• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

As a pro-gun person what are some weak arguments to avoid while debating about guns?

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As a pro-gun person what are some weak arguments to avoid while debating about guns?

    I found this at quora.com - it is worth its weight in gold for help in shutting down the antigun bigots.


    As a pro-gun person, what are some weak arguments to avoid, while debating about guns?

    William Connell Cawthon Jr., Writer, researcher,
    Updated Mon · Upvoted by Mike Vonn, 20 years+ experience operating and maintaining firearms and John Fogh, Professional Firearms Instructor

    Don’t resort to the Second Amendment. If they bring it up, that’s another issue.

    The Second Amendment is a given. It is not going to be repealed, rewritten, or otherwise altered for a very long time, if ever.
    Stick to attacks on their arguments and evidence, which are actually very weak.

    If they bring up numbers, present better numbers. They are out there.

    When they say “epidemic of gun violence,” cut ’em off at the knees; there is no epidemic of gun violence. The average homicide rate over the past ten years is the lowest of any preceding ten-year period going back to the 1950s.

    Attack their definition of “gun violence.” The roll in suicides and accidents. You tell them that suicides are an entirely different problem and that the use of firearms in suicides has declined while the rate of suicides by suffocation (usually hanging) have increased - dramatically in some states.

    Red flag laws have been in effect in Connecticut since 1999, more than enough time to show a trend. Connecticut has historically had one of the lowest rates of suicide and suicide by firearm in the nation. From 1999 to 2017, Connecticut did see a 7.3% reduction in the rate of firearm suicides. Yay! It also saw a 125.7% jump in the rate of suicides by suffocation, usually by hanging. Boo!

    Connecticut’s overall suicide rate rose 39.5%, a greater increase than the national rate, which rose 38.4% during the same period.
    What were those red flag laws supposed to do? If they did reduce the number of firearm suicides but didn’t reduce the number of suicides, what good are they? The problem is more people ending their own lives, not how they did it.

    This is all real data that anyone can access at the FBI or CDC websites. Gun control fans depend on people not checking those sites to corral suckers.

    When they bring up some big number of mass shootings, tell them that the states with the highest number of incidents were California and Illinois. Tell them that that is based on the incidents reported by the Gun Violence Archive.

    When they bring up school shootings or the raw numbers reported by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security, tell them that only two met the official standard to be classed as a mass shooting in a school. A grand total of 38 students were killed in school shootings in 2018, with the majority of them in the Parkland and Santa Fe tragedies.

    Always challenge them to the Lanza Test. Ask them if any of the remedies they proposed would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    They will immediately point to the Assault Weapons Ban and restrictions on magazine capacities. You’ve got their necks on the block; it’s time to drop the blade.

    Every assault weapons ban, from the 1994–2004 original to the most recent of Dianne Feinstein’s fantasies, exempts firearms that would be equally effective or more effective than the Bushmaster rifle used by Lanza. In fact, every recent attempt has completely ignored a line of rifles that are chambered for a cartridge that is far more powerful than the .223 Remington.

    If they bring up the gory accounts of .223 wounds posted by doctors, remind them of the following quote from Will Dabbs, M.D.: “It has been my lot as a physician to be privy to more than my share of gunshot wounds. Pistol wounds are fascinating. Rifle wounds will make you wince. Close-range shotgun wounds take the breath away from seasoned trauma surgeons.”

    Dimitrios Pagourtzis used a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun in the Santa Fe High School Shooting. A Santa Fe ISD police officer wearing ballistic armor took a hit; they almost lost him twice on the way to the hospital and it took over a month of surgeries to rebuild his arms.

    At close range, shotgun injuries have the lowest survival rate of any firearm.

    Last but not least, “assault weapons” do not post a significant threat to public safety. The Colt AR-15 Sporter was introduced in November 1963. A version of the AK-47 rifle first became available in 1976. In the 55 years since the AR-15 hit the market, a grand total of about 60 of this type of rifle have been used in mass shootings. That figure includes the 22 AR-10-style and AR-15-style rifles Stephen Paddock had in his Las Vegas hotel room.

    Last year, the firearm industry estimated Americans owned about 16 million “modern sporting rifles.”

    The rate rifle use in murders is very low. More killers use knives, blunt objects or bare hands and feet than use rifles. In addition, the average rate of rifle use in homicides is 21% lower in the years since the Assault Weapons Ban expired than it was during the ban.

    Moving on to magazine restrictions, those wouldn’t have stopped Lanza, either. He not only had spare magazines, he reloaded them during the shooting.

    Elliot Rodger had three California-approved pistols when he embarked on his shooting spree in Isla Vista. They all had restricted-capacity magazines. After Rodger committed suicide, authorities recovered more than a dozen California-approved, restricted-capacity spare magazines from his car.

    Background checks are the crown jewel in the gun-grabber’s collection of idiotic laws. Background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them is the claim.

    Should Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Nidal Hasan, Aaron Alexis, Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, or Devin Kelley have had guns? Probably not, considering the number of people they murdered. But they all passed background checks as did the majority of mass shooters since the national background check law became effective in February 1994. Stephen Paddock passed dozens of them to assemble his arsenal.

    Some states have passed universal background check laws, including Colorado, Delaware, and Washington state. Dr. Garen Wintemute, a long-time gun-control advocate did a study of the laws in those states. He determined that the laws were ineffective because they were ignored by both citizens and law enforcement. Without universal registration, universal background checks can’t work because it’s impossible to track transfers when you don’t know who has what guns.

    In addition, the homicide rates in all three states rose significantly in the years since the background check laws went into effect.
    Background-check fans will say that even if only one life is saved, it’s worth it to have background checks. However, there is no conclusive evidence that says even a single life has been save in the 25 years since they were first imposed. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence that they don’t save lives at all.

    Don’t let the Bloomborgs get away with anything. Everything they claim is either distorted or untrue.

    If they point to surveys purporting to show widespread public support, point to the last question in a survey conducted by Marist for NPR and the PBS Newshour in February of this year.

    The question asks participants to say, based on what they have seen and heard over the past 25 years, has the gun murder rate in the United States gone up, stayed the same, or gone down?

    59% of those responding said the rate has gone up; 23% said it has stayed the same. According to the CDC, the firearm-related homicide rate plunged 36.4% from 1993 to 2017, the most recent year for which data is available.

    What this means is that the surveys are worthless because the public has been misled and lied to for so long that it has accepted the lies as truth (Adolf Hitler would be so proud!); so its judgement can no longer be considered valid.

    With all this and the knowledge that everything can be verified with official, and impartial sources, there is no need to fall back on tired and overused arguments about constitutional, god-given, or civil rights. The ban fans and their fellow riders expect this response. It’s far more effective (and a lot more fun) to torpedo their own arguments and their specious support.

    Always remember this quote from Mark Glaze, former executive director of Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

    Now get out there and fight the good fight!

    "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson