Knives aren't made for killing, only guns....dontcha know that?...she would have felt perfectly safe!
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Grandma could maybe have solved a lot of problems if she had just pulled the trigger.....
I wouldn't even consider living in Texas, they have the highest rates of executing even those who have been proven innocent, The idea down there is if they haven/t done the deed now, they will later.
Firstly, when someone knocks on my car window, I lower it just enough to talk. I DO not allow a knife to come close to the window opening, certainly not in Texas. You do not shoot back, no matter what. Unless you film the whole episode it is one persons word against another. It would all depend on who tells the best tale. It is all about living defensively. Until certain areas become civilized stay away from them.
I am back in Canada, just on time to get in on the last snow storm of the season!! Damn I should have stayed south another week.
By the way why didn't she simply raise the window. Most modern car windows operate by a simple button. It would have been easier than reaching for her gun.
Firstly, when someone knocks on my car window, I lower it just enough to talk. I DO not allow a knife to come close to the window opening, certainly not in Texas. You do not shoot back, no matter what. Unless you film the whole episode it is one persons word against another. It would all depend on who tells the best tale. It is all about living defensively. Until certain areas become civilized stay away from them.
I am back in Canada, just on time to get in on the last snow storm of the season!! Damn I should have stayed south another week.
By the way why didn't she simply raise the window. Most modern car windows operate by a simple button. It would have been easier than reaching for her gun.
Last edited:
No worries, they don't want you..
Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
YAKIMA, Wash. — A 32-year-old man who was shopping with at least three children at a Yakima Wal-Mart was the victim of an unprovoked assault when a stranger picked up a metal tee-ball bat and struck him, according to Yakima police.
The victim was not injured, but he did have a concealed weapons permit, which he immediately put to use, police said.
A store security officer reported hearing a man in the sporting goods department yelling “Get on the ground!” and found one man pointing a pistol at another, who was lying on the floor.
Police arrived a short time later and arrested the 30-year-old suspect, who remains in Yakima County jail in lieu of $30,000 bail set Monday.
The incident took place about 11:20 a.m. Saturday at the east Yakima Wal-Mart.
The victim told police he did not know the suspect, nor had the two exchanged any words before he was hit by the bat, according to an affidavit filed by police.
A video from the store’s security system shows the victim shopping with at least three children. According to the affidavit, the video shows some of the children move out of view as a man is seen coming over, picking up a metal tee-ball bat from a rack and striking the other man in the shoulder with it.
The victim, who police said has had a concealed pistol license since March 2013, then pulled a .357 Sig Sauer pistol from a holster and pointed it at the suspect, the affidavit said.
The suspect is a transient and is being held on suspicion of second-degree assault.
source: Yakima Herald Republic | Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
............................
Baseball bat to a Gun Fight?? :lol:
I would hazard a guess that of the 20 odd million people in Texas the vast majority live out their whole lives without encountering any of the grief you suggest.
General Rule of thumb I learned at an early age- If you sit with your back to the wall and keep your mouth shut, 95% of the time you won't have any problems.
Link?
So you hold the camera in one hand and the gun in the other:roll:
Your assumptions are so ridiculous, and you don't even realize it
How would that keep you from getting cut with a knife at your throat?
And don't you think electric car windows have a safety built in so you don't inadvertently get a child's hand caught when you raise them?
As Cannuck would say......you're so silly sometimes in your own condescending way......
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/17/is-texas-getting-ready-kill-innocent-man/No worries, they don't want you..
Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
YAKIMA, Wash. — A 32-year-old man who was shopping with at least three children at a Yakima Wal-Mart was the victim of an unprovoked assault when a stranger picked up a metal tee-ball bat and struck him, according to Yakima police.
The victim was not injured, but he did have a concealed weapons permit, which he immediately put to use, police said.
A store security officer reported hearing a man in the sporting goods department yelling “Get on the ground!” and found one man pointing a pistol at another, who was lying on the floor.
Police arrived a short time later and arrested the 30-year-old suspect, who remains in Yakima County jail in lieu of $30,000 bail set Monday.
The incident took place about 11:20 a.m. Saturday at the east Yakima Wal-Mart.
