Yes this is about guns

I was having a conversation with someone about gun control and my comments actually made them stop and think. They are somewhat anti gun, but I think
[ Hope ] I made an in road to their thinking.

My points were these : If someone is killed with a hammer, do you blame the hammer ?
If someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, do you blame the bat ?
How about knives, do you blame the knife ?
A pencil can be deadly, even if you're not John Wick.
If a drunk driver kills someone, do you blame the car ?
Hell, a rock can be deadly if the person using it has ill intent.

We were sitting at the bar where I work and I asked, if someone hits you with a beer bottle, is the fault of the bottle ?

A gun is an inanimate object. It has no will of it's own, is not going to suddenly grow arms and legs and pull it's own trigger.

It is not the object, but the intent with which it is used

Spot on man. More people need to wake up to this fact! Its protection for you and your family and protection from tyranny in government. These are facts! S&F

I agree with it all, except... since when do you pull triggers with your legs? Hehe

a reply to: DAVID64

At the risk of raining on your parade, you may have planted a see but I'm not sure it'll grow. Only reason I say this is because I've heard many people bring up the points you have in many conversations and in the end the anti-gun people mention that it boils down to statistics.

Sure, you could break a bottle and start stabbing people in a bar, but in the end you'll harm fewer people than one would if they took a gun into a bar.

Sure, a pencil could be a deadly weapon, but how many people could you end up harming with a pencil compared to a gun??

The only ones that could possibly come close are knives(only if one is talented and fast enough) and cars(many options for a large, metal vehicle). In the end, though, most anti-gun people still feel it's ok to take guns away because the overall harm factor is lessened with everything else.

Personally, I think the only thing that'll truly change ones perspective on this topic is to be put in a spot where they realize that everything meant to protect them is not reliable. They either need to see what it's like, or be put in that spot themselves. For example, there's that video of the anti-police guy who was given a demonstration of how little time they have to react when dealing with a perp. After running through a few examples of how easily they can be taken out, his viewpoint changed on police shootings. I've also heard other people state that the video I'm mentioning actually changed their perspectives as well.

Agreed, and then they just usually go on and say Yes, but a gun is still dangerous and only LEA’s and Military should have them. To which I usually respond, “How do you disarm the Latin American drug cartels and the US street gangs that usually have equal or in the case of the Cartels superior firepower?” To which they respond. “You send in the army.” To which I say, “What if the army is actually influenced and owned by the Cartels.” At which point they go back to step one anyway.
You should read the book The Liberal Mind by Lyle H Rossiter.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand


It can be done.

a reply to: Necrobile

What I find the most frustrating is their thought that new laws would make a difference. I have a concealed carry license in Illinois. You have no idea the hoops I had to jump through.
I had to pass 4 background checks.

Local police. Because sometimes there are cases of domestic violence, the spouse doesn't want to press charges, but the cops know this is Not someone who needs a weapon so they can disqualify you. Passed.

Sheriffs Dept. Any outstanding warrants or pretty much anything else you could think of. Passed

State Police. Same. Passed.

Then, the national background check, plus 16 hours of "training". $200 for the class and then another $150 for the license.

They honestly think that gangbanger in Chicago went through all that or is even going to worry about some new law ?

a reply to: DAVID64
Occasionally, you will come across someone who is willing to listen to reason and think for themselves instead of spouting talking points, but most anti-gunners are like Heaven's Gate cult members. They close their minds off and nothing you or anyone else says will change their mind. The mother-ship is coming for them and that's that.

As a side note, the UK did blame the knives. Enough that they have some fairly stringent laws regarding them, but they are not completely banned...yet.

originally posted by: DAVID64
I was having a conversation with someone about gun control and my comments actually made them stop and think. They are somewhat anti gun, but I think
[ Hope ] I made an in road to their thinking.

My points were these : If someone is killed with a hammer, do you blame the hammer ?
If someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, do you blame the bat ?
How about knives, do you blame the knife ?
A pencil can be deadly, even if you're not John Wick.
If a drunk driver kills someone, do you blame the car ?
Hell, a rock can be deadly if the person using it has ill intent.

We were sitting at the bar where I work and I asked, if someone hits you with a beer bottle, is the fault of the bottle ?

A gun is an inanimate object. It has no will of it's own, is not going to suddenly grow arms and legs and pull it's own trigger.

