Help me shoot holes in these lies...

[General Zod]

Guys, I'm worn out from arguing with anti-Constitution idiots all day today. Can we work together to find the stats, news stories, and references to blow nice, targeted holes in this pack of bullshit?

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones

I know off the top of my head #4 is a bald-faced lie. I can think of no fewer than three attempted mass shootings in the past few months that were stopped by armed individuals, both civilians and off-duty cops.

 

[M. Sage]

#1 is easy. San Diego Sheriff, and a Daily Kos article. They want to come for our guns, and incrementalism is the way to do it.

#2 is cherry picked statistics. Compare murder rates, not gun murder rates. Even then, it's misleading - murder rates (and crime rates in general) are always much higher in cities with over 250K population; that seems to be the tipping point. And no, it doesn't matter how much gun control there is in that city; DC, Chicago, New York.

#3; based on bullshit statistics pulled out of thin air.

#4 is a bald-faced lie, as you said.

#5; gee, what a surprise. Owning a gun increases your chance of a gun-related accident. In other news, flying in aircraft daily drastically increases your odds of ending up a name on an FAA incident report, and owning a cat is linked to toxoplasma infection. The suicide and homicide stats are dubious, I think I remember the study they came from, and it was a fraud. Find the study, find the debunking of it.

#6 is based on at least one study done by a questionable source. When they cite studies, always check the source. Many are bullshit.

#7 is completely absurd. They want you to think women would be safer if there were no guns? Common sense on this one.

#8; recent studies say otherwise. Does game violence make teens aggressive? - Technology & science - Games - On the Level | NBC News Also involves more cherry-picked facts. Japan has an extremely low crime rate due to their culture more than any other factor. You could put a hundred million machine guns into circulation in Japan and there would be little to no effect.

#9; they're making a hard argument. A problem with the kind of survey they rely on is underreporting. Think about it; someone randomly calls your number and claims that they're from a polling agency, and would you mind telling us if you have guns in the house? A lot of people are going to lie.

#10; the 40% claim has been curb stomped. Google it. The claim that criminals are getting their guns that way is disingenuous since most of their guns are stolen, and thieves/fences don't exactly comply with laws like background checks and sales reporting. So, of course any gun a criminal buys is going to have no NICS check done. Their "studies" in this one come from sources that are so shady that calling the studies "suspect" is an insult to suspicious people everywhere. Google info on non-prosecution of people who lie on their 4473. It's right there, in writing. And it's almost completely unenforced.

 

[M. Sage]

Ok, the question is, "why?" Why do you want to debate with anybody as stupid as the people at that site?

Block them out of your life and go on living. You can't fix them, so just ignore them.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

You can't fix them, so just ignore them.

As Ron White said, "You cain't fix stupid."

 

[Driller]

#1 don't count they even agree that this wont happen so why even put it in
#2 is just a play on numbers..Wyoming is #1 because everyone has a gun and there is a small population so when someone is killed with a gun you can bet that they owned a gun.
#3 Of the 64,000 total convictions in Texas in 2011 only 120 had CHL (0.1884%)
#4 Mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Law abiding CHL owners were not able to help..
#5 People who do not keep firearms from children are idiots. That said [one is an experiment not actual statistic, the 43% of homes with one unlocked firearm still does not state any accidents , if someone wants to commit suicide they will find a way, and accidents are accidents because some people are idiots...this is why I do not go to gun shows]
#6 they talk about ALL people not CHL holders. Remember criminals and bad people have guns also. Good grief who made up this crap?
#7 Most people are killed by someone the know. If a woman has a gun, you can bet that the person they are with owns a gun. This one is stupid.
#8 HAHAHA big population difference. They are quoting actual homicides. Why did they choose 2008? Well it so happens that was the year Japan had an unusually low gun homicide number..in 2001 they had 56, that is like a 400% increase. and there are 500,000 registered gun owners in Japan.
#9 Partly true when this was done but since the last election an unusual spike in the number of Americans who did not own a firearm have one now.
#10 Parts true but nothing was illegal. It is not illegal for a private gun owner to sell a gun to someone who "told" you they did not pass a background check (just not a good idea). It's illegal for a FFL to sell you a gun if they were told by the FBI that did not pass a background check and I think that you can be arrested if you even try to purchase a gun and not pass the background check ie..criminal history.

Anyway this is my critical thinking guess. please feel free to critique me.

 

[General Zod]

Ok, the question is, "why?" Why do you want to debate with anybody as stupid as the people at that site?

Block them out of your life and go on living. You can't fix them, so just ignore them.

Let's just say I have an irresistible need to combat misinformation when a substantial number of people are being exposed to it. The only way we'll win on this issue is by exposing the lies the left uses to the people they're lying to.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

This has a lot of good info.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

 

[General Zod]

Oh, by the way Sage - it's not the people on Mother Jones I'm debating with. They're beyond help. But one of my friends posted that article to Facebook, and I'm gathering ammo to knock it down there...and really, once one liberal posts it, the rest will within a few days.

Everyone, these responses are great. I'll be adding more info I've found references to at lunch when I have more time.

 

[London]

That website isn't worth the electrons it uses, let alone your time. You may post a rebuttal which is 100% correct and brilliant, but it won't change a thing with these idiots.

It all boils down to the fact that they are fundamentally distrustful of the concept of freedom. Nothing short of numerous psychotherapy sessions managed by Ron Paul will change their minds. It's better to debate people in real life who have to think for themselves rather than some spineless, mindless reporter who earns a living by copy and pasting liberal propaganda.

 

[General Zod]

Like I said, it's not the propagandists I'm going up against, it's folks who should know better but mistake that tripe for facts. If I can present a factual counter to that story, then I might just be able to educate someone into knowing better when a liberal starts spouting lies about firearms. It may feel like beating my head against a wall, but if it sways an opinion or two from a spectator, it'll help us in the long run.

