Arguing Gun Control with New York Mothers

Much like the noble salmon returns to its spawning grounds (no matter how fetid), I’m currently back in the New York City area to visit the folks. Shortly after I landed I was in a full-on gun control debate with my mother and after about an hour I had gotten her to understand my point of view. While I eked out a marginal victory, it didn’t last long. The next morning was my Mom’s annual tea party for all the local women she likes. That meant a flood of the most rabid Democrats you could possibly imagine. And they all knew about my gunpowder-fueled hobby. I didn’t stand a chance . . .

I tried to stay locked in my room watching the NRA’s press conference, but eventually I poked my head out to try and angle my way to the delicious mini-bagels with cream cheese (they just don’t taste right outside New York). It was about that time that I was cornered by the three most (politically) active women in the room, and they wasted no time.

“After what happened in Sandy Creek, how can you still own guns?” one asked. I replied with the Clinton-era statistics on defensive gun use, hoping that the reference to their favorite son of Arkansas would catch them off guard. It didn’t — they defaulted to the “if we can just save one life” argument. I countered with how many lives would be lost every year because of the inability to defend one’s self. I closed with the recent example of the woman in England who was murdered despite asking for police protection, and that seemed to resonate a little bit.

“I don’t believe that concealed carry could have stopped that guy,” one of them said. I used the recent examples of the mall shooter that was confronted by the CCWer and the San Antonio movie theater shooting, two cases where the body count would have been much higher if a good guy with a gun wasn’t present.

They seemed to concede the point, that an armed good guy could make all the difference. But as soon as we started to apply that same logic to schools, I hit a mental block. I used the same line from the NRA press conference about arming banks and members of Congress, but they waved off my attempts. Anything to do with schools and guns was a non-starter — even armed police.

I tried to make the point that they’re armed every single day anyway and we don’t hear any problems coming from that, but they defaulted to the old chestnut of “you want to have shootouts in the middle of the hallway!” It didn’t matter when I reminded them that someone shooting back is preferable to students being slaughtered, they didn’t like the idea. “It doesn’t feel right” they would respond.

That’s when I realized that I could never win. There is no logical argument that these women would listen to that would ever get them to change their minds. It doesn’t matter if a proposal would actually save lives and benefit society, they were letting their emotions run the game. Emotions colored with a touch of disdain for any Americans who don’t live in New York, that is.

When they asked me about my new friends in Texas, their first question was if they have all their teeth. It was something a different group remarked on when they visited North Carolina (“I’m surprised they had all their teeth!”). It was like a code word, asking for confirmation of their bias that the rest of the country was nothing but gun-owning, cousin-marrying white trash that doesn’t know any better and needs to be protected from themselves with laws.

We’re fighting an enemy that believes themselves to be morally superior, to be “better” than those who disagree. One who will not listen to any logic. They’re running on pure emotion and no matter how much education they’ve received, they aren’t ready to consider alternate points of view to their own — because their own point of view is the only “correct” groupthink that they will accept.

Facts, statistics, and human history are on our side, but this is still going to be an uphill battle because our opponents aren’t interested in any of those things.

We’ve been hoping that debate would work, that if we could simply discuss the issue with those who oppose us in a calm and rational manner that we could make them see the light. Well, I’ve done exactly that and I can officially report that it doesn’t work. Even after they accepted my facts and conceded to my arguments, their emotions still demanded disarmament.

This is going to get ugly.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

108 Responses to Arguing Gun Control with New York Mothers

  1. avatarIn Memphis says:

    “you want to have shootouts in the middle of the hallway!”

    I guess it would be better to just let the massacre continue until the gunman offs himself?

  2. avatarjwm says:

    Yes, these people believe that it’s morally superior to be a victim. Logic will not work with these people. They’re fine with blood soaked schools so long as the blood comes from the innocent and not the guilty. After all, the police will eventually show up and save the day.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      im tired of arguing with the gun grabbers. they don’t listen, and even if they know my argument is better they still think they are on the right side of the debate. the “if gun control would save one life it would be worth it” is the most annoying and stupid argument. in some cases air bags have done more damage than the car crash, so if banning air bags would save a life would it then be worth it. noooo, it would cost ten lives just like gun control would.

      • avatarhippie says:

        Another example my cousin was in a car accident where he rolled his car and was thrown gently (well for a car accident where you are flipping your car multiple times) through the window which was followed by the whole drivers area where he was just one second before suddenly becoming a tenth its size. I don’t know about you but if i get crunched to a tenth my size I might just end up dead. In that instance the seat belt would have killed him but no one in their right mind would even begin to suggest we should ban seat belts.

      • avatarB-dawg says:

        Anti-gunners can’t be argued or reasoned with, only defeated. Let’s all start contacting our congress critters so we can do just that in the coming months!

    • avatargringito says:

      >>>Yes, these people believe that it’s morally superior to be a victim.

      Yes, they do. I cannot BELIEVE it!!!!!!

      • avatarlolinski says:

        I know, I am living with people like that, I remember being bullied in school and parents say “ignore them, report them” which didn’t help. Only after I pulled a knife( a swiss army knife with 5 cm blade) on this guy who was beating me up did they learn to not mess with me or my friends. The sad part is parents and teachers still give me negative comments about it, since they from what I have seen believe that its better to be the victim. I read once on a forum “Dont fight people and dont start the fight, instead “lecture” them. Only, sometimes you have to start the “lecture” before they can beat you up” or something to that effect.

        • avatarWill says:

          Nuthin new there.

          Someone bullies, tell the teach, at most they get told to stop. Defend yourself, not only do they get in trouble, you get in even more trouble. The School system encourages victimization AND letting the “authorities” deal with it as ineffectively as they are allowed.

  3. avatarJim Barrett says:

    Which means that there is no harm in us and our representatives using the same playbook when this hits congress. “No, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote in favor of any kind of gun control because it is against the Constitution and it is wrong. If we are not going to be able to change any minds, then I’d rather not waste my breath.

