How to deal with a liberal on this whole gun control thing

[adamking84]

Well, I guess...

I know most of you guys are super right. I'm fine with that. Me, i'm an independent who probably leans a tad to the right. Gun rights? We absolutely deserve them. Women's rights? They definitely deserve to choose...

But who am I to judge? Here's my recent correspondence with a super liberal who is a very good friend of mine, and still will be. Agree to disagree:

Friend: Part of the problem is Newtown, a much larger part happens daily:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...src=most_viral (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html?wpisrc=most_viral)
How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?
www.slate.com (http://www.slate.com)
The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be. You can.....

Mr. The King: How many people have been killed by knives since Newtown? Better yet, how many people have been killed by drunk drivers (which is illegal) since Newtown? How many people by methamphetamines? Not trying to downplay a tragedy, but maybe trying to put it in perspective.

Friend: Knives have a purpose outside of killing. I don`t think people should be allowed to drive drunk nor use meth. Guns are designed with one purpose in mind.

Mr. The King:Guns are designed for killing, absolutely. Gang bangers, drug addicts, everyday criminals find a way to have guns for that exact purpose. Should I, as a law abiding, tax paying citizen not be allowed to defend myself and my family and those who I care about against those who don't respect the law?

I also don't think people should drive drunk or use meth. Doesn't stop them.

I also want to convey - the Presidents Executive Orders, for the most part i'm all for. If you own something capable of that much destruction you should pass a hard series of backround checks. Absolutely. Mental health in your family needs to be examined, and if you choose to have a firearm with someone who is mentally unstable, how could you NOT see it as a personal responsibility to keep anything dangerous away from them. However, that does not mean you should restrict those people who are law abiding to have these items. That's exactly what our country was founded on.

Friend: Taxpayer guns end up in the hands of gang bangers, drug addicts, and everyday criminals. Tax payers may themselves become murders in a moment of crisis. Decades of studies have found that gun owners are more likely to injury themselves or a family member instead of an intruder. Guns make it far too easy to end another person`s life. As for your second point; rates of drunk driving and meth use would go up if they were made legal. Lastly, the framers of our constitution had guns that took 30 seconds to load and fire a single bullet. If you want to own a musket or blunderbuss I could be okay with that. Sensible, democratic countries that have implemented constitutions within the past century know that guns only lead to more violence, not less. I don`t understand how having more guns around solves our nation`s violence problems. Having more guns around seems to compound them.

What I`m hearing you say, Adam, is that if criminals have guns you should have a gun too. Like, to level the playing field. And even if guns were illegal people would still have access to them. The problem I have is that I don`t see how more guns fixes that. Having fewer guns doesn`t end the problem but it seems like the problem will slow down.

Mr. The King: If we were hanging out having a beer together and someone came at you with a knife, gun, musket, blunderbuss...whatever...you better believe I would be comfortable with becoming a "murderer" to keep you and I and anyone else around us alive. I'm not gonna tickle-fight that guy to death. Gun control does not stop criminals from having guns, it stops rational, law abiding citizens from having the tools necessary to stop violence against them. Guns, knives, boots, fists, and otherwise. I'm not arguing against stopping the bad guys from having guns, the complete opposite. It's the fact that the bad guys CAN have guns, the mentally ill will FIND a way to have guns. We can't stop HUMANS and weed from crossing our borders, what makes you think firearms are exempt from that? I need a way to protect myself, protect you, protect my loved ones against them. I'm not saying more guns are the solution, guns being developed in the first place were the problem. Just like the long sword being developed in the first place was the problem. The cannon. The musket. You defend yourself against the threat, keep the threat away from the upper hand (this case, guns), or else find a way to stop them.

Here's my deal: You come at me with a knife - i'll come back at you with a handgun. You bust my front door in with a handgun - i'm coming at you with a shotgun. You come down my street with shotguns - my AR-15 is coming out. If it gets beyond that, well, I don't believe in a higher power, but as they say "God help us all". I absolutely believe, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". I'm no bad guy, and I hope to never, ever cross a bad guy. And I truly believe there's enough history of violence in Cap Hill and nationwide to back up my reasoning here.

Friend: What I hear you saying is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But when you play out that scenario it ends with complete destruction. As you said, "I don`t believe in a high power, but...`God help us all.`" That seems closely related to the Cold War. Change will never come easily but we need to start making some changes.

Mr. The King: Fair enough. Find a way to keep weapons out of bad guy's hands. Ban guns nationwide. Bad guys carry a knife, i'm gonna carry a bigger knife. Bad guys have brass knuckles. I'm gonna go to the gym, get "wicked pumped yo" (which I do already) and buy a brass boxxer's glove. My buddy at work brought up something - "what is the smallest, like, flash-bang thing I could have?". His reason being, bad guy is shooting a gun, i'm (me) shooting a gun back at said bad guy. How does he get away. My response? "What would you rather have against someone shooting up this building, a snap-pop or a handgun?"