The victim told police he did not know the suspect, nor had the two exchanged any words before he was hit by the bat, according to an affidavit filed by police.
A video from the store’s security system shows the victim shopping with at least three children. According to the affidavit, the video shows some of the children move out of view as a man is seen coming over, picking up a metal tee-ball bat from a rack and striking the other man in the shoulder with it.
The victim, who police said has had a concealed pistol license since March 2013, then pulled a .357 Sig Sauer pistol from a holster and pointed it at the suspect, the affidavit said.
The suspect is a transient and is being held on suspicion of second-degree assault.
source: Yakima Herald Republic | Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
............................
Baseball bat to a Gun Fight?? :lol:
www.deathpenaltyinf.org/node/t23#c
consider looking up Leonel Herreras
Oh did you know that if a stranger, even a police officer approaches your car, you do not open your window more than an inch or so, just enough that identification can be passed through. This is advice from the police themselves. Try putting your fist with a knife in through that opening.
Now, I am pretty sure that no child will be sitting in the driver's seat and since I have air conditioning, as do most vehicles these days, the windows are not normally open. So, who in here is so silly and condescending.
One more thing I take a shower or a bath every morning and I have no intention of giving you a link for that. You know it is possible to find a link for any blxxdy thing you want to prove. Smart people investigate, analyse and judge for themselves if such a link is something they can believe. When was the last time a link was given on a news program. I listen to the latest news and if I am interested, I look up all the data on the subject and decide for myself whether or not it is worth believing. You might try that. If you find stats on one site varies greatly from what you get from other reputable sources, the information has probably been adjusted to prove a point You will appear much more intelligent than if you continue just firing off the first thing that comes into your head
I was interested in how many innocent people have been executed and the list is long. So, I am not going that route.
Boomer, as I said before, for every legitimate use of a gun, there are literally thousands that were and are not.
No worries, they don't want you..
Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
YAKIMA, Wash. — A 32-year-old man who was shopping with at least three children at a Yakima Wal-Mart was the victim of an unprovoked assault when a stranger picked up a metal tee-ball bat and struck him, according to Yakima police.
The victim was not injured, but he did have a concealed weapons permit, which he immediately put to use, police said.
A store security officer reported hearing a man in the sporting goods department yelling “Get on the ground!” and found one man pointing a pistol at another, who was lying on the floor.
Police arrived a short time later and arrested the 30-year-old suspect, who remains in Yakima County jail in lieu of $30,000 bail set Monday.
The incident took place about 11:20 a.m. Saturday at the east Yakima Wal-Mart.
The victim told police he did not know the suspect, nor had the two exchanged any words before he was hit by the bat, according to an affidavit filed by police.
A video from the store’s security system shows the victim shopping with at least three children. According to the affidavit, the video shows some of the children move out of view as a man is seen coming over, picking up a metal tee-ball bat from a rack and striking the other man in the shoulder with it.
The victim, who police said has had a concealed pistol license since March 2013, then pulled a .357 Sig Sauer pistol from a holster and pointed it at the suspect, the affidavit said.
The suspect is a transient and is being held on suspicion of second-degree assault.
source: Yakima Herald Republic | Assault victim with concealed weapon stops bat-wielding attacker at east Yakima Wal-Mart
............................
Baseball bat to a Gun Fight?? :lol:
Best news I've read in a month! I hope he got a handsome reward!
quoting Ben Franklin:
The Founding Fathers were clear in their intent: an armed population makes good government, because it can restrain those seeking to abuse power.
Something for victims of police abuses in Baltimore to remember.
The Founding Fathers were clear in their intent: an armed population makes good government, because it can restrain those seeking to abuse power.
Something for victims of police abuses in Baltimore to remember.
Do you care do back this up with anything reasonable?
I have seen statistics on this and I doubt you will convince me of your point of view, but I sincerely want to understand why you believe this.
How To Win A Debate With An Anti-Gunner
The confrontations always begin the same way: Someone asks what I do, I tell them, and if they aren’t for the U.S. Bill of Rights as written, I see battalions of “I’m-more-enlightened-than-you” thoughts assembling behind their politically correct eyes. Soon, they’re firing anti-gun sentiments at me.