  4. avatarWiregrass says:

    I’ve been engaged in the same sort of argument with an old friend of mine that’s always been on the liberal side of things, but he moved to California a few years ago and has blossomed into a full blown anti-gun asshat. It was fun for awhile but now he’s making absurd comparisons of individual ownership of AR’s and AK’s to individual ownership of nukes. It gets pointless and tiresome after awhile.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I cant stand that, “where do you draw the line, should we own nukes” argument.

      In theory, if we had some big target in space to shoot I guess it could be fun but really there is NO sporting use for nukes. Unless youre North Korea I guess.

      • avatarSammy says:

        Well, there will always be a place in MY home for a modern sporting nuke, should they become available to the masses.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          I guess we could have a civillian arms race of sorts. See who can take Pluto out first? No one will miss it. Get corporate funding and make it a high stakes game so anyone can afford to play.

        • avatarC says:

          Nukes: Because f*ck Pluto!

    • avatarracer88 says:

      Yep, they default to the straw man nuke argument. Been there. Done that.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        I wish they would cut the nuke argument and say something less obsurd like tanks or howitzers. I can justify thoes.

        People have made businesses out of civillian tank driving courses.

        Think of how cool a jacked up version of paintball with a tank could be? No foot soldiers just artillery sized simunitions in a big game of tag.

        As far as artillery, get a lot of land and grid it off, two howitzers and a lot of junk cars (ships). It would be the greatest extreme game of battleship ever.

        So maybe I cant justify nukes, unless you hate that wannabe planet. But I can justify almost anything else.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          Never got to shoot any howitzers in the service but have busted off a hell of a lot of 20&30mm cannon rounds(in the 10,000+rds range), and it is so cool!! LOL!!!
          Shooting the Vulcan in the 80′s was very cool. Basically the same style of multi barreled cannon that’s under the nose of a Cobra or Apache but was mounted in modified M113 APC chassis and body!!
          Sounded like one really long cheap beer fart an lots of shit down range disappeared or became very holy!!

    • avatarPantera Vazquez says:

      Here’s the really funny (sic) part of the NUKE argument. Private groups already builds missiles-that is correct, for rockets are nothing other than missiles without the spooky name. OMG get the grips, the mags, the ammo…..you know, the stuff the government tells you only the PROS can use safely………….

      • avatarEOD says:

        Actually, a missile is usually steerable and guided, whereas a rocket is usually fired on a fixed trajectory.

        • avatarJames says:

          Actually, a missile is any class of object that is propelled forcefully; while a rocket is the mode of propulsion.

          Eg. If I throw a rock, it is a hand-powered ballistic missile (in the physic sense). A missile could be jet-power (eg. Tomahawk) or rocket powered (eg. ICBMs), guided or unguided.

          But yes, once you have a rocket that can reach into space, you just need warheads to make a ICBM. That’s what scares America when the Soviets launched Sputnik.

  5. avatarWiscosotan says:

    The antis seem to have this idea that gun owners are like the man who’s given a hammer, and suddenly everything looks like a nail. Someone carrying a gun is going to use it to solve all their problems.

  6. avatarpsmcd says:

    I can only respond with the same link I sent Robert this morning:

    “It’s also mildly amusing/disturbing how closely all the nerdy, medicated, spree-killing geeks resemble the progressive pundits who are caterwauling for unilateral disarmament of the citizenry. They look nothing like the fat and hairy—yet unmistakably male—Georgia hilljacks who milled around the gun show in Gainesville. And although I’m supposed to fear those “angry white males,” I felt far less hostility emanating from the convention floor than I do whenever I’m around leftist girly-boys.”

    http://takimag.com/article/gunsville_usa_jim_goad/print#axzz2FH2j2w00

  7. avatarDaniel says:

    “It doesn’t feel right”

    As soon as I read that, I licked my chops. Once they run out of arguments and start defaulting back to emotional responses, that’s when you pounce and ask them to explain what statements like that mean. Do anything and everything to make them explain their nonsensical statements, and let them trip over their own words. Be forewarned: The end result is that they’ll throw a temper tantrum.

    Liberals are like children: They do NOT change their minds if they are passionate about something, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that their viewpoint is untenable. The temper tantrum and the foul language that inevitably follows is the best you can hope for. If you are intent on doing your best in a debate, never give an inch, but be ready for the embers to hit your face. Then you can end the conversation with a neutral face, and they’ll storm off.

    The counter to this tactic is that you won’t make any friends. Don’t worry: People who think like this aren’t your friends to begin with. I have already had at least one person de-friend me because of all this. I thought I knew him. Turns out he was two-faced, and seethed with natural hatred. I can’t think of anyone who would want to associate themselves with that kind of fire and brimstone.

  8. avatarWinston says:

    FWIW, I imagined this whole exchange happening like in the “coffee talk” SNL skit: http://www.hulu.com/watch/4118

    Happy Holidays.

  9. avatarAaronW says:

    There may be glimmers of hope … The Appleseed I took in Chelsea at the Westside range was excellent, and is usually sold out far in advance.
    The instructor told us that there are usually more women than men in the NYC Appleseeds, and that “it’s usually the ladies dragging the guys in.”

    Nick, how long will you be in town for? My range (not Westside) is about 30 min north of NYC…

    • Already left town. OPSEC, my friend.

      And if you mean that sand pit on Long Island with the troll in the lifeguard stand I’ve had my fill of being yelled at :p

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Meh, Westchester has been a lost cause since Cook’s closed down and turned into some crap non-arcade restaurant.. Isn’t it some kind of bank now?

      And as far as its gun culture goes, all I remember of it is trap shooting at country clubs, one of which I spent a day at loading clays in a hut one at a time..

  10. avatarAharon says:

    Nick, good piece. The picture of those bagels is incredible. If anyone knows of a great bagel bakery in Portland, please let me know.

    *You cannot overcome an irrational objection with rational reasoning. It almost never works.
    *To stay in control of a political debate and guide it be the one asking questions.
    *Story telling about experiences real people have with guns works better in persuading others to understand and recognize your point of view than quoting cold hard statistics and information. Ever notice that the most popular book of all the Bible is full of stories?
    * Either you can be nice and not effective or be real and unwilling to tolerate the emotional silliness of the gun grabbers.

