testtest

Great Article About the Value of Guns in Society

wmg1299

Custom
I got my fill of politics awhile back and started avoiding overly-political news sights as much as possible. I came across this article and was halfway through reading it before I saw the source. I've never been a huge Breitbart fan, but I can fully appreciate the viewpoint expressed in this piece. I'd like to know what you guys think.

 

SimonRL

Master Class
I couldn’t finish it, I don’t have time for vitriol-laced A-holes. Most of us are out there trying to be the faces of enlightened gun owners and this guy is the kind who makes us all look bad, or incites us all to be dicks - because let’s face it, this guy’s already preaching to the choir. Anti-gunners aren’t reading Breitbart.
 

wmg1299

Custom
I couldn’t finish it, I don’t have time for vitriol-laced A-holes. Most of us are out there trying to be the faces of enlightened gun owners and this guy is the kind who makes us all look bad, or incites us all to be dicks - because let’s face it, this guy’s already preaching to the choir. Anti-gunners aren’t reading Breitbart.
I agree with you on the preaching to the choir part. However, I saw his approach as a unique take on the usual, "We don't ban other things that are bad for people", argument. I've been very fortunate in having friends who I disagree with politically, but who are open to intelligently debating their positions. Whenever one of them points out a medical study about the harms of firearms, I've pointed out that medical mistakes kill almost 10 times as many people as guns and nobody wants to ban hospitals. I'm sure many of us at one point or another have pointed out how many people are killed by motor vehicles or fast food in similar conversations.

I'd never thought about the tactic of just telling people that the welfare of society as a whole is not my responsibility. I think a case could be made that if something is an individual right, then it's effect on the general society should be irrelevant. I would probably attempt to do it less bluntly, but I found it to be an interesting approach.
 

SimonRL

Master Class
Whenever one of them points out a medical study about the harms of firearms, I've pointed out that medical mistakes kill almost 10 times as many people as guns and nobody wants to ban hospitals. I'm sure many of us at one point or another have pointed out how many people are killed by motor vehicles or fast food in similar conversations.
I’m totally with you on that. 3,000 people die on the highways in Texas every year and it barely raises and eyebrow.
 

somorris

Custom
Founding Member
I think it is interesting how we read something like the article and each of us picks up on something different. What I got out of the article was that a man has a responsibility to protect his family. Society has no right to get involved in that responsibility.

Society hasn't done a very good job in controlling criminals and others who are intent on doing evil to others.
 

wmg1299

Custom
Society hasn't done a very good job in controlling criminals and others who are intent on doing evil to others.
I've always tried to counter arguments concerning the evils of guns by pointing out the good that they do, but it seems like people on the other side of the argument aren't receptive to it. As you've pointed out, it appears that many of the people who are against guns are also against prisons.

What I have noticed is that many liberal organizations constantly tout the rights of individuals in many aspects of life. If data isn't working, I wonder if stressing the "Individual" part of the individual right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be more effective. While I can see the author's gruff wording being offensive to some, I am curious to know if the approach of, "I own guns because it is my individual right to do so and I feel it is the best way to live my life" may not be such a bad argument. If these groups are so concerned about the individual rights of those in prisons, it would only be logical that they would also have to respect the individual rights of law-abiding gun owners.
 

SimonRL

Master Class
I don’t often try to counter people’s arguments because it’s usually a dead end street and I rarely share my passion for shooting outside of the shooting community. But when I do, I’m pretty matter-of-fact about it - I don’t proselytize - and I let them develop their own thoughts based on the fact that I am known within my social circles as a a pretty successful, level-headed guy. If someone wants to try shooting a gun, I’ll take them and let them draw their own conclusions. My closest friend actually went and got his LTC just so we could hang out together more often. Convert ‘em with kindness is my way.
 

southtex

Master Class
Founding Member
I try not to counter most arguments but I do fail on occasion. Now it seems my circle are all shooters / hunters or connected to a firearm owner. I am willing to help anyone with questions or an interest to go to the range. I enjoy introducing someone to shooting and watching their sense of accomplishment as the group size shrinks. I tend to roll through life with my own thoughts, ideas, and views and try not to let others ruin my parade. I will say I don't connect being a man with owning a gun or the necessity of 9 loaded guns around the house. I do get the gist of the article (agree with) but wasn't impressed with the keyboard tone.
 

Bassbob

Professional
I try not to counter most arguments but I do fail on occasion. Now it seems my circle are all shooters / hunters or connected to a firearm owner. I am willing to help anyone with questions or an interest to go to the range. I enjoy introducing someone to shooting and watching their sense of accomplishment as the group size shrinks. I tend to roll through life with my own thoughts, ideas, and views and try not to let others ruin my parade. I will say I don't connect being a man with owning a gun or the necessity of 9 loaded guns around the house. I do get the gist of the article (agree with) but wasn't impressed with the keyboard tone.


I agree. 5 is enough. Ok, 6.

Personally I don't associate with stupid people for very long. And I don't bother engaging them because it's largely fruitless. If you tell me the 2nd amendment only applies to militias or that the founding fathers meant it only for muskets, I'm pretty much done talking to you.
 

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
I agree. 5 is enough. Ok, 6.

Personally I don't associate with stupid people for very long. And I don't bother engaging them because it's largely fruitless. If you tell me the 2nd amendment only applies to militias or that the founding fathers meant it only for muskets, I'm pretty much done talking to you.
I've pretty much solved that problem, as I don't hangout with anyone. I'll speak in-passing with people while at the store, fishing, range, etc, but that's about it.
 

BobM

Professional
I got my fill of politics awhile back and started avoiding overly-political news sights as much as possible. I came across this article and was halfway through reading it before I saw the source. I've never been a huge Breitbart fan, but I can fully appreciate the viewpoint expressed in this piece. I'd like to know what you guys think.

What I read was something controversial filled with a few sometimes twisted truths to get hits for someones ego and likely paycheck. Guns to be a man? Phew! The "king has spoken" routine? Feeling on society printed? My thoughts? - Can't print that here. If the attitude is real would be surprised. Real Jerk comes to mind?
Condensed? Not good neighbor material.
 

wmg1299

Custom
What I read was something controversial filled with a few sometimes twisted truths to get hits for someones ego and likely paycheck. Guns to be a man? Phew! The "king has spoken" routine? Feeling on society printed? My thoughts? - Can't print that here. If the attitude is real would be surprised. Real Jerk comes to mind?
Condensed? Not good neighbor material.
That was actually what I found refreshing. While I don't agree with all of the author's chosen wording, this article is essentially the "Living My Truth" version of a pro-2A argument. 2nd Amendment supporters have for the most part stood politely by while our rights were chipped away. While we calmly offered scientific facts and evidence, these facts were completely ignored in favor of passionate arguments based solely on emotion from the other side. No matter how polite, genteel, and well-spoken a 2nd Amendment supporter may be, they will always be portrayed as crazy and violent by their opponents.

This is the first article I've seen where the author fully embraces the nonsensical, emotion-based arguments used by progressives and academics to justify everything from socialism to the idea that gender is a completely optional construct that can be changed based on nothing more than emotion. I personally think the article is ridiculous, but we currently live in a country where ridiculous arguments seem to be the ones that gain traction. Between colleges and the media, "F*** the Truth, These are My Feelings", is now seen as a perfectly valid point of view.

I don't know how much potential it has to change any minds about firearm ownership, but logical and factual studies don't seem to be doing very much either. I mainly found this to be refreshing because I already know that gun control laws cause significantly more crime than they prevent, and reading another article stating so does nothing for me. At least this article was unique.
 

BobM

Professional
That was actually what I found refreshing. While I don't agree with all of the author's chosen wording, this article is essentially the "Living My Truth" version of a pro-2A argument. 2nd Amendment supporters have for the most part stood politely by while our rights were chipped away. While we calmly offered scientific facts and evidence, these facts were completely ignored in favor of passionate arguments based solely on emotion from the other side. No matter how polite, genteel, and well-spoken a 2nd Amendment supporter may be, they will always be portrayed as crazy and violent by their opponents.

This is the first article I've seen where the author fully embraces the nonsensical, emotion-based arguments used by progressives and academics to justify everything from socialism to the idea that gender is a completely optional construct that can be changed based on nothing more than emotion. I personally think the article is ridiculous, but we currently live in a country where ridiculous arguments seem to be the ones that gain traction. Between colleges and the media, "F*** the Truth, These are My Feelings", is now seen as a perfectly valid point of view.

I don't know how much potential it has to change any minds about firearm ownership, but logical and factual studies don't seem to be doing very much either. I mainly found this to be refreshing because I already know that gun control laws cause significantly more crime than they prevent, and reading another article stating so does nothing for me. At least this article was unique.
Agreed. Article does stir up the old brain cells!
Sometimes the loud mouth obnoxious ones gets people actually thinking for themselves. Unless they believe the hoopla, like professional wrestling? Sorry mom, that's fake? :)

Have also found waiting for logic in an illogical world doesn't always work too well with all people. Like seeking perfection in an imperfect world is almost a lost cause sometimes? Thankfully, logic usually falls in place with mechanics? :)
 
Top