Until I learned a better way, I’d counterattack with shock troops of facts. Before long there would be gaping wounds in their logic, and their ignorance would be bleeding all over them.
Those debates were always a lot of fun—especially when the people were from England—but over time I noticed that my opponents were mostly leaving angry.
They’d soon use pride, and quite possibly conceit, as tourniquets for their hemorrhaging self-esteem. They’d hate me, and would be consoled by others who share their viewpoint. Soon, the facts I’d used to attack their unfounded convictions would fade, and they’d go back to feeling morally superior.
I was winning debates, but I wasn’t helping to change views. All of that changed one evening when my wife dragged me, like a chained bear, to a cocktail party with her colleagues. She teaches at one of those esteemed universities that celebrates diversity, but where every staff member seems to have the same politics. So there I was in a room full of her highly educated friends who don’t know the first thing about ballistics or how to clean their own game. For my wife’s sake, I tried to fade into the background, but apparently all the hours I’ve spent concealed in trees hunting deer didn’t help in the cocktail scene. Before long, a history professor noticed me hiding behind a plant.
He approached and asked what I do. I should have been more prepared for this question, as this is a very American thing to ask. Europeans rarely ask this question. They’re more often interested in someone’s social status. Americans ask this question because we’re still a nation of doers, of people who define themselves. America is the place that coined the phrase “self-made man.” Knowing this, I usually enjoy this question, but with this crowd I wanted to evade the subject.
This professor, however, had spent his career judging students. So he expertly parried my attempts to change the subject. I finally told him I write.
He asked what I write about, so I answered honestly, though evasively. He then shot me this knowing glare over the top of his glass of chardonnay before haughtily saying, “If we could just ban all those evil guns we’d be a much safer, happier and a less ossified nation. Don’t you agree?”
Now I love a debate: I even enjoy a brawl. My favorite Winston Churchill quotation is: “I like a man who grins when he fights.” I used to box, and I miss getting in the ring. And this guy had thrown the first punch. Anywhere else I would have asked why he thinks an inanimate object is evil. I’d have asked what is so happy about the strong dominating the weak—I mean, didn’t the ancient maxim “might makes right” go out of style with the Enlightenment?
Before long I’d be firing facts at him about how, when you compare FBI crime statistics with gun-ownership rates and sales figures, you find that more guns equal less crime. I might even ask, “If sometime after midnight you were awoken by one of your home windows breaking, would you rather there was a telephone or a 12 gauge by your bedside?” Then I’d really start swinging.
But in this situation, I couldn’t say anything as pugilistic as all that."You believe we should just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that has never existed and for which you can’t give even a theoretical template?” I chose my words carefully, and kept my tone friendly as I said, “You teach world history, so I’m curious: What period of history do you wish to take us back to, professor?”
“Well, I ...”
“What time and place, maybe before the invention of gunpowder, was there a disarmed, safe and, as you say, happy populace—a people held in the loving and protective arms of a king or government, who needn’t fear thieves, madmen or tyranny?
“Well, now let me see ... I guess I’m not looking to bring us historically back to any time or place, but rather to take us forward to a better place.”
He smiled. He thought he had made a point predicated on something tangible.
“So you want to create a utopia, a Shangri-la, a place where evil no longer exists and where everyone loves their fellow man?”
“Well, I ...”
“What philosopher articulated an ideal state where a single mother at home with her two kids has zero chance of stopping a thug twice her size coming through a window?”
“Well, I ...”
“Maybe Rousseau’s “Du Contrat Social,” James Harrington’s “The Commonwealth of Oceana” or perhaps Thomas Moore’s “Utopia”?
“Well, I’m not sure if anyone has ever articulated it exactly.”
“So, although you’re a professor and, therefore, believe in education, you believe we should just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that has never existed and for which you can’t give even a theoretical template?”
“Um,” he mumbled before pivoting with, “countries like England and Australia have more gun control and lower violent-crime rates, I believe.”
As this conversation took place a decade ago, I answered by citing a 2001 study from the International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland. It found that of 17 industrialized nations, Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population having been victimized by a violent crime. England was the second worst with a rate of 26 percent. The u.s. wasn’t even in the top 10.