[mahabali]

Sooo... Who did you vote for in November?

[adamking84]

Thanks to my employer I got to fly to Israel at the very last minute during the entire voting process (including missing the opportunity for mail-in ballots), otherwise it would have been Gary Johnson. Not that it should really matter at this point in the discussion.

[Tinelement]

Annnnnnd........

the moral of this story was.......

[Great-Kazoo]

Deduct the gun deaths which are from Citizens used to stop a crime. LE used to stop a crime or attack. Gang related shootings, suicides, and last but not least. Deduct your now Former Friend from what ever social media, people use instead of FTF conversations.

ALSO in those figures have your X friend compile how many shootings were committed in areas with Tough Gun laws.

[cstone]

Any chance I can convince you that abortion is murder?

So what chance do you put on convincing your friends that guns aren't bad?

It's your time, do what you want with it.

Be safe.

[Bailey Guns]

Ban liberals. Even if it saved only one stupid conversation, it would be worth it.

[Monky]

Any chance I can convince you that abortion is murder?



Really? That has NOTHING to do with the issues being posted. You wonder why the liberals keep winning? OH look.. squirrel.

[rockhound]

i see nothing enlightening here, feel free to move along

[cstone]

Really? That has NOTHING to do with the issues being posted. You wonder why the liberals keep winning? OH look.. squirrel.

My point is, people believe what they believe for all sorts of reasons. The OP mentioned his belief on a woman's right to choose, and I would not waste my time trying to change his mind any more than he should waste time trying to change his liberal friend's mind. I understand that it is his time and he may choose to waste it in any way he chooses.

I could have used the OP's expressed position on atheism rather than abortion to make the same point. I just don't spend a lot of my time arguing with people about issues where so many people have established such passionate opinions that they are unlikely to listen to anything you have to say.

YMMV

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[cstone]

you guys sure waste alot of energy. Follow me here, I dont know liberals and they dont cause me any worry. (not in daily life) Now you try.

I do know liberals and they don't cause me any worry.

Now politicians with any agenda, regardless of their political leaning cause me a great deal of concern.

[ChadAmberg]

Speak their language - "It's really sad that you support both collective punishment which is banned by the Geneva Conventions, and stripping away a whole set of human rights from people. I thought you were better than that."

[Dave_L]

Speak their language - "It's really sad that you support both collective punishment which is banned by the Geneva Conventions, and stripping away a whole set of human rights from people. I thought you were better than that."

This.

It's amazing how tolerant liberals expect you to be until its something they don't agree with. I've stopped debating it. I just agree to disagree. They won't be happy until all their laws tuck them into bed every night.

[Rucker61]

Speak their language - "It's really sad that you support both collective punishment which is banned by the Geneva Conventions, and stripping away a whole set of human rights from people. I thought you were better than that."

My favorite: "I had no idea you were so racist. You're proposing gun law changes that you believe will keep crazy young white men from mass killings that overwhelmingly affect white people, but you don't seem to want to do anything about the 60% or so of homicides where young black males are killed".

[Great-Kazoo]

My favorite: "I had no idea you were so racist. You're proposing gun law changes that you believe will keep crazy young white men from mass killings that overwhelmingly affect white people, but you don't seem to want to do anything about the 60% or so of homicides where young black males are killed".


Give them a Cold hard Slap of reality and remind them Until Newtown NOT ONE DEM brought up Gun Control. Black kids killed in Chicago, 500 murders with guns in Chicago, numerous murders in Urban areas daily, 1 suicide per day with 2.5 attempts on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation. Alcohol is Illegal on the res yet there are untold fatalities per week from Drunk drivers, Domestic violence, sexual assault ETC. Nothing but SILENCE.

HOWEVER it took the heinous act of a Mentally Unstable 20 something killing WHITE FOLKS IN AN AFFLUENT HITE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THEM TO SPEAK OUT. Sounds racist to me, see how they react to that.

I said the same thing to a person of color at a Christmas party. Their response was, You know you're right it did take the killing of white people to get the gun grabbers riled up.
Besides why argue? IGNORE works better.

[Zundfolge]

Mr. The King:Guns are designed for killing, absolutely.
THERE is where you lost the argument. You buy even 1% of their flawed premises and you lose (that's just how liberals work).


Guns are designed for launching metal projectiles. Killing people is just one of the many possible uses for flying metal projectiles. MOST guns are actually designed for launching these metal projectiles in the service of sport. The intent of manufacturers of those few guns "designed to kill people" is that they are designed to kill bad people (criminals, terrorists, etc). Therefore any gun used to kill an innocent person is being used contrary to its design.

Actually there's an argument that 5.56mm is specifically chosen as our military's round of choice because it's LESS EFFECTIVE AT KILLING PEOPLE (the theory being that if you kill one enemy you've taken one enemy out of the fight, but if you wound one you've taken 3-4 enemies out of the fight because they're busy retrieving and treating their wounded comrade).



