PDA

View Full Version : How do you reason with a person when...


bob7122
06-11-2012, 5:43 AM
-They say only the military/police should have guns.

they follow up with, "why should the people have them (firearms), what for?"-at least military grade weapons (AKs and ARs). If you are in danger call the police.


-How about when they make this statement, "I was a Marine and guns are horrible; nobody should have them."

I had the battle of Athens in mind as one reason. i also described how if you need to protect your family wouldn't someone want the best tool for the job?-It is not the polices job to protect you, so you need to look out for themselves.
U5ut6yPrObw

What else can i add?


thank you all in advance.

the_natterjack
06-11-2012, 5:48 AM
Don't bother arguing? Not worth the effort for me.

Choose your battles wisely. Some you will never ever win no matter what you do or how well crafted your logic. Invest your time and effort with those you can convince of the truth.

- Brian

IVC
06-11-2012, 7:14 AM
For the "organized" part of an "organized society," indeed only military (protect the nation) and the police (protect the public) need to have the guns.

Personal gun ownership is required for the times when the "organized society" breaks down through actions of criminals, and the last resort in protecting one's life is to use the deadly force. Neither police nor military have the duty to protect an individual.

CessnaDriver
06-11-2012, 7:28 AM
First off....It's our right.
We are the first responders to our own security.
Said many times, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
The 2nd amendment is what defends the 1st.
The people well armed is our protection against tyranny.


If he wants to argue against obvious logic it's pointless to go forward.

Flintlock Tom
06-11-2012, 7:35 AM
First off....It's our right.
We are the first responders to our own security.
Said many times, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
The 2nd amendment is what defends the 1st.
The people well armed is our protection against tyranny.


If he wants to argue against obvious logic it's pointless to go forward.
In addition to these excellent points: according to the FBI crime statistics, more than a million times a year violent crimes are ended by a citizen with a gun. The majority of cases the citizen simply displayed the gun.

DarkSoul
06-11-2012, 7:40 AM
The military is to protect us in foreign theaters of conflict, not on our home soil unless the Posse Comitatus Act is enacted to do so, which takes an act of congress, and is pretty much political suicide unless there is one hell of a reason, like we are actually being invaded, but then again, what country would be stupid enough when there are so many guns in private hands, so the military issue is a non-issue.

As for the police, yes of course they are here to try and enforce the law, BUT, if you are being attacked, or someone breaks into your house, the police, 99% of the time, will show up in time to take a report, or call the coroner, so unless you are able to defend yourself, your home, your family..........

In a perfect utopian world, we would all get a long, no one would lie cheat or steal, and we wouldn't even need police, but look at our culture, we are an egotistical, warring race, have been since day one, I doubt thats ever going to change, so with that in mind, what can we do, we can be the sheep or the wolf (at the very least, a well armed sheep).

I dont think you can argue with people that are so anti-gun, it is set in their minds, and nothing is going to change it.

Vacaville
06-11-2012, 7:41 AM
First off....It's our right.
We are the first responders to our own security.
Said many times, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
The 2nd amendment is what defends the 1st.
The people well armed is our protection against tyranny.


If he wants to argue against obvious logic it's pointless to go forward.

This one line is all I ever say to people for why we need to be armed. While there are other reasons, this to me is the most important.

CessnaDriver
06-11-2012, 7:47 AM
This one line is all I ever say to people for why we need to be armed. While there are other reasons, this to me is the most important.


Some will say well, that can't happen in America.
I say.... if not it is because we are well armed and
that is a major deterrent.
The government should be wary of the people.

chiefcrash
06-11-2012, 8:00 AM
Depending on who the person is, I've found the following to work pretty well:

"Are you a fan of the Patriot Act? Wouldn't it have made you nervous if George Bush was the only one with guns?"

Then I also point out California Government Code Section 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.

NotEnufGarage
06-11-2012, 8:25 AM
If this person had his way, we'd all be speaking the Queens English, celebrating her birthday and boxing day and would probably be living under the Third Reich for the last 70 years, since the USA wouldn't have been able to come to the aid of England during the blitz.

