Arguing With an Anti-Need Help

[Bully 749]

I'm in an ongoing discussion with an "anti" client.  She brought up Australia.  I don't have an answer and my "google-fu" is not strong today.  Essentially I would like to know and have hard numbers.  If I'm in the wrong, so be it.  

 

Has:  Vionlent crime/Murder/Suicde gone down in AU since the gun ban/confiscation?  Hard, verifiable, real numbers are what I'm hoping to find.  I can't seem to locate any in my/our favor.

 

Thanks a ton.  Bunch of much smarter than me folks out there.  Hoping they chime in.

[Purple Patrick 638]

I hope you don't "slip" with your scissors haha

 

this signature exceeds the 15 character capacity count

[SW9racer 262]

It's hard to compare countries as each one has its own identity, culture, values, way of life. You should bring up Chicago (which has a ban) any a large Texas city. A gun ban in the US would turn out completely different than a gun ban in Australia.

[mipafox 438]

Trend was unchanged after the ban. It was dropping before the ban, it was dropping at the same rate after the ban. I think gun violence started increasing a little later.

 

Here is what you do. She needs a demo. Get a stick about 20" long, and shove it up her ass.

 

If you ask these guys you will get your answer and the sources:

 

enoughgun.com

 

They have Australian gun stats down to wind direction.

[NJGF 375]

Overall the homicide rate has been relatively steady. There are lots of reasons why the rates can vary. For example the aging of a population can have a big effect on crime (older people commit less crime).

 

The following is produced by the Australian government. The charts are interesting.

 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.

 

Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.

 

In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.

[Kevin125 4,772]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/03/shooting-gun-free-australia-leaves-least-two-dead/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/08/21/aussie-politician-complains-about-u-s-gun-laws-but-gun-crime-in-sydney-is-out-of-control/

 

 

Try this guy.

 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected].

[45Doll 5,873]

Yes, it's a gun control paradise now.

 

For the criminals.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

If all else fails, ask her how she thinks they can take 300,000,000+ guns away from over 100,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.  

[Bully 749]

Folks, let's play nice. I just needed some assistance with stats.

 

I have found in my relatively short time as a firearms apologist that getting confrontational is useless. I just want to be able to combat rhetoric with facts.

[jackandjill 683]

That Aus Govt link provided by NJGF shows good stats. In fact, while the number of homicides were on declining trend, the number jumped to highest levels twice well after the confiscation program went into effect. 

 

However, none of these stats will convince any Anti. They made up their mind and they will argue numbers to justify their argument.  While you are presenting them with overall homicide numbers (which is the right thing to do), they will ignore it and show you the "homicides involving firearm" trend.  In summary, they are ok with more people being victims of violence as long as firearm is not involved. 

 

They will also argue that the numbers "would have been far worse" had it not been for the confiscation efforts. And you cannot argue that train of thought with numbers. 

 

In summary, if the numbers go up, they argue it could have been worse. If the numbers go down, they attribute that to the confiscation. Good luck winning that argument. 

 

 

You got the stats. Good luck. 

[Bighungry618 450]

they will ignore it and show you the "homicides involving firearm" trend.  In summary, they are ok with more people being victims of violence as long as firearm is not involved. 

 

 

That's a great point to present as well.  Ask your anti friend if murders and violent crime are acceptable because no firearms were used during their commision.  Ask her if hammers, bats and other inanimate objects should be banned and confiscated because they are used in criminal activity.   Ask her real "common sense" questions.

[mipafox 438]

She will say hammers and bats have legitimate purposes, while guns mostly do harm.

 

As far as "gun violence" goes, this term and focus became ubiquitous in the late 90s. It certainly existed before. But in the late 90s, after being blugeoned by anti-gunners for decades, people started looking at the real numbers, the real trends, and violence rates in countries like ours other than the three the antis cherry picked. And our violence rates were still going down while others were on the rise. Antis quickly decided to focus on "gun violence" because they thought it would make their comparisons look better. It did not, but they still cherry picked their examples.

 

The interesting and frightening thing is how easily we can be manipulated. In less than 20 years society has been brainwashed into believing that violence does not matter, only "gun violence" matters. There's no logic to that, but people take it as dogma. Sort of like how they convinced us in the past 10 years that it is immoral to deport illegal alliens (even though we always did it before for 80+ years) and "there's no way you can deport 11 million people" (even though Clinton deported 10 million and Bush deported 8 million). These ideas do not make sense on their face. It should be blatently obvious to anybody with an IQ over 100. Yet, they have managed to condition us into believe this garbage over very short periods of time. Scary. And they are clearly not finished yet. We have a new generation coming out of school soon, and you know what they have been taught.

[djg0770 481]

Folks, let's play nice. I just needed some assistance with stats.

 

I have found in my relatively short time as a firearms apologist that getting confrontational is useless. I just want to be able to combat rhetoric with facts.

Because those who spout rhetoric will be convinced with logic and facts?  This would be the... errr... first time that would have worked.

[Babyface Finster 45]

It is a complete waste of time to argue anything with someone whose opinion is based upon fear and emotion.  They will only accept "facts" which support their view and dismiss all else.  They will discount any sources of information you present as biased, unverified, out of context or plain wrong and counter with their own which are to be taken as gospel truth.

 

Why invite such frustration into your life?

[Schrödinger's cat 87]

There are many people that have no agenda, they simply have no clue. They have never seen a gun in their lives, they don't know the process of buying them, and they don't understand how criminals get them. To them guns are scary, and the only time they ever hear of them is when they are used for criminal purposes. I talk to people like this all the time, and many times people listen. It's not as lost as many of you nay sayers make it. It's just that as mipa alluded to particularly in NJ where many people are not familiar with guns all they know is what they hear from the media. They listen when you talk to them. Whenever I sit on a plane or something like that I strike up conversation with the person near me and it usually leads to a talk about the 2A.

[jackandjill 683]

The key word in OP case is "ongoing discussion with an anti client".  Those who dont know, they usually ask curious questions, listen, acknowledge their assumptions, appreciate the more balanced info you just provided and may even signup for a come along to range.  And I have had that type of discussion with many with positive results.

 

But once it turns into "ongoing discussion that needs hard numbers & facts", you know where its going. 

[Babyface Finster 45]

The key word in OP case is "ongoing discussion with an anti client". Those who dont know, they usually ask curious questions, listen, acknowledge their assumptions, appreciate the more balanced info you just provided and may even signup for a come along to range. And I have had that type of discussion with many with positive results.

 

But once it turns into "ongoing discussion that needs hard numbers & facts", you know where its going.

That's the key. An "anti" is someone who has a strong position against guns, not someone who simply doesn't know any better. At least the way I use the term.

 

You can usually figure out which you are talking to in about 15 seconds.

[Cereza 106]

I strongly recommend reading The War on Guns by John R. Lott. He addresses Australia complete with data and charts. From Chapter 9, "Does Australia Show that Gun Control Works?":

 

The reason that some people who look at this data for firearm suicides and homicides conclude that the buyback was beneficial comes from a simple specification error. They look at the average firearm suicide and homicide rates before and after the buyback, but don’t look carefully at the how these rates were declining before the buyback occurred... Despite all the wondrous benefits supposedly produced by the Australian gun buyback, any honest reading of the evidence shows no benefit from the law. The reason that these laws didn’t produce much of a buyback seems obvious—the buyback only took guns away from law-abiding citizens.

[mipafox 438]

Oh, I missed the "client" part the first time.

 

Drop it, never bring it up again. Unless they ask you a specific question about the subject. This is business, not politics.

[Bully 749]

I'm a hairdresser. I am blessed to have many extremely intelligent folks that are open minded come and have very in-depth discussions revolving around a variety of topics. That doesn't mean that they aren't skeptical. It doesn't mean that they take my word at face value. And sometimes they just like pressing me to see how well I can debate a topic. So, I need a bit of help. Nothing more.

 

Thanks to all that have provided that help without resorting to keyboard commando nonsense, in full or part.

[mipafox 438]

I'm a hairdresser. I am blessed to have many extremely intelligent folks that are open minded come and have very in-depth discussions revolving around a variety of topics. That doesn't mean that they aren't skeptical. It doesn't mean that they take my word at face value. And sometimes they just like pressing me to see how well I can debate a topic. So, I need a bit of help. Nothing more.

 

Thanks to all that have provided that help without resorting to keyboard commando nonsense, in full or part.

Are you...um...well, you know...are you?

[brucin 923]

That Aus Govt link provided by NJGF shows good stats. In fact, while the number of homicides were on declining trend, the number jumped to highest levels twice well after the confiscation program went into effect. 

