Arguing with an anti-gunner is like herding amphetamine-crazed cats. Despite all their talk about “common sense gun safety,” antis rely on unreliable studies and surveys. First you have to debunk their bad science – exposing bogus survey samples and skewed questions – then you have to counter with good science and robust data (click on the main site’s Facts About Guns tab for ammunition). At some point, you have to “explain” the meaning of the Second Amendment to them (as if it could be any clearer) and illuminate the point of the U.S. Constitution (protecting rights). Supreme Court decisions come into it. It’s exhausting. Luckily there’s a simple pro-gun argument which forces antis to acknowledge Americans’ gun rights . . .
Rape!
Tell an anti-gunner that Americans should be able to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms to defeat criminals trying to beat, knife or shoot them to death and they take little notice. Disarm criminals! Meanwhile, give them what they want! Change the conversation to rape and watch their amoral, unrealistic and inhuman belief in compliance crumble.
Start with the following questions. 1. Shouldn’t a woman be able to defend herself against rape? 2. Given the disparity in size and weight and strength between most rapists and their victims, what’s the most effective defense against rape? What weapon has the best chance of stopping the rapist in his tracks?
Stay focused!
If they try to divert attention from the obvious answer by talking about weapon retention [see: below], don’t let them. “We can discuss that in a minute. For now, imagine you’re a woman sitting alone watching TV in your living room. A man breaks in determined to rape you. There’s a gun on the table next to you. Would you use it? Wouldn’t you want it to be there? Wouldn’t you give anything in the world for it to be there?”
Counter the counters
Antis counter by insisting that the odds of being raped are lower than the odds of the gun causing other problems (e.g., negligent discharges for children, suicides, etc.). I ignore these objections and repeat the questions until the anti answers them; because the odds are they will duck and dive and try to wriggle away. Once they answer, THEN I’ll discuss odds, regulations, etc. If they refuse to answer the questions, the “discussion” is over. Really. We’re done.
Antis – like Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo – also counter by asserting that the rapist may grab the gun and use it against the victim. You and I know that’s stupid – even though it can and has happened. We’d rather women (and men) have a shot at defending themselves against a rapist than not. But the best way to stop that nonsense is to remain focused on the theoretical scenario.
Play the odds
If the woman about to be raped had a 50 – 50 chance of using the gun to stop the rape or having the gun used against her, would she take it? Should she? What if the odds were 60 – 40 against her succeeding? What if she had just a 30 percent chance of being able to stop the rape with a gun? How about a one-in-ten chance? After they answer, if they answer, it’s “so now tell me why would you deny a woman a chance to stop a rapist.”
Don’t Waste Your Breath
The odds of converting an anti are lower than the odds of a woman having her own gun used against her. So never argue with an anti one-on-one. Make sure there’s a firearms freedom fence straddler nearby. Then it’s worth it.
Ok.
Ok.
Hodor.
Ok.
We need more lemon Pledge.
Hot pie!
I got a fevah! And the only prescription is more COWBELL!
Yeah.
I argue with anti gunners all the time and there are several rebuttals I’ve gotten to this argument off the top of my head.
1. Gated communities
-my counter argument is that many women are raped by someone they know, plus if the “answer” is gated communities, that means only poor or rural women apparently deserve to be raped (which of course is f*cked up)… plus it would require nobody ever leave their house
2. Baseball bats
-probably the most compelling rebuttal since any weapon is better than no weapon
-Counter: Nobody can carry a baseball bat in their purse
-Counter: Baseball bats aren’t going to put most men down in 1 or 2 swings
3. etc.
My point: While the argument in the OP is good, it’s not the be-all, end-all.
Another to toss at them:
“Is a raped woman morally superior to a woman with a dead rapist at her feet?”
Those who argue against woman defending themselves are the very definition of ” war on woman “. So they have that going for them.
can someone remind me of the source / quote regarding the chance of harm to you if attacked and you do not resist, you resist but without a weapon, you resist with a firearm…as I recall the person LEAST likely to be harmed when attacked resisted with a firearm.
One place is John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime”.
