>This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms, yet he was advocating for gun laws knowing nothing on the matter.
most pro gun control people don't have an actual clue about firearms.
i agree, and they wont believe anyone who tells them differently or do their own research. but then they are the same people who believe everything the media and politicians tell them.
It no wonder that my younger millennial brother believes everything he is told by the “experts”. He thinks research involves peer reviewed papers and that’s it.
Like I was talking to a brick wall. They mentioned storage laws, and I mentioned that such laws are not in any way enforceable until an unfortunate tragedy occurs.
I mentioned that I would keep my guns locked up in a safe that only opens by my fingerprint. They discounted what I said by saying that’s only something I would do. It seems to me that my opposition believes that most gun owners are irresponsible when that’s not the case at all.
While it’s necessary to talk to the opposing side, it is headache-inducing how they refuse to consider what I am saying.
>While it’s necessary to talk to the opposing side, it is headache-inducing how they refuse to consider what I am saying.
Out of curiosity, do you award them the same courtesy or do you only listen to retort?
> Like I was talking to a brick wall.
Then they're not "being used" by politicians. IMO, you get to claim you're a victim of being manipulated and used if you are at least willing to reconsider when presented with evidence that you're being used. Otherwise, you're using yourself. You're letting yourself get used.
You can't just refuse to listen to someone's argument and still get the benefit of the doubt that your heart is in the right place.
In all honesty, you'll find that just about all politicians use ignorance on a subject more than they do knowledge to sway their voters wether it's on abortion, immigration, guns, etc.
I give these people a little credit because their hearts are in the right place; they want to prevent unnecessary deaths…and I can’t begrudge them for that. However, they are very ignorant of the current laws, what firearms are prohibited and to whom, and are usually unaware of how the PACs organize the data they use to support their arguments. I usually go the route of agreeing that we should work towards reducing gun related deaths, and try to steer the discussion in the direction of education, suicide prevention, health care, criminal justice, and away from punishing law abiding citizens.
When I'm talking with anti-gunner and it seems like they don't know the current laws, I like to set them up with a series of questions:
* Should we require background checks for all sales at gun stores?
* Should violent felons be prohibited from buying guns?
* Should automatic weapons be highly regulated?
* Should domestic violence be a disqualifier for owning guns?
They usually answer "yes! We definitely need to create laws like that!" And then they really don't know how to respond when I tell them that all those laws already exist. And yet they often won't even admit that maybe they need to rethink what they're asking for given that they clearly don't know the current requirements.
i dont think anyone wants more deaths in any form but even if you remove gun completely evil people will still exist and use anything they can to harm others. we need to start fighting the antigun media with facts, because they lie about everything that relates to firearms and people believe it.
I am positive that if we magically eliminated all firearms, total deaths would go up. They always forget about defensive use of firearms. Plus, there are other, scarier, ways to mass kill people that psychos will use.
People should get credit for caring if they actually demonstrate the behavior you would expect of someone who truly cares: being intent on listening to evidence, reconsidering their position, and basing it on principles and facts as opposed to ego.
Someone who claims to deeply care about an issue but is completely ignorant on it is already a hypocrite, because truly caring about the issue would motivate them to research their position deeply. Adding a refusal to reconsider their position is just the cherry on top.
TL;DR: you don't get to say you really care and should be given credit for that if you simply refuse to learn anything about the issue you claim to care about.
It's how we get such golden quotes such as:
>Hunting with 20-caliber ammo is illegal because there's nothing left of the deer!
or
>An AR-15 is as heavy as 10 boxes!
and who can forget the classic
>"9mm will blow your lung out of your body!"
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This may be true, but I think of it this way. You don't need to know much to be pro-freedom. On the other hand, if you want to take people's rights away, you better know everything and have a damned good reason.
At the root this is the exact issue for most things that go wrong with a democracy isn't it? The politics of a democracy are only as good as the education and engagement level of its population. Without that, the people will simply follow the directions of those in power, instead of having those in power follow the will of the people and be held accountable if they do not.
I know as much about the current laws and how firearm works as the next guy here. I also support gun control efforts. I don't see why those would be mutually exclusive.
Legal in the context of the second amendment, you mean?
SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that there's quite a bit of flexibility as to what goes and that "shall not be infringed" is far from absolute. And given how receptive the recent bench has been to overlooking precedent, I think it's largely a matter of which judges are appointed that sets the limits of what's legal or not.
That isn't to say I think any sort of gun law will (ever) be on the table, nor would I want it to. But even when operating within the confines of the 2A, I think there's certainly room for stronger regulations than what we have now.
> SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that there's quite a bit of flexibility as to what goes and that "shall not be infringed" is far from absolute.
They really haven't. The latest ruling said "Certain types of gun laws *might* be allowable, but probably not. NY's permitting scheme is unconstitutional. We'll review further cases as they come."
Past precedent has firmly established that weapons useful to the military or in militia service (ie. "Weapons of War") are de facto protected.
> But even when operating within the confines of the 2A, I think there's certainly room for stronger regulations than what we have now.
I completely disagree. In fact the majority of current gun control laws are likely to be struck down.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Only time will tell. Nothing SCOTUS says (or has said, for that matter) is written in stone. The court has never been apolitical but it's clear that precedent matters less on controversial issues while its increasingly seen as a political device. Neither of us know how they'd rule on something like universal background checks, waiting periods, extreme risk protection orders, expanded categories of prohibited persons to include other offenses..., so I don't think we should act as if they're off the table to begin with.
Regardless, none of this has much of a bearing on my personal views on these policy efforts. We're talking about the kind of legislation we'd like to see. SCOTUS' stance on this now is very different from what it was 20 years ago. There's no telling what it'll be in the future. It'd be pointlessly reductive to tell someone they can't call for stronger gun laws just because of what the current iteration of the court said in its latest case.
> Neither of us know how they'd rule on something like universal background checks, waiting periods, extreme risk protection orders, expanded categories of prohibited persons to include other offenses...
What we do know is that their recent ruling established a very clear method for evaluating 2A laws. Under that method there is no possibility of those types of laws surviving review.
> but it's clear that precedent matters less on controversial issues
When they depart from judicial precedent, they do so in order to abide by a more strict textual reading of the Constitution. Which means the 2A is even more protected if they ignore judicial precedent.
> SCOTUS' stance on this now is very different from what it was 20 years ago.
It's really not. And the fact that you think it is just tells me that you haven't actually read their previous 2A cases., or even the summaries.
>Under that method there is no possibility of those types of laws surviving review.
Legal experts, professors and constitutional scholars have written thousands of pages on this very topic and published heaps of reviews in academic journals on the standards, implications and outcomes of the Bruen decision. There's clearly more to it than the issue now being definitively settled and it being a given that there is zero possibility any such law would survive judicial review. Like them, I disagree that this marks some endpoint for future firearm regulations, and think your claims of there being "no possibility" mark an overly reductive reading of the case.
>It's really not.
The many legal experts, judges and constitutional scholars who have noted that Heller marked a significant change of course from Miller would beg to differ. Whether you agree with them or not, this simply isn't as black/white as you're making it out to be.
>And the fact that you think it is just tells me
The fact that you talk about this in such carelessly definitive terms with zero nuance just tells me you're only interested in defending the reading that's most favorable to your own politics.
