Reasonable arguments

[Old TexMex]

I'd like to see simple, short positions stated that we can all use in discussion with a family member, neighbor, etc. who is anti gun.
Such as:
The Constitutional Right protected by the 2nd was denied those adults who were prohibited from defending themselves by the "gun free zone" laws. That was the first crime committed in the killings at Newtown.
My point being, is that there was a violation of the Constitution in progress from the day the schools were declared "gun free zones".

[Stophel]

"Do you think that we do NOT have the Right to defend against tyranny?" This is THE basic question. Do anti-gun people believe that we have no right to fight tyranny, no matter how heinous?

[Hill_Country]

I don't disagree with you at all, but I think many people - especially the anti's - want the government to do everything for them. If there is a problem, the government is supposed to fix it. These people can't comprehend tyranny by our own government when it comes inch by inch.

If a group were overtly trying to overthrow the government or completely outlaw guns the whole country would be outraged, but this is a case of creeping tyranny that goes unnoticed.

[Old TexMex]

One I like is "I carry a handgun because a policeman is too heavy."

[CoMF]

That's easy. I usually start by asking what characteristics make a military pattern semi-automatic rifle deadlier than a so-called "sporting" rifle, and remind them that "assault" is a type of behavior rather than a descriptor.

If the issue of magazine capacity comes up, I bring up the point that many "sporting" rifles can be fired and, in some cases, reloaded just as quickly. If the subject of ammunition comes up, I remind them that many commonly available hunting rounds have far more lethality (in terms of tissue damage) than 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39mm.

Then there's the infamous "Why do you need one of those?!" retort... I explain that given my lifestyle and personal situation, I don't, and view it more as a personal luxury. I also explain that there is nothing inherently "evil" about it, that it hasn't compelled me to commit horrible atrocities, and that they can actually be quite fun to shoot. I remind them that just because something is viewed as "unnecessary" doesn't mean its ownership should be restricted or that it shouldn't exist. Then I proceed to ask them something like: "Why do you need a gas-guzzling truck when you never haul or tow anything with it? Why can't you make do with a Subaru like me?" You get the point...

I find it more effective to be civil and investigative and "mirror" their prejudices back at them than to utilize the "From my cold dead hands! RAAAAWWWWR!" approach. At best, it opens the door for more meaningful and intelligent discourse, and at worst it shuts them up.

[Old TexMex]

Did anyone notice the number of "armed sucurity" on the scene at Newtown after the murders? That seems to be appropriate, but not before the murders.
......
The "assault weapons ban" was in effect in CT. and it didn't work at all.
......
Banks are not "gun free zones". Why not? Do we value bank employees and customers more than children and teachers?
..........
Banks have armed guards during open hours, and alarm systems after closing. Schools have alarm systems during "in class" hours, and armed patrols after the kids are gone. Priorities out of whack.

[CoMF]

Originally Posted by Old TexMex

The "assault weapons ban" was in effect in CT. and it didn't work at all.

And therein lies the rub... If the "evil black rifle" used by Adam Lanza was already illegal to own under CT state law, that leaves only two possibilities:

1) The gun was purchased before the ban went into effect.

2) The gun was obtained via illegal means.

Ergo, what's the point of reinstating a Federal ban if the intent is to remove these firearms from public circulation given that you cannot ban currently owned military-pattern semi auto rifles? It would otherwise be ex post facto, a practice barred by the US Constitution.

As you stated, a ban obviously didn't prevent Lanza from obtaining this type of firearm and committing illegal acts with it. Unfortunately, I worry that any attempts to enlighten TPTB to this fact will fall upon deaf ears. These "talks" seem like nothing more than a formality and the ultimate result will be a foregone conclusion unless they're relentlessly hammered with logic and reason and forced to substantiate their positions.

[Delos]

Okay, here is the short answer.

Politicians first need to disarm the drug gangs in every big city. That will never happen because politicians want to all be “good guys” and do everything by passing some law someone else must enforce. The blame for doing nothing gets spread to the courts looking out for children’s rights (anyone under 18 or 21 depending on the media) who prevent the police from doing the job. (Did someone mention ACLU?)

Last night a certain left wing TV news station was blaming AR-15 rifles. Tonight they were blaming white people for all mass killings.

Actually Virginia Tech shootings was a mentally challenged Chinese American, and no rifles, only two handguns legally obtained under present law (unless they changed parts of the law since)

And the Valentines day massacre was Al Capone’s Italian gang in the depression era. He did have his gang using full automatic machine guns (Tommy Guns). I would be banned from this site if I mentioned names of some wealthy Americans smuggling in Whiskey with the help of Al Copones gang and other gangs. They should share the blame for the gang wars and deaths.

The first mass killings on what is now Virginia Tech was the Drapers Meadow Massacre that involved bows, arrows, and tomahawks. It was the spillover from the wars between British (Virginia was part of New England before the revolutionary war) and French where they involved the American Indian trading partners on each side. France and England was fighting in Europe so the American Indians were caught up in the action over here. Now we all join the same US military. Canada now helps the US.