    “It doesn’t feel right” they would respond.”
    Response: “what is more important providing select teachers and principals with the tools they need to save the lives of innocent children or letting the children be massacred because you personally fear guns?”

  11. avatarA. Ruiz says:

    You should have mentioned that NYC already has armed police in their schools.

    @Daniel.

    It’s not just liberals who fallback to tantrums and emotional arguments when you back them into a logical corner. It’s anyone who relies on belief and dogma over fact with their opinions and are challenged. Very few people are to say “That’s a good point, I’ll have to think that over”.

  12. avatarJoe says:

    Emotion + arrogance pretty much sums up the problem of uninformed opinions. Guns are great equalizers when being out muscled or outnumbered. Guns cannot only be used to counter a crazed shooter, they are used everyday to stop rapes, assaults, carjackings, home invasions and robberies. Private ownership provides individuals freedom from fear without having to be dependent or reliant on others. On a higher level, a populace capable of fighting an oppressive government keeps civilian slaughters seen in Libya and Syria from every happening in the US.

  13. avatarGeorge says:

    You SHOULD have asked them how would a gun ban reduce violence? (Because they never have) They don’t want anybody to have guns, and will use any excuse to justify that. (Like reducing school shootings)
    Ask them for any evidence that the last assault weapon ban reduced violent crime. How come places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most violent crime? (DC, Baltimore, Chicago) Why is it that Brazil, with it’s extremely strict gun laws, has the most gun violence on the planet? Flip the script on them, ask them for logic and facts.

  14. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Nick I have found that when I cross the wire and enter NYC a total win may not be always possible but I can take my pound of flesh. I try to zero in on the cultural/ethnic background of my tormentor. Every society has its history of being persecuted. Best example would be Jews in Europe. But works with lots of ethnics. Even Blacks can be approached with these powerful arguments.

    So would you let a Nazi come and take your children? Would you willingly obey the Nazi rules to disarm? What would you have done on crystal nacht? Take your beating, see your life investment in a business be destroyed? How many of your relatives fought back?

    It is not beyond people to have two different views in their heads at once. Fight Nazi ‘s tooth and claw. Be nice civil member of the temple. It helps if you can weld these together. At least it sets the gears moving in heads that are like the tinman frozen with rust.

  15. avatarDave S says:

    Unfortunately, the group of women mentions has a striking resemblance to both houses of Congress and the President of the United States

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” T. Jefferson

    • avatarWSBS says:

      To be perfectly honest with you, I’m almost grateful that Obama is on the opposite side of the debate as us on this one.

      First, the dude is a terrible negotiator. Most of his liberal base (who, BTW, honestly believe they have a natural right to government-subsidized healthcare, nevermind this delusion has no basis in fact, guess it just “feels right to them”) honestly believed back in 2010 they were gonna get single-payer healthcare. What they ended up with was a massive government handout to the health insurance industry. If he’s as successful with his gun control agenda, we can all expect $500 vouchers we’re required to spend on firearms or ammunition, which we’ll all be required to buy.

      Second, Obama takes that “pragmatism” (which, let’s just be honest with ourselves here, is nothing but a fancy way of say “without principles”) crap to the extreme. After all the initial outcry over Sandy Hook dies down (and it will, if there’s one thing you can count on out of the type of people who are anti-gun, they all have short attention spans, all it’ll take is Facebook revamping their privacy policy or Apple putting out a new iPhone to distract these narcissists), his supporters will have moved on to some new pet project to grandstand about. Being Internet tough guys is about the limit of most of their individual powers. Seriously, most organized I’ve ever seen them get anything is the Occupy Movement, which they still haven’t even managed to figure out what it is even about.

      Keep the faith.

      • avatarAvid Reader says:

        The second sentence is dubious in origin. However, the first, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”, is from Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers 334 (C. J. Boyd, ed. 1950).

        It, and similar quotations regarding bearing arms, can be found at the James Madison Research Library Site, http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_jefferson.htm

  16. avatarChuckN says:

    Props for trying but you made an all to common mistake.
    You tried to use logic and reason. A waste of effort in a way.
    In reality their problem goes far beyond ignorance. You
    presented known and verifiable evidence and yet they
    refused to accept truth. You know these people, short of
    an incident actually happening to them will they ever change
    their minds? No. People like this are so convinced that
    even accepting the possibility they are wrong will
    dramatically threaten their own self worth. If you stop
    looking at them as uninformed individuals and start
    viewing them as members of a cult you might get
    more headway.

    Try other approaches as well. Stop quoting facts and
    figures. Instead get them all to write down a quick
    blurb about how firearms never save. Then ask how
    many would be willing to meet with someone who
    is alive because they defended themselves with
    a gun. Most if not all will try to weasel out of it.
    Stand firm and have a survivor give a talk.
    Have a Q&A sessions after. 99% chance that nobody
    will give media talking points. This is where those
    blurbs come in. Read them, point out the person
    who wrote them. Figures are impersonal, but a lot
    of these anti’s arguments will fall hard when
    confronted with a face.

  17. avatarThesophist says:

    The answer to all liberals is even higher outrage. Pound the table and be offended that they want your wife/daughter to be raped by the gang of three knife wielding guys. Feelings are what counts, so put them on the defensive emotionally.

    “Why do you hate women?” Should be the standard opening question. Make them prove to your emotional self that they don’t think web should just be raped.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I’d use it. There’s also “Since we know that bans don’t do jack to stop these attacks, why are you so sick to think it would be OK for these kids to be killed with a different weapon?”

    • avatarCarrymagnum says:

      Piers Morgan got one turned around on him by a Texan gun shop owner. Morgan kept saying that femal teachers couldn’t handle an AR and the lgs owner asked him why he keeps bashing on women. The look on that prick’s face was priceless.

  18. avataralfromchgo says:

    Answer for “do you want a shoot out in the hallway?”

    http://www.odmp.org/officer/11612-police-officer-irma-c-ruiz

    Graduation day in a Chicago Public School for at risk children up to the 8th grade. The school was filled with student, family, and teachers. A former student entered through the rear door which had been unlocked to allow students and their families to enter the school. He was was armed with semi-automatic pistol. He began firing as soon as he entered the main hallway at the rear of the building.

