Conversation with an anti

z0mbi

z0mbi

Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
4,082
Likes
534
Location
Burlington, MA
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
I don't know why I keep getting myself into this, but I recently voted 'no' in a poll on Facebook asking if I would support a handgun ban. On the poll page itself were a bunch of comments. One commenter in particular said something that kind of got my goat, so I sent him a message in reply and the following conversation occured:


Allen: I would support private ownership of handguns if everyone carrying had to carry it out in the open so i could see them coming, thus knowing who, among those around me had the capacity to kill me if they happen to be having a bad day.


Me: Everyone you meet has the capacity to kill you if they happen to be having a bad day, armed or not. You should always be vigilant.


Allen: i'd damn sure prefer to face a crazy who doesn't have a gun than one who does.

i've had it both ways, and prefer unarmed lunatics (which, by my definition, includes just about any private citizen who feels a need to walk around with a gun in his/her pocket. ) considering i live in texas where just about any lunitic can take hisher gun with him just about anywhere heshe wants to go, i'm thinking of getting one of my own.

prefer the wyatt earp solution, though, leave your firearms behind when you come to my town.


Me: If it's a crazy you're facing, it's likely he has a gun, law or no law. I'd rather the law be on my side and not against me, since those who don't abide by the law and wish to do me and mine harm don't need any more advantages than they already have.


Allen: the problem is lunatics rarely carry a sign identifying their condition, the reason they can usually buy a gun with such ease. since i can't identify the lunatics ahead of time, i'd like to be able to identify the gun carriers.

as i said, my basic problem is not people carrying guns but that in most states that allow carrying the requirement is that it be kept concealed. let me see you're armed and accept legal responsiblity for that gun and eveything it does from the time you purchase it and you can have all the damn guns you want as far as i'm concerned.

don't see why any gun owner would have a problem with that.


Me: Then the lunatics can identify the gun owners, as well. No one knows I carry a knife or a multitool, or if I was an expert in hand to hand combat, and I don't see why they would need to know that as I am not planning on using either those or my concealed firearm to commit crimes. Gun owners who carry for self defense have a problem with open carry because open carry is less useful as a self defense tool than a concealed firearm. Gun owners who carry for self defense aren't interested in anyone knowing that they have the capability to defend themselves, as it makes them a target for pre-emptive strike.

I wish open carry were an option, as well, but in my state it is not so. We have to go through a lot of work just to get licensed to own a gun, let alone licensed to carry, and the potential of you getting a license to carry at all depends entirely on the police chief of your town and whether or not he likes the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is not illegal here in MA, but it is widely accepted that if you do open carry and a cop sees you, your police chief will revoke your license to own guns.

...and we do accept legal responsibility for our guns and our actions the minute we purchase them.


Allen: legal responsibility from the moment you buy it until the moment it is permanently disabled. know when you buy it that if you sell it or lose it your liability for what is done with it remains with you.

we are up to our necks in handguns, all of them legally purchased when new, floating now in the gun market for legal or illegal use meanwhile all these gun owners who brought the gun into circulation in the first place assume no responsibility for the fact that they are the original enablers of gun violence in this country. they certainly have a moral responsibility, i'd like to see them have legal responsibility as well.

and to your first point, someone intent on shooting someone will more likely shoot an openly armed person than a person showing no means of self-protection. that doesn't make any sense.

i could as reasonably argue that the reason some gun carrieries want to conceal their weapon is for the psycho-sexual satisfaction they get from their concealed dominance. they're certainly not doing it because they think it makes them safer if they conceal their gun.


Me: When you sell your car you should be responsible for what the next guy does with it. Until it is crushed and sold for parts, the liability of that vehicles 'actions' are your legal responsibility.