It is not the object, but the intent with which it is used

While I agree with your premise, the counter argument will be that guns make it easier to kill people...

I find trying to discuss guns with liberals is pointless because they aren't informed enough to even have the discussion. You can't logically and reasonably discussion solutions with people who think bullets can fly around a corner, a AR-15 can shoot 500 rounds a second, etc...

a reply to: DAVID64

If I were to debate an anti-gun person I'd calmly and simply ask if they were going to remove their penis because someone else raped a woman.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: SeektoUnderstand


It can be done.

It not only can be done, but if you only have a long gun and you intend to commit suicide, using your feet (more specifically your toes) is the way to accomplish the act.
You load the weapon, switch the safety off, and put the muzzle under your chin. Then you use a toe to pull the trigger.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DAVID64

If I were to debate an anti-gun person I'd calmly and simply ask if they were going to remove their penis because someone else raped a woman.

Please, don't give them any ideas DB. They might actually consider legislation for something like that.

a reply to: DAVID64
"They honestly think that gangbanger in Chicago went through all that or is even going to worry about some new law ?"

Of course not and that's probably part of the calculation. They know that only the law abiding with something to lose will comply with the new gun laws, if ever passed. And of course they know the gang bangers will be the only ones to have firearms. And look at how they are responding to that! Defunding police and eliminating bail....so really, they dont care who gets killed by the gang bangers and they want to be sure YOU cant defend yourself.

I have already read where the BLM types think home invasion burglaries are a form of reparations.

And they talk about equity and decry segregation as racism, but foster and promote policies that force ordinary law abiding citizens to flee the cities in droves.

Makes no sense to me.

IF you really want to shut down an anti gunner.

Tell them to treat twitter like they do the second amendment.

Background check to tweet.

Mandatory waiting period to tweet.

Waiting 6 months or long to make your tweets quiet so you don't upset your neighbors.

And then blame the tweeter for snip they don't do.

And fill out a form like ATF form 4473 every time they tweet.

a reply to: TonyS

So, lead and copper are reparations ?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DAVID64

If I were to debate an anti-gun person I'd calmly and simply ask if they were going to remove their penis because someone else raped a woman.

That right there is an EXCELLENT analogy to use when trying to convince total idiot anti-gunners the reason why people must be allowed to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. I live in Washington state, and we have a complete moron who is dedicated to just being an idiot about guns for law abiding others, while exempting himself. Governor Jay Inslee.

a reply to: DAVID64

Your argument is intact, but you've picked the wrong subject to argue!

You shouldn't be defending the firearm. What you really should be doing is assailing the left's agenda to get rid of ALL firearms!

You see, when you use your exact same argument to illustrate that the statistics anti-gunners will always use to defend their argument can only lead to one conclusion...the removal of ALL guns from society. In other words, "common sense gun control" is an absolute RUSE! It exposes their lies. It's a ruse because it won't fix any of the statistics anti-gunners use to say guns are dangerous, so until you eliminate guns completely, only then will those numbers change. That's the argument. "Common sense" gun laws are an outright LIE, and they know it, and the only way you can prove it to them is by taking your same argument and putting it in the context of their agenda, not the firearm itself.

Now, you may ask yourself...Why? Because, when you make an argument like this to someone they immediately think...'Okay, well, your gun is okay, but all the rest have to GO!' And this is what they take away from the discussion. What they need to be taking away from the discussion is...it's a right, and it shall not be infringed. Anything less is just more gun control, and it will never end until the lefty's get them ALL.

S&F!

a reply to: DAVID64

Rendering the law abiding population entirely vulnerable is reparations.

Guns can kill many and from large distances. Knives, bottles, etc., not so much.

You can kill someone with bare hands, but hands are used for so much more. You can kill someone with a knife, but knives are used for other things.

Guns are primary made to kill, period. And please don't go into the target practice and skeet shooting bs.

That is why some people are opposed to guns. It really is that simple.

And if knives and bottles are equal to a gun, why not stockpile them and get rid of your guns? I won't be doing that because I KNOW having a gun is BETTER.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DAVID64

If I were to debate an anti-gun person I'd calmly and simply ask if they were going to remove their penis because someone else raped a woman.

And a chorus would arise from the left.. " YES! YES! YES! REMOVE THE PENISES! ALL OF THEM! THEN WE WILL BE SAFE!