 

[Younggun]

I try to debate these things when they pop up on FB. By showing the lies used to create this crap it will cause those WITH critical thinking skills to question other things they here.

That same line of thought is why I try to make sure anything I post that is pro gun is also fact based.

 

[AlamoMIA]

The essence of these very same, worn out arguments for banning guns that are bantied about today have been expressed throughout our history in America.

During the 1845 Texas Constitutional Convention one Mr. Oglethree expressed his contemporary anti-gun position when postulating that (I paraphrase a bit):

" In a civilized society it SHOULD NOT be necessary for a person to go armed in defense against fellow CITIZENS."

Fortunately his argument was shot down in favor of the Constitutional provision reserving the right of every CITIZEN to go armed in defense against CRIMINALS (by definition NOT "citizens").

"Should not" - perhaps, but a truly "civilized society" is a utopian vision yet to be achieved.

A "citizen" is a term applied to those who behave in a lawful manner -respecting the laws established for the purpose of achieving a civilized society. It is oxymoronic to refer to a criminal as a "citizen".

 

[General Zod]

I try to debate these things when they pop up on FB. By showing the lies used to create this crap it will cause those WITH critical thinking skills to question other things they here.

That same line of thought is why I try to make sure anything I post that is pro gun is also fact based.

Exactly. I figured since this story is being bandied about as supposedly factual, more of us will be running across it - so a resource of targeted, specific rebuttals would do all of us good.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

Like I said, it's not the propagandists I'm going up against, it's folks who should know better but mistake that tripe for facts.

Not to quibble, but I'd argue that anyone posting an article by Mother Jones is a propagandist. I think the approach to use is to demotivate by changing the emotional reaction with some mental ju jitsu. It's not my idea. Look up "nuclear micro messaging". What you do is take one of the points, and agree with it, then extend it to a conclusion that the person finds more offensive than guns. It helps to know what progressive buttons your FB friend has, but let's say it's womens' right to choose. Take point #5 about guns in the home and agree with it. Yup, women who feel threatened by some ex-boyfriend or drunken husband are just kidding themselves by thinking that they can defend themselves with a gun. Women just shouldn't be able to buy guns. I think we can both agree that's the place to start, right? Women's rights should be limited when it comes to things like guns and other potentially dangerous things.

Now, the person isn't going to go out and join the NRA, but rather will be demotivated from either putting up more articles like that, emailing their congressman, writing letters to the editor, etc. I'm an amateur at it, and there are much better examples than mine, but it worked with one of my wife's friends.

 

[Shorts]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact: Refer to Australia & Canada for modern examples.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact: Chicago IL and DC crime/death rates - guns are banned

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact: Called force equalization. Do cops show up with scissors? No, they don't. They show up with guns. A trained civilian is just as effective.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact: Refer to #4. Plus, it is my home. You have no business what goes on in my bedroom, no?

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact: Refer to #4. I can't morph into a 6' 200lb guy when I'm being engaged for attack. I can pull out a force equalizer.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact: My body, my choice.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact: It is a contributing factor to the social media/tech environment the recent generations grow up in. Less practice of real life human to human interaction decreases the ability of a person to cultivate socially acceptable behavior and interactions. Refer to Id, Ego and Super-Ego/sociology & phychology. You could say that "socially acceptable" is based on the current standards of society. Currently, standards of society are crap. No one is held accountable. Moral values and religious faiths are lambasted, especially by our governing bodies. Anyone remember the big push in the mid-lat 90s of "Don't push your morals on me". Congratulations, this is the result.

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact: If your "facts" are correct, looks like more Americans are forgetting their roots. Or possibly the public school system is doing a poor job teaching American History and not educating.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact: Pretty much, or get better punishment for the crimes. Murder is a crime regardless of the method. The rate of recidivism and overflowing prisons ought to tell a tale about how effective the justice and "rehabilitation" system is in this country. DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism

 

[Younggun]

SH,


I think your example would only give then fodder to discredit you for being sexist. From that point your arguments will lose all credibility.

It's not about changing the poster's mind, but the mind of those who see the post and read the comments.

 

[Shorts]

I think your example would only give then fodder to discredit you for being sexist. From that point your arguments will lose all credibility.

It's not about changing the poster's mind, but the mind of those who see the post and read the comments.

Who me?

 

[Younggun]

Who me?

No, I didn't use the quote function and you got your post in before I did.

 

[Shorts]

No, I didn't use the quote function and you got your post in before I did.

Roger that

 

[ScorpionHunter]

SH,


I think your example would only give then fodder to discredit you for being sexist. From that point your arguments will lose all credibility.

It's not about changing the poster's mind, but the mind of those who see the post and read the comments.

That's exactly the point. If someone claims that my statement is sexist, I turn that around and ask if that person doesn't want to take guns away from women if they're so dangerous? If the response is, "no, you're sexist", then I've begun to make the point that gun control as imagined by Mother Jones et al is anti-woman. I say, "Great! Then women should be free to choose how they defend themselves without the government telling them what they can and can't do."

Like I said, I used it successfully on one person. I don't personally know a lot of people that are anti gun. I'm not a facebook guy, so I don't know what would work there. If that approach is too antagonistic, adjust it, but turn the discussion away from gun control to women defending themselves, or something else with a different emotional appeal. The problem with credibility is that we might know that our statistics validate our gun rights, but they really only work with people who are already sympathetic to our side. The typical anti gun response to stats that show the benefits of gun rights is usually, "but the children are dying!" That's how anti gun people do this to us. It's not about gun confiscation, it's about dead kids! That's why polls show more support for more unspecified "gun control" after a dramatic shooting. We have to take our fight to the same emotional level.