Dealing with Antis on FB need sources for arguments!

[Dr.Jimmy Rustler 23]

i know, i know, "not this shit again"

 

but i need some supporting sources as to why banning guns won't solve violence in the USA

[Handyman 5,682]

You can't win an argument with a moron.

[Damjan 73]

Here Is an online compendium courtesy of Sgt Toadette.....now go get em

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/43322-njgf-online-resource-compendium/

[Underdog 1,593]

Great list from the Toad!

 

Some of these may or  may not have been on there, but they are a great place to start.  Get the PFD at gunfacts.

 

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

 

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/

 

http://americangunfacts.com/

 

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Oleg 8]

There is no way to win this argument because both sides are right/wrong in their own way.

[maintenanceguy 510]

There is no argument that can win anyone over to your side.  They hold their positions for emotional reasons.  Logic and facts can't win an emotional argument.

 

I used to try to do the same thing.  I won't do it any more.  We are never going to convert those who hate us.  The only way to overcome them is to fight.

 

But lets be honest.  I hold my position on guns for emotional reasons too.  I am furious that the government would violate an enumerated right of the people.  I am furious that anyone believes they have the authority to tell someone else what object they can own, buy, or carry.  I am fervently pro gun for emotional reasons too.

 

While it's not possible to sway someone who is anti gun, it is possible to sway someone who is on the fence.  But logic doesn't work here either.  Guns are an emotional issue.  Take a friend or coworker shooting.  Let them discover for themselves that guns can be handled safely, that guns are a lot of fun, and that people with guns are almost always responsible, safe, and careful.  I've had a part in converting several people this way, without having to tell them any facts.

[son of sam 9]

Tell them you have tried not shooting guns so they should try shooting guns. Then offer to take them to a range day. Cant argue with internet data because for every pro-gun bit there is a anti-gun sku of the data. None of us can say that guns havent been used to kill people. The anti crowd doesnt want to hear that lots of things have been used just as effectively or more effectively.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

what you will find will happen if you use facts.

 they will attack you

 they will call you names.

 they will accuse you of being racist.

 they will block you when all else fails

 

 ask me how i know this.

[Malsua 1,422]

 

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into"

[MartyZ 692]

I have spoken to many liberals and conservative in both NY and NJ and 90% of them have no idea that 47 states have much more relaxed gun laws than NY and NJ.  When I tell them that people can CCW in 47 states and can even own full autos and silencers in most of those states their eyes open up like dinner plates.  I personally am not on social media as I value my privacy.  But if I were on Facebook the first thing I would tell people are the facts about the other 47 states and how it's not the wild west in those states and that crime is lower there.  If they still argue after that then they are already too far gone and won't believe you when you tell them the sky is blue.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

well this charlston shooting is gonna go against that argument marty.

[MartyZ 692]

The Charlston shooting was the same as Colorado and Connecticut, a psycho in a gun-free zone who got his gun from his parents.  Combine that with the crime spree in NY after the repeal of stop and frisk and it's a wash. 

[Malsua 1,422]

The Charlston shooting was the same as Colorado and Connecticut, a psycho in a gun-free zone who got his gun from his parents.  Combine that with the crime spree in NY after the repeal of stop and frisk and it's a wash. 

 

From CNN, they claim the guy bought the gun himself and passed a NICS check.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

The Charlston shooting was the same as Colorado and Connecticut, a psycho in a gun-free zone who got his gun from his parents.  Combine that with the crime spree in NY after the repeal of stop and frisk and it's a wash. 

i know that, and you know that. co and ct both have restrictive guns laws. the antis don't care about that. sc has pretty open guns laws. they will use this.

[Kevin125 4,772]

If you have the energy and time to engage these idiots, all you can do is say why they are wrong and spell out what is right.

 

If and when they start getting irrational, you know you "won".  But you'll never get them to admit that.

[louu 399]

First off, fuck facebook that shit is a waste of time.

 

Second, yeah every one above is spot on that you cant argue or change the mind of an ignorant dip shit.

 

Third, if you still feel the need, just make shit up like they do, for example...

 

Number of home invasions and rapes stopped by cops, ZERO!

Number of home invasions stopped by responsible firearm owners, tens of thousands...

[Kevin125 4,772]

well this charlston shooting is gonna go against that argument marty.

 

 

1Lt, I think you mean the anti's are going to argue that this happened BECAUSE of the lack of restrictive gun laws in SC.  aka.. a Wild Wild West State.  But they can also say a unicorn was the cause and it would have as much to do with the events there.  I assume that you know that the ability for people to to exercise their 2A rights was irrelevant.  But regardless of what the gun grabbers say.....this took place where it did simply because that's where the psychopath happened to live.

 

It would not have gone down any differently in any other state, given the same circumstances.  Those being.... nut case on a mission....  pastor who thinks it's safer if you are unarmed.

 

The next thing they'll say is he shouldn't have had a gun.  Well, lets say he didn't.  What would mister psychopath do then?  Get a knife...  hatchet...  axe....   5 gallons of diesel and a zippo....  some pipe bombs....

 

He meant to kill the people in that meeting.  Removing the gun changes nothing.

 

The argument that 2A free states are safer is unchanged.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Louu.

 

lmao...

[jackandjill 683]

Best you can do is challenge them to show up for a range session and meet people.  You will not win arguments on internet (much less facebook) with keyboard warriors. 

