But, it is so OBVIOUS!

Jeff Thomas · June 30, 2001, 12:48 AM

The left relies on the "obvious" so often. "More guns obviously cause more crime." "It is obvious that no one needs a gun." "Assault weapons obviously must be banned ... who needs an AK-47?" "Hunting rifles are fine, but it is obvious that no one needs a handgun."

Obviously.

I like analogies. IMHO, used properly, they can help people grapple with unfamiliar territory.

So, for the "obvious" statements so often made by gun bigots, I usually ask them to look out the window. I say, "you know, the most obvious thing in our world is that the Earth is flat. But, we know it is actually a globe, don't we? Sometimes the 'obvious' is simply wrong, and so are most of your gun 'facts'".

Doesn't always work, but sometimes you can see them actually beginning to engage their minds.

I would like to find other "obvious" "facts" that are also absolutely wrong. I think this method has value, and I want to find additional examples.

Please help me out, and suggest some other "obvious" "facts" to help leftists and fence-sitters open their eyes.

Thank you. Regards from AZ

Justin · June 30, 2001, 01:17 AM

If you take two objects of different weight but roughly the same dimensions and drop them, the heavy one will obviously hit the ground first, right?

Wrong, gravity pulls on all objects with the same force, therefore they will hit the ground at the same time.
In fact, if you were to take a boulder and a feather and drop them at the same time in a vacuum, they would hit the ground together.

bookkie · June 30, 2001, 09:11 AM

Quote:

"I say, "you know, the most obvious thing in our world is that the Earth is flat. But, we know it is actually a globe, don't we?"

Sorry, but the only thing that the above would get me when debating most anti-gunners is to convince them that the Earth is in fact flat.

George Hill · June 30, 2001, 11:50 AM

I need an AK-47! Its OBVIOUS that I dont have one and I must add it to my collection as soon as posible!

The left is VERY adept at using words that change the arguement and twist meanings.
Take any class on public speaking and you learn little tricks Verbally and Non-Verbally that win you support and keep the ears open. The Left uses those to the Nth degree and have Mastered them.

It puts US on the footing that we have to PROVE otherwise.
It makes us defensive and this like in Chess - we lose the initiative because we can not make any moves ourselve and have to keep reacting to thier moves.

Language like that trickles down to the grass roots level when your local Liberal regurgitates that spew and now all the sudden You as a Gun Owner must now defend, counter and prove otherwise before you can make your own move.

What can you do? Slam it. Meet force with force and overpower it. Your answer should be something like "It's only Obvious to those ignorant on the subject. If you know what your talking about then you obviously know..." and you can then make your attack onto Liberal territory. And like what Sun Tzu says - when you strike at an enemy, strike hard. So hard that the enemy can not strike back. So when faced with a verbal war with a liberal - aim for the heart and use your big guns.

C.R.Sam · June 30, 2001, 12:30 PM

Fact....the sun rises in the east every day
Fact....the sun sets in the west every day
Therefore.......the sun is orbiting the earth.

Sam

croyance · June 30, 2001, 05:32 PM

If it is obvious that nobody needs a handgun, why do we issue them to police and military? I got it, they are the ones committing crime!

If it is obvious, how come those who need to protect themselves aren't walking around with rifles and shotguns? Bodyguards from the secret service on down can get rid of their handguns also.

People don't need fast cars, widescreen televisions, vacations, and bad pop music. The joy of a free society is we have a choise. People need food, shelter, and safety. A handgun helps with the latter.

dischord · June 30, 2001, 05:56 PM

Jeff,

The most, er, obvious use by anti of "It's obvious" is their confusion of correlation and causation -- as in comparying England and the U.S.

BTW, didn't you run the gun section years ago on the old eWorld service for Macs, or was that another Jeff Thomas from Ariz?

Mike in VA · July 1, 2001, 09:55 AM

God is Love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind. therefore,
it's obvious that Ray Charles is God.

Seriously, if you don't think you need a gun it's obvious that you've never been home alone, unarmed, when someone was trying to kick in your door to rob, rape, pilage & plumder.