(Today if I’m asked this question, there is a lot of other interesting data to cite. Although the comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is difficult, as countries classify types of crime differently and measure them in various ways, the English newspaper The Daily Mail reported in 2009: “Official crime figures show the u.k. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the u.s. and even South Africa.” More comparisons of various crime statistics can be found here.
After debating international crime statistics for a few minutes, the professor looked contemplatively into his glass of chardonnay and admitted, “Well, maybe I need to do some research.”
“Don’t we all,” I said amiably. “And, I understand, you’ve never personally been a crime victim and crime statistics aren’t a part of your chosen field of study, so why would you know these things?”
“Yes, that’s true,” he said.
So I let him off the hook and we talked about Ancient Rome and other things. In the years since he has slowly come around, and now even says he wants “to shoot skeet some time.”
His point of view is becoming educated, but I think I learned more from the conversation. There isn’t only one way to debate someone who wants to repeal the Second Amendment, but there is a strategy that works. You’re not going to completely change a mind on the spot. You can, however, make people think, and by thinking they can begin to grasp the importance of individual freedom.
I’ve learned that the best way to accomplish this is to let them speak first. Simply ask them why they feel the way they do. This way they’ll expose their own ignorance. If you begin by pointing out their lack of knowledge, they’ll only wall your empirical arguments out with anger. By letting them first stumble over their own views, they’ll instead find themselves in an internal struggle. As they thrash about for reasons to support why they feel this way or that, they’ll be looking for real answers, not just emotionally pushing back against your facts.
As they explain their feelings, keep in mind that when you answer them, there is no reason to slip and slide down the porcelain wall of their ignorance. Address their points, but lead the conversation quickly to a fact-based debate. Do this by waiting for them to finish before politely challenging their false premises—go right for the basis of their point of view. (Asking the history professor for a historical justification for his anti-gun views was a simple example of this.) If you do this well, they’ll soon realize they’re in over their heads.
When they do realize that, resist the urge to push them all the way under. Instead, throw their drowning ego a life preserver. You need to let them save face as they swim toward the truth. By pointing out to the history professor that in his bookish life he just hasn’t yet had the opportunity to practically learn the truth about his own freedom, I gave him a way out. This is critical because the viewpoints of anti-gunners are typically based on emotion. You need to guide them toward reason.
Using this strategy, here’s how I respond to four common types of people I’ve encountered over the years.
A school teacher who thinks he or she is on the moral high ground when telling you guns should be banned and that gun- free zones work.
I ask, “Why do you feel gun-free zones save lives?”
They typically respond with a generality, such as that they feel there are too many guns in society. They don’t have any experience with guns and are afraid of firearms.
I like to tell them about my conversations with Evan Todd, a young man who had a gun held to his head by one of the Columbine killers, but who now has spoken at hundreds of schools and in other places about how he wishes a good guy with a gun had gotten on the scene sooner. Then it’s easy to calmly point out that mass murderers have a habit of taking guns into “gun-free zones.”
Finally, I give teachers a way out by telling them they can attain an educated opinion by taking a local gun-safety course. The NRA lists these and other courses at findnra.nra.org.
Those who naively think disarming law-abiding citizens will make them safer.
I ask, “Why would disarming your neighbor make you feel safer?”
After they answer, I ask if they know their neighbors. This humanizes the point. I then ask why they feel average Americans can’t be trusted. Now that I’ve broadened the point, I explain that the nation’s violent crime rate hit an all-time high in 1991 and thereafter declined in 18 of the next 20 years—49 percent overall, to a 41-year low in 2011. This decline includes a 52-percent decrease in the nation’s murder rate.
All this happened even as the number of privately owned firearms and the number of states with right-to-carry laws rose to all-time highs.
Now it’s easy to explain that many people don’t know this because newspapers find more profit in printing bad news. Then I can end the discussion by asking them to be neighborly and tolerant (they love that word), and by showing them how to learn more about their freedom.
The well-meaning, but startingly ignorant, types who just want to be safe.
