Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis

February 9, 2009 by
Filed under: RKBA, Snark 

I’ve been seeing a pattern recently:

  1. Someone on the internet spouts off about how we need more gun control.
  2. Folks from the gun rights community show up in comments and point out that the argument is ill conceived.
  3. A bunch of statistics, generally provided by the Brady Bunch,  are quoted in defense of gun control.
  4. The gun rights community refutes the assertions, points out how the statistics are doctored.
  5. The original poster tries to argue from authority to shut down the comments, as in “I’m a lawyer, so I know better than you.”  Alternatively, they may appeal to emotion and try to
  6. The original poster descends into name calling.
  7. The original poster goes sad panda, reasoned discourse breaks out, and the poster turns off comments, usually with a parting shot.

Roberta X, Rustmeister, and Joe Huffman have all had to go through this pattern.  In an effort to help the anti rights folks form better arguments, I offer the following tips.

First, understand that we have already looked at the data you are planning to cite.  No, not the press release from the Bradys, or the Google search…we’ve read the studies.  We’ve examined the methodologies used.  We’ve studied the CDC data, and the FBI data.  We know it pretty well.  When you pull out a stat, we probably know what study it came from.  If you are planning to cite statistics, it would be a wise thing to read not just the Brady press release, but to look at the underlying data.

Second (and this is the uncomfortable part) is that the data simply doesn’t support any of your assertions.  Gun owners are law abiding, and guns are used safely and responsibly.  As Tam points out, children are generally not at terrible risk from gun accidents.  As I point out, more children die from rare diseases than from gun accidents.  You would save many more lives by banning swimming pools and automobiles than firearms.  We aren’t going to let you carry on under false assumptions.  We will try to educate you.

Third, understand that we are passionate about keeping our civil rights.  We are no more ready to give up our right to own firearms than you are ready to give up your right to vote.  A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth…so expect a lot of challenges.

Fourth, I don’t care if you are a lawyer.  You should have learned about logical fallacies in law school.  Attacking the people arguing against you personally rather than refuting their arguments makes you look like an ass.  Defending yourself by saying “Well, that’s my opinion” makes you look like an ignorant ass.

Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad.  You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights.  That’s a pretty serious thing.  If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you should’t threaten them in the first place.

Tags:

Comments

5 Comments on Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis

  1. American-Manifesto.com » Debating Antis on Mon, 9th Feb 2009 9:38 pm

    2. [...] in the blogosphere about debating anti-gunners lately. Newbie Shooter has chimed in with some suggestions to make it a little more fair for the antis (a noble gesture). No doubt they will ignore him since [...]

  2. David Robins on Tue, 10th Feb 2009 6:01 pm

    3. Well said.

  3. Sevesteen on Tue, 10th Feb 2009 11:13 pm

    4. Great post. I think you’ve inspired me to do a blog post of my standard rebuttals to the standard anti-gun statistics. Should save time…I can rebut not only the current argument, but preemptively rebut the next several.

  4. Catherine on Tue, 17th Feb 2009 3:22 am

    5. You are wrong on many accounts:

    1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.
    2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.
    3. Statistics can be skewed either way.
    4. I was not arguing. It was my opinion. The pr-gum bloggers went on my blog and argued. I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported. Others were never backed up with anything.
    5. There is no “appeal to emotion.” It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic. My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.
    6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
    After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.
    7. I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people. I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment. That’s my choice. When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments. I reserve that right. It was also based on advice from the authorities.

    The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned, but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon. I never want all guns banned. My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons. It is my opinion. Your opinion on guns is your opinion.

    I received a LOT of reaction form the gun bloggers who wrote posts like this (only worse). You guys did more than I ever could have (assuming that was my intent and it was not) to further the gun control cause.

  5. Catherine responds | Newbie Shooter on Tue, 17th Feb 2009 11:47 am

    6. [...] Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis” [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!