Favorite "comebacks" or analogies when debating gun control advocates

[jrh84]

Post your favorite analogy for how wrong the gun control argument is or good "comebacks" when debating an anti.

My personal favorite, when discussing high capacity magazines or "assault rifles" and their necessity for the average joe is to ask the person if they have a digital camera. More than likely they own one. Ask how many pictures the memory card stores. The answer will likely be in the hundreds. Respond with "would it be fair to ban digital cameras and high capacity memory cards because child pornographers use them to commit their crimes?"

In short, "if guns kill people, then cameras cause child pornography."

There's not much debate left in them after that...it is a perfect analogy.

 

[repeter1977]

Post your favorite analogy for how wrong the gun control argument is or good "comebacks" when debating an anti.

My personal favorite, when discussing high capacity magazines or "assault rifles" and their necessity for the average joe is to ask the person if they have a digital camera. More than likely they own one. Ask how many pictures the memory card stores. The answer will likely be in the hundreds. Respond with "would it be fair to ban digital cameras and high capacity memory cards because child pornographers use them to commit their crimes?"

In short, "if guns kill people, then cameras cause child pornography."

There's not much debate left in them after that...it is a perfect analogy.

Wow, had not thought of that one, but that does work great.
I tend to use the automobile analogy myself. Do you really need a car with over 5 gallons of gas, why do you need a HIGH CAPACITY tank in the vehicle. Why do you need a car that can go over 70 mph, when its the fastest speed limit? Firearms are a RIGHT and autos are not. How would they feel if everytime they went to update/renew their license, they were ran for warrants, etc and IF they had a record, they could not get a license or a vehicle? So many other analogies that work with this one as well.

 

[Bartman]

On the motorycle forum that I frequent, some idiot posted up a rant titled "Miss the assault weapons ban yet?" with regard to the Colorado shootings. I wasted 2 hours last night reading through all the attempts at talking sense to this moron. I posted my own reply about how gun control laws are merely an attempt at reconstructing their illusion that they live in a safe world after an event like a spree killing shatters that illusion. After pointing out how the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts has shown good effects, he suggested that I stop kidding myself and look at the crime statistics. After doing exactly that, this was my response:



Fair enough. I think the efforts at gun control in general are also germaine to the conversation. I was urged by another person in this discussion to consider the crime statistics so I've been doing so.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence publishes an annual scorecard based on the "strength" of each state's gun control laws. As of its most recent score, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut score the highest in the nation. One could reasonably infer that the states with the most strict gun control laws would have the lowest statistics for gun related crime in the country, if gun control is actually effective.

For comparison: in 2010 the national average of firearm related murders was 2.84 per 100,000. These numbers were also taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

California scores the highest on the Brady Scale at 81/100. 3.37 firearm murders per 100,000. Down 8% from the previous year, but still higher than the national average.
New Jersey scored 72/100 by Brady. 2.82 gun deaths per 100,000. Up 12% from the previous year.
Massachusettes got 65/100. 1.78 gun deaths per 100,000. There's your positive effects! Of course, its up 27% from 2009.
New York - 62/100. 2.64 deaths per 100,000, up 7% from the year before.
Connecticut 58/100. 2.75 gun deaths per 100,000, up 39% from the previous year.

So, among our 5 most stringent gun control states, all but one have shown an increase in the number of gun related homicides from the year before. This despite the national average of gun related murders that has decreased by 4% since 2009. By the way, in case you were wondering, New Hampshire has the lowest number of per capita firearm related murders, 0.38 per 100,000. They scored a 6/100 on the Brady scale. Clearly one can infer how dangerous New Hampshire's lax gun control measures have made that state.

WAIT! What about the District of Coumbia? They have had gun control laws in place for 25 years. Where did they rank on the Brady scale? For some reason its not ranked by the Brady Campaign. Perhaps because in 2010 there were 16 firearm murders per 100,000 people, over 5x the national average. Judge for yourself how effective gun control laws are.

 

[Ted]

......Firearms are a RIGHT and autos are not.......

Don't be too sure. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, the ownership of a horse wasn't enumerated either.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[jbombelli]

I spent decades trying to be reasonable with these people, but nothing ever changed. All it ever resulted in was insults directed at me. After nearly 30 years of arguing I never managed to change even one single person's mind.

I'm through with that. Now I tell them something to the effect of "If people like you had your way, my wife would be a widow and my children would grow up without their father, and I hate you with a passion for it. Now, show the courage of your convictions. Get the law passed, put on the uniform, and come get them yourself. Don't send someone else to do your heavy lifting. Don't turn someone else's children into orphans. Come get them yourself, mf'er and see what happens next."

I guess I'm getting less tolerant as I get older.

 

[a zone]

I use the story of a Bruce Willis interview. He was asked about his support for gun ownership. He in turn asked the interviewer what if her children were in the room and someone came in and shot one of them. He surmised that she would rip the chair from the floor and beat them to death. Before she would allow another of her children to be harmed. He added that the difference between him and her. He wouldn't need the chair.

 

[mike8170]

I spent decades trying to be reasonable with these people, but nothing ever changed. All it ever resulted in was insults directed at me. After nearly 30 years of arguing I never managed to change even one single person's mind.

I'm through with that. Now I tell them something to the effect of "If people like you had your way, my wife would be a widow and my children would grow up without their father, and I hate you with a passion for it. Now, show the courage of your convictions. Get the law passed, put on the uniform, and come get them yourself. Don't send someone else to do your heavy lifting. Don't turn someone else's children into orphans. Come get them yourself, mf'er and see what happens next."

