imported post
The anti gunners generally fall into two categories:
1.) ones like her with trauma baggage
2.) the radical anti-gunners who are out for political power grabbing
They both base their (lack of) arguments on fantasies like "guns are dangerous."
Really? I can prove a SPIDER is more dangerous. Lay a gun beside a spider, which one can hurt you?
Study this:
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
This Psychiatrist says that the anti crowd suffer from a phobia, psychological problems.
Theres another question even more important than "what to answer them with."
Liberals/Leftists like to play two games called:
1.) red herring
2.) ad hominem
Red herring is an evasive tactic:
Me: "I like to carry my gun openly so others can see it."
Red herring user: "But arent guns dangerous?"
The R.H. user has attempted to change the subject, and they are extremely slick at it. Once you fall for it, they win. The topic here is Open Carry and R.H. has tried to hijack the topic off to something else. This plays on peoples inherit trust of others and desire to please them. This is where its VITAL to know the law and statistics, and they cannot argue them, they always run off to emotion.
Me: " Why are you afraid of them?" Put them on the defensive or simply demand they stay on topic or you wont talk with them.
Ad-hominem is an attempt to invoke emotion and self defense by attacking the argurer, instead of the argument (ad hominem is Latin for "to the man" i.e, addressing the man by attacks instead of analyzing the argument)
Me: "Guns can be used in crimes to kill people"
A.H user: "so is that what you use them for?"
The A.H-er has attempted to catch you off guard and defensive by insinuating that you are a murderer. They know they have tripped you up when you get defensive.
This is extremely difficult to defend against, ridiculing them is usually effective:
Me: "No, I just nag them to death like you do..."
or
Me: " No, I prefer a baseball bat, its quieter..."
Regardless of whether you have the tools to defend your position or not, if you fall for these traps, youve lost.
These are taught in Public Speaking as things to NEVER use in a proper discussion. They are not a part of communication, they are essentially deceitful tricks and slander. When they do trot them out, you can be sure they have nothing to stand on.
Someone tried RH on me on the Tri Cities Herald comment section on the illegal ban in Amon Park. The post was that they thought it was a "waste of money to sue the city, wasting the Cities (peoples) money..."
This is both RH and AH, ad hominem attempts to imply that I am wasting the Cities money, and the RH is talking about money when the Cities illegal actions are the topic. I threw it back in their face with:
"yes it is, and youd better get hold of your City officials and make sure they dont to illegal things to need sued."
They rarely can handle their own tricks turned back on them because they are rarely trained and educated to think critically, they just react with emotion, like your girlfriend.
This would make an excellent topic for the Dr Laura radio show. Just for even a remote gang tie-in, good idea to dump her.
