PDA

View Full Version : How to shoot down gun control arguments (no pun intended)




qednick
12-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Time after time we see gun control arguments on the internet or in person. Invariably, the anti-gun folks only have one form of ammunition to pitch their argument: statistics.

Have you noticed that? The basis of their entire argument is always about statistics. Well folks, here's how I *always* win these arguments with the anti-gun people.

First, show them this link: How to lie with Statistics (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197067099&sr=8-1)

Then get the anti-gun person to agree that both of you should not use any form of statistics to argue your case because they can be so easily manipulated by both sides.

Once you've got them to agree to this, you will see that they are literally left with no ammunition to shoot down your case. At this point, they invariably always resort to name calling or picking fault with your spelling and/or grammar. :D

FreeTraveler
12-07-2007, 04:47 PM
Don't be afraid of statistics. If you research, you'll find that in EVERY CASE where concealed carry or other pro-gun legislation was inacted, violent crime went down.

Florida is a perfect case in point. Remember when people were scared to fly into south Florida, because of all the carjackings? Since concealed carry was implemented, violent crime is down 40%.

qednick
12-07-2007, 06:53 PM
Agreed, there are plenty of statistics that prove the pro-gun case but there's also all the other (non statistical) evidence to back up the pro-gun side too. So if both sides agree up front to not use statistics in their argument, the anti-gun side lose before they even start. This is because all they ever have to back up their claims are false statistics!! ;) That's my point...

A typical conversation along these lines:

Anti-gunner: Let's talk about gun control
Pro-gunner: OK, but let's agree to not use statistics - after all, anyone can skew these.
Anti-gunner: (thinking "great, he's not going to ram those pesky pro-gun statistics down my throat that make me look like an arse") OK then
Pro-gunner: OK, so why don't you think law-abiding citizens like me can own a gun?
Anti-gunner: Ermmm, ermmmm, ermmmm...

:rolleyes:

Oddball
12-07-2007, 06:56 PM
Time after time we see gun control arguments on the internet or in person. Invariably, the anti-gun folks only have one form of ammunition to pitch their argument: statistics.

Have you noticed that? The basis of their entire argument is always about statistics. Well folks, here's how I *always* win these arguments with the anti-gun people.

First, show them this link: How to lie with Statistics (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197067099&sr=8-1)

Then get the anti-gun person to agree that both of you should not use any form of statistics to argue your case because they can be so easily manipulated by both sides.

Once you've got them to agree to this, you will see that they are literally left with no ammunition to shoot down your case. At this point, they invariably always resort to name calling or picking fault with your spelling and/or grammar. :D

Where are the statistics that have counted every gun that has loaded itself and shot someone??

FreeTraveler
12-07-2007, 07:02 PM
find this at http://www.lneilsmith.org/

(by the way, his book HOPE, farther down the page, is basically about a Ron Paul presidency, but it was written in 2001 !!)

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.com

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

CountryboyRonPaul
12-07-2007, 07:36 PM
I usually just leave them with one of these two quotes.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson



"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson


And then give them a history lesson about why we rebelled against England over the forced use of English Currency loaned at interest to us by a Central Bank.

The necessity for an unhindered 2nd Amendment is becoming stronger than ever.

CountryboyRonPaul
12-07-2007, 07:40 PM
Oh, almost forgot this one

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Try watching a liberal argue with Gandhi.

1000-points-of-fright
12-07-2007, 08:39 PM
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai Lama

Matt
12-10-2007, 02:30 PM
Here's all the statistics you'll ever need to shoot down ANY anti-gunner. :cool:

http://gunfacts.info/

qednick
12-10-2007, 08:35 PM
Here's all the statistics you'll ever need to shoot down ANY anti-gunner. :cool:

http://gunfacts.info/

Yeah I love gunfacts - but the problem is the anti-gunners have one called gunfiction where they just made a whole load of bullshit up to support their claims. :eek:

Also, while I think about it, there's a good site somewhere (can't recall the URL) which has been keeping track of news snippets and stories of where armed law-abiding citizens have saved lives because they had a gun. Does anybody know which site I'm talking about?

qednick
12-10-2007, 08:39 PM
Oh BTW, here's a really good site to send the anti-gunners to:

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=2816:1603

:D

You know I've noticed that mostly the people I come across that are anti-gun have personal temper problems. Maybe they don't feel others can be trusted with guns because they know that they shouldn't be trusted with one.