I ask, “How would you feel if you were trapped in a public place with some madman who was assassinating people?”
After they answer, I ask, “Now, in that state of helplessness, would you like it if an average American gun owner was there with a chance of stopping the killer, or would you prefer to wait for the police?”
Most reasonable people will stop and ponder that. Maybe they finally say they just want all those military-style arms taken away from people. Maybe they flounder about for another false premise. Either way, they’re looking for answers.
It’s easy to explain that just about every type of firearm has been used by the military and u.s. citizens, and about how, in a free country, the two are necessarily linked. You can explain all about semi-automatic firearms, and how this century-plus-old technology represents the most commonly owned firearm type today.
Wherever the conversation goes, just be sure to let them know that it’s okay they don’t know these things, as schools rarely teach this information. Then tell them about your favorite books or articles on these topics, and offer to share them.
The committed anti-gun zealot who truly hates you.
I like to ask, “What makes you feel so cruel toward women and the elderly?”
They usually respond with shock, as they gasp, “What?!!” After they’ve had their say, I explain that it’s cruel to prevent, for example, an elderly man or woman from having the one tool that we know can stop a bad guy from badly injuring or killing them.
I point out that anti-Second Amendment policies empower thugs and murderers. This is a cruel thing to do to good, law-abiding people. Depending on the particular person and the context of the opportunity, you can easily let their egos off the hook by explaining that they probably just haven’t had the opportunity to hear this side of the argument before. If they have any reasonableness left in them, you can then begin to help them see past their bias.
Note that with all these types of people, if you ask the right questions you can at least make them start considering more seriously the real truth about gun ownership. And since we have the facts on our side, once they start looking for the truth, it’s up to us to help them find it.
source: America's 1st Freedom | How To Win A Debate With An Anti-Gunner
The confrontations always begin the same way: Someone asks what I do, I tell them, and if they aren’t for the U.S. Bill of Rights as written, I see battalions of “I’m-more-enlightened-than-you” thoughts assembling behind their politically correct eyes. Soon, they’re firing anti-gun sentiments at me.
Until I learned a better way, I’d counterattack with shock troops of facts. Before long there would be gaping wounds in their logic, and their ignorance would be bleeding all over them.
Those debates were always a lot of fun—especially when the people were from England—but over time I noticed that my opponents were mostly leaving angry.
They’d soon use pride, and quite possibly conceit, as tourniquets for their hemorrhaging self-esteem. They’d hate me, and would be consoled by others who share their viewpoint. Soon, the facts I’d used to attack their unfounded convictions would fade, and they’d go back to feeling morally superior.
I was winning debates, but I wasn’t helping to change views. All of that changed one evening when my wife dragged me, like a chained bear, to a cocktail party with her colleagues. She teaches at one of those esteemed universities that celebrates diversity, but where every staff member seems to have the same politics. So there I was in a room full of her highly educated friends who don’t know the first thing about ballistics or how to clean their own game. For my wife’s sake, I tried to fade into the background, but apparently all the hours I’ve spent concealed in trees hunting deer didn’t help in the cocktail scene. Before long, a history professor noticed me hiding behind a plant.
He approached and asked what I do. I should have been more prepared for this question, as this is a very American thing to ask. Europeans rarely ask this question. They’re more often interested in someone’s social status. Americans ask this question because we’re still a nation of doers, of people who define themselves. America is the place that coined the phrase “self-made man.” Knowing this, I usually enjoy this question, but with this crowd I wanted to evade the subject.
This professor, however, had spent his career judging students. So he expertly parried my attempts to change the subject. I finally told him I write.
He asked what I write about, so I answered honestly, though evasively. He then shot me this knowing glare over the top of his glass of chardonnay before haughtily saying, “If we could just ban all those evil guns we’d be a much safer, happier and a less ossified nation. Don’t you agree?”
Now I love a debate: I even enjoy a brawl. My favorite Winston Churchill quotation is: “I like a man who grins when he fights.” I used to box, and I miss getting in the ring. And this guy had thrown the first punch. Anywhere else I would have asked why he thinks an inanimate object is evil. I’d have asked what is so happy about the strong dominating the weak—I mean, didn’t the ancient maxim “might makes right” go out of style with the Enlightenment?
