Debating with Gun Control Advocates

[Sgt.Carp]

Hello TGT,
I'm curios as to what tactics many of you have been using to debate with gun control advocates in respect to the assault weapons ban. I have found that Many want me to defend my ownership of an ar15 but I feel it is unnecessary just as I am not responsible for proving my innocence in the court of law but it is the court that must prove my guilt (ideally of course) it is their job to prove that my legal ownership of such a told is wrong or inherently more evil than any other tool. this automatic turns the table to often we are put in the position of defending our rights when in reality it should be their duty to justify the relinquishing of such a right through logic and reason not passion and emotion (you must constantly hold them to this). what are some of your tactics and do you have any suggestions for me?






-Just an average American exercising my 2nd Amendment right!

[General Zod]

Counter their arguments with verifiable facts. That's the only tactic you need.

[SublimeZ]

another tact The Fallacy of "Need" | The Truth About Guns

[Sgt.Carp]

Nice article thanks!

[Sgt.Carp]

Zod,
I have been doing such things for write sometime and have found that this does very little because they have "statistics" that they choose to believe. I want to change their minds not solidify their hatred for guns and gun owners. Stats are extremely beneficial but I believe that actual informed discussion requires much more for polarized ideals to see valid points.

[General Zod]

Use the stats the FBI has put out, and attack their misrepresentations about what particular firearms do and don't do with encyclopedia articles and other verifiable sources. Use quotes from their side's gun-banning politicians to refute the idea that "nobody wants to confiscate your guns". Use quotes from the framers of the Constitution to shoot down their misrepresentations of what the Second Amendment means.

In short, you're going to need to educate yourself to fight ignorance. Luckily, a lot of good information can be found in threads on this very site. It'll take a little time, but you need to be prepared and armed with facts to battle the emotion-driven fallacies the other side throws out.

[General Zod]

Remember also that the stats they use are provided by political organizations with a clear agenda, and the numbers have been cherry-picked and even invented wholesale to advance that agenda. FBI stats are based on actual verifiable crime reports and are among our best weapons in this fight.

[SR_JM]

I usually argue the law aspect of it and how a possible ban on firearms would affect their rights.
For instance: If this president or congress can decide that the 2A is up for interpretation then what about the 1st and 4th. Where does the 1st amendment protect 'entertainment' if the 2A doesn't protect ARs and magazines. Then they will inevitably say something like "you can't yell fire in a theatre" and I counter with , "you can't legally shoot it up either". For the real hard liners I don't even bother because their minds are made up and they are intellectually dishonest. I have a counter for every argument the other side has that so far has been ironclad.

My justification for having an assault rifle? Here it is. The military has all types of armament to defend itself against an unknown force. Be it China, Russia or whatever country but none of it is designed to be employed on US soil. The US constitution expressly prohibits it as we'll as it protects my rights to keep military arms as a member of the militia. Military units take weeks and the National Guard takes months to mobilize for war (how many would even show up given that they would be abandoning their families in crisis) and in the event this country was attacked by an aggressor the US citizen would be the first line of defense before the military mobilized. If this threat does not exist, what is the purpose of our entire military? To protect us from what exactly, a world of peaceful buddies that want to sit in circles and sing songs?

Besides that, the US government has proven that in times of catastrophe they are inept at providing security to individuals and their property. Be it the LA style riots or natural disasters the government cannot protect you when the infrastructure falls apart.

The bottom line is that my rights have nothing to do with what the criminal or psychotic element of this country does and that no where in life is your safety guaranteed. If they don't like it they can stay home but as long as there are bad people in this world someone will be killing someone for one reason or another. Do they want to face that fact and be prepared in the event of that occurrence or are they prepared to become of victim.

[seeker_two]

Counter their arguments with verifiable facts. That's the only tactic you need.

I wish it were that easy. I'm having this discussion with a person on Facebook, and they don't want to hear facts unless they come from MSM sources like Bloomberg or CNN. Point out John Lott or the FBI Crime Stats, and he puts his fingers in his ears.

Before you debate, make sure your opponent had a grasp on reality.....

[TexasRedneck]

Sometimes, ya just gotta realize you can't turn a pile of turds into somethin' of value....