Aaaarghhh!!! So infuriated! Debating anti-gunners!

[Pond, James Pond]

Several of them are gun owners and avid shooters. They support gun rights, and they bemoan the fact that many of their peers have drunk the anti-gun Kool Aid with such zeal.

Indeed.
Most people on here might view me as a "lefty" with my heinous liberal Euro opinions on an array of stuff. So be it. But I don't think people would call me anti-gun.

The world is way to big and varied for a "one-size fits one lot and another size fits the others", black and white view of its inhabitants; politically or otherwise.

I've said this about 3 times in the last week on here, for various reasons but I was pretty staunchly anti-gun before I started learning about firearms as a pursuit, discipline and means of self-defence.

It can happen... Which is why I will still happily discuss gun ownership with those who reject it, citing my reasons, the facts I believe support my view, not to mention that I used to think like them. In fact, that last point often gives them pause, because they can't just label me as a narrow-minded gun-nut who's closed to all other ideas.

Ironlically, this is exactly what the person I was debating the other night did at one point: the response to my having the views I do was simply that I was a rifle-man like the NRA folk and was therefore bound to think the way I do.....

[TimSr]

We see pro-gun people on both sides of the spectrum, but there is a difference between being pro-gun and being pro-2nd Amendment, the difference being if your advocacy is based on respect for a Constitutional right, whether you own one or not, or if its just based on the fact that you like guns, and would like to keep yours. I prefer people who are both, but if I have to choose between pro-gun and pro-@A, I find pro-2A to be much more reliable advocates.

[Tom Servo]

Don't feel left out, James. Some of us are involved in causes that wouldn't go over well in many meetings of "gun people." It annoys me a bit that I sometimes have to hobnob with some pretty awful (to me) political talk to get folks motivated on the gun issue.

[Double Naught Spy]

You think arguing with anti-gunners is frustrating. Do you realize the frustration they face arguing with pro-gunners?

Both sides claim to be right.
Both sides claim to want to do what is best for people.
Both sides think the stance of the other side is a safety concern.
Both sides are HUGELY prone to arguments of emotion.
Both sides are prone to misrepresenting data.
Both sides cherry pick data to argue.
Both sides think the other side is composed of illogical individuals.
We blame the media. They blame the NRA.
Both sides call what the other side is doing with educating children to our views as "indoctrination."
Both sides, this thread included, are prone to ad hominem attacks.

The list could be extended quite a bit. The point is, both sides believe in their causes and assign different levels of value to different types of information as being relevant. As James noted, the person he was arguing with wasn't unintelligent. He seemed surprised by this, but the truth of the matter is that there are indeed geniuses and mentally challenged people on both sides of the gun issue. So this implication that it is a matter of intelligence (as also indicated by the ad hominem comments) is silly. It is a matter of values, and emotions are a big part of a person's values.

So arguing with a person or group that holds a different set of values than you will undoubtedly be infuriating, if you let it get the better of you. Infuriation is an emotional reaction.

[Pond, James Pond]

Both sides claim to be right.

Except you're over-looking the fact that I know I'm right.

Infuriation is an emotional reaction.

Good that I let it out in this thread, then and not during the discourse....

[K_Mac]

I have great respect for those who can set aside ideology and emotion when discussing gun issues with those in the other camp. I don't do that too well. It is for that reason I avoid arguing with anti-gun folks. Most know what I think regarding the 2A, and are not really interested in why. When asked I will do my best to articulate our position, but prolonged debate serves no useful purpose. I love conversation and spirited discussion of ideas, but a man has to know his limitations...

[44 AMP]

So what do you call the people who are not, and don't even try to be consistent when they assess blame?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver, they (rightfully) blame the driver.

When a serial killer strangles a victim, they blame the killer.

When someone is shot, they blame the GUN!!

I don't call that genius....

[SHR970]

For all of you who are citing 2A to James... remember he is NOT in the U.S.A. IIRC he is located in ESTONIA where 2A does not exisit.

[K_Mac]

For all of you who are citing 2A to James... remember he is NOT in the U.S.A. IIRC he is located in ESTONIA where 2A does not exisit.