Another fun angle is this; If guns are "designed for killing" and cars are not, which is more defective ... all these guns that never kill anyone or all these cars that do?

[Ronin13]

THERE is where you lost the argument. You buy even 1% of their flawed premises and you lose (that's just how liberals work).


Guns are designed for launching metal projectiles. Killing people is just one of the many possible uses for flying metal projectiles. MOST guns are actually designed for launching these metal projectiles in the service of sport. The intent of manufacturers of those few guns "designed to kill people" is that they are designed to kill bad people (criminals, terrorists, etc). Therefore any gun used to kill an innocent person is being used contrary to its design.

Actually there's an argument that 5.56mm is specifically chosen as our military's round of choice because it's LESS EFFECTIVE AT KILLING PEOPLE (the theory being that if you kill one enemy you've taken one enemy out of the fight, but if you wound one you've taken 3-4 enemies out of the fight because they're busy retrieving and treating their wounded comrade).



Another fun angle is this; If guns are "designed for killing" and cars are not, which is more defective ... all these guns that never kill anyone or all these cars that do?

If you want to get technical- Zund has it 100% right- No gun has ever killed anyone (unless it was used to bludgeon someone to death), bullets are what kill people- guns are just one of the many delivery methods used to send bullets. [Coffee]

[SG1]

Mr. The King:Guns are designed for killing, absolutely. Gang bangers, drug addicts, everyday criminals find a way to have guns for that exact purpose. Should I, as a law abiding, tax paying citizen not be allowed to defend myself and my family and those who I care about against those who don't respect the law?


I have to call bull on that do not say they kill, guns like cars,planes,computers and indeed all machines are biuld for one reason, to function, who and in what manner is determine by the person operating said machine, if you own a fast car does that mean that just becuase the can is build to function to be able to break the speed limit does not mean the drive will ever break the speed limit,

A plane is built to function it could be used to smuggle coke into the country or be used as a weapon of terror, yet does this mean that planes are build for these reasons? no they are not does this mean if you own one you are a smuggle/would be jihadist? no...all liberals have the mind of a 4 year old child, they can not reason or learn, its all just emotionalism

[hatidua]

The OP mentioned his belief on a woman's right to choose, and I would not waste my time trying to change his mind any more than he should waste time trying to change his liberal friend's mind.

I think that's a fairly good analogy. No amount of enlightenment is going to convince me that my guns cause harm to anyone. Similarly, no amount of my time spent preaching the virtues of the 2A is going to change the minds of those whose opinions are already made up. Better to pick a topic that won't raise the blood pressure of both people involved and accomplish absolutely nothing.

Telling elected officials that our votes come/go is one thing, and might affect our future. Telling a person who is 100% convinced of their position that they are wrong achieves nothing.

[nynco]

I commend the original poster for giving good information for others to use in this discussion with people we know all around us in life. I can tell you personally, that I most likely lost my job because my boss did not agree with my stance on this issue. 2 days after that conversation, I was gone. I don't think that was the only reason, economics played a part too. Regardless I tell it like I see it and use facts. Its an emotional issue for many people. Its hard to use facts and reasoning... heck its just as hard to use facts and reasoning with the extremists of this board. However, the more that all people in this nation see this as not just a partisan issue, the more likely that guns will not be as much of an issue.

[Rucker61]

Actually there's an argument that 5.56mm is specifically chosen as our military's round of choice because it's LESS EFFECTIVE AT KILLING PEOPLE (the theory being that if you kill one enemy you've taken one enemy out of the fight, but if you wound one you've taken 3-4 enemies out of the fight because they're busy retrieving and treating their wounded comrade).



There are many counterarguments to this theory:
1. Wounded enemy can still shoot back, so our troops will keep shooting until there is no possible resistance.
2. One side only tends to recover their own wounded if they win the immediate battle, so enemy wounded can clog your own logistics chain.
3. Why do only the service rifles tend to wound when we use larger caliber crew-served weapons, grenades, artillery and aerial bombs on the enemy, too?

[Zundfolge]

Telling a person who is 100% convinced of their position that they are wrong achieves nothing.
True. However if the debate is going on in front of fence sitters you do have an opportunity to use the debate to change OTHER minds.


There are many counterarguments to this theory:
Agreed. My point is that its not clear cut that "all guns are designed to kill people".

[ezgoinrob]

I had simliar discussion with someone today.. thier closing statement was .. "Well its better to do something than to nothing" WTF kind of reasoning is that?? you crashed your car and it catches on fire.. so the cop pours gas on it... better that he did something than nothing!!

Getting real tired of defending my rights to own guns, ANY GUNS. When will these liberals realize that taking away my rights is not going to prevent criminals and crazies from killing people??

EZ