(Mexico and South America drug cartels)
Now the overwhelming number of killings involve drug gangs fighting over turf to sell drugs, or collecting drug depts. Mostly it is the Ghettos and Barrios fighting against themselves. But the white areas have Nazi skinhead type drug gangs that are also very violent, again they seldom fight other races. The first serious drug gang was in Los Angeles in the 1960’s and was started by a branch of the Italian Mafia that still exists. See the old movie, rented still on the internet “American Me”. (The homosexual rape scene is total fiction. That particular gang does not condone homosexuality).

Most home burglaries are done to buy drugs. Many armed robberies are done by people who have gotten behind on paying for drugs, and must catch up or be killed.

The paranoid white men and women that have shot politicians are very few in numbers. I would guess two or three dozen? No doubt the politicians would like an easy answer for those paranoids that focus on them.

The drug gangs involve thousands and kill many hundreds each year. Put a city name and the words Homicide Map to see what side of any large city has the killings.

Our politicians did not take-on the gangs harshly in the depression era, and will not now. Enough of us know that and will support the NRA for the rights of average persons.

If anyone heard about the Sony Night Cam some years ago now that could see through clothing in daytime if switch put on night. Many women were upset that it showed padded bras and such. If lots of people are carrying concealed weapons then police agencies that have the cameras that show the body heat coming from the person out through the clothing, with shadows of the guns, get overworked. Nuff Said.

[snubbyfan]

I usually just tell people, I conceal carry because when seconds matter the police are only minutes away.

[Simmer down]

"Doing something" too often means bans and that's been done and didn't show any verifiable effect on tragedy.

To pretend we can outlaw this or that to solve issues only mocks the victims. I'm all for looking at any change that can truely reduce deaths but pretending is no real help.

The sad truth may be that we can't predict the future and who's likely to go off. Public awareness of symptoms that can lead to tragedy and a willingness of family members to get help for others may be the best solution,although not perfect.

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by Old TexMex

Banks are not "gun free zones". Why not? Do we value bank employees and customers more than children and teachers?

In Columbus, there is one large bank chain that is posted. Everytime a bank robbery story hits the news, you can guess the chain associated with the branch: the chain that prohibits law-abiding citizens from self-defense. If my bank (an even larger multi-state megabank) ever posts, I will be moving all of my accounts, protestations notwithstanding.

[SanJoseScott]

Another law won't help.
It was illegal for the 20 year old to steal his mother's guns.
It was illegal for the mother to not have the guns locked up with under 21 occupants.
It was illegal for the kid to drive with loaded firearms.
It was illegal to break out the window of the school.
It may have been illegal to have a firearm on school grounds (gun free zone?).
It was illegal to commit murder.

If all of those laws didn't prevent what happened would another law help?

There is a question in my mind about gun safe and access but until I hear the truth (gun safe or not, broke into it or not, etc) I will refrain.

[2hawk]

Well, there's a lot of material right here in this forum. If they are computer users you can send the links that we've been posting send them in an email.

But, just for starters:

1. We had an AWB law with magazine restrictions, it made NO difference in crime rates. FBI and NIJ crime stats confirm this.

2. David Gregory, in his interview with Wayne LaPierre, showed just how easy it is to circumvent the law when he held up a 30 AR magazine for dramatic effect. His possession of this magazine is in violation of Washington DC law, where the show is taped. Bottom line, criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Therefore, new laws will have no effect on them. Ditto the crazies: once they have decided to act, it may be a gun, or it may be another weapon, but they are not constrained in way, shape or form by law.

3. Since it has been amply, and sadly I might add, demonstrated that criminals and crazies can get their hands on weapons with no regard for the laws we already have, why should I be prohibited from defending myself with tools that give me some semblance of parity with the bad guys? I am a law abiding citizen, and my right of self defense should be equal to whatever the criminals have.

4. Look at all the proponents of restrictions in the media and politics. Chances are good that they are constantly escorted by armed security. Obviously they think that their lives are worth protecting, and firearms in the hands of trained individuals is how they do that. Is my life somehow worth less than theirs? Do you really feel that someone who would prohibit you from doing something that they feel they require for themselves can be trusted?

5. How many law abiding citizens will be transformed into criminal offenders if these new proposals are enacted? I don't want to become a criminal, and be at risk of losing everything I have worked for all of my life, because a law that is in clear violation of my rights has be put in place.

And finally, I saw this quote from Ayn Rand, which I thought was pretty good:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Good Luck, and my wishes for Happy Holidays in these trying times.

[2hawk]

Oh, one more:

Crime stats also confirm that in the US, the highest rates of violent crime are in areas with the most stringent gun control, and the lowest rates of violent crime are in the areas with the highest numbers of privately owned firearms. More guns in the hands of good people = less crime. As over used as it is, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is absolutely the truth.

