Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
"F.U." as an argument is not for me. It only puts people on the defensive. I prefer a logical and reasoned approach, with examples.

With apologies for taking this thread a bit sideways, would you like a good example of how guns don't cause violence, and that people do? Here's a story about a perp who (quite tragically) was going to kill his ex g.f. His rifle jammed, so he picked up 2 kitchen knives and went into full murderous creep mode. Thus, the lack of a gun meant nothing to the perp (and an extra icky and horrible death for the poor woman.)

Man who stabbed former girlfriend to death sentenced | KTVB.COM

The antis would tell us that if guns did not exist, that would eliminate most violent behavior. Nupe, it only shifts murderous plans and methods.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
It's about all you can say to the brainwashed few. I suspect most are actually either fence-sitters or aren't really married to the idea. When I deployed some time ago I worked with an avowed socialist who went with the classic "more guns, more crime" line. By the time we got back 6 months later, I took him and his wife to the range, let them shoot my revolver, and within weeks they had purchased one of their own for home defense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
It depends on your,audience. If it is hard core activst-types, that might be you most effective response.

If you are actually trying to EDUCATE a person or a group of people, you might want to put a little more thought in to it.
That's generally my method.

Can't say that it's likely to change some folks. But it's the only option that's likely to change anyone, particularly those who haven't yet thought it through and who are reasonably intelligent and open to reality. Lots of such folks around, if only given the opportunity to be recognized once they're found. Perpetually shunning them all, with a hearty "piss off" attitude foregoes any possibility of learning the positive end of the message; and it forever foregoes aiding them in seeing the depth of their misunderstanding.

Best possible result: examples like Rock & Glock's recent encounters while visibly carrying, in which he was able to engage others in positive discussions about the utility, the rationality, the advantages, and the feared safety issues. Hard to have such discussions when folks are kept at arm's length, let alone angrily shunned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
It depends on your,audience. If it is hard core activst-types, that might be you most effective response.

If you are actually trying to EDUCATE a person or a group of people, you might want to put a little more thought in to it.
That's generally my method.

Can't say that it's likely to change some folks. But it's the only option that's likely to change anyone, particularly those who haven't yet thought it through and who are reasonably intelligent and open to reality. Lots of such folks around, if only given the opportunity to be recognized once they're found. Perpetually shunning them all, with a hearty "piss off" attitude foregoes any possibility of learning the positive end of the message; and it forever foregoes aiding them in seeing the depth of their misunderstanding.

Best possible result: examples like Rock & Glock's recent encounters while visibly carrying, in which he was able to engage others in positive discussions about the utility, the rationality, the advantages, and the feared safety issues. Hard to have such discussions when folks are kept at arm's length, let alone angrily shunned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
Cute; but...

CAN WE ALL STOP CALLING IT "GUN" RIGHTS!​

Guns don't have rights; people have rights!

Some may say I'm nit picking, but this is precisely another way we lose ground to freedom haters.

The term "Gun Rights" or "Gun Control" marginalizes a inanimate object; as though (it) has a mind of it's own.

Perhaps we should ALL stop participating in the (Gun Rights) debate and focus it back with a simple rewording of...


"People Rights" "Human Rights"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
And then, we get an argument like this one:

N.J. boy, 4, shot by 6-year-old brother dies, officials say | NJ.com

And now we're back at "square one" and the fear-mongering goes viral again.

Mommy would have done something equally irresponsible and stupid in an automobile - but nobody is trying to ban cars, are they ?

Because owning a car is a Constitutional Right. Or it isn't. And unlike a gun, a car (another inanimate object) isn't "inherently evil", as a gun is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
I don't have to subscribe to the language, but I do agree with the sentiment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
That approach is nothing more than "fighting fire with fire". Although that approach may work in a California brush fire, the result is the same. Burned and charred land, on both sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,381 Posts
The writer is mostly correct in his assessment of the antis' position. Having been on the socio-political left in my youth, I can tell you that how the more ardent of them view us is somewhere akin to subhuman and as single-digit IQ'd, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing low lifes. There are the minions, Lenin's useful idiots, and then there are the puppet masters... the string pullers. The minions do not like firearms and do not want them. But it's not enough that they don't like them and don't want them. They don't want you to have them, either. The puppet masters have more sinister plans and MO's and it's those evil people about whom this article speaks.

As for shoving one's middle finger in their face, I don't agree with that approach at all. Such behavior does nothing more than cement that which the other side already believes to be true. Best to ignore anyone who is hell bent on opening up an argument with you about why you carry a firearm or any similar topic. Usually, you'll only wind up butting heads with someone who is never going to remain civil and unemotional in the debate of "gun rights vs gun control".
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Banned
Joined
·
131 Posts
The author of the article is right on target: gun grabbers lie. One of their biggest lies is calling semiauto rifles, "assault weapons". No country of which I'm aware uses semiauto rifles as weapons of warfare. A semiauto rifle regardless of appearance is not an assault weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
There is alot of truth in that editorial.
I would never use such a blunt argument because you will always be perceived as ignorant but the article does express how i often feel.

However i am done trying to win people over to our side and any plans for sharing common ground for me are no longer a possibility.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,814 Posts
There is alot of truth in that editorial.
I would never use such a blunt argument because you will always be perceived as ignorant but the article does express how i often feel.

However i am done trying to win people over to our side and any plans for sharing common ground for me are no longer a possibility.
His point, which I agree with , is trying to win over the dead is a useless exercise. He's blunt and perhaps profane, but when one uses the CDC's own survey, which disproves the anti freedom crowds arguement, one gets insult and slander. They , the Dead on the Left, have less than no interest in common ground; they want total submission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
There is alot of truth in that editorial.
I would never use such a blunt argument because you will always be perceived as ignorant but the article does express how i often feel.

However i am done trying to win people over to our side and any plans for sharing common ground for me are no longer a possibility.

I agree with you, Mike. But sometimes you have to stick the appropriate iron in the fire, as well. As for giving up on the human race, even those that don't think like me or agree with me, I'm not there yet. You never know when someone's light may come on. I too, become taxed by insolence and willful ignorance, but I can't put a period at the end of someone's life sentence and say, "there is no hope for them," simply because they don't agree with my position. Now, having said that, it doesn't mean that I'll continue to beat my head against a rock, either! But when they're ready, then we can talk. No point in becoming "Punch Drunk" and "Spinning Your Wheels" with someone that is obviously not ready to be "transformed by the renewing of their minds!" So, my pearls are too genuine and valuable to be casting before them that don't want to hear it, or can't hear it anyway!
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top