    Irma and her partner PO Jaglowski were at the front door of the building assisting older family members, Irma was at the door, PO Jaglowski at the foot of the front stairs. Officer Ruiz immediately entered the school and was struck by bullets from the offender, who aimed at her instead of students/other person. Officer Jaglowski followed Officer Ruiz into the building and was struck both legs, he fell to the floor and returned fire killing the offender. No civilians were injured.

    No Columbine planning session while the shooters are still working through the building. No 20 minute response time as has been reported in Newtown.

    I used the familiar first name for Officer Ruiz because I was one of her Sergeants and had to listen to the incident over the radio. I was less than a mile away but in city weekday traffic it would have taken five minutes or more to get to the scene.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      Man I feel the frustration. In a combat zone and bring pinned down with your closest support minutes away sucks and just pisses you off.
      A 6 man team with a double load of ammo still can’t last very long in a firefight unless you are laid up where you have a buttload of cover. We didn’t. Sand dunes suck to try to hide behind. It was 7 minutes or better before air support could get there.
      Was in 92 and even though it shouldn’t bother me anymore it still pisses me off. Had two of my teammates with minor wounds and wounded myself.
      I can imagine how you and them felt. I take it they did survive the incident. I hope so.

  19. avatarTotenglocke says:

    After they refused to accept armed personnel in schools, you should have said flat out: “Look, you want armed guards are your bank, your airport, to protect your favorite politicians and movie stars. You sit here and bullshit about how you care so much about kids and want to protect them, but those kids are the ONE THING that you DON’T want to protect!”

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      Had a talk w/my older sister who teaches 1st/2nd grade about this today. I commented on how banks/courts/stadiums/police stations/etc are all guarded by armed individuals, why not schools/kids… are they not as valuable or more so than any of those other things? I got the “it’s not right for the kids” along with “my school is big and a guard @ front desk couldn’t get to the back of the school in time”.

      I countered with allowing teachers interested in carrying to be allowed to do so under the assumption they went through same firearms training as state/local police. She countered with “I don’t like them and you can’t force me to carry one”.

      I said she or any other teacher wouldn’t be forced, it would be voluntary assuming the school/principal/board signed off on it. She countered with “what if a teacher went nuts like the kids in Columbine, the guy in Aurora & Sandy Hook”.

      I countered with asking if she felt her or any other teachers were unstable and couldn’t be trusted with kids. And if so, why are they still teaching. I’m still waiting to hear back from her on that one.

      Between the “it’s just not right” & “what if a teacher went nuts” logic I don’t know that it’s a “winnable” argument even when the facts are presented.

      Another part of our conversation was that her argument for an AWB/magazine ban was that she saw on TV some old timer hunters saying they had no use for an AR so why should anyone else. I said what’s the difference between a hunting rifle and an “assault rifle”. She said a hunting rifle has wood and an assault rifle is black and has plastic on it. I asked what if the “assault rifle” had wood instead of plastic on it. She said as long as it didn’t have assault features that might be okay to have. I asked what those features were… “the black plastic stuff, I already told you”.

      I presented the cosmetics issue another way, and asked what if the government banned all red cars with chrome wheels because that’s the color that most shows up in car accident fatalities. “Okay”, she says, “crazy but I can see it happening” (frightening!!). So I said what if car makers take that same car and now paint it blue with black wheels. It’s functionally the same car, works the same, just looks a little different because of the color. She says “that would probably be okay because it’s not red”. Arrgghh!!

      I love the woman, she’s really smart and if she ever had to I don’t doubt for a second she’d shield her kids just like the teachers in CT did. But the hangup so many folks have on the cosmetics because they look like military stuff and are “more deadly” continues to leave me perplexed.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        That was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

      • avatarRon says:

        “What if a teacher went nuts ………….. ?”
        Would NOT having guns in your school PREVENT the teacher from going nuts?
        Would NOT allowing teachers to carry guns in your school PREVENT the teacher from getting a gun?
        A teacher in your school went nuts and brought a gun to school where no one is armed.
        A teacher in my school went nuts and brought a gun to school where the teachers are all CHL holders.
        Which group of teachers HAS A BETTER CHANCE of being able to protect their children?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        My mom is a teacher (and supposed life-long Republican) and she buys into all the bullshit the media says about guns, despite me and my dad (ex-military) trying to explain why she’s wrong. The other week I got bored as hell and wrote her a six page “report” explaining how “assault weapon” is a made up term designed to confuse people, how the AWB in ’94 had no impact on crime, how crime has decreased since the AWB expire and we got CCW in almost the entire country, etc. I’m 99% sure she hasn’t read it. The problem is that, for supposedly intelligent people, the teachers who are anti-gun seem to WANT to stay uninformed.

  20. avatarRalph says:

    I haven’t been braced by the female gestapo yet, but here’s the way the conversation might go:

    Old Biddy: “How can you have guns after what happened in Connecticut.”

    Ralph: “Go f^ck yourself.”

    Conversation over and I can go back to my bagel.

  21. avatarSteve says:

    1. You have to hammer away at it without getting discouraged, knowing you will soon become a skilled representative of your position.

    2. You have to take the temperature, and be ready to make your case on whatever sort of battleground is offered, from the high minded, the moral, the religious,and the intellectual arena, all the way down to snappy comebacks to petty insults.

    3. Realize also, that if the person has a shred of receptivity, you argument may take days or weeks to settle in, Or someone who’s mind may have changed may be keeping up the fight to save face. Then you have to learn to detect this point, and thank them for the interesting conversation. look for changes in tone, posture, and body language in person. Look for their disappearance if online. Don’t keep at it after they poof out.

  22. avatarJ says:

    Look you are talking to women. You lost right there. Women that are more animal than human. Meaning that they are still looking at things instinctively. As in they want to protect life, not harm it, they want to nurture. You can tell they are still more animal than human when they act like their tribe [New York] is better than the other tribe [Texas].

    Whereas men want to protect “theirs” with aggressive action. They want to protect their territory, their mates and their offspring. Men are naturally the ones that go out to kill the food, scare off trespassers and fend off the enemy of their tribe. They are the ones that create the tools to do these things and they are the ones that use them.

