Are we our own worst enemy at times?

[mthalo]

I've been active in the gun-control debate for many years, and I'm starting to believe that sometimes, we are are own worst enemy, that what we say and how we argue ends up doing more harm than good. With the rise of the internet, I think it's gotten worse. I've compiled a list of common arguments or actions that that I think end up doing more harm than good. I'd like to know what others think. Remember, this is just one non-expert's opinion.

1) Leave the abortion debate out of the gun debate. I've seen replies to gun control editorials where 50% of the people responding sooner or later, ended up bringing up abortion. Believe it or not, there's a lot of people out there who are pro-choice. You alienate a lot of these people by bringing up a heated topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with gun-control.

2) STOP referring to the general population as "the sheeple".
Gun enthusiasts do not appreciate being labeled as "ignorant, trigger-happy rednecks", why would you think that anyone would be appreciate being called a mindless sheep?
Recognize the difference between political correctness, and political sophistication.

3) Argue with your brain, not your heart.
STOP referring to gun control advocates as morons, mindless or or any other emotional terms. They have been smart enough, and sophisticated enough to get a lot of gun control laws passed. Yes, anti gunners tend to be condescending and arrogant, but it doesn't matter what they say about us, we should always be taking the high road.

4) Guns are weapons first, tools second. The common argument of "they're just tools" can imply that average citizens cannot be trusted with weapons. Better to argue that properly trained and motivated persons can be trusted.

5) Using the word "socialist" or "leftist" more than once per paragraph can make you look paranoid.

6) Switching a "C" to a "K" doesn't make it look communist, but it does make you look silly.
I can't see at all how Klinton, Kalifornia or Republik, does anything to show that gun control is ineffective.

7) Never post anything on the internet without proofreading. Make sure what you post is coherent, and use the spell check. Act as if you're getting paid to write what you post.

 

[deadin]

Mthalo,
Well thought out and I am in agreement with your views. However about your statement

anti gunners tend to be condescending and arrogant

. Anti's have no monopoly on arrogance, just read some of the posts that show up on this and other boards.

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

"condescending and arrogent (sic)..." Yeah, by all means, use the spell-check. #7 contains a comma splice.

 

[Kelly J]

mthalo, You make several valid points and I agree with most of them, but I must point out, that I believe you and I share a bad habit, which we get carried away with our thoughts, and find that the thoughts are faster than the finger typing, so please take this as constructive criticism, to follow your own advice to, proof read and spell check.

Lord knows I've been taken to task for my errors and do now try to minimize them.

 

[deadin]

Somehow I just knew someone was going to respond as above.

 

[mthalo]

"condescending and arrogent (sic)..."

All I can say is .
I was so focused on getting condescending right that I missed the other.

I hope I'm not coming across as condescending with this topic. I posted this in anticipation that, if the Dems take the house or senate, we're going to see a return to those bad old days of the early 90's, where a lot more will be at stake. some of the most talented debaters I've know of are on this site.

#7 does pass my MS-Word spelling and grammer check

 

[Camp David]

4) Guns are weapons first, tools second.

You were on a roll until #4 mthalo! My Black & Decker power drill and my Ruger revolver have the same potential and both could be weapons but both are tools. The reality of that cannnot be overlooked or dismissed.

 

[Redworm]

You were on a roll until #4 mthalo! My Black & Decker power drill and my Ruger revolver have the same potential and both could be weapons but both are tools. The reality of that cannnot be overlooked or dismissed.

He didn't say that guns are not tools, but they are weapons first. Your drill's primary design is for construction. A firearm's primary design is to fire a projectile desiged to destroy a target, specifically a living one. A firearm is a weapon. A weapon is a type of tool but to compare guns to drills is counter-productive.

If gun owners are going to use the argument that guns are the most effective form of self defense than we MUST admit that guns are also the most effective form of offense and aggression. They are designed to take life. They are designed to kill. Period. Ignoring that and comparing them to drills only makes us look like we're ignoring the responsibilities that must come with having that kind of power.

 

[Wildalaska]

Kudos to mtahalo!

Theres a bunch I could add but my fingers are slower thatn my brain, or vice versa

WildihavelightwieghtcommandersnyahnyahAlaska

 

[Camp David]

If gun owners are going to use the argument that guns are the most effective form of self defense than we MUST admit that guns are also the most effective form of offense and aggression.

Then I guess we'll just disagree! I simply believe a gun is a tool; much like my power drill tool is a tool. They each are tailored to a specific function. My chain saw, too, is a tool, but as a close range weapon it is both frightening and very effective. I believe you are trying to give firearms a unique status, above weapons, when they are simply pieces of molded steel, much like a wrench but a bit more complicated with moving parts. But still a tool nonetheless...

By the way, words are a far more effective means of "aggression" in your quote above; in fact, the "gun" is a means of expressing aggression, not the aggression form itself.

 

[Joe Demko]

mthalo,
You are now officially my hero. At one time or another since the intarwebs took off, I've tried to make many of the same points you just did. Frankly, I gave up. The chest-thumpers, dick-wavers, and party faithful are never going to listen; plus it's galling to be on the same side as WildAlaska...nonetehless, I admire your youthful idealism.

 

[SixForSure]

mthalo,
Your advice is spot on.

 

[mthalo]

I'm glad that there are people here that think what I said makes sense.
I posted this with the possiblilty of a Democratic takeover or the House or Senate this election. If that does happen, the gun control issue is going to become fashionable again (remember the early 90's).

I think the antigunners have done a great job of convincing the general public that their policies are sensible, and anyone in disagreement with them as being unreasonable.

I also think that the majority of Americans hasn't really put much thought into the issue, and base their opinions on what they read in the papers, and see on TV. I think convincing these people of the true importance of the Second Amendment is possible, provided we present that argument in an intelligent, coherent, and above all, respectful manner.

 

[springmom]

Thanks, mthalo. You are spot on.

And this list of yours would go a LONG way toward solving the gnarliness problem cited by Wild over in General.

Springifyouwantrespectgiverespectmom

 

[sm]

mthalo - Great Post!

mthalo wrote:

I'm starting to believe that sometimes, we are are own worst enemy, that what we say and how we argue ends up doing more harm than good.

Yes, and this been going on for sometime.

 

[44 AMP]

Common sense

I am not going to thank you for your post, as it it is just common sense, and not deserving of thanks. Silent appreciation, yes. Some of us generally conduct ourselves is the manner you describe, as a matter or course. To us, it is just "common sense."

I do take exception to the weapon vs tool idea. While firearms may be weapons, they are tools. Whether or not something is a weapon is dependant on use. Not construction.

Kitchen knives, power drills, baseball bats, golf clubs, and target pistols are all weapons if they are used as such. If not, then they are simply tools.

Some tools are multi-purpose, and others are nearly useless except for their intended use. Or as a weapon. Anything can be a weapon, even rocks. Or even words.

Firearms are designed to strike with force at a distance. Period. The fact that their most common use is as a weapon is a choice of the users. Offensive or defensive, it is the user's choice.

Despite the fact that the firearm may be called "the most efficent killing machine ever" the fact remains that intended use does not equal actual use.

This is actually a small point in most people's minds they are the same. This is why some of us try to focus on other aspects of the argument.

Even as "weapons" guns are not inherently evil, weapons can be defensive, after all. And the concept that some weapons are somehow "worse" than others, is to me, completely without merit. Harm is the evil. Intent (and use)is what makes the tool a weapon.

One must be careful with this argument, as a poorly framed argument plays into the preconceptions of those who believe that no one should have anything so dangerous as a weapon.

These same people generally fail to recognize (or admit) that the only real weapon is between your ears. Everything else is just a tool.

Because, when you come down to it, what does the tool matter? I am reminded of a line from the old "All in the Family" show, (possibly not the best place to quote from, but I thought this one was good, unfortunately I cannot remember the exact quote)
Gloria:"xxxx people were killed with guns last year!"
Archie: "Would you prefer they was tossed out of windows, little goil?"


Ok, I've changed my mind. Thank you for posting, following your suggestions will help keep us on the high road.

 

[Redworm]

I do take exception to the weapon vs tool idea. While firearms may be weapons, they are tools. Whether or not something is a weapon is dependant on use. Not construction.

they're not just designed to strike force at a distance. they have always and will always be designed strictly with the intention of destroying living tissue. period. shooting cans and paper targets are secondary uses and if nothing else practice for when you have to use it to destroy that living tissue

Guns are designed to be used against living things. Not locks or ropes or windows or targets or anything else. They are tools but they are specifically designed to be weapons. Ignoring that ignores the incredible responsibility one must assume when weilding that sort of power.

 

[alan]

From some of the things I've heard from some gun owners, I would say, sadly, that sometimes some of us are.

 

[deadin]

they have always and will always be designed strictly with the intention of destroying living tissue. period. shooting cans and paper targets are secondary uses and if nothing else practice for when you have to use it to destroy that living tissue

While I agree with this theory in regards to the original firearms, I have to say there is such a thing as evolution and there is no way that current target guns (bullseye, free pistol, etc.) are in any way

designed with the intention of destroying living tissue. period.

, any more than a hammer is a weapon "designed to kill living tissue". After all the hammer did evolve from the original club, which was designed as a killing tool.

In addition, I can't quite figure out what the point of harping on the destructive power of firearms is doing for our cause. All I see this doing is waving a red flag in the face of the bull. I guess it's part of the "in your face" attitude that some of the pro-gun people have decided to adopt , but sometimes I wonder if this attitude does more harm to the cause than good.
It just feeds the anti's fears and gives them more fodder to spread among the undecided and uninformed. As others have said, there are a lot of things out there that can "destroy living tissue". Why highlight our firearms?

 

[GoSlash27]

Mthalo,
+1
I think the gun control/RKBA argument should be separated from all other political issues and argued on it's own merits.