Favorite "comebacks" or analogies when debating gun control advocates

[indiucky]

Anti or no opinion person- "I am just not into guns..You know what I mean?"

Me- "Yes I do...I am not into fire extinguishers...I don't belong to the National Fire extinguisher Association, I don't buy magazines about old fire extinguishers or collect books about them. I do not have prints of fire extinguishers in use at various times in history on my walls....But...I do have one in the basement and one upstairs."

Anti or no opinion person- "Oh."

Me (and Shane)-"It's a tool..No better or no worse than the person behind it."

 

[Excalibur]

My favorite comeback is watching a news vid where the reporter asked what's her face who advocated gun control what a "barrel shroud", which is part of the bill. She tried to ignore the question until she said it is something you put on the shoulder...She confused a stock with a barrel shroud.

 

[steveIU]

I use the story of a Bruce Willis interview. He was asked about his support for gun ownership. He in turn asked the interviewer what if her children were in the room and someone came in and shot one of them. He surmised that she would rip the chair from the floor and beat them to death. Before she would allow another of her children to be harmed. He added that the difference between him and her. He wouldn't need the chair.

I have never heard this....but that makes great sense. Gotta love John McClane

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I believe that when you see something like the posts for gun control it is best to come out and argue against them.

It is important to do so because there are many people sitting on the fence who do not know what to believe regarding the issue.

Of course we will never convince the rabid antigunner to change their mind, at least not without a LOT of work. However, you must concede that point and move on to trying to frame your position in such a way so as to appeal to the people who are watching the debate who have not already formed their opinion.

You become like a defense attorney defending your client. We all know that a prosecutor never changes the defense attorneys mind, and vice-verruca. What you want to do in convince the jury that our right to bear arms is messy and does come with great responsibility.

Most of your antigun arguments are based upon emotion. They see a massacre in an Aurora movie theater and are horrified by it. So far, so good. They never want it to happen again. So far, so good. They want to take away guns so that it can never happen again. Whoops, now we have a problem. But understand, their response to their natural disgust is emotional, it is not logical. You cannot defeat their thinking until they become less emotional. You CAN convince people sitting there not already committed to think logically and rationally about the importance of everyones ability to defend themselves.

Don't get discouraged about not changing the other persons mind. Take heart in the fact that you may have helped tip the scales for someone who wasn't sure before the discussion began, but after listening in sided with you.

Whatever you do, be calm, considerate, polite, using facts and real data to back up your reasoning. If the opponent rants at you - let them! All they will do is look like an idiot and push the person on the fence in your direction.

Regards,

Doug

 

[repeter1977]

To All,

I believe that when you see something like the posts for gun control it is best to come out and argue against them.

It is important to do so because there are many people sitting on the fence who do not know what to believe regarding the issue.

Of course we will never convince the rabid antigunner to change their mind, at least not without a LOT of work. However, you must concede that point and move on to trying to frame your position in such a way so as to appeal to the people who are watching the debate who have not already formed their opinion.

You become like a defense attorney defending your client. We all know that a prosecutor never changes the defense attorneys mind, and vice-verruca. What you want to do in convince the jury that our right to bear arms is messy and does come with great responsibility.

Most of your antigun arguments are based upon emotion. They see a massacre in an Aurora movie theater and are horrified by it. So far, so good. They never want it to happen again. So far, so good. They want to take away guns so that it can never happen again. Whoops, now we have a problem. But understand, their response to their natural disgust is emotional, it is not logical. You cannot defeat their thinking until they become less emotional. You CAN convince people sitting there not already committed to think logically and rationally about the importance of everyones ability to defend themselves.

Don't get discouraged about not changing the other persons mind. Take heart in the fact that you may have helped tip the scales for someone who wasn't sure before the discussion began, but after listening in sided with you.

Whatever you do, be calm, considerate, polite, using facts and real data to back up your reasoning. If the opponent rants at you - let them! All they will do is look like an idiot and push the person on the fence in your direction.

Regards,

Doug

Some great points as well. As you stated, you have to get them to stop thinking as emotional, or if its emotional, more on how our emotions about fire arms could have helped save lives, but we will never know. Or, could always point out the mass shootings that happen at ranges. Since there are none of those, you can point out, almost all to all of the mass shootings have been in gun free zones.

