Your Best Arguments and Talking Points against Anti-gunners and Fence-Sitters

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Dialogue. Ask questions and let them answer.

An effective dialogue will require that one listen to the answers given. I only note this because it is so often missed.

A lot of people will tell you honestly why they choose a position, and a lot of people choose their positions poorly. If you discuss the matte with someone and you get to "I'll have to consider that further", that's a victory.

Many people also incorporate an undue emotional component into a rationale for a position. If you get someone to "Well, I just feel...", it is likely that you aren't dealing with a position that results from a competent process.

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

I don't agree that burden shifting is an appropriate or useful part of argument. It amounts to an assertion that you've no obligation to explain your position. That never works.

You may be certain that one restriction or another sets aside a constitutional right, but your adversary rarely will be. Moreover, if you are going to make any positive claims, for example that the meaning of the 2d Am. is too clear to be so easily misinterpreted, you will carry the burden anyway.

Originally Posted by lancelotlink

Finally, and depending on the audience, discussing the other 9 amendments in the BoR can be useful too. I like to compare how the tactics used against the 2A is often used to attack the 1A.

I concur.

[LancelotLink]

Here's another one I use. 922(r) compliance. I simplify it to make it easier for a non firearm owner to understand. My conversations usually go something like this:

Them: But we need to do something, guns are so unregulated ...

Me: I agree, but the problem is not that guns are so unregulated, they are highly regulated. The problem is the regulations are idiotic. For example, on some guns, they require you to use a foreign made part if a piece breaks. Its a felony to us an American made part, as that's considered arms production. But if you use enough US made parts, its ok since that helps the US economy. If that sounds stupid to you, the AG probably agrees as there have been no known prosecutions under this law since it was enacted over 20 years ago.

Them: (whatever they say)

Me: Instead of spending resources on counting parts, a lot more could be done by following up denied background checks. etc. etc.

Its always good to direct the conversation to a real approach, making the discussion twofold. Eliminating wasteful and ineffective laws while offering a solution. This prevents the other side from simply dismissing your arguments as simply being "no" to everything.

[Spats McGee]

The typical pro/anti discussion that I get into is on Facebook. That means that: (1) there's always an audience; (2) I don't know who the audience is or ow its comprised; (3) the audience is at least semi-computer-literate and has access to the internet. So I go forward on the theory that there's at least one fence sitter and one anti-gunner out there. As a result, I remain civil. I need to sound reasonable, and reasonably educated. Appearances matter. I can't sound like a digital howler monkey shrieking, "IT'S MAH RAHT!"

Here are some of my typical responses:

Anti: 4 children were killed in Chicago over the weekend. There are too many guns on the streets.
Me: How many of those children were killed by people who lawfully owned those firearms? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. I'll bet that if you follow those stories, you'll find out that the shooters were already violating the law just by having those guns.

Anti: The 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia.
Me: Two points: (1) When the 2A was written, every adult male was part of the militia; and (2) the United States Supreme Court disagrees.

Anti: The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms, only muskets!
Me: By that logic, the 1A doesn't apply to television, radio, email, the internet, only to things created with 18th century printing presses. Besides, the Supreme Court has addressed this idea, and it called the idea "bordering on frivolous."

Anti: 90% of the American people support more gun control.
Me: I doubt that, but even if it's true, so what? If 90% of the American people were opposed to women voting, would you support that, too? Rights aren't up for a popular vote.

Anti: 40% of all gun sales are done without a background check.
Me: Do you know where that statistic comes from? I'll tell you. It was a telephone survey of 251 people (a statistically insignificant sample), and it was conducted in 1993. The FBI's NICS system wasn't launched until 1998, and that background checks aren't required for intrastate transfers. Besides, do you really think that violent, convicted felons are going to go through background checks?

Anti: That's why we need Universal Background Checks!
Me: I understand the desire to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill, but: (1) convicted, violent felons have already shown a willingness to disregard very serious laws; and (2) the mentally ill tend to have a great deal of difficulty following laws. So who will be impacted? Folks who are already inclined to follow the law.

