Need Some Pro-Gun Argument Points

[JayRuff]

Occasionally I have arguments with anti-gun, Obama voting liberal folks, like some members of my family :TFH:, who think that no civilian should ever be allowed to have a gun and only law enforcement and military should. And they hope that they ban all guns forever (guns are evil, guns kill people etc) , what are some really good pro-gun points I could add to a discussion like this. I just want to be able to defend my rights and maybe change a person's view on guns. Help me out guys. :thumbsup:

[Vtec44]

Try this site, http://www.learnaboutguns.com. No, it's not mine. :D

[yellowfin]

Sounds like you're either dealing with paranoids or utopians. You can always ask them how many people were killed by other people before 1600 and how that happened if only guns kill people. I'm guessing Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad Dracula, the Borgias, et al. never killed anyone in their recollection of history...or perhaps their understanding excludes them from being real people. Also ask them if someone breaking in their house or attacking them in the parking lot can harm them by any means other than gun, and if somehow being beaten, bludgeoned, strangled, poisoned, stabbed, dropped (from a high up place), etc. is somehow a more desirable death by act of another person than being shot.

Similarly ask them about how they think a person is most likely to die, statistically speaking, if they're making the safety arguement. Swimming pools, second hand smoke, car accidents, and a slippery bathtub are a lot more to be feared if they're purely looking to avoid causes of death. If confronting relatives, ask them if they would be more comfortable with you (or a younger sibling, even better) drowning at 10 or being shot at 30, and why. If dealing with females--or someone who has a daughter--ask them how many rapes they think happen in the US a year, then immediately follow up with the question: "How many of those women do you think had a gun in their possession at the time?"

---I'd bet you $20 they don't have an answer to that which they'd like to share.

[tortoisethunder]

Sometimes arguing with someone about gun ownership will get you no where? Just tell them you as a law abiding citizen exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights. If the SHTF and need you for protection, well you can tell them to F-off.

I am a Hunter and Gun Owner and have these "conversations" all the time. I just tell them I respect their right to do what ever they want...please respect my rights.

[MajorBoothroyd]

Occasionally I have arguments with anti-gun, Obama voting liberal folks, like some members of my family :TFH:, who think that no civilian should ever be allowed to have a gun and only law enforcement and military should. (...) Help me out guys. :thumbsup:

I wish I could help out with some tips, but I am afraid I spend too much time having conversations with pro-gun, Obama-voting, liberal folk who think that no law abiding civilian should be prevented from owning a gun and have a healthy respect and admiration, but not fear and blind submission to law and enforcement and military.

Then again, perhaps we should be talking to your anti-gun acquaintances and family!

[user5412]

I agree, there's no point in trying to turn a true believer. They will go down with their belief if need be. Think of it from our side of the coin, no one will tell us that owning guns is wrong, because we truly believe it's right! Remember, it's all relative.

My story:
I had an one sided yelling match (guess who was yelling?) about assault rifles with a CANADIAN. He kept going on and on about how no one should own such a dangerous gun, people killing each other all the time, etc. I asked him what's an assault weapon? How do you classify that? Where are your stats backing your claims up? How about guns in self-defense? Each reply skillfully dodged the fact that he had NO FACTS. This doesn't bother them, but it does us, because we are concerned with the truth. They are concerned with preventing their world view from changing. They don't want to be afraid, and they do that by not acknowledging the world is unsafe. Owning a gun reminds them of reality, which they would rather not face and rely on superstition to keep them safe (It won't happen to me, I'm a good person type thinking.)

Even my own sister refuses to consider gun ownership. Her reply is along the lines of "I'll buy a gun when I need it." Carefully ignoring the fact New York requires a handgun permit, etc. The appeal of feeling safe outweighs the reality of BEING safer with a deadly weapon.

[gcvt]

If they say they don't believe in your 2nd Amendment right to own guns, tell them you don't believe in their 1st Amendment right to say that to you.

Then just watch their faces.

