Why Arguing With Anti-Gunners Is Nearly Always Futile

16
978

Have you ever tried to have a calm, rational, intelligent discussion with an anti-gunner about gun control? If not, you may want to try it sometime. You may find it enlightening.

Or frustrating.

Because these discussions often don’t lead anywhere but to have that anti-gunner swearing at you and blocking you on Facebook because you have an opposing viewpoint on guns. Why? Because they don’t want to hear any opposing arguments, and they will twist the facts of a situation to fit their preferred analysis that guns are always wrong.

To give an example, a writer going by the name of J. KB discusses a recent article by Think Progress (the name should clue you into their cluelessness) which looked at recent situations in which a person onsite stopped someone who was seeking to injure people with a firearm. The writer of each situation reviewed in the Think Progress article had twisted thinking to “explain” why these examples of a good guy with a gun weren’t really examples of a good guy with a gun. J. KB writes,

This is the dishonesty of the argument:

  1. Armed civilians stop a shooter, but there could have been a problem, so no “good guy with a gun.”
  2. Armed civilians stop a shooter, but they were actually off duty military and/or ex-police, so no “good guy with a gun.”
  3. Unarmed good guy manages to survive an armed encounter and emerge victorious, so no “good guy with a gun.”
  4. Law Enforcement Officer is irresponsible and accidently shoots someone, so no “good guy with a gun.”
  5.  A bad guy shoots up a gun free zone where there is no armed civilians, so no “good guy with a gun.”

Every scenario is twisted into proof why we can’t be allowed to carry.

There is no scenario that they will accept as evidence of a “good guy with a gun.”

J. KB really nails it. It’s difficult to sway anti-gunners from their foolish point of view because they don’t want to be swayed from that point of view. You’re better off spending your time sharpening your skills at the firing range than trying to convince these ignorant people to a different point of view.

 

16 COMMENTS

  1. There is a theme that runs through Jewish religious observance. As I remember, it runs as follows.

    A man has three sons. One turns out to be learned. He should be listened to and respected. Another lacks the capacity to learn. He should be cared for. The third will not learn. He is to be ignored.

  2. This has gone way beyond “gun control”. A lot of these people have now gone to their real goal. The overthrow of the constitution, and the government.

  3. I have had many arguments with “anti-gunners” and the result is always the same: I am considered a retard (their exact words). When I challenged Governor Malloy’s statement that the NRA is a terrorists group, the intelligent reply from one of Malloy’s supporters was that I do not understand because I am a retard. When I asked a liberal, anti-gunner why any new gun-control law will deter crime, they call me a fascist for not realizing that guns are dangerous. When I remind them that people, not guns, are dangerous, they reply with expletives against my family, especially my mother. When I ask anti-gunners what new law will stop a person who, by the act of shooting someone, has broken several laws in committing crimes, they respond with repetitious liberal rhetoric about making it harder to own a firearm, thus deterring crime. When I ask anti-gunners what part of any new law will convince a law-breaker to suddenly obey this one law, they are silent. When people refuse to listen and learn, there is never a qualified conclusion to any decision they may be part of.

  4. Hmmm???? So how does the anti gunner respond to the recent shooting at Walmart in state of Washington where a legally armed pastor killed an active shooter trying to threaten his family by car jacking cars in the parking lot. Guess it was all Walmart’s fault for attracting the shooter because they sell ammo. Hmmm!! Only goes to show that the anti gunners are dumber than a box of rocks.

  5. I see irresponsible gun owners not securing their firearms from their kids as the most often danger to schools. Kids are emotional and more susceptive to utilizing a firearms at spur of the moment decisions. We need more parents executing gun security than we have at present. Teens seldom have any thoughts of using one if they can readily access a gun from home on a daily basis.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here