How do you combat anti-gun argument fatigue??

[DaleA]

The issue for me isn't so much convincing the anti's as showing people who read the articles and don't comment, but who are on the fence about the issue, what the facts are.

Good for you. You must have a high tolerance. I read the comments and so many, many times they just devolve into foul mouthed name calling (on both sides) and the repetition of stuff that is just untrue.

It really disappoints me that the news sites don't moderate the comments.

[crand16rams]

I can relate - I always cringe when the whole "we have to do something" mantra starts. Just saw an ad on the news for a CNN program with the Florida students who wanted - and I quote - "to stop the violence once and for all." Like this is a simple problem.

I also have mixed feelings about expanding background checks and banning bump stocks. That seems like a slippery slope risk, unless they tie in something like CCW reciprocity, so it's compromise and not caving.

That said, I do wonder how you rebut something like what happened with Australia and the UK. After their massive bans, mass shootings stopped. The U.S. has the highest gun violence rates of highly developed nations. Logic suggests the more of x there are, the more issues with x that might develop.

I don't think just saying constitutional right cuts it - the constitution can be - and has been - amended repeatedly. Are these tragedies the cost of individual freedom? Granted, we can do more with school security, mental health, accurate reporting of issues into NICS, but how do you argue against the differences between us and countries with tight gun restrictions?

I'm not trolling. I'm a gun owner, with an AR. But how do you address what other countries have done that seemed to work? Do they have more problems with criminal activity vs. unarmed citizens?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by crand16rams

Do they have more problems with criminal activity vs. unarmed citizens?

Yes, but that's a utility argument. There is utility in curbing free speech and letting the police conduct warrantless searches too, but to merely disregard a right on utilitarian grounds should be insufficient.

An individual right describes an individual's an option to speak or vote or travel so as to make the world worse. That we will only recognise the right when we approve of the choice is an argument against the right itself.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

After their massive bans, mass shootings stopped.

No, they didn’t. Australia has had at least two mass shootings (4 or more shot) since Port Arthur. However, mass shootings were rare in Australia prior to Port Arthur as well. If you emptied out the metro areas of NYC and Chicago, you could fit the entire population of Australia in those two cities. The “massive ban” they implemented wouldn’t even reduce U.S. firearms ownership by 1/3 of one percent (if you could implement it here).

The U.S. has the highest gun violence rates of highly developed nations.

Maybe. It depends on how you define “highly developed” and “gun violence.”

[DaleA]

No, they didn’t. Australia has had at least two mass shootings (4 or more shot) since Port Arthur.

Not true. You see one of these shootings was a family thing. So it doesn't count. This was explained to me by someone using very small words speaking slowly so I would understand. And I still didn't get their point.

I got my data from this site and I guess I'm just unable to understand things as they should be understood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

And yes, I'm being sarcastic, but NOT at Bartholomew Roberts, I read and respect those posts.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by crand16rams

That said, I do wonder how you rebut something like what happened with Australia and the UK. After their massive bans, mass shootings stopped. The U.S. has the highest gun violence rates of highly developed nations. Logic suggests the more of x there are, the more issues with x that might develop.

I don't know if mass shooting stopped or not in Australia and the UK after their massive gun bans. Regardless, I think the more important question though is what effect such bans have on the crime rate. For the sake of argument, even if those bans reduced mass shootings, have crimes like murder, assault, etc. stayed the same, gone down or gone up? It would be ridiculous to declare victory if mass shootings went down but crimes like murder, assault, etc. went up.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by DaleA

You see one of these shootings was a family thing. So it doesn't count

It is a cultural thing. Australians don’t suffer any bodily injury when shot so long as it is between family.

[RAfiringline]

I take the tact of pointing out that ignorant media hype distorts the situation.

Firearm murders are a very small percentage of total yearly US deaths.

Many firearm murders are drug gang related, and the numbers might be pretty resistant to reduction even by severe firearm confiscation measures.

School killings are a very small percentage of total firearm murders, and like some other mass killings, they seem to often be related to perpetrators who have taken prescribed psychiatric (psychotropic) medications.

Prescribed drugs, like opiates and psychotropics, are a very big profitable business, that like the junk food industry (which causes far more premature death and disability than guns), put lots of advertising dollars into mass media.

The US is not an ethnically homogenous country with a small gap between rich and poor - that heightens social instability. Personal firearms are an important factor in people being able to defend themselves and their families from criminal attacks.

And, the US government is very obviously developing intensive surveillance systems extending through the whole populace, and militarized police and other internal security organizations. What the end game of that is, remains to be seen, but it could be in extreme conflict with the US Constitution.

[5whiskey]

As many have stated, I do not really engage in the pro-gun/anti-gun argument anymore. I have made one post on FB over this mess, specifically requesting that this not turn into a gun debate, which was highly critical of the FBI for not forwarding two (2) tips on this kid to the appropriate field office for investigation. That is where our current anger should lie, IMO.