 

However, none of these stats will convince any Anti. They made up their mind and they will argue numbers to justify their argument.  While you are presenting them with overall homicide numbers (which is the right thing to do), they will ignore it and show you the "homicides involving firearm" trend.  In summary, they are ok with more people being victims of violence as long as firearm is not involved. 

 

They will also argue that the numbers "would have been far worse" had it not been for the confiscation efforts. And you cannot argue that train of thought with numbers. 

 

In summary, if the numbers go up, they argue it could have been worse. If the numbers go down, they attribute that to the confiscation. Good luck winning that argument. 

 

 

You got the stats. Good luck. 

 

I usually respond to that one with "and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon"

[maintenanceguy 510]

Don't argue with anti's.  Their position is based on emotions, not facts.  You can't convince them with facts and all you have is facts.  Don't waste your time.

[jackandjill 683]

I'm a hairdresser. I am blessed to have many extremely intelligent folks that are open minded come and have very in-depth discussions revolving around a variety of topics. That doesn't mean that they aren't skeptical. It doesn't mean that they take my word at face value. And sometimes they just like pressing me to see how well I can debate a topic. So, I need a bit of help. Nothing more.

 

Thanks to all that have provided that help without resorting to keyboard commando nonsense, in full or part.

BTW, extremely intelligent and open minded folks never view issue of firearms (keep and bear arms) through narrow lens of 50 years and crime rates.  They see it through broad lens of thousands of years of human history. They should be able to look through human history and see what happened every time common man was deprived of tools necessary to protect him/herself, family and establish fair society. They should see how society degenerated every time concentrated power brokers "offered" security under the guise of governing. 

 

They should be able to question real reasons behind free speech, bear arms, due process etc, and see clear message. A message of affording everyone tools necessary to protect themselves from all sorts of assaults. A message of affording common man with tools that help fight power corruption (as and when it raises) and establish a fair system.

 

A message of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all. Thats the real reason every being in the nature is afforded certain unalienable rights.

 

More than any stats, I promise you, that conversation of human history, innate necessity of freedom would be deeply satisfying to you and your intellectual clients.

[NJGF 375]

I usually respond to that one with "and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon"

 

I used to use: "if my grandmother had wings she could fly"

[NJGF 375]

..... Whenever I sit on a plane or something like that I strike up conversation with the person near me and it usually leads to a talk about the 2A.

 

I think I would be a little worried about discussing 2a on an airplane.

[gleninjersey 2,139]

Does this client live in Australia? Do they do a lot of business there? If not, who cares. You both live here. Discuss the laws and facts of our country.

 

If you really want to discuss it for your own education and enlightenment then I would suggest looking up Australia's counterpart to the FBI and look to any material similiar to ths National Crime Statistics for information.

 

What ever you find make sure to bring up the terrorists in Australia who a few years ago who had guns. Bring up the fact of the terrorist attacks in France which also has very strict gun laws.

 

I would also ask how many Australia citizens they think were unable to defend themselves due to Australia's laws. Ask them how often they think firearms are used defensively every year here in the US. Read this article and share it with them.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

 

Then ask them how they would feel making the (low number) 200k people a year here into victims of crime? Why would they want to do that to someones mother, sister, grandmother, etc?

 

Good luck with your ongoing conversation.

[Bully 749]

Thanks all.

 

Mipa, piss off.  Like my wife always says, "If you have to ask, you're probably looking".   Are you?  I have to ask.  I have some colleagues that would love to break, errrrr meet...ya.    

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so confrontational.  I was merely pointing out that confiscating the guns in this country would be logistically impossible, even aside from 2A rights.  

 

Tough to win an argument with an anti based on facts and logic.  You might try asking what she would do if she or her kids were facing serious injury or death from an assailant.  She will probably say that she would call the police.  You could then explain how it takes the police awhile to arrive, and blah, blah, blah.  

[mipafox 438]

Thanks all.

 

Mipa, piss off. Like my wife always says, "If you have to ask, you're probably looking". Are you? I have to ask. I have some colleagues that would love to break, errrrr meet...ya.

You're not Israeli like "You don't mess with the Zohan?" I've never met a male hairdresser but when I see them on TV that's what I think of.

 

No thanks, I already know plenty of Jews. Just curious.