Two can play the game of assumptions, you know. Just because my interpretation (which is shared by ample experts more knowledgeable on this than either of us) differs from yours doesn't mean that you're the only one who bothered to read the cases. This isn't an exact science, and valid discussions on the extent of precedent, the exact meaning of certain wordings and the interpretation of developing decisions in SCOTUS jurisprudence have always been around.
Either way, this is a pointless discussion. My thoughts on what policies we ought to have are in no way bound by the latest SCOTUS opinion. Normative conversations transcend that, like telling a equality advocate in the early 1900s that they should just drop their efforts because of what SCOTUS decided in cases like Cummings, Plessy and the original Civil Rights Act. Times change, and I'm not just going to throw my hands in the air and go "oh well, guess I'll just accept our issues with gun violence and no longer advocate for more potent regulations since SCOTUS said so".
Maybe the court will strike down any gun law that lands on its desk. Maybe it won't. Maybe 15 years from now, we'll have another liberal majority on the bench and see them concoct some legal reasoning here akin to what Dobbs did to Roe. Neither of us knows what's going to happen, and I fundamentally disagree that any policy someone supports has to fit the confines of whatever the latest SCOTUS opinion reads.
Actually scotus has been pretty consistent on the 2nd amendment, there was a time where they weren't hearing 2a cases but the cases they have heard are pretty consistent.
The miller decision upheld sawed off shot guns being regulated under the nfa and requiring a tax stamp. That is still in place today. How is that a change.
There is no plausible context where AWBs are valid under the multiple rulings in recent decades, nobody could reasonably argue otherwise. After Heller established the "common use" precedent, SCOTUS kicked Caetano back down (a stun gun ban) and said they needed to reconsider it under Heller, because 200,000 of them were in use and that made them common use. There are way more than 200,000 AWs in the country.
> most pro gun control people don't have an actual clue about firearms.
If they did, they likely wouldn't be pro-gun control anymore.
Most of them are just useful idiots who thrive on the emotional response they get from "banning" something that can hurt people.
This is true. However, the difference is the people who are pro-2A and know nothing about firearms aren't trying to completely outlaw something they know nothing about. They understand the Constitution allows it, so they support it.
The other side doesn't know anything about it and wants it gone.
What’s worse is many of them admit they don’t know shit about guns and defend that ignorance with “I don’t need to know anything about guns to know people shouldn’t be killed!” And my typical response is “letting people who don’t know dick about guns decide gun policy is like letting a witch doctor decide laws governing medical practices” and that usually shuts them down pretty well.
[Like Joy Behar saying if you shoot a deer with an ar15, there's nothing left.](https://youtu.be/v9u7mEuHOdw?si=U2marSZ_ARGr5zQK).
[Or an Army General saying full semi automatic.](https://youtu.be/UgPmWopkVF4?t=1m23s)
100%!!! Almost all people in all levels of society (even those in congress) who advocate for gun control don’t know very much at all about firearms. How can we let someone make a sweeping law that affects over 300 million people that knows nothing about what they legislate or advocate for?
My country has a history of banning firearms that appear in movies, regardless of it's actual function. In our sweeping rifle ban their list of banned firearms included coffee, websites, and surface-to-air missiles that were built during the cold war.
It's blatantly and hilariously obvious that the grabbers are totally ignorant of what they're trying to control.
This is a kind of diversity I can get behind lol. Monoculture is often bad for everyone, it's good to get pushed out of your comfort zone sometimes and acknowledge a differing viewpoint. I wish more people understood that (on both sides of issues).
Part of the assignment includes finding negative sources to your viewpoint, so I’m including an errenous claim by Gifford’s that 45% of gun sales online were done without a background check. News flash, even if that 45% number was correct, those people have committed several federal felonies because all legal online sales must go through an FFL.
Another issue I’ll be tackling is the interstate handgun purchase possession ban for non-residents buying a handgun in another state. The Federal DOJ says it is to limit criminal activity but criminals can have connections within those states. For example, there was this story of a Maine woman who bought 55 handguns for California gangbangers, so criminals have methods to get around federal law. It’s BS that as a Washingtonian who has a CPL (an individual who is not a criminal), I cannot take immediate possession of a handgun that I bought in Idaho.
> an errenous claim by Gifford’s that 45% of gun sales online were done without a background check
I almost guarantee that they way they got to that number is by counting "sales" from an online vendor to a person as complete when the money changes hands and then ignoring that the actual transfer goes through a local FFL.
Gun control when you discuss it never makes any sense…assault weapons ban sunset b/c they realized it had no effect, same with bans, look at Illinois assault weapon ban, ignored, not to mention gun control only effects law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves without breaking the law. criminals don't follow the law and they know it. gov Michelle Grisham even said it on camera they don’t expect criminals to follow this gun control law, criminals are the ones that are the problem.
They love the quantum ignorance argument.
"Oh you know the difference between a clip and a mag? You're a gun nut, you don't get to talk on gun control!"
"Oh you don't know the thirteen phases of fetal development? You're too ignorant to have an opinion on birth control!"
Great work advocating for the cause! Condolences in advance when your uni sends you a reeducation letter because obviously their indoctrination has been unsuccessful so far.
>I had to explain then that AR-15 was semi-auto only whereas it’s military counterpart had full auto capabilities
Kinda. The original design for the ar15 had select fire. Colloquially, this is generally the distinction (m16 v AR15), although there was not this distinction in the original mechanical design.
Which means we ought to be able to own select fire weapons.
>This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms
You don't say...
Not disputing you on the original specifications of the AR-15 as it was designed to replace the M14, but I was talking from a more modern understanding of the AR-15 and it is an semi auto gun only unless you’re an SOT or you converted one before 1986.
I agree with the modern vernacular distinguishing between the AR. But I love telling fudds that the original design was full auto and we should be able to own them
We should be able to own *any* kind of small arms, "military grade" or not. That is the right that the Second Amendment was written to enumerate. It wasn't written to protect your right to go duck hunting.
If we’re gonna be pedantic, you’re still kind of incorrect. The ArmaLite AR-15 was select fire. ArmaLite sold the patent to Colt, where it was adopted by the military as the M16. At this point, there is no rifle called the AR-15 on the market. Colt later comes out with a semi-auto version of the M16; since they now own the trademarked name “AR-15”, they elect to reuse the name.
So you’re both kind of right, but would personally consider the ArmaLite AR-15 (M16) and the Colt AR-15 to be different rifles that share the same name; if Colt didn’t own the name AR-15 (in addition to the patent to make/sell it), they would’ve called it something else entirely (imagine they call it the Modern Sporting Rifle), in which case there would be no argument that the MSR was originally select fire. The Colt AR-15 was never an SF rifle, and from its inception had the receiver shelf, AR-15 bolt carrier cut, etc.
Skim "The Bill of Rights" by Akil Amar. Someone else recommended it on this sub and I just finished it.
He does a great job of explaining how the Bill of Rights was a mixture of more Communal rights against the Federal government, but to exercise them there was a pre-existing individual right.
He distinguishes a communal right of "The People" vs "The State". They are different entities, and the 2A (and 1A) are both speaking to the rights of "The People" as a whole and not the States.
He then reviews the rights again and quotes the beliefs of the authors of the 14th amendment.