Anti: Anyone caught transferring a gun without a background check should be prosecuted.
Me: See above. Besides, there's already been testimony in front of Congress that the DOJ "doesn't have time to prosecute paper crimes." The number of people prosecuted for lying on the 4473 is absolutely miniscule, so how about we start by prosecuting violations of laws already on the books, rather than write a bunch of new laws that won't be prosecuted?

Anti: Nobody needs an assault weapon.
Me: Technically, nobody "needs" to vote, either. But our society needs for us to vote. So need doesn't have a lot to do with it. Besides, have you ever read the definition of an "assault weapon?" Maybe I'm just not that bright, but I don't understand how a pistol grip or a bayonet lug makes the cartridge that's fired from a rifle more deadly.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by lance

Its always good to direct the conversation to a real approach, making the discussion twofold. Eliminating wasteful and ineffective laws while offering a solution. This prevents the other side from simply dismissing your arguments as simply being "no" to everything.

How do you square that with a discussion of other explicit constitutional rights?

What is the real approach to the persistence of human error and evil?

Them: But we need to do something,...

To know what to do, we need to know what it is we seek to remedy. One problem is a "There oughtta be a law!" reflex. When something bad happens, people suppose immediately that there oughtta be a law that would have prevented it.

If we apply that model to speech, we see a world in which a vibrant 1st Am. protects a very wide right against the government. There is a lot of speech I don't like, but its efficacy is limited by a public atmosphere in which a full range of responses is available. That isn't the only way to do it. There are places that legally restrict expression. Is the result better, or do those places still have bunches of odious speech and a limited ability to respond effectively?

It is a bad thing to have Illinois National Socialists march through Skokie, but aren't we all better off in an atmosphere in which disapproval of that sort of thing is a matter of widely held consensus? Several European countries prohibit use of any of those symbols, but what has that accomplished?

Americans have firearms and pressure cookers and cars and pools, and those things all end up killing people because people either make errors or act with malevolence. We can make laws that take pressure cookers and pools and cars and firearms away from the potentially negligent and malevolent, but then none of us will be able to swim, drive, shoot or do whatever one does with a pressure cooker.

Is that better?

[rickyrick]

You cannot correlate and compare guns to pressure cookers, cars, baseball bats, knives and and other object that causes harm and expect to win the argument or alter opinion.
You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types. You can use a hammer as a weapon, this is true, but the primary purpose of a hammer is not as a weapon. You can use a gun to drill holes in stop signs, but that's not it's primary purpose.

Once you admit it's a weapon, and don't compare it to a hammer or a fire extinguisher, you may gain credibility with someone. The anti's know what a gun is for, don't try to insult their intelligence by telling them otherwise.

[zukiphile]

One course we take in 1st Am. discussions is educational. One can confront an impulse to use government to quiet a speaker by explaining why that impulse is incorrect or not properly desirable.

Originally Posted by RR

You cannot correlate and compare guns to pressure cookers, cars, baseball bats, knives and and other object that causes harm and expect to win the argument or alter opinion.
You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types.

The problem with that position is that it isn't true. On can compare all sorts of things. Moreover, lots of firearms just shoot paper and gongs.

A purpose is a goal or intent. Inanimate objects cannot possess purpose. A person can put an object to a purpose. Tiger Woods' wife may put a golf club to use where her purpose is to teach him a lesson about fidelity. That doesn't make a golf club a weapon or marital aid.

While a firearm is designed to shoot bullets, the purpose to which it is put hinges on the user (which gets us back to the persistence of man's error and malevolence).

Originally Posted by RR

Once you admit it's a weapon, and don't compare it to a hammer or a fire extinguisher, you may gain credibility with someone. The anti's know what a gun is for, don't try to insult their intelligence by telling them otherwise.

A gun is for whatever one uses it for at any moment.

You might gain credibility with someone by ratifying an error they hold. No person susceptible to reasoned discussion can have his intelligence insulted by a description of design and purpose. If the person with whom you discuss the matter is repelled by correct description, gaining credibility with them isn't going to get you far.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

You must admit that the gun is designed for one purpose, to kill mammals of various types. . . . .

Some are also designed to kill birds, but that's neither here nor there.

This is one of the reasons I avoid the "guns are just tools" argument. In a very loose sense, they are tools, but more specifically, they're weapons. They're arms.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to keep and bear tools. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

[44 AMP]

Gun control leads to total control which leads ultimately to ....

