PDA

View Full Version : Arguments I have trouble refuting...


Norinco522
10-19-2011, 5:27 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

EchoFourTango
10-19-2011, 5:33 PM
America is a democratic republic. What would stop them from doing what the commies or fascists did? There is no guarantee that those who elect people to do bad things are not gona support them.

Crazys get a confidence boost from any weapon that they can get their hands on, no matter what it is.

ed bernay
10-19-2011, 5:45 PM
Mass murder ca be accomplished with cars, knives, axes, bats etc. Articles are pretty easily found with a simple search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/14/five-killed-jersey-knife-attack

If guns were only designed for offensive purposes, why do cops carry them? Why should cops be the only ones to have the ability to defend themselves. Most criminals don't target cops first. They target the defenseless.

vincewarde
10-19-2011, 5:48 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

1) Ask him for one case where restrictive gun laws have reduced crime. There are none. One the other hand, a little research will turn up many cases where crime went UP after guns were taken away from the law abiding. Ditto for cases where gun laws were made less restrictive and crime has gone down. This was the case when DC had to legalize handguns and every time shall issue CCW has taken effect. Demand facts and have yours straight.

2) Ask him why crime is consistently higher in areas with restrictive laws and lower in areas with higher rates of gun ownership. I would mention that Brady actually removed their ratings of states from their web site when people started comparing them with crime rates and put two and two together.

3) Ask him why Finland and Switzerland (2nd and 3rd in gun ownership after the US) have such low crime rates. Point out that if you count the military guns the Swiss Army encourages soldiers to take home, the rate of gun possession is even higher. I would also point out the when a Swiss reservist retires from service the Army allows him to buy his Assault Rifle and continue to keep it at home. If guns cause crime and suicide, blood should be running in Swiss streets.

4) Ask him if he believes in the right of self defense. My guess is he does not. He is probably a "militant pacifist" - meaning that not only has he decided he would rather die than protect his life and loved ones, he demands that you do the same. If he is honest, he may actually be shocked by what he really believes.

5) Finally, I would point out that gun ownership is now a constitutional right - and then ask him if he believes in the constitution. Gun ownership cannot be restricted without endangering ALL OUR FREEDOMS. I would tell him that if he does not like the 2nd Amendment - he can work to repeal it. Good luck with that!

a1c
10-19-2011, 5:52 PM
Guns ARE designed to kill.

Which is why the car argument is weak and doesn't work with antis.

The button you need to push there is the fact that guns are not at the root of gun violence. The root of (gun) violence is poverty, lack of access to education, job training, mental health care, basic services. Which is why crime is way higher in poor neighborhoods than in wealthy ones.

Orange County is actually a terrible example for you to bring up - it's one of California's safest counties. That salon shooting was a freak accident which just goes to illustrate how poor and underfunded the mental health care services have gotten in the past few decades in the state.

taperxz
10-19-2011, 5:55 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Where i bolded your friends comment. It should be changed to or at least equaled to:

gives the innocent the extra boost of confidence that they need to protect themselves from the insane.

otalps
10-19-2011, 6:03 PM
When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.


Actually how is Waco that much different than Nazi Germany or Communist China? A far reaching government killing innocent civilians is pretty tyrannical.

Firemark
10-19-2011, 6:04 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Guns expressed purpose is not to kill, only when it applies to game and acquiring food. when applied to another human they are more powerful as a deterrent to uncivilized behavior. His logic is flawed, what is the expressed purpose of a nuclear missle? is to only kill or is it to deter? I always like to fall back on this to support my arguments...

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

with reference to corrupt or tyrannical govt. ask him to describe how America would devolve into a tyrannical oppressive state, how would it happen. He is wrong from the get go we are not a democracy, the founding fathers did not want a democracy, 51% could easily remove 49% of peoples liberties. America is a Constituional Republic.

I would also recomend showing him how media exerts an extreme bias against the public and uses propoganda techniques to get them to believe a certain way... John Lott, Bias against guns. I would also use youtube examples of old Nazi propoganda films and speeches to show how the many can be duped by the few.

Good Luck

Rivers
10-19-2011, 6:05 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm.

Guns are (as are weapons in general) a power-equalizer. They permit a David to defeat a Goliath, the elderly and frail to fend off the robber, etc. Evil will always exist and hunt in packs; the firearm allows the good guy the opportunity to not become a victim.

However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks.

It is the disparity of force that gave the evildoer the advantage. Had the state not stripped the populace of the means to defend themselves on a moment's notice, any one of the victims or witnesses could have justly raised a defense that could have stopped the murders. That background and mental health checks failed speaks more to the unpredictability of the human condition. Nothing in life is guaranteed, even if you pass some state-mandated threshold. Does a teenager passing a physical exam to play on his high school football team today guarantee that he won't have a fatal seizure a month later?

In a larger context, does having the atom bomb mean that any country must use it against other countries, just because it has it? Consider Israel which is widely believed to have nuclear arms. Surrounded by hostile countries, if those countries did not believe (correctly or not) that any attack would result in a nuclear response by Israel, the Jewish state would be engulfed in constant war. Same with the Cold War. Both USA and USSR had nuclear weapons capable of mutual destruction. Knowing that both would lose if either tried to win, outright hostilities were prevented.

They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

By that logic, the car is to blame when a drunk drives it into a crowd on a city sidewalk. The individual is responsible for his own condition and all actions that follow whether he is still drunk or eventually sobers up.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

Gun control is the means to secure power against the individual and opposing citizens. That is how the Revolutionary War started, when the colonists stood their ground against King George's order that the colonists' arms be seized by the English troops. Nazi Germany did not enact gun control. That happened by the politicians in power who were planning on using that to keep the Nazi party weakened. Unfortunately, the Nazi's won that next election and swept into power, using the new gun control laws to disarm the population. That secured their power and neutered the opposition. Hitler was elected by the Germans in a popular vote. He morphed that democracy into a fascist government because there was nobody in the then-disarmed Germany who had the means to unseat him and his band of murderers.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

Compare the crime rates in the USA. Why are heavily anti-gun Washington DC and Chicago consistently the worst big cities for crime? Why have knife crimes replaced gun crimes statistically in the anti-gun UK? Is it the guns or is it because criminals are treated so softly, sending the message that committing rape, robbery and murder are not big deals?

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

kemasa
10-19-2011, 6:06 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."


This is incorrect. A firearm is designed to accurately fire a projectile. What you decide to do with it is up to you. I have a .22LR bolt action pistol with a 10" barrel. While it is accurate, the best way to kill someone with it is a club. Target pistols are designed to accurately hit a target, not to kill.

Then you can get into the issue of modern military firearms. Full metal jacket bullets are not the best for killing. Better bullets are banned for use in wars. It seems that there is an issue with killing vs. injury in terms of war.

So, with all of this, the argument that guns were designed for the express purpose of killing falls flat.


I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.


Really? What proof of there is any of that? You could make the same claim of bombs.


My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm.


Again, it is false to claim that guns were designed to kill, the same with knives and bows and arrows, etc. Vehicles do a very good job of killing people, as well as tobacco. Do you think that those were designed to kill people as well?

Those who want to kill will do so as you say. Until recently, the item used to kill the largest number of people was gasoline.


However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks.


In most cases, such as the Tucson shooting, the person actually showed signed of having a problem, but our system and the failure of people to do something about it failed. If someone knows that another person has an issue and fails to try to do something about it, guess what happens? Nothing, until it is too late.


They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.


As do heavy objects, which happen to be around, or a vehicle. Again, this is just a bogus argument, which you are deciding is a fact, but it isn't.


When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.


You should look at the defensive use of firearms, where in most cases no shots are fired. In the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge, it shows a case for the abuse of government. You need to look into the facts of the case more. The last sentence conflicts with what happened with Waco and Ruby Ridge. Please tell me how a mother with a child in her hands is a threat which calls for a sniper to kill her. Please tell me how, just before budget time, going in to stage a raid to get a person who had previously turned himself in on a murder charge was called for, and who went jogging and could have been taken at that point in time, was called for. Abuse is not limited to any specific type of government, where there is power, there is corruption.

Case law shows that the police have no duty or obligation to protect you as an individual. This means that you are responsible for your own protection.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.


As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.


Perhaps a look at crime rates would be in order. Washington D.C. and New York City had some of the toughest laws, but also the highest crime rates, whereas places where firearm law were more reasonable had lower crime rates.

It is far easier and safer for a criminal to commit a crime where there is less chance of someone fighting back. There was a shooting at a school in the San Fernando Valley and the first target was skipped because security was higher.

You don't hear much about the criminal who try to attack and get shot before they can do much. You don't hear about the take over robbery where a law abiding citizen had a gun and stopped it, unlike similar cases where all the people were killed.


But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

The paranoia argument is just a strawman argument and there is no proof of the confidence boost theory either, but the facts show crime rates are less when people can have firearms. Florida's crime rates when down when the law was passed to allow citizens to carry, even before it went into effect. Criminal then went after tourists because they knew they would not be armed, but that stopped when out of state residents could get permits as well. The anti-gun people often say, like before the law in Florida was passed, that if the law was passed there would be shootings on every street corner. When the law gets passed and all the doom and gloom does not occur and instead things get better, the anti-gun people still refuse to admit that they were wrong.

gbp
10-19-2011, 6:15 PM
Guns ARE designed to kill..........

are you saying there is no other use for a gun than that? and that all guns are designed with that sole purpose in mind?
I would have to disagree with u

taperxz
10-19-2011, 6:18 PM
are you saying there is no other use for a gun than that? and that all guns are designed with that sole purpose in mind?
I would have to disagree with u

Well then, lets simplify things for you. All guns are designed to put a hole in whatever you shoot thus attempting to create day light or simply draining your target of matter.

