I was talking with this girl that I know and she happened to see a Glock sticker, I know Kaboom but I got the sticker for free, and she asked if I liked guns. I said yeah and we got to talking about them. I tried to explain to her the feeling you get when you fire a gun, which I found was exceedingly difficult, by comparing it to a similar feeling that I get when I used to mash the go pedal in my Z28. Well she apparently has never driven a powerful car so that was out.

She then mentioned that the scare her and make her uncomfortable. I asked if her fear of guns was the result of not knowing anything about them, afraid of what you dont know kinda thing. She said that was not it rather it was knowing that at any time that gun on the counter(example) could be picked up and used to kill her. I tried to explain that cars and power tools and other things could kill you just as easily. She said that those things were not designed for kiling people. I mentioned that gas chambers and electric chairs are specifically designed to kill people, guns are designed to do a number of things from putting food on the table and protecting your family from criminals as well as the government. She replied that all of those things involve killing. I tried to argue the point that guns are used to solve conflicts and mentioned the NRA statistic about 2.5 million crimes were averted because guns were drawn. Yet she still felt that guns are only designed to kill.

How did I do defending our passion? Is there anything that I should have done or said to help her see our side of things? Did I make any mistakes in arguing?

I would like to be able to hold my own in an "debate" about guns and our right to own/use them.
Any tips or pointers would be helpful.

James

www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm

read that, twice.....

She's pretty much on the mark with the reason for the existance of guns these days. They're almost exclusively designed to kill.

I have no problem with acknowledging that fact. I don't think you should either.

I submit taking the wind out of her sails, and pointing out that most people believe there's nothing wrong with killing as long as the right people are killed. (As evidenced by arming of police, military etc) People who threaten my life, for example. Killing animals for food is also quite acceptable.

If killing under any and all circumstances is unconscionable to her, including if she's about to be raped or her family stabbed or something, (It's possible, some people really are that idealistic about life), try the competition angle: Just like archery, darts, pool, snooker, etc, it's a sport which involves use of skill to achieve a measurable goal.

NTM

Silly libby, guns aren't made to kill...

..they're made to propel small objects in an aimed direction, really fast.

guns are meant to kill.  I cannot think of a better reason than that to own one.  

Let her know that the only reason that she isn't being used as a cockholster by whomever want to is because there are people with guns out there.

..A finely made piece of precision machinery that looks like it was machined out of a solid billet of pure sex, with a form based on pure function rather than mere aesthetics. People kill, expediance is the virtue of maturity...

How to make art students like guns: Lesson 1

Ask her to think about the irony of using an object NOT designed to kill to kill someone - such as a hammer, juxtaposed against a gun (designed to kill) providing nothing but recreation.

Does using an inappropriate tool for murder violate the rules? And, consequently, does using a gun for pleasure or recreation also nullify the pleasure because it's not fullfilling its purpose?

Inform her that the most popular device used to kill women are blunt objects (hammer, fists, baseball bats). And, the most effective defense against these items is a gun. Compute?

Quoted: ..A finely made piece of precision machinery that looks like it was machined out of a solid billet of pure sex, with a form based on pure function rather than mere aesthetics. People kill, expediance is the virtue of maturity...

You talking about 1911s again?

Quoted: Yet she still felt that guns are only designed to kill.

So what if they are?  This is not a pretty and perfect world we live in.  Sometimes things need to die.  It's the nature of the world we live in.  It's not a happy thought, sure, but it is reality.  Primary reason I own firearms, that I might kill rather than be killed should it ever come to it.

My Friend............ Why would you find it necessary to impose your reality upon another?  In essence I am asking another to randomly abandon their beliefs and to accept those beliefs which I hold......... and do it for me.............simply because I think you should.     Now,  I might share my personal experiences and subjective feelings about firearms or whatever and you may not agree....but thats alright.  Everyone has a right to their own thoughts etc.  I'm OK with another not sharing my ideals.

Quoted: My Friend............ Why would you find it necessary to impose your reality upon another?  In essence I am asking another to randomly abandon their beliefs and to accept those beliefs which I hold......... and do it for me.............simply because I think you should.     Now,  I might share my personal experiences and subjective feelings about firearms or whatever and you may not agree....but thats alright.  Everyone has a right to their own thoughts etc.  I'm OK with another not sharing my ideals.

That is a very valid point. I guess I do not want to force my position on others but rather help them see our side of the argument and give them some information so that they will then take a closer look at their own position.

James

Quoted: Quoted: My Friend............ Why would you find it necessary to impose your reality upon another?  In essence I am asking another to randomly abandon their beliefs and to accept those beliefs which I hold......... and do it for me.............simply because I think you should.     Now,  I might share my personal experiences and subjective feelings about firearms or whatever and you may not agree....but thats alright.  Everyone has a right to their own thoughts etc.  I'm OK with another not sharing my ideals. That is a very valid point. I guess I do not want to force my position on others but rather help them see our side of the argument and give them some information so that they will then take a closer look at their own position. James

It is pointless to try and change their mind with one conversation, you have to plant seeds that will grow and let them learn for themselves. However most are hopeless.

Try to explain to her the difference between violent and predatory, and violent but protective.

Today, most people have been brainwashed into believing that "violence is bad."  It goes so far that they've changed the language - governments don't use "violence," but "force."  Therefore it's OK if the guy drawing a .gov paycheck has a gun, but not if a mere taxpayer does.  

Then try to get her to understand that the government is not responsible for her protection.

The gun debate is argued with many different points of premise, the main ones being technical, philosophical, legal, practical and emotional.

Of the lot, the anti's desperately try to debate the 'technical' and 'legal' but in the end, they wind up betraying themselves as ignorant dolts so they quickly revert their entire position to the abstract safety of the 'philosophical' and the hand-wringing 'emotional'. You cannot counter hypothetically driven philosophy nor can you reason in the face of hair-pulling emotion.

People who are "against guns" are a typical flavor of perfect-worlder who has no use for reality or fact. They establish a belief structure in their own mind that outlines a Disneyland'esque world and anything that violates those precepts is viewed as being bad. This corroded and child-like mindset usually involves overly simplistic correlations (like Guns = Bad) since their minds aren't sharp enough to appreciate or comprehend even the most basic nuance.

In short, you cannot "argue" with an anti as the most basic premise of any argument is the exchange of fact; and facts aren't what they're interested in hearing.
The anti-gun position is one of a broad, open-ended hypothetical where guns never existed and we all lived together, holding hands in a utopia drinking from Soda-Pop rivers and eating from Lollipop trees..
They aren't concerned with reality, as it's just too painful and facing said reality brings them a step closer to having to accept the oh-so-painful truth; that the world isn't La La land and everything they believe is retarded.


It kinda goes into what Oswald said about controverting the ravings of madmen.

Anyone who is so goddamned stupid as to adhere to the anti-gun position pretty much establishes a downward pattern of idiocy, so it makes no sense to have a "debate" with them as nothing will ever affirmatively conclude itself (other than your own personal understanding that such people are marginally sane and most are in need of intensive, long term therapy)    

Here,  try this.


The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."



Oh and here is the linky for the rest of it.  Any riflemen here shoud know this...
www.fredsm14stocks.com/article.asp?ITEM=9

Buzz

Tag

Quoted: Here,  try this. The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms. THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns." WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.) WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun." Oh and here is the linky for the rest of it.  Any riflemen here shoud know this... www.fredsm14stocks.com/article.asp?ITEM=9 Buzz

I think the prevailing point is that these people are idiots.
There is no sense forging an argument, as they will never "get it" no matter what you tell them.
You could make a long, drawn out series of points, and to them, you may as well be saying "I own guns because i'm a racist, sexist, baby seal killing person who lives in a trailer" because that's the paradigm that lives in their small minds.

They're associative thinkers. They're incapable of rational or analytical thought.

For those that stated "Guns are designed to kill", I have a basic problem with that.

Firearms are designed to propel a mass via expanding gasses down a tube to be placed accurately on a target of the users choosing.

When you from the get-go assign a "primary function" of "killing" to a firearm, you've already played into the fears and predisposition of someone that is afraid of firearms.

I could kill many with my SUV.  You could kill people with a baseball bat or 2x4.  Hell you can kill a human being with just about anything as long as you have the WILL to do so.

The firearm is neutral and will remain so until the day that the ONLY thing it can do is kill.  I've got 19 pistols, rifles and shotguns in my safe.  Never done anything with them except punch holes in paper.  Just like I've never done anything with my Xterra but drive it, but I and I alone control what is done with them, the object does not.

Food for thought.

Well, I don't think Col. Colt made the Peacemaker for the sake of shooting pie plates.
So what if some firearms awere designed with personal defense in mind?

Again, this is a matter of their fantasy world not jiving with reality.

In their fantasy world, no one needs to kill because "killing is bad".
In the real world, sometimes, you need to kill people because "they are bad people who are doing bad things" and you have no other choice.

In that respect, the debate is very philosophical.
Where it gets dumb is when the philosophy is unconstrained by reality and we all pretend that killing isn't a necessary thing- when you're dealing with bad people who are bent on doing you harm.

Quoted: She said that was not it rather it was knowing that at any time that gun on the counter(example) could be picked up and used to kill her. James

In her hands (or yours), it could be used to defend herself from a rapist/murderer/meth head.

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been assaulted/mugged/raped yet.


If you can actually reason with her, she's a rare one.

Most liberals I know change the subject when they feel they are on shaky ground in a debate, or just say, "Nothing you say will change my mind."

Good luck.

I got into this discussion with a chick one time - she wasn't really an anti, she just "doesn't like guns". I asked her why, and she said because they were dangerous. Okay, no problem, I just used the 'ole "Well you know, it's not the guns that hurt people, it's people that hurt people."

(Now keep in mind that this chick was the real blonde, dingy type - cool, but dingy)

She says "no, guns can hurt people"

"How do you figure" I inquired

To which she replied, dead serious "Well my one friend was at her house, and they had a gun on the wall, and and it fell down and went off and shot her."








I'd never been briefed on how to reply to that one!

Quoted: She's pretty much on the mark with the reason for the existance of guns these days. They're almost exclusively designed to kill. I have no problem with acknowledging that fact. I don't think you should either. I submit taking the wind out of her sails, and pointing out that most people believe there's nothing wrong with killing as long as the right people are killed. (As evidenced by arming of police, military etc) People who threaten my life, for example. Killing animals for food is also quite acceptable. If killing under any and all circumstances is unconscionable to her, including if she's about to be raped or her family stabbed or something, (It's possible, some people really are that idealistic about life), try the competition angle: Just like archery, darts, pool, snooker, etc, it's a sport which involves use of skill to achieve a measurable goal. NTM

VERY good point.  Agreeing with this principle completely removes that argument from the discussion which will only bring you closer to her truth: she is afraid of that which she knows nothing about, AND she has been TOLD by liberal (bed-wetting) society that "guns are bad!"  


CMOS

I heard Jim Pruit on the radio the other day. He is a gunshop owner in Houston, TX (used to be a radio DJ). His quote was " Come down to Pruits gunshop and I'll sell you a gun that kills. If it doesn't kill, bring it back, and I'll exchange it for one that does."

love that quote.