If guns are unnecessary, how come you're going to call a guy with a gun to come bail your sorry @$$ out? It's obvious that you're a coward and a hypocrite.

M2

Jeff Thomas · July 1, 2001, 12:31 PM

Sorry, dischord ... different fellow.

I appreciate all the ideas -- I'm getting more material. Thanks.

Regards from AZ

Coinneach · July 1, 2001, 01:02 PM

It's obvious that we in the US no longer need those horrible polluting automobiles, since we have trains and horses!

(thanks to cow-irker Eric F for this one)

Dave R · July 2, 2001, 05:40 PM

"I don't need a gun because the Police will protect me".

How many rapes occerred in your city last year? The Police protected none of those victims.

Criminals are expert finding victims where no Police are available to help.

Bob Locke · July 2, 2001, 07:46 PM

The only "obvious" thing is that July 9th won't get here soon enough so I can add one more to the collection!

**4V50 Gary** · July 2, 2001, 09:20 PM

Their application of "obvious" is conclusionary and without any supportive argumentation. Obviously they haven't convinced any of us.

AR15shooter · July 2, 2001, 09:50 PM

Oviously I dont need an AK-47 I already have an AR15 and an SKS to boot.

and if I had a little bit more money come July 9th I wouldnt need that Springfield M1A anymore either.

Meiji_man · July 2, 2001, 10:56 PM

"But it's Obivious!"

"No it's not, please explain why to me, as I can think of several reasons why it's not."

"Gun Obviously cause crime"

"Guns are inanimate objects incapable if independent action, and to this date, there is no evidence of an inanimate object controling ones mind and forcing them to do it's bidding."

The statement:
"It's Obivous"

Comes from an individual who has either
1) Always held a position and has never questioned it. or;

2) Has been introduced to the idea but never really grasped the concept, or has forgotten it so the idea itself becomes the rational for the concept.

(I THINK this is called "Begging the question" but I'm not sure)

The best attack is to make them prove the Given. 9 out of 10 times they can't.

P.S. this Doesn't only work on Liberals, it's good for Randians too. AND YOU!!!!
Always have your facts straight, always know the basis for your own argument. NEVER use a Given you can't defend and NEVER let your opponent Para-Phrase you.

ctdonath · July 2, 2001, 11:49 PM

The meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is obvious, especially considering what the authors said about arms in other writings.

Ironbarr · July 3, 2001, 12:20 AM

Thanks for reminding me of 7/9... this one-a-month state let's me want the Makarov this month (since I had that new 1911A1 delivered on D-Day + 57 years). Now... to find the $$.

And now for the subject:

It's obvious if my carry is obvious it's obviously open to observation by those whose observation is obviously obvious to the trained observer.

Obviously this observation is obvious to the most casual observer.

-Andy

MAURICE · July 3, 2001, 01:22 AM

in "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged."

now,i dont wanna start a flame war here,we're all on the same side,but man,i got a bone to pick.

i always see that.
"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
what happened to the first coupla words in that statement?
you know the ones im talking about
"in the absence of a well regulated militia.."

i dunno why,that just gets to me.
i love to shoot,dont get me wrong. i also love guns (and knives and...)

but its SOOOO OBVIOUS!

gdw · July 3, 2001, 02:24 PM

Lefties like to say the National Guard is the militia - funny, they didn't come into existance well over 100 years after the ratification of the US Constitution (1788) and the Bill of Rights (1791)...
What was the miltia prior to the existance of the NG? "We the people..."

MAURICE · July 3, 2001, 02:44 PM

you prove a very good point.
i hadnt thought of that.
thank you.

