Gun Control Debate: I should have seen this coming

Post Reply New Topic

I've been arguing with people for several hours about my take on the gun control debate. I tried to explain that studies that linked gun ownership to rates of violent were inconclusive, but people were adamant about their stances and unwilling to look at things a different, though I did say that foreigners should remain on the sidelines because they don't know what it's like living in America in respects of social hardships and financial difficulties that would push many to become criminals. A 52 year old man, a 16 year old Aussie, and some other dude are the people I was arguing with and it's the typical demographic, they seem to think that their age is printed under their shoe, don't have a problem name-calling, and think military experience makes them more knowledgeable on the subject. In other words, I'm arguing with kindergartners. I've run the routine multiple times, I should know better. But people ignoring a voice of reason to go out of their way to accuse me of being a gun nut, ignore logical arguments, and, intentionally, miss the point, altogether. This is why the debate took a turn for the worse, people need to go back to preschool and learn manners all over again. I hopelessly planned on a civilized debate, until the three above spoke. In short, I should remember not to argue with trolls and idiots, all it means is they win.

Many people are so rigid in their thinking, I used to think one way of the issue but eventually changed my stance. If you can't think outside the little bubble in your head, then there is no talking to you. And they say we have trouble with theory of mind?

What is it about politics that can make college level geniuses act like kindergardeners?

Do you know what it's like in other countries?

No, and they don't know what it's like over here, either, a majority of them.

As you want others to accept you living in your culture, you should as well accept others to live in another culture.

For many culture, the way you think about guns is already very extreme, so according to your culture you are gun nuts, even when among your culture you may be in the middle or moderate gun pro. Its nothing else then me accepting, that according to many people of your culture, I will be an horrific atheist, while according to my culture I am moderate christian.

Maybe simply stop giving yourself labels and judging yourself according to the normality of your own culture, and simply exchange your opinions and your feelings that cause you to have this opinions, so that other people are able to understand you anyway from which culture they are?

As example I cannot follow your thought about the military experiences, giving people no possibility to have an opinion about weapons? My dad did his truck-driving license during military draft...there seemed to be nothing bad about that experiences, so lots of companies he worked afterwards as a truck driver, seemed to think that he made acceptable experiences upon truck driving, that were as well effective outside the military. Why is knowledge and experience, specific about weapons, that was gained during a military time for you less worth then knowledge and experience that was gained privately.

This is not about opposing your general opinion or your topic, but maybe help you understand the cause of your frustration. You are throwing sentences on each others head, that may have an meaning in your culture but without any explanation, dont have one for people of another culture. And then, after doing so, you blame them, for not understanding you in any way or misunderstanding you totally.

An understandable example for you: "I think having the US weapon laws in the EU was the most stupid thing, anyone could ever do."

Because of being in another culture, I think in your US culture, this would be translated as "Ugha, weapons evil." Thats why I meant it is important to explain the feelings and thoughts leading to those oppinion. "Many people here never had private contact to any weapon. Mostly only hunters and police officers are trained on doing that. So there is no average knowledge about weapons, as many US citizens seem to have. Noone ever allowed them to shoot a weapon in their backyard, noone explained to them as a teenager, what has to be avoided by all means when handling a weapon. Suddenly allowing people to simply go into stores and buy themselves weapons, simply would lead to tons of people injuring themselves. So for me it was highly important, that if weapon laws suddenly got more moderate here, that the people were forced to do some lessons with a trainer, where they are taught how to hold weapons, aim with weapons, care for their weapons, before being allowed to buy one. Simply because tons of stuff that US citizens would say "Oh come on, every little child knows that you dont do this or that... people here simply dont know.""

Stop throwing empty, unexplained phrases on each other and blame yourself afterwards for not understanding each other, and try to negate each other with statistics, but simply tell youself your oppinions. No statistic ever can negate your private and personal oppinion.

Of course, I feel the most sorry for the researchers, who keep shouting out that there isn't enough evidence to conclusively close the case. Both sides constantly ignore them and engage in their picayune crusade. These men make me want to puke.

I read the thread but didn't participate since I don't participate in PPR gun related threats (I stick to religious, political and philosophical threads there). You weren't arguing with kindergatners, trolls or idiots. You were arguing with people who disagreed with you. That some of them live outside the U.S. just means they have a different perspective because they live with different laws.

If somebody is arguing against you in a debate, you will never change their mind regardlless of how logical your argument is. Their argument is also logical and won't change your mind. But that's not the point of debate. It isn't actually possible to change somebody's mind while debating with them. The people you influence via debate are the lurkers who are undecided. They weigh the various arguments and decide.

Think about when politicians debate. Are they trying to convince each other? Of course not. They are trying to convince the voters. So stop trying to gauge the success of your arguments (or the intelligence of your opponents) by whether they suddenly agree with you. They won't. But if you provide sufficiently compelling arguments, perhaps the undecided lurkers will.

This is an international forum, and their perspective is just as valid as ours.



If you're going to voice a pro-gun opinion, on the Internet or in real life, be prepared to be hated for your beliefs. It's our right to keep and bear arms, but it is not our right to be liked for it.



I've participated in many a gun thread here - and there are plenty of people who offer differing opinions that are completely valid - and those that really aren't interested in anything you say (on both sides of the argument). My advice - ignore the people that don't bring anything to the conversation, listen to the people who disagree with you and try to understand their perspective. Interesting things always happen when both sides do this.

I saw that thread.

It got locked when you couldn't stop calling people names when they dared express an opinion that wasn't in line with yours. And yet somehow they are the immature ones.........

I think you should learn what a debate actually is before you insist on debating an issue..........

I would imagine that the reason that you are being argued with is that you are obviously not well informed of the issues. I haven't followed your "debate", but your first lines tells me that you are using flawed evidence, assuming you are talking about the USA. There are NO independent evidence-based studies in the USA that show a correlation between gun ownership and violence because funding for such public research is not allowed. Funding for independence studies has been blocked by congress at the urging of the NRA. Therefore, these is no "definitive" study, and most of the studies that are out there are kind towards gun ownership because they are funded (directly or indirectly) by the NRA. Therefore, studies that exist are biased towards the private funders and are often based on anecdotal evidence. ( http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... t_cdc.html )

What we do have are other counties that don't have guns or who have outlawed guns. Australia, for example, basically tossed all thier guns into a bonfire after a "Sandy-Hook" type event. The result was a more than 50% drop in both homicides and suicides with no rise in other weapon deaths. ( http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... -teenagers ). This is not surprising-- guns are unique as they take very little skill to kill. People as young as toddlers have killed someone with a gun, while killing someone with a baseball bat takes a good deal of patience and skill as well as a more willing victim. Given the chance, I would much rather go against a skilled attacker armed with a knife, baseball bat, razor, sword, or any lethal instrument then risk facing a gun in the most unskilled hands. My odds of survival are much greater against another weapon.

Suicides also dropped more then 60% after guns were outlawed in Australia. Yes, some people will just "find another way" but most people who decide to kill themselves will often change thier mind if any inconvenience blocks thier way. This includes ascending to a roof (plus overcoming the urge not to fall is VERY strong), swallowing a pill and waiting for the effects (most pills will just make you sick without killing you), or cutting the body (which is actually quite difficult to do in a fatal way). When a gun is not used, a person is hard to kill, and most suicides that are not fire-armed related fail. Guns give no chance for the person to change their mind and call for help or force a finger down a throat.

Depending on the site you look at, gun deaths in the US range heavily. The CDC was able to report 31,076 deaths in 2010 ( http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dat ... n_inj.html ). If the Australia stats were similar for this country (and there is no reason to think that they wouldn't be), that means that we could have saved 15,000 lives had we outlawed gun ownership. (Before you point out that car fatalities were a similar number for that year, I would like to point out that your thinking is flawed as cars are much more widely used. We have also taken many steps to address these fatalities through laws. In addition, I am actually not against outlawing cars -- I myself take public transit-- but that is a post for another days.) That's 15,000 people that would be alive had Americans made the choice to give up this unnecessary lethal toy. On 9/11 3,000 people died and we were happy to give up rights to privacy and freedom, so when the number is 10 times larger, why won't we give up these rights as well?

The constitution only suggests that one industry be "well-regulated" and that is the gun industry. Why is remains that cars, food, door handles and my uterus continue to be better regulated then guns remains a mystery to me. (Actually, it isn't really a mystery-- any regulations are fought by the NRA. I guess the real mystery is why such a small minority still causes lawmakers to soil themselves.)

My guess is that you are simply sulking because people do not agree with you. I really wish that people who choose to own firearms would grow up and find another way to become comfortable with their masculinity.

Since they repealed the funding block on gun control studies, the CDC has done a study and they found that gun crime is down and concealed carry laws do reduce crime.

The problem with gun control is people are so rigid and unwilling to accept facts. I've met with people. I've shown them crime reports, first hand stories of people who are alive today because they used a firearm to defend themselves, studies, tons of data, and they just go "lalalalalalalala guns are bad."

I used to be anti-gun. I thought Heller vs DC would result in blood in the streets of DC. The more I studied the facts, the less anti-gun I became.

With 2 million defensive gun use incidents in America, are you willing to sentence those people to be raped, robbed, assaulted and possibly murdered by criminals? Are you willing to throw away an over decade long decrease in violent crime rates? (Look at the FBI crime reports) Guns are not toys. They are tools. They can be used to save a life, they can be used to end a life.

Many of those 15,000 would be alive if our government enforced the gun laws we have. I live in Baltimore. Criminals have insane rap sheets. The courts just keep letting them go. Hell, I've been called a racist for advocating using a gun in a crime should be an automatic 10 year sentence, no parole, no good time credits, NOTHING.

That is your self centered reality only. It's not backed up by facts, or by logic. Americans are already the most armed people in the world. If Guns kept people safe, we would be the safest country in the world, and we are not even close.

Teiraa asked to have his WP account closed a few hours ago, and that was done.

His issues with the discussions he started on WP have been addressed on this thread and as it's not in the PPR forum, therefore not the appropriate place in which to hold these pro/anti gun debates, and as that topic has been done to death more times in PPR than I care to remember - I'll give this thread an early retirement.