Interesting Argument Against Anti-Gunners

[stephen426]

I saw this article while browsing through Facebook regarding an argument many pro-gun people are adopting to use against anti-gun people.

While I have always attempted to be civil and win the anti-gun crowd with reason and logic, the article contains a lot of truth regarding anti-gun people. They don't want to be converted. They want to convert us. They will tell out-right lies to trick those who are too gullible or too lazy to dig up facts! I clicked on "Everytown for Gun Safety" to see what their position was. What I discovered was outright lies! They pretend to advocate "common sense" legislation when their agenda is pretty much an outright gun grab. Is this article right in saying we just stick a big fat middle finger in the air towards the anti-gun crowd until they are willing to have a real debate based on facts, rather than lies?

[Tom Servo]

They don't want to be converted. They want to convert us.

They don't want to convert us. If we decided to agree with them tomorrow, they'd lose their scapegoat.

Is this article right in saying we just stick a big fat middle finger in the air towards the anti-gun crowd until they are willing to have a real debate based on facts, rather than lies?

No, he's wrong on two points. The first is in blowing them off with the colorful language he suggests. That's exactly what they want. It makes us look childish, and it gives them an imagined high ground in a debate.

The second problem is his assertion that we shouldn't engage them at all. While we won't convert them, the debate process allows us to get the correct information out there. If we simply choose to avoid the discussion altogether, our opponents have the stage to themselves.

Frankly, I find little of value in the article. The author seems to be intent on pushing a partisan political agenda, of which gun rights are simply another checkbox on the list.

[jmr40]

In a way I adopted a similar stance years ago. I'm civil to folks who I know to be strongly anti-gun, but don't discuss gun rights with them at all. It is a waste of my time and energy. I figured out years ago they were more interested in converting my stance and I knew that wasn't gonna happen. I figured I have about the same chance to convert them.

The key is to have reasonable discussions with those who are basically neutral on the position and educate them. The vast majority of people here, even those who lean towards more gun control don't really have strong feelings.

A reasonable discussion with those will go a long way. Being 100% honest is extremely important. Getting caught stretching the truth kills any credibility you have.

[Pond, James Pond]

You can usually find the same attitudes and approaches on both sides of a contentious argument.

What many describe here amongst the anti-gun crowd are very vocal, very active even aggressive advocates of their point of view, right or wrong.

What many on here describe is another approach: believe what you believe but avoid confrontation because it is a waste of energy to argue their point with the likes described above.

So we can look at it two ways. Who gets their point out more effectively to those who've yet to decide? The ones who shout it out or those who decide not to raise the point because it is seen as futile?

As infuriating as they may be, I'd say it is the former group. So the next question is where are our highly vocal advocates, getting out there and getting stuck in to infuriating and often futile arguments in order to get our point out there?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TS

Frankly, I find little of value in the article.

I would take that a step further. The article is extraordinarily poor advice.

The response he urges is the response of someone so frustrated by his inability to respond rationally that he decides that irrelevant discourtesy is a better alternative. Hardly anything would be more gratifying as evidence of the superiority of an advocate's argument than for those who oppose his position to write "FU!".

Ultimately, what does a case of voluntary tourrette syndrome in a 2d Am. supporter indicate? That he can't even control his own mouth, let alone a firearm? That the right is a value mostly for those who aspire to incivility?

The great thing about the internet is that it gives so many people a voice. The terrible thing about the internet is that it gives so many people a voice.

Originally Posted by S246

They will tell out-right lies to trick those who are too gullible or too lazy to dig up facts! I clicked on "Everytown for Gun Safety" to see what their position was. What I discovered was outright lies!

If that is so, what does it tell you about the position and the advocates?

Where you respond with your actual position and why you really believe it, you are likely to present a more reasonable position to an undecided observer. An observer may also fallaciously observe that your candor and civility reflect virtue in your position. Where the observer to a conversation holds a contrary position, that candor and civility can allow them to hold you in enough regard to reconsider some aspects of their position.

[44 AMP]

There are a couple of old "country" saying that should be considered anytime you are going to "discuss" guns & gun rights with an anti gun bigot.

"Never wrestle with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig likes it."

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig."

I will admit the idea of verbally or even physically "flipping off" some of these idiots is very appealing, on an emotional level. However, "the pig likes it".

[Catfish King]

A two word response to the dyed-in-the-wool anti-gunners is appropriate for the most part, but I find that a lot of the useful idiots and low-information-voters will actually listen to reason as some of them begin to realize the vacuum of logic and truth within the anti-gunners' "arguments."