[JayRuff]

funny thing is, my uncle is anti-gun but yet he tells me he would love to come with me to the range and fire my guns, he said he doesn't mind even shooting tanks, rpg's, as long as their kept there. He is against having guns at home. IMO taking a person to a gun range and teaching them about guns and the current laws would actually help more than just exchanging words.

[nicki]

First, don't confuse them with facts, that is won't work because people who are anti gun are usually that way for emotional reasons.

First, ask them why they feel the way they do. Just keep asking and take notes on what they say.

Once you can isolate why they feel the way they do, then you will know what you are dealing with.

If you are dealing with people who are well intentioned, but misguided, you may have a chance.

Some of our strongest pro gun activists used to be anti gun, but they saw the light and they are our strongest advocates because they understand the other side better than we ever could.

You have to give them a way to save face, do not put anyone into a corner. If you do that, the natural reaction is to just dig in.

Are there government prohibitions that they feel are counter productive, like for instance, the ban on marijuania or other drugs.

Someone who opposes the drug war because it doesn't work probably can be reached about a proposed gun prohibition.

The typical answer will be "well guns are different"
Your answer will be "how so".

Typical answer will be , well guns are not as available as drugs.
Your answer would be: they are easier to make and there is a worldwide black market in military small arms, the going price for a AK47 in Africa is about 100 dollars.

A couple of Oakland cops told me the going street price for a full auto AK47 is around 1k btw.

The bottom line: Zero tolerance policies equal Zero Intelligence.

Tell them you are pro choice on self defense and you recognize their right to depend on 911 when they are in trouble.

Tell them you will depend on a 1911 and you will use a phone to dial 911 after you have used your 1911 to defend yourself just like Justice Scalia actually suggested.

A handgun in one hand, a phone in the other.

Nicki

[oaklander]

http://www.foxven.com/s-self.html

[Bugei]

Occasionally I have arguments with anti-gun, Obama voting liberal folks, like some members of my family :TFH:, who think that no civilian should ever be allowed to have a gun and only law enforcement and military should. And they hope that they ban all guns forever (guns are evil, guns kill people etc) , what are some really good pro-gun points I could add to a discussion like this. I just want to be able to defend my rights and maybe change a person's view on guns. Help me out guys. :thumbsup:

Here's one I use. It's unpleasant and rude, but pleasant and socially-acceptable arguments frequently have no effect on victim-disarmament enthusiasts.

"Situation: you hear a noise in your 5-year old daughter's room. You go to investigate. You find a large, ugly individual approaching the bed. He's dropping his pants and a firearm has dropped from his waistband.

Will you pick up the gun and point it at the large, ugly individual?"

If they answer "yes", then obviously they must believe that a firearm is a valid tool for that situation.

If they answer "no", my next response is "I wouldn't want to be your kid. I don't want to have to explain to my kid that Mommy or Daddy just couldn't bear to get their hands dirty with a nasty firearm so they just had to call 911 and wait for the police officers to get there. With their guns. So that's why you had to get raped and murdered, Billy or Sally."

You won't get invited back to a lot of parties if you have to throw this little grenade, but the more self-righteous of the antis have generally not thought their positions out well enough to answer.

[Jarrod]

Go to Gunfacts (http://www.gunfacts.info) and download the free book. Full of tons of updated facts, etc. based on "Myth" then "Answer." You'll really like it, promise.

Also, buy yourself a copy of In Search of the Second Amendment (http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/) to watch and learn, perhaps even share.

Lastly, go to The American Form of Government (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment) and spend the ten minutes required to watch the video.

[plink182]

Well like I explain it this way.

First I say that in a perfect world no one would ever hurt anyone else.

Yet in that same perfect world guns would not be a danger to people any more then a car, a hammer, baseball bat, etc.

Why? Because if people never wanted to hurt each other guns would be harmless other then an accident. Just the same as a car, hammer, baseball bat, or anything else that can accidentally harm.

