• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Need help for gun debate

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
This is why I hate oral debates. You can't really meaningfully address the issues. It's easy to spout a few numbers in 30 seconds. How can one point out the fact that most of America's "gun violence" is already the direct result of prior forms of prohibition and the self-fulfilling prophecies they represent. This is the single, inescapable, and unsurmountable fatal flaw of the prohibitionist position – the fact that prohibition will always make things worse. Even in the UK it has done so, where automatic weapons now proliferate in a black market depleted of "civilian" weapons. Russia? Mexico? Brazil? Don't make me laugh.

But how can you convincingly make that point within the duration of a conversational attention span? Much less a debate?

Still, though, sounds like you pwnd anyway. Good job! And, yes, do tell: did you OC?


I fully expected to go in and get the short end of the stick on the debate.

It ended up being almost 2 hrs long. I got 3, 10 min sections to cover my material....the best stuff was done in between though on the question and cross examinations....and the tons of questions by the students. He was basically stuck arguing that armed civilians would escalate a situation when SWAT came kicking in your door......Which I was able to counter with approving nods by the audience that we need to get rid of no knock warrants and that was a problem with prohibition too....

No I didn't OC, I was asked by the moderator not too, so I empty holstered, it but was able to mention OC several times, and had many questions after the debate about it. Was pretty cool having a group of students surrounding me after asking questions.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
It ended up being almost 2 hrs long. I got 3, 10 min sections to cover my material....the best stuff was done in between though on the question and cross examinations....and the tons of questions by the students. He was basically stuck arguing that armed civilians would escalate a situation when SWAT came kicking in your door......Which I was able to counter with approving nods by the audience that we need to get rid of no knock warrants and that was a problem with prohibition too....

:cool:

It sounds like this was (or at least came very close to) an actual debate, unlike 99% of what passes for that in the public discourse – and especially in the circuses staged by professional politicians.

I'm glad that you were the man to represent us. I like a person who argues the issues in the same manner I would. ;)

Far too many pro-gun folks treat our pet issue as though it exists in a vacuum. It's true that our arguments still win in a vacuum (gunpowder is its own oxidizer, so it doesn't need air! har har :lol:) but it takes a big-picture perspective to truly, fundamentally grasp how corrosive mala prohibita laws really are to society and to the individual. Not only that, but the big-picture perspective has the ability to resonate with even those who will never own guns, because they can see the parallels all around them and make the connections for themselves, without needing experience with guns or crime.

To put it simply: the human tendency for a small, ruling elite to ban some or other victimless act or good – and for the rest of society to immediately go about industriously circumventing those dictates – may seem like a quirk, but it's so universal as to be truly an aspect of the human condition: the inevitable product of basic human nature. This might be a trivial observation, were it not for the immense resulting collateral harm – wholly predictable and borne out in history without exception.

It's my opinion and experience that the most convincing approach reflects an understanding of this truth, and that the guns-in-a-vacuum approach (as espoused even by the letter of this forum's rules) really is a disservice to the RKBA as well as the broader defense of liberty.

Anyway, good on you. :D
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Awesome job!

Do you know if the debate was recorded? I'd love to see the video if one will be available.

I was in the bleachers and I did not see anyone recording. I did see a large number of people using handheld devices to google the comments by Robs opponent. He kept dwelling on not needing a weapon that "fires 900 rounds a minute" as a fear tool the same way he kept commenting on "armour piercing" bullets. He was motivated by politics and admitted as such. It is amazing how the most vocal of the gun control people have no knowlege of weapons or the use of them. Still they profess to be experts on the subject.
The students asked him if student carry should be accepted practice. Oh how he went off on that. "Untold Horrors", if people carry guns, they will use them on each other, and other rants. The students were dead on him.

Rob was great. Defused the guy before he had a chance to get a point in and then refuted what he had with citations. It was like watching a guy bring a knife to a gun fight. No contest.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
:cool:

It sounds like this was (or at least came very close to) an actual debate, unlike 99% of what passes for that in the public discourse – and especially in the circuses staged by professional politicians.

I'm glad that you were the man to represent us. I like a person who argues the issues in the same manner I would. ;)

Far too many pro-gun folks treat our pet issue as though it exists in a vacuum. It's true that our arguments still win in a vacuum (gunpowder is its own oxidizer, so it doesn't need air! har har :lol:) but it takes a big-picture perspective to truly, fundamentally grasp how corrosive mala prohibita laws really are to society and to the individual. Not only that, but the big-picture perspective has the ability to resonate with even those who will never own guns, because they can see the parallels all around them and make the connections for themselves, without needing experience with guns or crime.