-MAURICE

VAdoublegunner · July 3, 2001, 04:55 PM

True discussion on this issue with a Million (Dozen) Mommie Moron a few weeks ago....
"You live in a bad neighborhood, shouldn't you have some means to protect yourself and your kids?"
"no, I can call the police to protect me and 'a gun' is more likely to injure my child (whine)"
"Have you ever had any problems with the police responding in your neighborhood (typical of 'bad' areas)?"
"Well,um, we've had some loud parties and people stealing stuff and I've called them"
"They responded?"
"No... well, after a couple of hours"
"Then why do you think they are going to respond any swifter when someone creeps in at 3 a.m. and they threaten you and your kids, because they're ticked you called the cops on them? Any mother who has no will or personal responsibility to protect her own children is OBVIOUSLY unfit as a mother and should be referred to social services !"
...and that, as they say, ended that....
Not sure if I won or not, but I did add that if she was so dead set (intended) against guns then she should post her front yard as a "Gun Free Zone" to protect Her (whine) Child from the area rowdies. To which she replied that that was "just a mean spirited idea and would make her an obvious target for burglary or.." ...well, no sense wasting breath on the obvious to these morons.

Jumpy · July 3, 2001, 08:23 PM

Beware of "red herring" arguments.

"A person doesn't need an AK-47 for hunting." True, but "hunting" isn't the sole reason for acquiring a firearm. By introducing "hunting", the argument has been narrowly defined and manipulated to where the "need" for the AK-47 can be disputed.

OR,

"Capital punishment doesn't deter violent acts of crime." Maybe, maybe not. But its primary function shouldn't be to "deter" violent crime, it should be a "punishment" for having committed such crimes. Again, the argument steers you away from a valid reason to punish and into a debate of deterrence probability.

These are old debate tricks. Ever notice how a politician will hardly ever directly answer a question. They're clever enough to avoid being manuevered into a blind alley.

June 30, 2001, 12:48 AM	#1
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,755	But, it is so OBVIOUS! The left relies on the "obvious" so often. "More guns obviously cause more crime." "It is obvious that no one needs a gun." "Assault weapons obviously must be banned ... who needs an AK-47?" "Hunting rifles are fine, but it is obvious that no one needs a handgun." Obviously. I like analogies. IMHO, used properly, they can help people grapple with unfamiliar territory. So, for the "obvious" statements so often made by gun bigots, I usually ask them to look out the window. I say, "you know, the most obvious thing in our world is that the Earth is flat. But, we know it is actually a globe, don't we? Sometimes the 'obvious' is simply wrong, and so are most of your gun 'facts'". Doesn't always work, but sometimes you can see them actually beginning to engage their minds. I would like to find other "obvious" "facts" that are also absolutely wrong. I think this method has value, and I want to find additional examples. Please help me out, and suggest some other "obvious" "facts" to help leftists and fence-sitters open their eyes. Thank you. Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

June 30, 2001, 09:11 AM	#3
bookkie Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 1999 Location: Arbuckle, CA, usa Posts: 1,269	Quote: "I say, "you know, the most obvious thing in our world is that the Earth is flat. But, we know it is actually a globe, don't we?" Sorry, but the only thing that the above would get me when debating most anti-gunners is to convince them that the Earth is in fact flat. __________________ Richard The debate is not about guns, but rather who has the ultimate power to rule, the People or Government. RKBA!

June 30, 2001, 11:50 AM	#4
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: Lapoint, Utah Posts: 11,477	I need an AK-47! Its OBVIOUS that I dont have one and I must add it to my collection as soon as posible! The left is VERY adept at using words that change the arguement and twist meanings. Take any class on public speaking and you learn little tricks Verbally and Non-Verbally that win you support and keep the ears open. The Left uses those to the Nth degree and have Mastered them. It puts US on the footing that we have to PROVE otherwise. It makes us defensive and this like in Chess - we lose the initiative because we can not make any moves ourselve and have to keep reacting to thier moves. Language like that trickles down to the grass roots level when your local Liberal regurgitates that spew and now all the sudden You as a Gun Owner must now defend, counter and prove otherwise before you can make your own move. What can you do? Slam it. Meet force with force and overpower it. Your answer should be something like "It's only Obvious to those ignorant on the subject. If you know what your talking about then you obviously know..." and you can then make your attack onto Liberal territory. And like what Sun Tzu says - when you strike at an enemy, strike hard. So hard that the enemy can not strike back. So when faced with a verbal war with a liberal - aim for the heart and use your big guns. __________________ MAD OGRE