Before long I’d be firing facts at him about how, when you compare FBI crime statistics with gun-ownership rates and sales figures, you find that more guns equal less crime. I might even ask, “If sometime after midnight you were awoken by one of your home windows breaking, would you rather there was a telephone or a 12 gauge by your bedside?” Then I’d really start swinging.
But in this situation, I couldn’t say anything as pugilistic as all that."You believe we should just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that has never existed and for which you can’t give even a theoretical template?” I chose my words carefully, and kept my tone friendly as I said, “You teach world history, so I’m curious: What period of history do you wish to take us back to, professor?”
“Well, I ...”
“What time and place, maybe before the invention of gunpowder, was there a disarmed, safe and, as you say, happy populace—a people held in the loving and protective arms of a king or government, who needn’t fear thieves, madmen or tyranny?
“Well, now let me see ... I guess I’m not looking to bring us historically back to any time or place, but rather to take us forward to a better place.”
He smiled. He thought he had made a point predicated on something tangible.
“So you want to create a utopia, a Shangri-la, a place where evil no longer exists and where everyone loves their fellow man?”
“Well, I ...”
“What philosopher articulated an ideal state where a single mother at home with her two kids has zero chance of stopping a thug twice her size coming through a window?”
“Well, I ...”
“Maybe Rousseau’s “Du Contrat Social,” James Harrington’s “The Commonwealth of Oceana” or perhaps Thomas Moore’s “Utopia”?
“Well, I’m not sure if anyone has ever articulated it exactly.”
“So, although you’re a professor and, therefore, believe in education, you believe we should just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that has never existed and for which you can’t give even a theoretical template?”
“Um,” he mumbled before pivoting with, “countries like England and Australia have more gun control and lower violent-crime rates, I believe.”
As this conversation took place a decade ago, I answered by citing a 2001 study from the International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland. It found that of 17 industrialized nations, Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population having been victimized by a violent crime. England was the second worst with a rate of 26 percent. The u.s. wasn’t even in the top 10.
(Today if I’m asked this question, there is a lot of other interesting data to cite. Although the comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is difficult, as countries classify types of crime differently and measure them in various ways, the English newspaper The Daily Mail reported in 2009: “Official crime figures show the u.k. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the u.s. and even South Africa.” More comparisons of various crime statistics can be found here.
After debating international crime statistics for a few minutes, the professor looked contemplatively into his glass of chardonnay and admitted, “Well, maybe I need to do some research.”
“Don’t we all,” I said amiably. “And, I understand, you’ve never personally been a crime victim and crime statistics aren’t a part of your chosen field of study, so why would you know these things?”
“Yes, that’s true,” he said.
So I let him off the hook and we talked about Ancient Rome and other things. In the years since he has slowly come around, and now even says he wants “to shoot skeet some time.”
His point of view is becoming educated, but I think I learned more from the conversation. There isn’t only one way to debate someone who wants to repeal the Second Amendment, but there is a strategy that works. You’re not going to completely change a mind on the spot. You can, however, make people think, and by thinking they can begin to grasp the importance of individual freedom.
I’ve learned that the best way to accomplish this is to let them speak first. Simply ask them why they feel the way they do. This way they’ll expose their own ignorance. If you begin by pointing out their lack of knowledge, they’ll only wall your empirical arguments out with anger. By letting them first stumble over their own views, they’ll instead find themselves in an internal struggle. As they thrash about for reasons to support why they feel this way or that, they’ll be looking for real answers, not just emotionally pushing back against your facts.
As they explain their feelings, keep in mind that when you answer them, there is no reason to slip and slide down the porcelain wall of their ignorance. Address their points, but lead the conversation quickly to a fact-based debate. Do this by waiting for them to finish before politely challenging their false premises—go right for the basis of their point of view. (Asking the history professor for a historical justification for his anti-gun views was a simple example of this.) If you do this well, they’ll soon realize they’re in over their heads.