The problem with this kind of statement is that it is an absolute, and therefore of little value. Gun control CAN lead to that, Gun Control HAS led to that in the past in many places.

But the undecided don't usually look much further than what is currently around them, and it hasn't happened here, yet. They don't understand that it could. They don't believe that it can.

Likewise the "2nd Amendment right is there so we can overthrow a tyrannical govt" argument has no traction today, and the anti's have worked hard to convince everyone that anyone who espouses that "right" is a wackjob nut, and probably a ticking time bomb.

they are aided in this by all the wackjob nuts who are on "our side" who do push this argument. It may be true, but its not relevant, today.

Here's a couple of points you can add to your ammo box of arguments, but they are specialty rounds, and you have to target carefully.

One is actual world history. But keep it simple. Simple like everywhere there has been genocide, one common factor is the people being killed don't have guns and the ones doing the killing do. Small point, but important, I think.

Another point, if you are dealing with someone who has their ability to reason is that the more laws you make, the more the legal system has to do, and the effort going into gun control isn't going into catching violent criminals.

If you are dealing with those who can only wrap their mind around soundbytes and slogans, one I always liked is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

Another potential argument is the "law of the jungle". I like to apply a variation of this when they say "we'd be better off with no guns at all, (for anyone)..." etc.

If NO GUNS AT ALL makes you feel safe, you should feel totally safe inside a prison! There are no guns in there, at all!! What's that? Speak up!...oh..I see, you wouldn't be safe there? Why not? There's no guns!...etc...

So are guns REALLY the problem? Or just YOUR SCAPEGOAT for the evil people who use them???

for the "Nobody NEEDS" arguments, I like to point to the minimum wage. Nobody NEEDS more, its a govt standard, right? You need more? pfft, you're just greedy! etc.

These aren't going to convert the undecided, just a few examples of things meant to get them to THINK...with the hope that if they actually think about things, they'll see the anti's arguments for the lies they generally are.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Spats M

Some are also designed to kill birds, but that's neither here nor there.

This is one of the reasons I avoid the "guns are just tools" argument. In a very loose sense, they are tools, but more specifically, they're weapons. They're arms.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to keep and bear tools. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

I agree about the breadth of the protection, however, many firearms aren't weapons, at least by design. Rather than being a combat tool, lots of these things are designed specifically for sport. An item for clays may not be much of a weapon, but is certainly an arm. My biathlon rifle would be less effective in combat than one Boston pressure cooker.

Moreover, even the purpose in employing a weapon is not typically to kill. To act with an intent to kill represents a pathology. On the other hand to fight with an intent to win, with the consequence of death is very different.

The problem with the "a gun has one purpose, to kill" position, aside from being incorrect, is that it rhetorically relegates firearms to a sort of malignancy to be reduced.

One will encounter all sorts of different audiences, each with their own peculiarities, but when is addressing middle class, educated suburbanites, it is the kind of population that doesn't like deer culling because they are afraid that their children might see a dead dear. They may eat meat, but they will not countenance watching its death.

A "purpose to kill" is both incorrect and rhetorical poison. That's why advocates hostile to the right use it.

[DanTSX]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

[zukiphile]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

You won't. People typically can't be argued out of a firmly held belief.

However, many of us see this come up not from committed antis but from people unfamiliar with firearms and opposed to public tragedy.

[LancelotLink]

We can't even agree amongst ourselves. How will we convince an committed anti?

Because what works for me won't necessarily work for you and vice versa. I have my own ways of arguing. Everyone here does. Having a repository of ideas allows people to pick and choose approaches and methods that best suits their own personalities.

[rickyrick]

The sword was not designed to trim sideburns.

The pistol in my holster was not designed for sport. I use it for fun quite frequently. But fun is not why it's a right.
The rifles in my home do not have a primary purpose for fun, although, I do use them for fun frequently as well.

I concede that there are some special purpose guns designed for sport, but the initial purpose when firearms came about was to be a weopon.

The second amendment has nothing to do with fun or sport. It is not about hunting.

The constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the opportunity to pursue it. I frequently smile when shooting, but that's just me rambling.