No one dissented with my opinion, and many acquaintances who are not exactly "pro-2A" kept the comments clean and mostly free of the gun debate. They know I am very pro-gun, and I know that they feel like "no one needs an AR15." The battle lines there are drawn in a large portion of society, so debating it is pointless to me. Teach your kids to shoot. Take their friends (with parent's permission) hunting/shooting. Influence the next generation as much as you safely and ethically can. Don't worry about debating with anti-gun adults. And if a hot-button issue does arise, offer an alternative to the usual gun debate dribble.

[SIGSHR]

A few years after the Labour Government of Tony Blair outlawed handgun ownership in the UK I saw an English newspaper with a banner headline:
"IT'S OFFICIAL-RATE OF STREET CRIME TWICE THAT OF US!"
I have read accounts of the Port Arthur Massacre which point out the shooter must have been The Flash to move so quickly.
I also point out that the difference between us and the Commonwealth countries is that we have a Constitution that was debated, written, edited-the Constitutional Convention had a Commiitee on Style-and then ratified by the People. The Federalist is considered the authoritative commentary on the Constitution because it was used to "sell" the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights was a make or break deal for ratification. Those other countries have "constitutions" which sort of "just growed" and deal more with distribution of powers and procedures and figuring out who's in charge than in dealing with the relationship between government and citizens.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Just take a break. When you come back, don't try playing Whack A Mole with FB posts. I'm a Liberal, and a gun owner. I talk with people on both sides of the issue all the time, but I don't do it on FB because it's a complete waste of time. Actual face to face conversations are much more productive. I've found that there's a lot more that both sides agree on than how it's made to look on social media and on TV.

[SPEMack618]

Simply put, I don't.

After a discussion nearly turned to a fist fight with a fraternity brother over the "need" of AR-15s and what the NRA is and isn't, I said screw it in regards to attempting to change minds.

I write my Congressional representatives, give money to the NRA-ILA and SAF, and teach NRA Basic Rifle. That's my input into the culture war.

Oh, and I enjoy leaving snarky messages on the BATFE's Facebook page. That's my stress relief.

[22-rimfire]

I'm willing to listen to thoughtful and factual arguments in favor of more stringent gun control measures. But I expect them to listen to me as well. Fatigue... I can understand as I have pretty much turned off the news and refuse to pay any attention to the children demonstrating in favor of "something". They have no idea for the most part about their rights except their right to freedom of speech.

[libiglou]

I have been battling this all week with family and coworkers. Have your facts ready. Here are my battling points.

1. An ar-15 is only made for killing people.
My counterpoint: The military version and the one I own are different. The military version is like a machine gun, mine is not. Ar-15 's are also used for competitions(camp perry),3 gun etc) as well as hunting.

2. Banning semi automatics will stop mass killing.
My counterpoint: Look up the happy lands fire in NYC in the 1980's. A deranged boyfriend was upset that he got kicked out of an illegal nightclub and went down the block to a mobil gas station ,purchased several cans of gas and set fire to the building(set fire to the exits). close to 100 people died in that fire. The media conveniently never mentions this. Oklahoma bomber is another good example. Killed hundreds with fertilizer. Its not the tools stupid.

3. once the ar15 became available mass shooting started.
My counterpoint: Ar15 has been around since the 1960's.

A few ,but I at least get them thinking. Especially in liberal land NY.

Personally I think the NRA needs to organize a march on Washington and everyone who owns a gun(dosen't matter what kind) needs to go.
Too many people think the NRA is a small group of angry white guys(yep race plays into this. I've been told this ) with money.
The NRA needs to publicize who they are and who they represent. This situation is going to go from bad to worse. Everyone is jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon

My Rant

[MagnumWill]

If you’re ever feeling tired, Kimio, just print that last post you wrote and say, “here...read this while I shut my eyes for a little bit...”

Well said.

My empirical interpretation of this societal problem is this. What does Nature do in these situations?

We’re currently fighting a foe that we can’t see where they’re coming from, and they’re after us and our children. They ONLY attack when are defenses are down or insufficient, and they know it.

The method is exactly the same as opportunistic predators, the proverbial wolf to the flock.

What do we need? A mixture of shepherd oversight, fences, loyal sheepdogs (at your service) and the means to ward off the wolf when he makes an appearance. The sheep can’t fight. I wouldn’t want them to, they are poorly equipped to deal with a threat like this.

However, turning the pasture into a prison isn’t the solution, as quality of life suffers greatly. You want happy sheep that lead healthy lives. Balance is required.

What happens when the wolves show up to eat the young yaks in Russia?
They form a ring, HORNS OUT. PROTECT THE YOUNG - AT ALL COSTS.

...asking the wolves to dull their teeth and claws to make death less painful or less likely is a bewildering notion. “Do we have to be on constant guard, then, Will?”

The stone placard on the front of the National Archives truthfully and tragically states:

“ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY”

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by crand16rams

That said, I do wonder how you rebut something like what happened with Australia and the UK. After their massive bans, mass shootings stopped. The U.S. has the highest gun violence rates of highly developed nations. Logic suggests the more of x there are, the more issues with x that might develop.

Correct for inner-city black gang violence and Hispanic violence, and our rate of gun violence plummets big-time. Ordinary gun-owning middle America is pretty peaceful.

[LogicMan]

On the whole claim about, "No one needs an AR-15!!"

1) Says who? AR-15s are ideal for physically weaker people, physically disabled people, and elderly people. They have very little recoil, excellent accuracy, and excellent stopping power. They are tremendously customizable for all different sizes and shapes of people

2) Rights are not about needs

[Webleymkv]

The argument about violent crime being lower in the UK and Australia ignores the fact that there are a lot of differences between these countries and the US besides the gun laws. To examine America's violent crime rate in perspective, you must also bear in mind that we are one of the world's largest and most lucrative markets for illicit drugs. When there is money to be made on illicit goods, violence usually follows sooner or later. Also, neither the UK nor Australia shares a nearly 2000 mile long border with a notoriously corrupt and lawless country known for activities as varied as drug smuggling and human trafficking.

[MagnumWill]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

On the whole claim about, "No one needs an AR-15!!"

1) Says who? AR-15s are ideal for physically weaker people, physically disabled people, and elderly people. They have very little recoil, excellent accuracy, and excellent stopping power. They are tremendously customizable for all different sizes and shapes of people

2) Rights are not about needs

When someone says this in front of me, my typical response is “the Jewish community in Germany in the 40’s needed them. They needed them more than anything in their entire lives.”

[zukiphile]

No one needs an AR-15!!

Didn't Stephen Willeford need his when he stopped the Texas Church shooter?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by libiglou

I have been battling this all week with family and coworkers. Have your facts ready.

You rarely really need any facts. When people make claims, you don't need to counter them. You just ask them to provide evidence of these, usually outrageous, claims. When none are provided, move on...

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

On the whole claim about, "No one needs an AR-15!!"

You could ask if that includes the Military and Law Enforcement.

[Chainsaw.]

I keep bringing up a point that almost no one wants to address in all these "shootings". Be it because they think Im a conspiracy theorist or because they think its just a side note of these shootings etc. But that point is SSRIs, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, drugs, meds, who side effects are suicidal and homicidal thoughts, feelings, etc. These people have been proven to be thrown into blind rages, where they loose normal cognitive function where someone else can even talk sense into them at the moment of the rages. It is a known issue of great concern in the medical community but if you bring it up to a layman the usual response is something to the effect of "oh well your not a Doctor" and they brush it aside. No, Im not a Doctor, but that doesnt mean I cant read a Doctors writings on the subject and understand it. These drugs have some VERY scary side effects yet people just brish it aside.

I am NOT saying this is the only reason for these events, but to the original question, my frustration lies in the fact that no one wants to keep having the same old discussion but when you bring up new ideas they dismiss them as conspiracy or the like. "We have to do something different"...Yes, we do, may I present an idea? "No, thats crazy"

http://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepre...ass-shootings/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-and-ssris?amp

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by simonz

I'm a liberal with guns. I have several handguns, revolvers and semi-auto's, and a few rifles. I've had a many more in the past but I've downsized my collection.



I'm not looking for an argument here, just want solutions to stopping these endless, senseless mass shootings.



On both sides of this issue there are extreme positions, going from more guns to no guns. Let's be reasonable and find a middle ground.



Myself and others would like to hear real solutions from the conservative point of view of how to get us out worsening situation. Please post some suggestions for solutions to stop these mass shootings.

We won’t get a solution as long as mental heath continues to be sacrosanct, passing out psychotropic meds like jelly beans also needs correcting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doofus47]

In the Ten Ring:

Today, a man threatened to kill me on social media, why? I disagreed with his demand to ban guns.

Out of curiousity, did you let that pause for a moment and ask him "Well, HOW do you think you're going to kill me?" LOL..

Sigh... It's tough. I don't talk about guns with anyone anymore unless they start the conversation. As others have pointed out here, actual data tends to poke holes in the lead balloons of most "reasonable" gun control proposals to achieve the declared goals.

However, you can build bridges on topics like safety. I mean no one buys a gun believing that it will inherently make them more unsafe, even though that's the boiler plate belief of liberals (that guns make everyone in the zip code more unsafe). I bet you could find common ground in agreeing that something substantive should be done to seek greater safety for kids, teachers, Christian church or Sikh temple-goers.

It's not your job to win over every person to your side. In the end, put on your sane-citizen tone of voice and stake your ground in political historical precedent and the immutability of human nature. Perhaps your colleague might only believe in one of those items, so you'll only appear half-sane, but it's what it is.