I’m pretty sure it’s in Lott’s “The Bias Against Guns” as well.
I *think* the numbers came from the FBI!
You may be thinking of the CDC report from 2013, the one created with $10 million that Obama directed their way via executive order, supposedly in violation of a Congressional ban on federally funded research into so-called gun violence. This was the report whose finding were supposed to shut the lying NRA and gun nuts up, once and for all, proving scientifically that guns are evil, icky, and murderous masses of metal……….in anyone else’s hands but government, that is. Well.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
The top findings include:
Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.
Defensive uses of guns are common.
Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining.
“Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results.
Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime.
Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime.
The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides.
Another big item is you stop REPEAT CRIME , most crime is repeated over and over by the same few people …the guy they have in jail now (no names) is being tried for the last rape and murder… but if the first etc had shot and stoped him … they think he has killed 12 girls for sure and maybe as many as 23 they can not prove…so you are a REAL HERO to kill a rapist and you will stop a lot of repeat crimes ……..almost ALL CRIME IS REPEAT … that makes ZIMMERMAN and Wilson a hero .. give they a medal too.
I would go with the last option. A lot of anti’s need a come to Jesus moment…
well, if you engage in this line with the MDA crowd, isn’t their official position that a woman getting raped is preferential to that same woman killing her attacker?
friggen loonies. I have a wife and a daughter. If they were about to be raped and the only way to stop the rapist was to subject him to the most drawn out painful agonizing torturous dismember ever devised, it would still be the easiest decision i’d ever make.
“a woman getting raped is preferential to that same woman killing her attacker?”
If it makes just one child…wait, that’s not right. Some how “its for the children.”
See what you did there………..Sick-but funny as f*ck.
Free men and women have arms. They are not slaves. Disarmed slaves dependent upon the fat pig of government are not free.
Problem is they do not care about women being attacked.
This: If they run out of victims then they have no argument. If they have no argument then they have no way to push the agenda.
This is a very devastating use of rhetoric. Well done. Any time you can play the “think of the women/children!” card against these people, do it. Most of them don’t know how to handle having their own arguments used against them.
So that is why Glocks are better than SIGs. Hot redheads apparently.
In any war, the enemy is the group trying to disarm you. So in the “war on women”, who are the enemy of women?
Republicans! Because abortion, blah blah blah, wage gap, blah blah blah, men are evil, blah blah blah, opposition to affirmative action, blah blah blah.
The great irony is that the ones who scream the loudest about the (imaginary) war on women are the same ones who do the most damage to their own cause, by doing things like trying to allow women to be raped.
I completely lost all patients with the civilian disarmament collective after seeing the cynical use of the corpses of children to push their nonsensical agenda.
Men can (and often do) kill their attackers bare handed. Not all justified homicide is with weapons. A good question might be “should a man who is being gang raped fight back with his fists, even though he may kill his attackers? If you were as strong as a man, would you still insist on submitting to the attack for that reason?” Cause, you know, if they say yes than they are basically advocating for prison rules in America.
According to rape stats, about 9%of rape victims are men.
So if you men out there don’t want end up like Chris Newsom, carry a Gun. Glock is good, I carried a Glock 30, compact .45 ACP CC for over ten years. Still have it when I CC.
Then I up graded to a Kimber 1911 OC for the last 7.
I was raped when I was 14 years old. I shot the second guy who tried it fifteen years later. I’ve never regretted it. I’ve been armed, and nobody has tried to rape me since then. Strange that…
There IS no argument. Anyone who wants to disarm me can “come up and get them.” Or go pound sand. Or bleed. Doesn’t matter a whole lot to me.
Word. Anyone who wants to disarm women is objectively pro-rape. As Liberal Arts Professor upthread said, it’s a war on women.
I really, really, really like your term pro-rape for gun grabbers. We have to take that and run with it. Every time a gun grabber makes a claim, we have to respond with the simple question, “Why are you pro-rape … why do you hate women?”
When they try to evade the question or throw back statistics, we have to ask the obvious follow-up question, “So, how many rapes are acceptable?”
I love this kind of stupid reasoning.
Women do not have the right to defend themselves merely because they have a lower chance of defending themselves?
Men have the right to defend themselves because they might have a higher chance of defending themselves?
Therefore, men have the right to protect themselves and women don’t?
Or are they also saying the NO ONE has the right to defend themselves merely based on the odds of being successful in defending themselves?
I once went to a mandatory sexual assault awareness training where they implied that as a fact.
If a person resisted an attempted rape they they would suffer more injury and harm if they resisted.
I had to call them out on that and accuse the instructors a facilitating rape because they were implying that everyone should be passive and not resist the assault that way there would be plenty of victims for them to counsel.
I have a message for any young lady that does not think she has the right to defend herself from robbery, rape, and murder, post your home address out on the internet in public. I am sure there are a lot of criminals out there that would love to test their commitment.
and add to RAPE ,DEATH yes because they want no one who can turn them it , so count on death as a FACT and part of the rape act… you can count on it. DEFEND or be raped and KILLED.
Antis counter by insisting that the odds of being raped are lower than the odds of the gun causing other problems (e.g., negligent discharges for children, suicides, etc.). So see that our defense is a collective one in which while a certain amount of the dis-armed population does die, overall, the death rate will be lower as the insane ( anyone who desires a gun) and the hidden criminals ( all gun owners) will be dis-armed and unable to commit any gun violence crimes. A safer overall society will result and some people dying as a result of not being armed is very preferable compared to the mayhem created by a free firing America.
According to the antis we need to teach men that would rape not to rape, educate men that would not rape to watch over and protect all women at all times, and teach women to do whatever they want and get as drunk as they want anywhere they want because everyone else will take care of them. It’s such a disgusting argument, instead of empowering women by teaching them to be responsible for themselves by teaching self defense in many forms and to stay out of dangerous situations they try to disarm men and push the responsibility of all women on men.
I was floored that anyone would think “men shouldn’t rape, we need to teach them not to rape” is a legitimate counter to women taking responsibility for their own self defense.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And yet the ones who preach that are also the ones who scream the loudest about women’t rights and empowerment. The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling with these people….
On the retention argument, I usually respond …
Blammo!
Damn fine!
Do the Moms demand that policemen remain celibate? Oh, so, policemen and policewomen have spouses and children living with them in the same home? Better have the police return to the station at the end of each shift and leave their guns in the armory. A gun in the police officer’s home is more likely to be used to his his (her) spouse or be found by a child. (I recall this happened in Chicago 40 years ago. A child found his mother’s service revolver on a dresser and killed himself.)
There is an active duty highway patrolman in PA who has lost his 2A rights to K&BA. So, when he goes off-duty he must dis-arm. He is empowered by the Commonwealth to be armed when surrounded by citizens but – for his own safety – is disarmed while off-duty.
Guns are for OC in the streets where their users have complete control over them. They are far too dangerous for anyone – including police officers, prison guards, prosecutors, judges, the rich or the famous – to have at home where they endanger spouses, children and home invaders.
“Better have the police return to the station at the end of each shift and leave their guns in the armory.”
Isn’t that what the police do in Europe? That is a gun grabber’s wet dream.
Forgive me, but I never get tired of watching Glock Girl, um, debunking bad science.
Antis counter that the odds of rape are lower than the gun being used for suicide or the owner/a family member getting shot accidentally.
Bunk. There are reportedly 293,000 sexual assaults per year.
https://rainn.org/statistics
Thanx for that!
I may be wrong ( it happens alot, you can ask my wife) but isn’t it about 20% of women that have been raped. I know the FBI statistics only count cases where women were raped and then divide that by the entire population (men and women). Maybe the antis are learning math from the same people that teach LEOs.
One of the things I like about this version is that the “show” she is watching on TV is actually scenes from a different Glock commercial. And of course the fact that she shows how it should be done, other than a couple minor quibbles. Funny, though, I never see these on TV…
Of course, I meant “this version of the commercial,” when I said “this version.” And I neglected to say “Good job, RF!” And also to the commenters. There are some great suggestions here for debating with the anti-self-defense crowd.