SilverBulletZ06
10-19-2011, 6:27 PM
Well you would have to go with a few different angles here.

1) Guns can kill, but they can also do so protecting oneself. No one should be forced to be assaulted, raped, robbed, or murdered and a firearm give the defendee a chance to combat a physically superior opponent who may or may not have the element of suprise..

2) There are 280,000,000 guns in the US belonging to 40% of the households on average. There were 8,775 firearms homicides in 2010. If every single homicide is a different gun, for arguements sake even though thats not the case, which brings it to a rate of 0.0031339285714286% homicides per firearm owned. Many of these crimes are situated in a relatively small cluster of high-crime areas.

3) England and Australia, both saw INCREASES in violent crime of around 40% after the removal of private firearms.

4) There is a total of a little over 10,000,000 crimes committed in the US. According to the DOJS every year private firearms prevents 1.5 million crimes. Thats 15% of crime stopped by legal, law abiding, safe firearms owners who would otherwise be a victim of crime as well.

5) Rape stats without a weapon is that ~5% will be able to get away, with a weapon ~85%.

ETD1010
10-19-2011, 6:49 PM
I don't think the initial motivation for the invention of the firearm is relevant to the need or right to own one. EVEN IF WE ASSUME that crazy murders invented firearms to prey on innocent victims (which we know is not the case of their invention, but stay with me), it still gives the victim the best chance of survival if he/she has the same, immediate power the assailant does to end the threat. . . right?

Dreaded Claymore
10-19-2011, 6:56 PM
However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks.

:eek: Is he freaking kidding you?!

Loughner was bloody certifiable, and it was evident to all who knew him, even casually. Remember, he got kicked out of his community college for acting unbalanced and scary. No one involved legal authorities, but it's NOT because no one saw that he was crazy. They just didn't step up to the plate, that's all. (If you can call more than ten dead people "all." :()

bill_k_lopez
10-19-2011, 6:57 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=489945

Statistics for CA:

In 2009 there were 36.962 million people living in CA

36,961,664 people and only 1,447 homicides commited with a gun. Yet 483,872 new gun sales were DROSed in 2009

These numbers don't justify the "scare" tactics or "guns are just too dangerous" arguments.



In the same year there were 3,200 people killed in car accidents and 3,561 people died from poisoning. 8,713 Rapes and 64,093 robberies
(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm)

CessnaDriver
10-19-2011, 7:01 PM
"America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state."

Because we had the right to keep and bare arms!
Without that, this nation would not have survived as we know it.
Today it seems more remote a possibility, but it cannot be ignored and it is not paranoid.
You look at some of the comments from some politicians and you realize what could still happen
if they had ALL the power.


Nuclear weapons were designed for one thing. To detonate.
However the deterrent factor is massive and they HAVE kept the peace, more so then all the peace activists could dream.
Deterrence is a real factual positive for firearms without needing to fire a shot.

Does he think he should put a sign on his home that says... Gun Free Zone!

He is safer because some of his neighbors own firearms and the criminals know they could be killed.

CitaDeL
10-19-2011, 7:04 PM
"Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Police carry guns, therefore the express purpose of police is killing people.

M. D. Van Norman
10-19-2011, 7:07 PM
I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.

Modern firearms are precision weapons designed to accurately engage individual targets. They are generally a poor choice for mass murder.

Therefore, every time a would-be mass killer is emboldened by a firearm and chooses it over a matchbook, dozens if not hundreds of lives are spared.

Dreaded Claymore
10-19-2011, 7:09 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."

He's absolutely right.

Guns are, indeed, designed specifically to kill humans and similar animals. There's no question about this.

But that's not what's being questioned. The real question is whether you agree that sometimes, in certain rare and terrible situations, killing another human is better than the alternative.

Guns are for killing people. That sounds bad. But we keep guns at hand, to kill people, because there are situations where not killing someone would be even worse.

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they agree with that statement. I have a friend who says that her answer is no. She believes that if (for instance) someone was about to murder her, she would prefer to be murdered than to use deadly force against her attacker. I don't think/feel the same way she does, but I believe that she does honestly mean it when she says this, and I respect her right to choose for herself.

Of course, if she tried to choose that for me, or anyone other than herself, she'd be very deeply in the wrong. She knows that, too.

DannyInSoCal
10-19-2011, 7:13 PM
Why debate it with him.

He's never going to change his mind.

Talk about beer, broads, bikes, booze - But not bullets.

I have a friend that tried to bait me into a "gun control" debate -

And every time I simply smile and say

"You just can't simply grasp my opinion -

And I hope I neve have to prove you wrong..."

Librarian
10-19-2011, 7:19 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."
Sure. So what?

Sometimes killing is the right thing to do.

"Cars are designed for the express purpose of getting people and goods from one place to another." Right?

And yet we all know that there are large numbers of deaths and injuries associated with cars - and almost all of those are from accidents.

Deaths associated with firearms are associated primarily with deliberate use - procuring, aiming, firing a gun at another human being with the intent of creating injury or death.

Your conversant would seem to be unable to distinguish violence in defense of life from the entire spectrum of violence. Such limited cognitive capabilities should not give you problems.

Just Dave
10-19-2011, 7:38 PM
The reason why guns are designed to kill is because evil has got to be dealt with.

Guns are the great equalizer, if a 105 lbs girl were attacked by 230 lbs of evil she could deal with the situation by applying 5 lbs of pull.

Guns are necessary because there is evil in the world.

TwitchALot
10-19-2011, 7:39 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.

Even IF you accept this as true on its face without argument, so what? Guns also prepackage the act of self-defense in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the innocent the extra edge that they need to defend themselves from a bigger, or multiple, attackers.

Then, the other argument is, even if guns are designed to kill, what does the intent of the design matter? So WHAT? The internet wasn't designed for thieves to steal identities and personal information, for people to post silly or informative or weird things on youtube. But people do it.

I don't see why the design intent of something matters in the first place. Bridges aren't designed for people to commit suicide by jumping, but people do it. So... bridges are good? Bad? Intent of design seems irrelevant.

However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

And the exact opposite is true is well. ANYTHING can be abused, REGARDLESS of the "intent of the design." If the intent of the Manhattan Project was to develop a weapon via nuclear fission, is your friend going to stop using electricity because nuclear power is used to provide power, on the grounds that it was originally intended to be a weapon of mass destruction that would kill hundreds of thousands of people?

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

Has he seen the Daniel Harless video? SWAT raids (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) gone bad? Hundreds of abuses by police officers, government officials, and militaries all over the world, including here?

And given that, should we ban all police officers, government officials, and militaries?

spiderpigs
10-19-2011, 7:41 PM
arguing the utility of a gun outside of death is a quick trip to nowheresville when debating anti's.

That said, the founders of this country believed in this right, both for self preservation and for a counter against a corrupt government. Paranoia is something that should be embraced, as there are many examples of governments, including the US government overstepping their bounds. Its better to have a gun, than a need a gun and find yourself lacking.

Meplat
10-19-2011, 7:41 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."

Not true. The first guns were designed for the express purpose of breaching walls. Dueling pistols were commonly smooth bores for the express purpose of reducing deaths. Modern guns are built expressly for all sorts of target games. Personal defense and military small arms are designed to stop and or wound. A dead soldier is out of the fight. A wounded soldier takes himself and three others out of the fight.

Even if it were true, the fact remains that killing is a legitimate purpose. For you to live something must be killed. Even if you are vegetarian (and it is very hard to be an absolute vegetarian and maintain good health) plants must die. Every animal kills to live. Don’t count yourself morally superior just because you don’t have the stomach to do your own killing.

I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder,

Complete bull, these guys were telegraphing “nut cake” at high volume.

thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

A drunk may have an accident but by the time he is judgmentally impaired to the point of murder he is physically impaired to the point of incapacity. I would demand he show me the evidence of any alarming volumes of homicide caused by drunks with guns. The anger or “killing rage” argument is also bogus. Psychologists will tell you that a true killing rage flashes and passes in fractions of a second, not ten days, not three days, not the time it takes to do a DROWS; fractions of a second!





When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

America is not a democracy. A democracy it two wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. America is a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic you agree beforehand about certain things the majority cannot do to the minority. A democracy can most certainly be Fascist or Communist.



As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Your friend is the one who is paranoid. He is just plain afraid of guns and is building all sorts of constructs to justify his ungrounded fear.

phalanxbl
10-19-2011, 7:46 PM
4) There is a total of a little over 10,000,000 crimes committed in the US. According to the DOJS every year private firearms prevents 1.5 million crimes. Thats 15% of crime stopped by legal, law abiding, safe firearms owners who would otherwise be a victim of crime as well.


The effect is actually greater than 15%. Alot of violent criminals are repeat offenders. The ones who are stopped by citizens are... either killed, incapacitated, or end up jailed (maybe again), and then the crimes they WOULD have committed don't happen as a result.

If 10 criminals would each commit 10 crimes, but 2 of them are stopped by citizens when committing their 2nd crime, on paper it would look like you had 84 crimes with 2 of them stopped by citizens... for a measely 2.38%. But actually you've stopped 2 crimes and prevented 16 more, it's more like an 18% decrease.

This is probably why, in places with shall-issue LTC, even though records show that only a small percentage of citizens get LTCs, there is a significant drop in crime rate.

socal-shooter
10-19-2011, 7:49 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.?


wow , i will say he does have a valid point there that is definitely hard to disagree with

bsim
10-19-2011, 7:54 PM
Guns equal power.

It sounds like he's more comfortable with only the government having power. Or at the very least, trying to take power away from those "he" deems as unfit.

jwkincal
10-19-2011, 7:56 PM
Personal defense and military small arms are designed to stop and or wound. A dead soldier is out of the fight. A wounded soldier takes himself and three others out of the fight.