June 30, 2001, 05:56 PM	#7
dischord Senior Member Join Date: October 2, 2000 Location: Virginia Posts: 945	Jeff, The most, er, obvious use by anti of "It's obvious" is their confusion of correlation and causation -- as in comparying England and the U.S. BTW, didn't you run the gun section years ago on the old eWorld service for Macs, or was that another Jeff Thomas from Ariz? __________________ Another member of the TFL diaspora

July 1, 2001, 12:31 PM	#9
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,755	Sorry, dischord ... different fellow. I appreciate all the ideas -- I'm getting more material. Thanks. Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

June 30, 2001, 01:17 AM	#2
Justin Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 1,641	If you take two objects of different weight but roughly the same dimensions and drop them, the heavy one will obviously hit the ground first, right? Wrong, gravity pulls on all objects with the same force, therefore they will hit the ground at the same time. In fact, if you were to take a boulder and a feather and drop them at the same time in a vacuum, they would hit the ground together.

June 30, 2001, 12:30 PM	#5
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,864	Fact....the sun rises in the east every day Fact....the sun sets in the west every day Therefore.......the sun is orbiting the earth. Sam

June 30, 2001, 05:32 PM	#6
croyance Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2001 Posts: 3,604	If it is obvious that nobody needs a handgun, why do we issue them to police and military? I got it, they are the ones committing crime! If it is obvious, how come those who need to protect themselves aren't walking around with rifles and shotguns? Bodyguards from the secret service on down can get rid of their handguns also. People don't need fast cars, widescreen televisions, vacations, and bad pop music. The joy of a free society is we have a choise. People need food, shelter, and safety. A handgun helps with the latter.

July 1, 2001, 09:55 AM	#8
Mike in VA Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 1998 Location: Santa FE, NM Posts: 2,164	God is Love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. therefore, it's obvious that Ray Charles is God. Seriously, if you don't think you need a gun it's obvious that you've never been home alone, unarmed, when someone was trying to kick in your door to rob, rape, pilage & plumder. If guns are unnecessary, how come you're going to call a guy with a gun to come bail your sorry @$$ out? It's obvious that you're a coward and a hypocrite. M2

July 1, 2001, 01:02 PM	#10
Coinneach Staff Alumnus Join Date: February 23, 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,273	It's obvious that we in the US no longer need those horrible polluting automobiles, since we have trains and horses! (thanks to cow-irker Eric F for this one)

July 2, 2001, 05:40 PM	#11
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2000 Location: Idaho Posts: 6,068	"I don't need a gun because the Police will protect me". How many rapes occerred in your city last year? The Police protected none of those victims. Criminals are expert finding victims where no Police are available to help. __________________ I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).

July 2, 2001, 07:46 PM	#12
Bob Locke Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 1999 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 2,518	The only "obvious" thing is that July 9th won't get here soon enough so I can add one more to the collection!

July 2, 2001, 09:20 PM	#13
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 15,420	Their application of "obvious" is conclusionary and without any supportive argumentation. Obviously they haven't convinced any of us. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

July 2, 2001, 09:50 PM	#14
AR15shooter Member Join Date: March 5, 2001 Posts: 94	Obviously Oviously I dont need an AK-47 I already have an AR15 and an SKS to boot. and if I had a little bit more money come July 9th I wouldnt need that Springfield M1A anymore either.

July 2, 2001, 10:56 PM	#15
Meiji_man Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2000 Location: Phoenix Arizona Posts: 455	"But it's Obivious!" "No it's not, please explain why to me, as I can think of several reasons why it's not." "Gun Obviously cause crime" "Guns are inanimate objects incapable if independent action, and to this date, there is no evidence of an inanimate object controling ones mind and forcing them to do it's bidding." The statement: "It's Obivous" Comes from an individual who has either 1) Always held a position and has never questioned it. or; 2) Has been introduced to the idea but never really grasped the concept, or has forgotten it so the idea itself becomes the rational for the concept. (I THINK this is called "Begging the question" but I'm not sure) The best attack is to make them prove the Given. 9 out of 10 times they can't. P.S. this Doesn't only work on Liberals, it's good for Randians too. AND YOU!!!! Always have your facts straight, always know the basis for your own argument. NEVER use a Given you can't defend and NEVER let your opponent Para-Phrase you. __________________ "Lay me down and bleed a while. Though I am wounded, I am not slain. I shall rise and fight again." Thomas Clement Douglas

July 2, 2001, 11:49 PM	#16
ctdonath Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 1999 Posts: 1,902	The meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is obvious, especially considering what the authors said about arms in other writings.