    So if you are a man discussing tools/arms and self defense with women you have to do it differently. You cannot come at it with a man’s point of view/instincts unless it is to point out the differences of women’s and men’s animal instincts.

    When I talk to my mother about fire[arms] and why she should have one. I come from the view that she needs to protect herself and her family from bad men with bad intentions. As she knows how men can harm children and women. I tell her that she has to be honest with herself about the fact that she (a woman) is defenseless to a man that wants to do her or her family harm. This is more the case when there is no man to defend the household. We know how long it takes the police to arrive. It isn’t about her killing but protecting life. With a gun she has the opportunity to make her own choice when other wise she would not.

    Sounds much the same you would tell a man, but it is worded differently with more stress on not having to kill/harm life when you have options, whereas not having options allows the bad people to do their bad things. No mother would want to live with the fact she couldn’t do anything for her children. She wouldn’t want to live with the regret.

    In the end women are more about the emotion and men are more about the logic. It is a lot easier talking to men about having the tools of defense and what comes with that, than it is with the loving/caring/emotional women.

    All humans are still animals at the core, we cannot forget this, logic doesn’t exist in every person. The worst type of person is one that uses their logical mind to perpetrate their animal side.

  23. avatarsancahnim says:

    @Nick
    You have to know your enemy. You need to hold their hands and say “Bubblah, I know it is a huge step, and it is down right scary”! But…..
    “When the Israeli’s were faced with the same issue, they armed their teachers, and have not had a single shooting in their schools since”!
    See how many lives it saved!!!
    I mean it isn’t an unknown it was implemented and it works.

    • avatardrus90 says:

      so there is no longer Violence in Israel?? or just in the schools and on airplanes?

      Why don’t we ask the real question, “ Why are we violent?” It seems that it is a natural state of affairs and we should just acknowledge it as such. Or as often stated on this website, teach/preach as the last resort after all other efforts have failed. But also teach/preach other non-violent means of conflict resolution with the fervor we do for violent resolution.

      This includes all forms of self defense and most forms of exercise(gotta get big to intimidate or take care of business).

      How many dojos, gyms, clubs, schools & parents teach this, or even regularly practice this?

      • avatardsreno says:

        I’m always taken aback when someone says “what kind of world do we live in, where we have to be afriad of violence from fellow human beings.” As if we have moved past wars, fights, and random acts of violence. I wonder sometimes if some people are just born fighters. Who hasn’t known one of those guys growing up? Go to a bar and watch people as they get drunk. There are always a few that get super rowdy, and some of those get down-right violent. I don’t care much for the movie A Clockwork Orange, but I think it has something very valid to say for human nature.

        P.S. This website and its community are awesome. Keep it up!

      • avatarBob says:

        Thank you. Almost no-one is asking questions like “what kind of society produces such monsters?”

        It’s so easy to do the knee-jerk reaction and “ban guns” thing. So brainless, requiring exactly no thinking at all. So easy, so simple.

        Asking how do we prevent the development of such a warped humans, or how to recognize and deal with them appropriately is difficult. But the typical American can’t be bothered with anything so challenging.

        We’re at the precipice of taking a huge leap down the path tyranny we’ve been on for a long time.

      • avatarsancahnim says:

        drus It isn’t that there is isn’t any violence in Israel. Now we can say that as far as terrorist actions, the major problems we have faced are rockets, not shootings, or even bombs for that matter.
        The idea of arming teachers, as I have stated before is a starting point. We need to address the threat today, so we put guns and the people to use them in the schools. Now having addressed that, we do need to look at all the contributing factors, to this problem.
        I agree as do many others, just because you are a black belt or have a gun doesn’t mean you go looking for trouble. With great power comes great responsibility.
        This is a gun site, but suffice to say there are vast social and economic factors as well as things like mental health and medications, the moral fabric of our society, and the role media, and media violence plays in all of this.
        Now I am not saying ban movies or video games. I am also saying we don’t need to ban guns, but unless those in office are willing to sit and look at the whole issue, we will simply have a witch hunt because it is easy. In the end it will do nothing and people will be left scratching their heads as to why it didn’t work. Meanwhile millions like ourselves will have lost freedoms, just because a few sickos decided to lash out at the world.

  24. avatarTom jones says:

    On some brighter news those bagels look delicious with a lil whipped cream cheese. The one thing I miss from ny is the food.

  25. avatarguzzimike says:

    My biggest hurdle has been getting folks to realize cops aren’t going to be there 20 seconds after you call 911. It takes time for the 911 operator to get everything going and dispatch someone and if you call from a cell phone it takes even longer than from a landline – that was told to me by the police chief himself. I’m lucky in that I live about a mile and half down the highway from our police station, but assuming I don’t have someone in the area, their best response time from sitting in the station to being in my driveway is at least 2 minutes, maybe more. A lot can happen in 2 minutes when bad guys have bad intentions.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      In our area you call 1911 or Shotty then dial 911. The nearest deputy is 9 miles down the road, and no guarantee he will have his patrol car at home on any given day. We do have a constable but he is in his mid 60′s and doesn’t get around very quickly anymore.
      Like I have been teaching my GF and her daughter if something bad happens grab your gun, get in the master bedroom and if the BG/BG’s try that door then do your damnedest to cut them in half with the loaded 12 gauge that is in there.
      Other than whatever pistol one or both of us might have on our person at the time all of our firearms are loaded and in the bedroom stored away from pryin eyes and hands.
      We have a safe word so they wil both know it is me and if they have to call 911 they know to tell the dispatcher the safe word so she will know it is the police at the door.
      Hope it never comes down to that if I am away but we try to prepare all we can.
      Having been in two DGU’s before I met her I can tell you it is not something you want to have to do unless there is no other option.

  26. avatardsreno says:

    “It doesn’t feel right”

    I’m no expert on psychology, but that sounds like cognitive dissonance. She has a kung-fu death grip on the belief that more guns in school = more danger. When she heard your argument for armed guards, she tried to processed the logic of it. The logic and her belief don’t complement each other, so she’s left feeling uncomfortable. Part of her conciousness knows that armed guards are better than the alternative, but she is not quite ready to ditch her false belief. She may yet come around…

    I’m an I.T. guy for my local school district. We have a school police department. There are armed school police officers at all middle and high schools. It’s more expensive and there’s less coverage than if staff were allowed to carry, but it’s something.

  27. avatarNobody says:

    Never let the fools frame the terms of the debate.

    “After what happened in Sandy Creek, how can you still own guns?”

    That question can put some folks on the defensive. It’s not the right question. The real question is:
    “After what happened in Sandy Creek, how can you NOT own guns?”

    If the “crazy” people are really crazy, why do they nearly always choose “victim rich” environments. There’s a difference between “crazy” and attention seeking punks.

    • avatarBob says:

      What about that “do they still have their teeth comment”. Can you get any more ignorant than that? How could Nick remain in the same house with those raving bigots after that?

  28. avatarI_Like_Pie says:

    NY mothers will argue to the end of the world about putting salt on a salad….it just isn’t worth the time even bringing up something like gun control.

  29. avatargringito says:

    >>>“I don’t believe that concealed carry could have stopped that guy,”
    Anti gun nuts or people who never had a gun in their hands
    always believe that even with a gun you would have NO (!) chance AT ALL, not even a chance of reducing the number of victims.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      But yet a COP with the same gun (and most likely much, much less range time) would magically be able to stop them instantly.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Funny thing. Mother Jones ran an article attempting to debunk the idea that armed citizens could prevent these massacres. Their evidence? That armed citizens had not done so. Their mistake? You don’t usually find armed citizens in a gun free zone. And there is the further fact that armed police officers didn’t stop these guys either.

  30. avatarBob says:

    Wow, Nick. Your mother’s friends are unbelievable. What a gaggle of bigoted…

    The vast majority of people in this country do not have the ability to think critically, let alone think at all. Their own emotions and main stream media are all they have to work with.

    You might find the odd one that will concede after you brow beat them with logic, reason and evidence until your blue in the face, but the next morning they won’t even remember anything you said.

  31. avatarEric says:

    Nick, you’ll find the following article quite useful, if you can convince them to read it.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

  32. avatarRon says:

    “I don’t believe that concealed carry could have stopped that guy”
    Bring up TTAG, click on DGUTD and let them to read until they are too tired to read any farther.

    I was at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio Texas for AIT. There was a fellow trainee from Boston. He said he was frightened when told he would be coming to Texas. He expected everyone to be wearing guns, gunfights in the street and wild indians. He was not kidding. He was also concerned because he was a short fellow and he was expecting Texans to be 6′ tall. The short ones.
    Believe it or not this was during the Vietnam war, not the Civil.

  33. avatarGyufygy says:

    Grew up in Northern California. Thought Southerners were all idiot rednecks. Then, not entirely by choice, ended up living in the rural South.

    Now I know there are rednecks, there are idiots, and there are people with Southern accents, but heaven help your sorry ass if you think all three go together all the time.

    More on topic, you can convert some people. It may take time, but they may change their opinions, even people you would least expect. Case in point, me and mine (I feel like I bring that up too often, but it’s pertinent, so whatever) But some people just will not change no matter what you say.

    The difficulty is distinguishing between the two.

  34. avatartdiinva says:

    You should have asked them if the would prefer to face a rapist with their bare hands or with a gun.

  35. avatarMichael B. says:

    Don’t argue with a bunch of old hens.

    “After what happened in Sandy Creek, how can you still own guns?”

    “I’ve never harmed anyone with my guns and never will. Furthermore, mind your own damned business.”

  36. avatarDavid says:

    Debating/arguing with women/girls is nearly futile. I do live in Texas so there is less of a cultural aversion to guns. Women were designed by God to nurture. They abhor the idea of hurting anything. But they will defend their loved ones tooth and nail if a sudden attack occurs. What I try to do is get them to imagine someone trying to kill one of their children or grandchildren or little brothers or sisters. Then I ask them what they would do if faced with that situation. Invariably they will say that they will do something to protect their loved ones. (Some will get emotional and more or less say they would kill the bad person with extreme prejudice). Sometimes I will also paint the scenario of a rapist attacking them. Many women will allow a rapist to rape them thinking that is all he’ll want. But then, I’ll tell them that he may decide to kill you and then your children will grow up without a mother and your family will grieve a mother/grandmother/wife, etc. Then I ask them if it wouldn’t be better if they had a plan in advance of something like that happening which included the best tool for the job. Most will reluctantly admit that a gun would be the best tool but many women are afraid of them because no one has taken them to the range and shown them how to fire a gun safely. I have seen men take their wives/girlfriends to the range and do some pretty stupid stuff. Like start them out with some overpowered gun or not show them how to properly hold a pistol. If you can convince a woman (or anyone for that matter) to go to the range and shoot with you, start them out with a scoped .22lr rifle with the target at 3-5 yards. Shoot it first and then let them try with constant, encouraging attention. Once they realize that it won’t bite them or explode they will start to enjoy it. It takes time. So before you go to New Yorkistan again you might try to organize a trip to the range for any of the ladies in your mother’s circle of friends. Convincing your mother to go would be the best way to get the others to go along. You might have to do something you don’t like in return like serving tea or something at one of their get togethers. As you well know, anyone who goes to the range and shoots enjoys it! Best Regards.

  37. avatarbacktobasics says:

    It is unfortunate that your opponents in this case were misinformed. Those of us who support strong gun control laws should know a lot more about guns. The conversation would be more interesting, but I doubt in the end that it would be more productive.

    Most people in urban NYC grew up with no-guns, no-hunting. Guns mean something totally different to them than they do to someone living in rural Montana. But what did guns mean to Nancy Lanza? Should a law-abiding citizen like her really be able to keep that much ammo at home without a gun safe? Why should I give any gun owner the benefit of the doubt that they are managing their family members with mental illness appropriately? That is what you are asking us to do. Trust you. Why? Why would I trust you? Why not make you keep the big toys at the gun range where the grownups can watch them and keep them safe? Why do I have to live next door to a home arsenal instead of a nice hunter with a shotgun? I am more afraid of Nancy Lanza than I am of an alien invasion. I appreciate that she wanted those guns for fun but her fun should not endanger my child. That’s what it means to live in a free country — you can send your child into first grade without fearing that your neighbor’s distrubed child has access to military-grade weapons.

    The woman could afford anything she wanted. She received 26K every month in alimony, she could have bought a private shooting range and have hired an armed security guard to follow around her son. But she didn’t. She could have bought a biometric gun safe. But she didn’t. Safe storage = not required in CT. So she was law-abiding. Just irresponsible, immoral, and dangerous.

    I’m willing to live in peace with most gun owners but not Nancy Lanza. Sorry, not willing to allow my kids to die just so she can have some weekend fun. Your mother’s friends are easy targets — why don’t you take on the FBI, the police union, real hunters (not babies who need 30 rounds to kill a rabbit), and most of the military vets and Israelis I know who also support strong gun control?

    If guns are tools, then keep the right tool for the job at hand and lock the rest up until you need them. If guns are toys — you’ve already lost my respect personally — but I see no need to lose even a single child in America for Nancy Lanza’s fun.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      backtobasics, welcome to TTAG. I’m AlphaGeek, an educated liberal white guy with a family living in the SF Bay Area. I’m also a gun owner (surprise), and martial arts practitioner.

      There are many points in your post with which I could voice disagreement, disprove, or deconstruct as fallacies, but you actually seem like a pretty reasonable and thoughtful person so let’s leave those be for now.

      I think you’ll find that the primary point of your post, which is that Nancy Lanza should have properly secured her firearms such that her son was not able to access them, is supported by 100.0% of the community here at TTAG. In fact, we’ve had to remind each other not to rush to judgment on Ms Lanza regarding firearms safety until the whole story was told.

      I would strongly support Federal legislation mirroring California law on safe firearms storage: buyers must either provide proof that they own an acceptable safe, or buy a lock with each gun that doesn’t come with one.

      I would strongly support Federal legislation imposing severe penalties for gun owners who failed to secure their firearms, in cases where their negligence led to theft, harm to others, or unsupervised access to said firearms by anyone not competent or legally permitted to possess them.

      What I do not, and will not, support are ineffective, fear-and-ignorance driven restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms in defense of my family and my community.

      I hope this is the start of a rational conversation, and I look forward to your reply.

      • avatarsancahnim says:

        AlphaGeek I live just outside the bay area, try not to let it get around, I get kind of embarrassed sometimes lol

        Don’t forget we are more progressive than the rest of the country. We have the bullet button and 10 round only..
        A bit of a pain, but hopefully I will have the rectified in a year or so. Voting with your feet fixes a lot of issues.

        Also I know you said that you want strict punishment on illegal access to firearms. While I agree with you, here in California it means if my son (10) were to get my gun because someone was breaking into the house, I would be held accountable because he is under 18. While I wouldn’t give him access at this point anyway, if I felt he was responsible enough then why shouldn’t I? Yet even if he was a competitive shot and was safe as all get out, I can’t because of state law. I think if they write any legislation it needs to be very clear, to protect the owner in the sense of who got a hold of it and why. Logic would tell you if he shot and killed an intruder everything would be fine because it is lawful, but apparently that isn’t always the case.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          San, I was thinking of that exact situation when I wrote the comment above.

          My oldest and middle child are more than qualified to take up arms and hold a defensive position while they wait for the cavalry, and you’d better believe that I would give either of them the safe combo via text message or phone call should the situation arise. There’s a Weatherby SA-459 20-gauge loaded with some very nasty 3″ buckshot rounds sitting in the long-gun safe, ready to go, complete with valve-type earplugs hanging on the safe door.

          I’ve done a fair bit of research on this, and I have yet to see evidence of anyone prosecuted for a minor accessing a firearm in a legit DGU. Every single case I’ve seen prosecuted has been IGOTD material, many of them tragic.

          The framework of the law is quite clear, surprisingly so for CA: an intruder in your home is fair game unless they present no threat, i.e. fleeing, or surrendered and proned out. No worries in that case.

          The tough one is when your resident minor who’s trained with firearms accidentally shoots a family member he/she has mistaken for an intruder. But this thread is probably not the right venue for a full discussion of this topic. :)

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Regarding your “California approved gun safe” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWucDHAphQ8

        As someone living in that anti-gun state, you can’t deny that if they have the chance they’d require just such a safe.

        The problem with “safe storage” laws is that 1) It ignores the fact that not everyone lives in the same circumstances – some of us are single with no kids, so why should we be punished because some idiot with kids doesn’t lock up their guns? 2) There’s no way to enforce it without giving the government both a registry of who has a gun AND having them in your home to inspect it and “approve” it.

        Thanks for showing how fellow gun owners are the worst enemy supporters of the Second Amendment have. Just because you’re OK with selling out your rights doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          It’s not my responsibility to correct your reading comprehension issues.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I’m sorry, please show me where you didn’t support enforcing California style restrictions on the nation – because I can quote you on it.

          It’s not my fault that you fail to see how you not valuing your rights doesn’t give you the right to take away the rights of millions of other people.

    • avatarsancahnim says:

      I think we all here at TTAG have concerns regarding the storage of her firearms, as well as having a son in the house with issues. I do not know of any information on how she stored her firearms, or what the final word is on the issues with her son. Until we have final facts on the home situation I prefer not to make conclusions. If she was not storing them properly and not getting her son the proper help I will be the first one to call her out on it.
      Part of having freedoms as Americans also means we have responsibilities for our actions. It is important to remember that guns are not the issue. they are contributing factors sure, but if this person really wanted to create mayhem then he could have built bombs, or done something else. His choice to use a firearm was a method.
      Certainly we could regulate our lives from all points. If you don’t think we can make informed decisions about what we eat, or what we drive, perhaps whether we brush our teeth at night, then we not regulate it all??? I know this doesn’t have anything to do with guns, but it has to do with our freedoms. If I want to sit at home and get drunk, or smoke cigarettes, then that is my choice, my freedom.
      I might have lots of guns, and cases of ammo, but I store them properly and I am safety conscious so it is no threat to you. Then why limit my freedoms because of one person? Thousands drink and drive, and kill every year. How is that any different? We aren’t banning cars or alcohol.
      I lived in Israel for almost a decade. Many Israeli’s I know don’t care for guns personally but know they are an indispensable tools if evil finds you.
      I would hop on over to JPFO to have a poke around. As far as hunting with the AR, many use them, including the author of this post. they work well for the task at hand, and there are various reasons why we like them. I would poke around, as Nick has written some really good information on them.

    • avatarKelly in GA says:

      Would you please go through and find mass shootings where shooters didn’t go after “gun free zones”? I don’t want to lose my future children because I can’t arm myself. And I only can’t arm myself because there is a dumb law on the books that makes everyone FEEL better without doing anything substantive. When was the last time a school shooter was incarcerated under the GFSZA? Why is it that they keep offing themselves and people think this law HELPS??? Don’t arm the teachers, what if one goes nuts? Well, what’s going to stop them now? What plan is better A) unarmed teachers, a teacher goes nuts, kills a class full of students, offs themselves, and we fail to prosecute another school shooter with the GFSZA, or B) armed teachers, one teacher snaps, lines up students to kill them all, shoots about seven or eight, and is killed by ANOTHER armed teacher? Either way, innocent people will still die. It will happen. The real question is, do you want to hope that it isn’t you’re kid’s teacher, knowing that if it is, you’ll never see your kid again, or do you want to allow the willing to help protect your kids and know that, while it might not prevent the next shooting, an armed teacher could stop a shooting before the shooter gets to YOUR kid. Both options suck. The question you have to ask yourself is: if this is going to happen in my child’s classroom, do I want my laws that say it’s bad, or do I want someone close by who might be able to stop them before my kid gets shot?

      Our only other option would be to turn the school into a jail and scan every soul who walks in, TSA style, until the end of the next Mayan calendar.

      As for my challenge, the Gabby Giffords shooting doesn’t count because it was really a political assassination attempt.

  38. avatarg says:

    Arguing with one’s own parents is always difficult, no matter how rational you state your case, or how logical you lay out the evidence for your position – the reason is because on some level, your parents will always view you as the small child you once were, and therefore your opinion is less experienced and wise than theirs.

    That being said, I think you can be persistent in discussing what you think and being firm in your beliefs while maintaining a positive relationship with your mom. I don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things with my mother, including owning a gun, but I love her death and I know that we’ve a built a relationship where I can begin to influence her bit by bit. Besides, once the grand kids become regulars with their dad at plinking on the range, grandma will have no choice but concede that owning a firearm can be positive activity that strengthens the family. ;)

  39. avatarMartin says:

    “and no matter how much education they’ve received”

    Well, I guess there is a difference between “being schooled” and “being educated”.

  40. avatarLolinski says:

    My brothers and parents are the same, My brother usually says ” only idiots need/want weapons, we are civilized people” what is sad about this is the fact that he and my parents survived the war in Bosnia( he was 5 years then). Another people tried to systematicaly exterminate our people, and he still believes only idiots need weapons. Its similar to jews not wanting the option to be armed.

    So what you have discovered I know for a long time, people think with their hearts not their brains. There is nothing wrong with that what is wrong is when these people get to power or are the majority.

    When presented with facts they dismiss or as I experienced refuse to believe them. When I showed my brothers the study done by John Lott( more guns less crime) they started raving about how he was paid by the NRA or was secretly pro-gun. Or the time when I showed my brothers that you can legally buy a 308 autoloader, 20 round mags, suppressor and scope here in Norway, they were speechless( didnt reply). And the part were they think that semi auto means machinegun.

    Sorry for long rant.

    • avatarracer88 says:

      If I’m not mistaken, John Lott began his study with the intent of proving guns INCREASE crime.

      • avatarlolinski says:

        I dont know, if it is true then props to the man being honest about his intentions and of course the results.

        All i know is that discussing this topic with those people is like arm wrestling a canadian grizzly bear, or making a terrorist/rapist joke in a mosque/church. It ain’t going to be pretty.

  41. avatarWilliam says:

    MADD mothers. Gun mothers. It’s all the same kind of people. DO NOT WASTE YOU TIME WITH THEM!!

    Their sole purpose is to drain your energy. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

    THEY ARE ENERGY VAMPIRES, meant to suck your resolve. One day you will realize this. REALIZE IT NOW.

  42. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    I want trained,armed,responsible people in the schools to guard our children.
    Not my child, not your child but Our Children!!
    I’m sorry if that offends some other parents but the lives of all those children are worth a hell of a lot more than one mom and dads offended sensibilities and feelings. Don’t want guns in the same school as your kid, homeschool or move them to a victim rich…err sorry, a gun free school.
    Me personally, regardless of who it tends to offend, both Pro’s and Anti’s, I stick with what Leonard Nimoy(Mr Spock) said in one of the Star Trek movies: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the One”!!
    To wit: Putting armed persons in schools to safeguard the 500 or 600 kids there is more important than not having anyone to guard the kids because it offends or upsets one or two parents or politicians.
    Just my opinion but even the Actors and Writers of TV get it right once in awhile.

  43. avatarJustice06RR says:

    There is really no argueing with anti-gun folk because they will never understand until they open their eyes, remove their blinders, and not be controlled by emotion. My parents esp my mother has been a big anti, although my father’s side are all in police and military service.

    The only way to effectively have a discussion with them is to reason with them and give them some basic firearms education. Many anti’s are very uninformed thinking all guns are full-auto and all of them are used by BG’s. Simply educating them while being patient may let us inch slowly but surely into our goal of winning them over.

    On that note, my anti-gun mom finally found out I go shooting at the range. Someday I will tell her I own an arsenal LOL.

  44. avatarDavid says:

    Let me be Capt. obvious and call a spade a spade.

    New York Mother = Jew

    Someone else gets this and made an SNL/Coffee Talk reference.

    Someone else got this earlier when he put up a pic of bagels . . . Not that there is anything wrong w/ that :)

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.