If I knew how to identify the anti's versus the useful idiots and low-information-voters straight-away, it would save me a lot of typing on the internet, but alas, I cannot, so it usually takes me three or four posts to qualify whether or not there is actually a thinking, sentient being on the other keyboard as opposed to there being a patently histrionic socialist that's both doing the bidding and worshiping at the feet of his or her globalist overlords.

[vito]

I have a relative who "shares" the snide remarks of a rabid anti-gunner on Facebook. This gun control supporter attacks individuals supporting gun rights with personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue, spouts the oft repeated lies of the anti-gun organizations, and seems to think snide sarcasm constitutes wisdom. I have met many people like this during my lifetime, and I say from experience that having a reasoned and rational debate with them is an exercise in futility. They will deny the legitimacy of facts that they disagree with, present false information as facts, etc, etc. and clearly are not open to any possible change of their position (because ultimately their position is based upon emotion and fear, not reason and logic). The most satisfying response to these fanatics is a verbal flip off, or something like "tough luck, the 2nd Amendment is on my side" type remark.

In the rare instance of encountering a person who due to their lack of exposure or familiarity with firearms is pro gun control, but is open to reason, then a real conversation can be had that might change their mind. I have found that folks neutral on gun issues often take the statements by the anti gun crowd literally, that they are only seeking "reasonable" restrictions on guns, or that things like gun registration have valuable benefits for society without any downsides. These people can be swayed by giving them the facts and reality of what the gun control side is really seeking.

[Tom Servo]

I have met many people like this during my lifetime, and I say from experience that having a reasoned and rational debate with them is an exercise in futility.

While that may be the case, what about third parties who witness the exchange? They're going to believe someone who's polite and civilized over someone who's snarky and smug.

[SIGSHR]

I too have found that engaging in reasonable, ration, mature and civil debate with some people is a waste of time, but just as profanity is a strong way of expressing a weak mind, taking the High Road in a debate says a lot about the person who does it.
I like to quote Margaret Thatcher:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is a particularly wounding because, I think, well, if they attack one personally it means they have not got a single political argument left."

[Hiker 1]

I've never had a conversation with a full-blown anti-gunner but I always work to be a good ambassador to the fence-sitters.

We were having dinner with some friends a few years ago and Mrs. Friend mentioned that she was getting into prepping, etc. We had a good conversation on that subject when the topic of security came up. She said she didn't like guns "because of the violence they represent."

I did the whole active-listening thing: acknowledged her remark and repeated a version of it back to her. Then I said something like, "we don't blame cars for drive-by shootings." I could see the wheels turning as she noodled on this for a while.

Later she was asking my wife about getting started in shooting, taking a ladies' class, etc.

I'll call that a success

[doofus47]

From the article:

PHP Code:

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.” 


So, the "new argument" is basically "I'm going to take my ball and go home."
So, how does that leave us in the democratic process' "exchange of ideas" when we drop out of the exchange. Silliest argument I've heard since 3rd grade.

No one said that building bridges, a cogent argument or respectful relationships between citizens were easy endeavors. It's always easier and much more dramatic to break stuff and tear down (and blowing stuff up always looks cool on TV), but at the end of the day, only one of these two directions leaves something that makes the actor, society and the world a better place. Please choose wisely.

[44 AMP]

So, the "new argument" is basically "I'm going to take my ball and go home."
So, how does that leave us in the democratic process' "exchange of ideas" when we drop out of the exchange. Silliest argument I've heard since 3rd grade.

I'm not so sure that it is "silly". Sure, it sounds childish, it is an emotional response, but I don't see it a "a take my ball and go home" as much as "I'm tired of playing with you, you don't play fair".

For GENERATIONS, our side has been polite, logical, reasonable, willing to discuss things, and, I feel, more than overly generous.

The only honest point the antigun bigots have ever held to is that each restriction is "a good first step".

We, because of what seems to have turned out to be a misplaced sense of fair play, have allowed them to frame the argument, to the extreme that we (gun owners) are all "guilty" and we must "prove" ourselves to be "safe", by their standards, or give up not only our property, but our legal rights, so they can feel safe.

We believe that being lying hypocrites in pursuit of our goals is wrong. They believe nothing matters but victory.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in!"

Tell me, other than as a display of my good manners, WHY should I be polite to THAT!??

how does that leave us in the democratic process' "exchange of ideas"...

I am coming to the opinion that the biggest mistake of our side was when they accepted (generally) that our rights are subject to the democratic process.

Particularly when their side believes that only our rights are subject to that process.

Does it not boil down to the "pursuit of happiness"? They demand theirs, and deny mine.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

The only honest point the antigun bigots have ever held to is that each restriction is "a good first step".