July 3, 2001, 12:20 AM	#17
Ironbarr Senior Member Join Date: August 11, 2000 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,188	Bob Locke... & an Obvious Observation Thanks for reminding me of 7/9... this one-a-month state let's me want the Makarov this month (since I had that new 1911A1 delivered on D-Day + 57 years). Now... to find the $$. And now for the subject: It's obvious if my carry is obvious it's obviously open to observation by those whose observation is obviously obvious to the trained observer. Obviously this observation is obvious to the most casual observer. -Andy

July 3, 2001, 01:22 AM	#18
MAURICE Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2001 Posts: 158	you for got the "..." in "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged." now,i dont wanna start a flame war here,we're all on the same side,but man,i got a bone to pick. i always see that. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" what happened to the first coupla words in that statement? you know the ones im talking about "in the absence of a well regulated militia.." i dunno why,that just gets to me. i love to shoot,dont get me wrong. i also love guns (and knives and...) but its SOOOO OBVIOUS! __________________ MOLON LABE

July 3, 2001, 02:24 PM	#19
gdw Member Join Date: October 4, 2000 Posts: 70	Lefties like to say the National Guard is the militia - funny, they didn't come into existance well over 100 years after the ratification of the US Constitution (1788) and the Bill of Rights (1791)... What was the miltia prior to the existance of the NG? "We the people..." __________________ gdw

July 3, 2001, 02:44 PM	#20
MAURICE Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2001 Posts: 158	you prove a very good point. i hadnt thought of that. thank you. -MAURICE __________________ MOLON LABE

July 3, 2001, 04:55 PM	#21
VAdoublegunner Member Join Date: May 25, 2001 Posts: 54	True discussion on this issue with a Million (Dozen) Mommie Moron a few weeks ago.... "You live in a bad neighborhood, shouldn't you have some means to protect yourself and your kids?" "no, I can call the police to protect me and 'a gun' is more likely to injure my child (whine)" "Have you ever had any problems with the police responding in your neighborhood (typical of 'bad' areas)?" "Well,um, we've had some loud parties and people stealing stuff and I've called them" "They responded?" "No... well, after a couple of hours" "Then why do you think they are going to respond any swifter when someone creeps in at 3 a.m. and they threaten you and your kids, because they're ticked you called the cops on them? Any mother who has no will or personal responsibility to protect her own children is OBVIOUSLY unfit as a mother and should be referred to social services !" ...and that, as they say, ended that.... Not sure if I won or not, but I did add that if she was so dead set (intended) against guns then she should post her front yard as a "Gun Free Zone" to protect Her (whine) Child from the area rowdies. To which she replied that that was "just a mean spirited idea and would make her an obvious target for burglary or.." ...well, no sense wasting breath on the obvious to these morons.

July 3, 2001, 08:23 PM	#22
Jumpy Junior Member Join Date: April 10, 2001 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 13	Beware of "red herring" arguments. "A person doesn't need an AK-47 for hunting." True, but "hunting" isn't the sole reason for acquiring a firearm. By introducing "hunting", the argument has been narrowly defined and manipulated to where the "need" for the AK-47 can be disputed. OR, "Capital punishment doesn't deter violent acts of crime." Maybe, maybe not. But its primary function shouldn't be to "deter" violent crime, it should be a "punishment" for having committed such crimes. Again, the argument steers you away from a valid reason to punish and into a debate of deterrence probability. These are old debate tricks. Ever notice how a politician will hardly ever directly answer a question. They're clever enough to avoid being manuevered into a blind alley.