HAWK-HKG11
New member
I have a friend that many of you probably will find interesting. You guys probably haven't seen many people like this. I find his personality to be all the more difficult to convince to pro-RKBA. Now, this guy is smart. And he's also obsessed about guns. What I mean is, he is very much a gun nut in all senses of the word. He likes reading about guns, he owns MANY MANY airsoft guns (he's currently 17 and cannot own any real guns), and he also likes to talk and study about them. But when it comes to RKBA and guns, he completely turns the other way.
Take it from his word. I was talking to him on AIM and I am directly quoting some of his arguments:
"I think that the loose gun control laws of this country make it so that a great number of stupid or violent people can get their hands on them to commit acts of violence upon everyone else. The only way to prevent outbreaks of violence is to prevent any private citizen from obtaining a firearm, which would also mean a more vigorous enforcement of the black market and boarders. It can be done. It has been done in other countries. Thus, I am anti-gun only for the reason that I believe it will significantly lower rates for violent crime, not for any illogical "guns are bad" reasoning. In fact, if gun control laws continue the way they are, I may very well find myself buying a nice K98K or AR-15 sporter for target shooting, since I think I'm both smart enough and enough of a pacifist to never use it in any instance other than life-or-death self preservation. HOWEVER, if the unlikely occurance that a law passes which bans private firearm ownership, I would not resist it. I would applaud it and support it all the way."
His logical reasoning continues:
but about my argument on banning ALL guns... I mean, the obvious parallel is to drugs... the government haven't been able to clamp down on drugs effectively at all. But guns are different. I mean, some kid can't just mix up like a Glock 26 in a bathtub like they can with Meth. And drug lords don't just grow and import CZ75s and fly in like enough for an entire town on some unmarked Cesna.
We go into self defense arguments. He argues against my stance by saying:
I'm a pacifist, you're not...but at times, you seem almost eager to blow away the next guy who asks for your wallet.
He won't buy any arguments about statistics either of course:
Now, you may not believe that a ban on guns will reduce crimes, but it's really just a matter of personal opinion. There may be solid statistical evidence on both sides of argument that says completely opposite things about this issue, so an answer will be impossible to permutate without actually trying it.
He also has some interesting arguments on self defense. He says he couldn't live with himself if he shot someone, but he's not sure about those feelings yet. His logical argument is that guns aren't needed for self defense b/c they make people die, and self defense doesn't require a weapon that can kill. He says that instead the world should work its hardest at alternatives to guns that can perform the same task that a gun can in SD but doesn't kill.
Pshychologically, he argues that all people have inner violent tendencies, and when those tendencies get transfered to a weapon that is SPECIFICALLY designed to kill, then the wrong result occurs. He says other weapons like knifes make it much harder for people to kill other people at a whim or even planned.
Of course, he cites all the low crime rate countries like Japan and Germany.
Finally, I address the topic of guns in the constitution and the purposes of using firearms as a check against the government. He responds by arguing that he believes the era of dictatorships and other totalitarian governments is over in the United States and the current system of checks and balances would never fail to a point that would allow democracy to collapse.
I've already given up on this guy so I've come here for some discussion. Now remember the interesting part of this guy is that he loves guns. He probably shares the equal knowledge and interest that most of you share about firearms. But he is anti-gun onwership.
What shall be done with this guy?
Take it from his word. I was talking to him on AIM and I am directly quoting some of his arguments:
"I think that the loose gun control laws of this country make it so that a great number of stupid or violent people can get their hands on them to commit acts of violence upon everyone else. The only way to prevent outbreaks of violence is to prevent any private citizen from obtaining a firearm, which would also mean a more vigorous enforcement of the black market and boarders. It can be done. It has been done in other countries. Thus, I am anti-gun only for the reason that I believe it will significantly lower rates for violent crime, not for any illogical "guns are bad" reasoning. In fact, if gun control laws continue the way they are, I may very well find myself buying a nice K98K or AR-15 sporter for target shooting, since I think I'm both smart enough and enough of a pacifist to never use it in any instance other than life-or-death self preservation. HOWEVER, if the unlikely occurance that a law passes which bans private firearm ownership, I would not resist it. I would applaud it and support it all the way."
His logical reasoning continues:
but about my argument on banning ALL guns... I mean, the obvious parallel is to drugs... the government haven't been able to clamp down on drugs effectively at all. But guns are different. I mean, some kid can't just mix up like a Glock 26 in a bathtub like they can with Meth. And drug lords don't just grow and import CZ75s and fly in like enough for an entire town on some unmarked Cesna.
We go into self defense arguments. He argues against my stance by saying:
I'm a pacifist, you're not...but at times, you seem almost eager to blow away the next guy who asks for your wallet.
He won't buy any arguments about statistics either of course:
Now, you may not believe that a ban on guns will reduce crimes, but it's really just a matter of personal opinion. There may be solid statistical evidence on both sides of argument that says completely opposite things about this issue, so an answer will be impossible to permutate without actually trying it.
He also has some interesting arguments on self defense. He says he couldn't live with himself if he shot someone, but he's not sure about those feelings yet. His logical argument is that guns aren't needed for self defense b/c they make people die, and self defense doesn't require a weapon that can kill. He says that instead the world should work its hardest at alternatives to guns that can perform the same task that a gun can in SD but doesn't kill.
Pshychologically, he argues that all people have inner violent tendencies, and when those tendencies get transfered to a weapon that is SPECIFICALLY designed to kill, then the wrong result occurs. He says other weapons like knifes make it much harder for people to kill other people at a whim or even planned.
Of course, he cites all the low crime rate countries like Japan and Germany.
Finally, I address the topic of guns in the constitution and the purposes of using firearms as a check against the government. He responds by arguing that he believes the era of dictatorships and other totalitarian governments is over in the United States and the current system of checks and balances would never fail to a point that would allow democracy to collapse.
I've already given up on this guy so I've come here for some discussion. Now remember the interesting part of this guy is that he loves guns. He probably shares the equal knowledge and interest that most of you share about firearms. But he is anti-gun onwership.
What shall be done with this guy?