When they do realize that, resist the urge to push them all the way under. Instead, throw their drowning ego a life preserver. You need to let them save face as they swim toward the truth. By pointing out to the history professor that in his bookish life he just hasn’t yet had the opportunity to practically learn the truth about his own freedom, I gave him a way out. This is critical because the viewpoints of anti-gunners are typically based on emotion. You need to guide them toward reason.
Using this strategy, here’s how I respond to four common types of people I’ve encountered over the years.
A school teacher who thinks he or she is on the moral high ground when telling you guns should be banned and that gun- free zones work.
I ask, “Why do you feel gun-free zones save lives?”
They typically respond with a generality, such as that they feel there are too many guns in society. They don’t have any experience with guns and are afraid of firearms.
I like to tell them about my conversations with Evan Todd, a young man who had a gun held to his head by one of the Columbine killers, but who now has spoken at hundreds of schools and in other places about how he wishes a good guy with a gun had gotten on the scene sooner. Then it’s easy to calmly point out that mass murderers have a habit of taking guns into “gun-free zones.”
Finally, I give teachers a way out by telling them they can attain an educated opinion by taking a local gun-safety course. The NRA lists these and other courses at findnra.nra.org.
Those who naively think disarming law-abiding citizens will make them safer.
I ask, “Why would disarming your neighbor make you feel safer?”
After they answer, I ask if they know their neighbors. This humanizes the point. I then ask why they feel average Americans can’t be trusted. Now that I’ve broadened the point, I explain that the nation’s violent crime rate hit an all-time high in 1991 and thereafter declined in 18 of the next 20 years—49 percent overall, to a 41-year low in 2011. This decline includes a 52-percent decrease in the nation’s murder rate.
All this happened even as the number of privately owned firearms and the number of states with right-to-carry laws rose to all-time highs.
Now it’s easy to explain that many people don’t know this because newspapers find more profit in printing bad news. Then I can end the discussion by asking them to be neighborly and tolerant (they love that word), and by showing them how to learn more about their freedom.
The well-meaning, but startingly ignorant, types who just want to be safe.
I ask, “How would you feel if you were trapped in a public place with some madman who was assassinating people?”
After they answer, I ask, “Now, in that state of helplessness, would you like it if an average American gun owner was there with a chance of stopping the killer, or would you prefer to wait for the police?”
Most reasonable people will stop and ponder that. Maybe they finally say they just want all those military-style arms taken away from people. Maybe they flounder about for another false premise. Either way, they’re looking for answers.
It’s easy to explain that just about every type of firearm has been used by the military and u.s. citizens, and about how, in a free country, the two are necessarily linked. You can explain all about semi-automatic firearms, and how this century-plus-old technology represents the most commonly owned firearm type today.
Wherever the conversation goes, just be sure to let them know that it’s okay they don’t know these things, as schools rarely teach this information. Then tell them about your favorite books or articles on these topics, and offer to share them.
The committed anti-gun zealot who truly hates you.
I like to ask, “What makes you feel so cruel toward women and the elderly?”
They usually respond with shock, as they gasp, “What?!!” After they’ve had their say, I explain that it’s cruel to prevent, for example, an elderly man or woman from having the one tool that we know can stop a bad guy from badly injuring or killing them.
I point out that anti-Second Amendment policies empower thugs and murderers. This is a cruel thing to do to good, law-abiding people. Depending on the particular person and the context of the opportunity, you can easily let their egos off the hook by explaining that they probably just haven’t had the opportunity to hear this side of the argument before. If they have any reasonableness left in them, you can then begin to help them see past their bias.
Note that with all these types of people, if you ask the right questions you can at least make them start considering more seriously the real truth about gun ownership. And since we have the facts on our side, once they start looking for the truth, it’s up to us to help them find it.
source: America's 1st Freedom | How To Win A Debate With An Anti-Gunner
Bustle
Just one for you to peruse. And there are of course many others along the same lines. Since you prefer links to normal debate, That is probably all I will be contributing from now on. Got much more pleasurable things to do.
Oh and by the way, I am but one elderly person amongst millions who does not need a gun for protection. With adequate gun control I do NOT need to have one.
Just one for you to peruse. And there are of course many others along the same lines. Since you prefer links to normal debate, That is probably all I will be contributing from now on. Got much more pleasurable things to do.
