Need help fighting anti-gun crowd--I need some numbers...

[TWS]

One more thing...look at everything that is illegal, everything! Cocaine, Meth, marijuana. Look at prohibition. You can make them illegal all you want. The only thing they are accomplishing is the age old argument... taking them out of the hands of people that could have prevented such a gravity in the first place!

 

[goinggreyfast]

Just went round and round with a Lib today. Was told I was "sick" in the head for not supporting the AW Ban. Sheesh!

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." ~ Robert Heinlein

 

[Valvestate]

If facts mattered, we would have a new pres...
To answer your question, here are a few, she was on fire today:

Gun Control Isn’t The Answer. Here’s Why | The Dana Show

The castle Rock vs. Gonzales was interesting to say the least...

The force is strong with this one.

A law-abiding citizen plus a firearm does not a mad gunman make.

 

[SmokinSigs357]

Fox News Channel did us no favors today. O'Reilly basically wants you to turn in your "AK 15"...his term not mine.

 

[Miles42]

I do not argue with folks set in their ways. It makes no sense to have a battle of wits with some one who is totally unarmed.

 

[TRWXXA]

Don't supply any data to the rabid anti-gun crowd. Make them supply the stats. Make sure you arm yourself with the knowledge that will allow you to rip their statistics apart. It won't change their minds, but it's always fun to watch a liberatard struggle with logic.

Example:

Hysterical Liberal - "Guns kill people!"
Logical Gunowner - "People kill people."
Hysterical Liberal - "There are 4 times as many guns in the United States than there are registered vehicles!"
Logical Gunowner - "If guns are so dangerous, then why aren't there 160,000 gun deaths every year - 4 times the number of traffic deaths?"
Hysterical Liberal - "RACIST!"

 

[churchmouse]

I thought that very thing before I posted this--this is going to be my last attempt, and I don't really believe it will do any good. But I want to make one last try...

IMHO you are kicking a dead dog. Folks set their minds in a direction right or wrong, facts or fiction. Give it all you can and know when to let it go.
I used to pound my drum for all to hear but in the end it only made me hearing impaired. You may change a mind or two along the way and good on you if it happens but after this last election we have just given up. People do not want to hear anything that goes against their mindset.
Start with your elected officials. This is really your only avenue for change.

 

[greyhound47]

Here are some numbers for ya;

186 killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Of those, 3 pregnant women and 19 toddlers in day care. Killer used a rental truck and fertilizer. No firearms.

Nearly 3000 killed in 9/11/01. Killers used box cutters and airplane tickets. No firearms.

The ATF triggered a fire to murder 76 men, women, and children at Waco. It's OK if the Government does it though.

 

[Eric05]

Be a person action, not words. I had my 2 minutes on the social media soap box. Now its time for action.

 

[thompal]

They will never get it, nor do they want to understand. Why can a logical person not understand that when you ban or limit a particular gun that the only people that will be affected are the law abiding people? Criminals will always find a way if there is a need. They will also not follow the posted signs and abide by the limits placed on where it is legal to posses a weapon or gun, so again, only the law abiding person is punished...

There's your problem. You are assuming that you are dealing with a logical, rational person. You aren't. You are dealing with people who have an IRRATIONAL fear of how THEY would behave if they ever held a firearm. They have such a low opinion of their mental capabilities, that they assume that THEY would immediately use that firearm to express anger or frustration.

They are mentally ill. It is best that people like that don't have access to firearms. The problem is that they assume that everyone is THE SAME, and therefore incapable of having emotional responses above a 3 year old level.

 

[anemic]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[griffin]

Don't know if anyone has posted this for you or not, but here is a report to the federal government analyzing the 1994 AWB, how it was unneeded, and how useless it was.

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice​

 

[SmokinSigs357]

I'm not really clear on the point you are trying to make. My apologies. However, if you think that your/my/our family(ies) would be safer with our guns stored at the local gun club, I fear that many on hear will not want to sit and have a peaceful discussion with you.

 

[anemic]

+++++++++++++++++

 

[griffin]

I was referring to keeping Assault weapons at the gun club. Perhaps there are many excellent choices of other weapons that can be used effectively against home invasion?

It has been shown that an M4/AR15 is probably the best home defense weapon, even better than a shotgun.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I'm terrible with statistics so I just simply tell them...

"History shows us that, 1.) Mass murders happen in gun-free zones. 2.) Mass murders don't happen in gun-friendly zones. The solution is obvious."

 

[Jack Burton]

That is the kind of response that creates antagonism. I was referring to keeping Assault weapons at the gun club. Perhaps there are many excellent choices of other weapons that can be used effectively against home invasion?

I think the previous attempt at an AWB was jived up because, if I understand correctly, & please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not here to show how smart I am I'm here to learn & discuss these important issues:

*It only affected new gun sales
*It certainly didn't remove any guns from owners
*Bump fire was developed in response
*Gun show loophole was always there

Is that incorrect?

I hope I can earn your trust so that we can have a useful dialogue. Since I believe in America & our people I believe that we are capable of rising to a higher level of discourse than what I have seen when this topic is raised. Thanks for sticking with me. If you gotta take a swipe at me anyway, so be it.

anemic... you're getting off on the wrong foot by refering to these rifles by the pretend name of 'assault weapons"

I would suggest that you reconsider the phrasing that you use to not reflect the hyper-gun control lobbys desires.

Secondly, a simple question.

Since any firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen harms no one... and since criminals don't obey any law they wish to ignore... can you give any reason that criminals will now keep their firearms of any kind in "storage"?

And another simple question...

There are, best guess, ten million rifles in America that you would probably label "assaut weapons". There are about 1,000 to 2,000 uses of them in crimes each year. That means that about 1 out of 5,000, or far, far less than .001 percent, are used to harm people.

Yet, you think the other 99.999 percent need to be "locked away" out of the very hands of the people who are not misusing them.

So... what other freedoms where less than .001 percent people misuse it to do harm would you like to restrict from the public?

 

[nucone]

Her only response is, "There's too many guns. We need to ban automatic weapons now!!!". She either did not bother to read the article, or can't think of a response that would appear to make her "win" the argument.

Forget the article or logic. I would only respond to the comment she has stated. I would explain that automatic weapons manufactured after 1984 cannot be sold to the general public only to military, law enforcement, and special ATF Class III license holders. Further, for those automatic weapons manufactured before 1984 and earlier are so expensive ($15K and up) that very few can afford to purchase them. Additionally, if they could afford to purchase an automatic weapon built before 1984, then it requires a special tax (libs really like this), local law enforcement approval, background checks by the FBI, and long waits and approval from the ATF before they can purchase it.

Don't even try to explain semi-automatic to them. They only understand what the ignorant talking heads are saying to them on the boob tube. They are all describing the weapons used as 'automatic'. They also don't understand the difference between magazines and clips. They all call them clips. I for one am all for limiting clip capacity to 10 rounds as I have never seen one that held more. For liberals, I prefer to let them stew in their own ignorance. For the most part they sound ignorant, seldom get their facts straight, and actually believe the nonsense they repeat. I actually like them looking like idiots. I wonder what it would be like if they actually did get their facts straight.