We, because of what seems to have turned out to be a misplaced sense of fair play, have allowed them to frame the argument, to the extreme that we (gun owners) are all "guilty" and we must "prove" ourselves to be "safe", by their standards, or give up not only our property, but our legal rights, so they can feel safe.

We believe that being lying hypocrites in pursuit of our goals is wrong. They believe nothing matters but victory.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in!"

Tell me, other than as a display of my good manners, WHY should I be polite to THAT!??

Your good manners are part of who you are, and your civility lets the sound quality of your analysis come through without any distraction. (Here I do not mean "you" generically, but "you" specifically; I've seen you cut to the core of an issue succinctly and effectively.)

I think it is an error to allow an adversary to transform you into something inferior.


Let just note as well that the impulse to treat gun owners and advocates as a group who carries the burden of proving safe practice and submitting that judgement to the political process isn't solely from anti-gun advocates. Some of that chiding seems tactical and comes from 2d Am. defenders.

Originally Posted by 44AMP

I am coming to the opinion that the biggest mistake of our side was when they accepted (generally) that our rights are subject to the democratic process.

Particularly when their side believes that only our rights are subject to that process.

I think freedom of speech and assembly and practice of religion are your rights too (and I understand you were writing colloquially just above and that we agree on this), and that 2d Am. rights are theirs as well.

Rather than descend to their vice, I think you are more compelling when you ask that they rise to your virtue, that they be as accepting of your constitutional right to arms as you are of their right to express paranoia, misrepresentation and poor understanding in their constitutionally protected speech.


My sense is that the vice of the gun control movement in overstatement, technical ignorance, and misstatement of issues has eroded their credibility in public discourse. It isn't the more effective path to choose.

[45Gunner]

Suppose you had a group of people, let's call them anti-gunners, that decide that eating meat is not healthy. They will try to prevent everyone from eating meat. They will concoct and twist factoids to make it look like eating meat will cause the immediate demise of the entire human race.

Now, suppose you had a group of people, lets call them pro-gunners, that decide that eating meat is not healthy. They will quietly stop eating meat. End of discussion.

That, in a nutshell is the difference. Truth and Lies. Which ever you chose to believe depends upon if you lean to the left or to the right.

[doofus47]

44AMP:

We, because of what seems to have turned out to be a misplaced sense of fair play, have allowed them to frame the argument, to the extreme that we (gun owners) are all "guilty" and we must "prove" ourselves to be "safe", by their standards, or give up not only our property, but our legal rights, so they can feel safe.

So, you just proved my point. If we say "screw you" and leave, the field is theirs to own. They get to set the tone, frame the debate and we get the side lines and enjoy our grumpy third-grade feelings. However we failed to win political victories in the past against gun control, we are guaranteeing the same future if we say "screw you" and stop talking. Silly.

Moreover, by following this plan, we have created a society where valid discussion is no longer possible AND because of that correct goals are no longer possible, b/c one side is always marketing and talking around the facts to reach a goal and the other side, us, the side with right on their side, just says "screw you" but says nothing meaningful for the side of right.

Even if only one side is being honest, there is a chance for civil society to build something by common consent. If both sides decide to lie to achieve a win, then there is no longer civil society, just manipulators and manipulated, no matter who "wins."

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by doofus47

Even if only one side is being honest, there is a chance for civil society to build something by common consent. If both sides decide to lie to achieve a win, then there is no longer civil society, just manipulators and manipulated, no matter who "wins."

How exactly you can build something by common consent if only one side is being honest? Besides, making one side play by the rules while letting the other side do whatever they want to isn't exactly a level playing field.

[Skans]

The real problem in debating the antis is that they feel no shame in:

1. outright and intentional lying;
2. engaging in name calling and verbal bullying
3. quoting made up statistics, made-up events, made-up studies, etc.
4. arguing using pure emotions
5. over blowing the relative importance of one event
6. switching topics when you back then in a corner with hard facts.

What we need to do is recognize when we are not engaged in a debate, but pandering to someone who is actually engaged in an all-out verbal assault on us. You need to immediately halt the debate and quickly switch tactics by attacking their lack of knowing how to engage in a meaningful debate. You cannot shy away from attacking a person's debating skills, education, background, etc. when it becomes clear that they don't bring any facts or knowledge to the debate. That's the time to boast about your credentials and experience, and beat on them over the head hard for getting their "facts" from twitter, CNN, etc.

That means that we all need to be skilled debaters and learn how to respond to typical anti deflections and lies. It is also helpful to be prepared and skilled at concluding a debate once you've made your points, engaged in meaningful discussion, and the other side has nothing meaningful to further the discussion.