Oh and by the way, I am but one elderly person amongst millions who does not need a gun for protection. With adequate gun control I do NOT need to have one.
You are known to live in the USA where there are 300 million firearms, and almost no gun control. Yet, you say :
Formulating a logical basis for your beliefs is not your strong suit, now is it?
You are unfamiliar with American demographics.
In the US, there are 22 million vets. A Snapshot of Our Nation's Veterans | BillMoyers.com
The US has 1.3 million military active duty, and another 800k in reserves, these numbers include non-combatants. United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assuming an all out war against tyranny, you do realize that there would be mass desertion in all ranks of military. Have you never heard of organizations like Oath Keepers?
Additionally, states like Texas are likely to opt out of any tyranny and support the side of individual rights. Military resources like aircraft are likely to be strangled by rules of engagement because both sides have them, and no one would want the political fallout of dropping bombs on own civilian groups.
Thanks for your pseudo-logic. It is easy to debate with someone that deliberately leaves out the fact that...
Formulating a logical basis for your beliefs is not your strong suit, now is it?
You are unfamiliar with American demographics.
In the US, there are 22 million vets. A Snapshot of Our Nation's Veterans | BillMoyers.com
The US has 1.3 million military active duty, and another 800k in reserves, these numbers include non-combatants. United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assuming an all out war against tyranny, you do realize that there would be mass desertion in all ranks of military. Have you never heard of organizations like Oath Keepers?
Additionally, states like Texas are likely to opt out of any tyranny and support the side of individual rights. Military resources like aircraft are likely to be strangled by rules of engagement because both sides have them, and no one would want the political fallout of dropping bombs on own civilian groups.
Thanks for your pseudo-logic. It is easy to debate with someone that deliberately leaves out the fact that...
Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??
I got considering the request of the opposition to weapon people that we would prefer not to be similar to the AMERICANS, with no firearm control, and blood running in the lanes! I had perused that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (clearly) there could be social foundations for homicide in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO
http://www.up-00.com/
Source Thread
http://goo.gl/SVg6EU
I got considering the request of the opposition to weapon people that we would prefer not to be similar to the AMERICANS, with no firearm control, and blood running in the lanes! I had perused that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (clearly) there could be social foundations for homicide in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO
http://www.up-00.com/Source Thread
http://goo.gl/SVg6EU
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??
I have an interesting idea for an experiment:
Take a society a whole country, say and give its population all of the firearms and ammunition that they want.
Take another one with a very similar culture and history. Make it much harder for their population to obtain all of the firearms and ammunition that they want.
Now. Take some measurements year-after-year.
Would the society that is heavily armed have a significantly lower crime rate? How about a significantly lower murder rate? How about a significantly lower violent crime rate?
According to the above post, it should come out "YES!" "YES!" "YES!" on all points.
Interesting experiment ... someone should try it, sometime.
I have an interesting idea for an experiment:
Take a society a whole country, say and give its population all of the firearms and ammunition that they want.
Take another one with a very similar culture and history. Make it much harder for their population to obtain all of the firearms and ammunition that they want.
Now. Take some measurements year-after-year.
Would the society that is heavily armed have a significantly lower crime rate? How about a significantly lower murder rate? How about a significantly lower violent crime rate?
According to the above post, it should come out "YES!" "YES!" "YES!" on all points.
Interesting experiment ... someone should try it, sometime.
Re: Gun Control is Completely Useless. ??
Words very beautiful and wonderful wonderful idea please all participate with us to see all the ideas and good result out
No use arguing with me...... I did not write the article. Hitler made the firearm restrictions against Jews, even stronger but loosened them for everyone else, after all his goal was to exterminate the whole race.
My logic is impeccable, when you consider, I am still alive and since I have spent 4- 5 months in Florida, every year since 1989. This is because when going into foreign territory, I minimize the risks. You know, like not flashing money around, wearing valuable jewelry in poor areas or countries, do not insult or confront natives, staying out of dark alleys at night, check to see who is at the door before opening it, not going to a lonely bank machine at night, or walking alone in a known trouble spot. Making friends with neighbors and being a good one myself.
Last edited: