israel67 wrote:Interesting. I often have the pro-gun / anti-gun discussion with friends here. Their reaction is usually that I'm a bit of a psycho for being interested in guns.sar wrote:"yankee" "gun grabber" "pinko" "gun nut" "fascist" etc.
I used to be anti gun. I now own several, have a CHL, and often carry. I regard guns differently now. Rather than viewing them with emotional disgust based on misiformation, I realize they have a use and can be safely kept and carried by responsible folks.
Let me say something though: I didn't come around to this viewpoint by raving, emotional arguments that are common among many pro gun folks. Instead it took someone who thought a bit about my viewpoint (grew up in a non gun family, currently see tragic injuries and deaths as a result of gunshot wounds(I'm a trauma surgeon)). Instead of implying that I'm ignorant or an idiot, this guy directed me to some data, challenged my beliefs and made me try to use my logic to defend my anti gun stance, etc.
One of the reasons for rabid anti gunners is rabid gun nuts. One of the reasons for rabid gun nuts is rabid anti gunners. The first thing you do when your opponent insults you is stop thinking and ABSOLUTELY STOP LISTENING. Ad hominem attacks are great for fun and games and when someone might get declared a winner of a refereed debate, but they don't win folks over
If the pro-gun/anti-gun debate continues to stay at the level of name calling, we'll pretty much get nowhere. If you want to demonize guns, perpetuate the "they'll pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" image. It's fun, maybe even a bit cathartic and gratifying, but it's not gonna go anywhere.
On the other hand, reasonable discussion, challenging intelligent people to defend their beliefs with fact, demonstrating that you can be a "normal" guy or girl and carry and own firearms, etc may win over a few here and there.
Just something to think about from a previous antigunner.
Two weeks ago, a friend and I went for a falafel in the Jewish quarter, and as we strolled afterwards, I asked him if he agreed that the state should 'have a monopoly on violence'.
'Yes', he said.
'What happens if you're attacked?' I asked.
'I'll run' was his reply.
'From a bullet?' I added.
'I'll run into a shop,' he said.
'Bullets go through windows,' I countered.
'But there'll be people there,' he replied.
'There were "people" at Virginia Tech,' I said.
Then a few minutes later, we were waiting to cross the road and I asked him what he'd do if the guy in the blue shirt standing across from us wanted his money. Again, 'I'd run into that shop', he replied, pointing to a shop on the corner behind us.
Then he said, 'No one has a gun, anyway so if I were attacked, it'd be with a knife' . Well of course, skuz here do have guns, otherwise the police wouldn't need to be armed, but my conversations with many different people here (including one with a friend who got to my place this morning just as I opened the A4 envelope containing my Glock catalogue - you should have seen his face!!) lead me to believe that the aversion shown by many French people to guns, is due to the fact that France lived under the Nazi gun from 1940 to 1945.
Britain was never invaded nor occupied, and their recent draconian gun laws have more to do with borderline neo-fascist governments (mainly - and ironically - Blair and Brown) seeking to disarm the populace to preclude any armed civil disobediance in the face of deeply divisive social and economic policies.
Curiously enough .. every single European who is aware of my desire to move to the United States, always responds an enthusiastic 'yes!' when I ask if they'd like to visit me in Texas in a few years and come shooting with me.
Go figure.
Good luck arguing with most europeans. Actually, I did rather enjoy Paris, but wasn't big on several of the arrondissements where one might think he was in Tehran. I noted so many beautiful street lines trees while there. I heard it was because the nazi's prefer marching in the shade.