1-800-123-4567
Book a lesson

Win the gun control argument

HomeAll Posts...Win the gun control argument
0Comments

So with the holidays coming up we thought it would be a good idea to arm you with some quick points on how to take on anyone at the Christmas/Hannukah table who wish to discuss gun control.

These are the main lines of attack when it comes to arguing in favor of the second amendment

  • The actual purpose of the amendment
  • Statistics
  • What “common sense gun control” entails
  • Political motivations

Before you begin the debate you should define your stance so that you can put boundaries on the argument. The stance you need to take (you will struggle with the counter argument if you try and be somewhere in the middle) is that the second amendment is about being able to possess arms in the event that the government would become tyrannical. It does not cover home defense, hunting or sports shooting. Here are some of the usual counter arguments put forward by gun control advocates:

  • Do you honestly believe that you would need to defend yourself against the United States government?
  • Answer: let me ask you a question: do you believe Trump is a Nazi/white nationalist who is racist and stoking up racist sentiment in this country? Do you believe there is a problem with police shooting people of color at random? Do you believe the current government colluded with Russia, a foreign adversary to beat the peoples choice for president? If you answered yes to any one of these questions why would you hand your guns over to Trump or the police if you see them as such a threat?
  • If the government became tyrannical it could crush any kind of resistance it faced in a matter of days. They have drones don’t you know
?
  • Answer: It is near impossible for a standing army to crush an insurgency of an armed populace. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russia + USA), Iraq
 Especially with a landmass the size of the USA – it is highly unlikely that the government would be able to command and control such a vast territory. You know which countries have been fable firmly squash dissent? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Venezuela, Iran, China
 guess what – citizens in those countries had their guns confiscated when the abusive power took control. The second amendment is the only thing that stands against tyranny from those who are in power.
  • The second amendment was written at a time when all people had were muskets. The founders could never have imagined the killing power we have now.
  • At the time the second amendment was written soldiers were responsible for bringing their own weapons to the battle field. Which meant that anything goes. Guns at that time had magazines, and also shot from multiple barrels. Most battles took place at over 100 yards which means they were precision machinery. Also – the idea was that everyone should be able to possess weapons to defend themselves against the government should the government become tyrannical. Full stop.
  • So then are you saying you should have access to the same types of weaponry as the military has?
  • That doesn’t mean the citizenry who are able to get their hands on said weaponry shouldn’t be trained in the handling and discharge of such firepower. They should. In a way that protected their anonymity yet allowed them to have every equal advantage to the governments firepower.

You should point out that we are the only country in the world with the freedom of speech. No other country in the world has it enshrined in their constitution. You can go to jail in Britain for a mean tweet if it’s considered hate speech (and who decides if it’s hate speech? The government that’s who!) There is a reason why the very next amendment after the one regarding the freedom to say whatever you like, is the right to bear arms. The second amendment is there to protect the first.

At some point the argument will pivot to mass shootings. The second mass shootings come up it’s important to stay true to the facts and statistics surrounding deaths by gun in the United States of America. So here we go:

  • Statistically mass shootings of the kind that make the news are incredibly rare. Less 1% of all shootings are that type. The “hundreds of mass shootings every year” trope that gets trotted out is based on a definition that says if more than 3 people are involved it’s referred to a mass shooting. The majority of these kinds of shootings are carried out by gangs against other gangs. No amount of gun control in the world will stop gangs from killing each other.
  • There are over 45,000 gun deaths a year. Why wouldn’t you want to limit the firepower an individual can get their hands on to stop the epidemic
  • Firstly the majority of those deaths are suicide. It’s safe to argue that it’s not the gun to blame in the instance of suicide as the person would most likely have found a way otherwise. In 2018 there were 10,265 cases of murder by firearm. The majority(6,603) were with handguns.
  • Secondly our access to “military grade” firearms has decreased over time not increased. Yet mass shootings, especially at schools or other places where unarmed people will be congregating have increased. Why? It’s not access to weapons as that has been a staple of American culture since forever. Something else is going on that is tearing at the fabric of our society.
  • FBI statistics on gun deaths in 2018 (which is the most recent data point that we have):
  • Of all the murders in the USA – want to guess how many were committed by “assault weapons”? 297. Knives – 1595. Hand and feet – 672.
  • So if you’re looking to ban AR15s here are the things that killed more people than “Assault weapons” last year:
  • Gun related deaths in the USA are actually on the decrease according to Pew research https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
  • According to several experts: “Most people who commit assault, robbery, or murder with a gun anywhere in the U.S. are disqualified under federal law from being in possession of a gun due to age, criminal record, addiction status, immigration status or other reason,” https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ In other words – it’s not the legal gun owners (the people you are attacking with these laws you are looking to pass) who are committing the vast majority of gun crime.
  • Also – according to the CDC (under Obama who was no gun fan) guns are used in self defense anywhere from 500,000 to 3,000,000 times per year https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#517067ea299a.
  • We’re the only country in the world that suffers from mass shootings. Why wouldn’t we adopt the common sense gun measure other first world countries have taken?
  • Let’s look at some countries that have banned gun ownership and see how they are faring:
    • Britain – while guns deaths are down, knife related deaths are up. Way up https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089. Also on the up are deaths and injury resulting from acid attacks. The difference here is that it’s unlikely any law abiding citizen is walking around armed with acid, or a knife to defend themselves. The British government stripped law abiding citizens the opportunity to defend themselves from those who would do them harm
    • Sweden – Sweden actually has a grenade problem right now with more than 100 grenade attacks happening in 2019 so far https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/sweden-bomb-attacks-reach-unprecedented-level-as-gangs-feud
    • France – According to La Figaro France suffered from record breaking murder rate in 2019. with 250 murders from May to end of June in 2019. Keep in mind – guns are banned and so the citizenry have no way of defending themselves from those who would do them harm

So let’s now address the “common sense” gun control agenda that supposedly 80% of all Americans support:

Stronger background check for all firearm purchases

As of today – every single person who wishes to buy a firearm has to have a background check through NICS. Regardless of state. What leftists mean when they say this, is that they want to create a national registry of firearm owners. A registry containing the name and address will really get in the way of resisting a tyrannical government if they know who has the guns in the first place.

Banning all semi automatic weapons

“Semi automatic” sounds scary but the truth is that “semi automatic” describes how the gun works. You pull the trigger and one bullet is fired and another is loaded “automatically” into the chamber to be fired by the next trigger pull. This is how 90% of most guns work today – banning semi automatic weapons is essentially banning all guns.

Banning military grade assault weapons like the AR15

The AR15 is neither military grade nor an assault weapon (an assault weapon is a weapon that is to be used against a person – every weapon is therefore potentially an assault weapon). What an AR15 is – is a defense weapon in that anyone of almost any training background and physical condition can use it to defend themselves against someone bigger, stronger and armed. If you want to protect yourself and give yourself every advantage you could wish for – you have to have an AR15.

Banning “high capacity” magazines

The idea here is that in the event of a mass shooter they can be rushed whilst changing magazines. the reality is that all this does is inhibits the law abiding citizen from having the same firepower as an assailant – as criminals are less likely to obey the maximum capacity regulations.

And finally, let’s shine a mirror on those who look to ban guns. These are the same people who are advocating the following:

  • Open borders and minimal restriction (vetting) on immigration. If your borders are open a) people are not the only things crossing it (guns will come too) and b) you’re going to be importing a lot of criminals who aren’t going to have any problem breaking whatever gun laws you have put in place
  • Shorter prison sentences for most crimes – the majority of violent offenders who use guns are criminals who have spent time in jail
  • Defang police departments all over the country to the point where they are too afraid to arrest people

So the argument then goes – give us your guns because of mass shootings whilst we open the borders, let the criminals out and stop the police from doing their jobs


I don’t think so.

Finally, there is a lot to be said for being able to win an argument in defense of our right to keep and bear arms. You get an opportunity to not only win over someone who is arguing with you (unlikely), but anyone around you who is undecided (very likely). I will walk you through the four main thrusts you can take that are very difficult to argue with in a rational sense. But before I do that let me lay out some ground rules:

  1. Always ask lots of questions: asking questions makes people think on their feet. If they’re just repeating talking points they have heard from someone else they will find it difficult to be coherent. Ask them questions that could lead them to make the very points you are trying to make. I’ll give you some examples below.
  2. Be respectful: the person you are arguing with is most likely not evil. They are just victims of a mind virus that has overtaken American society. It’s not their fault. You need to keep reminding yourself no matter how heated the conversation gets. Ultimately they want the same thing as you – a safer America. The route they want to take though would make it way more unsafer
  3. They most likely have not had much (any) contact with guns: offer to take them to the range and show them safety around a gun as well as how to shoot. Once most people fire off a few rounds from those scary looking “military style assault weapons” – they realize how helpful they could be in a life or death situation

Ultimately we all want to stop these horrific mass shootings. The answer is clearly not gun control as there is not one mass shooting that would have been prevented with the laws most leftists want to pass. However, in most cases the shooter was identified before hand as being odd, a recluse, someone who had a history with getting into trouble
 In the case of the Parkland shooter police were at his house 50 times over the last few years. He was posting about what he was going to do online before he did it. How did no one intervene before he attacked? The fabric of society is being torn apart. We have lost religion and the mind virus of the left is filling the sense of purpose that has been lost. Boys are being told they’re worthless and predators and that they’re not good enough. Masculinity is now toxic – men are being shamed for inclinations that are intrinsic to who we are as a species. We now live in a world that is always on and in which we know what everyone is thinking
 all the time. It was never meant to be this way. People who were sick were isolated and often did not act out due to lack of confidence. Nowadays if someone has a sick desire, like shooting up a school for example, you can find an entire community somewhere online that will support you and give you aid as if they are the victim. 

Limiting the amount of bullets in a magazine, or banning guns outright will do nothing to address the evil that exists in the world. All it does is deprive us Americans of our God given right to defend ourselves from tyranny.

 

Tags: ,

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.