I guess I'm getting less tolerant as I get older.

You sir, have rep inbound.

 

[Mosinowner]

ME: Did you hear about that story on the news about those 2 girls who where raped in a back ally?
Dirty lib: No, what happened
ME: One is dead, she was raped then her throat was slit
Dirty lib: O no what happened to the other?
ME: She shot the guy
Dirty lib:.......

ME: So what were you saying about gun control?

 

[CPT Nervous]

I use this site;

The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock


It has a number on the top. This is the number of reported criminal attacks that were stopped by armed citizens. Without firearms, this many more crimes would have been committed.

I have "won" a few arguments with that simple number.

"So, you would rather have 6,259,720 MORE crimes happen annually, than to allow civilians to own guns?"

Plus, that number would likely double if guns were outlawed. This is the figure and criminals know we are armed. How high would it get if they knew we weren't armed?

 

[Dorky_D]

Magazine Capacity (all deadly...to a point):
Super Sized Fries
Large Box of Donuts
Extra Large Carton of Cigaretts
Keg Of Beer
Car with extra large gass tank
King Size Candy Bar

How do you plan to keep your family safe?
What will you use to stop people and children from being murdered in front of your eyes.
How will you stop a crazy person that will not stop killing?

Assault Weapons (could be banned):
Cars
Beer
Knives
Clubs
Cars
Bats
Fists
The Ground
Rocks
Bricks
Bows
Arrows

To the "our founding fathers did not intend or dream of assault weapons" argument. Do you think they would have used them against the British if they had them? Do you think they intended to have the right to bear arms (meaning slings and arrows) and to have the potentially tyranical government to have muskets and cannos? They also did not forsee submarines, tanks, nerve gas, biological weapons and missles, but governments, including our own have them. I think we are still out gunned! (I do not really advocate individuals having many of these BTW, but that is a different argument that I do not intend to start or end)

I still do not have a rel good one for most americans do not need assault weapons, other than... Most americans do not need most of the stuff they have, but that is no reason to ban people from having stuff! And of course the second amendment.

Going agains the second amendment is treason.

Anti-gun politicians are liars and traitors for swearing to defend the constitution and then turning against that.

The constitution sets up the rules and guidelines for the opreration of our government. Do we just throw it all out and start over?

The second amendment allows us to maintain the rest of the constitution. The first amendment would quickly vanish without the second.

The press are so eager to lie and spread junk stories out there. How would they like it if they lost the first amendment?

 

[Colts]

I am not aware of any law that has stopped illegal activity.

Reasonable laws, define bad guys

Unreasonable laws are used by one group to control another group (at least temporarily)

 

[theweakerbrother]

You are using logic and reason to combat emotional responses. nothing you say to them will convince them they are wrong. Gun apologetics do not work. They only convince those who already believe.

 

[Grim714]

Everyone seems to forget that commiting murder is a crime. Aren't bombs illegal too. Seems to me that the guy in Colorado was going to do what he wanted. no mater how harsh the punishment. If a person is willing to commit murder, do you think they care about tough gun controll laws? They're going to obtain what ever they need to finish the task at hand without regard to the law.

 

[INyooper]

Instead of arguing, offer to take people out to the range for an afternoon of shooting. Before you put a firearm in their hands, teach (and show) basic firearm safety and operation. Be polite and respectful ...and patient. Of the several times I've done this, every one of the people who've gone through the process felt better and more confident about using firearms. None (that I'm aware of) walked away with a stronger anti-gun stance.

...just sayin'.

 

[jbombelli]

You are using logic and reason to combat emotional responses. nothing you say to them will convince them they are wrong. Gun apologetics do not work. They only convince those who already believe.

That has been my experience for 30 years.

 

[Dorky_D]

You are using logic and reason to combat emotional responses. nothing you say to them will convince them they are wrong. Gun apologetics do not work. They only convince those who already believe.

I do not really disagree a ton, but I think it is still important to make sure we speak out. They need to know that it is not just 1 or 2 people out in the sticks. It is everyday people. We still need to make it known that gun control is opposed by more than a few people as the media will not say that!

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Instead of arguing, offer to take people out to the range for an afternoon of shooting. Before you put a firearm in their hands, teach (and show) basic firearm safety and operation. Be polite and respectful ...and patient. Of the several times I've done this, every one of the people who've gone through the process felt better and more confident about using firearms. None (that I'm aware of) walked away with a stronger anti-gun stance.

...just sayin'.

This

This is exactly what works. This is the answer, this is how we win this culture ware.

 

[IndyGunner]

To the "our founding fathers did not intend or dream of assault weapons" argument.

If you can rule out the 2A because they didnt anticipate modern firearms... then whats stopping you from ruling out the 1A? Internet, cell phones, etc.

 

[jrh84]

Instead of arguing, offer to take people out to the range for an afternoon of shooting. Before you put a firearm in their hands, teach (and show) basic firearm safety and operation. Be polite and respectful ...and patient. Of the several times I've done this, every one of the people who've gone through the process felt better and more confident about using firearms. None (that I'm aware of) walked away with a stronger anti-gun stance.

...just sayin'.

This works. I actually took the daughter of a gun control lobbyist from Tennessee out to the range when I was in college in St. Louis. Definitely changed her views for the better after shooting my Mark III and 10/22 for a couple of hours.

 

[Whosyer]

You are using logic and reason to combat emotional responses. nothing you say to them will convince them they are wrong. Gun apologetics do not work. They only convince those who already believe.

This is why I have all but given up on using logic and facts. I make one attempt, and then go straight to the " F U ".