Posted: 7/28/2006 6:45:58 AM EDT
|
I consider myself to be a very good debater on the subject of firearms. I focus my argument around absolute logic and the “outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns” statement, and further expanding that statement to role play with myself as the legal gun owner wanting to protect myself and the person arguing with me, and a criminal wanting to kill the person arguing with me. I then illustrate how the banning of guns will result in me, the follower of the law, turning my guns in, while the criminal, already set in mind to ignore our highest law by wanting to kill them, will not turn in their gun, and will now use it to kill the person, and possibly me. Using this undisputable logic, I have actually managed to change the minds of many people. I have even had hard core gun haters become silent, and then mutter “I see your point”. I even had one absolute hard core liberal storm off in disbelief that he did not have any argument to combat it. I argue in logic. Why? Logic is absolute. Logic can easily be explained. And as long as logic, is in fact logical and not half assed, logic is very hard to argue against. So I have a problem. The above logic is just about rock solid. There is no rebuttal except to change the subject. The subject is usually being changed by the liberals to the “an armed society is a dangerous society” And us pro-gun people are of the belief that “an armed society is a polite society”. However, there is no logic associated with this statement that I know of. I have written a paper on gun control and have seen the results in states like Florida, where crime went down after concealed carry and other pro-gun laws are put in place. However. The middle east is VERY armed, as is africa and other places. Fully automatic weapons seem to be cheap and plentiful. So why is their society so “non-polite”? I am trying to find an answer in logic here. The answer that they are stupid, or they do not value life so they don’t care is a valid argument for someone like me, but not for someone who is anti-gun. It is not a solid enough argument to prove our view as absolute, because it seems to not be. Opinions? Comments? |
|
I'm no humanities professor, but I'll give this a shot. THe reason that America has the ability to be armed and not overtly violent, is that we do not have a religious war going on here..............yet. The weapons being used in the ME conflict are being imported by foreign Governments who have a stake in a proxy war. I.E. Iran and Syria. They are not being purchased legally at the corner gun store. So comparing the American gun culture to the ME is a non-argument. Two completely different sets of circumstances. As for arguing with logic against a liberal...............good luck with that. |
I missed it.  BTW. I am going to try to take the role of the anti gunner here and try to argue against points people make. let me start with something half assed and stupid. Like, um. All these people in third world countries have guns and they kill eachother all over th eplace. If they had no guns they might still kill eachother but it would not be as bad! 
|
Liberal will say: So we should ban guns now and get them off the street so if a religious war happens we can't kill eachother with guns. |
|
Its education, and their mindset. We know killing lots of people gets us into hell. They think Holy War Genocide gets them next to Allah. How do you think we would be if we were raised being told "all (insert race/religion here) must die?" ETA, bc it had nothing on gun control, In order to decrease violence in those places like africa and middle east, the children need to be worked with. Better schools and teachers so they know you shouldnt blow yourself up to kill people. After a few generations, I think they could be normal people. |
| The difference is that the US is a free, open and peaceful society to begin with. The Middle East or African example in not analagous to the US at all. Those regions are instable, and at war constantly. If your opponent continues to force the issue, simply point out that those nations actually have very strict gun laws, but are completely unenforceable by the corrupt and illegitimate governments. Look at what's going on in Somalia. The Somali government has been effectively disarmed, and now troops and militias from Ethiopia, Eritrea and even the Sudan are flooding the borders. It will never end, until the governments in power are legitimate and have a vested interest in a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. Currently, there is much higher profit in war and strife than there is in peace and stability. |
|
The statement "an armed society is a polite society" is a quip... not something to base a logical argument on. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. If there is no belief instilled into people on the value of life and the rights of other people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then being armed just means you have more range. 
|
|
the answer to your question is a word that rhymes with "fislam". more importantly though, the most important argument HERE [in the us] is that we have a 2nd amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms. and our rights are not contingent on recent "crime statistics". if they were, they would ALL be gone by now. |
This is hard. I have my own arguments agreeing with you but I am trying to push them aside for liberal ones. um. So how can you say guns are a good thing and a right of the people if so many people in the world show that guns in the hands of the people is bad. Sure it was a good thing I guess in old times for things like the French and American revolutions, but guns are more deadly now and the people can't seem to handel guns. |
You have a fundimental FLAW in your logic. You are assuming that anti-Self Defense people, Liberals, and Victim Disarmament Advocates will listen or care about logic. JPFO printed some VERY good articles on how to debate. ALso in Boston's Gun Bible there are some good tips (You should have this anyway), And John Ross Article has a good read. Basically we allow the enemy to shape the debate with words like pro-gun anti-gun. Common sense gun laws gun control etc. That is like allowing the enemy to chose the time and place of a battle. Basically 1. You need to battle for the metaphor. 2. Battle for EMOTION. 3. Battle for the sound bite. Your opponent does not THINK about the issue he FEELS the issue. You have to capture the emotion. Look at the terms they use "cop killer bullet" "assault weapon" sporting "saturdaynight special" Use phrases like RACIST GUN laws that limit a minorities civil rights. SEXIST WAITING PERIODS that prevent a woman from getting the protection she needs when the police tell her to call 911 when her ex is beating down the door. You have to create short EMOTIONAL word images that get at your feelings. Use logic LATER. Liberals DO NOT THINK they FEEL. Know thy enemy. And the mid-east and africa can't find peace because of the ROP. I have a friend from Sudan that Catholic Charities help to immigrate (legally) here. Some men on horse back rode into his village, Armed with machine guns. His father saw them and told his kid to run away. He was 15 at the time. He ran and hid. He watched form the bushes as the Riders told the people to convert to Islam or die. His family was Christian. His father would not convert and was killed while he watched, along with the rest of the villagers who would not convert. The good guys believed in the stupid version of pacifist christianity. The good guys had no guns. Lots of the missionaries that go there are anti-gun and preach this version of christianity. I also happen to know about 1/2 dozen missionaries. So the good guys don't even bother to defend themselves. Over there lots of bad guys with guns and good guys don't have them. Isreal does and that is why they are still there. If you join the JPFO they will send you a shit load of back issues of their "Bill of Rights" magazine (formerly called the Firearms Sentinal now called Bill of Rights Sentinal) The JPFO is one of the few gun groups who uses good debating techniques for our side. Worth joining just for the reading material. Also look at their site JPFO they have some good articles. Compare their tactics and language with every other pro-gun groups. The others have to get with the times, especially the NRA. They need to do this more than any other group. |
Good point! Any sources to verify this? That is some of the logic I need. If the law is there, but not enforced, or attempted enforcment is nullified by war, then the gun violence ties right back into the logic for my favorite argument, outlawing guns does nothing to those who would not obey the law. But sources are needed to make the case. |
|
I'm very doubtful that "our" view is absolute. And I'm probably not intellectually up to the task of answering your question, but it is an interesting one so I'll go ahead and give it a shot. I think that the validity of "our" view is rooted in "our" heritage. That is the heritage of Western Civilization. Cultures that are not the product of the past three thousand years of Western Civilization do not seem to fit the paradigm that you and I accept. Firstly (relating to the ownership of weapons) the right to keep and bear arms is based upon the concept of the "free man". As understood in western culture, the free man is duty bound not just to himself, but also to the community (and by extension, the State or Sovereign). This goes back to Greco-Roman law, particularly Roman law which basically stated that the free man may wield lethal force in defense of his own life (as oppopsed to a slave, who is dependant upon his master for his defense), but this free man is also obligated to wield lethal force in defense of his comunity and in defence of Caesar (or other Sovereign) if so called upon. Thus the western concept of the free State is based upon the concept of the free man who may wield lethal force both for individual defense but also duty bound to the responsiblities of collective defense. This concept can be followed through time through Medieval England to our own Second Amendment, which interestingly, also talks about the RKBA as a dual individual right and collective responsibility. This is straight out of Roman law. This core concept, I think, supports the idea of a community or State in which the use of force is ultimately governed by the rule of law. This concept is possible because it ingeniusly creates a state of SHARED POWER. I'm probably wrong, but I believe this is unique to Western Civilization. The reason the rest of the world is so incorrigibly violent is because there is no cultural tradition of shared power between the individual and the State. Therefore, violence and chronic instability are the usual end result. And it's why giving people more guns in the Middle East or Africa cannot ever end in any peaceful concensus emerging between the various parties. Their cultural heritage provides no framework for that outcome. |
Rwanda |
It is cultural, pure and simple. Take Afghanistan for example, in all reality there is no more well armed place on the planet. Yet when they fight, they do as groups. Tribe vs tribe, in what they see as war. As far as actual crimes and murder, it is actually very uncommon, at leats among the Pashtuns whom I worked with. The see thier tribal code as being thier first code, as it existed before isalm, and follow it. It has cornerstones or honor, hospitality, and vengance. You treat strangers well, but you avenge any wrongs. Actualy makes for a relativley polite society for what it is. |
|
There’s a flaw in your original argument, an armed society isn’t necessarily a polite society. An armed populace more or less guarantees that the populace will get the kind of society they want. In the United States, and most other civilized countries, the vast majority of the people want a peaceful stable society. So, when the average person is armed we get a more peaceful and stable society. Believe it or not there are places where the people don’t want peace and stability. In these places giving the people weapons guarantees that there won’t be any hint of either peace or stability. That’s why certain American neighborhoods and some countries are still very violent despite the numbers of weapons in people’s hands. Of course “gun control” won’t solve any problems in places like this because it’s the peaceful people that are most likely to be disarmed. |
I would stick to the US and not try to make the argument for other societies. A rule that works in one place won't work somewhere else. Whether a society is violent is a seperate issue from the gun control issue. The main issue for those violent societies is how much people hate each other. It is true for these violent societies that if you took their guns away there would be less killing. Guns are an efficient way to kill people, right? But that's just a purely hypothetical argument that doesn't have much meaning in the real world. Those people already have guns and it would be useless banning them. |
It is the people I am arging with bringing up other countries. Not me. I'm trying to formulate a good argument against them. |
|
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=485699 May not be exactly what you are looking for, but good historical data. |
Anyone who tries to compare the US to another country in regards to gun control or the gun culture is bating you into a trap. No other country has a history like ours, or a gun culture like ours. Comparing their mindset to ours is simply stupid. England and Australia, as examples, gave up their guns without a fight because they had no history of an armed society throwing off the reigns of tyranny. They did not have the historical stake in gun ownership that we do. So their "progressive" mindset in regards to guns, simply would not fit in the U.S. We wouldn't allow it, since our history is based on armed resistance. I hope I make sense here, Goddamn German beer makes it hard to argue effectivley. |
Tell 'em they're making a pointless argument. It's also true that if the people didn't hate each other they would be more polite. It's also true that if you seperate them and built a fence between them they would stop killing each other. It's also true that if you travelled back in time to prevent the massacre of 893 A.D. the people wouldn't hold that grudge they've been harboring for more than 1000 years. But those are pointless arguments. |
|
Agreed, trying to compare us to other societies is pointless. There are few if any other societies quite like us. Tribal violence and conflict over resources is the norm in most of the world. We as a nation have nearly completely abandoned tribalism. Hell, most of us who's ancestors have been here more than two or three generations cannot even claim any one specific ethnicity. Loyalty to our town or city? Other than perhaps high school football, we have none. State loyalty, Nope, I can find the exact same walmart and neighborhood three states away and fit right in without a hiccup. Why do most Americans not speak multiple languages? Simple, we don't have to. We can speak English for thousands of miles in any direction and be just fine. Try that in Europe or Africa. We are a unique culture synthesized over 4 centuries into something truly unique in the world. |
For the violence in places like this, its does not matter if they have 5 million guns or 1 rock, they will still throw the rock, so gun control is not the answer. The only thing we can try and do to stop it is get them to belive that what they do is wrong and that they need to accept other religions/beliefs. I dont know how this can be done, but it must or eventually, they will win and the only people on earth will be the radical islamists; or they will cease to exist and there will be jews/christians/catholics/buddists/etc. and eventually it will end. Then ofcourse another religion may form with the same midset as before and it will happen again. |
|
It's actually a good thing that there is still conflict in many of those places. It means there are still two sides able to fight. Gun control never removes all guns, it just disarms one side of the conflict. The availability of weapons helps to equalize the two sides, so neither is able to accomplish their true goal of total destruction of their enemy. Disarmament would lead to peace, via genocide. Nazi Germany didn't have too much trouble with internal rebellion after they enacted gun control. Logic: The "non-polite" societies are violent because of an underlying fight-to-the-death conflict that leads to widespread use of firearms, not the other way around. Most modernized nations don't have ongoing holy wars between large segments of the population, and therefore have relatively similar levels of "politeness," despite widely varying levels of firearm ownership. |
|
Access to firearms does not by itself make society dangerous; how dangerous society is depends upon the morals and beliefs of the individuals making up the society. Look at the US prison population; they have abolutely no access to firearms of any kind, yet they manage to kill one another on a daily basis with homemade weapons. The propensity to commit violence is in spite of access to weapons, not because of it, and in the absence of firearms other weapons will be employed. If the liberals' argument was valid, then prison would be the safest environment on Earth. A more accurate statement might be that an armed society is 'polite' because of the possibility of retaliatory action against an aggressor. In other words, someone is always fearful in any society - in armed societies it is the aggressor, in unarmed societies it is the victim. |
|
+1 on bringing up other countries. It is a TRAP to control the conversatino. They are playing a game. They can't beat your points here so they switch tactics. Don't give in to it. THey are HARDLY an expert on other coutries any more than you are. They just try and shift the debate when they are loosing. Don't fall for it. Go on with what you were debating in the first place. Get on the OFFENSIVE. If they bring up some 3rd world shit hole, ask them why they are racist supporting laws that eliminate the ability of minorities to defend them selves. Or why are they are sexist and don't want women to be able to defend themselves. IF they keep going back to the 3rd world debate, be in their face and demand to know why they are trying to change the subject. Refuse to play their game. Don't try to justify every point they bring up, they are dancing around the issue and are controling the conversation. Be offensive and use emotional arguments. If they concede the point of the emotion THEN you can hit them with facts. Dismiss their lunacy, counter attack then attack on a point of your own. |
| Both your original position (armed society = polite society) and the "devil's advocate" position (look at third world cesspools with all of their guns) are both equally flawed because they assume that guns (or any weapon for that matter) play any significant role in people's core beliefs about their fellow citizens and human life in general. You don't hand someone a gun and they all of the sudden want to kill someone nor can you take them away and have this urge go away with it. The bottom line is that if people want to kill each other, they will do so with whatever weapon is available. You take one of those weapons away, and they'll find another. All you do by taking people's guns away is take away one of the most effective means for law-abiding people to protect themselves. Either way, the criminals will still go about their business. At least in a gun owning society, innocent people have a chance - it's a way to level the playing field. |
|
No other country has a history like ours, or a gun culture like ours. Before a few years ago, the term "gun culture" did not exist. That term was originated by the antigun movement to stigmatize gun ownership, to equate it with "cult" or other buzzwords. That is their way of defining he terms, framing the debate. |