Help me with a gun control debate

[cosine]

On another forum I invited another person to a gun control debate. http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,18498.0.html

I've never done this before, and don't want to bugger it up, so, could I ask some help from the wise folks here at APS? I'm mainly looking for ideas on the best way to refute the arguments presented.

I'm expecting that there's going to be a bit of work ahead; a lot of that board is European or leans leftist-American.

Thanks for your help.

[The Rabbi]

Declare victory and go home.
You will never win this debate.  The antis are firmly committed to the idea that guns cause crime in a direct proportion.  So the answer is obvious: less guns, less crime.
That is true in a theoritcal reductionism sense: if you could eliminate all guns everywhere then no one would commit crimes with guns.  Of course you could eliminate all automobile traffic deaths by eliminating all cars too.

[Vodka7]

I got as far as "I think running away has been the most important through human history" before I closed that window and was glad to be able to tab back over to the relative sanity here at APS.

I heartily concur with The Rabbi.

[cosine]

Okay, looks like I might have gotten myself in over my head. I'll probably just leave a post over there with my views on firearms and gun control and leave it at that, rather than attempt any sort of argument.

Thanks.

[The Rabbi]

I got as far as "the only purpose guns have is to kill people."  That was enough.  That kind of mentality doesnt even merit debate.

[Perd Hapley]

That's what my guns are for.  I wonder if some of the people in the discussion would consider that the gun's ease of use is what makes it a net good for the community.  Perhaps they don't understand that frail, elderly and handicapped people sometimes use guns protect themselves from large, physically fit criminals.  Or will they just bring out the same silly arguments like those that prove that rapists are not deterred by guns?

[The Rabbi]

Your guns are only to kill people?

[Shalako]

A lot of the anti-gunners don't even believe in self-defense.
Its the 'new-age moral' high road to perish don't cha know.

Its funny that people that believe in Darwinism will also allow themselves to succumb to villainous thugs and bullies.

duh....reconcile that one for me

[Standing Wolf]

Trying to reason with leftist extremists is like trying to teach cats to whistle: you may briefly amuse them.

[cosine]

Okay, I just read the last post over on the thread. I don't know where to even start. I don't show up there often anyway; maybe I'll just let that thread slide into obscurity without making an appearance.

It'd probably take me a freakin' hour to type up a response to that last post.

Ah, well, I'm finished. No need to post in this thread anymore, I don't need any help if I'm not going to fight.

Thanks anyway, and thanks for your patience in reading this.

[Perd Hapley]

Your guns are only to kill people?

To stop people, perhaps I should say.  I've never gotten around to hunting, and target-shooting is only something I engage in so that I will be better at shootin' people what needs shootin'.

Of course, I could also say that my guns are for preserving life.  However, they can only achieve that by being deadly weapons.  This is true even if brandishing the gun is enough to save my life - threatening someone with a wooden spoon won't much help you in dire circumstances.  

What is silly is the idea that if guns were only for killing people, that that would somehow be a reason to ban them, or would make them evil.  We all seem to have forgotten that a humane, compassionate, loving ethic sometimes demands (rather than merely permitting) that we kill.  This is why there is so much more outrage about the innocents executed by the legal process than about the murderers who have not been.

[The Rabbi]

Thank for clarifying.

Mine are for preserving my life and safety and that of others around me.  They also provide exercise and entertainment.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sure you knew what I meant.  It's a shame we have to explain the fact that we are ready to kill if the need should arise.

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure you knew what I meant.  It's a shame we have to explain the fact that we are ready to kill if the need should arise.

I did.  But the DA might not.  I think it is always a good idea to keep these things in perspective.  Guns are there to preserve lives (namely mine).  If someone else gets killed along the way, that is unfortunate but somewhat irrelevant.

[Mannlicher]

There are two camps within the 'gun community'.  One feels that engaging anti gunners (and liberals in general) in a meaningful debate on the merits of supporting the Second Amendment is what we should be doing.  The other camp, of which I am a founding member, feel that you cannot have a meaningful debate with one of 'those' persons, and consider the whole idea a colossal waste of time.
I am not convinced, despite reams of anecdotal accounts, that a single dedicated anti gunner has ever been swayed.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, but on an internet forum there are numbers of people looking on who's minds can be changed.  If the anti-gunner position continually goes unchallenged, the average person has no reason to doubt these things are true.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Not to resurrect a long dead thread, but I am sitting at work, and while I've been a member on THR for a while, I just registered on APS.  So I've been reading through the old threads, etc.  And stupidly followed the link to this other board.  And read for about 2 hours.   Here are the results of that.

1.  I think my IQ dropped by about 15 or 20 points.

2.  My head hurts

3.  That thread really went to show a difference between anti-gun and pro-gun:
      a) the first group, the pro-gun group, presented arguments backed by citeable statistics and
           dissected those that were erroneous or inflated when presented by the antis.
      b)  the pro-gun group relied on logically presented statements for the most part devoid of emotional
           content
      c)  the antis presented nebulous statistics at best, and when their stats were proven incorrect, those stats
           were no longer relevant.
      d)  the entire argument presented by the antis was based on emotional content and rampant speculation.

[cosine]

Sorry for any pain or trouble. I must hang around THR and TFL too much, because when I threw out the challenge I didn't expect the anti-gunners on the other forum to reach such a level of irrationality.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Libertarian Socialism"