For me referencing the 2A, in this context simply speaks to the human right to defend oneself and that guns are necessary to that end.

[Pond, James Pond]

For all of you who are citing 2A to James... remember he is NOT in the U.S.A. IIRC he is located in ESTONIA where 2A does not exisit.

Well, that's not strictly true. There is a "2A" here, but it's a bus service...

[LogicMan]

Think about it: who stands a better chance of making a successful pro-gun argument in a university or urban social setting? Liberal gun owners. But they're already in the minority, and they're afraid of speaking up for fear of being branded Tea Party zealots.

And here's the thing. "The Left" as a whole isn't all that big on gun regulation. A small minority in that camp continue to be the drum, and the majority nods and halfheartedly agrees because nobody in their peer group is around to tell them differently.

Especially if they're a liberal who can capture the passion of the young people, such as Bernie Sanders did, despite being far less anti-gun than Hillary.

[LogicMan]

And I believe the disparity in opinions on this subject stems from the fact that, taking Europe into account on a larger scale, there was not the time in history during which gun-ownership fused itself the the daily life of the common man the way it did in the discovery and "taming" of the continental USA.

That was definitely part of it, but the tradition of arms ownership and the concepts of individual right to self-defense and resistance to tyranny actually go back to England and ancient Rome and Greece.

The Greek city-states were in constant war with each other, but also had debates about the ideal way a state should be structured. Plato, student of Socrates, argued that the ideal form of a state was one in which the people were ruled by a professional class of elites, i.e. the "philosopher-kings," and the arms were kept in a centralized location. He talks about his ideal form of state in his work "The Republic." Aristotle, his student, broke with him completely on this, arguing that the ideal form of a society should be a constitutional democracy, where everyone possesses arms, arguing that if only one class of people possesses arms, then everyone else is at risk of coming under the mercy of that class.

In Athens, the citizens were to be armed as well to protect the city-state itself. Of course at the time, "citizen" was a specific class, as it did not include slaves or women, but we are talking about the development of the concepts we widely accept today. In ancient Rome, which adopted much of the knowledge created by the Greeks, there was understood in Roman law to be a right to self-defense. In addition, Cicero, Roman lawyer and politician, staunch defender of the Roman Republic, and considered one of the greatest orators in Rome and in history, was an advocate for the right to resist tyrannies and an advocate for the right to self-defense. He argues for this in his Defense of Titus Annius Milo.

Later on, Thomas Aquinas, who played a large role in the rediscovering of Aristotle and basically created a Christian version of Aristotle, spoke of the right to resist tyranny in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. One of the confusing parts for Christians over the centuries has been Romans 13: 1-7, which many interpret as saying that one must submit to all forms of governmental authority, no matter what, and not doing so is a sin. Christian pastors in Germany, during the Nazis, for example, said refusing obedience to the Nazis would be against God. Aquinas addressed Romans 13, basically saying that one has no obligation to obey a tyranny.

Then in addition there was England. England being an island nation, its politics developed differently from the continental European systems, where absolute monarchy ruled. In England, by contrast, the people there had been fighting off invaders for many years. Rome struggled to maintain control in England, for example, and then after the fall of the Western Roman empire, certain tribes took control and established kingdoms, and then eventually a check on the power of the monarch occurred, starting with the Magna Carta. One of the very unique facets of the English was in the development of the very lethal weapon of the time, the longbow, and the English people's adoption of it.

Now the longbow was a serious weapon. A draw resistance of about 120-140 lbs and shot big, heavy arrows, that could penetrate the heaviest, thickest armor of the time. A force of longbowmen could stop an army of knights. The longbowmen at Agincourt, for example, slaughtered the French knights. The English longbowmen, however, consisted of peasants. Not only were peasants able to possess longbows, but their training with them was encouraged and also required by law. All fighting age males capable of bearing arms had to practice regularly with the longbow. Now in comparison to the continental European nations, this was UNHEARD OF. The ways known to maintain a monarchy are to disarm the people (and stifle speech). You do not allow the people to possess weapons, and you ESPECIALLY do not REQUIRE them to become well-trained in the primary weapon that could allow a force of peasants to slaughter a force of professional knights. So England had a big tradition of fighting off invaders, checking dictatorships (both legally and by force of arms), and of private possession of arms.

