Why is so hard to have intelligent debate with someone who is pro-gun about gun control?

Question

I have tried to have discussions with pro-gun people about gun control and have found it difficult. First they usually they ramble on about how they learned to shoot a gun from their father, grandfather or brother. When I mention banning semi-automatic weapons or limiting the # you can purcahse, they cry that would lead to slippery slope where all guns will be banned. Is there any middle ground at all on this issue?

Answer 1

The right to bear arms was granted when a gun took 15 seconds to load and only shot one bullet. Assault rifles have no place on the streets. They were designed generally for military purposes for the exclusive reason of taking out as many men in a short time span without reloading.

I am yet to see a practical argument as to why this style of weapon i acceptable on the streets, and what if any is a reasonable application for said weapon. I respect the rights of a person to own a gun, however nowhere in the Constitution does it say what type of gun one should be allowed to own. Restricting the style of weapon does not limit rights, restricting the purchase of ammunition does not limit rights. The gun culture in which we live in is the issue. People are lead to believe that they will lose everything if they can't fire 20 rounds in 10 seconds.

There are limitations on many of the amendments, I can speak freely as long as it isn't hate speech. The Patriot act pretty much destroyed Thee 4th amendment.

Answer 2

You seem to have had bad luck in who you talk to. There are many "pro-gun" people who express their views well.

Shooting is often quality family time. Learning to shoot is one on one time with your parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse, etc. Learning, having fun, and just being together create important memories. These memories are often what makes people dislike gun-control. They feel these special part of their life threatened and often will respond emotionally.

The slippery slope argument is hard to uphold, although there may be some truth in it. A much stronger argument is from a constitutional standpoint.

The Second Amendment says, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The "pro-gun" argument is that people means the same thing in all the amendments; the same in the Second as in the First, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Webster defines infringe as "to break in, encroach or trespass (on or upon the rights, patents, etc. of others)." Some one who has this view of the Second Amendment will respond in a similar way to gun-control as to speech-control. Limiting the number of guns one can buy is like limiting the number of letters one can write and banning semi-automatic firearms is like banning books and only allowing short essays. Saying the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard is like saying the First Amendment only applies to government sponsored news. Imagine how the press would respond to such suggestions and you will probably see how shooters respond to gun-control.

So gun-control is an emotionally charged issue because of personal experience, and as violating very the foundation of our government, the Constitution.

Sorry this was so long, hope it helps.

Evan

Answer 3

Because you are trying to debate one of the most foundational principles of human existence, the right to defend freedoms, life (family, friends), and property by force against any who would (without warning) attack them by force. Any argument against the right to self-defense is irrational, thus leaving very little room for any intelligent limitations on the same.

Any intelligent debate begins by restricting one group of people and then another, and soon this "intelligent" utopia has every law-abiding group restricted. The argument usually begins with banning uncommon, and outrageously, overkill weapons like nukes, fully-automatic rifles (support weapons, not assault weapons), and grenades. Then they aim are more the more personal weapons of handguns and semi-automatics. Then all guns are targeted for elimination from the law-abiding public. Any "intelligent" proposal to draw the line on certain restrictions, groups of people, and weaponry classes can be just as effectively used re-draw that line anywhere else.

Ultimately, self-defense is the only intelligent argument. No person should be forced into an assault situation without any effective means of defending oneself. That was exactly the case on that now solemn Virginia campus. No amount of intelligence can look at that massacre and still justify the students' inabilities to defend themselves. Had just a couple students (or professors) been armed and practiced, the death toll would have likely been around 2-4 people, including the attacker.

Answer 4

I am a supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. My wife thinks that all guns should be outlawed.

I have found that it is the anti-gun people who cannot have an intelligent conversation. I remain calm and just try to have a discussion, and they always interrupt me and tell me I'm "just wrong" and "stupid" and "evil" and whatever.

I'm guessing you do the same thing. You say the gun supporter is "rambling on" which implies they are talking and you are refusing to listen.

That's consistent with what I find in my attempts to have an intelligent conversation on the matter. The side supporting the right to bear arms would very much like to talk about it and the side against it wants to keep us from talking and call us stupid.

HINT: That's not intelligent debate.

Answer 5

I'm making some assumptions here, but I bet you are pro-choice. Even if you aren't bear with me but it would give you some perspective on an issue you oppose by carrying your example to an issue you support. Why is it the pro choice people continue to fight for the right to have partial birth abortion, where the baby is carried to term and then as its head crowns the doctor sucks out its brains to allow it to pass more easily? Its not for the very few cases where the mother's life is in danger, which by the way most pro-lifers would be willing to make an exception for, but rather its because they claim that its the first step in banning all abortions. Sound like the slippery slope you mentioned about your gun control debates? It takes two people willing to listen and compromise to make an intelligent debate and I would suggest your preconceived notions about the pro-gun folks contribute as much to the lack of intelligence in your debates as does their steadfast refusal to waver in their beliefs no matter what.

Yes, there is middle ground. Right between those who want all weapons to be legal no matter what and those who want to outlaw all guns right down to a slingshot.

Answer 6

I am not a "gun nut", or a member of the NRA, or a conservative Republican. I'm a moderate Democrat leaning mildly to the liberal side, and I think SOME gun control is OK... BUT... I also believe that gun control laws alone will not solve the problem. What about parenting? And what about the easy access to black market illegal firearms? If you think gun control laws alone will stop gun violence, you are naive. What happened in Virginia is an aberration - not everyone with a gun murders 32 people, and he probably obtained his guns ILLEGALLY, so gun laws would NOT have stopped him from getting his hands on those guns. If one of the students inside that classroom had been armed, he or she might have been able to end it right there. Its not so much that you can't get an intelligent debate - its more that these people are passionate about what they believe, and perhaps you aren't opening your ears to their point of view either.

Answer 7

There is historical precedent that confirms that slipper slope argument you are compaining about. I was a gun control moderate until the 80s, when it became evident that there was not going to be any "reasonable" gun control. The "reasonable" conclusion is that the forces behind gun control efforts want nothing less than the outright ban and confiscation of all firearms. That fact is plainly evident from actual cases in New York, Chicago, California, and Washington, D.C.

That is why you run into the brick wall with pro-gun people. They've seen the enemy in action and know what their intent is.

Answer 8

I shake my head about EXACTLY the same thing! I even asked a question once, trying to understand why Americans felt the need to have legal gun ownership. To be fair, I got some very good answers, which actually made me understand their stance much better. But overwhelmingly, I received responses about their constitutional rights. There was no logic involved...just their clinging to an outdated ammendment. Amazing how certain people will cling to the ammendments that suit them, and abandon those that they don't find convenient or suitable in their lives.

I guess, coming from a different country that does not permit gun ownership, I will never understand the compulsion to protect that right. I do not see the need for guns in society - except in the hands of the military or police force. I also do not feel the need to defend myself or my home with a firearm. And have NEVER found myself wishing I had one. Statistical reports will support my stance that a society that bans private gun ownership is a safer one, but the gun issue is an emotional one in America - and logic and statistics are not sufficient fodder for discussion.

Answer 9

There is some, but not much. It's like letting congress implement a new tax. Not only does it never go away it grows. So be careful when you say you want to ban something. Do shoulder launches need to be available to the general public? No, but putting limits on the number you can buy is pushing your luck. Cars not only kill, but are a major cause towards global warming, should I be limited to the number and type of cars that I own? See what I'm saying here. Its a very thin line that the anti gun people walk.

Answer 10

for the same reasons its impossible to have a rational conversation about gun laws with anti gun people.

and yes i was taught to shoot by my dad and his dad, and will teach my kids someday.

and it is a very slippery slope, most of the gun laws that get passed make almost no sense. like only allowing the sale of magazines that hold fewer rounds, or banning the sale of full auto weapons but allowing the sale of guns that can be easily modified to be fully auto.

personally i think you should need a license (have proper training and qualify on a range) to own a gun just like you do to drive a car. and once you are tested and licensed you are set as a gun owner. but for some reason whenever anybody in congress tries to bring in any sort of law like this its the anti gun lobbys who shoot it down (no pun intended) because they are only intrested in making weird orwellian laws that dont really do anything that helps.

Answer 11

I once asked a question on gun control trying to understand the issue. I own guns and have hunted in the past. I have NO problem at all with there being certain criteria met in order to own a gun. I was shocked at the negative and even vile responses I got. Even more, a week or so after the question was "resolved", it was deleted. I have no idea why.