That's incorrect. Those weapons are designed for their lethality. The "wound the guy so his buddies have to tend him" concept is a myth.

Soldiers are trained such that their mission comes first, anyone who tells you otherwise is suffering under some fictional notion evoked in novels and movies.

Now, having said that, I should point out that a general statement such as "all guns are designed only for killing" indicates that someone does not really understand firearms and needs to be taken to the range (hint, hint...)

After introducing a person of that mind to the .22 LR (or 17 HMR) and the .30-06 (or .375 Holland!), it will be easy to dispel the notion that "all of these implements serve only the purpose of homicide."

moleculo
10-19-2011, 8:07 PM
You need to remind your friend of this absolute bottom line:

The Constitution of THIS country expresses a fundamental right to protect oneself by the keeping and bearing of arms. The SCOTUS affirmed that the right includes firearms. Regardless of his opinion on the "evilness" of guns, the Constitution protects that right. If that reality is so conflicting to his moral beliefs, he is free to move to another country that has no such fundamental right expressed in their tenets.

vantec08
10-19-2011, 8:16 PM
I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. Hope dont have to use it, but have it need be.

monk
10-19-2011, 8:18 PM
This is simple. Guns will never cease to exist. No matter what. You can destroy every single gun on the face of the earth (not going to happen) and someone will just invent something else that works like a gun.

To that end, criminals will always have guns. No matter how many laws you pass, they'll get it. If a man on death row can get a cell phone to call out orders you better bet your a** that a criminal on the outside can get a firearm.

So, following that train of thought, it seems idiotic take away guns from people who would also use them to defend themselves, and possible someone about to be brutally attacked.

Meplat
10-19-2011, 8:19 PM
That's incorrect. Those weapons are designed for their lethality. The "wound the guy so his buddies have to tend him" concept is a myth.

Soldiers are trained such that their mission comes first, anyone who tells you otherwise is suffering under some fictional notion evoked in novels and movies.


You are not listening. Nowhere did I say the mission was secondary. But the mission usually includes stopping incapacitating and taking out of the fight as much of the enemies’ material and personnel resources as possible. That is why the military management had no problem signing treaties that banned soft point or expanding small arms ammo. It most certainly was and is doctrinal that a wounded soldier is a larger burden on his command’s resources than a dead one. No one is crying over dead enemies but to take one out of action is quite satisfactory thank you.

And this is not from novels and movies this is from direct statements by US military planners, and to say such without substantiation is a personal insult.

jwkincal
10-19-2011, 8:22 PM
OK, I'll cite... we can start with the US Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, GA... but considering that my saying that is how I was taught is only anecdotal so I'll get you some links in a few.

OK, this ought to cover it... this is the report which was worked up by DOD (http://www.cfspress.com/sharpshooters/pdfs/Operational-Requrements-For-An-Infantry-Hand-Weapon.pdf) when they were looking for the next infantry rifle in the middle of the 20th century...

The section on lethality begins on page 25, I'll quote the pertinent part


The lethal index of a weapon corresponds roughly with tactical effectiveness since it refers to those wounds which are speedily lethal, the condition of which cannot be reversed by medical intervention. Since, by this definition, "lethal" effects result in death very quickly (or death is assured), the lethal index is a measure of tactical effect. Therefore, in the forward areas of the combat zone, where bitter hand-to-hand fighting occurs, there is no sound basis for arguing against the merit of disposing of the enemy in the shortest possible time by inflicting maximum physical trauma. For the infantry hand arm, the infliction of severe wounds, that are immediately incapacitating, is important.


This is directly from the document which was the design specification for the M16 platform. Now, whether you believe that the specification was or was not achieved in the system as fielded is entirely separate, but this clearly indicates that KILLING is the design parameter, and that "medical intervention" is specifically indicated as being intentionally rendered moot.

Insult was not intended, BTW, I just wanted to get the facts straightened out.

CalBear
10-19-2011, 8:29 PM
"Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." ... [H]e points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches
Guns are tools to be used as such. Their chief purpose, beyond sport, is to kill creatures, either for food, or in defense.

The important point about guns is they are a great neutralizer. The irony of the arguments against guns is most statistics show crime rates in the world have dropped consistently over the last 600 years or so, since the advent and utterly massive scale dissemination of firearms around the world.

Before firearms were available for common use and ownership, brute strength ruled the day. Large thugs literally terrorized villages, raped women, stole what they want, etc. An attacker's size equaled power. Women and elderly stood literally no chance against strong attackers.

As firearms gave defense forces and citizens the ability to put up a fight, attackers began to learn their lesson. Marauders sacking a town became a thing of the past.

Alas, the modern day frontier is the home, where large, violent thugs still try to break in and rape / pillage, even in many cases across the world where the attackers aren't armed with guns, and rely on brute strength or blunt objects. In those cases, it's crucial that the innocent occupants of the home have the ability to equalize their smaller size with deadly force.

The same is true out in public. Violent muggings, murders, and rapes take place all too frequently in broad daylight, or in a dark parking garage on the way out of the office. Why should the small woman walking to her car be defenseless against a 6'5, 250 lb man? She shouldn't. The government having arms deters slow, deliberate attacks by criminals against cities, but when it comes to quick, one-shot crimes, they do utterly nothing. The police simply cannot arrive instantly. Period. So why should a small woman be the victim of a brutal attack by a large coward? She shouldn't.

However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.
The prevalence of black markets across the globe makes this argument laughable. Those people hell bent on death and destruction can either buy a black market gun, or fashion a homemade bomb. Why should we strip everyone of the right to self defense just to deter those who are already hell bent on killing?

It's really a silly way of operating. Picture a restaurant full of people. One person in a million might be a loon who wants to kill them. Society has decided we need to prevent this, so they effectively ban guns. The man storms in with weaponry from an underground market, and utterly decimates everyone inside. In a parallel universe, the society decides the better approach is to prepare for, and be ready for disaster. The mad man storms in, pulls his gun out, opens fire, and is quickly neutralized by an innocent.

The main point is when you make it so literally nobody can defend themselves in an effort to make it so nobody can hurt others, you simple make it easier for successful attacks when they do occur. Think about the Norway incident. How utterly absurd is it that a single madman could slaughter darn close to 100 people without being stopped? How on Earth is that possible? Well the sad fact is, when you disallow honest people from having the tools in public to defend themselves, it becomes fish in a barrel.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings.
Just don't go there. That's how you avoid the "paranoia card."

Your goal is to convey as normal a persona as possible to the other side. When you trot out anything that conjures images of overthrowing bad governments, the person will think of radical militias and will associate you with those groups. Valid or not, it's not a point worth making.

He went on propose that arms be under government control only
What a joke, especially in a country whose supreme court has ruled that police and the government have absolutely no obligation to protect its citizens. Police response times are not nil, and they don't even have to show up in the first place.

Even if we somehow disarm criminals, which we won't, I still don't want to face a group of large, strong attackers unarmed in my house at midnight, and I sure as heck don't want a mom home alone with her kids to face the same group of attackers unarmed, either. Without an equalizer, strength and numbers will win out every time.

shooting4fun
10-19-2011, 8:55 PM
Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis.

Maybejim
10-19-2011, 8:55 PM
The main thing that I would recommend is read the John Lott books. More guns less crime and his second (name escapes me). Get a copy or borrow a copy of Waco, Rules of Engagement. Waco was government out of control. Kalifornia with strict gun control, Chicago, with stricter gun control have crime rates higher than national rates. States that have adopted "shall issue" concealed carry have had their confrontational crime rates fall faster than states that do not. Look at the NRA website. Look at this website. The facts are around, you just have to work to find them. Guns are used somewhere between 700K times and 2.5 million times (old numbers which no doubt have gone up with the increased "shall issue" around the country) to stop crime every year.

So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Quser.619
10-19-2011, 9:27 PM
A hammer is designed to drive a nail into wood, in someone's hands it can be a brutal weapon. Design is an irrelevant argument, because the deadly action belongs solely to the individual.

That is why most people believe that cops should have guns & non LEO shouldn't. When they believe that their fellow citizens do not, it merely shows that person's underlining thoughts about their fellow citizens & ultimately themselves. They believe that most cannot be rational, cannot be trusted or are not stable enough to wield a firearm, they are saying that they are not as well. I have never heard an anti proclaim that they would be responsible with a gun, in fact, I mostly hear that they would fly off the handle & probably injury an innocent or themselves.

nicki
10-19-2011, 9:39 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."

I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.

Guns are effective tools to kill, I will give him that, however guns don't have a evil spirit that makes people kill. The person's brain makes the decision to kill

My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm.

His argument comes down to the following, if there were no guns, why there would be killing, there would be less carnage.

In order for his theory to work however, not only would we have to ban and collect guns, but also eliminate the technology and knowledge on how to make guns.

Prohibitions not only don't work, but since the Black Market is profit driven, the Black Market always develops worse products. Crack and Meth for instance were products developed because of the black market.

Based on the build parties we have, I would expect that black market produced guns would be Mac 10s, AK 47s(Short and Long), tech 9s, SBR's and SBS's.

The original NFA34 included handguns which is probably why SBRs and SBSs were included because it was anticipated that if handguns were taxed out of existence, sporting guns would probably be modified. BTW, England has a "booming black market" in illegal guns, most are of "military origin".

However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks.

The background checks are not perfect and even when they do catch people, out of the few hundred thousand denials, less than a dozen people have been prosecuted.

The mental health system in our country has serious problems and we have a significant social stigma attached to mental health, so many people won't get help. The fact that the anti gun organizations hijack public attention means that we focus attention on non workable solutions rather than going and making real fixes that would reduce the problem.

They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

Guns don't make people drunk and angry, choices or events in their lives do.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings.