NotEnufGarage
06-11-2012, 8:26 AM
If this person had his way, we'd all be speaking the Queens English, celebrating her birthday and boxing day and would probably be living under the Third Reich for the last 70 years, since the USA wouldn't have been able to come to the aid of England during the blitz.

CBruce
06-11-2012, 8:55 AM
-They say only the military/police should have guns.

they follow up with, "why should the people have them (firearms), what for?"-at least military grade weapons (AKs and ARs). If you are in danger call the police.


-How about when they make this statement, "I was a Marine and guns are horrible; nobody should have them."

I had the battle of Athens in mind as one reason. i also described how if you need to protect your family wouldn't someone want the best tool for the job?-It is not the polices job to protect you, so you need to look out for themselves.

What else can i add?


thank you all in advance.

Why should everyone vote? Only the informed and educated know the right thing to vote for, so they should be the only ones to vote.

It's important to remember that everyone has a different view of the world, a different "truth", and this type of mentality you've described has always and will always exist. I'm baffled at the mentality that only the military, law enforcement, and criminals should own weapons.

As for why 'military grade' weapons...there's a reason the miltary uses them. Because they're reliable and effective.

RichWT
06-11-2012, 9:02 AM
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation.

Saw this in a calgunners signature line a while back, and I use it as ammo against the anti's.

rideanddive
06-11-2012, 9:03 AM
The police ALWAYS get there in time. That's why they never have to investigate rapes and murders

chiefcrash
06-11-2012, 9:12 AM
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation.

Saw this in a calgunners signature line a while back, and I use it as ammo against the anti's.

I don't use that quote since no one has ever been able to find a proper cite for that quote, and it's probably bogus...

Gryff
06-11-2012, 9:22 AM
-They say only the military/police should have guns.

they follow up with, "why should the people have them (firearms), what for?"-at least military grade weapons (AKs and ARs). If you are in danger call the police.


The function of police is law enforcement, not crime prevention. They de facto mission is to arrest people after they have committed a crime. If the mission was crime prevention, they would need about 10x the number of officers they currently have.

And as for why we have guns, the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is not to keep us safe from criminals. It is to give us recourse should government decide to ignore/exceed the rights that are granted to them by the Constitution. If only police/military have guns, then only the government has guns, thereby completely gutting the point of the 2nd Amendment.

And, yes, we have a stable political system at the moment. But only a fool would think it impossible that a perfect storm of events couldn't happen at some point that puts a Constitutionally corrupt administration or Congress in power. The 2nd Amendment is insurance. We don't need it on most days, but we HAVE to have it because not having it has far too dangerous results should the exceptional occur.

RichWT
06-11-2012, 9:44 AM
I don't use that quote since no one has ever been able to find a proper cite for that quote, and it's probably bogus...

Bogus or not the logic is sound.

donw
06-11-2012, 9:48 AM
WOW! some really great responses here guys!

the response to cite WWII and Hitler is sort of useless to younger folks...they haven't a clue about what happened in/with/to Nazi Germany and why it happened; the only response i use when using Nazi Germany, as an example, is that Hitler was LEGALLY ELECTED by the German people and was avid "Gun control" advocate. he also brutally, and inhumanely ENFORCED it with gestapo, SS and police: it was a death penalty to be caught with a firearm OF ANY KIND in occupied territories.

i wouldn't give the person the time of day to "Justify civilians having firearms".

i was once told by someone: "Never wrestle with pigs...they love the mud and you'll just get all muddy."

about the person who said: "I was in the marines and guns are horrible"...i can see why he's no longer in the marines...if he's scared of guns...he shouldn't be.

a person should have the wisdom to know when and where to fight and what to fight with and should NOT be forbidden BY LAW, to have the tool(s) available to fight with.

in other words: "Don't go to gunfight with a knife".

winnre
06-11-2012, 9:51 AM
Tell him to shut up, he should not voiced his opinion. When he says he has the right to voice his opinion, remind him how rights are kept.

Gryff
06-11-2012, 10:07 AM
Tell him to shut up, he should not voiced his opinion. When he says he has the right to voice his opinion, remind him how rights are kept.

