders", who have their own retirement systems (not SS) and their own health care plans paid for by us, also have armed guards. so, they deserve this but my family does not? i do not agree.
    oakchas likes this.
    Six for sure...Uh, I mean Five. Five for sure..

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414

    Re: THIS is what we're up against.

    Quote Originally Posted by KoriBustard View Post
    Here's a good one:

    "Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without."

    Given that those with CCW licenses are simply more likely to have a gun with them (concealed or otherwise), than someone without a CCW, this is a no-brainer. You can't threaten someone with a firearm if you don't have one. Can this article be any more stupid than that?
    You're right... But the argument that an armed society is a polite society, rather falls flat, doesn't it?

    Do we assure a polite society by brandishing a firearm at rude people? I don't think so, but you're saying that if I carry a gun with a license, that I might use it to threaten someone, because I have it, for whatever reason, right or wrong.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414

    Re: THIS is what we're up against.

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefs-special-guy View Post
    the problem with the mother jones "facts" is they are correlations, not causal findings. this sounds technical, but here is a simple way to view it. when someone says "states with more guns have more gun killings", say "people taking aspirin have more headaches". of course. the issue is one of identifying cause and effect. correlation (statistical association) does NOT tell you anything about causes. maybe people in states with more violence buy more guns to protect themselves. if they didn't murder would be worse still. the NSF reviewed all the gun/crime/violence studies in 2004, and concluded that the evidence so far available did not establish any causal links. now, i support the second amendment because i believe self-defense, and defense of one's family are basic human rights, beyond even the constitution. would i give up my guns for a perfect, nonviolent world? yes, i would. because then my goals would be obtained: my family would be safe. but that is not what is being proposed. the issue is simple: if someone proposes something that takes away basic rights from other people, then they better guarantee it will work. they must be willing to pay any price if it fails. but they are not willing to make any such promise. of course not. it is just political BS. this is obvious from the fact that our "leaders", who have their own retirement systems (not SS) and their own health care plans paid for by us, also have armed guards. so, they deserve this but my family does not? i do not agree.
    Exactly! And you have an easy to swallow aspirin analogy...

    This is how to defuse these arguments, if the other side would listen.

    TheNSF argument is excellent, and they might agree to the truth of it... Then saying, "that's why O's request for more money for study is so important."
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  8. #8
    Member Array Clodbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    205
    Everyone all together now:

    "Correlation does not imply causation, correlation does not imply causation..."

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164
    I love that 7/10 "myths" have no corresponding sources for reference.
    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,034
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Do we assure a polite society by brandishing a firearm at rude people?
    No. We each ensure that those daring to threaten others with death don't survive the encounter beyond prison or the morgue.

    If ever we do get to the point where that many are armed against the violently criminal, I strongly believe we'll begin to approach the armed/polite society we hold up as an ideal.

    Until then, too many "stupids" believe they can act like criminals and get away with it; and, like criminals, they're absolutely right that the odds are still heavily weighted in their favor. (At least, on the instant of making such deadly threats against others.)

    Thankfully, it's changing quickly, the more we have upstanding people waking up to the fact that there are a good number of people out there who would dare take everything we have.
    mulle46 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #11
    Member Array krisspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    OH / No KY
    Posts
    241
    Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
    Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
    This one's so blatantly false, I can't believe it. So, in 30 years, an armed civilian has NEVER stopped a shooter / potential shooter? If a shooter is stopped quickly, or before they can begin (like in the Oregon mall last year), how do they know those wouldn't have turned into "mass" shootings?

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,996
    I literally stopped reading at this point and I have no desire to read further:

    Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
    Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

    Okay (ahem). If there are any liberals, leftists, socialists, Obama voters, or other anti-Americans reading this post, I want you to really think this one through if you're capable.

    Here, I'll help you out by strengthening your logic skills. Think of the following as logic exercises. I'll give the answer at the bottom, but I'll share a couple of analogies to give you a hint. No cheating, now!

    Why is it that you always find something in the last place you look?

    Why does "tomorrow" never come?

    Why is there some type of weather every day?




    Okay, if you've done the above exercises, you should easily be able to dissect the above piece of false logic. If not, then here's the answer. Read the following. I'll type it V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y so that even you can understand.

    Here we go:

    A mass shooting that was stopped by an armed civilian (or anyone else) was........TADA!!!!!! NOT A MASS SHOOTING!

    Follow me? If this is too complicated, you might have to work your way up to it. Maybe try some 3-4 year old jigsaw puzzles or something. If you can grasp this, then tomorrow we'll work on advanced Tic-Tac-Toe skills.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    You're right... But the argument that an armed society is a polite society, rather falls flat, doesn't it?

    Do we assure a polite society by brandishing a firearm at rude people? I don't think so, but you're saying that if I carry a gun with a license, that I might use it to threaten someone, because I have it, for whatever reason, right or wrong.
    The other point you're missing here is that it says nothing about those without CCW's that threatened people verbally, physically, with knives, with tire irons, or anything else. It selectively focuses on firearms. So is impoliteness solely based on brandishing a firearm? It plays into people's preconceived notions and requires them to think very little about the real issue, which is exactly what the anti-gun crowd is so eager to to. This whole article is replete with other logical fallacies. However, I can see its appeal to people who think superficially as all the arguments are conveniently simplistic.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,568
    Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
    Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
    So tell me... who keeps track of crimes that weren't committed?


    Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
    Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
    Highly misleading "fact." First, the trick qualifier here is "strangers." The FBI Uniform Crime Reports questionnaire queries the relationship between the victim and the offender, and suggests Husband, Wife, Son, Father, Acquaintance, Neighbor, Stranger for entries. So all but the most random shooting would be reported as by something other than "stranger."

    Second, to the point of armed women being safer, the correct question is "how many women successfully used guns to defend themselves against attack?" It doesn't matter how you categorize the attacker, the point to be demonstrated is whether the presence of a firearm kept a woman from being attacked or seriously hurt.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    So tell me... who keeps track of crimes that weren't committed?
    Bingo.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

among texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone w

,
ccw9mm what we're up against
,
fact check, mother jones
,
fact checking mother jones
,
mother jones fact check
,
mother jones gun facts refuted
,
mother jones gun myths fact check
,
mother jones gun stats refuted
,
mother jones myths refute
,

? among texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someo

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors