Spent 4 hours discussing gun control with a liberal (self-imposed phrase).

[MikeDVB]

So,

A good friend of mine for many years is apparently extremely liberal. Honestly, I don't tend to make political views a criteria for friendship and, as such, I allow my friends to believe what they wish and to have their own opinions just as they allow me to do so without issue.

I posted a quote on my FaceBook which started the discussion. The quote boiled down to "If we outlaw guns, only criminals will have them."

Let's just say that I wasn't trying to change her mind, but regardless of what facts or information I used to back up my stance on the 2nd Amendment, she absolutely refused to accept any of it.

Here are some of the beliefs that she proposed to me, that I found interesting:

• That you are more likely to get hit by a tornado than to have a home invasion.
• That most home invaders use knives, and not guns because they already hocked their Glock for some crack.
• That if you have a gun, it's going to get stolen.
• Semi-automatic weapons should be banned because we're not at war and a non-automatic revolver (6-shooter as she called it) is all one needs for self defense.
• That the "militia" that the Constitution refers to is the National Guard.
• That there is no way I am a part of, she is a part of, or any of us are a part of a militia nor could we be.
• That the states do not need defended, and I do not need a gun to defend myself as we're not at war.
• That until Heller, the 2nd Amendment did not provide the right for individuals to bear arms only the organized militia.
• That the constitution grants rights.
• Home invasions can always be stopped with 6 rounds or less and if you can't do it, you shouldn't have the gun.
• That a home invasion involving 3 or more individuals is a stretch.
• That semi-automatic weapons are weapons of war and any weapon that can be used to "mow down children" should be banned.
• That under no circumstances would an American need a fully automatic firearm.
• Limits should be placed on how many guns can be owned by an individual because the constitution does not say you can have as many as you want.
• That publix limits how many of X item you can buy, so we limit guns as well in such a fashion.
• Firearm ownership is not a right, but a privilege.
• The meaning of the constitution has changed as we no longer live 200 years ago.
• If somebody broke into her house with a knife to do her or her family harm, she would not feel threatened regardless of whether she was armed or not.

There's more - but most of these are almost direct quotes from the conversation transcript. What I found most interesting is that no matter what facts or statistics I used to refute her statements, she almost always responded with "That's bulls**t" or "I do not believe that."


I am fine with her having her own views but I find a lot of her views shocking and difficult to understand.


At any rate, I'm glad she is her own person with her own views and was willing to have a long drawn-out debate on the issues without getting upset or angry.


I'm sure it's not the conversation between a pro-gunner and anti-gunner where neither side's mind was changed but I found it quite interesting regardless.

 

[rockhopper46038]

At some point, when they refuse to acknowledge proven facts, all you can really do is say "it is your prerogative to not believe 2+2=4 if you wish, or that water is wet; but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 and that people use umbrellas".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm sure it's not the conversation between a pro-gunner and anti-gunner where neither side's mind was changed but I found it quite interesting regardless.

I've found that these sorts of discussions, whether on Facebook, a newspaper article comment section, or here on INGO never result in one side of the other changing their minds. They're fun to debate, argue, or troll but if you're engaging somebody to enlighten them and bringing them around to your side of the argument....fuhgitaboutit.

 

[MikeDVB]

At some point, when they refuse to acknowledge proven facts, all you can really do is say "it is your prerogative to not believe 2+2=4 if you wish, or that water is wet; but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 and that people use umbrellas".

At numerous points did I say, "You're welcome to disagree with me, and I have no 'agenda' or any intent to change your mind." I know she still believes my goal was to change her mind, but honestly I just enjoy discussing the issue and hearing other perspectives. She's the first that's actually carried such a debate with me for more than 5 to 10 minutes.

It ended because she had to get some sleep and get up early in the morning, and not for any other reason.

I've found that these sorts of discussions, whether on Facebook, a newspaper article comment section, or here on INGO never result in one side of the other changing their minds. They're fun to debate, argue, or troll but if you're engaging somebody to enlighten them and bringing them around to your side of the argument....fuhgitaboutit.

This is quite true - those who believe we don't need firearms to defend ourselves aren't going to change their minds by debate or logic. IMHO the only way their minds will change is should they become the target of a home invasion or other violent attack where they wished they had a firearm to defend themselves and should that happen, I hope they manage to prevail/survive obviously.

I obviously wish no ill intent upon my friend or anybody else that feels guns are unnecessary and I obviously pray that they never find themselves in that sort of situation.

 

[FMJ]

Ignorance is bliss...but these people are willfully ignorant a.k.a. STUPID.

There must be an antigunner playbook out there..because those bullet points are word for word what others have used on me. I am also sure she said, more than once, i am not aginst guns, i believe in your right to own them....just not weapons of war that mow down innocent kids....et. al.

BUT, believe it or not, i HAVE been able to get thru to these people on occasion and turn them into solid gunners.

 

[MikeDVB]

Ignorance is bliss...but these people are willfully ignorant a.k.a. STUPID.

I wouldn't go to the level of being insulting (i.e. calling somebody STUPID for believing differently than myself). I can assure you that she is one of the smartest individuals I know.

There must be an antigunner playbook out there..because those bullet points are word for word what others have used on me.

Personally, I blame the media. Guns have existed for over a hundred years in semi-automatic form and only recently has the phrase "mowing down children" come into popular use.

I am also sure she said, more than once, i am not aginst guns, i believe in your right to own them....just not weapons of war that mow down innocent kids....et. al.

Something similar to that.

I tried to make it clear that just because somebody has a gun, or numerous guns, or that said guns are semi-automatic or fully automatic does not automatically mean that said firearm will be used by myself or anybody else to mow down anybody.

She literally responded with "bullsh*t" when I said "If you ban all guns, only criminals will have them putting law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage."

I'm not sure how that's BS as common sense dictates that criminals, by virtue of being a criminal, will use any advantage they can to further their agendas/goals and that includes using illegal firearms.

BUT, believe it or not, i HAVE been able to get thru to these people on occasion and turn them into solid gunners.

I won't pretend it wouldn't be nice to find some middle-ground, but I don't anticipate changing anybody's mind.

 

[shootamc58]

Gun debates are almost getting on the same level as abortion. People that believe one way or the other are not going to listen to the other side. I stopped wasting my breath with people who will not even listen to reason. My blood pressure simply can't take the ignorance that exists in some of these people. If someone shows me facts about something i'll at least listen and consider a different point of view. I may not change my opinion but I may if the facts show me a reason to. Some of these people would sooner bury their heads in the sands and plug their ears.

 

[MikeDVB]

People that believe one way or the other are not going to listen to the other side.

Absolutely true.

I stopped wasting my breath with people who will not even listen to reason. My blood pressure simply can't take the ignorance that exists in some of these people.

I don't let it get me riled up, so no blood pressure concerns for me.

If someone shows me facts about something i'll at least listen and consider a different point of view.

Everything I said, I tried to cite a source of factual information to substantiate it. No matter what I provided, she told me that I was being emotional, theoretical, and not sticking to the facts.

I may not change my opinion but I may if the facts show me a reason to. Some of these people would sooner bury their heads in the sands and plug their ears.

Nobody likes being wrong and few will admit it even when faced with facts that prove otherwise.

 

[SSGSAD]

Mike, JMHO, but take her to a prison, and have her "interview" some inmates, about gun control. They will tell her they are all for it, because, a criminal, will ALWAYS have a gun, or access to one.....

 

[MikeDVB]

Mike, JMHO, but take her to a prison, and have her "interview" some inmates, about gun control. They will tell her they are all for it, because, a criminal, will ALWAYS have a gun, or access to one.....

She took personal issue with the statement "If we ban all firearms, criminals will still have them and be at an advantage."

I'm not sure why, because when I asked her, "If we banned all firearms, criminals would still have them. Likely True or Likely False?" She took the stance that "It only takes one criminal with a firearm for that to be true."

This is true, but it's an exceedingly narrow way to look at the subject and one way to rationalize it away.

 

[Hammerhead]

Ask her why, in a city such as Chicago that functionally bans guns for self defense by law abiding citizens, that their murder rate by the end of January (somewhere around 40) is already nearly 1/4 to 1/2 that of the murder rate of the city of Indianapolis for an entire year? (92 in 2010 [FBI UCR], 96 in 2011, and 108 in 2012 vs Chicago's 432 for 2010 [FBI UCR])

 

[MikeDVB]

Ask her why, in a city such as Chicago that functionally bans guns for self defense by law abiding citizens, that their murder rate by the end of January (somewhere around 40) is already nearly 1/4 to 1/2 that of the murder rate of the city of Indianapolis for an entire year? (92 in 2010 [FBI UCR], 96 in 2011, and 108 in 2012 vs Chicago's 432 for 2010 [FBI UCR])

The immediate response I could see is that Chicago has 2.7 million residents where Indianapolis has 827,000. The statement that would come from that is, "There are more people there so there is obviously going to be more crime."

The whole notion that guns are illegal there but gun crimes still happen would likely be ignored.

 

[Hammerhead]

This is why I did not bring up population, crime statistics, or even specifically gun crimes. We're talking only the number of people killed.

LA, bans guns, 3.1M people, 777 homicides.
Dallas, no ban, 1M people, 301 homicides.
NYC, bans everything, 7.2M people, 1,384 homicides.
Philly, legal carry (tries to ban OC), 1.6M people, 273 homicides.

These are 2010 numbers from the UCR. Populations over 1M.

Denver, legal carry, 500K people, 72 homicides.
Boston, functional ban, 600K people, 87 homicides

2010, 499,999 to 1M population

Let's look at whole states, 2010:

California -1,809 Illinois -706 Indiana -292 Massachusetts -210 Michigan -567 Texas -1,249

 

[MikeDVB]

Oh, I know. Won't change her argument I'm sure. I'll ask her next time I see her and will update :-).

 

[FMJ]

I wouldn't go to the level of being insulting (i.e. calling somebody STUPID for believing differently than myself). I can assure you that she is one of the smartest individuals I know.

Personally, I blame the media. Guns have existed for over a hundred years in semi-automatic form and only recently has the phrase "mowing down children" come into popular use.

Something similar to that.

I tried to make it clear that just because somebody has a gun, or numerous guns, or that said guns are semi-automatic or fully automatic does not automatically mean that said firearm will be used by myself or anybody else to mow down anybody.

She literally responded with "bullsh*t" when I said "If you ban all guns, only criminals will have them putting law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage."

I'm not sure how that's BS as common sense dictates that criminals, by virtue of being a criminal, will use any advantage they can to further their agendas/goals and that includes using illegal firearms.

I won't pretend it wouldn't be nice to find some middle-ground, but I don't anticipate changing anybody's mind.

My friend, she is NOT very smart if she willfully ignores FACTS! All the evidence is there to support the FACTS the more guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens) = less crime. The FACT the every municipality with draconian gun laws have the HIGHEST violent crime rates. When guns again become accessible to citizens in these areas, violent crime drops nearly IMMEDIATELY. (D.C. directly after heller decison is the most recent)

She obviously is NOT very well educated when she "feels" the militia is the Nat. Guard...this is FALSE. Not to mention the rest of the uneducated rhetoric she is spout from the the anti-gunner "feelings" list.

I truly try to be respectful of everyones opinion...but I ask people to base their opinions in FACT and not "feelings"...especailly when it comes to our rights and self defense.

This guy lays it out quite well....Just the facts.

[ame]http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0[/ame]

As i have done time and again with antis...ask them if they believe there are evil people in this world, that will do evil (rape murder etc) to innocents. When they agree that evil is present. Ask them "What will YOU do when evil kicks in YOUR door?" Will you HOPE and PRAY that a cop WITH A GUN gets there before you and your family are dead or would you prefer to END THE THREAT IMMEDIATELY?"

When they try to answer say "No need to answer me, i KNOW how i will respond to evil...you answer the question for yourself."

When i posed that very question to a group of liberal anti-gunners in one of my classes last semester, ( it was an hour long debate, me against 15, and thankfully the instructor let it go as it was a thoughtful, polite exchange) 4 weeks later, the last day of class, i had 3 ladies come to me and ask me to start teaching them to shoot.

The one lady said "You made me think about it long and hard. I am a single mom living in the country. If someone breaks into my home, i may not see a sheriff for 20 to 30 minutes. I MUST learn to protect myself and my son...protecting my baby is my MOST IMPORTANT responsibility as a parent."

The walls CAN be broken...it just takes persistence, patience, calmness and unwavering fact filled reasoning.

 

[Ericpwp]

I posted a free ebook I found that addresses the antis myths.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../266182-free_gun_facts_ebook.html#post3784432

 

[Roadie]

So, every single one of those "points" can be addressed with actual facts. To believe as she does, would have to mean that her belief outweighs fact. That's frightening.

Look at the first one. Being hit by a tornado is rare, but we still prepare for them "just in case"... by her logic, its rare, so no need to prepare..

 

[MikeDVB]

My friend, she is NOT very smart if she willfully ignores FACTS!

She's quite smart, I assure you - just entrenched in her beliefs and unwilling to see past them. Stubborn for sure, but not stupid.

When guns again become accessible to citizens in these areas, violent crime drops nearly IMMEDIATELY. (D.C. directly after heller decison is the most recent)

Can you show me a source for this, I don't doubt it but do want to read up on it.

She obviously is NOT very well educated when she "feels" the militia is the Nat. Guard...this is FALSE.

