What would be your response?


telpinaro said:
Tried that one. Here's the fun part... she agrees. Violent crime will go up, and you will be much more likely to be beaten, stabbed, raped, and robbed. (I recall Australia having a particularly insane rape rate... forget the numbers... 1 in 4?) But you will be slightly less likely to be dead. And she's ok with that. I attempted explaining that each violent encounter is a chance to die, so really your individual chances of dying are higher, especially hers as she often works in LA at strange hours and very late nights, but she's still fine with less people total dead.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I know you said be nice etc., but if she's fine with my wife getting raped so that fewer rapists end up dead, she's a moron of the first order. She's an enabler of the burgeoning police state because she looks to government control on individual liberty as being preferable to individual liberty. CA has succeeded with her to the enth degree. She is perfectly conditioned to be a willing slave, and by the time she realizes that obvious fact, it will be too late for her to extricate herself from that condition. The "soft tyranny" of the current overreaching government will progress to its natural conclusion, and the chains will not be so soft once the tyrants she's enabling with her support and votes get their way by disarming America. Totalitarianism is the natural progression from disarmament of the citizenry. Time after bloody time, that progression has shown itself throughout the history of man.

On the issue of "impulsive" suicides, surely she's aware that firearms have only been around for a fraction of the history of human beings, right? There have always been cliffs to take a dive off of. There have always been sharp objects to puncture or slice with. There have always been poisonous plants and critters to expose one's self to. Depression, desperation and mental illness lead to suicide, not the availability of just one of many means with which to accomplish the deed.

Your friend may be sweet as honey and nice as pie, but she's irrational and ignorant as well. The part in bold above proves it. I don't volunteer my right of self defense to satisfy and/or justify the irrationality of people like her. My wife's safety (that she provides for herself BTW, not me) is much more important to me than helping some statist feel better about her voracious appetite for citizens' freedoms.

And BTW, Australia experienced a huge skyrocketing of violent crime after the '96 gun bans/confiscations, especially in the "hot" home invasion category, meaning when the occupants are home. Even in CA, it is the unknown factor for thugs that every home on a given block might be occupied by an armed citizen trained and competent to meet the violence they intend to unleash with equal and/or greater force that makes our stats on home invasions much better than Australia's.

Blues
 

telpinaro said:
Tried that one. Here's the fun part... she agrees. Violent crime will go up, and you will be much more likely to be beaten, stabbed, raped, and robbed. (I recall Australia having a particularly insane rape rate... forget the numbers... 1 in 4?) But you will be slightly less likely to be dead. And she's ok with that. I attempted explaining that each violent encounter is a chance to die, so really your individual chances of dying are higher, especially hers as she often works in LA at strange hours and very late nights, but she's still fine with less people total dead.
Click to expand...

I am going to provide links to her worst nightmare...horrific killers that never used a gun!

Ted Bundy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Wayne Gacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Speck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gary Ridgway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hillside Strangler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are a few links to vicious homicides without guns being used...

2006 Richmond spree murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Florida man pleads no contest in hammer slayings of parents | WTVR.com
Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are just a speck in the dirt of the evil that lurks in our neighborhoods. None of the victims could defend themselves. They were all overpowered, including the 2 infants hammered to death in Richmond. None of the victims was armed with a gun and none of the victims was killed with a gun. The majority of the victims illustrated by these stories were female. Richard Speck was able to kill 8 nurses with a knife over a period of time. Is this the world your friend wants? The father in Richmond got to watch his infants murdered with a hammer...the father in Connecticut got to watch his wife and daughter murdered with a knife. This is the world your friend prefers. One question I have is will she be willing to sacrifice herself or one of her loved ones to save the next victim of a horrific attack? If not she needs to stop pounding the pavement for a gun free society.
 
telpinaro said:
Not allowing me to "like."

My other point is that as soon as the government bombs somewhere in this country, the whole population will become gun owners. In that situation, I'd be happy to loan a firearm to an anti-gun nut!
Click to expand...
By that time it might be too late. Gun confiscation worked well for Hitler and Mao.
 
BluesStringer said:
I'm sorry, I know you said be nice etc., but if she's fine with my wife getting raped so that fewer rapists end up dead, she's a moron of the first order. She's an enabler of the burgeoning police state because she looks to government control on individual liberty as being preferable to individual liberty. CA has succeeded with her to the enth degree. She is perfectly conditioned to be a willing slave, and by the time she realizes that obvious fact, it will be too late for her to extricate herself from that condition. The "soft tyranny" of the current overreaching government will progress to its natural conclusion, and the chains will not be so soft once the tyrants she's enabling with her support and votes get their way by disarming America. Totalitarianism is the natural progression from disarmament of the citizenry. Time after bloody time, that progression has shown itself throughout the history of man.