This caused problems of course, as England still had monarchs (albeit more limited) who sought to increase their power constantly which created constant tension with the English people. This led to a revolt against the Stuarts in the 1600s because they had tried to disarm the English people.

Anyhow, fast-forward to the forming of what is today the United States, and most of the original colonists were English. They brought with them English concepts, including the concept of a right to self-defense and private possession of arms by the people. In addition, arms were essential to survival, as they had to completely build a whole new society from scratch. Then, like their English forebears, they got tired of being ruled, and decided to throw off control of their rulers (England), and so fought a war and won independence. Much of this was also inspired by Romans 13:1-7, in which many Christian leaders at the time argued to the American colonists that it was not any sin to fight the English for independence, because the English dictatorship was not authority of God (adopting Aquinas's argument). Also, the Bible is replete with stories of peoples fighting tyrannies. The Protestant Reformation also played a huge role in all this as well, but that's a whole other subject.

Some of the critical philosophers that highly influenced the Founders, including the guys mentioned above, were Algernon Sydney, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, William Blackstone (English jurist), and Charles Montesquieu. Sydney, Locke, Hobbes, Blackstone, and Montesquieu all argued for an individual right to self-defense, and Milton (also known for poetry) argued for resistance theory (right to resist tyranny). The English Whigs overall, (it was said that the majority of Americans were by outlook Whigs) supported the right to arms.

Thomas Jefferson said that the four most influential philosophers in the writing of the Declaration of Independence were Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke. All four supported the concept of possession of arms by the people for self-defense and to check a tyranny.

England in the 20th century went a good deal socialist-leaning and gave up its right to arms as well, as did much of the rest of Europe and other Western nations where the concept of private possession of arms was never strong to begin with. The United States, by contrast, continues the tradition of having possession of arms by the people as a fundamental right, both of individual self-defense and to check a tyranny, which as said is grounded in ancient Greece, Rome, England, and Christianity, four things that were HUGELY influential in the development of America and still looked to today.

[K_Mac]

LogicMan, thanks for an interesting and well written post.

[heyjoe]

too bad that the 9th circuit didnt read this before their recent decision that there is no right to bear arms outside of the home.

[44 AMP]

too bad that the 9th circuit didnt read this before their recent decision that there is no right to bear arms outside of the home.

I suppose it is too bad, but that's not what the 9th Circuit Court said.
(inaccurate sound bites work BOTH ways)

What the 9th's ruling said, essentially, was that the state's (CA) authority to decide what is, and is not a valid reason to issue a concealed carry permit does not violate the 2nd Amendment prohibition against "infringement".

This is NOT the same as saying "there is no right to bear arms outside the home".

A couple of points about the English longbowmen, then main one being they were not "peasants". They were from the Yeoman class, which were free men, small landholders, above the peasantry, but below titled nobility. Not much of a difference to us, 400years down the road, but at the time, a very significant and important social distinction.

Also, even the vaunted English longbow would not have won Agincourt and Crecy (and others) the way they did, without the stupidity of the French Knights.

There are, boiled down to the basics, 2 systems of looking at the relationship between the individual and the state.

One is that the individual exists to serve the state.
The other is that the state exists to serve the individual.

Kingdoms and empires, dictatorships and "noble ruling classes" vastly prefer the former.

Democracies and Republics try to hold to the latter.

[heyjoe]

what the 9th circuit wrote and the practical effect in many counties in California are two different things. open carry is illegal in california and concealed carry is only granted for good cause in a large part of california. for those many millions of people who live in those counties, this ruling has the practical effect of nullifying their right to carry a firearm outside of the home. The 9th circuit knew this and chose not to address it.

[LogicMan]

I suppose it is too bad, but that's not what the 9th Circuit Court said.
(inaccurate sound bites work BOTH ways)

What the 9th's ruling said, essentially, was that the state's (CA) authority to decide what is, and is not a valid reason to issue a concealed carry permit does not violate the 2nd Amendment prohibition against "infringement".