My point is that if I'm in a store, and someone is intent on robbing that store, and he walks in and sees me wearing a firearm in a holster, what do you think he's going to do? Ignore the fact that I have a gun? Or shoot me in the back while I'm not looking and then steal my gun and rob the store? If he's walking around the street with his concealed weapon looking to make a quick score, he can look around for the guy with the most expensive looking firearm strapped to his hip and execute him. Make sense now? In all cases, a concealed firearm allows you the option of anonymity, to either do nothing or to defend your life and others with as much critical advantage as you can muster.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROBB15_20090714-222605/280016/


Allen: the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone, obviously not comparable to a car in any way. if you bring into your community a device whose only purpose is to kill, you have moral responsibility for anything and everything that's done with it and you don't unload that responsibility by selling the gun or allowing it to be stolen. you should have lega responsibility that matches your moral responsibility.

as to your store robbery, it makes no sense. criminals who go into a store to rob it aren't there to shoot anyone, they're there to grab the money and run like hell. if they see an armed person in the store the store will not be robbed. too many stores available to be robbed to complicate it with an unnecessary shooting.

police officers don't wear sidearms to shoot people, they wear sidearms to demonstrate power and authority and to deter crime before it happens. that's why many police officers can complete a long career and never draw their gun. your suggestions negates the whole value of deterence that gun owners claim for their gun. a concealed firearm has no power to deter anything.


Me: It was nice talking to you, Allen :)

Be safe,
-JB


As you can see, I ended up bailing out after his last rant. I just didn't know how to respond without telling him that his brain was diseased. I just don't fathom this line of logic. It's not the way I think at all. It confuses me how different peoples thought processes work sometimes.
 
How are you even supposed to argue with someone who has those viewpoints? They're completely clouded. That man is the definition of "sheeple", if you ask me.

Good on you for just ending the rediculous conversation as politely as possible.
 
i could as reasonably argue that the reason some gun carrieries want to conceal their weapon is for the psycho-sexual satisfaction they get from their concealed dominance. they're certainly not doing it because they think it makes them safer if they conceal their gun.
Click to expand...

WTF, over.
 
"the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone" ... "police officers don't wear sidearms to shoot people"

I'm surprised you lasted as long as you did. The guy can't even carry an argument without contradicting himself.
 
There is so much wrong with what the other guys was saying, that I truly do not know where to begin. Good job on keeping your composure though, don't want to make yourself out to be some kind of "lunatic" as the anti said.
 
It never seemed to dawn on him that Mongo might not carry his illegally obtained and possessed gun openly, as he prefers it. Bad Mongo! [rolleyes]

Ken
 
I agree that the other person is an idiot but you have to ask yourself if it's worth the effort to make him realize it.

Wrong_internet.jpg
 
Yowza!

Your friend is an idiot, but kudos to you for making your points intelligently & letting him expose himself as the dope that he is.
 
He isn't a friend. I randomly got into this conversation with him over a poll on Facebook.

PaulD: That's exactly why I gave up. I could have kept it going forever, but at that point I realized the guy is so far gone that nothing I could say over the internet would convince him.

I've turned around several people in face to face discussions, but all the gun control arguments I get into on the internet just go in circles.
 
z0mbi said:
He isn't a friend. I randomly got into this conversation with him over a poll on Facebook.

PaulD: That's exactly why I gave up. I could have kept it going forever, but at that point I realized the guy is so far gone that nothing I could say over the internet would convince him.

I've turned around several people in face to face discussions, but all the gun control arguments I get into on the internet just go in circles.
Click to expand...

Face to face is certainly a better vehicle for that kind of conversation and +3 for turning people around.
 
z0mbi said:
I don't know why I keep getting myself into this, but I recently voted 'no' in a poll on Facebook asking if I would support a handgun ban. On the poll page itself were a bunch of comments. One commenter in particular said something that kind of got my goat, so I sent him a message in reply and the following conversation occured:


Allen: I would support private ownership of handguns if everyone carrying had to carry it out in the open so i could see them coming, thus knowing who, among those around me had the capacity to kill me if they happen to be having a bad day.


Me: Everyone you meet has the capacity to kill you if they happen to be having a bad day, armed or not. You should always be vigilant.


Allen: i'd damn sure prefer to face a crazy who doesn't have a gun than one who does.

i've had it both ways, and prefer unarmed lunatics (which, by my definition, includes just about any private citizen who feels a need to walk around with a gun in his/her pocket. ) considering i live in texas where just about any lunitic can take hisher gun with him just about anywhere heshe wants to go, i'm thinking of getting one of my own.

prefer the wyatt earp solution, though, leave your firearms behind when you come to my town.


Me: If it's a crazy you're facing, it's likely he has a gun, law or no law. I'd rather the law be on my side and not against me, since those who don't abide by the law and wish to do me and mine harm don't need any more advantages than they already have.


