I was thinking of making this a Quote of the Day, and I’m glad I waited to expand on it.
Another interesting thing: Antis are really, really bad at “Red Team Thinking”.
They really have a hard time understanding or considering the pro-gun position.
This is where subject ignorance and stressing of emotion over logic really becomes a weakness.
And it’s telling that the average gunnie can explain the anti-gun position better than the anti-gunner.
Jack has it right. While the linked article was probably one of the best-written anti-gun rebuttals I’ve ever seen, even in my first skim my thoughts were “Oh man I can tear this argument apart!”
Now also expand on HOW I got to reading that article. I spend about as much time reading anti-gun articles as pro-gun ones. I found that article on Joan Peterson’s twitter feed. The other article I mentioned in that post was ALSO found and delivered by Joan.
If you don’t read anti-gun writings, you should ask yourself “WHY?”.
Hell there might be an off chance they get something right. Technically Anti-Gunners and Pro-Gunners are on the same side. We both claim to want to make our nation a safer place! Second it helps us get inside their head, see what motivates them, and see what angles they are attacking us from.
The attack side is the simplest. You read the latest anti-gun talking point or sound byte, and come up with a counter argument, then keep that in your back pocket for the next time it crops up when you’re talking with people. A strong defense is a good offense. If they can never achieve their goals our struggle becomes a war of attrition where we can slowly make in-roads while they are powerless to defeat us.
Still wars of attrition are the worst wars, and the same goes with political struggles. Why ride down the slippery slope slip-by-slip when you can make REAL progress?
Hence why you get into their heads. See what they’re saying, see what they’re demanding, see what they’re wishing for, and put that all together. Antis WISH for a safer America, but we can counter that we’re LIVING in a safer America with less gun control and more armed citizens. They don’t like that counter, because I personally believe they only care about banning guns, and safety is just a tool they’re using to gain that goal. Still the hard-line true-believer anti-gun activists are VERY few. If these are the ONLY people we have to deal with, then our fight is essentially over. No the rational people who support gun control DO care about safety, and they DO care about the other talking points the antis bring up.
Its true, “Gun sales with no questions asked”, “Military-Style Assault Weapons with no purpose other than killing”, and “High Capacity Magazine Clips”, are ALL very scary-sounding, and they get people’s attention.
Of course WE are ACTUALLY talking about the ability to sell your own property without having to involve a third party demanding your time and money. Also said sales are still subject to federal law and criminal charges to an illegal transfer. I’ll remind all that a bill was presented to allow non-FFL holders to run NICS checks on their own without involving the time and resources of a gun shop, and without any fear of a back-door registry. The Anti-Gun people HATED it.
We aren’t talking about “Military-Style Weapons”, because frankly most firearms from Grand-pa’s bolt-action deer gun, to any slide-action shotgun, to any pistol or revolver from the match-lock to modern plastic guns, and even some rather tiny CCW type pistols have seen action in military fire-fights and have been in the hands and holsters of soldiers guarding posts. Further guns like the Barret M82 and the Armalite AR-15 were designed as civilian sporting rifles first, and modified and/or adopted for military use at a later date. Also “High capacity” magazines somehow aren’t an issue when the cop walked up to your car door when he pulls you over for speeding with 6 17-round Glock 17 magazines on his belt, but they’re scary when I have one sitting in my gun safe?
And we can argue if your AR-15 is a gun for killing, target shooting, hunting, or just a collector’s piece, but since we, and any other nation I can think of, has laws where you can legally kill another human being for self-protection, or protection of others, there’s good cause for having a gun “designed only for killing”.
You may not be able to turn the average person who doesn’t like guns into Ted Nugent with these counter-arguments, but you can certainly clip the bloom off the rose of gun control if the person you’re talking to has any interest in listening.
Now this “Red Team” mentality of the “Progressives” isn’t just for guns!
Look at that sketch! It is CHOCK full of straw-men! First up, most activists, no matter what cause, aren’t so easily duped as this straw-man, second ironic that the “supportive” girl-friend was Hispanic. You know, that block of people who make our Catholics look like middle-school atheists trying to piss off their religious parents. You think a real Hispanic lady would be THAT concerned about an abortion mill? Hell do you think she’d be all that concerned with people getting contraception?
“Progressives” live in their own little world, and in that world they claim to defy the laws of physics and nature so that when they “Argue” with the other side they’re right!