That is what the Militia Act of 1903 says and, as such, as far as she concerned is the law. I told her that we're all a part of the non-enlisted militia and are all responsible for the defense of ourselves as well as our states and she refuses to believe it. If it's not written in law by the government, it can't be true. I did point out that the militia of American Citizens is *not* condoned, endorsed, or supported by the federal government but she doesn't care.

Not to mention the rest of the uneducated rhetoric she is spout from the the anti-gunner "feelings" list.

It is indeed a lot of emotion/feeling and not so much logic and fact. That being said, it is what she believes whether we feel she is incorrect or not. That doesn't mean she isn't intelligent, just extraordinarily stubborn.

I truly try to be respectful of everyones opinion...but I ask people to base their opinions in FACT and not "feelings"...especailly when it comes to our rights and self defense.

One of the largest points I tried to make was that - she has every right to believe she doesn't need a semi-automatic firearm to defend herself - just as I have every right to believe that I do.

How many guns I have or do not have, what type they are, etc... is all irrelevant.

http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

Very nice video, I'll forward it over to her and see what she has to say about it.

As i have done time and again with antis...ask them if they believe there are evil people in this world, that will do evil (rape murder etc) to innocents. When they agree that evil is present. Ask them "What will YOU do when evil kicks in YOUR door?" Will you HOPE and PRAY that a cop WITH A GUN gets there before you and your family are dead or would you prefer to END THE THREAT IMMEDIATELY?"

She has the belief that such occurrences are extraordinarily rare and, that should it happen, her non-automatic six-shooter will be all she needs. She could be right - it could be all she needs, or she could be wrong - no way of knowing until it happens and honestly I hope she doesn't find out.

When they try to answer say "No need to answer me, i KNOW how i will respond to evil...you answer the question for yourself."

No sense in that IMHO - I'll handle it how I will handle it regardless of how she feels so it's moot . It's not a bad point to make, but both her and I know where we stand on that.

The one lady said "You made me think about it long and hard. I am a single mom living in the country. If someone breaks into my home, i may not see a sheriff for 20 to 30 minutes. I MUST learn to protect myself and my son...protecting my baby is my MOST IMPORTANT responsibility as a parent."

The argument/statement only works if they understand there is a real possibility of that happening. This all being said, she does have a firearm in the house - although not a semi-automatic. She's not entirely against gun control, just anything above and beyond what she feels is necessary.

A quick example is that she said, "Why do you NEED more than one gun? Is one not enough?" My response is, "Why do you NEED more than one car, or more than one gallon of milk, or one loaf of bread, or two screw drivers, etc... Further, why do you care what I legally possess?"

I don't remember an answer, but I have the transcript so I'll have to give it a look in a bit.

The walls CAN be broken...it just takes persistence, patience, calmness and unwavering fact filled reasoning.

I'm sure it's possible, but it's not my goal. If she comes to the realization one day that perhaps what she believed to be true isn't quite as true as she thought - that's fine, but I don't bank on it.

I posted a free ebook I found that addresses the antis myths.

Yep, I have it and used it fairly extensively in my debate as well as other sources of information.

So, every single one of those "points" can be addressed with actual facts.

And every fact can be refuted using emotion - which seems to be the case more often than not.

Look at the first one. Being hit by a tornado is rare, but we still prepare for them "just in case"... by her logic, its rare, so no need to prepare..

I made the same argument with seat belts or air bags... All of my vehicles have them but I wouldn't get rid of them simply because I've never needed them in the past.

I carry, not hoping to use my firearm but hoping to never have to use my firearm. In the event that I did need to use it, I would be glad I had it but I am just fine going to my grave due to natural causes without having ever fired a round in defense.

 

[88GT]

[*]That if you have a gun, it's going to get stolen.

She's got it wrong. It's only when the gun is in the purse, that it's going to get stolen.

 

[Hammerhead]

Speak to her of the woman in Georgia who defended herself with her 6 shot revolver and the intruder got up and attempted to drive away.

She stood over him with an empty gun, having fired all six shots and hitting him five times, threatening him. Had he not complied with her, she would have been SOL with an empty gun and an empty threat to shoot him more.

This time he was perforated enough to make him a coward. She didn't know he was alone. She didn't know he wouldn't get up until she left. She only knew she had an empty gun and a still alive assailant.

This may sound like a win, I don't believe it is. Yes, she stopped the threat because the guy was begging her to stop. She bluffed him and he folded.

This will not be the case for every person, including your friend, who believes that six shots (or seven, or eight, or ten) are enough.