On the issue of "impulsive" suicides, surely she's aware that firearms have only been around for a fraction of the history of human beings, right? There have always been cliffs to take a dive off of. There have always been sharp objects to puncture or slice with. There have always been poisonous plants and critters to expose one's self to. Depression, desperation and mental illness lead to suicide, not the availability of just one of many means with which to accomplish the deed.

Your friend may be sweet as honey and nice as pie, but she's irrational and ignorant as well. The part in bold above proves it. I don't volunteer my right of self defense to satisfy and/or justify the irrationality of people like her. My wife's safety (that she provides for herself BTW, not me) is much more important to me than helping some statist feel better about her voracious appetite for citizens' freedoms.

And BTW, Australia experienced a huge skyrocketing of violent crime after the '96 gun bans/confiscations, especially in the "hot" home invasion category, meaning when the occupants are home. Even in CA, it is the unknown factor for thugs that every home on a given block might be occupied by an armed citizen trained and competent to meet the violence they intend to unleash with equal and/or greater force that makes our stats on home invasions much better than Australia's.

Blues
Click to expand...


I agree her view is irrational and dangerous. She is intelligent, idealistic, surrounded by idiots, and working from a very different information base... You can be a genius, but if you have bad information you're gonna sound like an idiot. Which she does. And she puts it a little differently... she'd prefer ME raped than my son shot and killed at school, and she believes the latter more likely (thanks, Bloomberg and MDA, for messing up those statistics and making it seem more plausible). I'm not ok with EITHER. I'm not ok with her walking around LA at night with nothing but pepper spray. I'm not ok with crime period--I should have the ability to keep my family safe with the most effective method available, and she's not ok with dead. She doesn't particularly want the rapist alive, but she thinks the potential victim is more likely to get shot and killed by some accident or mass shooting. And she's got information that points to guns = more death, however wrong it might be. Heck, not all of it is dead wrong. Which, of course, is the issue. Enough truth mixed with the misinformation that people lump it all together... they believe the lie and dismiss the truth, or just dismiss everything and go with what they think is logical.

And yeah, she's aware of Australia's crime surge. Unfortunately, after a few years homicide went down. I looked at the numbers from Australia's government myself, and while everything else went up like crazy, there were fewer people murdered.

Oh, she's also coming from the fact that she's a single woman who is extremely athletic, very muscular, and did karate for years. So guns seem less necessary. As sympathetic as she can be (in all but this issue) she does not understand that some people cannot mess around with less-lethal devices. People train with guns, so she thinks people can train with tasers or pepper spray just as easily. She's a fan of self-defense, actually, but like many... only in her way.


Keep in mind... I obviously don't believe any of this sh!t. I'm trying to convince someone who is intelligent but idealistic and blind and need new arguments! Someone with her brain should not be conditioned.
 
She may be a triple dog dare black belt but...how to put this gently...she is no match for a man...she needs to go back to black belt school and let a normal sized man jump her from behind. It is finished.
 
JimTh said:
She may be a triple dog dare black belt but...how to put this gently...she is no match for a man...she needs to go back to black belt school and let a normal sized man jump her from behind. It is finished.
Click to expand...

Actually, it'll take a bit more than a normal-sized man. She weighs almost as much as an average man, and it's all muscle. And that's how she was trained... she never made black belt, but in their method of training she'd regularly get attacked by three black belts at once, and they only sort of took turns. She gets surprised by someone who grapples, though, and it'd be over. I'd actually be better off at my measly 115-120 lbs of not-so-much-muscle... I've been taught that if someone were to grab me from behind in a choke hold, I should shoot out the elbow. Finding someone to train that with is difficult... Seriously wish I had someone to go to the range with. And, obviously, a plastic gun. No shooting my training partner's elbow. :wink:
 
JimTh said:
She may be a triple dog dare black belt but...how to put this gently...she is no match for a man...she needs to go back to black belt school and let a normal sized man jump her from behind. It is finished.
Click to expand...
Tell her that "Xena, Warrior Princess" was NOT a documentary.
 
I have given up on having this discussion with antis. You can't reason someone out of a position that didn't reason themselves into to begin with.

I had an argument with a friend on FB last night about proposed UBC legislation in Washington state. When I pointed out that they don't have the man power to follow up on denials under the existing system and provided a source quote his response was " I don't give a ****, I don't like guns" then he said he couldn't expect someone who is clearly an NRA nut job to understand that.
 
You can't change the mind of the irrational thinker. Her position is obtuse. She knows the bad guy remains armed so her position does not decrease crime. The question for her is "why" does she have this position if it would increase crime. Perhaps she sees everyone as herself... inept and afraid.
 
telpinaro said:
Had an interesting conversation with someone intelligent and able to listen, who happens to be in favor of gun control. And by gun control, she means nobody allowed to own guns in their home, for any reason. (Possibly be allowed to keep them in designated gun clubs that would have the ability to somehow store them securely for each individual owner.)