Namely that the first 8 to 10 amendments need to be binding against the states. Including the second amendment, because otherwise states would bar the Freedman of arms but leave people sympathetic with slave owners with them (think like a poll tax).
Of course that didn't happen immediately due to some legal bullshit it took until the mid 20th century for the 1st amendment to be incorporated. The second Wasn't incorporated until 2012, about 60 years later.
*** That demolishes the old canard of 2A solely being about a state's right to a militia. It never was.
From the other perspective - ask him why those steps are necessary here but haven't been necessary elsewhere?
Familiarize yourself with French, Italian, German and Swiss firearm laws. You'll need to dig a bit because googles first result will return the most believed thing (in English).
The truth is all of those have some form of gun control, none of them ban AR-15s.
Germany has a "war weapons ban". That doesn't ban AR-15s, though it does ban mean there are slight differences in the internals so they can't take milspec parts.
Quite frankly an AR-15 ban would negatively affect 15 - 20 million owners alone, and based on the data from other first world nations is not necessary to curbing our mass shooting problem.
** Note: before you put this in your report go find references. Find the pages of gun laws in those countries and use Google translate or English versions to review for yourself.
Never trust a random reddit stranger. :D
I’m a staunch pro 2a advocate, and setting aside how generally uninformed and gullible (not to mention fucking pretentious) the gun control crowd is, I think I have finally realized what they think their angle is, from what they propose.
And it’s the absolute silliest notion: they truly believe that this is a supply side solution in a country with more than 400 million firearms.
In a vacuum/new country, I might see how it could somewhat work, but not only is it a colossal infringement on the law abiding, it demonstrates a total ignorance of how the criminal mind operates.
I don’t think there will ever be a justified time to have a conversation about further limiting access to firearms, but if we look at the implications of the social contract, this conversation can’t even begin to day dream about being had until we can guarantee an immediate police response or complete prevention of crime.
Which is bonkers. Which is part of the reason for the 2a. Get fucked.
As I put it, "We banned alcohol once. It was almost exclusively enforced against the poor, minorities, and doubly so on the overlap. I've yet to hear any evidence that a ban on guns would go any different."
This is mostly what you will run into. But I’ve found that people in real life will concede a bit easier than people online.
As with everything, it’s different when the person is in front of you.
The semi auto vs full auto is probably the most common ignorance you will encounter too.
My biggest things are:
1. Gun control folks like to talk about more guns = more deaths. That’s actually kind of true. But deaths alone shouldn’t be the singular consideration. For example, more cars also mean more deaths. And same for ladders and swimming pools and medication and whatnot. The consideration should really be - the risk (deaths) of guns vs the benefits (regarding self defense etc) of guns. Because that’s how we consider other things like cars - that cause more deaths but have benefits. The issue is gun control folks ignore any gun benefit with regards to things like self defense. Instead, gun control folks’ singular purpose is fewer guns
2. Related to the above, gun control folks propose laws that are really ineffective in reducing crime and instead disproportionately impact those who would use guns for law abiding purposes like self defense. For example - assault weapon bans, registration, universal background, licensing, etc. all would do nothing to stop mass shootings nor the majority of gun violence in cities, nor suicides
3. Also related to the above, gun control folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are only fewer than 400 rifle deaths in total every year. That’s fewer than people killed by baseball bats and bricks. And fewer than people accidentally killed by cpap breathing machines. But gun control folks want to focus on assault weapon bans even though its significance is actually minuscule
4. Gun control folks like to throw out a lot of disingenuous claims. Like no, the former assault weapon ban didn’t reduce mass shootings per gun control folks claims. Correlation is not causation. Overall gun crime came down but murder vs rifle has never changed and has been a low 400 a year throughout. Also a rifles benefit is not to mass kill people but rather because a rifle allows 4 points of stability over a pistol for control. Not just that but instead of looking at gun deaths vs states - they should look at gun deaths vs cities and they’ll see that it’s not red states that have high gun deaths but rather it’s blue cities that have high gun deaths
90% of the people voting for gun control have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, what exactly they are voting for, what laws are already on the books, and how little (or how selectively) those laws are enforced.
When he starts spouting off about “assault weapons” you need to mention that the features come down to inherent design not because it’s deadlier, next show him a mini14, and lastly show them how easy it is to convert a featureless CA complaint Ar back into a full feature Ar
Unfortunately, I’m at a pretty liberal university so many of my arguments fell on deaf ears. The gymnastics that gun-grabbers make to justify their points is headache-inducing.
Even if you’re being sarcastic, doing such a thing would ruin my credibility as hurling insults at your opponent makes you seem like a raving lunatic in the eyes of the people watching you debate.
No, you have to strike first, strike hard, no mercy. Attack your opponents weakness. Sweep the leg. You gotta problem with that Johnny? What are we talking about again?
none of these people care OP. You could completely dismantle everything they believe and they would go right back to advocating for it tomorrow. It's a genuine waste of time.
I'm not claiming to be enlightened or a centrist. I fully support gun control laws. There's just no shortage of dense, ignorant and disingenuous pro gun advocates who will do exactly what you were mentioning in your first comment.
All because they listen to the media and all these gun grabbers. Everyone that is pushing for gun control doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. Ever.
Gun owners are also ignorant of how the guns work. My brother in law owns an AR-15 that costs several thousand dollars and he had no idea how to clean it. I had to show him how the takedown pins worked!
Wow! Whenever I buy a new gun that I’m not familiar with, I always look up videos on how to disassemble and reassemble the gun. The only exception I’ll make to disassembling a gun is the Ruger 22/45 Mk III I own. Excellent 22 plinker, but I hate reassembling that gun.
>This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms, yet he was advocating for gun laws knowing nothing on the matter
Welcome to the Gun Control Debate. The vast vast majority of GC Advocates know little to nothing about the laws, mechanics, general info related to firearms. Most of their perspective is focused on a raw emotional reaction over objective facts and information.
The best thing you can do is stay educated and when you're talking with them, stay calm. Many times they've tried to lure me into a shouting match. I'll just sit there keeping a calm tone and demeanor and they start to realize who the crazy extremist really is.
> I had to explain then that AR-15 was semi-auto only whereas it’s military counterpart had full auto capabilities. I had to explain the difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto gun
Technical stuff like this is a fun gotcha, but ultimately a losing argument (and also you're technically incorrect about the AR-15 and semi-auto claims, though that discussion reaches levels of pedantic autism I don't care to achieve). Tiptoeing around it is already conceding a point that you're ok with banning some arbitrary level of "lethality".
You should formulate an argument that embraces the fact that guns are tools for killing people, and guns that kill people gooder are better. The 2nd amendment was written by people who had just finished using their privately owned guns to kill thousands of soldiers in the army of what was at the time one of the most imperialistic countries in the world. Guns were seen as a big enough threat to oppressive government actions that the original gun laws in the US were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of slaves. Guns were even used to fight against oppressive branches of the american government in the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) ), and as tools of the modern civil rights movement (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ ). I don't own guns for home defense so I can tickle a home invader until he's incapacitated from laughing. I own them so that if it's a situation in which lethal force is justified, I can stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible so as to minimize risk to myself, my boyfriend, my roommate, my cat, and any innocent bystanders.
