How to go about bringing anti-2A folks around

I think there is a time to preach to the choir, a time to forget about the other guy and try to convince the neutral parties, but I'm wondering about ideas on lines of reasoning that end with anti-2A folks coming around.

If any of our resident anti-2A posters would like to chip in with what sort of things might actually get you to change your mind if they could be laid out, that would be great.

To start with are things that I think DON'T work and why.

Now, underlying this is that idea that they probalby have an underlying evaluation of the situation that says "I'm not going to get a gun, so gun rights don't affect me. I don't care about anyone elses ability to defend themselves, because they aren't me. However legal guns may at least slightly increase the odds I come to harm, and thus I oppose it."

Saying it's your right or that it's in the constitution. They know that already, it's what they'd like to see changed.

Talking about defending yourself and your family probalby isn't going to go anywhere for the reason mentioned above.

Ideas related to protecting the freedoms of the country probalby aren't going to carry much water. Typically they're big fans of the government at least in the abstract sense.

Sports, hunting, and other recreational uses of guns aren't going to get far.

I think it is important to explain that banning guns is wildly unlikely to be much more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than banning drugs was. But I don't think it's going to change their position. Any possibility a gun law might decrease their odds of coming to harm vastly outweights the zero value they put in your ability to defend yourself or go hunting etc. So you've got to have something else.

This also goes with wasting time explaining why any given proposed law may be ridiculous and trivially bypassed, or arguments of that nature.




Things I think might work:

The affect of guns on "hot robbery". Criminals are less likely in the US to enter an occupied home than elsewhere. Instead they'd prefir to ensure nobody is home or just rob a car or empty business. This is safer for you.

If they have particular empathy for a particular group, say women, they may appreciate that guns are highly effective at preventing rape, and that, because they're selecting much weaker victims, most rapists don't bother to use firearms.

Maybe that hunters protect them and their car from deer by proactively hunting them?

Possibly an environmental angle. Various hunting related organizations have bought up significant tracts of land for that purpose, protecting them from development.

 

Guns are tools, one needs the right tool for the right job.

For a very small frail person, let's say an 80 year old 100 lb. woman living alone, what weapon would be more effective, more likely to stop the 350 lb maniac busting through her door than a lightweight handgun? Her arthritis and poor upper body strength won't let her use a long gun.

Even though she would have extreme trouble keeping her nerves in order in order to even fire the gun, what other weapon would be more effective?

This old lady is not a special forces ninja that could drop the guy with a knife, bat, baton or other weapon. Pepper spray will not stop many attackers, not like a gun.

What else could be better than a handgun? Who here would deny her the civil right to have the best, most common sense weapon to denfend herself with?

 

Have you got an empirical study that tests that this is linked to gun prevalence (say, something from Kleck). Raw data comparisons, as you well know, aren't up to the job. The impact on burglary, at least theoretically, are ambiguous so anything in support that you can offer would be jolly!

 

My, what a rambling OP. It's a little difficult understanding what you're trying to achieve.


Perhaps it would have been productive for you to first define whom you are trying to convert. You made a reference to anti-2A's but I honestly don't know this demographic. It would seem to me to be such a small portion of our population so as to be absolutely insignificant and yet here we are.

You also made references to gun bans that would make self defense impossible. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario that would make this a reality in this country, so where does this leave your OP? WHOM are you trying to convert and how far do you believe you can lead them?

I find it odd that you would focus on the most extreme and smallest demographic amongst us while ignoring the more reasonable majority who are for stricter gun laws. When you make an argument that uses black/white thinking whereas 'you're either for us or against us' is the mainstay of the logic, then your critical thinking automatically becomes suspect.

Perhaps you can clarify.

 

Why bother "bringing them around" at all?

The USSC court has ruled overwhelmingly that the 2nd amendment is an almost absolute right of the individual to own a firearm, barring certain common sense restrictions.

So why even worry about it? Gun ownership in America is now as safe as free speech.

 

But are coercive consequences of gun preferences safe and, if so, why?

 

Irrelevant to the argument. The Constitution makes no distinction and the founding fathers made no distinction either. The framers were quite clear, and the phrase "..the right of the people" means exactly what it says, individual people, just like in the rest of the Bill of Rights where "the people" is used to mean "individuals".

Regardless, even if America turns into a gun-toting anarchy with daily mass murders in the street it is irrelavant. The Constitution is not designed to promote public safety, but the overall defense of the nation.

The debate is essentially over. If people want to bring up an amendment repealing the 2nd, then they are allowed to try and do so, but as far as I'm concerned. Constitutionally at this moment, all other arguments are irrelevant and there is no debate. period.

 

Please don't hide. Are coercive consequences of gun preferences safe and, if so, why? If your argument is that you believe the constitution is behind it then say so openly

 

I'm not "hiding", I have no desire to debate this issue because the issue is settled and the 2nd amendment gives me the right to "hide" behind it, that is the entire point of the amendment. It's an absolute right and I can "hide" behind it all I want.

I'm not here to intellectually debate anything, I'm here to simply explain the debate is moot and not worth engaging in to begin with.

 

Its hiding, just a bad job at it. You're effectively saying 'coercive consequences of gun preferences are safe because of the constitution'. I don't agree with you mind you, I find that an abhorrent view over constitutional matters

 

So this "coercive consequence of gun prefences" includes victims of violent attacks and homicides who live in cities and states in the US who were not allowed to purchase or carry a firearm (usually a handgun) and as a result were killed or injured because they had insufficient means to protect themselves?