Ask him about Libya, if you really want to spin his head, ask him about how the Obama administration is now sending the DEA, IRS and ATF after the medical marijuana industry here in California even though he promised to respect the will of the people of California and the latest polls show that 70 percent of the population supports medical marijuana.

As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again:

The ACLU has a different take, they say that the Patriort act has destroyed our privacy, the government is spying on Americans, people are getting on no fly lists and have no redress, the government is monitoring private transactions, they probably already are using GPS tracking on individuals without warrants.

We have had numerous scandals were police agencies have been caught planting evidence to frame innocent people, for everyone we find out about, how many don't we find out about.

America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state.

The ACLU and other human rights organizations would disagree, like it or not we are in a "Police State" and the term I think describes America is "Soft Tyranny".

The difference between us and the Chinese is many of us think we are "free" and the Chinese know they are not "free". The heavy hand of government comes down on us from various three letter government agencies

He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

Play devil's advocate, ask him how the "Drug War" is working. The first federal drug laws were passed in 1914 btw. I bet the government continues the same policies, that it will be 100 years of failure.

Ask him if he would approve the government licensing the press, getting pre approval from the government before stories are put out to the public.

The first amendment is our peaceable means of redress with our government, the second amendment is our violent means. Without the ability to enforce a right, you don't have it. For reference, have him actually read our Declaration of Independence and ask him was the American Revolution just. Are the people in Libya just in their cause to take up arms against Ghaddafi?

Hitler by the way came to power through the Democratic process and the truth is the German people loved him till the end.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here.

In cases of mass shootings, every minute a mass shooter is not engaged, someone dies.

What that means is that when a mass shooting happens, police arriving on the scene can't wait for the SWAT team to arrive and screw around planning how to attack, they must run in and engage the shooter.

I don't think many cops are going to run to engage active shooters not knowing what they are facing.

What this means is that the only way to reduce the carnage is for someone who is there to engage the shooter.

The only way that will happen is if someone happens to be carrying a gun. There have been a few incidents where this has happened. According to professor John Lott, CCW has the biggest effect in reducing the number of casualties from mass shootings.

Since mass shooters don't plan on coming out of their shootings alive anyway, the only way they have been stopped is when they commit suicide or someone else shoots them first. The Virginia Tech shooter was shooting for 2 hours.

His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

Mass shootings tend to be planned out events. If all legal guns were banned, black market guns would probably be select fire models.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card

Your friend wants a perfect world, he must think our government agencies are all above board. The track record of our government regarding human rights isn't so hot if you happen to be in the WRONG GROUP.

and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

I will give it to him that guns make it easier, but since you can't disinvent guns, all his proposals would do is promote growth of a Black Market in Military arms while making sure potential victims would be easier targets. His proposals would actually boost confidence of mass shooters because once they have their weapons, they would know that they would face no resistence.


As a closing argument, ask your friend the following. He is walking down the street and he is surrounded by three thugs who want to have fun by beating him to a pulp. They tell him there intent is to seriously "**** him up". They don't care if he is permanently injured or killed.

In his mind, your friend prays to God to help him and God sends an angel with two devices, a cellphone with instant 911 access which will get the police there in minutes or a 1911 45 cal pistol which will give him immediate defense capablities. Which would he take?

There answer to this question will tell you their core values. If you are dealing with someone who is so anti gun that when their live is on the line, they wouldn't touch a gun, you dealing with someone who has emotional issues.

Hope this helps

Nicki

FreshTapCoke
10-19-2011, 9:58 PM
A hammer is designed to drive a nail into wood, in someone's hands it can be a brutal weapon. Design is an irrelevant argument, because the deadly action belongs solely to the individual.


I'd argue that while an excellent analogy, your answer is more about purpose than design. What about war hammers? Or A ball-peen hammer? Or even the claw of the claw-hammer from your example?

A hammer is designed to multiply force by leverage. Anything else is subjective.


I've had the same sort of discussion with an intelligent ex-coworker. (he's not anti-gun, he's just good at playing devil's advocate)

The discussion was always about purpose rather than design; more philosophical than mechanical. If you want to debate what a gun is designed to do, you need to take all the subjectiveness out of the conversation:

What is the minimum action a gun needs to perform in order to not be considered broken?

A gun is designed to accurately fire a projectile.


On the question of purpose, the answer is a little more difficult. We can talk about the creators purpose or the user's purpose. Neither is worth much discussion as there is no single answer. (eg. I built this pistol solely for decorative purposes)

I think this is the most elegant way to define what an item is designed for, but would love opposing opinions.

nicki
10-19-2011, 11:25 PM
Your friend wants to restrict or ban guns, so ask him how he would make it work.

Bear in mind that no one has figured out how to make prohibtions work and the reality is prohibitions have created more problems than the problem they were created for to solve.

The only thing different between guns and drugs btw is guns are eaiser to make.:43:

Invite your friend to a "build party". Don't tell them people are making guns, just tell them this is a home craft party making artwork.:eek:

Nicki

cmaynes
10-19-2011, 11:42 PM
Mass murder ca be accomplished with cars, knives, axes, bats etc. Articles are pretty easily found with a simple search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/14/five-killed-jersey-knife-attack

If guns were only designed for offensive purposes, why do cops carry them? Why should cops be the only ones to have the ability to defend themselves. Most criminals don't target cops first. They target the defenseless.

great points- what about ammonium nitrate / fuel oil bombs like the one used at the Mura bldg?

the first thing I would say is that murder is not the action of a "sane" person- but one who is not rational. Ergo, the gun may be a tool, but if they wish to kill, they will use whatever is convenient. The other consideration is that the most reasonable deterrent to crime is the criminals own death during the commission of the crime. If enough people were CCW, it would dramatically increase the oppertunity cost of the criminal in trying to pick the easiest of victims to attack. The typical CCW holder is vetted by the government and will "typically" have an understanding of the responsibility of carrying. Sadly, free gun rights might allow unstable people to have guns, but if we look at states such as Vermont, we dont see crime stats that would suggest free carry to be a risk to the society.

NeenachGuy
10-20-2011, 1:02 AM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.

A gun is a tool. It is simply as good or as bad as the person using it. In the hands of a righteous person, it is a tool that is used to establish order, to defend life, liberty, and property against those who wish to take these things away by force.

Furthermore, an argument against guns is an argument born of naiveté. It is a naiveté that is somewhat common among those who believe that people are basically good, or those who do not believe in the existence of evil in the world. Such people tend to think, "If we didn't have _____, everyone would love their neighbors, and we'd finally have peace on earth." Feel free to fill in the blank with any of the following, or think of some of your own: guns, drugs, borders, capitalism, multi-national corporations, etc.

(It is interesting to note that this is view is actually a mistaken reversal of the true statement, "If everyone loved their neighbors, then we wouldn't have guns.")

However, the thousands of years that constitute our history have taught us nothing, if they haven't taught us that such a view of human nature is not only fallacious, but dangerous.

People kill people, not because it is easy to do so, or because they have the tools with which to get 'er done efficiently, but because the human condition involves clashes of wills: On one hand, you have the will to power, and on the other hand, you have the will to survive. Or, if you prefer, Tyranny and Liberty.

So, one reason why guns are not only good, but essential, is this: While we want to believe that people are basically good, we know from experience that evil does exist in the world, and as a result, people are capable of doing bad things. So, perhaps we need to trust, but cautiously verify. It is essential, therefore, that we remain capable of not only defending ourselves from such harm, but also capable of suggesting a compelling deterrent to would-be assailants. It turns out that guns are an ideal tool for doing both: It doesn't matter how big or strong the assailant is, or how weak and small the potential victim is, the gun puts them both on a level playing field.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

Recognizing that the world, and the course of history, is able to change abruptly is not paranoia. Sure, America is a democratic republic, but the constitution and the rule of law do not provide any guarantee as to what will happen tomorrow. Whether through act of war, act of God, or act of People, the landscape may change; not only that, it may change quicker than people realize or would like to acknowledge. You have hurricanes, earthquakes, riots, terrorists, and, uh, well -- communists.

Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. "

If someone would have told me 6 months ago that a communist revolution was coming to America, I would have laughed; today, I'm not so willing to laugh it off.

DonFerrando
10-20-2011, 2:08 AM
But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

There is no denying that firearms are weapons made to exercise physical force in an efficient and concentrated manner. If handled incorrectly or irresponsibly they are dangerous. Due to their nature and the power they afford their holders firearms boost confidence. Whether that boost of confidence is exemplified in positive ways (increased feeling of security for the law abiding citizen set on self defense) or negative ways (feeling of invincibility for the perpetrator set on committing a crime) is a matter of an individual's character. Attempting to regulate the human character via gun legislation is a flawed concept. In and of themselves firearms, while highly specialized for their purpose, are like any other inanimate object. They only derive meaning from the person using them.

America is a democracy because the right to bear arms secures a theoretical balance of power between the state and its subordinates by giving the people the means to protect themselves from their government. Take it from someone who was born in a communist country: any so-called guaranties of personal freedom are fragile - even ones that come in the form of laws. I've been through it once. The closest thing to a guarantee to not having to go through it again is my capability to defend my personal freedom if necessary. A capability that is manifested by my firearm.

Europe still is host to a totalitarian regime in Belarus to this very day. Genocide took place on the Balkans well into the mid 90s. Communism in the eastern block ended only 20 years ago. In contrast Americans have enjoyed a continuous stable democracy for well over 200 years due to the express constitutional right of the people to protect themselves from their government and the basic understanding of political and personal self determination resulting from it. America is a more secure democracy than any of the European countries because of the second amendment, not despite of it.