[str8tshot]

I can't help but to think back to the 1980s when homosexuality was considered abhorrent behavior by most main stream people. A few decades of militant work and we have a Supreme Court that resently redefined marriage.
The lesson I learn from this change in social norms is one of messaging. The message that says we can save one life by removing guns, followed by a personal story, has a better chance of changing public acceptance than all the logical arguments to the contrary. We are no longer a people who care about logic (it isn't even taught in public school any longer); we are a people led by emotion. The left has learned that lesson well, and it is used anytime they have a news story that supports their ideological orientation.
I, for one, think we should continue to use logic and reason, but should learn to augment our rational thought with a personal, relatable story of how guns save lives.

Just yesterday a good Samaritan saved a woman from attack in Jacksonville. Stories like this should be a part of our dialogue when we support our right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/good-sa...ttack/34551744

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Skans

You cannot shy away from attacking a person's debating skills, education, background, etc. when it becomes clear that they don't bring any facts or knowledge to the debate. That's the time to boast about your credentials and experience, and beat on them over the head hard for getting their "facts" from twitter, CNN, etc.

I can think of very few instances when an appeal to your own authority will be compelling.

If a fallacy is employed, or a position employs a factual error (the barrel shroud is "the thing that goes up") it is useful to note the error and let the listener draw a fair conclusion. That isn't quite the same as beating them over the head for being dolts.


It also might be useful to know which kind of "anti-" is on the other end of the conversation. A practiced advocate who knows his argument has false components but presses the argument falsely may deserve a rougher response than an in-law at thanksgiving who is genuinely misguided.

[44 AMP]

If we say "screw you" and leave,

I think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying we should flip them off and leave, I'm saying that politeness to people who already hate us is wasted effort.

Absolutely, we should inform the misinformed, and educate the under educated. But being nice to the fanatic gets us nothing with them, and doesn't get us as much as it used to with those whose minds are not totally closed.

Like it or not, there is a growing segment of our society that views politeness and civility as weakness. Rude is cool, to all too many people these days.

One certainly needs to target one's style of argument to the audience, and what plays well to the "great unwashed" doesn't go in high class (or those who think of themselves as such) society.

"your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries! Begone, or I shall taunt you again!" Isn't the best approach for all things, but in some circumstances, I see nothing we lose by it.
(and it does feel good!)

[shaunpain]

I think that until we can elevate the issue of guns past a "right" and "left" argument, then we will finally have a good conversation about it. So many problems in this country derive from the pontificating of politicians to pander to their constituents and win elections. The world isn't black and white and neither are gun issues. When those gun issues are somehow intrinsic to the inability of governments to address mental health and poverty, it's no wonder that the gun owners are the ones being harangued. Many of the horrors surrounding guns have nothing to do with guns at all, but an unwillingness to address the core of the problem. In any way, it serves all governments to restrict your access to firearms. For mass shootings to stop, it would require huge infrastructure overhauls and money. I don't know what country you think you live in, but I can't think of many politicians that are guilty of actually getting anything done. Why get your hands dirty when you can just write a law? It's the American way!

[Buzzcook]

There are very few original arguments on the internet or FTF for that matter, Mostly it's quote mining, parroting other arguments or statistic posting.

So I'm leery of accusing people of out right lying. Usually they just accept arguments made by their conferees without checking on their own.

In the end the only thing we can co is just make the best argument that we can. Converting the people we're arguing with should come second or even third.

[UncleLoodis]

I read the article. While I agree that the anti-gun people are infuriating most of the time, and don't listen to any sort of logic, telling them to @#!# you or any variant only makes us look like the rednecks they proclaim we are.

I don't waste my valuable time with them anymore. If I think the person is somewhat reasonable (very rare), I'll sometimes offer to take him/her to the range, and offer to supply guns/ammo/PPE. They usually decline...but I have had one or two bite, and even though they don't want to admit it, they have a good time (who wouldn't, it's fun!).

Taking the low road is easy, and they want us to do it. Don't take the bait. I simply try not to argue with them because it just raises my blood pressure.

U.L.

[stephen426]

Most of my conversations with people who are anti-gun go something along the lines of:

1. A gun is an equalizing force. Having a gun (and knowing how to use it) keeps you from being a potential victim to anyone who is physically stronger.

2. For those who are scared of guns, are they more scared of an object that cannot do anything by itself, or more scared of a potential rapist/murderer?

3. A gun gives you options. There is no guarantee that it will save your life, but it will give you an option that you would not have otherwise had. Your life would be completely at the mercy of your attacker.

4. I owe it to my family to be able to protect them.

What other arguements do you guys use?