Here's where it gets interesting. She agrees that it would not lessen crime, and would likely increase crime. She agrees that criminals would still have guns to use against good people. However, she has found surprisingly credible information supporting the idea that countries with strict gun control have less people dead. Debunking the ?Guns Don?t Kill People, People Kill People? Myth | Armed With Reason was the most interesting. Some of the sources are biased (anything from UK or New York is suspect... lol), but a surprising amount weren't obviously so.

I'm not interested in disproving the article... frankly I don't care about the article, as one day when I have time, I'll try to find the straight numbers-from government crime statistics, not articles-of people dying in each country (if someone already has some of those, that'd be great!). Her logic is that if nobody had guns in their homes, there would be fewer successful impulsive suicides (true - part of a different conversation though so won't address it here), no children would be able to have accidents or shoot people at schools after finding parent's guns, and no psychotic people could steal guns from family members (obviously they could still buy them from criminals, but it's cheaper to steal from your relatives). That is ALL she is concerned about, and if nobody allowed to own guns will fix that, she's all for it. And frankly, nobody owning guns would lessen that type of thing. We all know the usual arguments, but she acknowledges them and says it would still be better for us all be forced to deal with less-lethal self-defense methods rather than letting kids take their parent's guns and the like. It's rather difficult to argue when she gives you all your points!

Sadly, the best way to counter this would be to let CA ban guns and see what happens in ten years or so. Anyone got any other methods? Any sources stating how few incidents/gun owner that aren't extremely conservative? (I don't blame her for not trusting anything that has any sort of agenda... I don't either.) I remember reading some a while ago... especially a cool one that weighted crime in each country where it turned out Belgium was the most violent and the US ranked about 12th. Having trouble finding it again, though...

Keep in mind that while we don't agree on this particular issue, I still love and respect her, so be nice! :smile: She's a good person who was raised in and never left CA, and is surrounded by liberals. A logical, non-angry approach may not change her mind, but will at least keep it open.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to step back and say sorry, You're entitled to your opinion but I'm just not going to waste my time arguing with you because it's pointless. Rather than waste energy and time with her, gather votes and emails from pro gun folks to influence legislators. That's a worthwhile pastime.
 
Eidolon said:
I have given up on having this discussion with antis. You can't reason someone out of a position that didn't reason themselves into to begin with.

I had an argument with a friend on FB last night about proposed UBC legislation in Washington state. When I pointed out that they don't have the man power to follow up on denials under the existing system and provided a source quote his response was " I don't give a ****, I don't like guns" then he said he couldn't expect someone who is clearly an NRA nut job to understand that.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't like guns, tell him not to buy one and leave the rest of us the hell alone!
 
telpinaro said:
Her logic is that if nobody had guns in their homes, there would be fewer successful impulsive suicides (true - part of a different conversation though so won't address it here), no children would be able to have accidents or shoot people at schools after finding parent's guns, and no psychotic people could steal guns from family members (obviously they could still buy them from criminals, but it's cheaper to steal from your relatives). That is ALL she is concerned about, and if nobody allowed to own guns will fix that, she's all for it.
Click to expand...

So by this same logic I assume your friend wants all motor vehicles banned? That would have prevented 33783 deaths in 2011 as opposed to 32351 firearm deaths according to the CDC (FastStats - Injuries). Heck, according to the CDC 15 people died from overexertion in 2011. Better ban all forms of physical activity... after all, if it saves one life its worth it, right?
Ultimately that's where your friend's position ends up, ban everything that might be a danger to someone. Until one day she wakes up and realizes that by supporting these bans she has given away her rights and freedoms one step at a time, and of course then it's too late.
 
telpinaro said:
Keep in mind that while we don't agree on this particular issue, I still love and respect her, so be nice! :smile: She's a good person who was raised in and never left CA, and is surrounded by liberals. A logical, non-angry approach may not change her mind, but will at least keep it open.
Click to expand...

You clearly Care about her greatly. Give her a copy of this article and a nice kiss on the forehead, and say "I'm there for you."

Link Removed
 
Loving all the ideas... Been trying to find a website I saw a while ago, but can't find it. Anyone remember who has been collecting self-defense stories and tracking them? I'm thinking the only way to counter "But banning guns will save people and here's the data!" is with "Here's a list of all the people that aren't dead because they had guns. And X% of them clearly couldn't have used less-lethal methods."
 
Get rid of crime, drugs, alcohol, armed police, politicians, large predatory animals and ones that don't taste good and I'll get rid of my guns but none of that will occur here on prison planet so I'll keep mine until I transition to the spirit world. Your friend unfortunately will become prey for the desperate and /or criminal element.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 130 (members: 0, guests: 130)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,262
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top