And while America is arguably the most durable democracy on the planet we all know just how quickly social order can collapse in the absence of law enforcement in any type of political system. Katrina and the L.A. riots, earthquakes, hurricanes and massive power outages - those incidents are real. SHTF situations are not your distant zombie scenarios that exist only in the minds of tripped out apocalypticists. Those New Orleanians that were able to defend themselves in the absence of law enforcement were better off in the months long state of emergency than those who were unarmed. That too is a fact.

So does this mean that guns are a necessary evil which would be obsolete in a perfect world where all people love each other? No - because they are still an important tool for hunting, sports and recreation. One that I should not have to live without.

It is due to the aforementioned experiences that my approach to firearms is based on ideology more so than statistics. I am not looking for a government institution to protect me from dangerous devices. Like any good citizen I am perfectly capable of determining a threshold for myself.

Instead ask your friend for his support in creating an environment that will allow for both, his and your (and my) convictions to coexist: by continuously working to secure the maximum amount of personal freedom while upholding order through the least amount of regulations.

NeenachGuy
10-20-2011, 2:28 AM
So does this mean that guns are a necessary evil which would be obsolete in a perfect world where all people love each other? No - because they are still an important tool for hunting, sports and recreation. One that I should not have to live without.


Do you really think that guns would ever have been invented in a perfect world?

While it is true that today, firearms are used for many purposes, the primary (and perhaps only) reason they were invented was to keep up with the arms race.

oni.dori
10-20-2011, 2:51 AM
First of all, cars. They are just as capable (if not more) than guns of killing multiple people, just as fast (again, if not faster). Statistical records prove that. In fact, they prove that they are even MORE deadly than firearms. The only differences? They are far easier to get a hold of, allowed in far more places, and weren't directly designed with the intent of killing people. Look at the older man that went on a killing spree in the Santa Monica farmers market a few years ago. He could have killed just as many people with a gun, but not nearly as FAST with one as he did. Someone in a vehicle is also MUCH harder to disarm than someone with a firearm. On top of that, I have multiple times seen someone who is very intoxicate (be it on alchohol or illicit drugs) use their vehicle as a VERY effective weapon against someone (or something) that they probably wouldn't have had the bravado or confidence to attack if they weren't in a vehicle to begin with. Does that automatically mean that we should ban cars, because of the deadly potential they pose in the hands of a misguided few; or is it just "assault cars" that should be banned? An argument like the one he gives is simply a cop out to not have to face actual facts and hold people accountable, because PEOPLE are the problem, not the tool used for the action. It is simply a way for them to shut down any discussion before it begins, because they know it is not ever going to pan out well for them. It is also a way to justify an unfounded bigotry, and make them feel morally superior to help counteract the deep-down unrest caused by there hatred.
Also, the whole 'paranoia' argument is the cop-out (at its most basic form) of the complacant. It is a way to vilify and brush off an argument they have no defense for. In the end though, when things go bad, it is always the 'paranoid' that end up being heroes, simply because they were prepared.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-20-2011, 5:57 AM
He's absolutely right.

Guns are, indeed, designed specifically to kill humans and similar animals. There's no question about this.

But that's not what's being questioned. The real question is whether you agree that sometimes, in certain rare and terrible situations, killing another human is better than the alternative.

Guns are for killing people. That sounds bad. But we keep guns at hand, to kill people, because there are situations where not killing someone would be even worse.

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they agree with that statement. I have a friend who says that her answer is no. She believes that if (for instance) someone was about to murder her, she would prefer to be murdered than to use deadly force against her attacker. I don't think/feel the same way she does, but I believe that she does honestly mean it when she says this, and I respect her right to choose for herself.

Of course, if she tried to choose that for me, or anyone other than herself, she'd be very deeply in the wrong. She knows that, too.


You have a very unusual friend. Each & every person I know who has the belief that "I'd rather die than kill" is ALSO real big on thinking that I should die rather than kill, too.

As for the OP's friend, the claim that 'guns are designed to kill' is code. What it translates to is that 'guns are evil & any good that they might be used for is only incidental.' Being only incidental, the belief is that it takes special training to use an (inherently) evil thing for good. "Special" meaning "something that only cops are capable of mastering."

That's why comparisons with hammers, cars, etc won't have any effect on those people. Those objects are designed to 'good' things, with the killing they do being the incidental. In short, if dealing with such a person, realize that no, they are NOT "neutral" on the subject of guns, & that nothing you say will sway them.


The Raisuli

cadurand
10-20-2011, 6:03 AM
I think you'd be better off not talking about guns anymore with your friend.

But if you really want to bang your head against a wall again I'd say your friends entire issue is he thinks the Government is the answer for society's problems.

And if you have a Government to do everything for you, why would you need a gun? The Government will protect you. It also kills the entire argument of protection from Government tyranny because the Government can do no wrong. They're only here to help.

That's a tall hurdle to clear.

YubaRiver
10-20-2011, 6:33 AM
I think you'd be better off not talking about guns anymore with your friend.



What does work is taking such a friend shooting. The last two I did that
with soon bought rifles, and one took up reloading too.

Hopalong
10-20-2011, 6:39 AM
Short and simple

Paranoia Card: The fact that it's in the Constitution (Bill of Rights), meant some pretty smart people were paranoid, and rightly so, looking back over millennium and the track record of governments.

Crazy Confidence Card: There is no defense for a crazy person. If guns were taken away, they'd get their "confidence" someplace else. Driving a car down a sidewalk, or into a crowd, for example.

Finally, guns, in the hands of law abiding, sane, people, pose no threat to anyone.
And give these same people a way to defend themselves against the others.

Mesa Tactical
10-20-2011, 6:40 AM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing."

I possess over a hundred of them and use them as often as I can, and I have never managed to kill anything.

Am I doing it wrong?


BTW, on a related note, a few months ago I was at the range with the girlfriend shooting tactical shotguns when she looked over and saw two men firing Ruger 10/22s. She asked what those rifles were. I said they were .22s, very low-powered (I pointed out the Disneyland shooting gallery originally was equipped with .22s). She asked what they were used for. I said that besides squirrel hunting, the .22 has almost no practical purpose. The men owned them and were there shooting them purely for fun. I think this fact more than almost anything else made her understand why some of us collect and enjoy guns. After that I built up a slick little 10/22 and gave it to her. She loves it.

I have examples of just about every style of firearm in .22 Long Rifle: revolver, semi-auto pistols, bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. These are great for taking noobs out and getting them used to guns. I love pointing out how these have almost no practical use, are not used for personal defense and are rarely used for hunting. People shoot them for the joy of shooting, not because they intend to harm anything or anyone.

ja308
10-20-2011, 7:53 AM
America is a democratic republic. What would stop them from doing what the commies or fascists did? There is no guarantee that those who elect people to do bad things are not gona support them.

Crazys get a confidence boost from any weapon that they can get their hands on, no matter what it is.

With all respect , America is a Constitutional Republic . Or should be .
Simply ,govt must follow constitution .

ja308
10-20-2011, 7:57 AM
Guns are designed for one purpose only. To launch a projectile. thats it .

No offence but your friend should turn off his TV and cancell whatever garbage he is reading .

a1c
10-20-2011, 7:59 AM
I have examples of just about every style of firearm in .22 Long Rifle: revolver, semi-auto pistols, bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. These are great for taking noobs out and getting them used to guns. I love pointing out how these have almost no practical use, are not used for personal defense and are rarely used for hunting. People shoot them for the joy of shooting, not because they intend to harm anything or anyone.

It's true that modern .22LR firearms are really built for plinking and hunting.

However let's not forget .22LR handguns had a long history of being favored by Old World mobsters, who found them very convenient for executing their victims in the back of the head. It was also widely used by OSS and then CIA operatives in the old days.

And I know of a local case where a guy killed his own brother with a single .22LR shot in the heart.

So while I agree that the particular firearms you mentioned above are designed for plinking and hunting rodents, the caliber itself has a long history of being used for killing.

Uxi
10-20-2011, 8:01 AM
Your friend doesn't even know what type of government the United States has.

1) You and him both have a natural right to self defense
2) You and him both have a natural right to resist tyranny

ja308
10-20-2011, 8:04 AM
I possess over a hundred of them and use them as often as I can, and I have never managed to kill anything.

Am I doing it wrong?


BTW, on a related note, a few months ago I was at the range with the girlfriend shooting tactical shotguns when she looked over and saw two men firing Ruger 10/22s. She asked what those rifles were. I said they were .22s, very low-powered (I pointed out the Disneyland shooting gallery originally was equipped with .22s). She asked what they were used for. I said that besides squirrel hunting, the .22 has almost no practical purpose. The men owned them and were there shooting them purely for fun. I think this fact more than almost anything else made her understand why some of us collect and enjoy guns. After that I built up a slick little 10/22 and gave it to her. She loves it.

I have examples of just about every style of firearm in .22 Long Rifle: revolver, semi-auto pistols, bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. These are great for taking noobs out and getting them used to guns. I love pointing out how these have almost no practical use, are not used for personal defense and are rarely used for hunting. People shoot them for the joy of shooting, not because they intend to harm anything or anyone.

Guns save lives --no question ,no debate ,no argument!
read John Lott's excelent book "more guns less crime "

More people are killed with 22's than any other caliber . Not always a bad thing , unless you think the rapist breaking in the window deserves a little jail time.

Mesa Tactical
10-20-2011, 8:05 AM
So while I agree that the particular firearms you mentioned above are designed for plinking and hunting rodents, the caliber itself has a long history of being used for killing.

Well, more Americans are probably killed using .22s than any other single caliber (some statistic I read somewhere), but that is as relevant as saying how many Americans are killed using Chevrolets: the items were used in a negligent or criminal manner.

The OP's friend says guns are made for killing. I'm here to declare the Ruger Mk III pistol was not made for killing anything, nor is it used to kill, except in a negligent or criminal manner, just as with automobiles.