We all however live in the real world. In the real world some times people do harm each other. Like it or not that is a constant reality that will NOT change. No matter what is allowed.

Furthermore I believe that to defend ones self from danger is a Natural Right. And you cant eliminate all dangers any more then you can eliminate all guns/weapons. So its a pointless idea to ban guns. It doesnt stop people from harming each other. Especially when you look at Violent crime statistics. If someone wants to hurt another person badly enough they will find a way, gun or not.

Its that simple to me.

Also as far as the political end of it goes. I mention that our nations constitution was created by some very wise men. Men who considered every possible future scenario they could. In doing so they gave us the Bill of Rights to protect the Nation and its Citizens from those possible future scenarios. Just as with any of those rights. Once you begin to limit them for one reason, you risk someone else thinking of new reasons to limit them further. Its a slippery slope.

Benjamin Franklin's most relevant quote for the current age was also what became "an American rallying cry back in the early days of the Republic: 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'."

I agree with good Ol Ben. No matter if you are talking about Guns, spoken/written word, the loss of privacy, due process, habeas corpus, remedy and recourse. We have as a Nation already eroded away at this too much in recent years IMO.

[WatchMan]

Someone told me recently, "I think only police should have guns. Period." The following simple argument surprisingly yielded a favorable result and I think it is quite amusing:

"If only police should have guns, why do they even need them, since nobody else would have them?"

"Well, because the criminals have them?"

"But you just said nobody but police would have guns in your world."

"Yeah, but criminals will always have guns."

"I see, so why do the police need their guns then?"

"Well, for protection from the criminals, duh!"

"OK, so the police need guns to protect themselves from gun slinging criminals. Understood. Therefore, your world does not exist. Now, Do you think I have a right to defend my family if they are in clear and present danger from a criminal with a gun?"

"Well, of course. I guess. I mean, you should call the police!"

"I said clear and present danger. The police would be minutes away, at best. Do I have a right, in your mind, to defend my family from this criminal?"

"Yes, I suppose so."

"I agree with you. Therefore, not unlike the police, I have a gun and am well-trained in its use."

"Yeah but....well, I see your point."

Not sure if I convinced her, or if she just wanted to leave the topic. :rolleyes:

[Jarrod]

Someone told me recently, "I think only police should have guns. Period." The following simple argument surprisingly yielded a favorable result and I think it is quite amusing:

"If only police should have guns, why do they even need them, since nobody else would have them?"

"Well, because the criminals have them?"

[...]

"Yeah but....well, I see your point."

Not sure if I convinced her, or if she just wanted to leave the topic. :rolleyes:

Excellent!!

[Arkalius]

When it comes down to it, there isn't just pro-gun and anti-gun. There is a long spectrum of opinions and beliefs on the topic. With some anti-leaning people, you can have a productive conversation if you are respectful of them and make it a logical debate. With some others, trying to have a logical debate is a futile endeavor, because their arguments defy logic, and they are experts at derailing any attempt at being logical.

I remember a debate I had with someone I knew online. I thought I was getting through at one point but he remained adamant that guns were horrible things. I was a bit confused at first, as it seemed he was a fairly rational person and I couldn't understand what was keeping him from "seeing the light." Then, he admitted to me that he had some kind of personal involvement with the DC sniper thing. I don't recall what it was exactly... I don't think he personally knew a victim or anything but I remember that basically something about that situation affected him personally, and then I realized that the gun issue was inherently emotional for him.

The gun issue can become an emotional argument just as a rule in general, but for some people, the idea of guns evokes emotions directly due to some event in their lives. And, it isn't always a negative reaction. Some people become pro-gun because of certain emotional events. When a person's opinion about a topic becomes deeply rooted in emotion, it is very difficult to alter that opinion. Some people are willing to admit right off the bat that their bias against guns is specifically due to some significant event in their lives related to guns. Others will not admit this outright, and will instead act as if their position is based on careful consideration (and they may even think it is). So, asking someone what their problem with guns is can sometimes reveal the emotional reasoning behind it right away, and other times it won't. If someone admits an emotional foundation for their views, you should tread carefully and consider avoiding the argument unless you've got a thick skin and high tolerance for irrational reasoning. And, even if they don't admit such a thing, never discount the possibility when having the discussion.