The anti's are not after biathlon rifles

I consider sport to be a consequence of the invention of firearms.
It's quite fun.

[Pond, James Pond]

But we have the Constitution, the internet, Freedom of Speech (backed up by the 2nd Amendment) and TFL members to spread the truth through our words, actions and how we live our lives.

Whilst I wish it weren't the case, I'd say that in reality the above is not true.

The Constitution is clearly not universally recognised the way TFL members would like across the USA.

The internet serves no one and everyone uses it to their benefit when it comes to politcal, theological or financial aims. I couldn't say that it serves gun owners rights more than others.

Regarding the different amendments I would say that it is more a case of Freedom of Speech protecting the Second Amendment rather than the other way around. It may not always have been that way, but that is the way I see it now based on what I see being described by concerned TLF members...

I do agree however that TFL and the likes of its members are part of the public face of gun ownership and, by and large, do a good job of showing that there are many very responsible and reasonable gun owners, not to be tarred with the brush some lobby groups like to stroke so indiscriminately.

On a wider point, the issue of gun-owners fighting to protect their right or privilege is alive and well in many parts of the world.

On to the question though. I think about why I am glad to be a gun owner and I think of questions that would elicit those ideas in others:

-Is the area you live/work/hang out guaranteed to be crime free?
-So,what would you do if attacked?
-Would you wife/friend/partner etc be able to also run away?
-If not, what would then do?
-How long do you think the police would take to arrive?
-Would that be enough time for your attacker(s) to do you and your company harm?
-How many times do you think an attacker could stab you and make a clean -escape before police arrive? 1-5? 6-10? 11-15?
-How many could you survive?
-Would you not want some means of defending yourself?

They may not capitulate and agree, but with the smart ones you can see it gets them thinking.

I leave at that.

On the whole I think those against guns are mostly that way because they only see guns from the perspective of what they (the guns) can do to them (the individual) rather than what the guns could do for them.

[psalm7]

Theres few actual fence sitters out there . Most folks have a opinion but some avoid confrontation and will not voice their opinion so they seem like a fence sitter . If someone was a fence sitter on a major topic do you think you could count on them or want them in your corner ?
As far as the anti gun crowd I do not waste time with them as liberalism is a mental disorder and its like arguing with a wall .
Best thing to do is be a good example to follow and stand up for whats important to you .

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RR

The pistol in my holster was not designed for sport. I use it for fun quite frequently. But fun is not why it's a right.
The rifles in my home do not have a primary purpose for fun, although, I do use them for fun frequently as well.

So the purpose to which you put your arms is frequently recreational. That's part of the reason it seems a needless error to hold that the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

A reasonable partner in discussion will not require you to admit something not true for the promise of a bit of credibility.

Originally Posted by RR

The anti's are not after biathlon rifles

Are you sure? Didn't a UK Olympic small bore team need to train out of country because their arms were prohibited internally?

In order to know what they don't want, you would first need to know the limit of what they do want. I am not certain that many of them know the limits of what they want.

[rickyrick]

True, they are after all of them.

And yes, most people's most time consuming use of a firearm is recreational. Most people own firearms solely for recreational purposes. I've used them extensively for recreation and hunting. Some defense as in defending domestic animals from predators and aggressive ferals. This does not change or replace my original purpose of owning firearms for self defense.
Some firearms are never used for any purpose but pride in ownership.

General MacArthur could use the corncob pipe as a pointer, but the intended purpose is smoking tobacco.

I do get your point, and I'm really not meaning to be argumentative in any way. I'm just saying that we all know the core usage for gun upon inception of the concept.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RR

I do get your point, and I'm really not meaning to be argumentative in any way. I'm just saying that we all know the core usage for gun upon inception of the concept.

I am not offended, and I don't think you should avoid being argumentative where the topic involves the efficacy of arguments. Different arguments will be received differently by various people.

I would resist consenting to something "we all know" because lots of mischief can follow those words. We all know that mostly bad guys and a few good guys carry guns, but we know that from cowboy programs and detective shows. We all know that fully automatic weapons needn't be aimed from film and TV.

Lots of little boys now grow up in a culture in which the idea of a toy gun isn't allowed by their mothers. There is a combination of unfamiliarity and a bit of phobia amongst some populations. Addressing that in a productive way is a worthy goal.

