Another conversation with an anti

ZeSpectre · February 21, 2010, 07:52 AM

An anti and I got into it again last night with him quoting the Violence Policy Center's "Concealed Carry Killers" page.

Him: "Well you know that 139 people have been killed by concealed carry permit holders".

Me: "Interesting, I tell you what, I'm not even going to challenge those numbers or ask if any of them were legitimate self-defense. I'm just going to think about the numbers in total".

Him: "the numbers are accurate"

Me: "So you realize that there are something like 3.5 MILLION permit holders out there so you are talking about approximately .003% of CCW holders have killed or injured someone.

(I start laughing)

Me: "Wow, as a group that makes us safer than bathtubs and kitchen stoves!" "Heck I'm not sure but I think that makes us safer than stairs!"

Him: <grinding his teeth> "You gun nuts just don't care that people are shooting people".

Me: "Oh I care but I'm not going to let you blame the good guys for what a microscopic percentage of psychos do." <I lock eyes with him> "And I'm not going to stand here and let you lump ME in with a microscopic percentage of psychos either."

Him: "yeah whatever" <He walks away>.

Dragon55 · February 21, 2010, 08:11 AM

I like the 'sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs' analogy our carry permit instructor talked about.

He has been in law enforcement for 36 years ... a lot of it as a watch commander, been on swat etc.

I feel proud to be one of the sheepdogs.

He talked about the sheep grazing with their heads down. I've noticed these people in the mall. I've also noticed a sheepdog every now and then in the mall. If you watch closely you'll see them.
And..... I've seen the occasional wolf or wolves. If you watch people you'll see them too.

If the wolves have sharp teeth and claws then I also want sharp teeth and claws.... so I do.

A sheepdog never listens to a sheep unless they are baaaaaaaing for help.

This is why I don't listen to an anti....... sounds too much like baaaaaaaaaa.

The sheep see teeth and claws. They don't see that some of the teeth and claws belong to the sheepdogs.

**Mike Irwin** · February 21, 2010, 08:22 AM

You should have pointed out to him that he is a member of a class (those without permits) who kill people at a FAR higher rate than permit holders, something like 1,000 times the murder rate.

Want to really set him off?

Tell him that you legally carry a legally obtained handgun to protect yourself from potentially vicious murderous scum like him.

I did that once and you could actually see brain matter breaking behind her eyes.

alloy · February 21, 2010, 08:34 AM

He would most likely hate to review the 2009 drowning statistics and the dangers of letting kids go swimming in those pools and hot tubs.

MTT TL · February 21, 2010, 03:11 PM

That is a good way stick up for the truth there Ze.

That 139 number from the VPC includes suicides also. So what they are saying is out of 60,000 suicides and 28,000 murders (committed with handguns) in the last two years 139 were CCH's. This is actually more like 0.001% of the total.

Now the number may actually be higher for suicides but there is no way of knowing.

However the VPC includes CCH's that kill people with rifles and shotguns. This is kind of unfair as the their whole argument has been "it will be the wild west out there if people are packing pistols" but the truth is a hard sell with that type of idiot.

Elvishead · February 21, 2010, 04:49 PM

I'd just say "that's how many people get killed by cars every day."

True? Maybe, maybe not.

Elvishead · February 21, 2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Elvishead

I'd just say "that's how many people get killed by cars every day."

True? Maybe, maybe not.

Ok it's only 115 a day.

CobraCommander · February 21, 2010, 05:14 PM

Texas and Florida both keep records of how many their carry permit holders commit crimes (I am unaware of other states which do so.) Texas publishes this rate in comparison to the rest of the citizens of the state.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm

Anecdotal (and questionably accurate) evidence aside, the Texas statistics don't support their assertion that carry permit holders commit crimes at higher rates than the rest of the population. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion.

Likewise, their assertion says nothing about whether the offender's carry permit facilitated the crime (the only germane point of this discussion.)

If they really wanted to get to the heart of the matter (rather than to attempt to stir up fear of people with carry permits), they would concern themselves with the rates of offense. This is a cheap trick on their part, which I think will backfire as more people get carry permits and are lumped in with murderers etc.

You never hear people, after a habitual drunk kills some innocents with his car, calling for the return of prohibition. And yet, criminal misuse of a firearm is treated differently.