This is NOT the same as saying "there is no right to bear arms outside the home".

A couple of points about the English longbowmen, then main one being they were not "peasants". They were from the Yeoman class, which were free men, small landholders, above the peasantry, but below titled nobility. Not much of a difference to us, 400years down the road, but at the time, a very significant and important social distinction.

Good to know, thanks for the correction. So similar to Athens with the citizens possessing arms.

Also, even the vaunted English longbow would not have won Agincourt and Crecy (and others) the way they did, without the stupidity of the French Knights.

Two points I would make:

1) Even if they would not have won like that without the French mistakes, it was still very dangerous to a monarch to have much of the citizenry who could oppose said monarch armed with something like the longbow. The colonists would not have won the Revolutionary War if not for help from France and the fact that England was fighting another war in Europe at the time, but possession of arms by the people was still very important

2) The argument that one side would never have won if not for the enemy being stupid is shown throughout history.

[Aguila Blanca]

My views on your assessment:

Originally Posted by DNS

Both sides claim to be right. But we are right, and they're wrong
Both sides claim to want to do what is best for people.
Both sides think the stance of the other side is a safety concern.
Both sides are HUGELY prone to arguments of emotion. I disagree. I think the pro-2A side argues logic and facts.
Both sides are prone to misrepresenting data. I don't think the pro-2A side does this anywhere near as much as the anti-2A side.
Both sides cherry pick data to argue. I disagree. We don't have to cherry pick the data.
Both sides think the other side is composed of illogical individuals.
We blame the media. They blame the NRA.
Both sides call what the other side is doing with educating children to our views as "indoctrination."
Both sides, this thread included, are prone to ad hominem attacks.

[ATN082268]

<Snip Post>

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

And here's the thing. "The Left" as a whole isn't all that big on gun regulation. A small minority in that camp continue to be the drum, and the majority nods and halfheartedly agrees because nobody in their peer group is around to tell them differently.

So the majority of "the left" doesn't care about gun control so they just agree with whatever the minority of "the left" comes up with for a position on the issue? Personally, even if I didn't care about an issue, I certainly wouldn't blindly agree with someone else on it.

[rwilson452]

I have gotten into it with a couple of the more rabid anti gun type. I didn't answer with another fact but ask them to explain to me why they felt that way. I just kept asking leading questions until they proved to themselves that their assumptions didn't hold water. One zinger I used. was leading them down the path of what makes an "assault weapon". I then ask them how many attack have used them. then I tell them there are multi millions of them in private hands. Thus the number used isn't even as statistical blip. That usually gets me the, "If if saves one life" then I counter, they have saved lives when use to protect someones life when they were attacked by a bad guy, often without loss of life. Just the threat of use was enough to end the attack and send the bad guy running. There are other ways to do it but the tactic works. Make them prove to themselves their arguments don't hold water. Terrible as it sounds. Make them think not just mouth they usual things they have been taught. Take them onto unfamiliar ground.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

We steer away from Left/Right politics in this forum. That mindset is the main reason why.

It's just too easy, and when things are that easy, they're usually inaccurate. I know several people who identify themselves as liberal and/or progressive? Are they "lefties?" They'll chuckle and say, "heck, yes."

Several of them are gun owners and avid shooters. They support gun rights, and they bemoan the fact that many of their peers have drunk the anti-gun Kool Aid with such zeal.

It will always be true that some people who identify with a general trend will do so incompletely, but that doesn't make the general observation wrong.

One can correctly observe that the american and european left draw on a broad value of greater social and economic equality/sameness and are very open or are enthusiastic about investing the state with the power to achieve those goals. Where a constitutional or cultural tradition is an impediment to achievement of those goals, that tradition is seen as the problem.

Not every person who generally seeks greater equality/sameness will bring himself to commit to that program entirely.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Think about it: who stands a better chance of making a successful pro-gun argument in a university or urban social setting? Liberal gun owners. But they're already in the minority, and they're afraid of speaking up for fear of being branded Tea Party zealots.

What does it say about an individual departure from a leftward theme that the dissenter on a single issue would be "branded a Tea Party zealot"?