First Amendment allows him to voice his opinion. Be careful about trampling one person's rights when you are demanding yours. My suggestion is to tell him that he's an idiot, but leave out the STFU demand.

bobomb
06-11-2012, 10:30 AM
Don't bother arguing? Not worth the effort for me.

Choose your battles wisely. Some you will never ever win no matter what you do or how well crafted your logic. Invest your time and effort with those you can convince of the truth.

- Brian

yep simple "just say we disagree on what freedom means"

and cast not your pearls before swine

bob7122
06-11-2012, 12:05 PM
thanks guys.

IVC
06-11-2012, 12:44 PM
First Amendment allows him to voice his opinion. Be careful about trampling one person's rights when you are demanding yours. My suggestion is to tell him that he's an idiot, but leave out the STFU demand.

You missed the point. The sarcasm is in the detail...

stix213
06-11-2012, 1:19 PM
Ask them if they have ever called the police before, and if so, how long it took to respond.

Lugiahua
06-11-2012, 1:28 PM
my reason is simple enough:

"It takes less than seven seconds for a criminal to murder you(disregard he/she use firearm or knife.), it takes longer than seven minutes for police to arrive"

Anti's hardy could reason against this one, since murder someone with a knife is still highly possible in seven seconds.(or within any short moments) And almost everyone agrees it's impossible to restrict kitchen from general populace.

Untamed1972
06-11-2012, 2:07 PM
In response to "Only LEOs and military should have guns."

You could say:

Yes, and only the fire dept should have extiguishers and hoses.

Only mechanics should own tools.

Only Doctors should know first aid/CPR.

There are a few million Jews who might have valid reason to disagree with you.....if they could.....but their Gov't murdered them.

I have fire extinguishers, life insurance, first aid/CPR training, etc. I hope I never need to use any of them, but it's good to know they're there if I do.

DannyInSoCal
06-11-2012, 2:17 PM
A simple response is best:

I take personal responsibility for the safety of myself and the innocent people around me.

Other people refuse to accept that responsibility and would rather wait for the police to show up.

I've made my choice. You have to live with yours...

finyllw
06-11-2012, 2:33 PM
Ask that person if he/she/it stores food for emergencies. If they says yes, say "Cool". If they ask you if you store food for emergencies, say "Yes I do, ....... at your house".

Watch the wheels spin, then watch thier reaction. It ALWAYS makes me laugh when they get it.

thesav
06-11-2012, 3:26 PM
If we don't need firearms because we have the Police to save us, then we also don't really need fire extinguishers either, that's what fireman are for. Both firearms and fire extinguishers are used for the same purpose; instant response until professional assistance can arrive.

kemasa
06-11-2012, 3:38 PM
The police have no duty or obligation to protect you as an individual, check out the case law on that.

I called 911 and was told that they had no one to send right now.

Both of those are enough of a reason, unless you want to be a victim.

Legasat
06-11-2012, 3:39 PM
When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

When I can carry a policeman in my pocket, we can discuss how many guns I will give up.

RuskieShooter
06-11-2012, 3:47 PM
See below.

-Ruskie

POLICESTATE
06-11-2012, 3:48 PM
Not all people can be reasoned with. YMMV.

Learn to recognize when it's a lost cause and move on.

SURVIVOR619
06-11-2012, 7:29 PM
Ask that person if he/she/it stores food for emergencies. If they says yes, say "Cool". If they ask you if you store food for emergencies, say "Yes I do, ....... at your house".

Watch the wheels spin, then watch thier reaction. It ALWAYS makes me laugh when they get it.

I love it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk🔫

nicki
06-12-2012, 12:49 AM
The facts don't support gun control, but that doesn't change people's feelings and humans operate emotionally.

In fact various studies show that humans respond to emotion 24X more than logic.

If you want someone to think about things, talk to their head
If you want them to actually to take action, talk to their heart.

There are degrees of people who are anti gun, some of them you never can reach because they are "emotionally crippled".

All you can really do is ask them why they feel as they do and refrain from arguing with them, instead dig deeper into why they feel the way they do.

Once they start talking with you honestly, then you can address why they feel the way they do.