One item that is made for killing and nothing but killing is a sword. A couple weeks ago at my nephew's birthday party the kids were running around hitting each other with foam swords. I will never understand how a society that seems to express revulsion at the notion of children running around with toy guns is nonetheless happy and comfortable with kids running around with toy swords, or toy light sabers.

davbog44
10-20-2011, 8:07 AM
One of the areas where we often fail when it comes to debating gun control: the moral argument.

It is immoral to deny a person the basic right of self defense. And since criminals by definition do not follow the law anyway, restricting / banning of firearms only applies to the law abiding and leaves them defenseless.

Leaving a family with no practical means of protecting themselves against savages like those who committed those unspeakable acts in Connecticut awhile back is immoral.

chiefcrash
10-20-2011, 8:08 AM
Firstly: "guns", in general, are NOT designed to kill. They are designed to accurately fire a projectile using the force generated by rapidly burning gunpowder. Example: Olympic pistols are not designed to kill. A shotgun loaded with bean bag rounds is not designed to kill. A revolver loaded with snake-shot is not designed to kill anything bigger than a snakes/rats/etc. Wadcutter rounds were specifically designed to make nice round holes in paper targets....

Now, could you kill a person with an Olympic pistol? Sure can. Kill someone with a shotgun loaded with bean bag rounds? Yep. Kill someone with a revolver loaded with snake-shot? Wadcutters? Absolutely. But you can also kill someone with a broken lawn chair, yet no one would claim the lawn chair was DESIGNED to kill people. Just like you can't say Olympic pistols/bean-bag shotguns/snake-shot/wadcutters were DESIGNED to kill people...

You could make an argument that specific guns (like an SKS with an attached bayonet) were specifically designed to be weapons, but you can't make that broad statement with "guns" in general. It all boils down to the intent of the user: what the user loads the gun with and what the user intends to do with it.

As for the "confidence boost" part of it, think of this: they don't have a big mass shooting problem in the middle east. They do, however, have a big suicide bomber problem. If guns weren't available, why would your friend assume they would go for less effective weapons (like knives) instead of more effective weapons (like IEDs)?

Wherryj
10-20-2011, 9:21 AM
He obviously hasn't seen the articles about the insane people in China who have attacked others, children specifically, with knives. He also hasn't noticed the news stories about the people who intentionally drive their car into a crowd of people with the intent to kill.

Insane people will use whatever implement is available. A gun isn't unique in its ability to kill, nor is it unique in its ability to give "confidence". An unarmed group is what gives these maniacs confidence.

A knife in a group of sheep is as deadly as a gun. Bringing a knife to a gunfight is a bad idea...bringing a handgun into a firefight with a Marine platoon, probably even more so.

kemasa
10-20-2011, 9:35 AM
Get rid of guns and gangs win.

viet4lifeOC
10-20-2011, 9:39 AM
Why debate it with him.

He's never going to change his mind.

Talk about beer, broads, bikes, booze - But not bullets.

I have a friend that tried to bait me into a "gun control" debate -

And every time I simply smile and say

"You just can't simply grasp my opinion -

And I hope I neve have to prove you wrong..."

THIS IS WINNING.

I am giddy at all the great posts, ie Vince Warde, Firemark, Rivers, Kemasa, SilverbulletZ06, DreadedClaymore, and many more. Great points. Could not be more proud to have these guys in an argument.

However, I make it a point of not being baited into an argument where it's for the sake of argument. I use to do this in my younger days---arguing just for the sake of arguing. I am too old and I have found that life's greatest teacher is experience.

I mean...all these statistical data (John Lott's gun law and crime rate), history lessons (American revolution, North Vietnam invading South Vietnam, innocent villagers getting raped, killed, child soldiers, etc), man's nature (gun is a great equalizer for the weak, evil/bad people will do evil/bad things with whatever instrument), common sense (criminals don't obey gun laws, criminals would rather target an armless victim than one that is armed), etc and you're still debating. He gives you examples that are more obstacle (taking time to explain his examples are without merit, ie Lougner isn't crazy, guns were designed to kill, etc) than are points to argue.

I do not envy calgunners who have to argue antis "just for the sake of arguing." Just remind them it's a luxury that our forefathers fought and died for..and yes...with guns.

CessnaDriver
10-20-2011, 9:44 AM
Well nothing makes for a political awakening like firearm ownership.
Take them shooting, you never know if it's something they will take to.

CMonfort
10-20-2011, 9:49 AM
One thing I haven't seen you mention in your debate is the fact that criminals are going to have firearms regardless, and how unfathomable it is to imagine living in a society where the government, knowing that criminals will have firearms and attack innocent people, tells innocent law abiding citizens that they have no right to defend themselves, or to be prepared to defend themselves. That is flat out terrifying.

POLICESTATE
10-20-2011, 10:00 AM
In response to "However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill," I would say that guns also give people the ability to defend themselves who otherwise would be unable to do so. For instance, a little old lady in a wheelchair or a young mother at home while her husband is away and someone is attempting to break into her home.

Guns are simply a tool, their potential for misuse is no greater than any other tool.



So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.
Seems to me he lost on this one. He repeats the paranoia argument, deflating his own initial point and then changes to say that only government should have guns which you just pointed out how government aren't necessarily trust worthy to have so much power.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Counter confidence for bad guys with ability to defend for the otherwise defenseless.

Paranoia, you already did with the examples of the Nazis and Soviets, to which you can add China and North Korea; all repressive regimes that victimized their own citizens to some extent. Usually extreme ones. By citing the modern references he can't cling to the WEAK argument of "oh that doesn't happen anymore" which is more or less the same thing many people were saying about Germany before they started WW2. China is still a repressive regime against their muslim population, the falun gong, and rife for corruption, also the 1 child policy is a blatant violation of human rights. North Korea, starves their own people, executes people who try to escape their country (reminiscent of East Germany) and continues to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons.

Seems to me there is a lot to be paranoid about.

And if you want to be trite you can always throw out:

"God created man but Samuel Colt made them equal."
"Just because you're paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you."
"Hitler, Mao and Stalin agree: gun control works!"
"An armed society is a polite society"
"If you like <INSERT COUNTRY> so much why don't you just move there?"


But seriously, if people are absolutely convinced they are right, then you can't really argue with them anyway. Just :rolleyes: and get another beer :D

POLICESTATE
10-20-2011, 10:03 AM
Well nothing makes for a political awakening like firearm ownership.
Take them shooting, you never know if it's something they will take to.

This probably more than anything would work best. Shooting is like sex, you can't possibly know what you are talking about until you have done it.

AnthonyD1978
10-20-2011, 10:32 AM
For some reason this seems fitting to me lol

hopNAI8Pefg

basalt
10-20-2011, 10:44 AM
when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/articles-memoranda-and-commentary/78-commentary/418.html

DonFerrando
10-20-2011, 11:32 AM
Do you really think that guns would ever have been invented in a perfect world?

While it is true that today, firearms are used for many purposes, the primary (and perhaps only) reason they were invented was to keep up with the arms race.

I do believe the hunting of animals for food, for wildlife conservation and later for sport would have eventually evolved to the point of firearms, yes.

SJgunguy24
10-20-2011, 11:44 AM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

I think Jeff Cooper said it best.
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle


Bill Whittle makes great points too.
kRAw3VWVyD8

cruising7388
10-20-2011, 11:58 AM
He's absolutely right.

Guns are, indeed, designed specifically to kill humans and similar animals. There's no question about this.

But that's not what's being questioned. The real question is whether you agree that sometimes, in certain rare and terrible situations, killing another human is better than the alternative.

Guns are for killing people. That sounds bad. But we keep guns at hand, to kill people, because there are situations where not killing someone would be even worse.

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they agree with that statement. I have a friend who says that her answer is no. She believes that if (for instance) someone was about to murder her, she would prefer to be murdered than to use deadly force against her attacker. I don't think/feel the same way she does, but I believe that she does honestly mean it when she says this, and I respect her right to choose for herself.

Of course, if she tried to choose that for me, or anyone other than herself, she'd be very deeply in the wrong. She knows that, too.

While the design of a gun is for the purpose of killing, it doesn't necessarily relate to why you own one. Some firearms, like hunting rifles, are owned for the purpose of hunting and intentionally killing game. But, IMO, the larger of purpose in owning a firearm is not to kill anything or anyone, but to level the playing field when someone is trying to injure or kill you, your loved ones or innocent bystanders.

Regarding the person that believes that they would prefer to be murdered than to use deadly force against an attacker - that sentiment is not all that rare. But ask the question slightly differently, and you may well get a very different answer. Ask her if she would use deadly force to defend her child, someone else's child or just an innocent bystander, and I'll hazard the guess that you'll get an entirely different response.

cruising7388
10-20-2011, 12:08 PM
I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. Hope dont have to use it, but have it need be.

I hope you fully understand that you can't use that fire extinguisher unless the fire threatens you with great bodily injury or death.

greybeard
10-20-2011, 12:33 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Can he give you a citation for that comment?

vantec08
10-20-2011, 12:48 PM
I hope you fully understand that you can't use that fire extinguisher unless the fire threatens you with great bodily injury or death.

I hope you fully understand I have had my door kicked-in in the middle of the night. Short answer, yes. Long answer, they lose.

Untamed1972
10-20-2011, 1:13 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, just responding to the OP. Sorry if I restate something already stated.

On the issue of swords and bow/arrow. The thing with those is they both require a considerable amount of skill and practice to be proficient with, not to mention strength and conditioning. So it could be argued that limiting a society to such weapons automatically tips the scales in favor of those with the time to train as well as the larger or stronger amongst the population.

So what happens if you're an elderly woman or a disabled or dont have time to train or you are faced with a much larger opponent? Guess you're just eff'ed aye?