It would suggest to me that there isn't the tolerance for or even apathy toward an individual right to be held against the state.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

And here's the thing. "The Left" as a whole isn't all that big on gun regulation. A small minority in that camp continue to be the drum, and the majority nods and halfheartedly agrees because nobody in their peer group is around to tell them differently.

I do not agree. Both here and in most of Europe, we see the left tolerate a very high degree of terrifically invasive regulation. It isn't just limited to arms, but it is reflected in arms regulation.

If every time something happens and the cry goes up "There oughtta be a law!" and you don't affirmatively stop people from making laws, you are effectively endorsing the ensuing tide of regulation. That's why the left is, as a whole and in general, very big on a legislative disregard for the right described in the 2d Am.


That's not an indictment of any single individual, and when one finds a person of contrary opinion who is open to having a genuine argument (posing and receiving arguments rather than expressions of frustration and resentment) it's an opportunity. Handled appropriately, it's a pleasant opportunity.

[speedrrracer]

I'll never miss an opportunity to debate an anti, but you have to measure your response based on the degree of rabidity present in the anti.

It seems once you're past a certain degree of belief (in anything), the ability to accept existential debate on that concept diminishes. I don't care if it's physics...look at how much abuse (not talking discussion, or contradiction, I mean flat-out abuse) some scientists receive when they propose a disruptive new theory.

So if you get a wild-n-wooly anti, you have to realize there's no hope of saving that lost soul, and you're best off not even trying, lest you end up making vent posts on TFL .

However, it's an excellent opportunity to expose the irrationality of that anti, along with your rationality, to any fence-sitters who may be within earshot. As frank likes to say, it's always a good time to be a good ambassador for the 2A. Also, who knows, perhaps you can plant a seed that will one day find fertile soil, even in the wilderness of the anti brain? Optimism eternal?

That's going to be the overwhelming majority of your interactions with antis (and zealots of any kind). Just too much pent-up ignorance, emotion & bias to possibly overcome. So score a few quick & very civil points, probably just for the crowd, and get out.

But every blue moon you'll get someone who has actually learned how to think critically, and is capable of resisting or casting off brainwashing. I was speaking with one just today -- a bright, young engineer who knew nothing about guns and genuinely wanted to understand, not just hear FUD, which he had independently recognized as the only thing he was getting from the media. He heard me speaking with a rabid anti, challenging the value of the question, "Why does anyone need an assault weapon?", and was turned off when the anti went ad-hom on me.

So afterwards, he approached me and asked, "Why does anyone need an assault weapon?" and by the end of lunch, after a million more questions, we were off to the range (his first time).

[44 AMP]

Why does anyone need more than basic subsistence of anything??

But, more to the point, why do some people think they have the right to decide what others need, and legislate against things they decide aren't valid needs??

The complicating factor is that so many people seem to believe that possession of an inanimate object overrides free will.

All they seem to see is that the gun RULES the mind, which seems more than a bit foolish to me.

They do not understand "the Riddle of Steel", and until they do, will not be able to change their minds.

The power (for good OR evil) is NOT in the steel, it is in the hand that wields it.

Without the hand (the will) steel is nothing.

[ncrypt]

My approach is always very simple....I find that most people that have this conversation with us have no clue or understanding about guns. So, right from the start I verify what they know about guns and how they know it. You'll find that you can walk away from most people and dismiss them.

I start every conversation with the following:

1- I ask do you own guns?
2 -Have you ever purchased a gun?
3- Did your family own guns growing up?

If they say no to any of these, I dismiss them and inform them that what they know about the topic was probably influenced by the media or the internet. You'll find if they say yes, then they have some sense of what it means and why we own guns and you can have a conversation with them.

[Skans]

When I encounter a rabid Anti who can't be reasoned with, then I leave them with this parting message:

I own many assault rifles (yes, I use that term), assault pistols, handguns, high-capacity magazines and drums, and lots of ammo. So do many many others through out the United States. No law will ever make me and many others give up our guns. However, such laws will stop you from obtaining the same kind of guns that I and many others already have. YOU and others like you will have no access to the weapons many of us already have. Your children will have no access to weapons; but we will ensure that our children inherit our weapons.