[SanJoseScott]

This post got my thoughts going for sure. I think we need to be careful as the differences between a friend or neighbor who are anti-gun and a flaming libtard, oops I mean't liberal, are quite distinct. The latter will never be swayed by facts while the former might enter into an honest discussion. There are times when discussing this with certain groups/types is a waste of time.

[Old TexMex]

The question"why do you need one of those?" has a conversation starter answer: " why do you need a private residence, even if it is guarenteed by the Constitution?"
An elderly woman who came here from Russia20 yrs ago suggested that one to me.
Another lady, (who believes in the 2nd), a night club owner/music promoter was stunned when I told her about "Operation Fast and Furious"!
Never heard of it. Didn't know. She had no idea, but she had stopped going to Mexico on holidays. Sad, that we're up against so much ignorance, much less the lies.

[redlevel]

Right now there is no such thing as a "reasonable argument" to the average anti-gunner. You can't reason with one who is unreasonable.

[Delos]

Rumor is that boxes of money are moved around with forklifts in warehouses in Mexico? Heading for the drug cartels.

If the crime rate changed in this country it would slow the flow of drugs in, and money out, of this country. Do not expect crime to change downward. Politicians want us to believe they are doing something by passing laws.

(If my memory serves)
No one is allowed to interview ex-Border Patrolmen Campeon and Ramos. The law meant to reduce armed crime years ago, that added ten years for use of a firearm, was used against them for wounding a fleeing repeat drug smuggler after he attacked one and ran. The district attorney in that border town chose to believe the career drug smuggler over the word of the officers. He was given a pass to come across the border to testify against the border patrolmen. One story claimed he brought drugs across on at least one of the trips, using that pass. The Border Patrolmen did a couple years in prison for picking up their shells after the shooting, and not filing a written shooting report. They explained the suspect did not look like he was hit, he jumped into a car the other side of the border.

Certainly there were verbal reports because the 750 pounds of marijuana in his van was reported and presumably impounded. Certainly no one charged them with keeping the marijuana and van, and no supervisors were charged?

The Border Patrolmen were released on probation after serving time for not writing down the shooting and (picking up fired shells was changed to) sanitizing the crime scene. They thought they were doing their job and their words and actions were changed to “picking up shells on a crime scene”.

Reports claimed border patrol cannot exceed the speed limit when chasing a suspect. In testimony at trial the criminal was ask if he was doing the speed limit and were the border patrolmen keeping up with him. (Reading that transcript made our courts look like a joke)

There is court action pending on the way the various media reported the Zimmerman situation, making him sound like a racist criminal.

I will not even get started on Rodney King. And what that cost the taxpayers.

Every time a burglary or robbery gets charged against an insurance company we all pay in higher rates and higher prices. So, our money goes to the drug cartels whether we are honest or not.

We can ponder who owns the anti-gun media stations. The mob? Rich Muslims? China? No one seems to know. It is not a secret that Arabs and Chinese have been buying up this country for many years. Farms, industries, even roads and bridges have become toll roads and bridges. How can politicians sell our country?

I once read a story about some foreign person or company buying up a bank and looting it during the carter administration. A wall of lawyers controlled the sale of the bank preventing anyone from knowing who the buyer was.

We do not need new laws against honest people. We need to put known criminals in prison. And like the ex-marine who was just released from a Mexican prison, after trying to travel correctly with a firearm, we need honest people released from mexico’s prisons and our prisons when discovered.

Mostly we need to know more about our politicians, perhaps more about where election monies comes from. Ask questions and speak openly.

[Simmer down]

Originally Posted by SanJoseScott

This post got my thoughts going for sure. I think we need to be careful as the differences between a friend or neighbor who are anti-gun and a flaming libtard, oops I mean't liberal, are quite distinct. The latter will never be swayed by facts while the former might enter into an honest discussion. There are times when discussing this with certain groups/types is a waste of time.

Flaming Libtard?

[amazingflapjack]

All above well said, for me the short report is Kenesaw, Ga. , and the thought that if guns kill people, then cars should get DUI's.

[Old TexMex]

The "low information voter" is the person who we know and are our neighbors, workmates and family. Ignorance is not malice. It's just lack of info or bad info. I try to shed a little light. If anyone gets me started on cross-border shenanigans, they get information and sources. Ask someone who thinks gunshows are the source of Mexican cartel arms if they know who Special Agent Jaime Zapata(RIP 2/15/2011) was, and who he worked for, and Agent Brian Terry(12/14/10)This Christmas I remember them and their families.They did not deserve their end.

[Mass777]

Originally Posted by Stophel

"Do you think that we do NOT have the Right to defend against tyranny?" This is THE basic question. Do anti-gun people believe that we have no right to fight tyranny, no matter how heinous?

They think that the Government will never try its hand at tyranny. I don't think the full U.S Govt oppression will happen in my lifetime, but to rule out the extreme possibility is naive thinking. Anti-gun people then counter me with: "Well you guys are doomed anyway because you don't have Jets, Drones and tanks". They are right I suppose, but to hand over our arms because we would be outgunned is absurd.


Anyway, I like to say: "Look at D.C." to the anti gun people.