Quiz time
Is the person who wrote this anti-gun piece a:
1) a pro-gun guy intentionally writing really stupid shit to make anti-gun folks look stupid;
2) a deranged anti-gun guy who doesn’t know anything about the issue and is too lazy to bother with a modicum of research;
3) an infinite number of monkeys;
4) a complete moron?
I’m stumped.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:25 am
You missed the obvious answer . . . a completely moronic and deranged monkey
October 9th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I’m starting to think that a “computer” doesn’t sound like something an anti-gun editorialist would need. Thppppt.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
A Ruger Bolt-action is a “scary” gun?
I’m going to say calling him a moron is an insult to morons the world over.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
That leads me to ask.. as a pro-gunner, have you ever written something like that to make the antis look bad? If not, would you? Why?
October 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I have not but maybe I should start.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Stupid is as stupid does
There seems to be a notion that gun grabbers cannot possibly be as stupid as they sound. Some theorize that they are actually pro-gunners in disguise. As if they are part of a conspiracy (coordinated or un-) to make the…
October 9th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
The responder knows as Cartman provides a good example of how to argue for our side. Name calling and using language that we use among ourselves is not liable to seem persuasive. I think it helps to know what arguments do and don’t make us sound like raving loons to people who aren’t part of the shooting community. For instance:
This is a good argument most people can wrap their heads around
Bad argument. Most foreigners who have never been here imagine America as a nation rife with crime. This is not true. It just reinforces their belief that American is a violent lawless place where everyone is running around shooting each other. I think it’s OK to use defense against criminals as an argument, but frame it properly.
Also, although you and I know being able to resist tyrrany is a key reason for an armed populace, to ordinary people it makes you sound like a raving lunatic. Most people I think are more persuaded by the self-defense angle. The RKBA issues are persuasive to many as well, but if you say “We should have the right to keep and bear arms so that we may defend life, liberty, and property” most people can wrap their heads around that. If you say “We have the right to keep and bear arms so that we can overthrow our government when it gets despotic” most people will think you’re a nutjob.
We have to be careful when presenting our side to non-gun folk. Be respectful, let them be the bozos, and remember that most people have never though much about this stuff, so ease into it slowly.