I was forced to abandon the argument with this individual I mentioned before. He and I weren't especially good friends or anything, he was just an internet acquaintance. I was not going to be able to crack any deep-seated emotional responses he had to the gun issue because he was not going to open up to me in that way. It sucks to have to surrender the battle in these instances but sometimes it's unavoidable.

So I guess the moral of the story is that you cannot expect to convert everyone to your way of thinking on this issue just using good reasoned arguments. Some people will respond, others will not.

[JayRuff]

Someone told me recently, "I think only police should have guns. Period." The following simple argument surprisingly yielded a favorable result and I think it is quite amusing:

"If only police should have guns, why do they even need them, since nobody else would have them?"

"Well, because the criminals have them?"

"But you just said nobody but police would have guns in your world."

"Yeah, but criminals will always have guns."

"I see, so why do the police need their guns then?"

"Well, for protection from the criminals, duh!"

"OK, so the police need guns to protect themselves from gun slinging criminals. Understood. Therefore, your world does not exist. Now, Do you think I have a right to defend my family if they are in clear and present danger from a criminal with a gun?"

"Well, of course. I guess. I mean, you should call the police!"

"I said clear and present danger. The police would be minutes away, at best. Do I have a right, in your mind, to defend my family from this criminal?"

"Yes, I suppose so."

"I agree with you. Therefore, not unlike the police, I have a gun and am well-trained in its use."

"Yeah but....well, I see your point."

Not sure if I convinced her, or if she just wanted to leave the topic. :rolleyes:

Great Argument!

[JayRuff]

Go to Gunfacts (http://www.gunfacts.info) and download the free book. Full of tons of updated facts, etc. based on "Myth" then "Answer." You'll really like it, promise.

Also, buy yourself a copy of In Search of the Second Amendment (http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/) to watch and learn, perhaps even share.

Lastly, go to The American Form of Government (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment) and spend the ten minutes required to watch the video.

Thank you so much, this sure will help, I'm printing it

[Swiss]

When it comes down to it, there isn't just pro-gun and anti-gun...<snip>

So I guess the moral of the story is that you cannot expect to convert everyone to your way of thinking on this issue just using good reasoned arguments. Some people will respond, others will not.

Great post Arkalius.

[weezil_boi]

1. Non-gun owners benefit from the possibility that any house "could" have a gun.

2. Tell them to put their money where their mouth is... tell them to posy a big fat sign in tier wondow that says... "This is a GUN FREE home. There are no firearms of anykind in the house." -- Then, follow through with it. Offer to make the sign for them. Offer to hang it in their window for them... and then enjoy the slushy panic that dribbles out of their mouth as they claim your offer is just silly.

The only thing that scares gun haters more than guns is... the idea that badguys know they dont have one. ;)

[hoffmang]

I have two favorite arguments.

Antis usually get to some version of "guns are only designed to kill people." I love to respond with, "Yep, that's why cops are issued firearms - they're supposed to go around killing people. That's a firearms only use. Murdering people in cold blood." Be well practiced at sarcasm for that delivery.

The far more serious argument is to have read and fully understood the story of the Deacons for Defense and Justice. When you read and understand that story - the alternative and actual reality of the Civil Rights movement - then you can put firearms in the correct modern political framework.

-Gene

[JayRuff]

nice one :thumbsup:

[CapS]

Most of my close encounters of the antigun type occur with members of my (extended) family. After years of trying to fight neurosis with logic (& failing!) I finally settled on, "The second amendment to the Constitution guarantees my right to keep & bear arms." The most usual argument I get in return is, "then it ought to be repealed!" Then I allow as how we'll just have to agree to disagree until that happens. (Since it's family, I do not say, "Yeah, well good luck with that!")

/Cap