Allen: the problem is lunatics rarely carry a sign identifying their condition, the reason they can usually buy a gun with such ease. since i can't identify the lunatics ahead of time, i'd like to be able to identify the gun carriers.

as i said, my basic problem is not people carrying guns but that in most states that allow carrying the requirement is that it be kept concealed. let me see you're armed and accept legal responsiblity for that gun and eveything it does from the time you purchase it and you can have all the damn guns you want as far as i'm concerned.

don't see why any gun owner would have a problem with that.


Me: Then the lunatics can identify the gun owners, as well. No one knows I carry a knife or a multitool, or if I was an expert in hand to hand combat, and I don't see why they would need to know that as I am not planning on using either those or my concealed firearm to commit crimes. Gun owners who carry for self defense have a problem with open carry because open carry is less useful as a self defense tool than a concealed firearm. Gun owners who carry for self defense aren't interested in anyone knowing that they have the capability to defend themselves, as it makes them a target for pre-emptive strike.

I wish open carry were an option, as well, but in my state it is not so. We have to go through a lot of work just to get licensed to own a gun, let alone licensed to carry, and the potential of you getting a license to carry at all depends entirely on the police chief of your town and whether or not he likes the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is not illegal here in MA, but it is widely accepted that if you do open carry and a cop sees you, your police chief will revoke your license to own guns.

...and we do accept legal responsibility for our guns and our actions the minute we purchase them.


Allen: legal responsibility from the moment you buy it until the moment it is permanently disabled. know when you buy it that if you sell it or lose it your liability for what is done with it remains with you.

we are up to our necks in handguns, all of them legally purchased when new, floating now in the gun market for legal or illegal use meanwhile all these gun owners who brought the gun into circulation in the first place assume no responsibility for the fact that they are the original enablers of gun violence in this country. they certainly have a moral responsibility, i'd like to see them have legal responsibility as well.

and to your first point, someone intent on shooting someone will more likely shoot an openly armed person than a person showing no means of self-protection. that doesn't make any sense.

i could as reasonably argue that the reason some gun carrieries want to conceal their weapon is for the psycho-sexual satisfaction they get from their concealed dominance. they're certainly not doing it because they think it makes them safer if they conceal their gun.


Me: When you sell your car you should be responsible for what the next guy does with it. Until it is crushed and sold for parts, the liability of that vehicles 'actions' are your legal responsibility.

My point is that if I'm in a store, and someone is intent on robbing that store, and he walks in and sees me wearing a firearm in a holster, what do you think he's going to do? Ignore the fact that I have a gun? Or shoot me in the back while I'm not looking and then steal my gun and rob the store? If he's walking around the street with his concealed weapon looking to make a quick score, he can look around for the guy with the most expensive looking firearm strapped to his hip and execute him. Make sense now? In all cases, a concealed firearm allows you the option of anonymity, to either do nothing or to defend your life and others with as much critical advantage as you can muster.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROBB15_20090714-222605/280016/


Allen: the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone, obviously not comparable to a car in any way. if you bring into your community a device whose only purpose is to kill, you have moral responsibility for anything and everything that's done with it and you don't unload that responsibility by selling the gun or allowing it to be stolen. you should have lega responsibility that matches your moral responsibility.

as to your store robbery, it makes no sense. criminals who go into a store to rob it aren't there to shoot anyone, they're there to grab the money and run like hell. if they see an armed person in the store the store will not be robbed. too many stores available to be robbed to complicate it with an unnecessary shooting.

police officers don't wear sidearms to shoot people, they wear sidearms to demonstrate power and authority and to deter crime before it happens. that's why many police officers can complete a long career and never draw their gun. your suggestions negates the whole value of deterence that gun owners claim for their gun. a concealed firearm has no power to deter anything.


Me: It was nice talking to you, Allen :)

Be safe,
-JB


As you can see, I ended up bailing out after his last rant. I just didn't know how to respond without telling him that his brain was diseased. I just don't fathom this line of logic. It's not the way I think at all. It confuses me how different peoples thought processes work sometimes.
Click to expand...

I think that was a waste of your time.
 
logic doesn't work on antis that well, they just pick a stance and nothing will change their mind no matter how intelligent or persuasive it may be.
 
The root cause of the problem seems to be this attitude that a gun is somehow special because a gun is designed to kill, whereas all the other dangerous objects that people tend to carry around in form or another have some non-violent purpose.