By the way, Courtney Hope, the actress in this video is an actual POTG, and apparently also a martial artist:
http://media.tumblr.com/41631a65a57f263fe2fda40ceab3442d/tumblr_mkdpic94TQ1qh0vcro1_1280.jpg
My legs won’t do that any more, so I train with my handguns a lot these days, and my wife does the same.
“Antis counter by insisting that the odds of being raped are lower than the odds of the gun causing other problems (e.g., negligent discharges for children, suicides, etc.). ”
in 2010, the fbi recorded over 80,000 reported rapes (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/rapemain)
this is more than double the number of people killed with a gun including suicides from 2010 (~33,000). the number of people injured and treated without dying with a firearm is 73,505 for 2010. (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html)
more than 90% of the rapes are committed against women, so the real percentage rapes committed is against ~1/2 the US population. the number of reported rapes is always claimed to be significantly less than the number reported. we can’t really know, as they aren’t reported.
rape is also not like theft or even a physical beating. victims of rape often take years to recover if you can even truly recover from the incident. how could any chance to stop a rapist not be considered?
I love that look on his face in the video. That’s a new set of pants for sure.
If you really want to drive the point home, after they don’t answer the woman part, switch to a child. “so, you would rather have a 9 year old child raped and murdered rather than allow the parent the best chance to defend them?”
RF, of all the towns in all the counties, in all the vast sweep of Texas, why did you pick the only liberal bastion, Austin? And it gets worse every year with all the legal immigrants from failed liberal states in the North.
Every time I think of the SCOTUS I have a sudden chill come over me fearing that one of the 5 conservative Justices passes prior to BHO’s term expiration…Meaning, of course, BHO has the opportunity to forever “fundamentally change” America perhaps more than he has already done simply by appointing another Liberal Justice to the Nation’s highest Court…
Still has to pass Senate confirmation, though. FWIW
Good point–Thank goodness for the results from 11-14 mid-terms elections. I guess if not first confirmed he would keep throwing up one after another until the ‘lesser-evil’ were rubber-stamped…
the current congressional balance is only as good as the next election. the libs got thrashed in 2014, but there are more registered libs in every state than registered conservatives (repubs?). our only hope to keep the SCOTUS rational is if the 18-34yr demographic gets bored with politics, too. a one vote advantage in SCOTUS is a precarious proposition. the senate alone is a rocky pillar. look at what the repub leadership has done with their sweeping win in 2014.
It just occurred to me — probably a couple of years after seeing that video for the first time — that the person antis picture when they think of gun owners doesn’t look a whole lot like Red-Haired Glock Girl (bless her heart). Rather, the person they picture when they think of gun owners looks a whole lot like Creepy Rapist Dude.
Best way I’ve found to talk about guns with an anti is to take them shooting.
Exactly! Arguing just makes them more devoted to their side. Taking them to the range is immediate results, fun, and disproval of the stereotypes.
We are talking about taking them to the range for familiarization, right?
Anyone, no matter the odds, who would choose a zero option to thwart a rape is lying. It’s a great simple and direct to the point argument.
I have had this very argument time & time & time again w both the Moms Demand crowd & the feminists. The over riding belief / position is “lie back & enjoy it, it will be over with faster” Period. It is impossible to convince them that having even a tiny chance to repel an attack is worth the effort.
They are seriously deranged.
get their pictures; study closely. you don’t want to inadvertently protect any of those maroons.
You’ll never change an anti’s mind but knowing the stats about the safety of legally owned guns will leave them speechless.
I guess this was before Waingro hooked up with the crew in Heat…
Trying to change the minds of antis, and liberals it like trying to make a hole in a concrete wall by banging it with your head. After a while you figure that wall is not going anywhere and all you are doing is getting a head ache.
seems to be more like wrestling with a pig:
– you can’t win
– you get slimy dirty
– the pig loves it
I know a half-dozen antis who say it’s better for a woman to let herself be raped than for her to risk killing someone.
I ask them if they feel the same about the situation where I protected a youth group — should I have left my gun out of it, and let the kids be molested?
Comments are closed.