Sefner · February 21, 2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobraCommander

Texas and Florida both keep records of how many their carry permit holders commit crimes (I am unaware of other states which do so.) Texas publishes this rate in comparison to the rest of the citizens of the state.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm

Anecdotal (and questionably accurate) evidence aside, the Texas statistics don't support their assertion that carry permit holders commit crimes at higher rates than the rest of the population. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion.

Likewise, their assertion says nothing about whether the offender's carry permit facilitated the crime (the only germane point of this discussion.)

If they really wanted to get to the heart of the matter (rather than to attempt to stir up fear of people with carry permits), they would concern themselves with the rates of offense. This is a cheap trick on their part, which I think will backfire as more people get carry permits and are lumped in with murderers etc.

You never hear people, after a habitual drunk kills some innocents with his car, calling for the return of prohibition. And yet, criminal misuse of a firearm is treated differently.

Just for fun I crunched the numbers for 2007 (most recent year for available data). Some of the findings were pulled right from statistical information, some I derived myself...

Total # of convictions: 61,260
Total # of convictions where the criminal had a CHL: 160
% of convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: .2612%

# of "Active CHL Holders": 288,909
% of Texans with an "Active CHL": 1.208%

And just to go off of what Mike Irwin said,

# of murders in Texas: 1,420
# of murder convictions: 371
# of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 2
% of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: .5391%

And what alloy said:

# of ALL child drowning deaths in Texas: 63
# of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 2
# of MANSLAUGHTER convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 1

And car accidents:

# of Motor Vehicle Accident deaths in Texas in 2006: 3,781

That means that the general populace of Texas in 2007 is 4.624 times MORE LIKELY to be convicted of a crime than an "Active CHL Holder". The general populace of Texas in 2007 is 2.24 times MORE LIKELY to be convicted of murder than "Active CHL Holders".

Wasn't gonna source this but then I got carried away, so here are all sources:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...Report2007.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...dInstr2007.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
http://www.texascancer.info/scripts/mgwns.html

**Bud Helms** · February 21, 2010, 06:44 PM

ZeSpectre, I think you did well in that exchange.

sakeneko · February 21, 2010, 06:53 PM

Ya done good, ZeSpectre. :-)

Rich Miranda · February 21, 2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Him: "Well you know that 139 people have been killed by concealed carry permit holders".

You would think that someone of average intelligence would see the irony of that statement.

OK, so 139 people were killed by CHL holders. Fine. And how does that compare to the total number of murders?

Without even looking at numbers, I can tell you that CHLers commit such a tiny percentage of murders that it is insignificant! Why? Easy. Murderers generally (about 90%) have multiple, prior misdemeanor and/or felony convictions. This criminal history keeps them from getting a CHL (in most places). So those most likely to murder, usually can't even get a CHL.

Regardless of all this, my argument is simple: I have a right to defend myself (and more importantly, my family). So does everyone else. If they choose to refrain from exercising that right (or make decisions that get the right rescinded), that's their decision to make. My mind is made up.

CobraCommander · February 21, 2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

# of "Active CHL Holders": 288,909
% of Texans with an "Active CHL": 1.208%

And just to go off of what Mike Irwin said,

# of murders in Texas: 1,420
# of murder convictions: 371
# of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 2
% of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: .5391%

So, the murder rate for Texans as a whole is 5.9/100,000 in 2007. The murder rate for the specific subgroup "Texas CHL holders" is 2/288,909, or 0.69/100,000 for the same time period.

Boy, I can see why the Bradys consider carry permit holders to be so dangerous.

horseman308 · February 21, 2010, 09:33 PM

One question, one thought:

Is it 139 people killed or 139 people murdered? Either way, it's a very small percentage, but I was just curious.

Secondly, like many people here, I have had similar experiences. One thing I have found is that most people have their positions because of a very deep, personal, emotional reason (this goes for more than just guns - try religion, politics, etc). Quoting statistics like this is nothing more than an attempt to outwardly justify having a personal issue deep down. So, while it's nice when we can throw out our own statistics or when we can poke holes in their facts, I have not found that it really does anything to change their minds. It's a pretty well established phenomenon that when people are shown evidence that contradicts their basic beliefs, they work really hard to ignore that evidence and reinforce their ideas. The only people I have seen that respond to things like this are the ones who value data above specific ideologies - and they are few, and likely to support gun rights anyway.

So, what works for me is to do one of two thing:
1) if there is time and the other person is willing, discuss with them their personal reasons for disliking guns. Ask about personal experiences. Ask if they are willing to discuss it calmly and rationally, or if they are simply looking to be confrontational. Most people, when you show yourself to be unphased by confrontation and show yourself to be interested in them, instead of being argumentative yourself, will calm down and talk. That opens the door to something much better than a simple intellectual smack-down (as good as those feel), because they may actually learn something.

2) if the person is unwilling to do the above, just walk away. You cannot use reason and logic to argue with an emotion. It doesn't work. So if a person is so emotional as to be unwilling/unable to talk, you won't get anywhere, no matter how many opposing statistics you have.

MTT TL · February 21, 2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Is it 139 people killed or 139 people murdered?

It is killed including suicides. Funny thing though. They post if someone kills someone else with a gun (or if they kill them in some other way, say stabbing). But if the person is later cleared in the killing or it is ruled valid SD shooting/ defense measure than they take the posting down

.

They really are pathetic. But there are actually more shootings than they "record".

**JohnKSa** · February 21, 2010, 10:11 PM

Ok, just spent awhile going through the vignettes on the VPC's webpage.

It's decent of them to include the vignettes because the impression given in the summary page is a bit misleading.

In many of the 139 killings the weapon used is not listed--in some it is but it wasn't a handgun--at least 2 were killed with a rifle and 1 was strangled.

49 of the killings took place in the killer's home or were the result of an incident/rampage that started in the killer's home. In other words whether the killer had a concealed carry permit was totally irrelevant since it isn't necessary to have a concealed carry permit to own a firearm and possess it in one's home. Implying that these killings have anything to do with concealed carry permits would be like claiming that private swimming pools are dangerous and should be outlawed and then also including drownings that took place in lakes, rivers, creeks and oceans in your statistics.

5 of the shootings were accidental and some of those incidents didn't even involve the permit holder but only the permit holder's gun.

4 of the shootings were possibly self-defense shootings (charges still pending).

One of the killings was a suicide where only the permit holder was involved.

w_houle · February 21, 2010, 10:20 PM

IIRC it's the same website that classifies you as a child until you reach the age of 30

Sefner · February 21, 2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by w_houle

IIRC it's the same website that classifies you as a child until you reach the age of 30

As a corollary of this, a lot of children killed are killed by gang violence (gangs are full of 15 - 21 year olds). While this does not make it any less tragic, it does change the frame of the murder and the statistics. Gang violence has nothing to do with conceal carry permits and everything to do with people who break the law for a living. Gang members do not get CHLs, whether because they already have a rap sheet or because they simply can't be bothered to; if you're going to murder someone, there is no reason to go about the process to make sure you can legally carry the weapon.

Doc Intrepid · February 22, 2010, 12:01 AM

Ze, you are a better man than I...

I used to try to have "discussions" with true-believer anti's, until I realized that it was roughly analagous to holding a debate with a turnip.

Their entire world-view revolves around an irrational foundation: the notion that if only guns were banned, violence would be eliminated - the general public would thereafter be much safer.

England provides a reasonably controlled social-experiment; and we see that in England there are now calls for banning knives as well as firearms, as blade violence is getting out of hand. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2284258.ece

(This says nothing, of course, regarding centuries of violence before not only handguns, but all firearms of any nature, were invented...) And then there is the pragmatic issue that banning guns does not eliminate them, and they will continue to surface despite legislative efforts.

Anti true-believers hold views that are demonstrably irrational. Not only is their preferred method of proceeding flawed (guns banned), but their end-state may be empirically proven to not exist either (elimination of violence in society => safer citizens). (And lets not even get into the inability of the state to provide society with adequate protection against violent criminals before their crimes are committed...)

Since these people are inherently irrational, pointing out fallacies in their perspective is ineffective. So, ...anymore I don't waste my time attempting to convince Anti's of anything. [Although clearly they can be useful for amusement!]

Instead, I spend my time more productively writing letters to my Congressman, my Senators, and those who may find my observations more pursuasive!

At this point I think it's passed beyond any rational debate over what is genuinely beneficial for society as a whole, and - at least from the Brady Campaign and VPC's paradigm - it's now simply a war to be won. ("We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!!") I suspect Anti's are not at all interested in facts, history, realism, or anything else we have to say.

That said, Ze, I'm glad there are still guys like you who are willing to engage them in discussions. You won't convince them of the truth behind your convictions, but its fascinating (in a creepy way) to listen to their rebuttal.

Its like listening to people who truly believe the earth is flat, or who are utterly convinced of the existence of unicorns, or who passionately declare that purple smells nicer than yellow.

Just smile, nod, and cross slowly to the other side of the street...

The Tourist · February 22, 2010, 12:15 AM

About +15 years ago a gun magazine ran an article entitiled, "The Guns of the Anti-Gunners." It detailed the personal handguns of those who openly condemn the practice.

If memory serves me, that specific article mentioned a columnist (who berated gun owners) that actually shot an intruder, and then tried to justify his hypocrisy in a following editorial!

Doc Intrepid · February 22, 2010, 12:39 AM

Good memory, T.

That was the infamous Carl T. Rowan.

Here is a magazine article dated July 4, 1988 about the incident, including Rowan's justification. (Scroll down to page 6 after it loads...) The kids were swimming in his pool around 2 AM. He sure showed them!
http://books.google.com/books?id=SL0...age&q=&f=false

Rowan was known as a rabid anti-gun columnist before this incident...he's been less vocal since...

mack59 · February 22, 2010, 02:33 AM

Rowan died of natural causes on September 23, 2000.

MTT TL · February 22, 2010, 07:34 AM

Quote:

It's decent of them to include the vignettes because the impression given in the summary page is a bit misleading.

You have to be careful, most of the vignettes are misleading too. They normally only report one side of the story in the worst kind fo yellow journalism way. This is one of the reasons I imagine that they take down the postings of the guys (and girls) that are cleared.

CobraCommander · February 22, 2010, 07:40 AM

Quote:

So, the murder rate for Texans as a whole is 5.9/100,000 in 2007. The murder rate for the specific subgroup "Texas CHL holders" is 2/288,909, or 0.69/100,000 for the same time period.

Just to be fair, it looks like I misspoke. The TX population for 2007 is 23,004,380. The number of murder convictions for Texans as a whole is 1.55/100,000 (vs actual murders with no conviction).

CRUE CAB · February 22, 2010, 07:47 AM

Well two people on my street were arrested for gun crime.
One a con felon, shot a guy. The shot guy was breaking and entering.
So there are two more numbers your anti can try to rationalize about.
At least both are going to jail for a long time.

February 21, 2010, 07:52 AM	#1
ZeSpectre Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,276	Another conversation with an anti An anti and I got into it again last night with him quoting the Violence Policy Center's "Concealed Carry Killers" page. Him: "Well you know that 139 people have been killed by concealed carry permit holders". Me: "Interesting, I tell you what, I'm not even going to challenge those numbers or ask if any of them were legitimate self-defense. I'm just going to think about the numbers in total". Him: "the numbers are accurate" Me: "So you realize that there are something like 3.5 MILLION permit holders out there so you are talking about approximately .003% of CCW holders have killed or injured someone. (I start laughing) Me: "Wow, as a group that makes us safer than bathtubs and kitchen stoves!" "Heck I'm not sure but I think that makes us safer than stairs!" Him: <grinding his teeth> "You gun nuts just don't care that people are shooting people". Me: "Oh I care but I'm not going to let you blame the good guys for what a microscopic percentage of psychos do." <I lock eyes with him> "And I'm not going to stand here and let you lump ME in with a microscopic percentage of psychos either." Him: "yeah whatever" <He walks away>. __________________ "The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on"

February 21, 2010, 08:11 AM	#2
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	I like the 'sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs' analogy our carry permit instructor talked about. He has been in law enforcement for 36 years ... a lot of it as a watch commander, been on swat etc. I feel proud to be one of the sheepdogs. He talked about the sheep grazing with their heads down. I've noticed these people in the mall. I've also noticed a sheepdog every now and then in the mall. If you watch closely you'll see them. And..... I've seen the occasional wolf or wolves. If you watch people you'll see them too. If the wolves have sharp teeth and claws then I also want sharp teeth and claws.... so I do. A sheepdog never listens to a sheep unless they are baaaaaaaing for help. This is why I don't listen to an anti....... sounds too much like baaaaaaaaaa. The sheep see teeth and claws. They don't see that some of the teeth and claws belong to the sheepdogs. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

February 21, 2010, 08:22 AM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	You should have pointed out to him that he is a member of a class (those without permits) who kill people at a FAR higher rate than permit holders, something like 1,000 times the murder rate. Want to really set him off? Tell him that you legally carry a legally obtained handgun to protect yourself from potentially vicious murderous scum like him. I did that once and you could actually see brain matter breaking behind her eyes. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

February 21, 2010, 03:11 PM	#5
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	That is a good way stick up for the truth there Ze. That 139 number from the VPC includes suicides also. So what they are saying is out of 60,000 suicides and 28,000 murders (committed with handguns) in the last two years 139 were CCH's. This is actually more like 0.001% of the total. Now the number may actually be higher for suicides but there is no way of knowing. However the VPC includes CCH's that kill people with rifles and shotguns. This is kind of unfair as the their whole argument has been "it will be the wild west out there if people are packing pistols" but the truth is a hard sell with that type of idiot. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 21, 2010, 09:33 PM	#14
horseman308 Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2009 Location: Maryland Posts: 526	One question, one thought: Is it 139 people killed or 139 people murdered? Either way, it's a very small percentage, but I was just curious. Secondly, like many people here, I have had similar experiences. One thing I have found is that most people have their positions because of a very deep, personal, emotional reason (this goes for more than just guns - try religion, politics, etc). Quoting statistics like this is nothing more than an attempt to outwardly justify having a personal issue deep down. So, while it's nice when we can throw out our own statistics or when we can poke holes in their facts, I have not found that it really does anything to change their minds. It's a pretty well established phenomenon that when people are shown evidence that contradicts their basic beliefs, they work really hard to ignore that evidence and reinforce their ideas. The only people I have seen that respond to things like this are the ones who value data above specific ideologies - and they are few, and likely to support gun rights anyway. So, what works for me is to do one of two thing: 1) if there is time and the other person is willing, discuss with them their personal reasons for disliking guns. Ask about personal experiences. Ask if they are willing to discuss it calmly and rationally, or if they are simply looking to be confrontational. Most people, when you show yourself to be unphased by confrontation and show yourself to be interested in them, instead of being argumentative yourself, will calm down and talk. That opens the door to something much better than a simple intellectual smack-down (as good as those feel), because they may actually learn something. 2) if the person is unwilling to do the above, just walk away. You cannot use reason and logic to argue with an emotion. It doesn't work. So if a person is so emotional as to be unwilling/unable to talk, you won't get anywhere, no matter how many opposing statistics you have. __________________ You only take one shot at a time - make it count.

February 21, 2010, 04:49 PM	#6
Elvishead Junior member Join Date: August 8, 2007 Location: Las vegas, NV Posts: 3,397	I'd just say "that's how many people get killed by cars every day." True? Maybe, maybe not.

February 21, 2010, 05:14 PM	#8
CobraCommander Member Join Date: October 17, 2001 Location: TX Posts: 39	Texas and Florida both keep records of how many their carry permit holders commit crimes (I am unaware of other states which do so.) Texas publishes this rate in comparison to the rest of the citizens of the state. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm Anecdotal (and questionably accurate) evidence aside, the Texas statistics don't support their assertion that carry permit holders commit crimes at higher rates than the rest of the population. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion. Likewise, their assertion says nothing about whether the offender's carry permit facilitated the crime (the only germane point of this discussion.) If they really wanted to get to the heart of the matter (rather than to attempt to stir up fear of people with carry permits), they would concern themselves with the rates of offense. This is a cheap trick on their part, which I think will backfire as more people get carry permits and are lumped in with murderers etc. You never hear people, after a habitual drunk kills some innocents with his car, calling for the return of prohibition. And yet, criminal misuse of a firearm is treated differently.

February 21, 2010, 06:44 PM	#10
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	ZeSpectre, I think you did well in that exchange.

February 21, 2010, 06:53 PM	#11
sakeneko Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 644	Ya done good, ZeSpectre. :-)

February 21, 2010, 10:11 PM	#16
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,990	Ok, just spent awhile going through the vignettes on the VPC's webpage. It's decent of them to include the vignettes because the impression given in the summary page is a bit misleading. In many of the 139 killings the weapon used is not listed--in some it is but it wasn't a handgun--at least 2 were killed with a rifle and 1 was strangled. 49 of the killings took place in the killer's home or were the result of an incident/rampage that started in the killer's home. In other words whether the killer had a concealed carry permit was totally irrelevant since it isn't necessary to have a concealed carry permit to own a firearm and possess it in one's home. Implying that these killings have anything to do with concealed carry permits would be like claiming that private swimming pools are dangerous and should be outlawed and then also including drownings that took place in lakes, rivers, creeks and oceans in your statistics. 5 of the shootings were accidental and some of those incidents didn't even involve the permit holder but only the permit holder's gun. 4 of the shootings were possibly self-defense shootings (charges still pending). One of the killings was a suicide where only the permit holder was involved. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

February 21, 2010, 10:20 PM	#17
w_houle Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,391	IIRC it's the same website that classifies you as a child until you reach the age of 30 __________________ How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

February 22, 2010, 12:01 AM	#19
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	Ze, you are a better man than I... I used to try to have "discussions" with true-believer anti's, until I realized that it was roughly analagous to holding a debate with a turnip. Their entire world-view revolves around an irrational foundation: the notion that if only guns were banned, violence would be eliminated - the general public would thereafter be much safer. England provides a reasonably controlled social-experiment; and we see that in England there are now calls for banning knives as well as firearms, as blade violence is getting out of hand. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2284258.ece (This says nothing, of course, regarding centuries of violence before not only handguns, but all firearms of any nature, were invented...) And then there is the pragmatic issue that banning guns does not eliminate them, and they will continue to surface despite legislative efforts. Anti true-believers hold views that are demonstrably irrational. Not only is their preferred method of proceeding flawed (guns banned), but their end-state may be empirically proven to not exist either (elimination of violence in society => safer citizens). (And lets not even get into the inability of the state to provide society with adequate protection against violent criminals before their crimes are committed...) Since these people are inherently irrational, pointing out fallacies in their perspective is ineffective. So, ...anymore I don't waste my time attempting to convince Anti's of anything. [Although clearly they can be useful for amusement!] Instead, I spend my time more productively writing letters to my Congressman, my Senators, and those who may find my observations more pursuasive! At this point I think it's passed beyond any rational debate over what is genuinely beneficial for society as a whole, and - at least from the Brady Campaign and VPC's paradigm - it's now simply a war to be won. ("We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!!") I suspect Anti's are not at all interested in facts, history, realism, or anything else we have to say. That said, Ze, I'm glad there are still guys like you who are willing to engage them in discussions. You won't convince them of the truth behind your convictions, but its fascinating (in a creepy way) to listen to their rebuttal. Its like listening to people who truly believe the earth is flat, or who are utterly convinced of the existence of unicorns, or who passionately declare that purple smells nicer than yellow. Just smile, nod, and cross slowly to the other side of the street... __________________ *Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.*

February 22, 2010, 12:15 AM	#20
The Tourist Junior member Join Date: June 20, 2005 Posts: 2,348	About +15 years ago a gun magazine ran an article entitiled, "The Guns of the Anti-Gunners." It detailed the personal handguns of those who openly condemn the practice. If memory serves me, that specific article mentioned a columnist (who berated gun owners) that actually shot an intruder, and then tried to justify his hypocrisy in a following editorial!

February 22, 2010, 12:39 AM	#21
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	Good memory, T. That was the infamous Carl T. Rowan. Here is a magazine article dated July 4, 1988 about the incident, including Rowan's justification. (Scroll down to page 6 after it loads...) The kids were swimming in his pool around 2 AM. He sure showed them! http://books.google.com/books?id=SL0...age&q=&f=false Rowan was known as a rabid anti-gun columnist before this incident...he's been less vocal since... __________________ *Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.*

February 22, 2010, 02:33 AM	#22
mack59 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2004 Posts: 447	Rowan died of natural causes on September 23, 2000.

February 22, 2010, 07:47 AM	#25
CRUE CAB Senior Member Join Date: January 18, 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 200	Well two people on my street were arrested for gun crime. One a con felon, shot a guy. The shot guy was breaking and entering. So there are two more numbers your anti can try to rationalize about. At least both are going to jail for a long time.