Maybe there is another "Focus on the Gun Instead of the Felon" study to look at.

 

I don't support hand guns. Who are these people who aren't allowed to purchase a handgun? Could you provide some detail with regards their characteristics?

 

That argument is also moot now. The whole point of McDonald vs Chicago and the the overturning of the DC ban was to end that debate. No Government entity, State, Local or Federal is allowed to deny any citizen that qualifies for ownership of gun(non-felons, non-drug convictions and non-domestic violence convictions and non-mentally ill). Only the reasonable controls that have already been established to be within the purview of Government is allowed to stand.

 

That you think the constitution necessarily supports coercion isn't moot. You've effectively said it

 

It depends on who you are trying to talk to. For instance, many people on this forum like to argue for the sake of arguing, and no matter how much evidence you throw at them to support the "pro-gun" cause (and the utter dearth of evidence that exists to support the effectiveness of gun control), such folk will argue purely on ideology and will NEVER give a single inch, even after being proven wrong. We all know who they are, and they are truly lost causes.

However, on occassion you will engage some people who were originally "anti-gun" with an open mind. Such people are willing to hear the "pro-gun" argument with a fair mind.

To me, the argument is a no brainer. I personally grew up in the Northeast, and was surrounded by the political sentiment that "more gun control = better outcomes." However, I have an open mind and prefer looking at the facts before jumping to wild conclusions. In the "gun control debate," it is clear that the facts overwhelmingly support the notion that gun control is ineffective in curbing violent crime, and increased access to firearms does not correlate with increased violent crime.

 

Gee, that's odd. I seem to recall that you have had a hard time coming up with evidence to support your cause. If you have something of value, then show it to us. I doubt you will. It's ironic that you would make a charge that you yourself fall prey to.

Rose colored glasses?

 

I own a couple of handguns. What are the "coercive consequences" of my preference for this form of firearm. I have not coerced anyone, and my firearms have not been used to coerce anyone.

 

Wow! Living in denial must be fun.

Thank you for providing a perfect example that proves my point.

 

A very weak dodge. That the pro-gunners hide from the evidence cannot of course be denied. Reliant on spurious conclusion and told what to think by anti-intellectual pressure groups, most are entirely reliant on a herd mentality

 

Think of the consequences of owning a car. A wonderful tool but the externalities, via pollution, are coerced on others. Gun ownership is rather similar. Providing numerous means to acquire personal utility, it also generates externalities through creation of crime

 

Does this evidence fail to use proper controls and equate 19-year-old gangsters with CHILDREN?! I'm actually proud to ignore such "studies" as "evidence." Anyone true to the scientific method would never consider such specious studies as "evidence."

This is merely filler without any substance. This further proves my point made in the prior post that some folk will argue for the sake of arguing.

 

A low brow effgort. We both know that you don't follow sound literature review methods and, lacking objectivity, you attack peer reviewed publications without thought. The subject deservws better!

Its mere fact. A quick perusal of this sub-forum will show the reliance on spurious relationship, typically with that spurious abuse coming second hand from low brow pressure group telling folk what to say and think

 

I am not a gun person. I wore a gun for 30 years but when I retired, my guns retired, too.

My thought is that the best thing you could do is get the really, really strange gun supporters to shut up and quit trying to convince people they should carry a gun. One little twerp at a public meeting entertained everyone with stories about how he interrupted a violent rape in a parking garage by sticking his gun up the "perps" nose and then running him off. Then, a bit later, it was a violent rape in an alley. Again he stuck his gun up a nose and ran the guy off. On the third rape story I asked if he ever called the police. Well, no. People started laying.

A friend of mine swears carry a gun has saved his life a hundred times and then he tells stories that are amazing fantasies. "A man was looking at me and I could tell he was thinking about robbing me and raping my wife." Right.


I do think some are planning on doing away with the Constitution. We could have card check instead of, you know, actually voting. ACORN and Obama's Purple Shirts could show up at your house to demand you sign the card they have ready for you. The Second Amendment would be suspended, of course. Absent that scenario, the Second Amendment will not be changed.

 

So you mean externalitilities, and you are conflating actual externalities (from me owning a car) with potential externalities (from my handgun). You also ignore any positive externalities of the handgun.

My ownership of my handgun has not "[generated] externalities through the creation of crime." As I said before, my handguns have never been used to commit a crime. One, however, has been used to stop a crime. So the externality score is pretty clear.

 

So, you would deny an elderly, frail, or diasabled person the right to denfend themselves with the best means available? I know you are biased against handguns, but you would discriminate against the disabled who are not able to use long guns?

New York City still has their illegal and draconian Sullivan Law which makes it almost impossible to obtain a handgun permit for an unconnected commoner, even if they wish to only have it to defend themselves at home.
Observe: www.handgunslawsus/states/newyork.pdf.

I'm sure there are millions of instances around the world where the victim's last thoughts as they were about to be killed were, "I wish I had a gun."

Wisconson woman Bonnie Elmasri had a restraining order against her husband, who had been, according to her, threatning her and her children. She asked a firearms instructor about getting a handgun and was told to there was a 48 hour waiting period. Within 24 hours she was dead, along with her two children. Murdered by her husband who had no trouble at all obtaining a gun.

www.anglefire.com/Co2/forcedalterism/gunskill

What good is a gun if you don't have one? Since you have no tolerance for private, law abiding citizens to own handguns for any reason, but you do apparently tolerate larger guns, you believe it is right and doable that they should only be able to lug around large heavy weapons on their persons, while the criminal element, who cares not a fig about the law, carries their own illegal handguns?