Many of our strongest gun rights activists started out on the other side, there is a certain UCLA law professor that we have become friends with who was the Brady Camps legal eagle until he started looking at the facts.

His problem is he was intellectually honest and although he doesn't bring it up, I know he has taken heat for his courageous stand.

This is an issue that many of us are pondering how to resolve this because we know that if we develop ways to reach what I call "soft anti gunners", we can make alot of progress on getting back not just our gun rights, but other rights as well.

Nicki

AVS
06-12-2012, 2:02 AM
When they ask "why", point out that the preamble of the Bill of Rights specifically answers their question. It puts the whole document in context.

If they keep it up at that point they're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Anyone who doesn't understand why freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, protection from quartering soldiers and illegal search and seizure, etc. etc., are important for keeping a government in check, then they're idiots. And you know what Mark Twain said about idiots. Don't argue with them... they'll just pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

mrdd
06-12-2012, 4:48 AM
The police have no duty or obligation to protect you as an individual, check out the case law on that.

I called 911 and was told that they had no one to send right now.

Both of those are enough of a reason, unless you want to be a victim.

Similarly, the fire department does not exist to prevent your house from burning down. It exists to hopefully prevent the entire city (or a significant portion) from burning.

jwkincal
06-12-2012, 6:57 AM
OP, the person described by your post is called an extremist. We've got some of our own, so don't get too worked up over it.

But do recognize that reason is not an effective tool in such cases. In other words, the answer to your thread's titular question is, "You don't!"

Nicki has the right tack, you need to ferret out the emotion driving their extremism and counter that first, then and only then will you have access to reason as a tool. Once you have that access your victory is assured, but getting there is going to be tough. Someone whom has served and holds that view must have a twisted labyrinth below the surface.

I do like the approach described by finyllw, but in the twisted logic of hoplophobic extremism that scenario will serve as support for their position...

SilverTauron
06-12-2012, 7:10 AM
We all have our reasons behind our perspectives. Many people who are anti-gun have had only negative experiences with firearms. Someone who grew up with a Marlin 30-30 over the fireplace might wonder why his friend hates guns with a passion-unaware that his acquaintance had a gun pointed at her face when she was 10 by some ignorant jackwagon. I completely understand why someone would think guns needed to be removed from society with a negative background like that.

If you want to change someone's opinion on the RKBA, you have to act like a CIA agent who seeks to convert a foreign citizen into a spy.

First you start slowly with positive experiences regarding the 2A. Political debates have their place, but they are awful tools to change someone's mind. Remember you don't know their past and no amount of dry crime statistics or pity politics are going to change the profound impact of having a gun pointed at you in your formative years.So what, the hoplophobe thinks. I could be dead right now because of some idiot with a gun.

Thus you must build positive emotional experiences first. With a foundation of security and safety ,then one can move on to practical application:in other words going to a range or going gun shopping. Once some experience on the firing line has taken place,THEN bring in the statistics and information.

Ive figured this out through hard experience.If all you have to offer the unenlightened is talk, that's all you're going to get back.

CessnaDriver
06-12-2012, 7:39 AM
Each one of us is an ambassador for firearm rights.
It takes just one jerk to put someone off for life on something sometimes.

frankm
06-12-2012, 7:42 AM
Crack him upside the head and call him a commie.

IVC
06-12-2012, 10:32 AM
The facts don't support gun control, but that doesn't change people's feelings and humans operate emotionally.

Just a warning: even if facts DID support gun control, the 2A would still stand. Our main goal is not to discredit the statistics, but to remove them completely from the discussion.

It helps that statistics actually work for us. However, if they didn't and there was an inherent additional danger associated with firearms, the answer wouldn't be "gun control," but additional safety programs and safety rules/restrictions by the gun community for the gun community. That's how we have all the safety handling rules, BTW.

12voltguy
06-12-2012, 11:32 AM
don't bother
those types won't hear you no matter what
they just want to argue
if that is your thing, lots of stufff here you can say,lol

bandook
06-16-2012, 10:53 AM
Ask if they think it should be legal to rent them at a gun range? I they say yes, take them shooting...
On your way back home ask if they felt like they really needed to kill someone.

That should mellow the 'guns make people killers' argument.