stererotyping

[Rokyudai]

....uncouth philistines....

Indeed!

BTW, what is "RKBA"?

RKBA is an acronym for Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[anygunanywhere]

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

Thank you for the post, sar.

From my own observation, the majority of us pro-RKBA folks use logic and reasoning to defend our position. The facts and truth regarding crime, violence, and firearms ownership are central to our defensive position.

Ultimately, we have the second amendment on our side.

The antis are the ones who more commonly resort to name calling and raving emotional outbursts to defend their position. The facts and the truth does not support the antis position in any way, shape, or form.

Anygunanywhere

[mr.72]

This type of stereotype is not the only thing that keeps gun owners and gun rights advocates at odds with the rest of society, but it is certainly a big factor.

[jmorris]

....uncouth philistines....

Indeed!

BTW, what is "RKBA"?

RKBA is an acronym for Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Well, durn. All this time I thought it was Righteously Kicking Butt on Anti-gunners.

Kidding, of course. I think sar's post is spot on.

[DParker]

Nah, I think generally the stereotypes are often well earned

The OP's point wasn't regarding whether or not some stereotypes are earned. It was about the ineffectiveness (and in fact, net negative effect) of emotional, hyperbolic and insulting rhetoric when addressing someone with an opposing point of view.

[israel67]

"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.

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.

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.

[DParker]

Britain was never invaded nor occupied...

Sure, unless you count the Romans, the Normans...

Just kidding. I know you were referring to the nation and not the island in general

[HerbM]

...

Ultimately, we have the second amendment on our side.

The antis are the ones who more commonly resort to name calling and raving emotional outbursts to defend their position. The facts and the truth does not support the antis position in any way, shape, or form.

Anygunanywhere

And now we do have the 2nd Amendment unarguably on our side in the United States.

But, and this supports your intent here rather than disagrees, ULTIMATELY we have the simple fact that during the 20th Century alone, government which enacted and enforced gun control MURDERED 1 MILLION innocent people per YEAR.

Isreal, can point out how much firearms would have helped at the Warsaw Ghetto, or earlier, and how dead the Israelis would be without firearms in the hands of citizens. Almost a million Rwandans killed by their neighbors with machetes?

[israel67]

Isreal, can point out how much firearms would have helped at the Warsaw Ghetto, or earlier, and how dead the Israelis would be without firearms in the hands of citizens. Almost a million Rwandans killed by their neighbors with machetes?

Yes, I have often asked myself how things would have turned out, had we access to guns from 1933 onwards. But on the other hand, if the Shoah had not taken place, would we now have the state of Israel?

On balance, though, I think I'd have preferred the six million of my people who were slaughtered, to have lived.

Guns are only half the battle, though. The other half is a willingness to use them, and I often wonder why those six million innocents did not at least make an effort to fight back.

No matter. None of us can change history. All I can, for what it's worth, is to offer my heartfelt thanks to the United States for sixty years of support, without which as you say, there currently would be no Eretz Israel.

G-d bless the United States!!

[sar]

I'm glad my post was well received. I often debate with one of my partners about guns and their potential safe use. Some folks can't be reasoned with, but the only way to know this is to try. Any attack fortifies their desire to protect their beliefs.

[JasonH]

Excellent post.

And it's absolutely true. As soon as a person sinks to the childish level of name-calling the other "side", people will and should stop listening.

A person calling liberals a bunch of pinko commie fascists is just as brainless to me as a person calling conservatives a bunch of slack-jawed rednecks.

Incidentally it's this kind of behavior that proves the other side "right" in their mind. Every time a liberal sees a gun advocate behaving like a neanderthal in regards to name calling they cross their arms and say "See, I told you so."

It works both ways. Any dummy can call people names - it takes an intelligent person to reasonably and calmly debate or discuss a subject without lowering themselves to sweeping generalizations.

[DParker]

A person calling liberals a bunch of pinko commie fascists is just as brainless to me as a person calling conservatives a bunch of slack-jawed rednecks.

I know I've always preferred "Facial Muscularly Challenged" myself

[Oldgringo]

Thank you, israel67 and thank you, Israel.

No one needs friends, until one needs friends.

Shabot shalom

[nitrogen]

Sar,

Right there with you, sir.

I was a former anti over 10 years ago, now a proud gun owner and chl holder.

95% of all antis are the way they are due to ignorance, and when given a chance, will come over to the light if treated with respect.

I was one of them, and I assume Sar was, as well.

[HerbM]

Isreal, can point out how much firearms would have helped at the Warsaw Ghetto, or earlier, and how dead the Israelis would be without firearms in the hands of citizens. Almost a million Rwandans killed by their neighbors with machetes?

Yes, I have often asked myself how things would have turned out, had we access to guns from 1933 onwards. But on the other hand, if the Shoah had not taken place, would we now have the state of Israel?

On balance, though, I think I'd have preferred the six million of my people who were slaughtered, to have lived.

Guns are only half the battle, though. The other half is a willingness to use them, and I often wonder why those six million innocents did not at least make an effort to fight back.

No matter. None of us can change history. All I can, for what it's worth, is to offer my heartfelt thanks to the United States for sixty years of support, without which as you say, there currently would be no Eretz Israel.

G-d bless the United States!!

As you know (and allude), good that springs from a great evil does not excuse that evil. Hitler was in no sense a "Good Thing" but he might have saved Europe, and even the world from communism. Communism was creeping over Europe and there would have been little to oppose it had the US not first defeated Hitler and then stood guard over Europe until the demise of the Soviet Union.

Arguments that it would have eventually died the same death are very uncertain, as with the much greater resources of Europe, North Africa, and more to plunder, perhaps the Soviets COULD have funded communism for long enough to enslave the world.

I was also thinking as much of the SUCCESS of the Jews who fought, survived, and created a truly independent state as the British pulled out. Imagined what DC would be like if the police of DC would all just leave while the citizens of DC remained unarmed and the drug and criminal gangs had guns. That is basically (only worse) what the British did to the infant state of Israel. Disarmed the people (tried to actually), and left them to their fate.

And on balance, had the Jewish fighters saved themselves and their families, I would much prefer both that 6 million and the 6 million joined the 7 million here in the US. All in all, 18 million Jews in America sounds about right -- I am always surprised there aren't more here.

BTW: If anyone ever hears a repeat of the lie that there the "Nazis didn't murder 6 million Jews" without a qualification such as, "It was 5.2 million plus or minus a bit" or somewhere between 2 million and 10 million Jews were murdered" then call them out on it. The best figures are right at 5-6 million, 6 million being the traditionally quoted value. Any arguments on this MUST include the stipulation that the minimum number WAS IN THE MILLIONS.