Has anyone found any effective techniques for countering this claim?
(Note: I don't mean logical, I mean things you've tried that actually worked. Most people making this claim didn't get there through logic.)
 
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” - Robert Heinlein

But good job on giving it a try, and particularly on keeping your cool. I don't think I could have done as well.
 
[smile]
I took the same poll on facebook. The people that voted against banning handguns were leading when I checked last. I do think his arguement was pretty funny though.
Cluless liberals that feel and can't reason are always funny especially in groups when they all start agreeing on the most absurd notions.

[laugh2]
 
jarhead66 said:
Cluless liberals that feel and can't reason are always funny especially in groups when they all start agreeing on the most absurd notions.
Click to expand...
It's all fun and games until the same thing happens on Beacon Hill...

The response I have gotten from my reps is the same "we have to do something" mantra I have gotten for every letter I have ever written to a liberal rep...

I always respond asking that they demonstrate why this "something" is the right thing with data (since I sent them data supporting my case) and they ignore that letter...
 
You may have given him some different perspectives regardless. People rarely change opinions overnight.

He has now talked with someone who is a shooter, so, unless he sees YOU as crazy....
 
packingungal said:
You may have given him some different perspectives regardless. People rarely change opinions overnight.

He has now talked with someone who is a shooter, so, unless he sees YOU as crazy....
Click to expand...

As polite as I was, I have a feeling he was ALSO being polite. Part of the reason I was so careful not to antagonize him is because I recognized right off the bat that he was about to pop. He didn't call me names specifically, but you can see that if I had said anything to set him off he would have immediately launched into a tirade about how I'm some loony gun nut psychopath who gets off having 'secret powers in my pants'. And once you go there, there's no turning back.

It's sad how misunderstood gun owners are. You NES'ers are the best bunch of people I have ever had the privilege to know, and guys like this just think we're all out of our minds.
 
Herrminator said:
Criminals don't wanna hurt anyone they just want the money and to RUN off like HELL.....SO LET THEM KEEP DOING IT!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Best part is, he wrote that immediately after I linked him to an article that describes a store robbery where the robber shot the clerk immediately upon entering the store, and then was promptly shot by an armed citizen.

By all means, don't let hard evidence stand in the way of your convictions!
 
lupis42 said:
The root cause of the problem seems to be this attitude that a gun is somehow special because a gun is designed to kill, whereas all the other dangerous objects that people tend to carry around in form or another have some non-violent purpose.

Has anyone found any effective techniques for countering this claim?
(Note: I don't mean logical, I mean things you've tried that actually worked. Most people making this claim didn't get there through logic.)
Click to expand...

I point out that tranquilizer guns are not designed to kill anything. "But that's different" they say. Well, raceguns and the like are not designed for the purposes of killing anybody either. After having to explain what a racegun is, they usually again fall back on, "Yes, well that's not the kind of gun I'm talking about." So I then ask them if their argument is specifically that "guns designed solely to kill people are designed solely to kill people". At that point they usually see they've painted themselves into a corner and have nothing to fall back on other than "Well I just don't like guns" or similar vacuous arguments.
 
z0mbi said:
It's sad how misunderstood gun owners are. You NES'ers are the best bunch of people I have ever had the privilege to know, and guys like this just think we're all out of our minds.
Click to expand...

Yes, we may be "out of our minds" in the view of some folks. However, if I'm going to be "nuts", would rather be loony with folks who understand where we came from, and what we are "supposed" to be about...rather than mealy-mouthed PC people....and politicos whose only interest is reelection. Crazy? Perhaps. I still believe in this country and what it has been ....and what it can still be...notwithstanding the politicos who can't get a sentence straight, let alone debate facts. [wink]
 

Similar threads

22lr with silencer
Replies
16
Views
286
peterk123
P
How an Oklahoma man double-crossed a Mexican cartel with knockoff guns.
Replies
5
Views
389
jkelly1229
J
A California sheriff's deputy had a double-life with an outlaw motorcycle gang, police say
Replies
4
Views
278
Bt74
Bt74
Gopher hunting with a 22
2
Replies
36
Views
666
peterk123
P
Flying domestically with declared firearm on JetBlue and Delta in 2024
Replies
28
Views
453
Brin747
Brin747
Back
Top Bottom