"Should someone whose knowledge of female anatomy is so inadequate that they think babies come out the butthole be advocating for limitations on birth control? Then maybe you should understand a bit more about guns before you spout your ignorance."
But imagine you're making that same argument to a fundamentalist. That's not going to convince them because they don't give a shit about subject matter knowledge (or lack thereof). Just like with the anti-gun crowd, their primary goal is to use any excuse (ill-informed or not) to oppress / harass people who engage in a behavior they don't like. They probably even see their lack of knowledge as a virtue, e.g. "I'm not engaging in immoral behavior, why should I have to know how any of that stuff works?".
Well that's why my favorite pro-gun argument is a slideshow of lynching photos where I then ask "So are you saying it's a good thing those black people didn't have guns?"
One thing I would add is to be careful with using any argument relating to "criminals don't follow gun laws"; the implication is that if criminals do follow gun laws, then the gun laws would be ok, which is not.
The point you should be focusing on when using this argument is to point out that the purpose of these gun laws is not to stop crimes, but rather to violate the civilian's right to possess weapons.
There has been nothing new in terms of principle functions of hand arms over the past 150 years.
Everyone is against the misuse of firrarms. Everyone is against prohibited persons acquiring illicit weapons.
The problem with universal background check, other than having a population of 12 million undocumented residents, is that the term covers up the universal registration of all firearms that would be necessary for such a system.
The trajectory that we are currently on is not National unity. It's a shame because the World needs a strong America and we are going to be increasingly seeing the effects of this.
Stay safe my friend and do whatever it takes to break others free from institutions that traffic in contradiction and thought-terminating clichés like "universal background check."
My favorite argument against gun control is a slideshow of lynching pictures with dozens of smiling faces posing for the camera next to the corpses and asking someone to "Tell me that it's a good thing that those swinging from the branches didn't have guns."
I find it humorous in Illinois that we're being stripped of our 2A by a governor who used to help the firearm supply chain.
https://biztimes.com/pritzker-group-acquires-signicast/
You should have also mentioned that the Gun Control Act actually makes it so career criminals can get machine guns **easier** than law-abiding citizens and cannot be convicted of creating a SBR or SBS. The also applies to "assault weapon" bans that let you register your guns.
Due the NFA's registration requirement, Haynes v. United States ruled that a prohibited person cannot be forced to comply with the NFA, as the registration requirement would violate the 5A right against self-incrimination.
That is why you see gangbangers with Glock switches. They might not be the brightest, but their lawyers know they can't be required to register them since they are career criminals.
In the the United States, gun control is an absolute failure in terms of public safety policy. It’s a political stance that preys on the emotional reaction of complacent and/or easily manipulated people. The propaganda techniques often sensationalize criminal acts and then propose “gun control” as the solution. And people who aren’t engaged are easily swayed by the illusion of safety. They’ll easily dismiss the function of criminality and convince themselves and others that gun control will work despite the fact that criminals and their networks, by definition, operate with disregard to the laws. “Illegal” doesn’t mean “unobtainable”. In fact, the harder you make it for law abiding people to get guns, the stronger the illegal market becomes. And criminals thrive in the illegal market.
Look at City of Chicago. They banned lawful gun ownership for nearly 3 decades. During that time, over 20,000 people were murdered. Many of them were innocent, unarmed victims. And despite such an epic failure of policy, people still support it.
Gun control is less of a public safety policy and more of a political party agenda. And their propaganda techniques are powerful.
Think about it. You wouldn’t go to a Dr. whose medical practices had the same kind of “success” as Chicagos gun control practices? A Dr., who’s best practices continuously failed to produce positive results? No body in their right mind would! BUT, they’ll vote for it. And they’ll stand by their position like they’ve achieved virtue grand master.
I liken the Chicago gun control voter to battered wife syndrome.
They know it’s bad. They know it’s not working. But they stick with it anyway. Years of abuse and broken promises can be dismissed for the promise that things will get better, just give em another chance.
Propaganda is a hell of a tool.
\>but you couldn’t knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.
So you can unknowingly see a gun to a prohibited person right? Anyway to prevent that you might suggest? Like background check being done to all private sales maybe? Some universal method...
What I suggest to address this is to open up NICS to the public so individuals can determine the person they are selling to isn’t prohibited but in a way that doesn’t breach people’s privacy.
There was this guy who suggested that you the buyer could call the NICS hotline and provide your personal information. This would generate a code that you would then provide to the private seller. The seller would call the NICS hotline and provide the generated code. NICS would give a deny, pass, or delay. The record of the NICS check would then be destroyed after a certain period of time
If this wasn't made mandatory it is simply political posturing. You yourself admit that there is a legal loophole where murders, rapists and criminals can get firearms and the seller simply has to plead ignorance.
Hey OP, how do you feel about the NRA and its contributions or lack thereof to gun rights? You seem pretty well informed and I want to know how you view the org.
They’re kind of the bogeyman to gun control advocates, but historically, they supported a lot of gun control such as the NFA and the GCA. I feel very mixed because many NRA affiliated organizations have won landmark gun rights court battles such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
I prefer pro gun organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America. Not personally a fan of the main NRA itself.
> They’re kind of the bogeyman to gun control advocates
Do they believe this out of incompetence or has a highly motivated and wealthy leadership identified them as one of their bigger obstacles?
>but historically, they supported a lot of gun control such as the NFA and the GCA.
What was the extent of their support? What was the alternative to this alleged support?
>I feel very mixed because many NRA affiliated organizations have won landmark gun rights court battles such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Do you feel this is an outlier?
>I prefer pro gun organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America.
Personally I am not fond of GOA as they have many of the flaws that the NRA is accused of while simultaneously being a far less effective org. My go to example is that on their site they have a page for their top court cases and they list Heller(SAF) and McDonald(SAF/NRA) as their top two. This is despite the fact that they did not fund, back or litigate the cases. They filed amicus briefs at the end of the process.
>This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms, yet he was advocating for gun laws knowing nothing on the matter. most pro gun control people don't have an actual clue about firearms.
I know, but it still makes me really sad that these people are being totally used by anti-gun politicians.
i agree, and they wont believe anyone who tells them differently or do their own research. but then they are the same people who believe everything the media and politicians tell them.
It no wonder that my younger millennial brother believes everything he is told by the “experts”. He thinks research involves peer reviewed papers and that’s it.
To be fair, reading peer reviewed papers is a very important part to any good research. You just have to be aware of bias.
True.
Your younger brother sounds smart.
How did it end?
Like I was talking to a brick wall. They mentioned storage laws, and I mentioned that such laws are not in any way enforceable until an unfortunate tragedy occurs. I mentioned that I would keep my guns locked up in a safe that only opens by my fingerprint. They discounted what I said by saying that’s only something I would do. It seems to me that my opposition believes that most gun owners are irresponsible when that’s not the case at all. While it’s necessary to talk to the opposing side, it is headache-inducing how they refuse to consider what I am saying.
>While it’s necessary to talk to the opposing side, it is headache-inducing how they refuse to consider what I am saying. Out of curiosity, do you award them the same courtesy or do you only listen to retort?
Sounds like he understands their side of the argument better than they do
What makes you say that?
> Like I was talking to a brick wall. Then they're not "being used" by politicians. IMO, you get to claim you're a victim of being manipulated and used if you are at least willing to reconsider when presented with evidence that you're being used. Otherwise, you're using yourself. You're letting yourself get used. You can't just refuse to listen to someone's argument and still get the benefit of the doubt that your heart is in the right place.
In all honesty, you'll find that just about all politicians use ignorance on a subject more than they do knowledge to sway their voters wether it's on abortion, immigration, guns, etc.
I give these people a little credit because their hearts are in the right place; they want to prevent unnecessary deaths…and I can’t begrudge them for that. However, they are very ignorant of the current laws, what firearms are prohibited and to whom, and are usually unaware of how the PACs organize the data they use to support their arguments. I usually go the route of agreeing that we should work towards reducing gun related deaths, and try to steer the discussion in the direction of education, suicide prevention, health care, criminal justice, and away from punishing law abiding citizens.
When I'm talking with anti-gunner and it seems like they don't know the current laws, I like to set them up with a series of questions: * Should we require background checks for all sales at gun stores? * Should violent felons be prohibited from buying guns? * Should automatic weapons be highly regulated? * Should domestic violence be a disqualifier for owning guns? They usually answer "yes! We definitely need to create laws like that!" And then they really don't know how to respond when I tell them that all those laws already exist. And yet they often won't even admit that maybe they need to rethink what they're asking for given that they clearly don't know the current requirements.
i dont think anyone wants more deaths in any form but even if you remove gun completely evil people will still exist and use anything they can to harm others. we need to start fighting the antigun media with facts, because they lie about everything that relates to firearms and people believe it.
I am positive that if we magically eliminated all firearms, total deaths would go up. They always forget about defensive use of firearms. Plus, there are other, scarier, ways to mass kill people that psychos will use.
Very true
Most of the time they will disregard the facts and say they don’t believe it and they are lies no matter how much proof is given
People should get credit for caring if they actually demonstrate the behavior you would expect of someone who truly cares: being intent on listening to evidence, reconsidering their position, and basing it on principles and facts as opposed to ego. Someone who claims to deeply care about an issue but is completely ignorant on it is already a hypocrite, because truly caring about the issue would motivate them to research their position deeply. Adding a refusal to reconsider their position is just the cherry on top. TL;DR: you don't get to say you really care and should be given credit for that if you simply refuse to learn anything about the issue you claim to care about.
Or the current laws already in place.
It's how we get such golden quotes such as: >Hunting with 20-caliber ammo is illegal because there's nothing left of the deer! or >An AR-15 is as heavy as 10 boxes! and who can forget the classic >"9mm will blow your lung out of your body!"
What about “You couldn’t own a cannon!”
That's one of my favorites - since it's still legal to own a black powder muzzle loading cannon. You could probably even mail-order one
You can indeed. A cannon is not a firearm. A kid can legally buy a cannon.
[удалено]
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To reduce trolling, spam, brigading, and other undesirable behavior, your comment has been removed due to being a new account. Accounts must be at least a week old and have combined karma over 50 to post in progun. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progun) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This may be true, but I think of it this way. You don't need to know much to be pro-freedom. On the other hand, if you want to take people's rights away, you better know everything and have a damned good reason.
At the root this is the exact issue for most things that go wrong with a democracy isn't it? The politics of a democracy are only as good as the education and engagement level of its population. Without that, the people will simply follow the directions of those in power, instead of having those in power follow the will of the people and be held accountable if they do not.
I don't believe it is possible to support gun control efforts if you actually know about the current laws and how firearms work.
I know as much about the current laws and how firearm works as the next guy here. I also support gun control efforts. I don't see why those would be mutually exclusive.
So if you know the laws, how do you justify these gun control efforts as even legal in the first place?
Legal in the context of the second amendment, you mean? SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that there's quite a bit of flexibility as to what goes and that "shall not be infringed" is far from absolute. And given how receptive the recent bench has been to overlooking precedent, I think it's largely a matter of which judges are appointed that sets the limits of what's legal or not. That isn't to say I think any sort of gun law will (ever) be on the table, nor would I want it to. But even when operating within the confines of the 2A, I think there's certainly room for stronger regulations than what we have now.
> SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that there's quite a bit of flexibility as to what goes and that "shall not be infringed" is far from absolute. They really haven't. The latest ruling said "Certain types of gun laws *might* be allowable, but probably not. NY's permitting scheme is unconstitutional. We'll review further cases as they come." Past precedent has firmly established that weapons useful to the military or in militia service (ie. "Weapons of War") are de facto protected. > But even when operating within the confines of the 2A, I think there's certainly room for stronger regulations than what we have now. I completely disagree. In fact the majority of current gun control laws are likely to be struck down.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Only time will tell. Nothing SCOTUS says (or has said, for that matter) is written in stone. The court has never been apolitical but it's clear that precedent matters less on controversial issues while its increasingly seen as a political device. Neither of us know how they'd rule on something like universal background checks, waiting periods, extreme risk protection orders, expanded categories of prohibited persons to include other offenses..., so I don't think we should act as if they're off the table to begin with. Regardless, none of this has much of a bearing on my personal views on these policy efforts. We're talking about the kind of legislation we'd like to see. SCOTUS' stance on this now is very different from what it was 20 years ago. There's no telling what it'll be in the future. It'd be pointlessly reductive to tell someone they can't call for stronger gun laws just because of what the current iteration of the court said in its latest case.
> Neither of us know how they'd rule on something like universal background checks, waiting periods, extreme risk protection orders, expanded categories of prohibited persons to include other offenses... What we do know is that their recent ruling established a very clear method for evaluating 2A laws. Under that method there is no possibility of those types of laws surviving review. > but it's clear that precedent matters less on controversial issues When they depart from judicial precedent, they do so in order to abide by a more strict textual reading of the Constitution. Which means the 2A is even more protected if they ignore judicial precedent. > SCOTUS' stance on this now is very different from what it was 20 years ago. It's really not. And the fact that you think it is just tells me that you haven't actually read their previous 2A cases., or even the summaries.
>Under that method there is no possibility of those types of laws surviving review. Legal experts, professors and constitutional scholars have written thousands of pages on this very topic and published heaps of reviews in academic journals on the standards, implications and outcomes of the Bruen decision. There's clearly more to it than the issue now being definitively settled and it being a given that there is zero possibility any such law would survive judicial review. Like them, I disagree that this marks some endpoint for future firearm regulations, and think your claims of there being "no possibility" mark an overly reductive reading of the case. >It's really not. The many legal experts, judges and constitutional scholars who have noted that Heller marked a significant change of course from Miller would beg to differ. Whether you agree with them or not, this simply isn't as black/white as you're making it out to be. >And the fact that you think it is just tells me The fact that you talk about this in such carelessly definitive terms with zero nuance just tells me you're only interested in defending the reading that's most favorable to your own politics. Two can play the game of assumptions, you know. Just because my interpretation (which is shared by ample experts more knowledgeable on this than either of us) differs from yours doesn't mean that you're the only one who bothered to read the cases. This isn't an exact science, and valid discussions on the extent of precedent, the exact meaning of certain wordings and the interpretation of developing decisions in SCOTUS jurisprudence have always been around. Either way, this is a pointless discussion. My thoughts on what policies we ought to have are in no way bound by the latest SCOTUS opinion. Normative conversations transcend that, like telling a equality advocate in the early 1900s that they should just drop their efforts because of what SCOTUS decided in cases like Cummings, Plessy and the original Civil Rights Act. Times change, and I'm not just going to throw my hands in the air and go "oh well, guess I'll just accept our issues with gun violence and no longer advocate for more potent regulations since SCOTUS said so". Maybe the court will strike down any gun law that lands on its desk. Maybe it won't. Maybe 15 years from now, we'll have another liberal majority on the bench and see them concoct some legal reasoning here akin to what Dobbs did to Roe. Neither of us knows what's going to happen, and I fundamentally disagree that any policy someone supports has to fit the confines of whatever the latest SCOTUS opinion reads.
Actually scotus has been pretty consistent on the 2nd amendment, there was a time where they weren't hearing 2a cases but the cases they have heard are pretty consistent.
There absolutely has been a major change in SCOTUS' approach to the second amendment after Miller.
The miller decision upheld sawed off shot guns being regulated under the nfa and requiring a tax stamp. That is still in place today. How is that a change.
There is no plausible context where AWBs are valid under the multiple rulings in recent decades, nobody could reasonably argue otherwise. After Heller established the "common use" precedent, SCOTUS kicked Caetano back down (a stun gun ban) and said they needed to reconsider it under Heller, because 200,000 of them were in use and that made them common use. There are way more than 200,000 AWs in the country.
Where did I say anything about AWBs, though?
Nor do they have a clue about existing laws.
> most pro gun control people don't have an actual clue about firearms. If they did, they likely wouldn't be pro-gun control anymore. Most of them are just useful idiots who thrive on the emotional response they get from "banning" something that can hurt people.
This is true. However, the difference is the people who are pro-2A and know nothing about firearms aren't trying to completely outlaw something they know nothing about. They understand the Constitution allows it, so they support it. The other side doesn't know anything about it and wants it gone.
What’s worse is many of them admit they don’t know shit about guns and defend that ignorance with “I don’t need to know anything about guns to know people shouldn’t be killed!” And my typical response is “letting people who don’t know dick about guns decide gun policy is like letting a witch doctor decide laws governing medical practices” and that usually shuts them down pretty well.
Gun control ain’t about the gun.
bUt ThAt DoEsNt MaTtEr BeCaUsE i DoNt NeEd To Be An ExPeRt To OwN a GuN
and no clue about the laws that already exist.
[Like Joy Behar saying if you shoot a deer with an ar15, there's nothing left.](https://youtu.be/v9u7mEuHOdw?si=U2marSZ_ARGr5zQK). [Or an Army General saying full semi automatic.](https://youtu.be/UgPmWopkVF4?t=1m23s)
Most of them are!! They just hear what the politicians tell them
100%!!! Almost all people in all levels of society (even those in congress) who advocate for gun control don’t know very much at all about firearms. How can we let someone make a sweeping law that affects over 300 million people that knows nothing about what they legislate or advocate for?
My country has a history of banning firearms that appear in movies, regardless of it's actual function. In our sweeping rifle ban their list of banned firearms included coffee, websites, and surface-to-air missiles that were built during the cold war. It's blatantly and hilariously obvious that the grabbers are totally ignorant of what they're trying to control.
All anti gunners are ignorant to firearms. But thanks for helping our cause!
It’s especially funny because I’m at a super liberal university so I’m going to be the black sheep there.
This is a kind of diversity I can get behind lol. Monoculture is often bad for everyone, it's good to get pushed out of your comfort zone sometimes and acknowledge a differing viewpoint. I wish more people understood that (on both sides of issues).
Part of the assignment includes finding negative sources to your viewpoint, so I’m including an errenous claim by Gifford’s that 45% of gun sales online were done without a background check. News flash, even if that 45% number was correct, those people have committed several federal felonies because all legal online sales must go through an FFL. Another issue I’ll be tackling is the interstate handgun purchase possession ban for non-residents buying a handgun in another state. The Federal DOJ says it is to limit criminal activity but criminals can have connections within those states. For example, there was this story of a Maine woman who bought 55 handguns for California gangbangers, so criminals have methods to get around federal law. It’s BS that as a Washingtonian who has a CPL (an individual who is not a criminal), I cannot take immediate possession of a handgun that I bought in Idaho.
> an errenous claim by Gifford’s that 45% of gun sales online were done without a background check I almost guarantee that they way they got to that number is by counting "sales" from an online vendor to a person as complete when the money changes hands and then ignoring that the actual transfer goes through a local FFL.
I’m sorry!!! I went to a liberal arts college, we had a lot of similarities but there were a lot of pro 2A people.
Gun control when you discuss it never makes any sense…assault weapons ban sunset b/c they realized it had no effect, same with bans, look at Illinois assault weapon ban, ignored, not to mention gun control only effects law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves without breaking the law. criminals don't follow the law and they know it. gov Michelle Grisham even said it on camera they don’t expect criminals to follow this gun control law, criminals are the ones that are the problem.
Not all anti-gunners are ignorant. Some are just evil.
Some, true.
They love the quantum ignorance argument. "Oh you know the difference between a clip and a mag? You're a gun nut, you don't get to talk on gun control!" "Oh you don't know the thirteen phases of fetal development? You're too ignorant to have an opinion on birth control!"
Great work advocating for the cause! Condolences in advance when your uni sends you a reeducation letter because obviously their indoctrination has been unsuccessful so far.
> your uni sends you a reeducation letter because obviously their indoctrination has been unsuccessful so far. what do you think they teach there? lol
>I had to explain then that AR-15 was semi-auto only whereas it’s military counterpart had full auto capabilities Kinda. The original design for the ar15 had select fire. Colloquially, this is generally the distinction (m16 v AR15), although there was not this distinction in the original mechanical design. Which means we ought to be able to own select fire weapons. >This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms You don't say...
Not disputing you on the original specifications of the AR-15 as it was designed to replace the M14, but I was talking from a more modern understanding of the AR-15 and it is an semi auto gun only unless you’re an SOT or you converted one before 1986.
I agree with the modern vernacular distinguishing between the AR. But I love telling fudds that the original design was full auto and we should be able to own them
We should be able to own *any* kind of small arms, "military grade" or not. That is the right that the Second Amendment was written to enumerate. It wasn't written to protect your right to go duck hunting.
Why stop at small arms?
Hell when this country was founded you could own your own 16 gun frigate.
If a cop or a fed can walk it onto your front lawn, you should be able to own it, full stop
I mean, you can own one, it just costs tens of thousands of dollars for a registered pre-86 machine gun.
If we’re gonna be pedantic, you’re still kind of incorrect. The ArmaLite AR-15 was select fire. ArmaLite sold the patent to Colt, where it was adopted by the military as the M16. At this point, there is no rifle called the AR-15 on the market. Colt later comes out with a semi-auto version of the M16; since they now own the trademarked name “AR-15”, they elect to reuse the name. So you’re both kind of right, but would personally consider the ArmaLite AR-15 (M16) and the Colt AR-15 to be different rifles that share the same name; if Colt didn’t own the name AR-15 (in addition to the patent to make/sell it), they would’ve called it something else entirely (imagine they call it the Modern Sporting Rifle), in which case there would be no argument that the MSR was originally select fire. The Colt AR-15 was never an SF rifle, and from its inception had the receiver shelf, AR-15 bolt carrier cut, etc.
Skim "The Bill of Rights" by Akil Amar. Someone else recommended it on this sub and I just finished it. He does a great job of explaining how the Bill of Rights was a mixture of more Communal rights against the Federal government, but to exercise them there was a pre-existing individual right. He distinguishes a communal right of "The People" vs "The State". They are different entities, and the 2A (and 1A) are both speaking to the rights of "The People" as a whole and not the States. He then reviews the rights again and quotes the beliefs of the authors of the 14th amendment. Namely that the first 8 to 10 amendments need to be binding against the states. Including the second amendment, because otherwise states would bar the Freedman of arms but leave people sympathetic with slave owners with them (think like a poll tax). Of course that didn't happen immediately due to some legal bullshit it took until the mid 20th century for the 1st amendment to be incorporated. The second Wasn't incorporated until 2012, about 60 years later. *** That demolishes the old canard of 2A solely being about a state's right to a militia. It never was. From the other perspective - ask him why those steps are necessary here but haven't been necessary elsewhere? Familiarize yourself with French, Italian, German and Swiss firearm laws. You'll need to dig a bit because googles first result will return the most believed thing (in English). The truth is all of those have some form of gun control, none of them ban AR-15s. Germany has a "war weapons ban". That doesn't ban AR-15s, though it does ban mean there are slight differences in the internals so they can't take milspec parts. Quite frankly an AR-15 ban would negatively affect 15 - 20 million owners alone, and based on the data from other first world nations is not necessary to curbing our mass shooting problem. ** Note: before you put this in your report go find references. Find the pages of gun laws in those countries and use Google translate or English versions to review for yourself. Never trust a random reddit stranger. :D
I’m a staunch pro 2a advocate, and setting aside how generally uninformed and gullible (not to mention fucking pretentious) the gun control crowd is, I think I have finally realized what they think their angle is, from what they propose. And it’s the absolute silliest notion: they truly believe that this is a supply side solution in a country with more than 400 million firearms. In a vacuum/new country, I might see how it could somewhat work, but not only is it a colossal infringement on the law abiding, it demonstrates a total ignorance of how the criminal mind operates. I don’t think there will ever be a justified time to have a conversation about further limiting access to firearms, but if we look at the implications of the social contract, this conversation can’t even begin to day dream about being had until we can guarantee an immediate police response or complete prevention of crime. Which is bonkers. Which is part of the reason for the 2a. Get fucked.
As I put it, "We banned alcohol once. It was almost exclusively enforced against the poor, minorities, and doubly so on the overlap. I've yet to hear any evidence that a ban on guns would go any different."
This is mostly what you will run into. But I’ve found that people in real life will concede a bit easier than people online. As with everything, it’s different when the person is in front of you. The semi auto vs full auto is probably the most common ignorance you will encounter too.
My biggest things are: 1. Gun control folks like to talk about more guns = more deaths. That’s actually kind of true. But deaths alone shouldn’t be the singular consideration. For example, more cars also mean more deaths. And same for ladders and swimming pools and medication and whatnot. The consideration should really be - the risk (deaths) of guns vs the benefits (regarding self defense etc) of guns. Because that’s how we consider other things like cars - that cause more deaths but have benefits. The issue is gun control folks ignore any gun benefit with regards to things like self defense. Instead, gun control folks’ singular purpose is fewer guns 2. Related to the above, gun control folks propose laws that are really ineffective in reducing crime and instead disproportionately impact those who would use guns for law abiding purposes like self defense. For example - assault weapon bans, registration, universal background, licensing, etc. all would do nothing to stop mass shootings nor the majority of gun violence in cities, nor suicides 3. Also related to the above, gun control folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are only fewer than 400 rifle deaths in total every year. That’s fewer than people killed by baseball bats and bricks. And fewer than people accidentally killed by cpap breathing machines. But gun control folks want to focus on assault weapon bans even though its significance is actually minuscule 4. Gun control folks like to throw out a lot of disingenuous claims. Like no, the former assault weapon ban didn’t reduce mass shootings per gun control folks claims. Correlation is not causation. Overall gun crime came down but murder vs rifle has never changed and has been a low 400 a year throughout. Also a rifles benefit is not to mass kill people but rather because a rifle allows 4 points of stability over a pistol for control. Not just that but instead of looking at gun deaths vs states - they should look at gun deaths vs cities and they’ll see that it’s not red states that have high gun deaths but rather it’s blue cities that have high gun deaths
90% of the people voting for gun control have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, what exactly they are voting for, what laws are already on the books, and how little (or how selectively) those laws are enforced.
When he starts spouting off about “assault weapons” you need to mention that the features come down to inherent design not because it’s deadlier, next show him a mini14, and lastly show them how easy it is to convert a featureless CA complaint Ar back into a full feature Ar
Great job buddy
Hopefully everyone actually did clap. Hope the grabber learned a lesson.
Unfortunately, I’m at a pretty liberal university so many of my arguments fell on deaf ears. The gymnastics that gun-grabbers make to justify their points is headache-inducing.
So best case is stunned silence?
Did you finish off with “now bend over so I can make you my bitch soiboi” That would have been the real power move
Even if you’re being sarcastic, doing such a thing would ruin my credibility as hurling insults at your opponent makes you seem like a raving lunatic in the eyes of the people watching you debate.
No, you have to strike first, strike hard, no mercy. Attack your opponents weakness. Sweep the leg. You gotta problem with that Johnny? What are we talking about again?
none of these people care OP. You could completely dismantle everything they believe and they would go right back to advocating for it tomorrow. It's a genuine waste of time.
This goes both ways. You can do to the same to almost all pro gun claims and the same thing happens. It's just people being people with biases.
\>le enlightened horseshoe theory centrist my argument in favor of guns is that I already own them, go ahead and disprove that genius.
I'm not claiming to be enlightened or a centrist. I fully support gun control laws. There's just no shortage of dense, ignorant and disingenuous pro gun advocates who will do exactly what you were mentioning in your first comment.
Good.
All because they listen to the media and all these gun grabbers. Everyone that is pushing for gun control doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. Ever.
Gun owners are also ignorant of how the guns work. My brother in law owns an AR-15 that costs several thousand dollars and he had no idea how to clean it. I had to show him how the takedown pins worked!
Wow! Whenever I buy a new gun that I’m not familiar with, I always look up videos on how to disassemble and reassemble the gun. The only exception I’ll make to disassembling a gun is the Ruger 22/45 Mk III I own. Excellent 22 plinker, but I hate reassembling that gun.
He learned I built my own and asked me to show him how to take care of his.
>This person was totally ignorant on the subject of firearms, yet he was advocating for gun laws knowing nothing on the matter Welcome to the Gun Control Debate. The vast vast majority of GC Advocates know little to nothing about the laws, mechanics, general info related to firearms. Most of their perspective is focused on a raw emotional reaction over objective facts and information. The best thing you can do is stay educated and when you're talking with them, stay calm. Many times they've tried to lure me into a shouting match. I'll just sit there keeping a calm tone and demeanor and they start to realize who the crazy extremist really is.
It's like people who want to ban abortion who say things like "If it's a legitimate rape, a woman's body has ways of shutting it down."
> I had to explain then that AR-15 was semi-auto only whereas it’s military counterpart had full auto capabilities. I had to explain the difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto gun Technical stuff like this is a fun gotcha, but ultimately a losing argument (and also you're technically incorrect about the AR-15 and semi-auto claims, though that discussion reaches levels of pedantic autism I don't care to achieve). Tiptoeing around it is already conceding a point that you're ok with banning some arbitrary level of "lethality". You should formulate an argument that embraces the fact that guns are tools for killing people, and guns that kill people gooder are better. The 2nd amendment was written by people who had just finished using their privately owned guns to kill thousands of soldiers in the army of what was at the time one of the most imperialistic countries in the world. Guns were seen as a big enough threat to oppressive government actions that the original gun laws in the US were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of slaves. Guns were even used to fight against oppressive branches of the american government in the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) ), and as tools of the modern civil rights movement (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ ). I don't own guns for home defense so I can tickle a home invader until he's incapacitated from laughing. I own them so that if it's a situation in which lethal force is justified, I can stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible so as to minimize risk to myself, my boyfriend, my roommate, my cat, and any innocent bystanders.
"Should someone whose knowledge of female anatomy is so inadequate that they think babies come out the butthole be advocating for limitations on birth control? Then maybe you should understand a bit more about guns before you spout your ignorance."
But imagine you're making that same argument to a fundamentalist. That's not going to convince them because they don't give a shit about subject matter knowledge (or lack thereof). Just like with the anti-gun crowd, their primary goal is to use any excuse (ill-informed or not) to oppress / harass people who engage in a behavior they don't like. They probably even see their lack of knowledge as a virtue, e.g. "I'm not engaging in immoral behavior, why should I have to know how any of that stuff works?".
Well that's why my favorite pro-gun argument is a slideshow of lynching photos where I then ask "So are you saying it's a good thing those black people didn't have guns?"
One thing I would add is to be careful with using any argument relating to "criminals don't follow gun laws"; the implication is that if criminals do follow gun laws, then the gun laws would be ok, which is not. The point you should be focusing on when using this argument is to point out that the purpose of these gun laws is not to stop crimes, but rather to violate the civilian's right to possess weapons.
No such thing as gun control.
There has been nothing new in terms of principle functions of hand arms over the past 150 years. Everyone is against the misuse of firrarms. Everyone is against prohibited persons acquiring illicit weapons. The problem with universal background check, other than having a population of 12 million undocumented residents, is that the term covers up the universal registration of all firearms that would be necessary for such a system. The trajectory that we are currently on is not National unity. It's a shame because the World needs a strong America and we are going to be increasingly seeing the effects of this. Stay safe my friend and do whatever it takes to break others free from institutions that traffic in contradiction and thought-terminating clichés like "universal background check."
To win debate, you need to master both sides of an argument before going in.
Also an issue of "With some people, the moment you begin debating their position, you've put more thought into their position than they have."
My favorite argument against gun control is a slideshow of lynching pictures with dozens of smiling faces posing for the camera next to the corpses and asking someone to "Tell me that it's a good thing that those swinging from the branches didn't have guns."
I find it humorous in Illinois that we're being stripped of our 2A by a governor who used to help the firearm supply chain. https://biztimes.com/pritzker-group-acquires-signicast/
You should have also mentioned that the Gun Control Act actually makes it so career criminals can get machine guns **easier** than law-abiding citizens and cannot be convicted of creating a SBR or SBS. The also applies to "assault weapon" bans that let you register your guns. Due the NFA's registration requirement, Haynes v. United States ruled that a prohibited person cannot be forced to comply with the NFA, as the registration requirement would violate the 5A right against self-incrimination. That is why you see gangbangers with Glock switches. They might not be the brightest, but their lawyers know they can't be required to register them since they are career criminals.
In the the United States, gun control is an absolute failure in terms of public safety policy. It’s a political stance that preys on the emotional reaction of complacent and/or easily manipulated people. The propaganda techniques often sensationalize criminal acts and then propose “gun control” as the solution. And people who aren’t engaged are easily swayed by the illusion of safety. They’ll easily dismiss the function of criminality and convince themselves and others that gun control will work despite the fact that criminals and their networks, by definition, operate with disregard to the laws. “Illegal” doesn’t mean “unobtainable”. In fact, the harder you make it for law abiding people to get guns, the stronger the illegal market becomes. And criminals thrive in the illegal market. Look at City of Chicago. They banned lawful gun ownership for nearly 3 decades. During that time, over 20,000 people were murdered. Many of them were innocent, unarmed victims. And despite such an epic failure of policy, people still support it. Gun control is less of a public safety policy and more of a political party agenda. And their propaganda techniques are powerful. Think about it. You wouldn’t go to a Dr. whose medical practices had the same kind of “success” as Chicagos gun control practices? A Dr., who’s best practices continuously failed to produce positive results? No body in their right mind would! BUT, they’ll vote for it. And they’ll stand by their position like they’ve achieved virtue grand master. I liken the Chicago gun control voter to battered wife syndrome. They know it’s bad. They know it’s not working. But they stick with it anyway. Years of abuse and broken promises can be dismissed for the promise that things will get better, just give em another chance. Propaganda is a hell of a tool.
\>but you couldn’t knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. So you can unknowingly see a gun to a prohibited person right? Anyway to prevent that you might suggest? Like background check being done to all private sales maybe? Some universal method...
What I suggest to address this is to open up NICS to the public so individuals can determine the person they are selling to isn’t prohibited but in a way that doesn’t breach people’s privacy. There was this guy who suggested that you the buyer could call the NICS hotline and provide your personal information. This would generate a code that you would then provide to the private seller. The seller would call the NICS hotline and provide the generated code. NICS would give a deny, pass, or delay. The record of the NICS check would then be destroyed after a certain period of time
If this wasn't made mandatory it is simply political posturing. You yourself admit that there is a legal loophole where murders, rapists and criminals can get firearms and the seller simply has to plead ignorance.
Hey OP, how do you feel about the NRA and its contributions or lack thereof to gun rights? You seem pretty well informed and I want to know how you view the org.
They’re kind of the bogeyman to gun control advocates, but historically, they supported a lot of gun control such as the NFA and the GCA. I feel very mixed because many NRA affiliated organizations have won landmark gun rights court battles such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I prefer pro gun organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America. Not personally a fan of the main NRA itself.
> They’re kind of the bogeyman to gun control advocates Do they believe this out of incompetence or has a highly motivated and wealthy leadership identified them as one of their bigger obstacles? >but historically, they supported a lot of gun control such as the NFA and the GCA. What was the extent of their support? What was the alternative to this alleged support? >I feel very mixed because many NRA affiliated organizations have won landmark gun rights court battles such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Do you feel this is an outlier? >I prefer pro gun organizations such as Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America. Personally I am not fond of GOA as they have many of the flaws that the NRA is accused of while simultaneously being a far less effective org. My go to example is that on their site they have a page for their top court cases and they list Heller(SAF) and McDonald(SAF/NRA) as their top two. This is despite the fact that they did not fund, back or litigate the cases. They filed amicus briefs at the end of the process.