Like the old saying "God made man but Sam Colt made them equal" actually is true. Does a firearm enable an otherwise unskilled person to commit murder? Yes it does. But does it also allow a relatively unskilled or untrained fighter to effectively defend themselves? Damn right it does!

I think for any such debate to be effective both parties must agree to stipulate that:

1) Bad things have and always will occur. That cannot be changed.

2) Crime and criminals have and always will exist. This also will not change.

With those points stipulated and agreed upon.....now ask each party to argue their points with those facts in mind.

To many of these utopian arguments are argued from the premise that given the right laws, controls, etc crime and bad things can be eliminated. That is simply and unacheivable goal or premise and therefore any arguement based on that goal is also unachieveable.

If the debate is argued from the stipulated facts above then quickly it becomes obvious that any restraint put in place to stop criminals just makes it doubly hard or more on the law abiding person to defend themselves against those who are intent on ignorning the law anyway.

Then it really comes down to the question of whether or not someone has the inalienable right to defend themselves against criminal attack? If they do, what reason is there to deny them the most effective means with which to do so? If ones claims they beleive in the right to self-defense but denies access to the tools with which to be most effective at such defense, they are simply being morally dishonest.

I am more and more coming to belief also that those who are most vehimently against the private ownership of defensive weapons with the intent of "eliminating evil" are actually most afraid of themselves and THEY might do with said weapons. They dont trust themselves hence they dont trust anyone else with them either.

MolonLabe2008
10-20-2011, 1:53 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

Tell him that 18 hijackers took four planes and murdered over 3,000 Americans in one day, yet planes were never "designed for the express purpose of killing." Then ask him if we should ban planes?

loose_electron
10-20-2011, 2:20 PM
Prostitution
Alcohol
Drugs (all forms)
Weapons (all forms)

Nobody has demonstrated a viable method to remove these things\from the planet.

A suggestion - offer to take the friend to the shooting range and give him a lesson in firearms safety and recreational shooting.

Win the war one person at a time and do it in a friendly manner.

Oh and a useful read frim the NRA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=192&issue=010

MasterYong
10-20-2011, 3:31 PM
So I have a friend whose stance on firearms is more or less neutral; though he personally does not care for them, he still believes in the philosophy of laissez faire. However, both of us share a passion for debate, and firearms is often a topic that comes up on this front, as a method of practice. His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder. My counterattack is that while guns were designed to kill, so were knives, bows and arrows, etc., and that those truly determined to kill do so with or without a firearm. However, he reiterates that guns give the unsure a crucial confidence boost to kill, and that, as the recent Orange County shootings and earlier Tucson shootings can attest, allow people who show no signs of mental disorder to commit mass murder, thus casting heavy doubt on the effectiveness of background and mental health checks. They also allow the drunk and the angry to commit murder quickly, when their judgment is heavily clouded.

When I called up a different argument, guns as a last line of defense against a corrupt government, he played the paranoia card on me and cited the Waco shootings. As a counterattack, I cited Nazi Germany and Communist China, both of which forbade private arms ownership, but he replied with the paranoia card again: America is a democracy, not a fascist or a communist state. He went on propose that arms be under government control only, an idea that I vehemently oppose.

As a side note, I did score one heavy blow against my friend; when he said that California's restrictive firearm laws were preventative of murder, I asked him why incidents such as Orange County and crime are so prevalent here. His reply was that such events are indicators of even tougher laws being a necessity; however, I shot that argument out of the sky with the skyrocketing crime rates in Australia after the bans on semi-automatic weapons and arms ownership.

But back to the main point: may I have some tips on how to refute the paranoia card and the confidence boost theory, for our future arguments?

One could argue that, had guns never been invented (or were magically "removed from the streets" as the antis want), there would be a new "most powerful" weapon. Be it the club, knife, sword, or whatever. That weapon would take the place of the gun, giving "the unsure" the same confidence.

To elaborate: if the argument is that guns give the unsure more confidence to commit crimes because they give someone a tactical advantage over others, then surely the same would apply to any other "most powerful" personal weapon. Let's say, for argument's sake, that before the gun the most powerful personal weapon was the blade (sword or knife, akin to handguns and longguns). Why would the blade give "the unsure" any less confidence to kill (assuming your friend is right, which I believe he is not)???

Also, the recent Orange County shooting AND the Tucson shooting were BOTH perpetrated by individuals that showed SERIOUS signs of mental illness beforehand. They slipped through the cracks, so to speak. While I understand your point, I couldn't let it stand that you stated they "show no signs of mental disorder."

The most important point: guns exist. That which exists, will never "un-exist" (well, maybe with the extiction of a species, but we're talking about an easily manufactured invention of man here). Taking guns away only prevents those most inclined to be law abiding from defending themselves against those most inclined to break the law.

The ONLY way taking guns away would work is if you FIRST eliminate ALL crime, hate, violence, etc in the entire world. Again, this must be done FIRST. If there are none that are predisposed to hate and violence, then there will be none that illegally acquire the weapons to use against others.

THAT. WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN.

kemasa
10-20-2011, 3:57 PM
Consider what would happen if you could magically remove all firearms, now and forever more. What do you think would happen with regards to people (ignore countries)? Do you think that people would be safer? The criminals would know that you could not have a gun to stop them, so two or more of them would cause a serious problem for an individual. Gangs would have far more power since they could take what they wanted from people with little risk. Do you really want to take on multiple people with a knife? Yeah, you could spend a lot of time training and that would improve your odds, but you still would be out numbered and each person could be stronger than you. How do you think that weaker people would fair? Personally, I think that it would be a much less safe world.

gbp
10-20-2011, 4:03 PM
Well then, lets simplify things for you. All guns are designed to put a hole in whatever you shoot thus attempting to create day light or simply draining your target of matter.

Oh get over yourself.
How simple does it need to be put to U
why let them define the purpose?

Meplat
10-20-2011, 4:21 PM
I possess over a hundred of them and use them as often as I can, and I have never managed to kill anything.

Am I doing it wrong?


Yes!:43: And I'll bet you have killed with your guns. Must have been a bug or a bacteria or something that got in the way at some point.

POLICESTATE
10-20-2011, 4:24 PM
One other point, concerning people who go berserk with guns and shoot a bunch of people at schools/work/etc... In China they do the same thing with KNIVES. And it would seem that they get about the same body count.

Makes sense. Knives are quieter so you can kill more people with them before people realize what is happening. With a gun everyone knows what's going on as soon as you start shooting.

An example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7740548/Students-slashed-in-ninth-knife-attack-in-China-in-two-months.html

Thirteen students at a technical school in southern China were slashed and injured, one seriously, when they were attacked by youths with cleavers in the latest in a wave of copycat knife attacks.

Here's more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35995544/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/students-killed-china-knife-attack/ 8 dead
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html 7 dead, plus more in other attacks mentioned in the article


Seems that the vast majority of serial killers also shy away from using firearms, preferring much quieter (or in many cases unusual) methods of killing their victims.

In my mind you want a gun for self defense but for murder you want something that is quiet and doesn't leave as much evidence behind (GSR, bullets, shell casings, blood spatter, etc...)

Maybe I just watch too much Dexter :rolleyes:

Databyter
10-20-2011, 4:41 PM
His argument that always stumps me is, "Guns were designed for the express purpose of killing." I will elaborate; he points out that guns prepackage the act of murder in a convenient and compact fashion that virtually no other device matches, and very often give the insane the extra boost of confidence that they need to commit murder.
Guns were designed for the purpose of guiding a projectile accuratly and quickly over distances. The purpose can be fun, sport, excercise, food, deterrent security, self defense, or warfare. And these are just the highlights.

As far as crazy people in salons, lets hope that in the future they won't be the only ones who can carry guns along with criminals and cops like now.

If this scared lady and her associate workers had lived in a free State guns wise they may well have packed some portable self defense, and it takes a while to kill 8 trapped people.

And by the way the confidence comes from having a superior weapon of any kind, not just a firearm.

If the guy had had a sword he still might have killed 8 trapped victims if no one else had a sword.

The way to reduce confidence is to make sure that other people are equally well armed.

Meplat
10-20-2011, 5:01 PM
Well, more Americans are probably killed using .22s than any other single caliber (some statistic I read somewhere), but that is as relevant as saying how many Americans are killed using Chevrolets: the items were used in a negligent or criminal manner.

The OP's friend says guns are made for killing. I'm here to declare the Ruger Mk III pistol was not made for killing anything, nor is it used to kill, except in a negligent or criminal manner, just as with automobiles.

I carried a MK-1 on airplanes before it was unlawful to do so. The reason for the choice was to limit possible harm to other passengers or the airframe through precise shot placement and avoidance of over penetration. A lot of people including myself use North American Arms mini revolvers as backups. I do not think either circumstance is negligent or criminal.



One item that is made for killing and nothing but killing is a sword.
Ever been to an Argentine Bar-B-Q?
A couple weeks ago at my nephew's birthday party the kids were running around hitting each other with foam swords. I will never understand how a society that seems to express revulsion at the notion of children running around with toy guns is nonetheless happy and comfortable with kids running around with toy swords, or toy light sabers.

MindBuilder
10-20-2011, 8:09 PM
It is a common misconception, even among gun owners, that defensive guns are designed to kill. At least in the US, defensive guns are probably almost always designed to save lives, freedom,and property. Killing is typically an undesired side effect of guns. Probably the vast majority of gun designers would design their guns to be non-lethal if they could do that and maintain the same stopping power. Defensive guns are designed to stop, and unfortunately the functional method of achieving that stopping is severe bodily damage, which often has the undesired side effect of death.