 

[hooky]

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the ultimate argument finisher.

Punch them in the face.

 

[Lammchop93]

Them "Why do you carry a gun?"

Me "Why do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house"

Them "Just in case"

Me "Exactly. Same for me gun"

It always gets the message across.

 

[kludge]

"It happens to someone every day."

 

[CPT Nervous]

Do you wear a seat belt?

Are you expected to be in an accident?

See my point?

 

[Hohn]

You are using logic and reason to combat emotional responses. nothing you say to them will convince them they are wrong. Gun apologetics do not work. They only convince those who already believe.

Exactly. At some point you have to recognize you are trying to apply reason where it doesn't apply. These people are NOT reasonable. If they were, you wouldn't need to convince them.

It's pure, irrational, unyielding emotion. Emotion is not reason, and often prevents the application of reason.

Only when an emotional response more powerful (like getting mugged or losing someone to a gun-toting thug) occurs will they change their mind.

I will go through the motions and make the basic argument. But I won't waste a lot of passion on those who can't reason properly.

JMO

 

[foszoe]

Do you wear a seat belt?

Are you expected to be in an accident?

See my point?

Only after the government made me

They must know best after all!!

 

[CPT Nervous]

Only after the government made me

They must know best after all!!

Then why don't they require everyone to carry a firearm?

Never thought of that...

I have work to do!

 

[CPT Nervous]

My favorite comeback is watching a news vid where the reporter asked what's her face who advocated gun control what a "barrel shroud", which is part of the bill. She tried to ignore the question until she said it is something you put on the shoulder...She confused a stock with a barrel shroud.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo[/ame]



How does a barrel or a shroud have anything to do with a stock?

Any reasonably intelligent person who has no firearms experience should know what the barrel is. From there, it is a matter of the word "shroud." How does she not know what a shroud is? Because she is shrouded in ignorance, that's why.

Barrel= A tube through which a bullet travels when a gun is fired.
Shroud=Something that conceals, protects, or screens.

Now for the tricky math,

Barrel shroud= A shoulder thing that goes up.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I am not afraid to show my ignorance and learn something new:

What is a barrel shroud?

Regards,

Doug

 

[repeter1977]

To All,

I am not afraid to show my ignorance and learn something new:

What is a barrel shroud?

Regards,

Doug

If i remember correctly, its like a heat shield. But, I have been wrong from time to time and might be here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

To All,

I am not afraid to show my ignorance and learn something new:

What is a barrel shroud?

Regards,

Doug

It is the thing that goes up

 

[jbombelli]

If i remember correctly, its like a heat shield. But, I have been wrong from time to time and might be here.

No, that's exactly what it is. It's a metal tube full of holes around the barrel, used to increase the surface area and dissipate heat more quickly.

 

[MTC]

No, that's exactly what it is. It's a metal tube full of holes around the barrel, used to increase the surface area and dissipate heat more quickly.

And, to take it further, the tube, or whatever part functioning to shield the user's hand from the heat of the barrel, might be made of material other than metal, such as - but not limited to - wood or polymer, and need not have any holes at all, though the addition of such in various configurations is considered normal for more effective heat dissipation.

ETA: Normally don't use the term, as when discussing nomenclature on longarms (where it usually comes up, whether formally or informally), mention is made of terms such as"'forearm" or "handguards". If in doubt, which it rarely is, one can simply refer to the user's manual.

 

[jbombelli]

And, to take it further, the tube, or whatever part functioning to shield the user's hand from the heat of the barrel, might be made of material other than metal, such as - but not limited to - wood or polymer, and need not have any holes at all, though the addition of such in various configurations is considered normal for more effective heat dissipation.

I'm sure that's true. But I've personally only ever seen metal ones with holes in them.

 

[MTC]

I'm sure that's true. But I've personally only ever seen metal ones with holes in them.

My post was an add-on, an expansion to yours, not a dispute. And for a reason. Not so much that I wish the term "barrel shroud" to dissapear from the lexicon (OK, maybe in this context), or that it does not - or cannot - exist, rather to emphasize that the idiots, in their struggle to legally define features on items they wanted banned, came up with an incorrect term to describe what you or I would call a (shotgun) forearm or (rifle) handguards.