How to debate anti gun comment......

[AggieMM]

First off, a little history. My wife and I love each other very much, but when it comes to some issues, we're polar opposites. Let's just say that we tend to cancel each other out at elections. :)

We were watching a recorded show last night, Law and Order SVU. This was the episode where a kid sees his mother murdered, and later shoots and kills the murderer. Yes we're behind on our Tivo list. :) The defense comes up with a study about how kids that see gun violence are more likely to commit gun violence later in life. Thus guns are a virus that infects youths, no responsibility should be made to the youth, the virus should be removed, yada, yada, yada.......

Well, I had a minor problem with Hollywood on this topic, and my wife and I got into a discussion about guns and violence. Basically, what it boils down to is that I can't seem to counter her "best" argument in these debates, that "a gun's ONLY purpose is to kill". She always falls back on this to prove why handguns should be removed.

Anyway, I'm stuck. :)

Thanks for helping.

Ryan

[BobCat]

Ryan,

I should shut up - there are others here who can express it better than I can, and they will be along shortly.

Guns can - and are - used for more than killing. I shoot thousands of rounds downrange every year and never kill anyone.

But guns are indeed primarily weapons, not sporting goods. If your wife does not agree that there are instances in which it is prefferable to kill than be killed, there is no point in discussing the issue with her.

If she does feel that her / your / your childrens' lives are to be defended, even at the expense of an attacker's life - you have no disagreement.

There is a viewpoint that can be described by disparaging labels like "blissninny" and so forth; it says that if one minds one's own business, does not engage in risky behavior, and stays away from questionable people, one is in absolutely no danger of physical assault. All these are good bits of advice, but they do not preclude one's being attacked gratuitously. In the event of a home-invasion or random violence, it is better to be armed and proficient than not.

At work we have a guy who comes out every few months and brings dry-chem fire extinguishers, and a round trough. Starts a fire (gasoline / diesel mixture, a layer on top of a trough of water) and has each new employee put the fire out with the extinguisher. It is not "the real thing" but it is close, and better practice than none at all.

Sometimes, people who live on the same planet (Earth) find that they do not live in the same World. In my world there has been little enough violence / excitement that I am a grateful, thankful man most of the time. But down the road or across the street, there are people who, through no fault of their own, have been the subject of violent attack. Telling those people that "guns are only for killing" is likely to earn one a blank stare and polite dismissal, at best.

Enough rambling. I hope your wife's confidence that neither of you will ever need a gun to defend self or each other is well-founded, and nothing bad ever happens to or around y'all.

Regards,
Andrew

[Paladin]

"a gun's ONLY purpose is to kill"

Sometimes you need to kill, which is why a gun comes in handy.

Imagine the Manson family at your door. You'd certainly need a gun then.

I convinced my wife by reading the book "The Best Defense" by R. Waters. It's got lots of self defense stories in there. I discussed the stories with my wife. After that she 'got' the idea of how guns can come in handy.

[TxFire]

A guns purpose is to "stop the threat". In doing that it MAY happen that the person is killed. And that is the choice of the threat if he/she is at the other end of my gun.

[nitrogen]

Sometimes, in order to preserve famillial serenity, it's best to just not debate.
My mom, and most of my extended family are HUGE anti's. I've tried every way I can discuss, but it just comes back to the point that my mom feels that mere mortal citizens should not have tools that make it easy to end someone's life, no matter what the circumstances.

I've just given up on my mom. I'm working on my younger sister instead.

[flintknapper]

. Basically, what it boils down to is that I can't seem to counter her "best" argument in these debates, that "a gun's ONLY purpose is to kill". She always falls back on this to prove why handguns should be removed.

Guns were first invented with the idea that they would be a more efficient "tool" for the purposes of defense and for harvesting (killing) game. This is a point too plain to require any argument.

I suggest you move right past that and ask her "Do you think it is wrong to kill in ALL circumstances"?

If she says yes, then you are dealing with a pacifist, and any further discussion is unlikely to prove beneficial.

If she says no, then ask her under what circumstance is protecting yourself, her, your children/other loved ones...acceptable.

Then.....if it acceptable to defend ones self against a deadly threat (being killed yourself), does it not make sense to use a suitably efficient tool?

Never allow her to "personify" a gun. There is nothing inherently evil about them. If I put my pistol on my bedside table and: No one touches it, I can come back 20 years later...and it will still be there! It won't get up, go out and start killing people.

The real issue is almost always about "killing". It is the last thing in this world that I wish to do. We are reminded daily of the many unnecessary deaths that occur in our cities. These tragedies are brought before us everyday in the media. It is understandable that an "association" begins to form (with a gun and evil doing)...when that is all you hear.

Advice? You know her better than anyone here, so choose your words wisely. Listen to her side earnestly, and never allow a discussion/debate to turn into an argument. Of course, you already know: "You never really WIN an argument with a female anyway"!

[explr2live]

Pacifists have the view point that 'all life is precious' because either they are blind to the dangers in society or because they blame firearms for some emotional trama in their life.

From what little you said, I would gather that your wife fits into the former. I would try to get her to go to a class specifically designed for rape defense, but not for the training.

Women generally talk to each other, they are far better networkers than men generally are... it just possible that in such a class your wife would come to know the pain of the misfortune of others who were equally blind. It just might be what she needs to wake up to reality.

It would not be the complete solution, but it would start her thinking on that path and it would come from a much more credible source than yourself. With blinders at least partially off, she would have to grapple with the issues of the need for better self defense methods than just hand-to-hand fighting and that is the new point of view you can work with...

[jimlongley]

I have talked two different wives through that phase, the first one and I shot together on a rifle league for several years after she changed her mind, the second fired a perfect score on her CHL requalification last year.

The second, when we were dating, came to my house and one of the first things she said was, after she saw my gun cabinet, was "I don't know if I could live in a house with guns." It was a real blast, a few years later, when her ex called on my cell phone and wanted to speak to her, and I was able to tell him that we were at a gun show and she was currently "over there" buying a gun.

Gentle persuasion.

[DaveT]

I would be willing to bet that guns STOP a lot more killing than the other way around.

Equate it to our military: why does the USA need a strong military ?

To STOP others from thinking they can attack this country.

The mere presence of a deterrent force is often all that is needed to dissuade an attacker.

[jbirds1210]

Peace through superior firepower?? I like it. I like it alot.

[the real deal]

As others have said, and I will say as well....

Yes, firearms are for killing. They can be used for other things, but that is not the inital intent or design behind them. Since criminals can not be stopped from obtaining firearms illegally, a law abiding citizen has a right to level the playing field by arming themselves as well for defensive purposes.

Ones argument may be that if there were no guns at all, even the criminals would not have them. Criminals are resourcefull in using other items and objects, or even brute strength to harm others directly, or in the act of commiting some other crime. Therefore, you should still have a level playing field by owning a firearm to defend against the criminal or attacker that is trying to harm you or your family.

[jimlongley]

And there's always the Robert Heinlein quote "An armed society is a polite society..."

[stevie_d_64]

I would be willing to bet that guns STOP a lot more killing than the other way around.

Equate it to our military: why does the USA need a strong military ?

To STOP others from thinking they can attack this country.

The mere presence of a deterrent force is often all that is needed to dissuade an attacker.

Bingo!

The only downside to this is that the attacker needs to know, or hesitate and cease, because they "think" you have the ability to deter their criminal intentions...

Bobcat...You stated your thoughts very well...

As for me...I cannot add to any of this that has not already been said or implied...

I know...yer shocked...

[AggieMM]

Thanks all, good info. I think I'm better prepared for our next debate. :)

Ryan