Certainly, one should be calm in discussing the ideas because no one likes a loud argument at a dinner party. One should be able to disagree with error without being disagreeable about it in demeanor.


Let me just note this about the Skokie 1st Am. issue. An ordinary first reaction is outrage at the idea of swastika laden marchers making their way through a jewish neighborhood. People don't just naturally intuit that permitting such a thing could be part of a larger good.

However, we have a tradition of correcting would be censors, of challenging them to make principled distinctions, and of explaining the greater good in protecting the right of individuals against the government in matters of speech. That didn't just happen; it is the result of education and advocacy. When done well, it is much more than mere disagreement.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Anti: 90% of the American people support more gun control.
Me: I doubt that, but even if it's true, so what? If 90% of the American people were opposed to women voting, would you support that, too? Rights aren't up for a popular vote.

Just a point, legit surveys show that this needs to be broken down.

Most Americans support the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.
They also support measures to keep guns from criminals and the dangerous mentally ill.

They interpret more gun control has the latter but it is interpreted by antis as support for draconian or total bans.

[Tom Servo]

Lots of little boys now grow up in a culture in which the idea of a toy gun isn't allowed by their mothers.

I wasn't allowed to own a toy gun. Of course, the reason was a bit different. I started learning on real guns at an early age.

Anti: 90% of the American people support more gun control.
Me: I doubt that, but even if it's true, so what? If 90% of the American people were opposed to women voting, would you support that, too? Rights aren't up for a popular vote.

Actually, the only survey I saw that provided the actual wording for the question had it listed as this:

"Would you support measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and persons with a history of mental illness?"

Who wouldn't answer yes to that? That doesn't automatically transition to 90% support for bans or registration. I imagine the responses would be different if the question had been posed with more specific wording.

[bc76254]

Regarding the 90% stat, I've always asked whether they truly believe a politician would actually vote against something that really had that level of support. Politicians maintain their careers by their votes. Congress didn't support it precisely because the issue didn't have that amount of support.

[rwilson452]

The thing that is tipping the balance toward gun control is that the urban dwellers now outnumber rural numbers. By and large, Urban peoples only see two kinds of people with guns, Criminals and police. Thus, if your not the police your someone to be feared. Educating them differently is going to be a long hard struggle. Realizing that the major news media and the educational system is against us. As they do education by mass methods, we are doing it virtually one person at a time. On our side is logic, on theirs is emotion. Overcoming emotion is very, very difficult.

[rickyrick]

They see three types of people with guns.

Police
Criminals
Trigger happy bumbling idiots with no training.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The urban point is well taken. Urban city dwellers and associated upscale suburbs usually are antigun.

The sports argument is meaningless to most of them. The SD argument may work if not presented in some extreme fashion.

It is correct that having little experience with firearms and not coming from a tradition of ownership, work needs to be done.

In states with a firearms tradition, you do find more city folks that are gun friendly.

I have to say this - urban dwellers tend to be more on the socially progressive side of the fence. They see gun ownership correlated with conservative social issues and thus feel if the gun owners believe that world view, they are probably wrong on their support of gun rights.

We don't do liberal and conservative but it is a real world problem. If the head of the NRA (as Chuck H did in the past) goes off on social issues, it is a big negative for convincing folks who may be fence straddlers or socially progressive.

[rickyrick]

I know we don't do liberal type versus conservative type, but; there's a growing movement of people who would be considered both. This is good news. I know many people that used to be solid liberal anti-gun that have turned pro-gun because they have come to understand individual rights and freedoms.

I was a strict conservative and now have moved to have both left-right beliefs. Both sides do entail some individual freedoms while attempting to restrict others.
True freedom comes with the support of ALL individual rights, whether you like them or not.

The biggest gains are made when people realize that chipping away at one groups rights actually chips away at all rights.
Government tends to do that in a creeping fashion, mostly unintentionally but sometimes by design.

If you get someone to realize that,to truly control guns, every home must be searched... The will change their mind. Except, it has been proven that anyone with the "I have nothing to hide" attitude is the most dangerous for everyone's rights; they will vote to pass the law.