But even if guns were designed to murder instead of stop, it is not something one should even consider, because it doesn't matter. What matters is the result of the guns, not their purpose. If guns caused massive chaos and billions of murders, it wouldn't make it any better if every gun designer worked exclusively for the purpose of creating beautiful kinetic sculptures. If every gun designer in the world designed all their guns exclusively for the purpose of despicable evil murder, yet a magnificent gun control program prevented guns from ever being used in crimes or for anything other than saving lives, protecting freedom, or good clean fun, then guns would be good, regardless of what the purpose of their design was.

Assault rifles were developed to empower Nazis. Does that mean police should never use them? Should a French resistance fighter never have picked up a Mouser because it was built to kill on behalf of a Nazi? If weapons are designed to kill, should the US Military give up all weapons because killing is bad? If guns are designed to kill, should the US public give them up, just because of what they are designed to do, even if it turns out that they are a net benefit?

The question is only: Do the benefits of legal guns outweigh the risk?

hoffmang
10-20-2011, 8:16 PM
Only guns and government were both designed to kill people. It takes one to keep the other at bay.

-Gene

taperxz
10-20-2011, 8:34 PM
Oh get over yourself.
How simple does it need to be put to U
why let them define the purpose?

LOL what other purposes are there? Not much more a functional firearm was meant to do as an operational tool.

Ironchef
10-20-2011, 8:37 PM
I would submit that guns weren't designed to murder. Murder is a maliciously planned event of taking life. It could be said that guns were designed to kill, but I still think that's off. Guns are an offensive tool, IMHO, to serve many purposes designated by their user. Again, it's a tool to do many things. It's not evil, it's not righteous, it's an inanimate object.

Such tools in my home will never contribute towards murder by my hands, intent, or planning. TO the contrary, they will provide many hours of fun recreation, skill building, and may possibly save the life of my family members or myself since I carry one on me daily.

Ask your friend what right he thinks our government has to deprive me of my tools?

bbsmth
10-20-2011, 9:01 PM
Guns expressed purpose is not to kill, only when it applies to game and acquiring food. when applied to another human they are more powerful as a deterrent to uncivilized behavior. His logic is flawed, what is the expressed purpose of a nuclear missle? is to only kill or is it to deter? I always like to fall back on this to support my arguments...

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

with reference to corrupt or tyrannical govt. ask him to describe how America would devolve into a tyrannical oppressive state, how would it happen. He is wrong from the get go we are not a democracy, the founding fathers did not want a democracy, 51% could easily remove 49% of peoples liberties. America is a Constituional Republic.

I would also recomend showing him how media exerts an extreme bias against the public and uses propoganda techniques to get them to believe a certain way... John Lott, Bias against guns. I would also use youtube examples of old Nazi propoganda films and speeches to show how the many can be duped by the few.

Good Luck

Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sgt Raven
10-20-2011, 9:55 PM
That's incorrect. Those weapons are designed for their lethality. The "wound the guy so his buddies have to tend him" concept is a myth.

Soldiers are trained such that their mission comes first, anyone who tells you otherwise is suffering under some fictional notion evoked in novels and movies.

Now, having said that, I should point out that a general statement such as "all guns are designed only for killing" indicates that someone does not really understand firearms and needs to be taken to the range (hint, hint...)

After introducing a person of that mind to the .22 LR (or 17 HMR) and the .30-06 (or .375 Holland!), it will be easy to dispel the notion that "all of these implements serve only the purpose of homicide."

No it's not because you don't take into account.

1. The affect of lots of wounded on Combat Arms fighting men. As a 11B, if I wasn't going to help wounded Troopers then the US Army wouldn't have spent all that time training me in first aid etc.

2. The effect of the Support Troops and Supply lines.

Mesa Tactical
10-21-2011, 6:19 AM
Ever been to an Argentine Bar-B-Q?

That's exactly where the kids were running around with foam swords.

viet4lifeOC
10-21-2011, 8:34 AM
Being new to gun ownership (less than 2 years), I am still confused why gun owners take a defensive posture when it comes to discussing gun issues.

I simply answer "why don't you own a gun?" when someone asks me, "why I own a gun?" I make them argue their case instead of me having to do all the mental lifting. With all the statistical studies on gun laws and crime rates, personal history, world history, principles of social psychology, the nature of man, the mind set of criminals, current events, etc....it seems to me that it's antis position that is much harder to defend. So I make them defend it. I basically turn it around and play offense knowing I have all this wealth of information.

Guns are designed to kill? Yes, but they also prevent crimes, topple corrupt governments, obtain and guarantee freedom, etc

A gun in the hands of a crazy person gives him "confidence" to go on a killing spree. Yes, but it's also a gun that allows him to be stopped.

Guns are for "paranoid" people. Yes, but I also have "insurance " for my car, malpractice, home, health, etc. I have these cause I have worked to hard to obtain them and do not want to lose them. Are people who own insurance prepared or paranoid? Isn't it civic responibility as an American citizen to have these "insurance." Is a gun any different from buying insurance? My right to bear arms is guaranteed in 2A...second only to 1A. Is there a reason why the founding fathers put them in that order? Are there examples of countries where 1A is limited because there is no 2A? Maybe you (the anti) aren't paranoid like the majority of us because 1) you live in a gated commuty where your ivory tower of ideas are protected from the realities of life? 2) you've not been a victim of a violent crime, 3) you lack the ability to empathize with people with less means since most violent crime victims are racial minorities, etc

Why defend...go on the offense. Use the Socratic method of asking endless questions and let the anti come to his/her own conclusion. Some poster mention the movie "inception" where an idea grows if the person thinks it came from him/her. Same thing...do not show them the finish line, but show them the road that leads there.

viet4lifeOC
10-21-2011, 8:40 AM
and if the vehement anti can't be persuaded, then so be it. I just smile and with a dreamy eye look...say, "it would be nice to live in your world."

guns4life
10-21-2011, 8:45 AM
Guns ARE designed to kill.

Which is why the car argument is weak and doesn't work with antis.

The button you need to push there is the fact that guns are not at the root of gun violence. The root of (gun) violence is poverty, lack of access to education, job training, mental health care, basic services. Which is why crime is way higher in poor neighborhoods than in wealthy ones.

Orange County is actually a terrible example for you to bring up - it's one of California's safest counties. That salon shooting was a freak accident which just goes to illustrate how poor and underfunded the mental health care services have gotten in the past few decades in the state.



That's such BS.

taperxz
10-21-2011, 8:50 AM
That's such BS.


Instead of belittling his statement, please elaborate on why you think this is BS.

Uxi
10-21-2011, 8:54 AM
Sounds like the drivel you hear from those who are also against the RTKBA?

guns4life
10-21-2011, 9:03 AM
Instead of belittling his statement, please elaborate on why you think this is BS.


There is no point, unless you feel it would sway his opinion...I certainly do not, so I'll save my breath.





“I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in."

Mark Twain

pennys dad
10-21-2011, 10:53 AM
Your friend doesn't even know what type of government the United States has.

1) You and him both have a natural right to self defense
2) You and him both have a natural right to resist tyranny

I am in agreement right here. I would suspect a suitable response would be, why do you seek to remove a God given right to defend yourself?

On a side note:

Mass murders are generally planned and methodical, John Wayne Gacy and other mass murders planned torture, murder and other and didnt use a gun to accomplish the task.
The recent orange county a*hole may have just lost hope, if you can fix that you will solve most issues. Ask your friend how do you solve the issue of "Bitter Custody" battles and that will solve many killings both gun related and drunk driver related and other.

Taking away a gun to solve a problem, does nothing to fix the problem it just makes the problem act out in a different way.

viet4lifeOC
10-21-2011, 10:56 AM
There is no point, unless you feel it would sway his opinion...I certainly do not, so I'll save my breath.

This. Not to say you or your opponent are wrong. It's sometimes better to not argue.

jwkincal
10-21-2011, 1:53 PM
No it's not because you don't take into account.

1. The affect of lots of wounded on Combat Arms fighting men. As a 11B, if I wasn't going to help wounded Troopers then the US Army wouldn't have spent all that time training me in first aid etc.

2. The effect of the Support Troops and Supply lines.

Did you read the post with the link to the Operational Research Office study that said the infantry weapons are designed for lethality?

And as an 11B... tell me, sergeant, when do you take your ACE report?

Infantry rifles are designed for killing. Combat casualties are secondary to the mission. If you have recorded doctrine which says otherwise, please provide same, because I have never seen such.

hoffmang
10-21-2011, 6:35 PM
Going way back to OP, here is my favorite rejoinder to "but guns are only designed to kill people!"

"Yep. That's why we issue them to [insert local PD/Highway Patrol name here] Department. To kill people. Officer Smith kills everyone he meets."

It's very hard for the other side to refute because they believe in the power and good graces of the state.

-Gene

oni.dori
10-22-2011, 9:05 PM
One other point, concerning people who go berserk with guns and shoot a bunch of people at schools/work/etc... In China they do the same thing with KNIVES. And it would seem that they get about the same body count.

Makes sense. Knives are quieter so you can kill more people with them before people realize what is happening. With a gun everyone knows what's going on as soon as you start shooting.

An example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7740548/Students-slashed-in-ninth-knife-attack-in-China-in-two-months.html

Here's more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35995544/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/students-killed-china-knife-attack/ 8 dead
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html 7 dead, plus more in other attacks mentioned in the article


Seems that the vast majority of serial killers also shy away from using firearms, preferring much quieter (or in many cases unusual) methods of killing their victims.

In my mind you want a gun for self defense but for murder you want something that is quiet and doesn't leave as much evidence behind (GSR, bullets, shell casings, blood spatter, etc...)

Maybe I just watch too much Dexter :rolleyes:


The same happens in Japan, and they tend to be fare more gruesome, grizzly, and violent than the mass shootings here in America.