[1LtCAP 4,263]

1Lt, I think you mean the anti's are going to argue that this happened BECAUSE of the lack of restrictive gun laws in SC.  aka.. a Wild Wild West State.  But they can also say a unicorn was the cause and it would have as much to do with the events there.  I assume that you know that the ability for people to to exercise their 2A rights was irrelevant.  But regardless of what the gun grabbers say.....this took place where it did simply because that's where the psychopath happened to live.

 

It would not have gone down any differently in any other state, given the same circumstances.  Those being.... nut case on a mission....  pastor who thinks it's safer if you are unarmed.

 

The next thing they'll say is he shouldn't have had a gun.  Well, lets say he didn't.  What would mister psychopath do then?  Get a knife...  hatchet...  axe....   5 gallons of diesel and a zippo....  some pipe bombs....

 

He meant to kill the people in that meeting.  Removing the gun changes nothing.

 

The argument that 2A free states are safer is unchanged.

and you can give them these facts all day long....till they block ya.

[Kevin125 4,772]

and you can give them these facts all day long....till they block ya.

right.

 

I was talking about whether they actually have a valid point.  Which they don't.

[Howard 538]

what you will find will happen if you use facts.

 they will attack you

 they will call you names.

 they will accuse you of being racist.

 they will block you when all else fails

 

 ask me how i know this.

^^^^Nailed it.  You will never win, but you will have fun pissing them off.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

there's a page over there called american firearm policy discussion. marcus max started it. i'm still on it. i see very little any more though, 'cause most of the antis that were on there blocked me when i'd come in with facts. ya can't fix stupid. that saying exists for a reason.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Not much of a "discussion" then is it?

 

Typical leftists.  Shut down those who disagree with you.  It's what they do since they know they have no case.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

Not much of a "discussion" then is it?

 

Typical leftists.  Shut down those who disagree with you.  It's what they do since they know they have no case.

no it's not. they just can't handle facts. if they let facts in, then virtually ALL of their discussion points become instantly invalid. they simply cannot admit that they're wrong.

[AVB-AMG 530]

There is no argument that can win anyone over to your side.  They hold their positions for emotional reasons.  Logic and facts can't win an emotional argument..

 

While it's not possible to sway someone who is anti gun, it is possible to sway someone who is on the fence.  But logic doesn't work here either.  Guns are an emotional issue.  Take a friend or coworker shooting.  Let them discover for themselves that guns can be handled safely, that guns are a lot of fun, and that people with guns are almost always responsible, safe, and careful.  I've had a part in converting several people this way, without having to tell them any facts.

maintenanceguy:

 

I agree with most of what you said, except for the absolute statement that “It’s not possible to sway someone who is anti gun….”. 

 

My experience over the past couple of years has been that more and more people who I know who have historically been anti gun, have evolved and modified their attitude and position to becoming more open to considering access to guns as well as gun ownership, as an important freedom to have and maintain, specifically for self or home defense.  It may be a sad commentary on the real and/or perceived direction that our country is taking, but many peoples attitudes are changing.  These people are not part of the vocal pro-2^nd Amendment group, but are growing more accepting of their basic argument. 

 

I, along with most of my friends and co-workers do not see the world and many of today’s headline issues as being “black and white” or an “either/or” situation.  We recognize the many shades of gray that are part of all of these issues and can take a reasoned rational perspective as opposed to one extreme or the other.  Dare I say that this moderate approach is healthier in the long run….

I have suggested to several friends and relatives to join me at a gun range to shoot one of my handguns to see what it is about for themselves and to demystify what shooting a gun is like.  In most cases, afterwards, they realize that they can do it quite easily and may even enjoy it, realizing the "fun" aspect of target shooting.  My wife was anti-gun and after much discussion, was willing to join me at the range, where I paid for a private one-on-one lesson for her with a seasoned ex-military, retired LEO gun instructor,without me being part of the instruction.  He had the appropriate approach and patience to teach her the basic and safe use of a 9mm hand gun, answering her many basic questions.  It turned out that she is a very consistently accurate shooter and she discovered the competitive joy of accurate target shooting.  Also, as most of us married guys know and understand, trying to teach our wives something, anything, can be met with a condescending or sarcastic attitude that is typical of many long-term husband/wife relationships and marriages.  Therefore, having an expert, third-party instructor perform this important introduction to the proper and safe handling of a firearm was most prudent and money well spent, IMHO. 

 

Your basic point is well taken:  Bring them the opportunity and then let them discover what a firearm is all about and you may be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

 

AVB-AMG

[Dr.Jimmy Rustler 23]

the guy posted like 10 BS articles of junk that is completely irrelevant so I didn't even bother responding lol. 

 

idc if he thinks he won the conversation/debate. can't fix stupid

[1LtCAP 4,263]

the guy posted like 10 BS articles of junk that is completely irrelevant so I didn't even bother responding lol. 

 

idc if he thinks he won the conversation/debate. can't fix stupid

he does. what you need to do now, is to disassemble his points one by one. and make it clear that they have nothing to do with the discussion.

[PD2K 115]

This quote pretty much sums it up:

 

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

[Scorpio64 5,154]

I believe the Federalist Papers is the place to start.  They are the foundation of the second amendment and clearly explain it's intent.  When someone says the 2A was never intended to put military firearms in the hands of civilians, the FP gives you every bit of information you need to put that lame ass argument to rest.  There's lots of things in the FP that go on about taxes and structure of government, but pervasive through the entire collection is the right of the people to possess and bear arms.  There is no one section that says people have the right, the reasons for it are incorporated into nearly every aspect of the framing of the BoR.