To put it simply: the human tendency for a small, ruling elite to ban some or other victimless act or good – and for the rest of society to immediately go about industriously circumventing those dictates – may seem like a quirk, but it's so universal as to be truly an aspect of the human condition: the inevitable product of basic human nature. This might be a trivial observation, were it not for the immense resulting collateral harm – wholly predictable and borne out in history without exception.

It's my opinion and experience that the most convincing approach reflects an understanding of this truth, and that the guns-in-a-vacuum approach (as espoused even by the letter of this forum's rules) really is a disservice to the RKBA as well as the broader defense of liberty.

Anyway, good on you. :D

Thank you. I tried a historical approach to prohibition and was able to show how and when crime goes up almost always is connected to prohibition, and the monopoly of force by government. How crime got worse in the West, when government moved in and the "anarchy" of the "wild west" was actually more civilized. :lol: Couldn't help myself........

I took a page from your posts, posted quite some time ago, and didn't let him own the word liberal, I repeatedly used it in it true meaning by using the phrase "liberal and free society" several times.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I was in the bleachers and I did not see anyone recording. I did see a large number of people using handheld devices to google the comments by Robs opponent. He kept dwelling on not needing a weapon that "fires 900 rounds a minute" as a fear tool the same way he kept commenting on "armour piercing" bullets. He was motivated by politics and admitted as such. It is amazing how the most vocal of the gun control people have no knowlege of weapons or the use of them. Still they profess to be experts on the subject.
The students asked him if student carry should be accepted practice. Oh how he went off on that. "Untold Horrors", if people carry guns, they will use them on each other, and other rants. The students were dead on him.

Rob was great. Defused the guy before he had a chance to get a point in and then refuted what he had with citations. It was like watching a guy bring a knife to a gun fight. No contest.

Thank you John for your kind words, am glad you and Lori made it on such short notice. The questions posed by you and Lori were quite hard hitting too, making him squirm a bit in his seat. First saying universal background checks would be no hassle, and then later admitting it would be a hassle......well done.:lol:
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I took a page from your posts, posted quite some time ago, and didn't let him own the word liberal, I repeatedly used it in it true meaning by using the phrase "liberal and free society" several times.

Hah! Very nice!

I love to do this, especially in the context of gun control.

I've noticed that, amongst those sympathetic to the political left, the co-option of the term liberal does have the insidious effect of making these leftists believe that they are liberal in the true sense of the word, even knowing its meaning. This is, I assure the forum, a source of their sense of moral superiority.

But by the same token, I've had comparatively greater success of my own by turning that around: leaving more than a couple illiberal leftists sputtering in the wake of my, quite correctly, explicitly claiming the liberal high ground with my rigorously anti-authoritarian stance. Nearly all pro-gun-control folks are simply thoughtlessly parroting arguments others have invented (losing ones at that – there's a reason their sauce is so weak ;)), so they've never actually be forced to consider before how illiberal gun control really is.

I dunno if that turning of tables had any effect on the guy in this particular instance, but there's a reason I felt that point was worth making. I eventually gave up when I could see I was repeating myself and the forum as a whole would never use the word correctly, but it's sincerely pleasing to know that at least someone grasped my point.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Hah! Very nice!

I love to do this, especially in the context of gun control.

I've noticed that, amongst those sympathetic to the political left, the co-option of the term liberal does have the insidious effect of making these leftists believe that they are liberal in the true sense of the word, even knowing its meaning. This is, I assure the forum, a source of their sense of moral superiority.

But by the same token, I've had comparatively greater success of my own by turning that around: leaving more than a couple illiberal leftists sputtering in the wake of my, quite correctly, explicitly claiming the liberal high ground with my rigorously anti-authoritarian stance. Nearly all pro-gun-control folks are simply thoughtlessly parroting arguments others have invented (losing ones at that – there's a reason their sauce is so weak ;)), so they've never actually be forced to consider before how illiberal gun control really is.

I dunno if that turning of tables had any effect on the guy in this particular instance, but there's a reason I felt that point was worth making. I eventually gave up when I could see I was repeating myself and the forum as a whole would never use the word correctly, but it's sincerely pleasing to know that at least someone grasped my point.

It was great showing that the professed "liberal" was a statist....as John and his wife could attest he actually struggled and seemed to be squirming because of the true liberal stance of his opponent.
 
Top